 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Jem B
Date: 2011-10-06 09:06
Hello everyone,
I'm currently writing my dissertation on live performances and recordings of works made on historical instruments vs. those on modern instruments. The original set-up being a fascinating area for me (I study historical clarinets); the materials, pitch/temperament, and of course the music that was composed for these instruments.
It's an extremely vague question but it's ones initial response that interests me so much... "What do you think about historical performance vs. performance on a modern instrument? (This is not to say that one could not perform in an historically informed fashion on a modern instrument...or is it? In your opinion?)" "Does playing on an historical instrument immediately influence a performers performance?". Of course many leading performers past and present have recorded and performed on both...
All opinions respected here. What's your view?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2011-10-06 09:31
When a historic piece is played on modern instruments, in my opinion it changes the way the player interfaces with the music. Played on the original instrument, the modern player is faced with the same problems and instrumental limitations as was the original player, and must overcome them as best his technique allows.
To play the music on a modern instrument is to remove or alter these limitations, and this must affect the finished product.
That is not to say that the music cannot or should not be played on modern instruments, just that it may not be precisely what the composer intended.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-10-06 09:59
The above post is pretty much the argument for music played on 'original instruments.' I would agree that violins had shorter necks, less stress on the strings; pitch was different etc. I also agree that there are ensembles that make this their raison d'etre and have provided some striking and enlightening performances.
My argument against this idea is that unless you are raised on the instrument and play it EVERY waking moment and were taught by someone who did the same, chances are the product will not be REALLY what went on in the 18th century.
And here is a modern example: You cannot just give Ullmann horns and Hammerschmidt clarinets to the CSO and expect to hear the Vienna Philharmonic - that would be silly. A German friend of mine (in the middle of my Wurlitzer obsession) once said...."You can't be German, you don't crease your blue jeans.") The point is that there is the whole culture and approach to music in general let alone the technique of individual instruments that produces the final product. This can only be guessed at in our 'historic performance' goal now that time has gotten in the way.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2011-10-06 12:51
Hi Paul,
I quite agree with you that the cultural values that shaped the music will have changed, and how this might affect the result of attempting to play it as it was originally written. Even so, it's the closest we can get to hearing what the composer intended, although It may not be a perfect rendition.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2011-10-06 13:13
As a practical matter, we can hardly expect everyone to have a whole set of historically precise clarinets to play every piece. Should we have the clarinet of Vivaldi's day, Mozart's day, Beethoven's day, Brahms' day, Stravinsky's day, etc. in order to be pure enough? It is not likely. I think it is superb that we have artists like Tony P. to guide and inform us about these historical pieces. They have altered our perceptions of just how to approach music of times long past, and in a very positive way. I also love to hear our modern clarinets as being equally beneficial to the performances of our day.
John Gibson, Founder of JB Linear Music, www.music4woodwinds.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jem B
Date: 2011-10-06 14:44
I actually think it's very possible to have clarinets for playing Telemann, Vivaldi, Mozart, Brahms, Debussy, Stravinsky and indeed my teacher (and as John G mentioned, Tony Pay, does too) is accomplished on them all. You will probably have heard of my teacher but don't wish to take this topic on a new tangent and talk about them... Also, there are a few orchestras that specialise in this, such as the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment in London, Orchestre de Champs de Élysées in Paris...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2011-10-06 17:12
Are we absolutely certain that composers would want their music played only on the instruments of their time? Is it possible that Mozart, if he could see and hear a modern instrument, would approve of its use in his music? We can't know for certain, of course. But might it be the case that composers would allow for the possibility of improved technology, and would want it to be used?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-10-06 17:56
>>Are we absolutely certain that composers would want their music played only on the instruments of their time? Is it possible that Mozart, if he could see and hear a modern instrument, would approve of its use in his music? We can't know for certain, of course.>>
Exactly. I'm imagining some crooked medium waving fingers and going "Boogety-boogety" over the Ouija board as the victim, oops, I mean the paying customer, asks, "What would Mozart want?" Instead of moving from letter to letter and spelling out words, the planchette suddenly goes sliding across the board with an ear-splitting squeeeeeeeak! And that squeak sounds strangely familiar ....
But short of a seance, we just don't know which composers would want which instruments today. (Now I'm imagining composers rolling over in their graves. The summoned ghost mutters, "Oh, no, not another clarinet player. Go chew your reeds! Lemme alone!") The different interpretations make for interesting listening experiences and I've learned quite a bit about the history of music from the disagreements. I'm in favor of continuing the argument indefinitely, without declaring a winner!
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-06 18:26
It's sometimes intensely enlightening to hear music played on the instruments that were available at the time the music was composed, but I think achieving the goal of playing "as the composer wanted to hear it" is at best unverifiable and at worst unattainable. How often does a composer, even one composing today, ever hear his own works played entirely the way he imagined them as he set the notes down on paper (or input them into his favorite notation program)? If you ask the composers, probably rarely if ever.
Composers have historically, of course, had to work around the mechanical limitations, and tried to exploit the strengths, of the instruments that were available to them. I suspect, but don't have the experience to say with any confidence, that the players who perform on period instruments probably gain a much deeper understanding of the composers' inspirations and constraints from dealing with period instruments' qualities than the listener who hears the result.
So to the extent that using period instruments helps modern players and listeners understand the genesis of older pieces and make interpretive decisions based on that understanding, "historical performance" is a valuable approach. When you go beyond that to make a goal of replicating some ideal performance that the composer and his contemporaries might have heard (or even further, that the composer might have approved), in my opinion is chasing after rainbows.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jem B
Date: 2011-10-06 20:21
Hi Leila,
I like it. I too sometimes think that if Mozart could hear a Leblanc Opus or a Buffet R13+ he'd be in fits of inspiration...and would Beethoven, I'm sure, given the chance to play on a Steinway or Bösendorfer!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Spinsheet71
Date: 2011-10-07 13:38
Would Morzart's k622 be a good example to look at?
originally, wrote for a basset. Though published work was a higher range?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-10-07 14:14
Spinsheet71,
K622 was originally written for basset horn in G and later transfered to basset clarinet in A, presumably at the time Stadler invented the basset clarinet while working with Lotz to improve the basset horn.
The op was really asking about "performance practice" and how playing either period instruments or both period and modern influences the performers musical decisions.
I personally believe that that playing a period clarinet can certainly inform ones modern playing.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-10-07 14:17
As an enemy to the concept that there should be one generic clarinet sound, or that there exists an unattainable "Ideal Clarinet Sound", I am in favor of all sorts of clarinets being used in performance. Mostly I am concerned with character--the character of the music and the character of the individual player. I encourage players to find their own voice, whatever instrument that might lead them to.
Historical clarinets give us the opportunity to hear many different timbres, many different musical qualities of the repertoire. Mozart was inspired by Stadler; Weber by Baermann; Brahms by Muhlfeld; Copland by Goodman. I think there is value in hearing similar instruments to those used by such players.
I also enjoy performances of the repertoire on modern instruments. There's room for all of it.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-10-07 18:17
Thanks Peter. If I'm not mistaken, your career has already been a study in this, hasn't it?
For what it's worth, I think the English attitude towards the clarinet has always been one of the healthiest. Years back, I read somewhere (whether it was in Brymer or Thurston, I can't remember) that the English "school" of playing was primary based upon finding the equipment and sound that best allowed the character of the individual player to come through. It comes as no surprise to me that a clarinet culture based upon such a principle would result in a diversity of excellent playing--including the great work done over there on period instruments.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-10-09 22:36
Eric,
Yes, I have played period clarinets professionally. I don't do too much of that now with modern playing taking prominence, but have always found the ease of phrasing that one can do on a period clarinet one can do on a modern instrument with some thought.
I totally agree with you regarding the English tradition. I still think English playing is still about the players voice regardless of instrument though for whatever reason wide bore instruments really help in trying to achieve that "liquid" sound of the likes of Brymer, Hosford and Bob Hill. You are right that this has transfered into period clarinet playing too. The excellent work of Tony Pay, Colin Lawson, Lesley Schatzberger to name a few has resulted in a great diverse way of playing period clarinets. Surely this would have been the case in Europe back in the 18th and 19th Centuries what with the diversity of instruments being played with differing key systems and the like.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Lowry
Date: 2011-10-11 04:33
And to add to Peter's comment, not only were there differing key systems, but none of the players in those eras had the "benefit" of hearing other players through recordings ... they either heard it live or not at all. I imagine that would make agreement on, or indeed, discussion of a "uniform" sound very difficult.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jem B
Date: 2011-10-11 13:16
>>The excellent work of Tony Pay, Colin Lawson, Lesley Schatzberger to name a few has resulted in a great diverse way of playing period clarinets.<<
And certainly not forgetting Jane Booth!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-10-11 17:17
Of course, Jane is a wonderful player, I learnt a lot from her
Peter Cigleris
Post Edited (2011-10-11 17:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-10-12 00:00
Great points, both Peter and Ed.
One further consideration is ensmble balance and overall timbre. There are many pieces in the repertoire that are difficult to balance on modern instruments, yet seem perfect when played on period instruments.
As much as I enjoy the old Von Karajan and Szell recordings of the Beethoven symphonies, I'll take Gardiner's cycle over them both. Norrington's recording of the Mendellsohn Scotch symphony was a revelation when I first heard it as well--and it's a recording I've played for those who doubted the positive difference period instruments can make.
I don't think the urge to "recreate an authentic identical performance" is really a driving force behind period players these days. Instead, I find that the reasons most frequently expressed are musical--the ability for the performer to more passionately engage in the artwork at hand.
I've never played a 'period' clarinet (unless you count a 1951 Fritz Wurlitzer as period) but I am very enthusiastic about the life the entire movement has injected into music over the past generation.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-10-12 01:17
I think everyone MUST play, at least a little bit, on a period clarinet reproduction. Playing even a very bad one can be revelatory. Many years ago, I played the last movement of the Beethoven Trio on a really awful Otto Steinkopf 9-keyed clarinet, with fortepiano and a gut-strung cello with no end pin.
The movement is a set of variations on a theme from an aria in the comic opera "L'amor marinaro" or "The Corsair" by Joseph Weigl. The text means "Before I begin work, I must have something to eat."
According to Weigl's bio in Baker's, the opera premiered on October 15, 1797. The opera was enormously popular, and the tune was whistled all over Vienna. Thus, everyone who heard the Beethoven trio would get the joke. Beethoven's papers showed he intended to write another finale, but never got around to it.
When you play the variations, remember that they're done on a comic tune and are meant to be funny. Beethoven rings the changes -- angry, heroic, sweet, impossibly sad (in the minor variation, you can hear the tears running down the cheek) and finally a learned fugue. In the fugue, Beethoven carries it to extremes at the end, with the 3 clarinet solo descending notes, echoed by the same 3 notes pizzicato on the cello, and double echoed staccato on the piano, followed by the big rush to the end.
I only realized what was going on when I played the movement on the (very approximately) original clarinet. The light-voiced clarinet could play those 3 notes like pizzicatos, and the fortepiano can do the same. We prepared the audience by playing the minor key variation with silent movie style swoons and got audible laughter (admittedly from an audience of musicians) with the fugue, pizzicatos and coda.
I've never head the movement done this way, and I discovered it only when the instrument itself showed me what it could do.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-12 13:07
Ken Shaw wrote, in part:
>> In the fugue, Beethoven carries it to extremes at the end, with the 3 clarinet solo descending notes, echoed by the same 3 notes pizzicato on the cello, and double echoed staccato on the piano, followed by the big rush to the end...I only realized what was going on when I played the movement on the (very approximately) original clarinet. The light-voiced clarinet could play those 3 notes like pizzicatos, and the fortepiano can do the same...I've never heard the movement done this way, and I discovered it only when the instrument itself showed me what it could do.>>
The crucial thing is that the decay of the fortepiano notes (unlike the much slower decay of notes on a modern pianoforte) is quite similar to the decay of the 'cello pizzicato. So there is already the possibility of a threefold match for the clarinet to initiate, for the fortepiano (not the 'cello) to follow, and the 'cello finally to complete.
Though we can match ANY decay on either modern or period clarinet, the greater responsiveness of the period clarinet means that we need less precise control, and so can play with less strong support.
You have difficulty in discovering this on the modern clarinet only if you insist on maintaining air pressure against the reed throughout the isolated staccatos. Then, your expressive range is indeed limited.
But if instead you maintain constant, quite strong abdominal pressure, creating the note shape by use of the diaphragm, then the action of the tongue can be cosmetic.
You will recall that I pointed this out, against resistance, in a previous exchange on the subject of isolated staccato notes at around 120 per minute:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=354388&t=354301
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-13 20:04
To all,
I have only lurked in the shadows for the past bit of time as my last post seemed to fuel some older feuds, but I think this thread brings some important points to light; some of them may be a bit askew to the original question:
-It at some level becomes impossible to say what one is doing is "Closer to what the composer intended." or statements of the like. No matter the level of one's research, you have to invoke the stance of "authorial intent", which, unless you can directly speak to the composer becomes an egotistical approach. Saying what one learns to be "what the composer wants/wanted" is ultimately a self-fulfilling stroking of one's ego as you can fool yourself into thinking that your conclusions are somehow superior; you must perform/"bring to life" outside of a laboratory setting to be heard.
-Performing on/hearing period instruments I do believe is an important pursuit, even if only to have a different "platform" to bring a piece of music back to life. Do I think that it should directly affect what one does on a modern instrument, well that's a tricky and loaded question to answer. Not having had to opportunity to play period instruments I cannot directly give my opinion on the matter. I would have to believe the same "affect" can be achieved on an instrument of any period in the hands of a skilled musician; but I am guessing a bit here as well. *All my ears know is what moves me- be it a period "reconstruction" or modern "realization."* (As an aside I can say hearing a fortepiano in contrast to today's concert grand Steinway can be quite enlightening.)
-As I alluded to earlier, whatever period of instrument is chosen, it does merely serve as a platform. But a platform in and of itself is moot as it only serves as a starting point. What does matter is how the music itself is treated with the chosen instruments. The same collaborative environment between performers, and ultimately with the audience, can exist what ever piece of wood you have in your hands; or it can fail and never come into existence. This is the point where your choices must be taken out of the laboratory and subjected to someone's ears. Again, all I know is what catches my ear and elicits a response, or moves me. ....And I have been moved by, *gasp*, arrangements....
-As I believe, and have heard practitioners say, performances on period instruments are not done to "re-create" the piece as the composer intended (the slippery slope of authorial intent again.) It is interesting to hear a piece performed as "Composer X" could have heard it, but this is not the end pursuit. Again, it is one of creating an artistic/collaborative environment for the music to exist in. (As Eric alluded to in an earlier posting.)
*I may be off-track with my beliefs, but they are what I hold dear and what the musicians I respect strive for (and no I'm not naming names!)
I willingly open myself to disagreement or thoughts of others on these points, but I would fight to the death to uphold them for myself lest I couldn't sleep at night.
I'll now recede back into the shadows from whence I came, perhaps waiting for a pointless fight about ligatures to arise and chime in on. I apologize if I have repeated any old postings or inadvertently plagiarized anybody as I did not search back through the archives before writing.
(Eric you have me beat with your '51 Wurlitzers. The oldest clarinets I have played were from '55- though my mouthpieces predate your clarinets so HA HA, the competition continues. and my health has improved some- actually played for 2 hours on Tuesday without doubling over in pain.)
Post Edited (2011-10-14 03:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-10-13 21:28
Buster wrote:
"It at some level becomes impossible to say what one is doing is "Closer to what the composer intended." "
*at some level* may be true, but there are many levels at which it is obvious that a only period instrument can produce what the composer intended. I'll give an example:
Verdi wrote incredibly virtuoso trombone parts in his opera Otello. There are passages where the trombones have to play rapid successions of notes, all under a slur. On a modern trombone these would sound like glissandos, unless you tongue (or double tongue) each note, which is what modern trombone players do. But Verdi wrote for orchestras in which the players used valve trombones. When you hear these passages on a valve trombone, you suddenly realise that Verdi actually did understand what the instrument was capable of doing (surprise, surprise!) It doesn't matter how good you are, it's simply impossible to produce this on a modern slide trombone.
So choice of instrument does not "merely serve as a platform". Sometimes, to get to the right place, you need to be on the right platform in the first place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-13 21:39
I guess I should have qualified my statement a bit.
The "level" at which one begins to make decisions is movable and mutable. In the mentioned Verdi passage it is fact that those passages were composed for valved trombones, so I would not regard that imposing ones interpretation of intent into the category of egoism. In fact trombonists play Rocheu (spelling?) exercises constantly to achieve a seamless sounding legato/slur for such passages, even though in fact they are lightly articulating. (I shared an apartment with a trombonist so I heard this for hours on end.)
Also I wouldn't argue that composers know what they are writing. The danger arises when we say that we know what the intent was.
Post Edited (2011-10-14 03:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-10-13 22:42
Jason--
LOL--Maybe I can claim to give period performances of the Hindemith Concerto.
CONGRATS on the 2 hr workout. I hope this is the beginning of an easier time for you, playingwise!
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-14 21:29
I wrote:
>> So there is already the possibility of a threefold match for the clarinet to initiate, for the fortepiano (not the 'cello) to follow, and the 'cello finally to complete.>>
It might be worth pointing out that this is not the only way to interpret that passage. So, the characteristics of period instruments don't necessarily FORCE a particular view.
The clarinet might play with not too abrupt a decay; the fortepiano or pianoforte might play really quite secco; and then the 'cello, who also has the opportunity to curtail or not to curtail the pizzicato (damping is done by allowing the string to leave the fingerboard whilst maintaining contact with the LH finger) might go for more connection.
So it would go: it's gentle; NO, it's perky; oh, let's have it RESONANT.
(I agree that uniformity works too.)
Period instruments suggest different possibilities. The most significant determinant is usually the piano, which is quite different in earlier incarnations.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-10-15 19:36
>>The most significant determinant is usually the piano, which is quite different in earlier incarnations.
>>
I once had a chance to play on a fortepiano (modern replica). It made me understand the comments about "piano-breakers" in 19th century critical essays. I had to resist a strong temptation to pound the holy ned out of that instrument in what felt like an instinctive attempt to get past the piano and into the forte! Of course it wasn't really an instinctive attempt, because I'd learned to play on modern pianos that will forte most other instruments into oblivion with the greatest of ease -- and until I became consciously aware that I was banging that fortepiano the way the chimpanzee bangs the suitcase in the Samsonite luggage commercial, I must have been unconsciously trying to get a modern piano sound out of an instrument that simply wasn't designed to resound that robustly. The fortepiano's rapid decay of each note combined with its lack of dynamic range (compared to a modern piano) was far more striking "in person" than I'd expected from simply listening to recordings of fortepianos.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
