 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2011-01-30 23:02
Just wondering as I played this again last night, during the melisma passages, should the semiquavers be all slurred (as the singers are doing this mostly over a single syllable, eg. 'E-lei---------son), two slured and two tongued, or all tongued over the entire phrase?
The strings were separating all the semiquavers as were the 2nd basset horn and bassoons, whereas the singers were all legato (as it's over a single syllable). Admittedly it was a scratch orchestra and there was only the one rehearsal a few hours before the performance so such finer points couldn't be addressed thoroughly due to time restrictions, but I was wondering what it really ought to be.
Personally, I'd slur them all to match the singers.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2011-01-30 23:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-01-31 15:09
Harnoncourt writes an interesting chapter which also discusses articulation in Mozart in his book "The Musical Dialogue". He brings up the point that players of the day would have followed conventions regarding the slurring/articulating of certain patterns within passages, and that Mozart would have indicated specific articulation normally when he wished for something other than what would be conventionally done. So, in this sense, if you either slur everything or tongue everything, you can be fairly certain that you're doing the wrong thing! I recommend reading Harnoncourt's book.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-01-31 21:36
Liquorice wrote:
>>... if you either slur everything or tongue everything, you can be fairly certain that you're doing the wrong thing! I recommend reading Harnoncourt's book.>>
I can hardly disagree.
It's a wonderful tonic:-)
However, I'd say that this passage is rather 'formal' -- you don't want too much variety of articulation in it.
And anyhow; here, what is 'right' or 'wrong' -- SUCH a preoccupation on this BBoard, and declared SO unequivocally, SO often, by SO many pretty-much-know-nothings -- needs rather to be judged in the context of how the singers and strings are being asked to sing/play, and the acoustic in which the piece is being performed on that particular occasion.
I've remarked here before that 'tonguing' -- or better, 'articulation' -- doesn't have a well-defined character. It's possible to articulate imperceptibly, giving a slight clarity to an essentially legato idea; and it's possible to articulate very definitely, giving an energetic separation to the notes of the passage.
And there is an infinite variety of possibilities between those extremes, including the notion that timbral shapes very often need to be indicated even if there is no slurring at all.
Actually, in a very resonant acoustic, it may well be helpful for SOME players to articulate quite strongly, whilst others are more legato. (Stravinsky understood this, and sometimes explicitly notated it in his scores.) The music is then perceived as the result of the combination of several individual contributions.
So, I'd say there's no easy answer. A good solution MIGHT be for the bassethorns to produce a 'legato articulation', whilst the strings separate the notes.
You'd have to go out front to listen to the effect in order to know.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2011-01-31 22:08
I went for legato tongueing rather than more defined tongueing, but the problem is everytime I've played this, there have never been any formal rehearsals way in advance so such finer aspects can be addressed (only the one run through to tidy things up and to be sure we know what the conductor is counting the various movements in), plus the conductors have mostly been choral conductors so are more interested in what the choir are doing than in the orchestra.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2011-01-31 22:25
I usually always go with the articulation from the singers, meaning in melismas when the singers use diafragme articulation I articulate with a very light tongue. In choire legatos I play legato. Upbeats like "Chrs-te e-lei..." I would do: short, short, short, with direction to the following melisma, u.s w. Just go with the lyrics.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-01-31 23:01
Somehow and sadly, I've never had a chance to play this piece. What is the tempo? The responses have been all over the play from slurring to articulating!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2011-01-31 23:06
The tempo in the first movement Allegro section is somewhere around 100-110 at a guess - I haven't got a metronome to hand.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-02-01 21:28
Tony's right of course.
I'll be "fairly certain" not to make unequivocal declarations in the future :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-02-03 18:00
Liquorice wrote:
>> I'll be "fairly certain" not to make unequivocal declarations in the future :-) >>
I trust you know that I wasn't at all talking about YOU:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-02-03 18:10
I wrote:
>> ...it may well be helpful for SOME players to articulate quite strongly, whilst others are more legato. (Stravinsky understood this, and sometimes explicitly notated it in his scores.) >>
I realise that I want to add:
"MOZART understood this, and sometimes explicitly notated it in his scores."
:-)
If you look at Mozart's manuscripts, you may be tempted to 'rationalise' them, making the articulation in one part match the articulation in another.
But quite often, I contend, that misses the point of what he wrote.
I could give examples -- but perhaps someone else would like to have a go.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-02-03 19:22
Tony wrote:
>> ...it may well be helpful for SOME players to articulate quite strongly, whilst others are more legato. (Stravinsky understood this, and sometimes explicitly notated it in his scores.) >>
I realise that I want to add:
"MOZART understood this, and sometimes explicitly notated it in his scores."
Quite possibly in earlier works but I would like to throw out there that perhaps Mozart's lack of articulation in the wind parts was due to the fact that he died. One can suppose that the voice parts were conceived first with a basic harmonic out line and bass line with the rest of the orchestration filled in around that at a later stage. Of course convention of the day would have played a part but I'm sure if Mozart had lived to finish the work he would have been more specific as this is a sacred work.
In my original post, which was written in haste, I wasn't suggesting that the articulation of that particular passage be played with a heavy tongue but much rather the opposite. I apologise for not making myself clearer in that regard. My feeling is that this particular section, in which the wind parts double the voices along with the strings, should be no more than a colour to the voices. In terms of the articulation of the voices one could argue that the slurs you would find (and there are not many) are really there to emphasise the syllables in the Latin text.
Liquorice, thanks for reminding me of Harnocourt's book. I lent mine out a few years back and never got it back. I must get it again.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-02-03 22:01
Harnoncourt's book is a wonderful starting point- at least, it was for me. What I always hated was the approach of some musicians to articulate every single note in a melismatic passage in exactly the same way: String players sawing away at semiquaver passages, or slurring everything, with no shape whatsoever. Harnoncourt's description of articulation conventions during Mozart's time made me realise why I felt that uniform approach didn't work in this music.
But, as Tony says, various other factors (eg. acoustics, musical context) can and should also dictate what we do. But even if we slur/articulate everything, this doesn't mean that we have to do it with no "shape" at all. By "shape" I mean the breaking down of long melismatic passages into shorter sub-structures which are influenced by metrical, melodic or harmonic patterns. Articulation can easily be used to define the shape, but doesn't have to be.
Tony wrote:
"If you look at Mozart's manuscripts, you may be tempted to 'rationalise' them, making the articulation in one part match the articulation in another.
But quite often, I contend, that misses the point of what he wrote.
I could give examples -- but perhaps someone else would like to have a go."
I can think of examples in the Gran Partita. I studied a facsimile copy of the manuscript some time ago, and noticed that in the bassoon and bass parts Mozart had written strokes above notes, while in the upper parts he wrote dots. Unfortunately I don't have this manuscript in front of me, so I can't quote exact bar numbers. At the time I interpreted that as proof that Mozart didn't really distinguish between the two types of notation. But maybe that's exactly the kind of rationalisation that Tony is referring to? Did he somehow want the lower voices to be articulated differently form the upper voices? And what would the difference be???
By the way- in the NMA they have also rationalised this by making all such passages uniform in articulation.
I'll finish off with a quote from Eric Hoeprich's book The Clarinet (p.120),:
"One rule can be stated unequivocally: when Mozart does not write a slur the player can make up his own mind about articulation, but when he does write a slur, one is obliged to play it."
Post Edited (2011-02-03 22:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2011-02-04 10:00
The passage in question is designed to support the choir first and foremost. The style of playing is subservient to that fact. The choir has to be able to hear it in the acoustic in question. Thinking of how one might wish to phrase or shape it is meaningless as against how the choir will phrase or shape it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-02-04 10:50
OK graham, here's one with "shape":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg6f4AryMkI
You'll notice that the articulation between singers and instruments isn't always exactly the same.
Here's one without shape, where the singers and instruments play exactly the same same god-awful articulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD5mN_-Nd7s
I'd say that both support the choir. And I know which one I prefer...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2011-02-04 14:48
Thanks Liquorice.
Yes they both support the choir.
Sorry not to be able to agree with your feeling about the 2nd clip though. I quite like both, but prefered 2nd to 1st. The 1st one sounded like Handel had written it. 2nd one is just a little sluggish but is more what I would prefer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
