 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-06-05 23:53
Attachment: Kuffner example.pdf (88k)
Please see the attachment. This is from the J. Kuffner Duets, Op.80, Number 41.
The original is marked as such, and I am looking for opinions on how to play the turn. The two most logical options are marked 1 and 2.
Number 2 looks the most logical to me, but sound a bit unnatural.
Number 1 sounds more natural, but really does not fit the notation. The only reason I even imagine that this might be correct is because of the second movement of the Mozart K.622. Measure 39 has a diminutive version of the same rhythm, but it seems to be standard for many clarinetists to play the rhythm more like number 1, with the last of the four grace notes as a sixteenth, which is markedly longer than the previous three. I don't really know why so many clarinetists do it like that- is there a historical performance practice reason why it's justified?
-
What are your opinions- #1, #2 or something else...?
Post Edited (2009-06-06 01:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-06-06 01:56
Very interesting question!
I'm not an expert on the subject of the grupetto and other ornaments, but I found this site that you might find useful:
http://gc-music.com/Ornament.htm
This is a tricky one. If the grupetto followed a quarter note and the following note was a D, everything would be crystal clear. You'd play an 8th note, follow it with four 32nds, and land on the D.
I just went to check my old trusty Lazarus book, Part 2 (purchased in 1967 for $3.00). On the first pages of the book, there is a guide for trills and grupettos. I think you'll find it interesting that their example is the same one you presented! According to Lazarus, there are two ways to do it. Your no. 1 is labeled "correct." There is an alternate way labeled "better" that shows an 8th note C, four 32nd notes that are C, D, C, B, and two more 8th notes, C and E.
Since your example is in cut time, I'd say that your no. 1 would be the best option. If the tempo were a little slower, in four, no. 2 might sound just a slight bit better than 1.
Post Edited (2009-06-06 02:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-06-06 15:19
"I just went to check my old trusty Lazarus book, Part 2 (purchased in 1967 for $3.00). On the first pages of the book, there is a guide for trills and grupettos. I think you'll find it interesting that their example is the same one you presented! "
It is actually from that very book.
"According to Lazarus, there are two ways to do it. Your no. 1 is labeled "correct."
I can't find that page, but I will take your word for it.
Although, it may say that it is "correct", I really have a hard time justifying it. It would mean that the "original" notation yields the same exact result as if it were, quarter note C,then 3 grace notes (D C B), followed by 2 eighths (C E).
This grupetto is 4 notes that precede an up beat, not 3 notes that precede a down beat.
Why should they sound the same??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-06-06 17:09
Skygardener, you raise a good point. I don't have a good answer, but I think I may have found another solution for you.
I wonder if the problem in your book is sloppy editing. If your edition is from Carl Fischer (as mine is), there are other errors in the book. A few months ago there was a discussion of the Cavallini Caprices (which are included in my Lazarus book), and with the help of others, I discovered some errors.
I'm guessing that when Kuffner wrote it, he just used the grupetto symbol and left it to the performer to interpret it. It appears that the editor of your edition tried to make things easy by writing out the notes instead of using the grupetto symbol, but in doing so, he/she might have just added to the confusion.
So then, where does this leave you? You could do it the no. 1 way, and just assume that the editor was mistaken. You could do it the second way that I suggested, and again assume that the editor was mistaken.
There is a third possibility, and after thinking about it, it might be the most logical. If you look at the web link that I provided, it's clear that there is a difference between placing the grupetto symbol directly over a note and placing it just to the right of the note. Perhaps the editor was not an expert in this type of notation and didn't realize the difference.
It's possible that Kuffner actually placed the grupetto mark directly over the dotted quarter note. If this was the case, then the grupetto should be played starting on the D; D, C, B, C (all 32nds), followed by three 8ths, the last one being the 8th note E. In other words, don't start that dotted quarter with a C as marked, but start with a 32nd note D above it.
Post Edited (2009-06-06 17:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-06-09 13:48
Attachment: Mozart example.pdf (113k)
Clarinetguy- "I'm guessing that when Kuffner wrote it, he just used the grupetto symbol and left it to the performer to interpret it. It appears that the editor of your edition tried to make things easy by writing out the notes instead of using the grupetto symbol, but in doing so, he/she might have just added to the confusion. "
--
This is a possibility but we really don't know what the original was. It could have been a symbol, or it could have been written out. If it was a symbol, which one was it- a turn above the note or after the note?
To add to this topic, I am including a copy of the above mention m.39 from the Mozart 2nd movement.
As you see, it is a similar situation. I have three publications (Barenreiter 2003, and two Breitkopf & Hartels, one from `1977 and one from 1987) of this piece and they all mark m. 39 like the example indicated "Original"- four small printed notes, all indicated as 32nds.
However, it is common for the vast majority of clarinetists that I have heard (myself included) to play it like "No 1". I ask- Why do we play the last note longer if it is written as being the same length as the other three? I have never seen a publication that indicates in print that it should be played longer, and I have never seen a publication that has a symbol that could be interpreted as a different rhythm.
The example marked "2" would be a possible way to play it, preserving the equal length of all the notes of the turn.
Any opinions?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2009-06-09 15:46
To quote Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good it is good."
For me #1 sounds elegant and poised; #2 sort of frantic and unbalanced, certainly out of character for this roccoco/classical period piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2009-06-09 19:24
Good stuff, Oliver! In example #6 shouldn't the natural sign be beneath--rather than above--the grupetto sign?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-06-09 19:34
#2 puts the grupetto notes on a strong beat (or "sub-beat"), thus causing the larger dotted-rhythm structure to become obscured. In other words, the grupetto starts sounding like a separate 8th note, rather than a decoration of the dotted quarter.
On the other hand, with #1 you can still hear the dotted rhythm, because the grupetto is clearly perceived as a mere ornament (being on an unquestionably weak beat).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-06-09 20:35
Mike wrote:
>> #2 puts the grupetto notes on a strong beat (or "sub-beat"), thus causing the larger dotted-rhythm structure to become obscured. In other words, the grupetto starts sounding like a separate 8th note, rather than a decoration of the dotted quarter.
>> On the other hand, with #1 you can still hear the dotted rhythm, because the grupetto is clearly perceived as a mere ornament (being on an unquestionably weak beat).>>
I approve of this sort of analysis -- just as I approve of the analysis that favours trills starting on upper notes BECAUSE that allows us access to a variety of appoggiaturas, rather than just because someone said so.
It means that we're not just limited to following the instructions of some old codger of the period, but have seen deeper into the situation.
After all, I disagree with, and ignore, many currently extant old codgers, so I don't see why I shouldn't extend that to (some) dead ones:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-06-11 08:42
Do I take it that this means that you would play No. 1, Tony?
FWIW, going back to basic grade 5 theory, the standard way that one was taught to interpret a turn written between a dotted note and the following note was like this. Not sure what the reason given was but perhaps this was why.
However, that brings us to an "old chestnut" - the first movement of the Mozart Kegelstatt trio - the written out turns are shown as demi-semiquavers (US 32nds) but often played as semis (16ths). What do you think?
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oliver sudden
Date: 2009-06-11 09:31
...in fact written as hemidemisemiquavers/64ths and often played as almost anything but...
I have a feeling that the on/off the beat (or at least, on/off the quaver, since the main pulse is in 2) aspect of it applies here too. If Mozart had simply written a dotted crotchet F, then a turn symbol, then the next three quavers, one would probably put the turn on the third quaver of the first beat. That would be a bit weightier than the passing flourish it becomes if you put it after the third quaver, where Mozart wrote it.
(In the piano and viola parts, although not in the clarinet part, Mozart writes forte on the beat and then piano at the beginning of the turn - so in the opening gesture, everything falls away from the opening chord; as I read it that speaks against putting a big stress on the second beat of the bar even though that's the top of the line.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-06-12 06:20
Vanessa wrote:
>> However, that brings us to an "old chestnut" - the first movement of the Mozart Kegelstatt trio - the written out turns are shown as demi-semiquavers (US 32nds) but often played as semis (16ths).>>
There was a time when, seeking to play the 64ths lightly and melodically, I thought of them as quintuplet 32nds. (It was always clear to me that they had to begin after the third quaver beat, and putting them a quintuplet 32nd afterwards seemed to me to make them less abrupt.)
However, I now think of it as a mistake to imagine them in this way -- or even to think of them as a 'turn' at all! That's because I now take Mozart's slurs much more seriously as a rhythmic device, and so read the 64ths in this case as a premature beginning of the second half of the bar rather than as a pendant to the first half. The slur over the 64ths then serves to 'kill off' the second beat of the 6/8 bar, tilting the perception of the melodic line towards one rather than two units, not by the mechanism of legato connection, but by the mechanism of unequal division of the bar. So I now play them as a BEGINNING -- and moreover, in time.
And what THAT means is that the degree of decay of the first note is more available as an expressive device in clarinet and viola, since the end of the first note doesn't have to match the beginning of the gruppetto.
This viewpoint provides an explanation of why Mozart went to the trouble of writing all those 64ths throughout the piece. He needed to start his slur where they started.
It's interesting that the abrupt fortes in the clarinet and viola in bars 16, 18 and 20, which have always felt to me and others a bit out of place, don't appear in Mozart's MS. They may have been added by an editor seeking to tidy up the clarinet and viola dynamics to match the forte in the fortepiano; THAT forte of course has the effect of minimising the fast decay of that instrument, so that its gruppetto isn't completely separated from the first beat.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-06-12 07:53
I was hoping you might comment on this, Tony. Come to think of it, I used to have the recording you made of this piece (with the Nash Ensemble, coupled with the Schumann Fantasiestuecke and Maerchenerzaelungen) on vinyl. Can't remember how the 64ths sounded on that, or would that have been before you changed your thoughts about it being the end of a beat to it being a prefix to the second beat?
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-06-17 09:13
Tony-
I have read your post and am having a little trouble imagining how you would play it.
For the Mozart, If you were to set it to a metronome, when do you play the first F? And, Do you give the 16th note F it's full value?
Also, would you play the rhythm in the Kuffner the same as you would the Mozart??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-06-17 11:04
Skygardener wrote:
>> I have read your post and am having a little trouble imagining how you would play it. For the Mozart, If you were to set it to a metronome, when do you play the first F? And, Do you give the 16th note F it's full value?>>
I just play it as written, actually.
>> Also, would you play the rhythm in the Kuffner the same as you would the Mozart??>>
Well, you can't, can you? That's because the 64ths in the Mozart are just before a main beat, so the situation is different.
However, although I originally made no connection between the Kuffner and the Mozart -- instead just responding to Vanessa's introduction of the topic -- it now does strike me that what you suggest in your first example LOOKS very different to what is written. In fact, what is written looks much more like the Mozart.
Therefore, though I agree with the spirit of the first example, it would be very possible to play the triplet both faster and later, depending on the musical effect required. (The quavers, I think, need to remain unaltered, and be played as in the example.)
There is a little more to say -- to do with the connection between the ornament and the previous note: why do we assume it must be very legato? -- but I need to drive to Glyndebourne to hear the Faerie Queen dress rehearsal:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-06-17 12:12
Well, what a dedicated musician and supportive colloeague you are, Tony. I would not have imagined many musicians who are as busy as you taking the time and trouble to do this (although I'm sure it would be an enjoyable experience when you get there too).
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-06-18 13:03
I understand the references made to Baroque performances practices, but I am rather unconvinced for one reason. This is not a symbol. It is not a symbol that one interprets as being 3 fast notes and one longer note. These are 4 small notes, written out as having the same length, but everyone plays them as 3 fast notes and one longer one.
It seems that people see these 4 equally written notes, assumes that "Mozart really meant such and such a symbol", and then go to a chart that J.S. Bach made to find out how to play that symbol.
I am simply asking if there is any historic validation for this sort of guess. (I think this is a valid question for a field where people write huge texts on when/why to play a trill from the top and when/why from the bottom.  )
--
Tony quoted me-
>> I have read your post and am having a little trouble imagining how you would play it. For the Mozart, If you were to set it to a metronome, when do you play the first F? And, Do you give the 16th note F it's full value?>>
And wrote-
"I just play it as written, actually."
--
I am really not sure how that is possible. Without the ornament it is of course a simple rhythm- add the ornament and you must take time away from one of the two notes in the beat. So, do you advise cutting the dotted eighth shorter? If so, by how much?? Also, do you play all four notes equally or unequally to eachother?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oliver sudden
Date: 2009-06-18 13:33
Er, the Mozart turn Tony was talking about was from the beginning of the 'Kegelstatt' trio - there it's written out in full, with no grace-notes and thus nothing to take away from the beat. (As opposed to the turn written out in grace-notes in the slow movement of the clarinet concerto.)
To me it's clear that the grace-notes are another way of notating the 'turn' symbol, where the tradition seems to have been to play it as your original example 1. I don't think I can find a contemporary source (or 'old codger' if you prefer) which (who) spells out exactly that, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-06-18 21:52
"Er, the Mozart turn Tony was talking about was from the beginning of the 'Kegelstatt' trio"
-Oh... Okay.
"To me it's clear that the grace-notes are another way of notating the 'turn' symbol, where the tradition seems to have been to play it as your original example 1."
- That's where my question is pointed. We are just guessing that this written-out ornament represents a turn symbol that represents an unequal performance of 4 notes. If that were so, would not Mozart have written out the ornament as 4 unequal notes??
And drawing from that idea-
Maybe that turn symbol we are thinking about had a different meaning for Mozart than it did for Bach???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
