 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: AC13
Date: 2008-11-21 23:36
Hello,
I am playing the first movement of Brahm's Clarinet sonata no.1. What are the best, most recommended recordings of this piece? I know this is a very very famous piece and I would like to do it justice.
Thank you!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2008-11-22 00:04
I have always stood by the Richard Stoltzman/Richard Goode recording. Many here on this board will also recommend the likes of Harold Wright, David Schifrin, and others.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2008-11-22 00:04
Of those I'm familiar with, my favorite is Harold Wright with Peter Serkin. It's a beautiful collaborative effort. It's on the Boston Records label.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: na1965
Date: 2008-11-22 00:18
Harold Wright/Peter Serkin on Boston Records and Jon Manasse/Jon Nakamatsu on Harmonia Mundi.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-11-22 01:00
Martin Frost has a recording that I highly recommend, along with the others mentioned.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2008-11-22 01:25
Quote:
Gervase de Peyer and Daniel Barenboim
Am I crazy...or is there also a recording of the Brahms Trio with these two and Jackie DuPre on cello? I swear I once saw this on a boxed set (2 Cl Sonata's, Trio & Quintet) at a Barnes & Noble in the mid 90's. It was $60 and at the time I could afford it!
ETA: I also recommend the Wright recording!
Post Edited (2008-11-22 01:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2008-11-22 03:47
I like all of the ones I have heard so far for various reasons. The question perhaps should be is there one to avoid? I can't think of one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2008-11-22 05:57
Thanks Mark. At first I thought it was the Brahms Trio and posted the link. I then erased it when I realized it was the Beethoven Trio. Going through the du Pre catalog from EMI, it appears she never recorded the Brahms Trio with de Peyer and Barenboim...sad.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2008-11-22 06:35
Try to find the recording of Yona Ettlinger and Pnina Zaltzman! Maybe in a library, it was done about 35 years ago. If you can't find it write to me.
Also - Tabea Zimmermann (viola).
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-11-22 11:56
Martin Frost has a recording that I highly recommend, along with the others mentioned.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Amalton543
Date: 2008-11-22 16:59
There's a relatively new one out with Arthur Campbell playing the clarinet. It's gotten some really nice reviews and awards.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-11-22 18:16
You almost can't have too many recordings! I have five, and each showing a different perspective and tradition:
Fröst and Pöntinen: the finest clarinet soloist of his generation, in the mainstream tradition of the Boehm instrument.
Leister and Bognár: the most famous living clarinet player in the German tradition.
De Peyer and Pryor: a great player in the English tradition. I've never heard the recording de Peyer made with Barenboim, referred to in other posts, so I can't say how they compare. I have not always enjoyed Barenboim in other repertoire.
Hacker and Burnett: on nineteenth century clarinet and piano similar to those Brahms would have known.
and for something different, Campbell's recording of the Berio orchestration. (That's James Campbell, not Arthur Campbell referred to in another post.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-11-22 19:37
Martin Frost has a recording that I highly recommend, along with the others mentioned.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-11-22 19:39
Hmm, does anyone know why I seem to have posted twice in two separate spots?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-22 21:48
I was going to second clariknight on the Fröst recording, but it looks like he beat me to it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-11-23 02:17
Now I feel stupid. (I think the internet went out here while it was posting the first time, and then when I refreshed it it reposted. So, not technically my fault).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: AC13
Date: 2008-11-23 03:17
Wow! All of this feedback! Thank you very much!
My teacher keeps warning me that the judges I will play this piece in front of will be fingering along with me, so I want to make sure I won't miss anything that's not on the paper but has been developed by time and tradition. I will be sure to check as many of these out as I can. Feel free to mention more!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-11-23 11:45
Either the Wright/Serkin or Wright/Goldsmith recordings are superb.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2008-11-23 12:50
I find Wright/Goldsmith disappointing after Wright/Serkin, because Serkin seems so much more involved - and perhaps more capable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-23 14:53
AC13 wrote:
>> ...I want to make sure I won't miss anything that's not on the paper but has been developed by time and tradition.>>
I feel bound to point out that this is looking at the matter backwards.
Of course you'll be judged on the extent to which your playing reflects the assumptions under which it was written -- that's a stylistic thing. (You don't want to play it like jazz, for example.) These recordings may (or may not) help you with that.
But the most important thing is that your performance makes sense with itself, and is coherent, as well as being created in real time.
That means, for example, that if something goes a little different on the day, you accept the implications of that difference in what you GO ON to play. In this way, your performance is 'alive', rather than being a copy of what you already decided, or copied from someone else.
Good musicians can hear this subtle, real-time flexibility -- they call it, 'being musical'.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-23 18:16
AC13 wrote:
>> ...I want to make sure I won't miss anything that's not on the paper but has been developed by time and tradition.>>
Nobody I've ever worked on Brahms with (teachers, directors, etc.), has ever stressed any sort of "developed tradition" with regard to playing Brahms. The goal was always to make Brahms sound like Brahms. Getting to know Brahms personal style is, IMHO, way more important than picking up the performance practices of other clarinetists.
So as long as you're looking at recordings, I'd try listening to some of Brahms' other music, *especially* his piano music--to try and get a feel for Brahms' musical style. Brahms was a pianist, and a lot of his music sounds like it was written at the piano (as it probably was). With the clarinet sonatas, for example, we actually know that Brahms wrote the piano parts for himself to play.
Brahms' Piano Sonata No. 3, for instance, is not only in the same key as his Clarinet Sonata No. 1 (f minor), but there are some stylistic similarities between the two works as well similarities in the manner in which the sonatas are organized. (and the piano sonata's a good piece of music, to boot!)
Also, as much as I as a clarinetist would like to think that I'm the main attraction in the Brahms Sonatas, the clarinet is not really the star of the show in these works. The piano is just as important, possibly even more important than the clarinetist. Playing Brahms is about teamwork (as you would expect from a guy who writes piano parts so thick you think you're hearing two pianos). So even if you're the only one being judged, how well you manage to pull off Brahms is going to depend a lot on how well your pianist plays and even more on how well the two of you work together. In these Sonatas especially, without both parts working together, there is no music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2008-11-23 20:06
There may indeed be similarities between the Op. 5 piano sonata and the Op. 120 #1 clarinet sonata, but to my ears the differences overwhelm them. Still, the early sonata is well worth becoming familiar with and may well provide the illumination mrn suggests.
In this context, I'd recommend some of Brahms' later music, including the clarinet quintet, the clarinet trio, the 3rd violin sonata Op. 108, the 2nd string quintet Op. 111, and especially the late piano pieces.
Though it's common to speak of Beethoven's three periods of composition, one could almost as justifiably categorize Brahms a similar way. Listening to music from throughtout his career, and in all genres, can be very rewarding, even apart from purposefully studying how to play his music.
One recording I haven't seen mentioned yet: one with violist William Primrose (I think he recorded both sonatas more than once.) Though it isn't on clarinet, Primrose was a superb interpreter, and it's worth hearing what he found in these pieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: AC13
Date: 2008-11-23 20:29
I didn't mean I want to take a recording and play it in the exact same way. I just meant the little things, for example, the pause before part B (ma ben marcato) begins. I would have been unaware of that. And once again, thank you everyone for the input!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-11-23 21:48
Interesting about the judges fingering the score while judging the player. I wonder if they will also be listening.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: AC13
Date: 2008-11-23 22:31
Hah, meant that figuratively because they know this piece so well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-24 00:02
Philip Caron wrote:
<<There may indeed be similarities between the Op. 5 piano sonata and the Op. 120 #1 clarinet sonata, but to my ears the differences overwhelm them. Still, the early sonata is well worth becoming familiar with and may well provide the illumination mrn suggests.>>
Also, that was just one example, which I mentioned because I'm familiar with the piece. I wouldn't try to read too much into my recommendation. In fact, I almost hesitated to suggest a particular piece, because I didn't want anyone to overestimate the significance of my recommendation--I just suggested it because I know it's a decent representation of Brahms' piano writing and I guess to my ears, the piece has somewhat of a similar character to the f minor Clarinet Sonata in places, even if it pre-dates the Clarinet Sonata by 40 years or so. I'm sure there are other Brahms pieces that would be just as good or better selections to listen to--this one I just happen to be more familiar with (and I'll be honest--I like it a lot )
Now that I think about it, I performed (sang) an song for low voice and piano by Brahms for a contest once called "Wie Melodien zieht es mir" (Op. 105, no. 1), which is probably a little more representative of the more sophisticated harmonic and melodic ideas of Brahms' later works. In fact, I've since read that Brahms actually borrowed material from the song to write his A major violin sonata (in the "Allegro Amabile" movement). One of the quirkier phrases from the song (at least I thought it was quirky because it contains some very difficult-to-sing intervals) shows up in the 2nd mvt. of the f minor Clarinet Sonata, too (although, like I said about the piano sonata, don't read too much importance into that observation). The two pieces are different in a lot of ways, but "Wie Melodien" is a well-loved Brahms song, and Brahms apparently liked it enough to reuse some of the material from it, so it's worth listening to for that reason alone.
The important thing is to get to know what Brahms' style is like so that when you get a Brahms piece in front of you, you have a better idea of how to make sense of the music. There is most definitely a "Brahms style," which you will pick up on intuitively if you listen to enough performances of Brahms pieces.
I will say this, though, about having a good recording (or two) of the Clarinet Sonatas. I think that it helps a great deal to listen to at least one recording of these works when first learning them--not so much to listen to what the clarinetist does, but more to listen to how the clarinet part fits together with the piano. That way, when you sit down to practice the clarinet part by yourself, you can imagine the piano part in your head and get a better sense of what you are doing. What you don't want to do is learn the pieces "in a vacuum," because if you do that, you may feel disoriented when you eventually sit down to play them with a pianist (with whom you may have very limited time to practice).
Post Edited (2008-11-24 01:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-24 10:48
AC13 wrote:
>> I didn't mean I want to take a recording and play it in the exact same way. I just meant the little things, for example, the pause before part B (ma ben marcato) begins. I would have been unaware of that. >>
And, rightly so, I'd say, if by 'unaware of' you mean, 'not realising the necessity of'.
That many people wait at the end of bar 52 before proceeding with bar 53 constitutes a DECISION on their part; and that this decision is quite a natural one doesn't make it obligatory. The only obligation is to make the transition 'work' -- and if you don't understand what 'working' means in this context, then 'deciding' to make the pause won't help you, because it isn't a 'little' thing:-)
In fact, if the falling third of the clarinet and the rising third of the piano bass octaves are played quite drily (not legato) into the Gb minor overhang, and in a 'not slow' tempo, you can play bars 51/52 so that the descending minor third in the clarinet has a natural continuation a FURTHER third downwards to the low E in bar 53; then the resultant rather menacing atmosphere of 51/52 prefigures and connects to what follows: "It's not just one descending minor third: it's TWO!"
You don't need the pause, because the (written) rhythmic augmentation gives ample time to render the change of mood emotionally plausible; which is to say, ample time TO MAKE IT WORK.
Moreover, doing it that way brings out an aspect of Brahms's writing that is often ignored in the many modern performances that want it ALL to be lush and beautiful. How many pianists and clarinettists play what Brahms wrote in bars 88/89, for example?
I once played both Sonatas with an excellent pianist who didn't want to follow the score in certain respects (for example in the piano accompaniment to the opening of the second Sonata) because she said that doing so 'didn't have the correct Brahms sound'.
My idea would be that, even if you grant that there is such a thing as 'the correct Brahms sound', FINDING it has (at least) to start with playing what he wrote, rather than starting with what others have done.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: AJN
Date: 2008-11-25 04:15
To the very good suggestions above I would add that a lot can be gained from listening to these two sonatas played by Pinchas Zukerman (in the viola version, naturally) and Daniel Barenboim.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2008-11-25 04:58
As I'm forced to write 2200 words of tonal and harmonic analysis of this very movement for my theory class, I'm also in the process of presenting my findings (tomorrow!), and I've gotten a lot out of the viola recordings, actually. William Primrose, Steven Dann, Nobuko Imai, Pinchas Zuckerman, Kim Kaskashian, Barbara Westphal and possibly someone else I'm forgetting; I think Primrose(Firusky sp? on piano), Westphal and Kashkashian were the most influential to my research.
Yes, it's a clarinet sonata at the end of the day, but personally I feel the F Minor work is best portrayed by the viola, while the Eb Major work is better by clarinet. This is just a personal feeling, and I understand that Brahms is a very emotional subject for a clarinetist, so I don't mean to step on any toes. However, if we're talking about the best recordings out there, I think we have to take into account some of the viola recordings I've mentioned. Simple things like how a violist will usually crescendo over a decrescendo in the left hand of the piano, while there is a new section of the main compound theme being introduced Forte in the next bar. All of this is arguable, but it's interesting to note these differences as one is understanding the piece. Also with falling thirds being prevalent throughout the movement, the fragmentation of that particular motive is treated quite differently by viola when reiterated, and it leads me to wonder why certain interpretational traditions for the clarinet exist.
In trying to avoid a rant: If you take care in listening to both a standard clarinet recording and a standard viola recording with the piano score, you'll be pretty enlightened by the differences.
For what it's worth, my "must-listen" clarinet recordings would be Martin Frost and Harold Wright (Serkin).
Another great asset to you is:
www.pickstaiger.com/index.php/video/44-master-classes/106-karl-leister- clarinet-master-class
That's the Karl Leister masterclass at Northwestern fairly recently, where he covers this very same movement with a student.
Good luck!
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-25 17:06
Bradley wrote:
>> If you take care in listening to both a standard clarinet recording and a standard viola recording with the piano score, you'll be pretty enlightened by the differences.>>
I have never found this. I once read in a CD review that Jurij Bashmet had 'taken the Brahms sonatas to a level unattainable on the clarinet" -- and so I naturally rushed out to buy the disc.
What I found was rather that a brilliant but quirky viola player had used his own bag of tricks to entertain. I learnt nothing about the Brahms sonatas, so I wasn't 'enlightened' in any way -- though admittedly I did learn quite a lot about HIM;-)
I could say much the same for other 'viola' recordings. I cannot offhand think of a single instance where I have found that the clarinet would not be preferable; but of course I am open to argument, if you're willing to provide it. Can you not 'unpack' your preference for the viola to any extent?
You say:
>> [Notice] simple things like how a violist will usually crescendo over a decrescendo in the left hand of the piano, while there is a new section of the main compound theme being introduced Forte in the next bar. All of this is arguable, but it's interesting to note these differences as one is understanding the piece.>>
How do these differences help one understand the piece? Aren't they just arbitrary performer whims? Perhaps for you they're not; but if they aren't, what musical advantage do you find crescendo to have over non-crescendo in these cases? or even in just one particular case?
>> Also with falling thirds being prevalent throughout the movement, the fragmentation of that particular motive is treated quite differently by viola when reiterated, and it leads me to wonder why certain interpretational traditions for the clarinet exist.>>
Can you explain that more fully? It would be good if you could go into the sort of detail that I did in talking about bars 51/52.
(Extracting from your theory class assignment would probably make all these tasks less arduous:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-25 20:39
"I fear I find these two works quite awkward and unpleasant as viola sonatas."
-- Johannes Brahms, letter to Joseph Joachim, October 17, 1894
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-25 22:09
Cigleris wrote:
>> Great quote!>>
Is this intended to be a contribution?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2008-11-26 00:23
Quote:
"I fear I find these two works quite awkward and unpleasant as viola sonatas."
-- Johannes Brahms, letter to Joseph Joachim, October 17, 1894
For what it's worth, my own opinion for the reasoning behind the viola transcriptions are 1.) Joachim wanted to play these works and 2.) More opportunities for sale as viola transcription in the 1890's.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-11-26 16:11
I had never heard the comment before. I think Peter's letting the BB in on it was a "contribution."
Let the thread flow chaps, it's quite interesting.
I just took delivery of the H. Wright, P. Serking CD yesterday. I'll listen to it 3 or 4 times and will soon make my "contrbution." I'm sure that will settle the issue!?
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-11-26 17:15
Tony wrote,
"Is this intended to be a contribution?"
Not really Tony, I just liked the quote and felt the need to express that.
When preparing the 1st Sonata I always like to remind myself of the hemiolas in the piece. I lke to emphasize these slightly as Brahms was well known for he's use of 'two against three'. Thinking this way helps me move into the transition that Tony was refering to in his previous post, without the 'traditional' slow down that can sometimes happen. The hemiola also helps me create an atmosphere for the next section which personally is quite adagiato with a sense of really moving somewhere, perhaps to the perfect cadence at bar 67/68. Ultimately the release form this section is bars 88 and 89 and I do like to relax here, if only to get my breath back.
I remember playing these to Jack Brymer when I was a 1st year undergrad in his home in Surrey and he told me to think of the two Sonatas as Brahms refecting on his life. The 1st looking back over his life and the 2nd being his present life at the time he wrote them. I like this idea as the 1st Sonata always sounds very orchestral to me whereas the 2nd doesn't. I always had this feeling about the 1st and it was confirmed when I read an artical some years ago saying that a note book of Brahms had sketches of the themes from the 1st Sonata as a possible fith symphony. Now there's a thought...
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-26 18:49
cigleris wrote:
>> When preparing the 1st Sonata I always like to remind myself of the hemiolas in the piece....>>
Yes, all of that is a contribution.
And, seriously: Bravo! -- whether I agree with it all or not;-)
You should know that my remarks are not really about YOU -- even though they are, in a way.
They're about trying to get people in general here to realise that what works is to address the important musical issues.
Notice that in another thread, a discussion about musical issues was derailed -- initially by you -- into a discussion about how GOOD the Rose studies are; and whether or not they're actually used here, there -- or even SHOULD BE EVERYWHERE.
Whereas, Bob asked a straightforward musical question, which I tried to answer in in a straightforward musical way. And I hope I made it clear that I could do that without having to be in any way a BONADEFOLLOWER, or having to be intimately acquainted with these Rose studies.
See: I want to FORGET Bonade, and all that sail in him. Because, we have a bigger context now than he did then.
What's useful here is to deal with the music, in detail.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-27 00:00
Tony Pay wrote:
> Whereas, Bob asked a straightforward musical question, which I
> tried to answer in in a straightforward musical way. And I
> hope I made it clear that I could do that without having to be
> in any way a BONADEFOLLOWER, or having to be intimately
> acquainted with these Rose studies.
I think you did that, Tony. In fact, I think that's why the subject changed so quickly--your answer was so good, I don't think anyone else felt like they had anything to add to it. I don't think anybody really cares whether you have any connection to Bonade or intimate familiarity with these pieces. I certainly don't think that matters--in fact, I actually see it as a good thing that you don't, because it means that you aren't constrained by seeing things from Bonade's perspective--you'll probably see things in these pieces that Bonade didn't.
> See: I want to FORGET Bonade, and all that sail in him.
> Because, we have a bigger context now than he did then.
I agree. I don't think that "Bonade said so" is a justification for anything. In fact, that's why I brought up the fact that it was Bonade who popularized these etudes. There's nothing wrong with the etudes, per se. I think they're decent etudes, and I've certainly learned from studying them. But at the same time, I don't think there's anything particularly special about them, nor do I think there's anything unusual about someone not having studied them (as some of the posts in that thread suggested).
I think it's helpful to recognize that the widespread use of these etudes in the U.S. is largely due to one person's opinion (Bonade's), and that Bonade's assumptions and artistic preferences under which he formulated that opinion may not be as valid for all of us as they were for him. As you said, we have a bigger context now than he did then. I question whether even Bonade himself would have the same opinion today (namely, that the Rose etudes contained nearly everything a clarinetist needs to know).
> What's useful here is to deal with the music, in detail.
I agree. It's much more valuable to be aware of what we can or should be learning from these pieces than it is to simply evangelize about them.
That's why I (and a lot of other people on here as well, I'm sure) enjoy reading your posts so much--I've learned a tremendous amount about clarinet playing (and music, in general) from reading your posts. So I wouldn't interpret the change of subject in a thread like that one as stemming from lack of interest or appreciation. On the contrary, I think it has more to do with the fact that you have more to contribute than many of the rest of us do!
Post Edited (2008-11-27 02:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-11-27 15:27
mrn wrote,
>>I've learned a tremendous amount about clarinet playing (and music, in general) from reading your posts. So I wouldn't interpret the change of subject in a thread like that one as stemming from lack of interest or appreciation. On the contrary, I think it has more to do with the fact that you have more to contribute than many of the rest of us do! >>
Yes. And notice that we've veered off again! I didn't reply above because I read what you wrote, nodded my head and had nothing new enough or constructive enough to contribute. You can probably assume a lot of us do that a lot of the time, while also leaving most or all of the argument to you when someone dissents.
Maybe that's lazy of us. Come to think of it, I'd like to know more about this comment you made about bars 88-89, in the context of discussing bars 51-52:
>You don't need the pause, because the (written) rhythmic augmentation gives ample time to render the change of mood emotionally plausible; which is to say, ample time TO MAKE IT WORK.
>
Moreover, doing it that way brings out an aspect of Brahms's writing that is often ignored in the many modern performances that want it ALL to be lush and beautiful. How many pianists and clarinettists play what Brahms wrote in bars 88/89, for example?
>
(Shadow Cat said, "Humph," I think, but maybe she was only snoring.)
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-27 16:37
Lelia wrote, I think to me:
>> I didn't reply above because I read what you wrote, nodded my head and had nothing new enough or constructive enough to contribute.>>
But you have to agree that he, Bob Phillips, then came back with:
>> And, I'd like to know much, much more about how to recognize the "not important" (and the "important") notes without having to have them pointed out to me. Frankly, I have no methodology to accomplish this on my own.>>
...replies to which would have continued the thread in the spirit in which it was started. I do have something to say about that -- but I was waiting to see whether others did.
Clearly, Rose Etudes aren't enough in themselves. You don't get magical benefit by owning them, or even PLAYING them, as seemed to be implied by other responses.
>> I'd like to know more about this comment you made about bars 88-89, in the context of discussing bars 51-52.>>
It was just that Brahms in bars 88-89 writes all the rests quite carefully -- implying, I think, that he'd like to hear his written silences AS silences. That requires a quite 'dry' sound, incidentally making the 'wet' effect of bar 90 much greater. I rarely hear it done that way.
OK, I don't have many recordings of these pieces nowadays, having offloaded them; but I did write: "How many pianists and clarinettists play what Brahms wrote in bars 88/89, for example?" -- leaving it open for you to disagree:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda ★2017
Date: 2008-11-28 15:50
In addition to selected portions of this thread that have been positive, Sherman Friedland's discussion of each of the 4 movements of the F minor Sonata has been very useful. He identifies specific spots where more attention than usual is needed, somewhat like a written Master Class. Something as simple as reminding us of NOT shortening the third eighth note at measures 53 to 61 but rather to play it as written, a full eighth note with a rest afterward. The note IS NOT a dotted eighth at the end of the three note slur. This pattern of course returns at 124-125 and 172-176.
One thing I'd like to add to this discussion is a method of learning those 5-note, 6-note and 7-note runs. One of my teachers passed along this hint, to break each run into 2+3 notes, 3+3, and 3+4. By marking the music and thinking of the two sides of the beat in this way, those runs have quite suddenly almost played themselves. My brain's grateful! Now it's just a matter of gradually getting them up to speed.
Post Edited (2008-12-02 11:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-11-29 14:13
Re. Tony Pay's comments on Brahms Sonata in F minor, Op. 120, No. 1, I wrote,
>> I'd like to know more about this comment you made about bars 88-89, in the context of discussing bars 51-52.>>>
Tony replied,
>It was just that Brahms in bars 88-89 writes all the rests quite carefully -- implying, I think, that he'd like to hear his written silences AS silences. That requires a quite 'dry' sound, incidentally making the 'wet' effect of bar 90 much greater. I rarely hear it done that way.>
>
>OK, I don't have many recordings of these pieces nowadays, having offloaded them; but I did write: "How many pianists and clarinettists play what Brahms wrote in bars 88/89, for example?" -- leaving it open for you to disagree:-)
>
I don’t disagree with you that those rests represent silences. If Brahms had meant the rests only to indicate places to breathe or to let the note fade away, I think he'd have written commas or shorter rests or put decrescendos on the notes or.... Quarter-note rests look unambiguous. They have to mean what they say.
But I’m not sure I understand what you’re criticizing in certain performance conventions. I'm handicapped in the discussion because I don't have the Harold Wright or Martin Fröst recordings other people have praised here, but among the six recordings I do have, I’ve found only one example in which the clarinetist even extends the values of the quarter notes significantly into the rests--and none of these performers fail to play those rests as silences. Instead, I'm hearing the opposite problem in several recordings: melodramatic silences where Brahms didn't write rests.
These are the six performances I listened to yesterday:
David Schifrin with Carol Rosenberger in1984 (Delos DE 3025).
Franklin Cohen and Vladimir Ashkenazy, recorded in 1993 (Decca D 103118). They play the rests as silences and elsewhere they add silences Brahms didn’t write.
Gervase de Peyer and Gwenneth Pryor, recording in 1987 (Chandos CHAN 8563), play rests as silences in those bars, but de Peyer does bleed his tones into the rests – holding them too long, imho – almost to the point where he’s playing the quarter notes as dotted quarters.
Michel Portal and pianist Georges Pludermacher, recording in 1969 (released in 1987, Harmonia Mundi 90904), also play the rests as silences. However, Portal also imports rests elsewhere, as in bar 46, where he puts a conspicuous silence before the higher B-flat, and in bar 72 where, in each pair of eighth notes, he cuts the second note way short.
My favorite recording of this sonata is Jonathan Cohler’s with pianist Judith Gordon, undated on my BBC Music, Volume III No. 2 CD (a reissue of Ongaku Records 024-101).
My least favorite performance is Reginald Kell’s, recorded in New York with pianist Joel Rosen in 1953 (originally on Decca LP DL 9639, 33-1/3 rpm, then re-released in 2005 in the 6-CD set, DG 477 5280). I had intended to write something about this recording back in 2007 when we had some extensive threads about Kell, until life got in the way and I stopped at Beethoven; but without going into the whole megillah: This is an extremely eccentric recording and I think it would be a deathtrap for a student tempted to copy "the masters." This strange recording sounds cloyingly sentimental and misrepresents what Brahms wrote.
Kell makes those rests silent in the context of importing more extraneous silences into Brahms’s score than I've heard from any other performer. Brahms edited with great precision. I think he would not have appreciated hearing notes nipped off, not just staccato but cut way short, with a conspicuous silence added where there's no such marking in the music. That's a cheesy way of making a phrase more emphatic when it's plenty emphatic enough as written. Other idiosyncracies include gross “noteyness” on sustained tones, excessive rubato, too much vibrato and places where Kell tongues passages marked as slurs, then slurs where there are no slur marks.
From an engineering standpoint, the balance sounds reasonable (and I think the modern engineers have done a good job of remastering the original LP recording), but Kell and Rosen both overdo the dynamic extremes, as if they want to drown each other out. In forte passages, Kell sometimes pushes his tone quality to a screech and, especially in the fourth movement, has intonation trouble on his loudest notes. Meanwhile, the piano makes a “bottoming out” clank when Rosen plays loudly. That piano has been tuned but it needs regulating. It sounds like a school piano that’s been banged on until the felts pack down. Also, in allegro passages, Rosen often sounds as if he’s rushing. Kell’s first recording in the USA, for Mercury, was of these sonatas with pianist Mieczslaw Horsowski. I’d like to hear that earlier recording. Maybe Kell over-thought this piece after playing it a lot over the years and maybe Kell and Horsowski (known to brook no nonsense) made a better team than Kell and Rosen. At any rate, I can hardly stand to listen to this 1953 Decca version.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2008-11-29 14:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-11-29 14:36
Lelia wrote: "Gervase de Peyer and Gwenneth Pryor, recording in 1987 (Chandos CHAN 8563), play rests as silences in those bars, but de Peyer does bleed his tones into the rests – holding them too long, imho – almost to the point where he’s playing the quarter notes as dotted quarters."
They do, though only marginally in my view. Leister and Bognár do so to a greater degree.
Both partnerships also shorten the third quaver in bar 53 etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-11-29 16:10
Lelia's last post nailed Kell to the wall and I pretty much agree with her.
When listening to his CDs I want them to be good but sometimes I feel like yelling out "Ah, Reggie why you doin' that?"
I've heard most of the recorded versions; I think I prefer Harold Wright's. Though I have not heard it, he did make a recording of both Sonatas for Music Minus One. Maybe someone cut their teeth on it as a stludent and can tell us their opinion of it.
The observations and comments about various Clarinetist's recordings of these are really interesting and sometimes valid. They, the performers, for the most part, are outstanding musicans and are offering a preferred point of view; Hey... they may be right! Aren't we lucky Brahms wrote such great stuff for us!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-12-01 18:46
Lelia wrote:
>> But I’m not sure I understand what you’re criticizing in certain performance conventions. I'm handicapped in the discussion because I don't have the Harold Wright or Martin Fröst recordings other people have praised here, but among the six recordings I do have, I’ve found only one example in which the clarinetist even extends the values of the quarter notes significantly into the rests--and none of these performers fail to play those rests as silences.>>
Well, perhaps that means that I'm wrong in this case. But actually, I don't think so, in another way -- as follows.
You could say that ONE of the polarities (there are of course, many) that Brahms explores in this movement is the polarity:
(long/short)/(short/long)
These are a subset of the possible subdivisions of a 3/4 bar.
(Even the opening piano bars play with this: you could imagine these four bars as:
'ONE/TWO-three, ONE-two/ three; ONE TWO-three ONE-two three; ONE two/three'....)
Anyway, for me, the bars 88/89 are a definite representation of the second half of the polarity, reduced to its basics -- a simple rhythm that could effectively be played on a suitably tuned set of timpani: it goes, ONE TWO (rest); ONE TWO (rest).
That becomes more obvious when you look at the preceding passage which explores the rhythm ONE TWO three, first on the level of the bar, and then, in bar 87, within the bar. How can you understand the clarinet line in bars 79 and 80 EXCEPT as a representation of this rhythm?
Someone who understands this plays bars 88/89 in a different way from someone who thinks it's just a way of filling out a C minor chord -- which is what I mostly hear.
By the way, I tried hard to listen to Kell's performance. But I found that his whole stance was so self-centred that I couldn't even begin to assess his choices.
OF COURSE they could be ANYTHING, because what the Brahms sonata MIGHT BE had never entered his small mind.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-12-01 21:52
In his last post Tony wrote: "By the way, I tried hard to listen to Kell's performance. But I found that his whole stance was so self-centred that I couldn't even begin to assess his choices.
OF COURSE they could be ANYTHING, because what the Brahms sonata MIGHT BE had never entered his small mind."
Kell might have been a lot of things, but he was not a small mind. He was a complex individual with a sophisticated intelligence. His ideas of what Brahms Sonatas might be certainly are strange to many of us. He seemed to veer a bit askew in middle age...I wonder what his ideas of them might have been when he was about thirty.
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-12-01 22:52
Old Geezer wrote:
>> Kell might have been a lot of things, but he was not a small mind. He was a complex individual with a sophisticated intelligence. His ideas of what Brahms Sonatas might be certainly are strange to many of us. He seemed to veer a bit askew in middle age...I wonder what his ideas of them might have been when he was about thirty.>>
He was my boyhood hero, because of his 78s of the Mozart Concerto, with which I used to play along on my Bb clarinet (obviously the gramophone was running too fast, but I didn't know that. Indeed, I maintained, unsuccessfully, to my teacher that the piece MUST be for Bb clarinet on that basis).
I also played to him in a lesson around the age of 12, but I don't remember what he said. I do remember pretending to faint when my teacher told me who he was.
But I now don't want to accord his recordings of the Brahms sonatas, or his recording of the Stravinsky 3 pieces, anything like the neutral epithet, 'strange'. A lifetime of living with these works makes me want to label them 'pernicious'. It seems to me that some sort of psychiatric evaluation of his attitude is appropriate to what he did with them.
Perhaps you have some knowledge of his personality. He was clearly very charismatic, as well as being what is often called, 'contrarian'.
Did you meet him in later life?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-02 06:41
Tony wrote:
<<He was my boyhood hero, because of his 78s of the Mozart Concerto, with which I used to play along on my Bb clarinet (obviously the gramophone was running too fast, but I didn't know that. Indeed, I maintained, unsuccessfully, to my teacher that the piece MUST be for Bb clarinet on that basis).>>
That's so funny to hear you say, because I have a similar story from my childhood. The difference is that I first assumed the piece was for Bb and then told my teacher that either my tape deck or the recording was to blame because the recording played flat when I tried to play along (Jost Michaels performing--who, being a German playing with a German orchestra, was probably actually sharp compared to me).
Your reaction to Kell's Brahms sounds a bit like my reaction to his Hindemith Sonata recording. This was a piece I had played many times but had never heard a recording of until I heard Kell's. "That's all wrong," I kept wanting to say. I couldn't bring myself to listen to the whole thing.
I am pleased to report, however, that Fröst gets bars 88-89 of Brahms right. His pianist releases the damper pedal precisely at the stroke of beat 3 and Fröst cuts off right with him for a full beat of silence. In general, I think he does a decent job of keeping to the score on all his recordings--at least the ones I've heard, anyway.
My only real criticism of Fröst's playing (and this does not apply to his Brahms recordings) is that he seems to have a fondness (or perhaps "zeal" is a better word) for niente attacks (i.e., gradual crescendos from silence). He is selective in his use of them, to be sure, but there are times when I expect to hear a definite beginning to a note (even at pp--such as the "doux et penetrant" line on the first page of the Debussy Rhapsodie) and I find myself feeling uncomfortable waiting for the note to become clearly audible. To me, that sort of thing sounds like Fröst and not like Debussy, but to be fair, perhaps from his perspective it's simply a more zealous reading of the composer's own markings (as 99% of the time, his attention to the details of a score seems impeccable).
Post Edited (2008-12-02 06:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
