 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BubbaVic
Date: 2011-12-16 14:53
It's been a while since I've been on this BB - had to change userid and such. For years I've heard that the Robert Marcellus rendition of K622 was the gold standard. I've listened to Sabine Meyer, David Schifrin, Sharon Kam, Paul Meyer, and many others whose names escape me at the moment. All beautiful interpretations, mostly. But I'd never heard the Marcellus rendition. Finally found it on youtube (I'm probably the last on the clarinet planet to have discovered it) - listened, listened again, then again - literally brought tears to my eyes. Hope I've entered the url correctly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUAke0jtQEk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steve L
Date: 2011-12-16 16:56
Thanks for posting this, after listening to it just ordered a second hand copy on CD (Sony Classical) for the princely sum of 99p on Amazon :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C.Elizabeth07
Date: 2011-12-16 19:15
I absolutely love this recording (and have been listening to it compulsively now that I'm prepping the Mozart for auditions). I have a book written by David Ethridge on the Mozart Concerto and he explains several different players interpretations. Marcellus said that it should be performed simply, with out flashy articulated passages or embellishment, that the player should not allow "clarinettistry" to get in the way of Mozart" I agree completely. Marcellus is wonderful!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: orbystander
Date: 2011-12-16 23:56
A couple of years ago I was able to download this in mp3 format from Amazon at 99 cents per movement. Don't know if you can still do that or not.
I just listened to my mp3 vs the youtube recording and the only difference I could tell was that a few "pops" (direct from the vinyl?) in the youtube version were missing in the mp3 version.
At the bottom of windows media player while the mp3 was in progress was a scrolling of Marcellus' name, Cleveland Orchestra, George Szell, Original Jacket Collection, Sony BMG Entertainment, Originally released 47, 48, 49 . . . (various dates) . . . 69, 70, 71.
Having the mp3 it is easy to burn it to a CD with NERO or other software.
Check it out.
-orbystander
Edit-- Go to amazon.com select music for search box and type in the following:
mp3 marcellus k622 szell
That will take you to the mp3 versions.
Post Edited (2011-12-17 00:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-12-17 02:11
If you are on Facebook, you have free access to Spotify. Search for "Robert Marcellus" without the quotes and the Mozart Concerto will come up. But, if you search for the "Mozart Clarinet Concerto," you will find perhaps 30+ different performances, including the must-listen version by Tale Ognenovski -- incomparable, unbelievable.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2011-12-17 02:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2011-12-19 19:29
I'd never heard about the Marcellus Mozart before encountering frequent praise of it on this Board. So I bought a CD, and found many elegant things to enjoy in it. I don't find the adagio too slow, as Bob Phillips hints.
But for me the performace is flawed by a huge artistic misjudgement: the last return of the finale's rondo theme is held back very significantly below the already broad tempo, finishing with a substantial accelerando. I won't criticise this just because it's not marked in the score - but it's just too crude an effect compared with the sophistication of the rest of the playing.
If I had to pick just one version of the piece, it would be the 1964 Jack Brymer performance with the LSO under Colin Davies. Possibly Marcellus fans won't like this - in which case it would be interesting to hear why.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-12-19 19:41
"Marcellus said that it should be performed simply, with out flashy articulated passages or embellishment"
Considering that Mozart would have expected articulated passages as well as embellishment, I'm not sure that was Marcellus's most intelligent statement.
Give me Tale Ognenovski's version any day!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-19 21:22
Just listened to it again for the first time in many years. When I was a teenager (late '80s) this was often presented to students here in America as the greatest recording of the piece ever--and more than that, the ultimate clarinet performance.
Today's experience was enlightening. There is a lot to admire here: there is a quality to Marcellus's tone that is very unique and almost heartbreaking (and I find this in his orchestral playing too). Techincally speaking, the evenness and legato which was considered without peer is really not. Leister's recording pretty decisively and objectively surpasses it in this regard (all phrasing and 'musical' issues aside).
But more interesting to me is the strange feeling I get that this isn't really Marcellus's interpretation, but Szell's. No other recording sounds so 'conducted'. Listen to the rubato in the third mvt for example--to my ear it sounds as though Marcellus was watching the baton and being conducted here every bit as he would have been in a Beethoven symphony. Because of this, there is a constrained quality, and it effects the spiritual aspect of the piece for me. It lacks freedom and open air.
Some of the clarity of interplay and direction is pretty remarkable. But I prefer Sabine's recording and Leister's.
By the way, there are spots where Marcellus struggles. As a 15 year old, I noticed m. 83 in the exposition of the first mvt sounded awkward. I immediately made it a goal to play that measure "smoother than Marcellus" (and did). Because nearly every judge I played for considered his recording perfection itself, believe me it impressed people! It was good trick--and probably helped me get scholarship offers! [Note to young people: when you only have 15-30 minutes to impress people who might determine the shape of your young life, it's good to throw in something that people think is 'impossible'!]
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-19 22:02
The interpretation was very much Szell's.
First, I must say that the recording predates me by 17 years; but in speaking with those whom both worked with Szell and Marcellus, or saw performances of the concerto, Szell conducted everything in the work. Even the cadenza in the 2nd movement was not left to the discretion of the clarinet. (The 1971 performance under Lorin Maazel's baton did differ from the "Gold standard" we have all come to know.)
Szell had quite vehemently held ideals of Classic/orchestral style; and he strove endlessly to achieve them. We can be free to disagree or not with what he strove for, but Szell at the least held fast to his views.
There were obviously some that disagreed with Szell's work. A reporter once mentioned to Rudolph Bing that "Szell was his own worst enemy."; to which Bing muttered "Not while I'm alive he's not."
The French also had a particular affinity for Szell's La Mer recording.... so much so that it it was retitled La Merde
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-12-19 22:04
Eric -
I heard RM play the Mozart in Severance Hall in late 1961, at the time the recording was made. Like you, I thought the interpretation was as much Szell as Marcellus. Szell conducted every beat. In fact, when they got to the cadenza in the second movement, they turned toward each other, and locked eyes, and Szell leaned over RM (who was seated) and conducted every note.
There are a few tiny moments of strain in the recording, as you point out. I've always thought he rushed the first phrase ending (F-E) at the beginning of the third movement. But I love most of it. The recording was probably done in only a few takes, and I forgive everything for the wonderful tone and phrasing. There's an air-check of a live performance in Akron where there are a couple of outright burbles, but the performance is just as a good as the recorded one, though slightly different.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-19 22:49
I don't know which is more strange, Ken--every note of the cadenza being dictated, or that Marcellus played the concerto seated! I guess both are symptomatic. I've performed concerti, but would never want to perform under those terms. It would be deeply humiliating and musically frustrating. I wonder if the Cleveland press noted how bizarre the performance situation was.
That adds to the oddness of the experience listening to it--and explains some things too. Thanks for confirming my ears on that one.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2011-12-20 00:32
MarlboroughMan wrote:
> I don't know which is more strange, Ken--every note of the
> cadenza being dictated, or that Marcellus played the concerto
> seated! I guess both are symptomatic. I've performed concerti,
> but would never want to perform under those terms. It would be
> deeply humiliating and musically frustrating. I wonder if the
> Cleveland press noted how bizarre the performance situation
> was.
>
> That adds to the oddness of the experience listening to it--and
> explains some things too. Thanks for confirming my ears on that
> one.
>
>
> Eric
>
Robert Marcellus's playing continues to deeply resonate with clarinetists new and old alike. His achieved his vision of what a principal clarinetist should be within the context of an orchestra and it is a tough act to follow.
I'm in awe of how humble Marcellus probably was. Most amazing musicians arguably want to put their stamp on a piece, where as when Marcellus was performing as a conduit representing the work of an even greater musician, Mozart. The best clarinetist of his day and he would do whatever it took, his ego set aside. What I and many would give to have been able to hear Marcellus live standing up or sitting down, conducting on his own or being conducted by Szell, playing in Severance Hall or in a homeless shelter.
For all the divas in the room. Try this: Go turn your web cam on and record Mozart from start to finish right now. I'd like to see how many would be comfortable to show off the result.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C.Elizabeth07
Date: 2011-12-20 01:16
to each his own... I do enjoy the simplicity of RM however I also love recordings of others. I feel like for me RM is the most memorable. I'm a big fan of Frost though as well...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-20 02:17
Marcellus was great. "The best clarinetist of his day"...? I don't know if that's true, or if it means much of anything to say it. Many great clarinetists played during his era. Karl Leister certainly belongs in any discussion of orchestral clarinetists of that time, as do at least one or two others.
I don't think one needs to be labeled a 'diva' for thinking that a player being conducted every phrase of a concerto, down to the notes of a cadenza, is strange and even hindering to a more potentially satisfying musical performance. If you read this thread, you'll see that I felt something was constrained and slightly wrong with the feel of the playing, and guessed he was following Szell's direction--not the other way around. That it was confirmed pretty much astonishes me.
The Marcellus Mozart is a great recording. Prefer it to all others if you like. But it's not my favorite, and I'm fascinated to see that the elevation of this recording to a paradigm of legendary perfection doesn't seem to transcend the borders of the USA. That says something interesting to me--far more interesting than yet another exaggeration about the recording itself.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-20 02:23
Thanks for these, Ken. Very intersting stuff.
I've known for a while that Moennig re-made Marcellus's clarinets (that's actually pretty well known here in Cleveland--I've met guys who knew RM and scoped his R-13s back in the day). But I didn't know about that problem with the B.
I'm sure you've known players who just preferred sitting and holding the horn between the knees too. Makes sense.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-20 04:17
Someone once told me "Nobody could win an audition today if they played the Mozart like Marcellus did."
Well, that may be true.... or not. Taking into account that his hands were a bit tied as to the interpretation, let's take it out of the equation for the moment.
I consider it quite remarkable that he was able to play so beautifully in what could be felt a constrained setting. And it must be understood that Szell was very demanding as to "his way", concertos not withstanding.
This recording may sound dated to some; and considering the discovery of the Winterthur Fragment it is. How should this detract? I'm not going to say.........
But I Do dare say if one were to play the work with their "correct" interpretation as skillfully, or convincingly as Marcellus, they would not be ill served; and leave the idea of perfection right out of this.
Though playing Mozart with a hint of "winning anything" in the air is arrogant at its best in my mind.
And what seems to often be lost is how integral the orchestral interplay is in the composition. Writing about a clarinetist's playing of the piece as a soloist is missing a large portion of the picture.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-20 04:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2011-12-20 13:42
Not to be a bore, but my understanding is that there are *no cadenza* in the Mozart clarinet concerto, only eingangs.
My hearing of the recording is that although beautiful in many ways, it is played on the wrong clarinet and in the wrong style.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclarinet
Date: 2011-12-20 15:15
Some years ago,Pete Hadcock gave a recital and Master Class at a college nearby. He played a beautiful recital sitting down with the clarinet on his knees.The next day during the master class, a probably frustrated clarinetist,known to me as an --------------(use your own thoughts for this ) continually bothered Pete with questions non- specific to the class. His last question was actually a statement in which he told Pete that he had recently heard Larry Combs (Larry and Pete were classmates at Eastman) play a recital standing up,implying that Pete was not properly formal in his recital because he sat down.Pete took a deep breath,and said something close to this:" I have had the ultimate privilege of sitting next to Harold Wright in the Boston Symphony(Harold Wright performed the Mozart Concerto with the orchestra numerous times sitting down) for the past twenty years and quite frankly, I would much rather hear Harold Wright sitting down than Larry Combs standing up!). Obviously,his statement was not meant to criticize Larry Combs.It was meant to clearly state that it is the music, not the format in which it is performed, that matters.
Beauti
wn
Post Edited (2011-12-20 15:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-12-23 07:16
Anyone the least bit aware of the Cleveland/Szell phenomenon knows that Szell was an authoritarian of the old Viennese school. They are also aware that Szell believed that orchestral playing was a supremely collaborative endeavor - that orchestral playing was, at it's best, an extension of the finest chamber music making. In many interviews he stated his belief that the highest compliment that could be bestowed upon any orchestra was that it played together in a way that resembled a great string quartet (or other great chamber group).
Szell's view of collaboration not only extended to members of the orchestra who were featured from time to time as soloists, but to every last soloist who played as a guest with the orchestra under his direction. Whether it was Fleischer, Oistrakh, Rostopovich, or whomever, no one escaped his commitment to the belief that there was always a need for collaboration in the form of chamber music-like give and take, whether it be between soloist and orchestral "accompaniment" or between orchestral musicians themselves.
The Mozart/Marcellus/Szell recording, when viewed in this context makes complete sense as to it's unity of purpose and a keen display of collaboration. Make no mistake about it, Marcellus was one of a "hundred little Szells" (refering to individual members of The Cleveland Orchestra) who admired and respected Szell and because of that, grew by leaps and bounds under his guidance.
There was relatively little space separating the two by the time of this recording. One then has to ask if that kind of thing is a strength or a weakness when it comes to performing the Mozart Clarinet Concerto?
However one feels about this recording depends largely on what one *expects* to hear whether that means authenticity of performance practice (not something front and foremost in 1961 - at least not at the level the world's top orchestras were playing 50 years ago), whether one expects to hear the soloist stand out in relief from the orchestral writing rather than to expect a more collaborative manner, or even whether or not Mozart was to be played in the manner that Szell/Cleveland interpreted it altogether.
My impression from having known the soloist for 20 years until the end of his relatively short life (as well as having had a relatively short career span of 20 years as principal clarinettist of The Cleveland Orchestra), was that he remained unsatisfied with his own Mozart recording because he felt, like many interpreters of Mozart, that he could never do the piece justice because of it's inherent brilliance and depth as a composition.
There are some who have argued that the reason he seemed never to get to the bottom of the concerto was because of the exact reasons I've listed giving context to the circumstances of the recording. To those who have chosen that line of reasoning, I remind them that no work of art lives in a vacuum. (There's even a small split in the community of critics of Victorian literary fiction who disagree whether context is relevant or not to one's proper understanding of an author's works.)
Whatever one's view, it seems rather cavalier to criticize the performance as either dull, boring, or unstylish (the several that I've oftenmost come across) without an appreciation of the context involved. Szell was often quoted as saying that he couldn't be expected to pour chocolate sauce over asparagus. I believe that the key difference between the Cleveland recording and most others are the artistic sensibilities reflected in that quote.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2011-12-23 07:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-23 13:13
Gregory Smith wrote, in part:
“…Szell believed that orchestral playing was a supremely collaborative endeavor - that orchestral playing was, at it's best, an extension of the finest chamber music making. In many interviews he stated his belief that the highest compliment that could be bestowed upon any orchestra was that it played together in a way that resembled a great string quartet (or other great chamber group).
“Szell's view of collaboration not only extended to members of the orchestra who were featured from time to time as soloists, but to every last soloist who played as a guest with the orchestra under his direction. Whether it was Fleischer, Oistrakh, Rostopovich, or whomever, no one escaped his commitment to the belief that there was always a need for collaboration in the form of chamber music-like give and take, whether it be between soloist and orchestral "accompaniment" or between orchestral musicians themselves.”
*
There is a fundamental problem with this line of reasoning, in my opinion. That Szell was “authoritarian” as Gregory Smith points out is indeed well known. That he likewise believed orchestral playing should resemble great chamber music is also well known. What is missed here, however, is an understanding of the meaning of genre and context, beyond the 1961 context mentioned in the post above.
Collaboration can mean many things, but one thing it doesn’t mean is one person telling all others what to do absolutely. If you don’t believe me, try telling your wife, husband, or children what to do in every way during a day, and when they object, simply explain to them that you have a deep commitment to the idea of collaboration. This is an abuse of a word (and usually other people), not a real argument. There is a meeting of relative equals in true collaboration, and mere servants of an authoritarian master rarely view themselves as “collaborators” in any meaningful sense of the word.
But to make the point very clear in a musical context, and to draw from the example above: I know of no string quartet who would willingly allow a conductor to direct them in concert or rehearsal. It’s not so much because that would constitute a challenge to their egos, but rather that it would be an affront to the very exercise they were engaged in, which not only involves the making of music with a certain instrumentation, but the making of it in a certain manner, which (I would argue) is capable of producing a certain spiritual result, impossible otherwise.
The String Quartet is not merely an instrumentation: it is an organization of relationships, representing a certain approach to music making through real collaboration. A member of the Emerson String Quartet was once approached after a concert and told “I didn’t agree with everything you did!” He responded “Neither did I!” When pressed as to how much this member of the quartet “agreed” with, he said “about 25%.” The implication, of course, is that the Emerson is comprised of four equally important musical minds, four mature human beings who really do fully collaborate on the music at hand. The tension, dedication, and maturity (both musical and personal) needed to maintain a successful String Quartet demonstrates how rare true collaboration is, and how tenuous.
Collaboration is also a fundamental principle of the solo Concerto, at least from the time of writing for specific virtuosi (as Mozart did for Stadler). Part of the symbolic beauty and “meaning” of the genre, if you will, is that the solo instrument is allowed to speak above the context of the orchestra, and as a mature voice, expresses itself in a type of fullness and freedom—with the support and interaction of the orchestra. This freedom bears a strong responsibility to the whole—to the entire piece, that is—solo and tutti. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that if a soloist does not subjugate themselves to a conductor, they are somehow less concerned with the dignity of the whole. No—they are instead accepting and claiming their proper role. And as with this, it is likewise false to suggest that because a soloist followed the baton of the director absolutely, that this somehow makes them more conscious in regards to the whole. Indeed, they have abdicated some of their artistic responsibility.
The “Concerto!” series of videos produced in the 1990s can give us some experience of what collaboration is like. There are as many different legitimate ways to collaborate as there are people willing and able to do so, but one in the series features a very interesting meeting between Michael Tilson Thomas and Richard Stoltzman for the Copland Concerto. There is a give and take, an exchange of ideas, a consultation with orchestra musicians done during breaks, and even rejected takes shown. At one point, Stoltzman is obviously frustrated that his goals with this recording session aren’t being met, but it leads to the suggestion of a tempo by MTT, and results in a fresh take on the piece. A push and pull between musical minds results in a true collaborative effort. Those suggesting that a soloist wanting to operate this way represents ‘egotism’ are missing the real humility involved in getting a bit messy in the process of creating something worthwhile.
My objection to the Szell/Marcellus recording of the Mozart Concerto is not that it isn’t beautiful: it is. It’s not that it is dull: it isn’t. It doesn’t even have to do with ‘style’ in the sense that we usually mean when we use that word in a musical context.
My objection to the Szell recording is that it is, in a highly specific and limited sense, a type of affront to the virtuoso concerto form itself—that it denies a certain amount of dignity of freedom and maturity to the soloist, and in doing so the whole piece is somewhat straight jacketed, spiritually (which is not what I hope to hear in Mozart). The ends most emphatically do not justify the means, because the ends are deficient. There is a spiritual wrongness to the end result, stemming from this aspect of the performance concept.
I would not describe Szell’s approach in this instance as authoritarian, but leaning towards the totalitarian.
It is a measure of the brilliance of all the musicians involved in this recording that, despite this foundational flaw, it is still a great recording.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-25 01:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BubbaVic
Date: 2011-12-23 15:32
Liquorice wrote:
"Give me Tale Ognenovski's version any day!"
MarlboroughMan wrote:
"I'd never heard of this, so I just looked it up!!!!
TEARS ARE WELLING UP IN MY EYES!!!
SUCH RUBATO!!!!!! SUCH PASSION!!!!!!"
Okay, I'm probably going to come off as a complete moron, but with reference to Tale Ognenovski's interpretation of the Mozart, are you joking? You can not be freaking serious, right? So many folks on this board have bad-mouthed the tone quality of Aker Bilk and Richard Stoltzman (and rightly so, in my opinion) how can one consider Ognenovski's interpretation on a par with Marcellus - or just about anyone else on the planet, for that matter? Possibly you are just being cosmically sarcastic and I didn't get it.
If you ARE serious, I apologize, because everyone has different tastes and opinions, and I mean no disrespect.
But reading some of the comments on this thread, I'm sure glad that I started it.
VK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-12-23 18:37
"Collaboration can mean many things, but one thing it doesn't mean is one person telling all others what to do absolutely."
No such definition of collaboration was practiced then nor implied in my own description.
"I know of no string quartet who would willingly allow a conductor to direct them in concert or rehearsal."
No such thing was implied by Szell in his comment. His description of how well an orchestra can demonstrate ensemble in performance simply resembled the finest in chamber music. That statement didn't mean he admired this quality because the orchestra only bent to his will and that there was no give and take either in rehearsal or behind the scene. All productive musical collaboration involves give and take, the degree to which varied widely depending on the circumstances.
" My objection to the Szell recording is that it is an affront to the virtuoso concerto form itself—that it denies the soloist the dignity of freedom and maturity..."
In what way? I think in the zeal to convey what comes up short for you in the interpretation you have made some rather OTT assumptions about the circumstances under which this music was made. This notion that Szell dictated how the concerto should go to the extreme that you take it is based on mistaken assumptions and a high degree of speculation.
From what I know about the experience through Marcellus' eyes and ears, it was an interpretation almost wholly of Marcellus' making except a suggestion or two about tempo in a few transitional sections made by Szell (nothing out of the ordinary when soloists and conductors collaborate). Also Szell believed that on first hearing, there were a very few passages that were perhaps in need of a more legato approach to make sense with other, similar thematic material appearing throughout the piece.
Other than that, Marcellus expressed that he had complete freedom to express what he envisioned. The fact that he was highly influenced by Szell's interpretation of Mozart (or of any other composer) from his previous years in the orchestra shouldn't be surprising. Szell choosing to follow Marcellus' eingang by tracing the beats (or even notes) in order to bring the orchestra back in is completely understandable considering Szell's often expressed need to feel his orchestra was always participating in the performance, especially while at rest or in preparation for an entrance.
The observation that the interpretation is not spiritually fulfilling is a completely legitimate one - a criticism leveled at the performance by many before.
What I am suggesting is that listeners reexamine the foundation for such a conclusion as I have asked in my posts. If one is expecting to hear improvisational brilliance the likes of which has become almost standard performance practice today, then surely that aspect of the Marcellus performance, in hindsight, will come up short (and so on). No one can seriously doubt the extraordinary brilliance of his articulation, an attribute completely in line with the style called for of that period.
There is a concept in play that the Cleveland/Szell musical ethic personifies which is that a certain type and amount of structure and discipline allows for a freedom from which expression will naturally grow. If viewed from that perspective, a certain structural sense will not necessarily be perceived, as it has become for some, a solution in search of a problem.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2011-12-23 19:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-23 21:17
>“No such definition of collaboration was practiced then nor implied in my own description.”
It did seem to me quite strongly implied, when you spoke of 100 Szells, when you reminded us that anyone who knows of Szell knows of his authoritarianism, and when others talk of the nobility of Marcellus subjugating his musical will to Szell in these matters. This isn’t all from your own account, of course, but there are many students of Marcellus, and many voices of those who knew him. No one person owns his legacy or may speak for him, nor do I accuse you of suggesting this. But know that I’m addressing what I consider to be a general problem—namely the praising of such musical subjugation, even in a solo concerto, as musical virtue.
You are free to disagree, but my opinion has not wavered by our discourse here.
>Me: "I know of no string quartet who would willingly allow a conductor to direct them in concert or rehearsal."
>GS:”No such thing was implied by Szell in his comment.”
I recognize that Szell was not referring to this, but my comment was no so over the top as you might think. I was talking of the disconnect between what is proper to a String Quartet, a Virtuoso Concerto performance, and Symphonic Literature. The means of interpretation, and the method by which rehearsals are conducted, etc, is different. Szell’s admiration for a chamber style to orchestral playing provided a nice segue to the discussion of that difference.
> Me: " My objection to the Szell recording is that it is an affront to the virtuoso concerto form itself—that it denies the soloist the dignity of freedom and maturity..."
>GS: “In what way?”
I detailed how in my post. It has to do with the role of Virtuoso soloist. Perhaps referring to Szell’s influence as ‘totalitarian’ is a bit inflammatory (shame on my polemical streak! Heh heh. I have a flair for controversy)—but I think it’s worth emphasizing strongly how much I disagree with this approach to the genre—and that it is emphatically not more musically noble or humble to approach a concerto this way.
Once again, you are free to disagree, but my opinion remains firm.
> GS: “The observation that the interpretation is not spiritually fulfilling is a completely legitimate one - a criticism leveled at the performance by many before.”
Thank you. What I was trying to elucidate is why it is not as spiritually fulfilling as it might be: that it had perhaps to do with approach, and was not merely subjective.
> GS: ”There is a concept in play that the Cleveland/Szell musical ethic personifies which is that a certain type and amount of structure and discipline allows for a freedom from which expression will naturally grow.”
Perhaps one man’s straight jacket is another’s discipline? I don’t disagree with discipline and structure, but I do get worried when the coat they’re showing me has arm strings.
But this is admittedly a bit of hyperbole on my part: the recording is legendary, and deservedly so. But it is not without flaws. I think those flaws can and should be discussed, though many still have a knee-jerk reaction (in my opinion) to defend the master at all costs. Marcellus doesn’t need to be defended: his work stands for itself, eloquently, and his legacy won’t be harmed by my agreeing or disagreeing with any aspect of his art.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-12-24 05:48
It has always been fascinating what this musician and in particular this recording generates in terms of what it is and what it is not.
It's obviously an important enough recording to generate such lengthy discussions in many threads on this bboard (and others) and in professional settings over a period of many years.
In a way, it's almost become the clarinettist's Rorschach test or perhaps even a personally held object of projection. Either way, it stirs up profound emotions and brings out many strongly held opinions of every kind.
What I find most interesting about all of these discussions is that they have something particularly bizarre in common - that is they bring out a tendency toward unfounded criticism being made about a sort of fanaticism, cultishness, and over-zealousness when one speaks about the many positive attributes of this performance.
Maybe that's the result of a simple defensiveness about strongly held beliefs regarding musical expression, sound production, or musical scholarship. Maybe it's just a reactionary-like response to be expected when discussing such an influential musician.
In Marcellus' world, he was keenly aware of those who might mistakenly cling to his every word and musical sound as an ideal, prompting a worship that made him extremely uncomfortable.
In his latter years, he always made mention of this phenomenon during master classes and other public appearances which he then tried to dissipate with a comment or two in a form that would discourage such worship.
I suppose musical and personal charisma had it's burdens for both the man and the musician.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2011-12-24 05:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-24 11:03
Greg Smith wrote the following related statements:
“What I find most interesting about all of these discussions is that they have something particularly bizarre in common - that is they bring out a tendency toward unfounded criticism being made about a sort of fanaticism, cultishness, and over-zealousness when one speaks about the many positive attributes of this performance.”
[…]
“In Marcellus' world, he was keenly aware of those who might mistakenly cling to his every word and musical sound as an ideal, prompting a worship that made him extremely uncomfortable.”
“In his latter years, he always made mention of this phenomenon during master classes and other public appearances which he then tried to dissipate with a comment or two in a form that would discourage such worship.”
“I suppose musical and personal charisma had it's burdens for both the man and the musician.”
*
Greg,
One cannot have it both ways. There cannot be “unfounded criticism being made about a sort of fanaticism, cultishness, and over-zealousness” on the one hand, and Marcellus himself uncomfortable with “worship” of those who might “cling to his every word and musical sound as an ideal” on the other. You see there was (and many would argue still is) a problem with Marcellus zealots.
The criticism you mention is therefore not “unfounded”—you say Marcellus himself even recognized it. Those of us who grew up when I did (and I’m nearly 40 years old) didn’t make the Marcellus recording the standard, nor do I believe anything of the sort that the recording is a “Rorschach test”—
though it is indeed treated by some zealots as a Litmus test. Ultimately, it’s just a fine recording of the piece, to be discussed like many others, with of course the difference that when it is, there is usually a Marcellus zealot somewhere nearby waiting to defend the master’s honor and show his adherence to the true faith (which is truly bizarre, and I don’t blame Marcellus for being uncomfortable with it).
I know many Marcellus students, and one cannot drive from my house (fifteen minutes from Severance Hall) to University Circle without passing people who knew him well and worked with him. Most have a balanced appreciation for the man and his music. None of them can speak for him, and none is the curator of his legacy. I would argue (and have argued) that Marcellus zealotry (and hero worship of others/”legendary teacher syndrome”, etc) is damaging to American clarinetistry. It is by no means limited to Marcellus zealots: believe me, they are fewer in number every year, and being replaced by the next idols. And I gleefully declare war on the the whole lot of them!
But it’s Christmas Eve now, and I have a lot to do, as I’m sure you do too, sans gleeful clarinet warfare. After Christmas I’ll deal with this more extensively on my new blog—including getting back to the musical performance itself, which tends to get lost in quotations of the "the master" in discussions like this. Anyhow, the whole topic is a fascinating phenomenon. But now, ‘tis a time for peace and good will, and I extend those to you.
Merry Christmas, Greg.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-26 15:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-12-24 18:14
What I have always said is that this particular recording, and perhaps the man in general, has been the subject of such idolatry. Of course there is a problem with all idolatry in music and indeed, Marcellus was the first one to discourage it.
But what I have also been careful to point out is the necessity to make the distinction between genuine complimentary analysis, and a whitewashing by those who would reactively describe those compliments as simple idolatry.
Once again, the tendency seems to reactively conflate the two, blunting any legitimate further meaningful discussion.
Polemics and and all forms of exaggeration or speculation tend to take over the discussion about this artist (and other artists) who are influential because of their legitimate musical artistry.
Stripping away the hyperbole at both ends of the spectrum is the only way to have meaningful discussion about their true artistry (or not). I see no contradiction at all in the ideas I've put forth when viewed in this manner.
There is, at one end of the spectrum, just as zealous a group of anti-zealot ideologues that are just as harmful to the discussion, blinding them to the genuine attributes of musical performance (just as it has been argued that atheism is as much a form of religious fundamentalism as fundamentalism itself.)
Musical Fundamentalism is about rigid adherence to a doctrine and quite often the doctrine is a recorded document or body of documents, but sometimes it is simply a tenet or a minority viewpoint.
Characteristically it is a legalistic adherence. Boundless energy goes into defining what is compliant and what is non-compliant - or who is compliant or non-compliant. There is usually a kind of asceticism or other self-denial involved which adds fuel to the fervor.
Adherents' sense of inherent self-worth becomes tied to their compliance or non-compliance. Indeed the whole attraction to a fundamentalist practice is often driven by the absence of any sense of inherent self-worth. Fundamentalism becomes an attempt to earn a personal value which cannot be earned but must simply be accepted.
Adherents' appreciation of other people also becomes conditional on compliance or non-compliance to the elevated doctrine.
Obviously, fundamentalism is not an intrinsically religious concept. Fundamentalism is rampant in many areas of life, and fundamentalists band together in secular pursuits just as surely as they do in spiritual ones. The bonding is a central part of the fundamentalist essence. It is about being separate and better.
Just go cruising all forms of forums and chat rooms.
You will find fundamentalists debating who is pure and impure in their following of the Atkins Diet, the "Eat Right 4 Your Type" diet and just about every other diet. Diets lend themselves especially well to fundamentalism because of the self-denial involved. Anorexia and bulimia breed and are bred by a fundamentalist approach to self-worth.
You will find fundamentalist enclaves of political conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, communism and most especially Ayn-Randism - and the last-named is kind of ironic, given their hatred of the religious personality.
You will find fundamentalists who have attached themselves to collecting arcane objects, restoring cars, saving the environment, exploiting the environment... the list is endless.
Musical Fundamentalism is about the ultimate "being a do-good musician" experience. It is a psychological profile more than a musical commitment, and I have seen people leave one musical "denomination" or another to become just as fundamentalist in secular pursuits. I've seen fundamentalists who never had a religious background, though the fundamentalist personality does tend to be attracted to religions.
But ultimately, rational discourse is not possible unless one understands that musical viewpoints cannot be separated from personality. That's one of the main reasons I have entered these discussions if for nothing else but to try to identify where a lack of flexible thinking about music makes for meaningless discussion and analysis.
Happy Holidays to Eric and to All,
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2011-12-24 18:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-24 18:44
I think there comes a time when a conversation has run it's course. Greg, as your last comments don't seem to touch much on the points I've been trying to make here, I'll leave it at that.
Merry Christmas to all.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-25 00:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2011-12-24 19:03
I have been somewhat reluctant to join in the fray. I am very happy to read Gregory Smith's very clear comments which give a terrific insight into the world of Szell and Marcellus.
In evaluating this recording, certainly the hindsight of 50 years gives one a different perspective. The concepts and performance practices were different at the time. There are many other recordings of the work from that period and earlier where one could level similar criticisms. If nothing else, the period instrument/authentic performance movement of the last 25 years has changed perceptions of how this work should be played.
In discussing this recording, Marcellus spoke of sitting and collaborating with Szell on the interpretation with the conductor at the piano. I think that it is crazy to assume that he was somehow passive in the creation of this performance.
There are those who will disagree with the interpretations of this legendary orchestra and conductor. Without a doubt, many of their performances are supreme examples of musicianship and ensemble that few groups can reach. The recording of this concerto is a great example of the chamber music quality of which Gregory Smith speaks. It is not an extroverted performance focussing on the soloist as star. It is instead, a recording which highlights the beauty and nuance of the music and draws the listener in to something which is more personal and more intimate.
Given Szell's status as a great interpreter of Haydn and Mozart, and Marcellus' reputation as a player, some may expect too much of this recording, especially given it's long tenure in the recorded catalogue. The supreme ensemble playing and unity of thought is a joy to hear. There is an elegance and clarity in this performance that is unique. Perhaps the interpretation may seem dated to some. This does not make it any less valuable, but gives a valuable perspective as a snapshot of the thinking of the time. I don't know that any recording should be viewed as a definitive document. I am sure if the same performers were able to record it again today it would be different.
However one chooses to view it, it is music making of the highest order.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-12-24 19:40
I like Ed's comments above. Obviously the Marcellus recording needs to be viewed in the context of the time and place that it was recorded. The playing is wonderful, but I agree that the same performers would certainly do it differently if they were to do it today.
What bothers me is the blown-up comments of someone like JameOrlandoGarcia:
"Marcellus was performing as a conduit representing the work of an even greater musician, Mozart"
I presume that this is the kind of fanaticism that Gregory Smith is talking about. I just can't accept this view of Marcellus having made the definitive recording, and being just a humble vessel of Mozart's true intentions. Puh-leez...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-24 21:39
Absolutely Liquorice,
Not that Marcellus claimed it, but anybody who does claim that they (or any said recording) are the true statement of an-others musical intentions is spurious at its best.
Stating that one is the modern-day correct "voice" of as brilliant a mind as Mozart's is a tad crazy to me. One makes their choices, armed with as much knowledge as can be gleaned, and then must voice what they deem to be their most-intelligent statement. No-one can claim to be "right." Nor can an outsider claim that.
Fanatical elevation, or denigration, of Marcellus (or any influential artist) is equally invalid.
The world that the artist existed in is what needs to be evaluated; though that is not an attack of the artist themselves as some equate it to be. Only with that in mind can a recording/person be truly "evaluated."
Or can the cave painters of Lascaux be viewed as lesser artists than that of Monet, or Picasso? I should think not.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclarinet
Date: 2011-12-25 00:52
My wife is a fine pianist. Perhaps she is correct when she states that Mozart gave the pianists of the world 27 concertos, and the clarinetists only 1. Maybe we should in all humility, move on? Just a thought.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2011-12-25 14:57
Chet, It obviously took Mozart a lot of practice to finally get it right!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-12-25 17:54
Artur Schnabel said that great music is music "better than it can be played." Certainly the Mozart Concerto is great music, and there is no definitive interpretation.
The Marcellus recording is nearly perfect, and we can all learn by listening to it, but except as an exercise, I wouldn't attempt to imitate it, and certainly not in a performance. There are too many other ways it can be played, each of which can be as nearly perfect as the Marcellus recording.
You use the Marcellus recording the way a sober man uses a lamp-post -- for illumination, not support.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2011-12-25 20:43
Later tonight I will muddy up the waters and provide a link to some live performances of the Mozart performed by Marcellus.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2011-12-25 21:10
One could test out the Szell theory by comparing Marcellus' Szell performance with the 1973 (non-commercially released) performance with Lorin Maazel conducting Cleveland. The two performances are, to my ears, very different, the Maazel performance being playful, among other things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2011-12-25 21:38
Here's a link to the Mazel performance. I made it downloadable so get it while it's hot. To my ear the first movement is pretty much the same as the Szell recording. I haven't listened to the other movements in a long time. Somewhere in my collection is another recording with Boulez conducting, but I can't find it at the moment....
http://soundcloud.com/ineedareed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-12-25 21:42
Wow. It's almost like we don't need new, expensive clarinets to play nice and sound good! Those old clarinets seem to be doing a pretty good job.....
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2011-12-25 22:31
Thanks for the links Dave. Its really in the third movement that there is the biggest difference, at least to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-12-25 23:51
Many thanks, David.
This is from a run-out concert in Akron. Do you have any idea of the date? I have this on a home-made CD with the Debussy and Shepherd on the Rock with Valente and Leinsdorf on piano.
Keep the good stuff coming!
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2011-12-26 16:59
Interesting to compare the Maazel performance with the Szell. The finale ends with exactly the same unconvincing drop in tempo followed by accelerando: so it looks like this was Marcellus's idea, rather than something forced on him by Szell, which seemed more likely from the above discussion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2011-12-26 17:17
I'm with John Peacock on this one... I don't hear all that much difference.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-27 18:10
As promised, I've just published the first of a series of posts entitled "Marcellus the Rorschach Test?" on my blog.
http://marlboroughmanmusic.blogspot.com/
I think this first part will explain my relationship to the recording in a way that gets away from the sillier ideas associated with the "aura" of Marcellus here in America, and hopefully provides a more reasonable and musical path forward.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to upload audio files to the blog, so I've had to link my own excerpt to Soundcloud, but other than that, it should be easy reading.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-27 23:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-28 12:03
Eric,
I read your blog with amusement including listening to your short clip of mm 83.
I must say that while you are entitled to your opinion, comparing yourself to Robert Marcellus using just one measure as an example is quite an example of hubris.
It's kind of like my making a shot from beyond the 3 point line and then saying that I can play basketball like Michael Jordan.
Perhaps I am missing the point or you have another agenda of trying to sell the Reformed Boehms into the American market.
Either way....your argument is not convincing.
Dileep
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-28 12:56
Dileep,
My blog entry details clearly why I posted the clip, and it was not to compete with Robert Marcellus. It was to point out a problem with one measure, and its implications. Otherwise I would never have posted a clip of myself playing in a small, dead room, into a laptop mic, on a reed too hard (so as not to distort the sound)!
In part two, I'll deal with the need for players like yourself to place Marcellus on an untouchable pedestal ("How dare you compare a measure of your playing to the Great Marcellus?!") As you can see, I dared--even with a bad laptop recording. Perhaps that will embolden others to listen more carefully and dare to compare THEMSELVES--even to great players, and even to the demands of the music itself (which is my real point).
As for my agenda, I trust that's very clear from the blog itself. If not, I'll work hard to make it obvious. It certainly isn't intended to be hidden.
I'm happy to say that Marlborough Man Music is getting a lot of international traffic, and a lot of positive feedback through email and phone calls.
Thank you to everybody who is showing such interest--it's really made my week great so far. A lot of you guys are helping me build something a little different here--it is deeply appreciated.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-29 23:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2011-12-29 03:12
For me the little bumps along the way in anyone's recording remind me that a real person is playing it. I like them. I especially like Harold Wright's recordings; he has lots of these in his playing. I find the utter smoothness of Leister and (ducking for cover!) Morales to be somewhat boring. I admire Morales for his amazing technique, but I would rather hear many other clarinet players who aren't quite so perfect.
So the little imperfection in m. 83 is nothing to me. Marlboroughman, I think you are missing the point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-29 03:55
Dave,
With respect (and I mean that sincerely), I think you might be missing my point, which was not to denigrate the recording, nor to talk about the "whole piece" or the "big picture" or what the "point" of performing the Mozart concerto is about, but to highlight a specific problem that I've noticed in French Boehm performances, regarding m 83 (I could point out many other recordings, but you can look those up for yourself if you're interested: I don't recommend it, as it's tedious to listen this way, and not that interesting). Marcellus is a good one to choose, because he is such a touchstone of excellence for American players.
It's not the odd 'bump' that is of interest or concern to me: it's the perpetual 'problem' of measure 83 I'm dealing with--and beyond that: the implications of problems in other places because of the same technical limitations of the equipment, and therefore the limitations for phrasing. (Believe me, this French Boehm awkwardness comes up strikingly in the Brahms Sonatas).
If you listen closely to Leister, or Morales, or anyone, they're not as 'perfect' as you might think either: that's not the point, and that's not what I'm driving at. As a player, I'm not looking for some abstract standard of perfection, but I AM looking for control and flexibility, so that I might have a chance of truly realizing the potential of the music in front of me.
If you read the essay through carefully you'll see that what bothered me was that I'd HAD that control and flexibility to shape the phrase more subtly and consciously than on Marcellus's recording, and LOST it, and didn't know why.
If you reread many of my posts here, and the essay on MMM, please notice how many superlatives I use for Marcellus's playing and the recording--those are sincere. Please also, if you are going to address my writing on the subject, try to really understand what I'm driving at--which ultimately has more to do with the clarinet and our ability to express what Mozart wrote than it has to do with Marcellus's recording.
Finally (for now), because I am focusing on m 83 in the present essay doesn't mean I'm de facto ignoring the point of the whole piece: in this case, it simply means I'm focusing on m 83. Don't assume that because I have focused for a moment on one peculiar tree that I don't remember I'm in a forest.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2011-12-29 04:09
I think I get it. You are saying that the French clarinet is causing us so many problems and that in order to experience music fully then we must realize the wonderful qualities of the Wurlitzer clarinets. My point in this is that I don't care how smooth you can play any phrase on a Wurlitzer. The sound quality alone would keep me away from the thing. It's just not a sound that I enjoy listening to.
BTW, I hear no awkwardness in the French Boehm clarinet nor do I experience it when playing. Also, despite my substandard Boehm clarinet, I can manage a pretty acceptable m. 83.
This thread started out with someone enjoying a musical performance and it has devolved into your idea that Marcellus could have done it better on your favorite clarinet. Whatevs...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-29 04:31
Dave,
I was talking about the struggles of artistry, not trying to push instruments. Part of the reason I took my portion of this discussion "off the board" and blogged it was to distance it from any taint of advertising here.
Sometimes my artistic opinions are strongly related to the instruments I play, and can sure seem one and the same with advertising, given my current position. Hence the blog. I think it can enable me, unabiguously--or at least less ambiguously, to share my thoughts.
If you are happy with your set-up, by all means keep it. I know it's a cynical world we live in, but my motives for discussing measure 83 and Marcellus weren't sinister--they are a sincere attempt to discuss a real problem I have experienced in my own playing and those of others. That's not gonna hurt anyone.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-12-29 10:13
Material from my previous post now being used as a blog subject, namely, "In a way, it's almost become the clarinettist's Rorschach test or perhaps even a personally held object of projection.", has been followed by statements based on a misunderstanding of the quote itself.
What is meant is that clarinettists reveal their musical understanding and opinions based on what is reflected in their own *reactions* to the recording - not that the recording is necessarily the Rorschach test itself - a distinction worth considering.
More unfortunate still is that again, in the fervor to be critical about the recording, there still seems to be a need for critics to overcompensate with allusions of idolatry toward those who simply believe that they find musical substance and value in the interpretation.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-29 11:44
The reactions you've seen to my posts on this are often what a clarinetist has to deal with when being taught over here. Can you imagine what happens to a young conservatory student who might bring up a problem with measure 83?
"Who are you to compare yourself to Michael Jordan?!"
"You are missing the point of the piece!"
"Your reactions to this masterpiece say more about yourself, your psychology, and assumptions than they are any valid criticism of the performance."
?
"No professor, I just want to phrase measure 83 a certain way, but I can't. I'm frustrated. Can you help me?"
THAT is what I'm talking about. I think it's sad that anyone bringing it up will be accused of so much. And I think this attitude harms students, regularly.
Greg, your Rorschach quote got me thinking, and I wanted to give you credit for it. I think there is much to your theory, but I also think I have used it fairly, and drawn a line between your theory and my experience. If you are uncomfortable about it being on my blog, please contact me. I'll take your name down and rephrase it in the body of my essay, so that the source remains anonymous. I didn't do it this way, because I thought it would be insulting to you to do so.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-12-29 15:32
Clearly, it's past anonymity and from my POV, that's not really what's at issue.
The point I've attempted to make in this thread is about the "Rorschachian" character of the observations (one way or another) regarding the performance and it's interpretation.
Providing context seemed helpful regarding this performance in light of claims invariably being made that complimentary analysis amounted to idolatry.
Of course every one's own personal experience is valid. I too have provided my own experience and hope that it has had a positive effect, especially on those who understand that I was not meaning to address them in a personal fashion.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-30 15:11
Eric,
Sorry I am on holiday so had to take a break but want to respond.
> While a devoted pupil of Mr. Marcellus, I have never put any of my instructors on a untouchable pedestal. Indeed, as an adult, I have come to an awareness of the pluses and minuses of their teaching. But I am grateful for the two years of study I was able to have with Mr. Marcellus.
> I think your focus on one measure or an interpretative detail (such as the coda of the third movement that some have discussed) misses the mark. These recordings were done with a minimum of editing . Indeed the performance that was posted via link was a live performance. Your focus does not see the big picture of the beauty of playing and understated elegance in his approach.
> Unfortunately, this understated approach has lost validity in the current way of playing. In fact, what my antithesis Mr Pay is saying about the Rose studies (in earlier posts on this thread) and the over-editing he is referring to is something that we actually both agree on. And the Marcellus approach to the Mozart concerto is in this very aesthetic - the music speaks for itself.
> Marcellus had a good deal of admiration for clarinetists that played on the Wurlitzer Oehler system clarinet even though he did not hold to that concept of sound. He had good relationships with Leister and Prinz and understood their aesthetic. But he always felt that the American school of playing was a continuation of the French school but with a darker sound quality and with a complete acoustical spectrum that included the highs (bright) that are not present in the German system clarinets.
> There is no way that a conductor cannot influence the interpretation of any soloist. That the soloist is a member of the orchestra just amplifies this relationship. So trying to separate the influence of Szell from that of Marcellus is really a meaningless discussion.
I look forward to reading your future blog posts though I doubt we will agree on much.
Dileep
Post Edited (2011-12-30 15:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-30 17:15
Fair enough Dileep--I certainly accept the clarifications you've outlined of your opinions, and see no need to quibble anymore about my own intentions. By your most recent post, I actually think we may have a lot more to agree upon than either of us might have thought--more even than I care to mention, because this topic is really starting to bore me (and maybe you and everyone else to).
I'm very glad you'll be reading the blog--I hope you find it lively and interesting as I progress, and not always so much to your disapproval (though if it does, maybe we can have reasonable and respectful disagreements to everyone's benefit). My most recent article, posted just moments ago, is about Artie Shaw's Altissimo. Shaw will probably end up being a much more central figure to Marlborough Man Music than most of the great orchestral players of the past or present, as his "riddle" has always one of my favorites to crack.
Thanks for taking the time to respond with such clarity, Dileep---and may you have a a happy and healthy rest of your vacation.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-30 17:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-30 17:58
One final request before I leave a discussion of m 83:
Will those of you who own and regularly play on vintage, or large bore clarinets, do a little experiment? Will you play through the Mozart excerpt I did and see what happens in measure 83?
I'm asking this only of players polished enough to have been performance-level players of Mozart K622.
I'm not sure what the result will be, but I'm curious what the difference might be for a Selmer CT, old Selmer Albert, Eaton wide bore, or otherwise--even the old Buffet pre-R13s might yeild a cleaner result.
You needn't subject yourselves to ridicule, scorn and suspicion by posting your results here--if you're interested, you can just email them to me, with my word that I'll never let anyone know your personal info.
Thanks to anyone willing, in advance.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-31 12:31
And yes....I am a big Artie Shaw fan and do admire his altissimo register as well.
On that we can agree.
DRG
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
