 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-03 19:22
The other day after salzo started a thread about the Brahms Sonatas, I got to thinking about Brahms and Mühlfeld. It sort of occurred to me that while there is a lot of talk about Mühlfeld's playing having inspired Brahms to write his clarinet music, it tends to focus on Mühlfeld himself and speculating as to what HE sounded like as a player. A lot of that seems to be based on less-than-meaningful hearsay (such as Brahms' calling Mühlfeld "Fräulein Klarinette") and some biographical facts of questionable significance, combined with some kind stylistic extrapolation from Brahms' works.
What surprises me is that not so much gets said about what it was Mühlfeld was actually playing that first caught Brahms' attention. It surprises me, in particular, because most of us instrumentalists play lots of different styles of music. If someone was inspired by an Eddie Daniels performance or a Richard Stoltzman performance, for example, it would clearly make a difference whether what they heard was a jazz tune or the Mozart Concerto.
As it turns out, we know from the historical record that there was a particular piece that Brahms heard Mühlfeld play that made him fall in love with Mühlfeld's playing: Weber's Concerto No. 1. It was his performance of that piece with the Meiningen Orchestra in March of 1891 that prompted Brahms to write to Clara Schumann that "nobody can play the clarinet more beautifully than Herr Mühlfeld." (see Eric Hoeprich, "The Clarinet," p. 193).
That wasn't the last time Mühlfeld played Weber 1 for Brahms & Co., either. As Clara Schumann wrote in her diary entry for February 16, 1895, "Mühlfeld played for us the Weber f-minor concerto that we took a great interest in. He played it most beautifully..." (my translation--see B. Litzmann, "Clara Schumann und ihre Freunde," p. 595 for the original German)
So keeping this in mind, I went back for another listen for Brahms' Sonata No. 1 the other day and it began to occur to me that the piece was likely at least as inspired by Weber's Concerto No. 1 as it was by Mühlfeld himself. For one thing, the Brahms Sonatas and Weber Concertos have the obvious similarity of being written in the same respective keys--No. 1 in f-minor, No. 2 in Eb-Major.
Another interesting thing I noticed was that the opening three notes of the first movement in the piano, which seem to constitute the main thematic element of the piece, are basically an inversion of the first three notes in the clarinet part to the first movement of Weber's Concerto No. 1, which starts by going down a fourth then up a step (Brahms goes up a fourth, then down a second--with diatonic intervals in a minor key, of course, so the intervals change size slightly depending on whether you're going up or down, but it's still a 4th followed by a 2nd, however you slice it) This same three note figure shows up all over the place in this Sonata in various forms. In fact, in the 3rd movement of the Sonata, although Brahms tinkers with the intervals a little (using 3rds instead of 4ths), he, at the same time, plays essentially the same 3 note theme (it's recognizable as such, anyway) and its inversion back-to-back, as if to clue the listener in to the fact that the original 3 note theme from the first movement is actually an inversion of something else.
(The initial line played by the *clarinet* in the first movement of the Brahms 1st Sonata, on the other hand, most closely resembles Beethoven's Appassionata sonata, which is also in f-minor, starts with the same notes as the clarinet part in Brahms, and also like the Brahms 1st movement [Allegro appassionata], makes frequent use of Neapolitan chords in its opening. We all know Brahms had a special affinity for Beethoven, so who says he couldn't have had more than one inspiration for this movement?)
Other similarities in the first movement include the dramatic use of dotted rhythms (the eighth-eighth-dotted eighth-sixteenth rhythmic theme), which is suggestive of the orchestral introduction to the Weber Concerto and the dramatic use of subito fortes early on in both pieces. The first movements of both pieces also include flashy upward runs (a Weber trademark) and end in relatively quiet codas. The first movements of both pieces are also in 3 (beats per measure, that is).
The second movement of the Sonata is rhythmically similar to the Weber 1 second movement, and once you get past the pickup notes, actually starts on the same tone (although it's in a different key).
The fourth movement of the Sonata also seems to be modeled after Weber 1. Rhythmically and metrically (2/2 vs. 2/4), it's very similar to the 3rd movement of the Weber Concerto No. 1 (especially the repeated eighth notes at the end of the clarinet's initial main phrase in the opening of the Brahms movement (following the introduction), which resemble the little 16th note figures at the end of the clarinet's first phrase in the Weber movement. Like the last movement of the Weber, it's in the same key (F Major), and it also has a middle section in which the main theme is restated in the minor key before returning to the major key.
So the Sonata No. 1 by Brahms and the Concerto No. 1 by Weber seem to be patterned after each other to some extent--at least to me they seem that way. I've never seen anyone else try to compare these two pieces like that before--I doubt I'm the first--but I thought the apparent similarities I found between the two pieces were interesting enough to mention.
Post Edited (2010-02-03 20:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2010-02-03 20:14
That is a very interesting analysis. From reading your analysis, I can certainly hear and see a connection between the clarinet works you speak of.
i am going to be thinking about this for awhile.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2010-02-03 23:10
Kudos to you for your scholarship and insight! I am re-examining my approach to all of works you cite, based on your research.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-04 06:47
mrn- Brahms was certainly influences by the works that Mühlfeld played, especially Mozart's clarinet quintet, which provided a structural model for Brahms's own. But I do find some of the connections that you found between Weber's first concerto and Brahms's F minor sonata to be a bit of a "stretch".
Firstly, when Brahms first heard Mühlfeld, he didn't rush off and write the sonatas- he first wrote the trio and quintet. Three years passed before he started writing the sonatas.
Regarding the opening three notes of the Brahms, I think it is the opening 4 notes which present the main thematic material. The falling 3-note figure which comes after the rising 4th (F-Eflat-Dflat) is what gets developed by Brahms in this and other movements, so we can't just take the first 3 notes of the theme as being "the theme". Weber's opening motive in the clarinet line is a diminished 4th followed by a semitone, whereas Brahms's is made up of a perfect 4th followed by a whole tone, so this is not even a proper inversion.
Dotted rhythms must surely have been used in hundreds of thousands of first movements in the 19th century, so I can't really buy this as being a meaningful correlation between the two works. They both use dotted rhythms as parts of themes which have no resemblance to each other whatsoever.
The upward flourishing runs which are so typical of Weber's clarinet writing are usually scale passages, but the the few fast bits in Brahms's clarinet part are arpeggios.
Regarding the 2nd movements, I just can't see what you're talking about. They are not rhythmically similar at all. They also don't start on the same tone- Brahms start on F natural (the dominant) and the Weber, after the A-D pickup notes, starts on F-sharp (the major third).
Regarding the final movement statement of the main theme in the minor key in the middle section, I think you'll find that this is really quite common in 19th century rondo finales.
As you showed yourself, it's possible to find connections between all kinds of different pieces (Brahms F minor- Beethoven appassionata for example) But to say that the F minor sonata was patterned after Weber's first concerto is really pushing it, in my opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-04 21:09
Liquorice wrote:
> Firstly, when Brahms first heard Mühlfeld, he didn't rush off
> and write the sonatas- he first wrote the trio and quintet.
> Three years passed before he started writing the sonatas.
I know that, but I still think it's possible that the piece was in his mind (or its salient stylistic features, at least). We also know that Brahms asked Mühlfeld to play through his repertoire privately on other occasions, no doubt including a repeat performance of Weber 1. As late as 1895, Clara Schumann describes the Weber Concerto #1 as "the Weber f-minor concerto that interested us greatly." So I doubt Brahms simply forgot about it.
I found the little similarities between between the two pieces personally interesting, which is why I brought them up, but I think whether Brahms was consciously trying to model Sonata No. 1 after Weber's Concerto No. 1 is really much less important than the idea that Brahms' having been inspired by Mühlfeld's playing really ought to be thought of in terms of the musical context in which Brahms heard Mühlfeld play, rather than just in terms of quotes and anecdotes.
A lot of writers seem to conclude, from Brahms' description of Mühlfeld's playing in very feminine terms, that Mühlfeld had a gentle and sensitive manner of playing. And he was probably very capable of producing that kind of sound/expression. But I'm beginning to think that Brahms was perhaps more intrigued by the capacity for dramatic playing offered by the clarinet--the clarinet as the "prima donna" of the woodwind choir.
This was the sort of thing that Weber really understood about the clarinet, perhaps better than any other composer of major solo works for clarinet. The Mozart Concerto has some dramatic moments in it and Mozart certainly knew how to write music that sounded great on the clarint clarinet, to be sure, but I feel many of the main themes of the Mozart (such as the opening theme) might have well been written for oboe as clarinet--the light classical style would have suited either instrument. The opening of Weber 1, on the other hand, is far too dramatic for any other wind instrument to handle, in my opinion.
My feeling is that if Brahms was so impressed by Mühlfeld's Weber 1, it must have been because Mühlfeld did an exceptionally good job at capturing the style and feeling of Weber. In that case, I would would expect Brahms, in composing for Mühlfeld, to try to write at least some material that would showcase those qualities Brahms was so impressed with in that first Weber performance.
As with television and the movies, you can have an all-star cast, but it takes good writing to have a good performance. If Brahms felt burnt out and out of ideas before hearing Mühlfeld play, surely he found at least some level of inspiration in the music Mühlfeld played so well.
That's not to say that he necessarily consciously took material from Weber to write the Sonata No. 1, but I'd be really surprised if he didn't try to emulate some of the stylistic features of the Weber piece. In the process, I would also not be surprised if he happened to borrow a little bit of thematic material as well.
> Regarding the opening three notes of the Brahms, I think it is
> the opening 4 notes which present the main thematic material.
> The falling 3-note figure which comes after the rising 4th
> (F-Eflat-Dflat) is what gets developed by Brahms in this and
> other movements, so we can't just take the first 3 notes of the
> theme as being "the theme".
There are places where the little 3-note skip-up and step down motive figures prominently in the piece. For instance, starting in bar 13 in the clarinet part, you see the same pattern in quarter notes twice, then in bar 15 in eighth notes (although the 4th is compressed to a third for harmonic reasons).
> Weber's opening motive in the
> clarinet line is a diminished 4th followed by a semitone,
> whereas Brahms's is made up of a perfect 4th followed by a
> whole tone, so this is not even a proper inversion.
But bar 13 in the clarinet part IS a diminished 4th followed by a semitone. I don't think Brahms was trying to do a Schoenberg-type inversion of absolute intervals in the chromatic scale. Brahms, like Weber, was writing diatonically using the melodic minor. If you think about it in those terms, it's simply a fourth up and a second down. In bar 13, it's a diminished 4th because you have an F# in the rising part of the g-minor scale being played over dominant harmony (so it's the leading tone). In bar 14, on the other hand, the F is natural because you're going down the melodic minor scale. It's just like playing diatonic scales in thirds--some of the thirds are going to major 3rds and some minor.
In any case, I think it's the basic contour that makes more difference here. As I said, in the 3rd movement (well, and parts of the first movement, for that matter), he creates the same sort of figure using 3rds instead of 4ths. I could hear a similarity between these figures before I really stopped to think about what specific intervals they were, so I don't really know that it matters a whole lot that Brahms varies them up here and there--the musical idea is still conceptually the same and readily perceived as such (at least I find that it is).
> Dotted rhythms must surely have been used in hundreds of
> thousands of first movements in the 19th century, so I can't
> really buy this as being a meaningful correlation between the
> two works. They both use dotted rhythms as parts of themes
> which have no resemblance to each other whatsoever.
Yes, but I think the way the dotted rhythms are used here resembles the way they are used in the Weber 1st Concerto opening from a stylistic point of view. It's a steady beat of 8ths followed by 16ths.
> The upward flourishing runs which are so typical of Weber's
> clarinet writing are usually scale passages, but the the few
> fast bits in Brahms's clarinet part are arpeggios.
True, but does that really matter in terms of the effect on the listener? In both cases, you have acceleratingly rapid upward flourishes. Just because Brahms wrote his as arpeggios doesn't mean that the intended aesthetic effect was all that different or that Brahms wasn't inspired to write passages like that from listening to Weber.
> Regarding the 2nd movements, I just can't see what you're
> talking about. They are not rhythmically similar at all.
If looking at individual notes, no. But overall, in terms of general effect, I think they are. Both move in a similar, almost processional way and their phrase lengths and harmonic rhythms more or less coincide.
> They
> also don't start on the same tone- Brahms start on F natural
> (the dominant) and the Weber, after the A-D pickup notes,
> starts on F-sharp (the major third).
Well, you got me there. That was a silly mistake, now wasn't it? I guess my brain went out to lunch for a moment.
> Regarding the final movement statement of the main theme in the
> minor key in the middle section, I think you'll find that this
> is really quite common in 19th century rondo finales.
I'll take your word for it that it is--it doesn't seem all that unusual a thing to do, anyway. Nonetheless, it is one of a number of similarities between the final movements of both pieces, the most striking being the rhythmic resemblance of the main theme.
I'll readily concede that any sort of detailed comparative analysis of individual features of these works is going to yield a lot of highly debatable points, especially if we're talking about whether a particular passage was adapted from Weber by Brahms. On the other hand, if we're thinking in more general terms, I think there are enough little similarities here and there between the pieces to suggest that there may be some interpretational merit (however little it may be) in viewing these pieces in terms of their relation to Weber's clarinet works.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-04 21:11
LarryBocaner wrote:
<<Kudos to you for your scholarship and insight! I am re-examining my approach to all of works you cite, based on your research.>>
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-04 22:11
mrn- I will buy your theory that Brahms was influenced by the pieces presented by Mühlfeld as a showcase for his actual playing. However, I still disagree with some of the similarities that you find between the two works. I'm not sure if it's really worth debating them here, because perhaps it boils down to whether one wants to hear these similarities or not?! (for example- the upwards flourishes sound similar to you but certainly don't to me)
I think it's possible to associate musical works together which don't really have anything to do with one other. I mean- I could claim that the final movement of the F minor sonata was influenced by the opening of Beethoven's 5th symphony, because both works feature a repeated 3-note motive. Or I could claim that the opening melody of the 2nd movement of Brahms's clarinet quintet is a transposed quote of the first 3 notes of the Mozart quintet. But I doubt anyone would agree with me. Some of you're associations are at least more reasonable.
But I have to disagree again with your idea about the first 3 notes constituting a significant motive. We probably agree that the whole of the opening theme is 4 bars long. But I maintain that it is the first FOUR notes which make the motive so distinctive, and it is this 4-note motive which Brahms develops. In fact, so dense is his writing, that he develops the 4-note motive immediately as the following notes (5-8) in the opening theme. The intervals are changed a little, but the contour of rising one interval and dropping two is maintained. This 4-note motive is developed throughout the piece. Bar 13 starts the 4-note motive, but is interrupted by a statement of the first 8 notes of the opening theme (i.e. the 4-note motive twice- at least, that's how I hear it!). Even your example of bars 69-70 in the 3rd movement is a 4-note (not 3-note) motive. The final resolution and ultimately satisfying statement of the 4-note motive comes in the final cadence right at the end of the 4th movement in the piano part (middle of bar 214 to bar 216). If it was a 3-note motive then the piece wouldn't finish, and we'd all be left hanging on the dominant chord!
The reason I'm harping on about the fact that I see this as a 4-note motive is because as a 4-note motive it can no longer be seen as an inversion of the opening theme of Weber's concerto. The fact that you see this is (IMO) an imposed similarity, rather like my Beethoven 5 example.
Incidentally, my teacher believed that the op.120 sonatas should be performed as a unit because of the motivic correspondences between the two sonatas. But that's another discussion entirely...
Post Edited (2010-02-04 22:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2010-02-04 22:13
mrn wrote:
"My feeling is that if Brahms was so impressed by Mühlfeld's Weber 1, it must have been because Mühlfeld did an exceptionally good job at capturing the style and feeling of Weber. In that case, I would would expect Brahms, in composing for Mühlfeld, to try to write at least some material that would showcase those qualities Brahms was so impressed with in that first Weber performance."
I'm not to sure about that. Why? Because I get the impression that Muhlfeld would have played the Weber Concerto very much in the style of the period. You suggest that Muhlfeld would have done research into Weber's style etc. We all know that Carl Baermann published his versions of Weber's works and my guess is that Muhlfeld would have been more familiar with those than with Weber's original text. So I feel that Brahms wrote his works purely on the merit of Muhlfeld's playing and not that of the Weber Concerto.
I don't see or hear any of Weber's stylistic features in Brahms' Sonatas. Weber is all about opera and the coloratura which he transferred into his instrumental works. Brahms is about introverted passion and Muhlfeld's sensitive playing would have struck a chord with him. I doubt that Brahms was interested in exploring the "prima-dona" capabilities of the clarinet. If he was he would have done so, I believe, in his symphonies amongst other things. All the major spots for the clarinet are beautiful expansive melodies that have no virtuosic elements to them.
I like your thinking but I have to say I don't agree. I think you are confusing Brahms and Weber's styles. Brahms' music is far deeper than that of any of Weber's concerti. It's very easy to see musical similarities just like it is easy to find predictions in Moby-Dick.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-05 03:17
cigleris wrote:
> I'm not to sure about that. Why? Because I get the impression
> that Muhlfeld would have played the Weber Concerto very much in
> the style of the period. You suggest that Muhlfeld would have
> done research into Weber's style etc.
No, I would not have expected him to have done research into the performance practices of Weber's day. And even in Baermann's editions, the dramatic character of Weber's clarinet writing shows through. (in fact, to the extent I'm familiar with them, I'd say Baermann's editions are rather exaggeratedly dramatic)
> I don't see or hear any of Weber's stylistic features in
> Brahms' Sonatas. Weber is all about opera and the coloratura
> which he transferred into his instrumental works. Brahms is
> about introverted passion and Muhlfeld's sensitive playing
> would have struck a chord with him.
Many of Brahms' works are like that, to be sure, but I'm questioning whether the conventional wisdom about Mühlfeld's playing is really that accurate. The usual logic goes something like...Brahms' music is generally introverted, sensitive and complex, Brahms liked Mühlfeld's playing, therefore Mühlfeld must have had a style to him that resembled Brahms' music. In other words, we think we know what Mühlfeld must have been like based on what we know about Brahms' general style.
I am challenging that line of reasoning by asking whether we really should be looking at this from the other direction--so rather than assuming that Mühlfeld must have had a playing style suited to Brahms music, I question whether we really ought to be asking what it was about Mühlfeld's playing that was so new and different to Brahms as to inspire him to take up composing again. About all we really know about Mühlfeld--or so it seems from what I've read--is *what* he played that Brahms liked so much. Mühlfeld didn't start out as an interpreter of Brahms' music--he made his initial impression on Brahms by playing Weber.
My point is that perhaps we can infer some things about Mühlfeld's playing (and about the pieces Brahms wrote for him) from what it is that Brahms thought he played so well. That's not to say that the Brahms Sonatas are specifically written in "the Weber style," because they're not. But I do think it's worth considering the possibility that Brahms was inspired by the manner in which Weber used the clarinet to take these compositions in a somewhat different direction from many of his previous compositions.
I think what you see in Brahms' clarinet works is an amalgamation of different musical ideas that draws not only from Brahms own compositional style, but also from Weber and Mozart's treatment of the instrument. I hadn't seen the Weber influence so much in the past, but I feel I can see it more clearly now.
I also think Brahms was more than a one-trick pony stylistically. This was the same Brahms who wrote the Hungarian Dances, after all.
> I doubt that Brahms was
> interested in exploring the "prima-dona" capabilities of the
> clarinet. If he was he would have done so, I believe, in his
> symphonies amongst other things. All the major spots for the
> clarinet are beautiful expansive melodies that have no
> virtuosic elements to them.
I disagree. I think that, through Mühlfeld's performances, Brahms saw new expressive possibilities in the clarinet that he had not previously considered. I think Mühlfeld opened his eyes to a new way of looking at the instrument. Consequently, I would not expect Brahms' earlier works to necessarily reflect his new conception of the instrument, as influenced by Mühlfeld.
I think it is also worth noting that Brahms himself referred to Mühlfeld as his "prima donna." Now a lot of writers interpret that to be a reference to feminine qualities of Mühlfeld's playing, gentleness and sensitivity, based on their understanding of the works Brahms composed for him. However, I think that it could as easily also refer to an operatic quality to Mühlfeld's playing, which one would expect to hear in a well-executed interpretation of Weber's works.
> I like your thinking but I have to say I don't agree. I think
> you are confusing Brahms and Weber's styles. Brahms' music is
> far deeper than that of any of Weber's concerti.
I don't think I have the two composers' styles confused. I think I have a pretty decent grasp of both composers' styles, and I understand what you are saying. Further, Brahms' music is definitely more sophisticated than Weber's is--I do not dispute that. But I'm also not trying to say that Brahms tried to copy Weber's style wholesale. All I'm saying is that I think Brahms heard something in Weber's clarinet music--as interpreted by Mühlfeld--that was a source of inspiration to him and that he was able to adapt for his own purposes, much as in our own time so many pop/rock musicians have found inspiration in the works of Stockhausen, for example.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2010-02-06 21:30
Hello,
I wrote a paper for my first semester of doctoral work last semester on Brahms and Muhlfeld. From my research, Brahms had spent time in Italy before his meeting (they had met previously, but Brahms evidently didn't pay much attention the first time). Brahms simply didn't like the sound Italians were making on clarinets at the time. When he heard Muhlfeld after hearing the Italian sound, I believe he was impressed with Muhlfeld's sound more than anything else. Muhlfeld played on a clarinet designed by Baermann and constructed by Georg Ottensteiner. It really was the precursor to the modern day German system clarinet, with improved keywork and the bore that is so different than the French system, with resulting difference of sound. Additionally, performance practice of the day for string and wind players dictated less vibrato than is used today (this I learned from an interesting journal article where the writer analyzed recordings from people that played with or who were students of Joachim, the violinist whose quartet premiered the Brahms Quintet with Muhlfed). However, Muhlfeld used a pronounced vibrato, so his sound would have been considerably different than what Brahms associated with the clarinet and quite unique because of his vibrato usage.
It is true that Muhlfeld played Weber, but he also played Mozart (the quintet) in the meeting with Brahms. I don't wish to argue that Brahms wasn't influenced by Weber, but I would guess that he was more influenced by Mozart, as his first two compositions were the Trio (like Mozart's trio, albeit slightly different instrumentation) and the Quintet (there are an amazing number of similiarities between the two quintets).
An interesting book called "Richard Muhlfeld, Brahm's Clarinetist" by Marin Goltz and Herta Muller deals with this subject, as does Dr. James Fay's dissertation from Peabody Conservatory from the 1990s.
It's a very interesting topic, in my opinion.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-07 07:47
Ben, do you have any other source to show that Mühlfeld played with vibrato, other than Jack Brymer's much quoted claim? (I'm not saying he didn't, we all know he used to play violin etc. etc. I was just wondering if you had any actual information on this)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-07 17:39
Liquorice wrote:
> Ben, do you have any other source to show that Mühlfeld played
> with vibrato, other than Jack Brymer's much quoted claim?
I have a personal theory on this, too, which I have been looking for more support for. Brymer's source was recalling a performance of the Quintet and made specific reference to the "gypsy" section of the Adagio movement. The quote from Brymer's book that everybody cites went something like "He had a fiery technique and a big vbrato."
Click here and crank down to the last post to read the original quote from Brymer's book: http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=17859&t=17770
A lot of people have interpreted that quote to mean that Mühlfeld always played with a wide vibrato (including in Weber and Mozart and everything else Brahms wrote for him). In reality, though, even if we believe Brymer's source, the most we can really say (based solely on that source--maybe Ben has another, for instance) is that Mühlfeld used vibrato on that particular occasion.
Now here's the twist: I ran across another article last year which indicated that in an early reading of the Quintet, Brahms gave an instruction to the ensemble to use vibrato *specifically in the gypsy section* to give it a mysterious feel.
The article is here: http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/brahms/brahms.htm
This suggests that perhaps Mühlfeld employed vibrato in the performance of the Quintet reported by Brymer's source, but only in the gypsy section of the second movement. That would also explain why Brymer's source referred to a fiery technique and wide vibrato in the same breath--he was recalling that particular section of the piece, which is not only the only part of the piece where the term "fiery" would seem to apply, but also the part of the piece where the clarinet most comes to the fore. (Incidentally, if Mühlfeld was the great interpreter of Weber he is reputed to have been, I would expect him to have a "fiery technique," and his best occasion to have shown it off to Brahms prior to Brahms' composing for him would likely have been in Weber's 1st Concerto.)
I have tried to follow up on this to see how reliable this story is. The article from "cello.org" cites Cobbett's Cyclopedic Survey of Chamber Music for the assertion that Brahms asked the ensemble to play with vibrato in that section as a special effect. Now Cobbett's is a well-respected source and has been around for a long time, but it's a huge two-volume treatise with multiple editions, and the "cello.org" author didn't bother to tell us where to find this story in Cobbett's, and I have yet to find it there myself.
The other issue is that the "cello.org" author said that Brahms asked "the entire quartet" to play with vibrato. Now if he had simply said "the quartet," I'd be inclined to think that he was just referring to the strings. It's only because he wrote "the entire quartet," that I am inclined to believe that he really meant "the entire quintet," including Mühlfeld.
I tried writing the author of the article to ask him for clarification, because I found an old e-mail address for him, but I never got a response, so I don't know if he didn't get my e-mail or what happened.
It wouldn't surprise me if Brahms did give that instruction, though. After all, modern day string vibrato is derived from Fritz Kreisler's violin style, which was itself influenced by gypsy violinists. If Brahms wanted to create a gypsy mood, it would have made sense to use vibrato in that spot. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to realize that it would sound a lot more gypsy-like that way.
I originally posted about this on the Klarinet list in response to some liner notes written by Jonathan Cohler. The discussion quickly degraded into word games, unfortunately. However, I later found here on the BBoard another thread from about 10 years ago in which Alphie (who has professional experience in period performance) indicated his belief that if Brymer's source is reliable, it is most likely the case that Mühlfeld used vibrato only in the gypsy section of the Quintet.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=17880&t=17880
(It was comforting to know that somebody who really knows his stuff had independently made the same observation I did.)
But in any event, even if Brymer's source is completely accurate as to his recollection of Mühlfeld's performance, in the absence of other evidence, we can't really conclude that vibrato was a normal part of Mühlfeld's playing style (as it was for Brymer himself), because all we have is a recollection of one performance of one piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2010-02-08 19:27
Hello,
I do believe that it was the Jack Brymer book, but I believe I found it, although the same story, mentioned elsewhere too. The quote was not just that he had "fiery technique and a big vibrato," but was from a violist that played the quintet with Muhlfeld. In the quote, the questioner was surprised by the violist's response so asked again (and I'm freely paraphrasing here) "did you mean rubato?", to which the violist replied "no, I meant vibrato."
Very interesting, I never considered that he only used vibrato in Brahms. The book by Herta and Muller which I referenced has all (or most) of Muhlfeld's concert programs included. He rarely played just the Brahms on a concert, usually pairing it with another piece or two. Would the violist have mentioned the vibrato if it were only used on the Brahms? I certainly don't know.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-02-08 20:53
mrn- you need to read again the quote from Brymer, for which you supplied a link: "he had a fiery technique with a warm tone -- and a big vibrato."
So, he didn't really mention the vibrato in the same breath as the fiery technique. The way it's written here come across as more of an afterthought, so I don't think you can use the quote to show a connection between the gypsy section and vibrato. Although I do agree that, if you're going to employ vibrato, then this is as good a place as any to use it.
But as Brymer himself states, later in the same paragraph in his book:
"This account, while of no authority, does as least give one food for thought"
We'll probably never know if (or how) Mühlfeld employed vibrato in his playing. This one reference to Mühlfeld's vibrato says that Mühlfeld used more vibrato than Joachim. But that isn't saying much, because all the evidence of Joachim's writings and recordings shows that he used little or no vibrato. What about all the other performance reviews of Mühlfeld? If his vibrato was so "pronounced", then why wasn't it mentioned by others? (Maybe it was, but no other mention of it seems to have come to light besides Brymer's second hand story).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-02-09 16:21
Liquorice wrote:
> So, he didn't really mention the vibrato in the same breath as
> the fiery technique. The way it's written here come across as
> more of an afterthought, so I don't think you can use the quote
> to show a connection between the gypsy section and vibrato.
Well, I agree with you that it doesn't indicate much by itself. It could mean that he used vibrato throughout the performance, or it might mean that when Mühlfeld happened to use vibrato in that one section, it was a big vibrato, much more than Joachim's and as much as the cellist's.
On the other hand, the only piece that we can be reasonably sure that Brymer's source heard Mühlfeld use vibrato in is the Quintet. We can't really say if Brymer's source was referring to Mühlfeld's general manner of playing or to only what he heard in the Quintet performance.
However, if the other source I pointed to is correct (and assuming I am interpreting it correctly), Brahms specifically gave an instruction to the ensemble to use vibrato *at that particular point* in the music. That would seem to suggest that under ordinary circumstances, we would not expect the string players or Mühlfeld to make regular use of vibrato, given that Brahms had to say something to get them to use it at that point in the music.
It would also help explain how it was that Brymer's violist had occasion to compare Mühlfeld's vibrato to that of Joachim, who (as you point out and as you can hear on YouTube) generally played without vibrato.
Of course, none of this is conclusive of anything. About all I can say with confidence is that the fact that my little hypothesis about Mühlfeld and vibrato is plausible or even merely possible means that we have to be careful not to infer too much from the violist quoted in Brymer's book. Even if Brymer's source is a reliable one, it still doesn't mean vibrato was a regular part of Mühlfeld's style, or as Brymer seems to suggest, of the style of clarinetists of that era.
> If his vibrato was so "pronounced", then why wasn't
> it mentioned by others? (Maybe it was, but no other mention of
> it seems to have come to light besides Brymer's second hand
> story).
That's a really good question. I've seen other references to Mühlfeld's tone and phrasing, but not to vibrato. For instance, p. 95 of Colin Lawson's "The Early Clarinet" (which I am viewing on Google Books, so I don't have the whole thing in front of me unfortunately--I'll have to request it through my public library to read the rest of it) mentions a number of people's impressions of Mühlfeld's playing. I won't quote the thing here because it's too long (here's a link instead). None of them mention vibrato, although they do suggest that his tone was not universally favored.
Vaughn Williams' comment (I'm assuming Lawson is referring to Ralph Vaughn Williams, who would have been in his 20s or 30s at the time he heard Mühlfeld) I find particularly interesting, because it supports my impression of Mühlfeld as a highly dramatic player well-suited as an interpreter of Weber (as opposed to the femininely sweet and gentle sort of musical personality most books portray him as--not that he couldn't be capable of both, of course, but I think it's probably a mistake to characterize Mühlfeld as ONLY sweet and gentle in style).
Post Edited (2010-02-09 16:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
