Author: clariknight
Date: 2009-08-28 21:29
Thank you for bringing this up. This is an excellent way to explain the differences in the way Mozart wrote his concerto versus the way, say, Brahms wrote his (clarinet) sonatas. It has made me think in a more academically musical way, which is something that the summer has robbed me of any ability to do. As to your prompt for conversation, I will make an attempt to keep up with the vast knowledge that others are sure to have.
To begin, I believe we must consider historical factors: i.e. how the piece was originally played by Stadler, how it has been played since, and how clarinetists today view it. It is, of course, not only impossible to know how Stadler played it, but also - because it is impossible to lump together the players of any one time period as viewing in the same way - to completely understand how the piece is or was understood by the people of any time period. So this brings me to wonder whether or not it would be impossible to truly decide whether or not the piece should or could have been "prescriptive" - perhaps never entirely but possibly more so than we believe it to be today? Stadler and Mozart would of course been in communication during the time the piece was being written, so is it not possible that they decided upon ways to play it between them, without Mozart ever having written any of it down? This is all speculative and based upon no real grounds, other than the fact that Mozart was close to his death when the piece was written. Perhaps there was not time to make any changes?
Another point that comes to mind is that the original autograph no longer exists. Mozart may have written more prescriptive markings on that version than the one published later for the regular (non basset) clarinet.
This has all been speculative and perhaps a bit side stepped, but I think it is important to consider these possibilities when deciphering why we cannot make this piece prescriptive. I think this next part may be more closely related to the original subject.
The concerto is one of the oldest pieces for clarinet. Written in 1791, it has had a lifespan of countless concerts and recordings spanning over two hundred years. How many clarinetists have played it, each of whom has their own sound, musical mind, and most importantly, idea of articulations and emphasis? Without clear markings as to how it "should" be played, over all this time it would be nearly impossible for it not to have evolved. And now, over two hundred years later, we look back (and thanks to the magic of recording, listen back) to how it has been played, each time slightly (or more than slightly) differently, and see that there is no mass grouping of the way it is interpreted, not even close. So it becomes impossible to make it prescriptive - to do so would be contradictory of over two centuries of history.
Well, if none of that makes sense, at least I hope I haven't made myself a fool with Tony Pay watching .
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
