 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-31 15:28
Last year I went to see a National Theatre production in London called War Horse. That show seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, to suggest a very powerful metaphor for what we do as musicians when we play together.
On this list, the overwhelmingly dominant metaphor is of the individual clarinettist as a charismatic hero-figure. People say things like, WHY doesn't orchestra X appreciate the awe-inspiring playing of clarinettist Y? How can they not want such expressive and technically perfect playing in their ranks? Who do they think they are, coming off so choosy?
This way of looking at things misses the fundamental truth that what needs to be expressive is not the player, but the MUSIC. Very often in a performance, a player is merely contributing to a musical idea -- and then, considering that contribution in isolation is inappropriate to a true appreciation of what their job consists of.
Sometimes, a solo player has the opportunity to shoulder the musical argument. But even then, one can often hear the music being spoiled by a narcissistic approach to the text.
Anyhow, War Horse is the story of a boy who befriends a horse, Joey. Joey is then commandeered, and sent to the World War I battlefields; the boy enlists to follow him, and finally, after great difficulty and drama, finds him.
The story is for children, and could be thought to be a little sentimental. However, the show is deeply moving for quite another reason, which begins with the horse being presented at full size on stage by a team of puppeteers. We then find ourselves involved because we are put in the position of being led to CREATE the living horse by the great skill of the operators, who become invisible to us after quite a short time. Further, we become unavoidably complicit in the often very moving interactions of the horse with the human actors, and are drawn into the great and horrible events of that terrible War.
You can still see War Horse in London, and buy a DVD telling the story of its creation. However, there is now on the internet a TED talk by the puppeteers that gives some sense of what it is for performers to participate in something that is greater than themselves -- which is what musicians at their best do, according to me:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/handpring_puppet_co_the_genius_puppetry_behind_war_horse.html
It falls far short of the experience of the show itself, of course. (The music, for example, is exceptionally well done, I would say.)
So, the metaphor is that the creation of the music as a 'living thing' corresponds to the creation of 'the horse' as a living thing. The audience collaborates in it -- if the performers both lead them to, and allow them to.
As is clear from much of what I post, I deplore the false adulation of individual performers. It occurs here for what seem to me to be quite trivial reasons. I also deplore the worshipping of the often highly trivial things that are reported to have been said by 'legendary teachers' -- usually American, as it happens.
I hope that this 20 minute video will go some way towards suggesting a more inclusive vision of the possible roles of both performer and audience.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-03-31 15:47
Tony, how does this metaphor you describe impact on (or relate to) the spectacle of orchestras (mostly American,as it happens) that for reasons never made public can't seem to find the one and only player in all of creation who could fill the shoes of a retiring (or otherwise leaving) principal player? This adulatory attitude doesn't seem limited to Bulletin Board clarinetists.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-31 16:28
Well, I don't know how it relates to it, of course.
But contra what I think you're suggesting -- perhaps I'm taking you wrong -- what I know of playing leads me to suppose that the reason why some orchestras can't find replacements for retiring players is that what they are being offered just isn't good enough for the job; and that those orchestras are rather more sophisticated judges of such matters than many seem to imagine.
Perhaps that's because what is required is typically mischaracterised in the outside world in the way I described. As you say, that's here -- but not only here.
All I know is what moves me and inspires me, and what doesn't move me and doesn't inspire me, in performance.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-03-31 17:37
I agree with the premise for the most part, but as I'm want to do I would like to present an opposing view point in the form of Mr. Maurice Murphy. Here is a trumpet player who by all accounts would fit the bill of someone who is a Star's Star, and yet (at least I think) he made the WHOLE of the London Symphony a better place for it.
But this is where ensemble playing becomes a tricky beast. The best of our craft is in the blending and allowing the whole to be a cohesive statement rather than just a collection of individual patches in a quilt. However, the individual soloistic moments leave room for superstars to shine and bring a distinctive character to the entire ensemble.
And who on earth knows what the Chicago Symphony is looking for. I guess we'll know when they find him or her.
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-31 18:25
Paul Aviles wrote:
>> And who on earth knows what the Chicago Symphony is looking for. I guess we'll know when they find him or her.>>
My point was that many of the raised voices in this forum DON'T know what the Chicago Symphony is looking for -- and wouldn't know even if someone were to be appointed -- because their judgement is skewed by their obsession with the clarinet and its technicalities.
Of course great players are charismatic when required, and contributory otherwise; and I agree that Maurice Murphy, who was a friend of mine, certainly was both.
However, such people are thin on the ground -- despite the assertion of someone here (or on the Klarinet list, I can't remember) that many of his Juilliard contemporaries could 'play rings round' the current incumbents of the major orchestras. There's a telling metaphor, if ever there was one.
But that's by the by. My post wasn't intended to be about orchestras, or about the Chicago Symphony; so can we drop that angle, please.
I wanted rather to call attention to an example of how real magic can live in the subtleties of the simplest things.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-03-31 18:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2011-04-01 04:29
Thanks for the link Tony, really beautiful. I used to do a little marionette work when I was much younger, and this is truly spectacular.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-04-01 09:54
My deepest sympathies upon the word of Maurice Murphy's passing. A great musical voice was silenced.
......................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-04-01 10:48
I didn't know when I started this thread -- I was just reacting to the TED talk video -- that, in fact, War Horse opens in NY at the Lincoln Centre TONIGHT.
Go see it if you can.
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}
