 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Allegremente
Date: 2008-08-07 22:03
Martin Frost is a great player, but am I alone in thinking this is going a bit too fast and sounds really rushed? I suppose Mozart Concerto tempi is a whole different mess of a discussion, though. =]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-07 22:26
I think Sabine Meyer plays it about that fast (of course, she's known for playing fast). Based on what my teacher told me years ago, I don't think anyone in Mozart's time would have played it that fast. But I think that may be more a function of the difficulty of playing the instruments used at that time.
This sounds like a question for Tony Pay. I hope he's reading this, because I'd really like to know what he thinks about what the tempi in the Mozart Concerto ought to be and why. I seem to remember reading something in one of his past posts about how certain runs in Mozart are easier to play tongued on period instruments because of cross-fingerings (but, of course, this potentially limits the speed you can play to the speed you can tongue).
That suggests to me that perhaps Mozart would not have disapproved of playing the concerto at this quick speed had anyone been able to play it at that speed back then. But that is a question better left to the experts...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2008-08-07 23:13
Allegremente you are not alone. For a better version of the Mozart concert I would succest Andrew Marriner and the London Symphony orchestra.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryder
Date: 2008-08-08 05:07
"They play it fast so as not to be boring......."
Wether or not you are joking, that seems kinda true. It's been played so much that you have to do something to keep people interested.
____________________
Ryder Naymik
San Antonio, Texas
"We pracice the way we want to perform, that way when we perform it's just like we practiced"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2008-08-08 07:09
Past performance practice is a huge subject in itself, but much of the evidence indicates that allegros were played more slowly in the late eighteenth century, as well, of course, at a lower pitch. However, articulation would have been much lighter, which in itself would have given an illusion of greater speed. If, like me, you consider that music is linked with dance, then a look at how people dressed at that time would suggest a less strenuous approach. I think that if a Mr. Ripvanwinkle came back from the eighteenth century, he would find everything about our society to be frenetic, including the music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-08-08 08:38
I read this thread eagerly, thinking I'd finally found a Martin Fröst performance that didn't outclass everybody else.
But no, he's superlative as ever. And it isn't especially fast.
There are loads of versions of this on youtube. I measured the speed of the opening solo (except for one version which omits it, so I measured something else) and got the following results:
Prinz 108
Balbi 118
Montenano 118
Shifrin 118
Marriner 120
Fröst 122
Lucchetta 124
Pavlovic (pictures don't match sound) 124
Taekang 128
From CDs, I got:
Marcellus 116
Collins 124
Sabine Meyer 124
There is a good deal of experimental error here - I tapped the beat into the metronome, whereas it would have been more sensible just to time a few bars. But the figures suggest that all modern performances are about the same speed. Prinz, playing many years ago, is radically slower, and Marcellus somewhere in between.
To my ears, the Prinz performance sounds leaden. Listen to the section around 3:15 - if you didn't know the piece, you'd think it was a slow movement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-08-08 10:13
Ricardo is also on the quicker end of tempi. (live)
Not hurried sounding at all though. Zukovsky's recording is more mid tempo.
The Combs recording with wind ensemble tempi to me are among the most extreme I've heard tempo wise. Allegro is slow and the adagio was hurried sounding.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-08-08 12:50
mrn wrote:
>> This sounds like a question for Tony Pay. I hope he's reading this, because I'd really like to know what he thinks about what the tempi in the Mozart Concerto ought to be and why. I seem to remember reading something in one of his past posts about how certain runs in Mozart are easier to play tongued on period instruments because of cross-fingerings (but, of course, this potentially limits the speed you can play to the speed you can tongue). >>
I don't think you can make any deductions about speed from articulation considerations. I can produce a variety of staccato on period instruments at significantly higher speeds than I can on modern instruments, but that's just me; Robert Spring shows that you can't generalise in these matters. And remember, Mozart had a great virtuoso as his dedicatee.
I'd say that the Mozart concerto works well only at a speed at which you can show clearly the structures within it. So, for me, you need to choose a speed at which bars in the first movement can be 'in' one, two or four, comfortably.
Beyond that, you have an overall choice of mood. It's possible to produce a light, sunny performance; but equally, you can choose to emphasise the darker side of the piece. I wouldn't want to say that either of these is more valid than the other.
Tempo comes into that; but it doesn't DETERMINE it.
And of course, as has often been pointed out, a tempo that works well in one acoustic can be much too fast -- or too slow -- in another.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2008-08-08 14:22
Did anyone else find Frost's sound a bit too "edgy" or is it only my computer speaker suite? I'm a big fan of Frost, and this is the first time I've been a little bit irritated by the sound quality. I find the tone pleasing up to about mp, but then I feel like the quality changes.
His interpretive take on the Concerto is not the same as mine, but I'm certainly willing to accept his viewpoint.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-08-08 15:01
I put this up because Martin does technical things that I could never, nor ever will, be able to do--and I respect and envy him for that. However, I also found his interpretation to be rather refreshing in tempi and nuance, although some of his lower register articulations tend to be a bit "heavy" for Mozart. I just liked and, given there is really no comphrehensive "correct" interpretaion for anything or anyone, I was just wondering what you all thought. Bottom line for me, I liked his performance, but Marcellous is still my all-time favorite.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-08-08 15:22
There is a version of the concerto by Julian Bliss which I found rushed too, especially the 3rd movement.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=262644&t=262527
On the other hand, it is so hard to present this piece to an audience of clarinet players without being called boring or out of style.
I found Frost to have some interesting ideas I had not heard played before, and that is more than I can say for many other performances.
On the other hand, I studied this listening to Wright and Marcellus's recordings and these appeal to me most, even though they have fallen out of fashion after the revival of the basset clarinet and the more academic view of playing classical period pieces. I don't think I have found the performance which gives my tainted ears the best compromise between my reference recordings and the period instrument recording of Tony Pay. Shifrin's would have been a prime candidate if he had done a little improvising.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-08 21:03
Tony Pay wrote:
> I can produce a variety of staccato on period instruments at significantly
> higher speeds than I can on modern instruments, but that's just me
That's very interesting, because it's very tempting to assume that modern instruments would make everything easier. So now you've got me curious. I hope you don't mind me bombarding you with a few questions. :-)
What sort of differences between modern and period instruments (and the technique you use for each) do you think would/might account for the difference in tounging ease (at least for you, anyway)?
Back on the subject of Mozart--present day artistic considerations aside--do you think that, in light of what we know today about 18th century performance practice, there is good reason to believe that in Mozart's day, k.622 mvt. 1 would be more likely to be performed at a slower speed (say, M.M. 108) than it is commonly played today (>= M.M. 118)? Or is that just folklore?
Thanks for replying to my message, by the way!
Post Edited (2008-08-09 00:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: russjm
Date: 2008-08-08 21:24
Well I'm new to the world of Clarinet playing, and I never expected to see a Clarinet player jumping about the place like that! Some performance. I have to say, his playing sounds pretty amazing to me too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-09 01:16
I get the impression from watching the video that part (but certainly not all) of the movement he does on stage is for the purpose of watching/listening to the 1st violin section. He appears at times to be having a musical dialogue with the orchestra, and to me his movement seems "in character" as a part of this dialogue. I don't find it distracting at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-08-09 11:47
Michael wrote:
>> ...it's very tempting to assume that modern instruments would make everything easier. So now you've got me curious.>>
One thing that's easier on simpler clarinets is independence of intonation and tone-colour on 'good' notes. It's easier to flatten notes because there aren't all the linkages there are on modern instruments. (So, to change tone-colour, you can put down one or more RH fingers for any of the notes above G in the clarinet register, and compensate by making a sharper 'address' to the instrument.)
On the other hand, there are some incredibly BAD notes, like throat Ab, for which there is only the speaker key plus resonance fingerings. However, fortunately, not much gets written in Ab major for these clarinets.
The ease of articulation is due to the fact that the instrument setup responds very quickly. That's partly because the reed is relatively light, and the facing long. Sometimes people don't understand this, because they think of articulation difficulty as a tongue problem. But clearly, if the reed doesn't get going promptly after you release it, you're scuppered, however able you are with your tongue.
That's why different reeds make staccato more or less easy -- and also why you have to be sure to maintain comparatively strong air pressure in staccato passages, because you've got to keep starting and stopping reed vibration instead of just maintaining a steady state.
>> ....do you think that, in light of what we know today about 18th century performance practice, there is good reason to believe that in Mozart's day, k.622 mvt. 1 would be more likely to be performed at a slower speed (say, M.M. 108) than it is commonly played today (>= M.M. 118)? >>
I think rather the contrary. It seems more natural to adopt a lighter, faster-moving, more gestural approach on these instruments, particularly the string instruments.
I find myself wanting to say yet again that I don't play the concerto nowadays as I do on the record. It's worth remembering that what you hear there is something that happened one Monday morning almost 25 years ago now....:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-08-10 13:18
This has simply reinforced my complete admiration for Frost. Despite the rapid last movement, he is the best I have heard since Prinz in bringing out the darker aspects of the music and creating the contrast which I often feel is missing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2008-08-10 18:41
Sherman Sharon Kam's version is at least better than Martin Fröst's. But I still prefer from YouTube Andrew Marriner's version.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2008-08-10 22:51
Mozart 3rd movement competition
Gold medal: Frost 8 min 10 sec
Silver : S.Myer 8min 15 sec
Bronze: (fill in here)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bcl1dso
Date: 2008-08-10 23:35
There is no way Sharon Kam's recording is better than Fröst's, i'm sorry, I don't like to bash people, but Sharon Kam (and her recording) are not in the same league as Fröst.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nes
Date: 2008-08-11 09:02
I don't we should be naming better recordings!
All we should do is list the players we like.
I like Sharon and Martin. Out of the two, generally, I might prefer Martin's playing, but there is no better player! The taste goes to the individuals!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-08-11 13:54
I just listened to Andrew Marriner's version. It's nice, but really a player of his stature ought to play this on basset clarinet.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-12 06:48
Tony Pay wrote:
> The ease of articulation is due to the fact that the instrument setup
> responds very quickly. That's partly because the reed is relatively light,
> and the facing long. Sometimes people don't understand this, because
> they think of articulation difficulty as a tongue problem. But clearly, if the
> reed doesn't get going promptly after you release it, you're scuppered,
> however able you are with your tongue.
OK...That makes sense. It seems that that would also explain why on a modern instrument certain ligatures appear to make articulation easier (something I had been wondering about), right? If I'm thinking about this correctly, the more the ligature damps the reed (and also the more resistant the reed is to vibration itself), the more sluggish the response, and the articulation gets harder to do because the amount of lag time between release of the tongue and when the reed begins to vibrate starts becoming non-trivial as compared to the amount of time the tongue stays on the reed.
Articulation is probably the area of my technique that needs the most work at the moment, so understanding how all this works is very useful to me. Being a technical sort of guy, I am most comfortable when I understand the "theory of operation" behind these things.
>>> ....do you think that, in light of what we know today about 18th
> century performance practice, there is good reason to believe that in
> Mozart's day, k.622 mvt. 1 would be more likely to be performed at a
> slower speed (say, M.M. 108) than it is commonly played today (>= M.M.
> 118)? >>
>
> I think rather the contrary. It seems more natural to adopt a lighter,
> faster-moving, more gestural approach on these instruments, particularly > the string instruments.
I'm actually glad to hear you say that, because I rather like the quicker, lighter approach to this piece. I think it's interesting that you mention the strings, because one of the things about your recording with AAM that stood out for me in a positive way was the strings, which seemed to have a lot more warmth to them than usual. I didn't think there was much difference between modern stringed instruments and those played in Mozart's day (since there are plenty of people today who play with violins that predate Mozart--although perhaps not with gut strings), but I felt there was something noticeably different about the strings in your recording, although I couldn't put my finger on it exactly. I've wondered if this is perhaps my reaction to a different tuning standard (it sounds like it's lower than the usual A=440 tuning).
Thanks again!
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-08-12 07:27
mrn wrote:
"I didn't think there was much difference between modern stringed instruments and those played in Mozart's day (since there are plenty of people today who play with violins that predate Mozart--although perhaps not with gut strings),"
This is not really true. Old violins have generally undergone substantial modification over the years. A "Stradivarius" really means a Strad body, with modern strings (of course) but also a modern neck, a chinrest (invented after Mozart's death) and maybe a shoulder rest. Moreover, and perhaps even more significantly, the type of bow normally used by modern violinists is a nineteenth century design, developed in order to produce the heavier sound required by the composers of that era.
One is reminded of the forester who has used the same axe for thirty years, though he has replaced the blade and the handle from time to time.
That's before we start to look at the huge difference in performance practice. And I wonder how much technique has changed - I don't know, but I suspect a modern violin teacher would criticise the technique of a player of Mozart's day, and vice-versa. Using an "authentic" instrument, bow and strings will not automatically make you play with an authentic sound.
(editted for speling)
Post Edited (2008-08-12 07:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
