 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-10-30 19:46
Jonathan Del Mar wrote an article that appeared in Tempo (September 1984, pp. 18-26) entitled "Strauss Oboe Concerto: A re-examination of the available sources and editions". There are many (and many serious) misprints in the score and parts of this piece and the author consults 7 sources to determine what are most likely the right notes. The original manuscript is not the authoritative source. Strauss was 81 when he hand-wrote the full score and there are not only "badly-centered notes ... resulting in misreadings" but moments where "Strauss simply suffered momentary abberations - writing, beautifully neatly, notes that can only be completely erroneous."
At the end of the article Del Mar writes "Baltimore Symphony has the 1st Bb clarinet part transposed into A. If interested contact Mary Plaine." No contact info is given.
My question should be directed primarily to Ed Palanker, since he is in the Baltimore SO.
Do you know of a Mary Plaine at the BSO, or do you know of this BSO transposed part?
(Those who object to playing an orchestral part on a different clarinet to improve quality of execution and sound (something of which the composer might be in favor), please abstain for the moment.)
Thanks in advance,
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2010-10-30 19:53
I think the Melbourne Symphony also has/uses an A part for this work, i have bits of it sent out in audition material but not the whole part.
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2010-10-30 20:49
I have found it strange that Strauss used what seems the 'wrong' clarinet (both the outer movements are in D major, the slow movement shifts down to Bb major just like a downward gear change), not sure if he intended this or was advised by a clarinettist (most likely an Oehler system player) as maybe a lot of the passage work was more fluid on a Bb (Oehler system) clarinet than on an A.
'Four Last Songs' has similar clarinet usage in spite of the key signature that defies the usual logic of using an A for sharp keys and Bb for flat keys, but maybe he had his reasons.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-10-30 21:55
"but maybe he had his reasons".
I wonder this as well. I just did Petroushka, the version which has the clarinet parts in only Bb. The previous version of Petroushka has the clarinet parts written in A and Bb, according to what is most technically and sonically fluid. Did Stravinsky rewrite the A cl parts into Bb on purpose, was it an oversight on the part of the editor, or perhaps a signature cosmetic change by Stravinsky to produce a "new" edition for more royalties?
Someone on another list asked a composer why he wrote his bass clarinet part for a particular piece for bass clarinet in C. The composer replied that he intended it for bass clarinet in Bb but the publisher did not transpose it from the score in C.
Back to Petroushka, Stravinsky wanted the high clarinet duet (in the "Peasant with bear" section) played out of tune to underline the cruelty of the episode. Nobody I know plays it intentionally out of tune these days, knowing what the conductor and audience will think and what the critics will write (I remember one critic writing of an old recording "The two clarinets playing in the clarino (sic) register in the passage called The Bear were painfully out of tune".)
It could be said that everyone who plays this high section in tune is ignoring the composer's wishes, in this case perhaps more egregiously than playing a few passages on the other clarinet.
But I digress.......... I wonder as well, maybe he had his reasons.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2010-10-30 22:39
In 'Rite of Spring' Stravinsky has players on both A and Bb clarinets at the same time - just wondering if he was given some information that they may have different tonal characteristics that he wanted to employ, but as we know the tonal differences are minor when compared to Bb and Eb, or concert flute and alto flute.
Back to Strauss - I just found this clip of Heinz Holliger conducting and playing the end of the 1st movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSifK2L-HI
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-10-31 15:27
Well I must admit despite being in the BSO for my 48th year I don't remember us doing the Strauss Oboe concerto but then again I can't remember what we played last week so I'm sure we did it at some point. I probably didn't play it anyway. Mary Plain is the BSOs librarian. I will try to remember to ask her next week if we have the transposed part in our library for you but I know at this time they are incredibly busy so I'm a bit reluctant to ask her to try to find it to make a copy. I will ask but it may take some time, you can't believe how much work they have at this time of the year.
As far as transposing parts to another clarinet, players do that all the time. We just did Pertroushka, the small version using Bb clarinet, but the 1st and 2nd transposed some of the sections to the A clarinet as is in the original version. As a matter of fact it is not uncommon for us to switch clarinets in any given piece to play a certain passage on the opposite clarinet if it makes the passage more fluent or easier to play. No one ever knows other then us, no one. I have yet to hear a conductor say to any of us, shouldn't that be on the --- clarinet? . We play C parts of the Bb clarinet, sometimes on the A, we play D parts on the Eb clarinet, and I even play the D clarinet parts in the 3rd and bass part of Mahler's 5th on my Bb clarinet, they're in tutti passages though so timbre can't be recognized other wise I'd do it on the Eb. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-10-31 16:26
Thank-you for you sane post, Ed. I don't think people realize how much repertoire orchestral clarinetists have to plough through. Why spend many extra hours practicing passages that will remain perilous in concert, when you can play those passages comfortably on the other clarinet *with nobody noticing the timbral difference*?
When players from larger orchestras (yourself from BSO and Greg Smith from CSO) weigh in on the subject of transposing difficult orchestral passages onto the other clarinet, I notice fewer replies containing philosophical and moral arguments against transposing, as though your opinions carry more weight.
Thank-you for your input.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-10-31 17:31
Tony - My opinion here is restricted to modern instruments in modern orchestras in modern halls. Don't you think the intrinsic tone in modern clarinets has become homogenized to the point where timbral difference is indistinguishable in the modern hall?
With regard to period instruments I feel completely differently, but for this thread I'm only talking about modern conditions, with their modern attitudes and modern exigencies.
(I realize "Don't kid yourself'" was probably referring to the last bit about opinions carrying more weight).
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2010-10-31 18:16
Simon: Some years back, I wrote out the Strauss for A clarinet, and you'd be welcome to a copy - would you like me to email you a pdf?
As for the debate on using the "proper" instrument, yes there is a difference in sound between Bflat and A, but generally less than the difference between players (or even different mouthpieces and reeds). And even if the composer really had a knowledgeable desire for a particular instrument, sometimes it's worth overriding this. The slow movement solo in Shostakovich 5 is a case in point: the A-clarinet original is full of unresonant side-key accidentals, and it never sounds as well in tune as on the Bflat. I used to feel guilty for playing it swapped in this way, but was reassured to see the BBC symphony principal do the same thing in the proms this year.
Similarly with the Strauss. I've heard really good players try and fail to bring off the descending B major runs in the 1st movement, whereas on the A clarinet you can give C major runs the zip that Strauss must have wanted, and match what the oboe's doing. I think bringing such effects off 100% is worth the change in tone colour.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-10-31 18:57
Well I swore off reading Tony Pay's comments years ago but this one was so short I couldn't miss it as I went down the posts. "Don't kid your self". I think Simon answered him adequately.
Today so many players have diversified tone qualities, one bright, one dark, one full one small, one with vibrato, one without. Unless you heard the same player play the same passage on one clarinet and then the other, one right after the other, very few people, if any at all, would know if they're playing it on a Bb or A clarinet. And if a player already gets a brighter sound I doubt one can even tell if they changed to a C clarinet as well. There are so many players today in the major orchestra's that get such different tone qualities that one will sound fuller and darker on their Bb then another will sound on their A. And with conductors doing so much guest conducting they are the last one's to notice, or even care, if a player is playing on their A or Bb or even C clarinet. I stand by what I said. In my 48 years in the BSO, a major orchestra, a conductor had NEVER asked one of us which instrument we're playing on, Bb, A, C Eb or D. That goes for when I transpose all my A bass parts on Bb since I never did own an A bass clarinet. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-10-31 19:12
Simon wrote:
>> I realize "Don't kid yourself'" was probably referring to the last bit about opinions carrying more weight. >>
Yes, that, really.
I wondered whether to add a smiley at the time, but thought that I had a serious public point to make, and so preferred to rely on your good nature:-)
This thread also gives me an opportunity to clear up something about this subject that I feel I never really nailed.
I went on record as saying, "Whether or not to play on the instrument the composer wrote for is a MORAL question," and I think that I may have been interpreted as saying quite the opposite of what I intended by that statement.
For me, if you take the view that deciding between two or more courses has an 'easy' answer -- if it's clear, according to you, what the 'right' thing to do is -- then it's not a moral question. If on the other hand making the decision involves judgement, and one is pulled in different directions by competing arguments, then it IS a moral question. That means that morality is not to be captured by rule-following, even though rule-following -- particularly when it's difficult to follow the rules -- may be a useful interim exercise in developing a moral sense.
Saying that something is a moral question also, to my mind, carries the implication that it's a question that we do well to take seriously. Here's an example from the period instrument world: some owners and collectors of original instruments -- especially wind instruments -- take the view that those instruments should never be played. If you want to recreate the sound world of the past, they say, MAKE COPIES. It is wrong to risk damaging valuable historical specimens for the sake of performances that are merely 'ephemeral'.
One of the reasons that we loved Nick Shackleton was that he understood that all music -- ALL our work -- is ephemeral; and he therefore took a different attitude, and was willing to balance his love for his wonderful collection of clarinets against his sense that they should fulfil their original function.
He decided to deal with requests to borrow instruments on a case-by-case basis -- which amounts, I would say, to treating such requests as 'moral questions'. And, you could see that he didn't do it lightly.
So, in Nick's spirit, I -- and you, I suggest:-) -- don't just play something on the 'wrong' clarinet, modern or period, without a moment's thought. We consider the matter, weigh both the evidence AND the consequences, and make up our minds -- sometimes one way, sometimes the other. That's all.
As to the big orchestra/period band question: I find that there are some stupid, dogmatic period players, and some wonderful, thoughtful big orchestral players.
AND THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-10-31 19:18
Thanks for your response John.
>I used to feel guilty for playing it swapped in this way
I used to feel guilty as well. But through experience with my contemporary ensemble I have learned that composers of today don't care about Bb/A interchangeability. I have talked with scores of composers about this very notion and not one has had strong feelings about it. Some composers give me strange looks like why would they care.
Once I premiered a concerto in Amsterdam and there was a very high, fiendishly difficult passage. When I redid the concerto in Montreal I rewrote the passage for Eb clarinet without asking the composer. Those who champion effacement of the performer before the colossus of the printed page would have me burned at the stake. But the composer was alight after the performance, saying that transposing that section onto Eb clarinet was a great improvement.
There are other, real-world considerations when playing a part on an instrument that makes for more reliable execution. I had 2 weeks to learn that concerto and another week before the Montreal performance. The Montreal performance was recorded and the composer sent me the recording and said if I approve the recording they are going to release it on cd. That's a reality - execution on modern instruments has to be perfect in today's performing/recording climate.
On period instruments, I don't believe the above applies. Different instruments do have different timbres and just like certain tonalities hold certain significance for certain composers, I believe those who feel that, by extension, the designated clarinet should be used. But that is because *it makes a sonic difference*, a spiritual difference for some. It doesn't make the same sonic difference on modern instruments. One has enough issues with which to be concerned when it comes to modern instruments. Why be concerned with issues that don't traverse the moat between stage and audience?
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-10-31 19:42
Thanks for your thoughts Tony.
>I wondered whether to add a smiley at the time, but thought that I had a serious >public point to make, and so preferred to rely on your good nature:-)
With these types of discussions, the back-and-forth exchanges can take on the appearance of a verbal bun-fight. It's helpful and reassuring to point out that there are good natures involved :-)
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-10-31 21:21
I am in agreement with Tony's clarification and his further elaboration on the subject - a rather comprehensive view which takes into account what I believe to be the most important factor of all: context. Decisions based on knowledge rather than on sheer expediency are more apt to serve the composer and the music in the end.
Alas, my performing schedule as dictated by my position in the CSO doesn't allow me to do that in every single case. There are times that I would like, for instance, to play all of the Beethoven symphonies programmed in two consecutive weeks on my Wurlitzer/Oehler instruments. The best compromise that I could come up with because of time constraints was to play them on my Klose/Buffet system instruments including my C clarinet whenever called for.
I could have tried to play them on the Wurlitzers but that would have meant that the principal of the section (and there was an additional, visiting one as well), would have had to play them also if it were to make any sense at all. That's an instance of the practical consideration making the decision for me.
I've always had a problem, for example, with the original performance practice purists that would insist that I play the Debussy Rhapsody on a period clarinet with a representative piano of the time. Should I also play with an orchestra in the orchestrated version that only used instruments being played at that time too?
What I don't have a problem with is knowing what the performance practice of the day, the playing characteristics of the different instruments, and what Debussy heard in his day in terms of style and what instruments and performers were capable of doing, inform me how to extract as much of the right type of music from the work as is possible.
All it takes is a little intellectual curiosity.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2010-10-31 23:19
Although there are plenty of period instrumentalists and orchestras around the world today, how many of them are certain the sound they make and their playing style are like the players from the actual period without any recordings to go on?
Most instrumentalists would have started out on modern instruments when they began playing, then would have studied and played along with other players of modern instruments and then at some point made the decision to explore the world of period music and instruments. But modern playing techniques they've learnt will still form part of their playing, so they're only giving their idea of how period instruments are played.
Only so much can be learnt from research which will be in written or printed form - sadly not from recordings as that technology was way off and scratchy recordings from the late 1800s to early 1900s don't offer enough quality to get a definitive answer from. It would have been nice to have heard good quality recordings of players that Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Dvorak, Borodin, Glazunov, R.Strauss, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Elgar, etc, had at their disposal, but we can only speculate. I heard in a recent interview that Richard Strauss never listened to music on the radio due to the poor sound quality of the radio speakers of the time.
Although this is a significant recording, so much is lost due to the poor quality (but it's still worth listening to and we will have to make up for the shortcomings in our own imagination): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO7rytfD4rY
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-11-01 01:05
This has become an interesting posting, far beyond the question of should you or should you not play a passage on and A or Bb clarinet when it is written for the opposite instrument.
I believe that is an entirely different question than should one use a period instrument when playing "older" music or using a German model instrument when playing Beethoven or Brahms. As a practical matter the vast majority of orchestra players just don't have the desire to do that. There are several times that our trumpet section uses trumpets without valves because many years ago one of our conductors wanted the orchestra to own a set and bought them for the orchestra. And I remember years ago we had a bassoon player that tried performing all French music on a French bassoon, it was interesting to say the least. The conductor at the time was impressed until he got his fingerings confused at times. I'm not going to question the validity of playing such instruments in todays orchestra's only the practicality of it in our modern orchestra's. But that's a whole different question that was asked in the original posting and I stick with my opinion that no one really notices when an orchestra player switches clarinets to make a passage "more playable" or desirable for them. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 01:59
Back to the original subject, I (and most of my colleagues) can certainly tell the difference whether we are playing clarinets in C or simply transposing from Bb/A clarinets, the difference between German or French instruments, etc.
From my POV, that matters much more in service to the music than what any particular conductor may or may not hear (and one or two conductors with extraordinary ears have indeed heard the difference depending on the context).
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2010-11-01 02:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-11-01 03:47
Greg, I wasn't referring to my section I was referring to anyone in the audience. We all know what we all sound like on our given instruments in our section too. If someone doesn't know how I sound on my Bb or A I doubt they can't tell which one I'm playing from a distance. As I said before, there are players that sound brighter or thinner on their A clarinets than some sound on their Bb or even a C clarinet. I guess you work with a higher class of conductors than we do in our orchestra, we're a grade or two lower. It's never happened here in Baltimore and we've worked with a few decent conductors. What can I say. ESP
PS. I do remember one unusual case. This happened when I was a student playing in the orchestra of Pierre Montaux's conducting school. He was sitting in the audience seats and asked me to switch clarinets when playing the slow mov't in Brahms 3rd. By Bb was my high school instrument and a bit out of tune so he made me play it on my A clarinet and transpose a 1/2 step higher. After the opening solo's I changed back to my Bb and he stopped the orchestra and told me to go back to my A as soon as he heard me again. I think it had more to do with intonation than timbre but with his ear, it could have been both. I still believe that's an exception, except the intonation part. I replaced my Bb as soon as I returned home to a new Buffet, the same as my A clarinet.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2010-11-01 04:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2010-11-01 07:27
Greg Smith wrote;
"Alas, my performing schedule as dictated by my position in the CSO doesn't allow me to do that in every single case. There are times that I would like, for instance, to play all of the Beethoven symphonies programmed in two consecutive weeks on my Wurlitzer/Oehler instruments. The best compromise that I could come up with because of time constraints was to play them on my Klose/Buffet system instruments including my C clarinet whenever called for."
Greg, I realize that many people consider the modern Wurlitzer to be the authentic 'German' sound and therefore appropriate for Beethoven.
How do you feel about the argument that the modern Wurlitzer is as far removed from what Beethoven would have heard as the modern Boehm Clarinet.
I enjoy the sound of both, but I do question the German instruments assumption of authenticity.
Chris.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 08:37
The Albert/Oehler/Wurlitzers are much closer to the original in many ways.
Compare the original instrument of Beethoven's day to that of the Albert/OehlerWurlitzer and then the Klose. Acoustically, the Wurlitzer/Oehler is definitely closer via pedigree to the original instruments of Beethoven's time.
To my ear, the sound and acoustical characteristics give a distinct advantage to the present day German system if one is interested in coming closer to the sound produced by clarinets of Beethoven's time.
To my ear, the feel and advantages/limitations of each style's system, gives a distinct advantage to the Wurlitzer/Oehler even after all this time. So yes, even to this day, my experience has been that there are worthwhile advantages in the German system in order to serve an "authentic" musical ends.
But it's not ALL about equipment either.
The astonishing thing is that Pascual Moragues of France sounds as if he is playing German system clarinets although he plays Klose/Buffets. So the human element can and should rightly be considered very influential.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2010-11-01 10:05
Thanks for your opinion Greg. I love the sound of Wurlitzers (or at least German players) when they play Beethoven but to my ear they sound nothing like the 'original instrument' recordings i have.
You make a good point about pedigree but I feel the many acoustical changes made over a number of years have made the modern instrument a totally different beast.
Yes the player is the most important aspect when considering sound. Pascual Moragues is an interesting example. I read about his admiration for Karl Leister (someone I admire also). I read about how he tries to emulate Karl's sound. With this in mind I bought a recording of his wind quintet. Well, the smoothness of technique was similar in both players but to me they sounded very different. Moragues plays with a light, smooth vibrato and the colour of the sound is totally different to Karl Leister's. Phrasing could perhaps be considered similar.
I suppose this shows how subjective our perceptions are. Hope you don't mind the different perspective.
Chris Ondaatje.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 11:05
Chris -
Of course no offense taken.
I would just say that they give the *opportunity* to sound more like the originals than the French - and along with that maybe something even more important - the similar feel and flexibility that informs me of what was possible/not possible acoustically speaking compared to the originals. That in turn informs the way I approach serving the music.
Perhaps the difference becomes amplified and apparent as a player rather than strictly as a listener of both style systems - I don't know for sure.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2010-11-01 11:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 11:19
Sounds vary in different ways. From the standpoint of a player trying to implement the notions of phrasing and balance that obtained in the 18th and early 19th century, some instruments can accommodate a more useful type of sound -- and perhaps equally importantly, a more useful type of VARIATION in sound -- than others.
So, two instruments might 'sound completely different' to a listener concentrating on more general aspects of their sounds; but they would both nevertheless be preferred by such a player to a third instrument that was less tractable.
I find myself in agreement with Gregory Smith that, in general, modern German instruments and period instruments share that tractability in 18th century music, and that French instruments are less amenable -- though of course, they can be satisfactory in the hands of an expert player.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 12:16
Just to pick up on something from an earlier post; Chris wrote:
>> Although there are plenty of period instrumentalists and orchestras around the world today, how many of them are certain the sound they make and their playing style are like the players from the actual period without any recordings to go on? >>
None of them. But in my case, I want to say that I'm not anyway trying to 'sound like players from the actual period'. I'm interested in what lay BEHIND their playing, but only in order to 'have the music be alive in the way it wants to be'.
That requires a bit of explanation; here's a shot at it, in the form of a position document I wrote for a seminar I gave to the OAE a couple of years ago. It's quite long, but you're used to that from me, and you can scroll, can't you?-)
FUNDAMENTALS
When I play in the OAE in the classical style, I don't think that I should have to do anything fundamentally different from what I do when I inhabit the style of ANY period. Even if the details of the furniture are different, so to speak, the process of entering the room should be the same. So what I would like to put forward, and argue for, is a view of the situation that can be seen to apply both to the performers of the past and to ourselves.
The issue goes right back to square one -- to the different answers we may give to the following questions:
First, how do we approach a score when we perform it?
Second, looking behind this, what philosophical stance do we bring the asking and answering of the question? (What did we ASSUME?)
And third, where does answering the first two questions get us?
It would be good if our answers were to show why we don't want to emulate ALL the qualities of the performers of the past (we want to emulate only the good ones:-). Some philosophies might claim that we should emulate even the bad ones, because they were part of what constituted the musical life of the time -- just as some of them say we ought to consider having noisy audiences:-(
If you want to ask, "...but how do we KNOW what are the good qualities we should emulate?" -- then I'm reminded of the story about Stockhausen, who when asked by a performer, "...but maestro, how will we KNOW when we are playing in the rhythm of the Universe?", replied: "...I will tell you."
Actually, I think everyone must find their own truth in these matters -- and Stockhausen thought so too, probably -- but nevertheless going about finding that truth in the way I shall describe minimises the risk, as I hope to explain.
So, these are what I say are the most satisfactory answers to the three questions. In a way, this is a sort of counterpart to my claim that classical stylistic structures (CSSs) are most simply thought of as being 'speechlike'; here I claim that the performance of written music -- ANY performance of written music, including so-called 'Historically Informed Performance' (HIP) -- is most simply thought of under the following analysis.
(1) How do we approach performing a score?
I say we begin by seeing what is in front of us as what it indubitably is: namely, something rather like a map. Just as a score is a representation of a possible performance, a map is a representation of a piece of the real world -- a territory -- that inevitably leaves out a good deal of what constitutes that territory. Importantly, it leaves out any aliveness. So a map or a score, by comparison with the territory/performance it represents, is something DEAD.
Obviously we need to get to know the meaning of the symbols on the map. Some of them we will know already, but others we may not; moreover, some of them may have changed their meanings between the date that the map was constructed and the present day. Some of them may be particular to the composer.
Then, I say we need to ask what the music that the map represents 'wants to be' -- how it is to be alive in performance. This is still a question about the territory. Answering it involves looking in detail at the structures (eg CSSs) in the map; asking what sort of aliveness each may possess, whether it may best be thought of as expressive or Normal,...and so on. It involves further asking how what is in the part we are responsible for relates to what is in the other parts. Whatever we can know about the other music of the composer, the nature of the instruments of the time, or the cultural context of the particular piece, will also serve us. This is the 'study' part of our job.
The other part of our job, performance, is different. It is a real-time act of creation; but not creation in the sense of ADDING something of our own to the map, or changing what is there -- unless of course that sort of embellishment is presupposed by the 'conventions of mapmaking' in operation at the time.
It is creative rather in the sense that it brings something into being. That something still corresponds to the map; but most importantly, NOW it TRULY IS alive! It is truly alive in the sense that it responds to context; not only the sorts of context like "Allegro Appassionato" written by the composer, but also the context of what the other performers are playing, and what they or ourselves have just played. A series of performances by the same group of performers may differ, one from another; but they don't differ because the performers are TRYING to make them different. They differ because things that are truly alive always behave somewhat unpredictably.
Now, there is a particular quality of performance as a creative act, to do with this aliveness, that is almost always left out of discussions about playing in general, and HIP in particular, because it's difficult to know how to talk about it. Nevertheless, it's what is fundamental to us as players, even though we seldom talk about it either. The best discussion of it that I know -- a discussion that goes some way towards characterising the problem whilst still leaving the mystery of t suitably intact -- occurs in an essay by the English anthropologist Gregory Bateson, called 'Style, Grace and Information in Primitive Art'. I've put a copy of it in the Archive section of the OAEOctober website, and hope to discuss some aspects of it in a later post, particularly Bateson's key notion of 'grace': "Art is a part of Man' search for Grace". [Unfortunately, this isn't available to BBoard subscribers: but see http://tinyurl.com/3xvo8q9]
Essentially, a performer brings aspects of both their conscious and their unconscious selves to the act of performance -- even to the point of the performance being in some sense ABOUT the interface between their conscious and their unconscious selves in interaction with the music in front of them.
It's possible to say more, but a flavour of the matter can be had by noting that PRACTICE, for example, is a process that 'sinks' elements of performance beneath consciousness, so that in the end those elements occur partly outside our control. This notion sits rather suggestively with the notion that other aspects of our inner lives -- emotions and so on -- also occur partly outside our control. It also shows us that there is another aspect of 'study' -- namely, the process of familiarising ourselves with HOW the tools of our trade (our instruments) may produce the 'tools' of the style in all their multiple varieties, including (but not confined to) their expressive possibilities.
(2) What view of the situation lies behind this answer to question 1?
What I want to point out about the admittedly rather sketchy analysis above is that in it, an analytical knife-cut is used to split the TEXT from the PERFORMANCE, and the discussion is then in terms of a particular sort of relation between them -- namely, the map/territory relation.
Readers of Robert Pirsig's brilliant 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' will perhaps remember his lucid discussion of how more or less appropriate analytic cuts may yield (respectively) insight, or confusion.
(The insightful split he made was between the 'University' and the 'University location', or between the Church (idea) and the Church (building). Go to:
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zen-motorcycle.pdf
...and read pp 64-67.)
Other analytic splits in our material are possible -- for example, one often made is between 'the composer' and 'the performer'. THAT particular split generates endless debate about what is then the appropriate relationship to consider. For example, how much are performers entitled to 'follow their own inclinations', as opposed to 'obeying the composer's text'? We have to find out 'what the composer would have wanted' (difficult), 'what we want' (sometimes even more difficult), and some way of mediating between the two (50%-50%? 100%-0%? 0%-100%??)
We could also make a split between 'us' and 'them', as performers of two different periods. How much should we try to do what 'they' did?
The same sorts of problem arise.
The advantage of the split that I've described is that it characterises the job of a performer -- any performer -- in an explicit way. It makes clear what we can prepare, and how that preparation relates to what we eventually do. Further, on this description we are no less 'authentic' than a performer of a previous era.
In particular, in the act of performance -- on the non-TEXT side -- we find OURSELVES, because in the moment of giving the (creative) answer to the question of what the text 'wants to be', WE are inevitably involved -- yet not the focus of attention.
I find this is a very useful formulation to give to students, who are so often desperately concerned with their own worth. "How much of myself should I put into the music?" they ask. The possibility of labelling this as a 'non-question' is a great relief to many.
And because a very important part of our creativity comes from our unconscious, which contains both what we have constructed by practice AND what we possess naturally as the fundamental structures of our inner life, we can see how and where the 'Norrington effect' arises: Roger's musicality is unquestionable, but what he often cannot do is let go of his conscious control -- he cannot see himself as more than his ego. So he is embarrassed to be just a part of the flow of great music, and has to play the showman instead.
(3) Where does this get us?
It seems to me that the point of view developed here supports the notion that it's possible to inhabit a style effectively, naturally and gracefully ONLY if we have its tools as part of our stock-in-trade. Varying phrase-shapes, varying appoggiaturas, varying degrees of bar hierarchy have to be at our disposal without needing to be thought about.
Isn't it a sort of paradox, then, that I've been recommending all along that we think about them? Not really -- any fluency acquired in adulthood must start in this way. It might have been better to begin earlier, but....
I find it significant that deep musicians who direct us often achieve a required stylish nuance by using some metaphor that engages with a natural feeling or gesture ('natural' equals 'unconscious':-) -- this shows that classical stylistic structures have close connections with other parts of our inner lives.
We might become more expert at finding those connections in real time ourselves if we are prepared to take CSSs more seriously. We could think of this as an ongoing project, generated from within the orchestra.
Tony
Post Edited (2014-07-13 22:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 13:02
Tony Pay wrote:
> an essay by the English
> anthropologist Gregory Bateson, called 'Style, Grace and
> Information in Primitive Art'.
Tony,
I checked JSTOR, Anthropology Index Online, and Anthrosource and couldn't find this essay. Reference?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-11-01 14:13
There is a link to it as a chapter in 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind' in googlebooks: as far as I can tell it was never published independently.
http://tinyurl.com/3xvo8q9
This book is well worth owning, anyway; there are some wonderful essays in it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
