 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-01-07 00:52
I just uploaded three different recordings of Marcellus playing the Premiere Rhapsodie. Two have the same dates, and admittedly, I have not compared them all that well. From the beginning few bars though, I think they are different. I made these recordings downloadable so get them if you don't have them.
http://soundcloud.com/ineedareed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2012-01-07 13:32
Thanks, Dave--I think you uploaded 2 versions of the Rhapsodie a while back, are these different? Also, I still have all your previous Marcellus/Cleveland uploads in heavy rotation on the old iPod, so again, my thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-01-08 01:31
These are conducted by Boulez and they are the same ones I posted before.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-08 19:46
Thanks for these, DAVE.
I've just listened to all three, and they're very informative.
I don't wish to stir up trouble, but a frame of reference would be helpful for me when discussing things on the BBoard, so here is a question for all those who have taken issue with my criticisms of the Marcellus/Szell Mozart Concerto:
Do you consider these Debussy recordings to be great performances?
Please understand this is a simple question, not a request to be lectured on Marcellus's approach, his legacy, his personality, the aesthetics of 1969, or the psychology of listening to music. Simply, do you think these are great performances?
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-01-08 21:45
Wonderful performances. My favorite is that of Ted Lane on utube, done around 1988. Lots of other good ones too.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-09 10:21
Gregory Smith, Dileep, JamesOrlandoGarcia: are these great performances of the Debussy by Marcellus? It's a simple question, requiring only a simple answer, such as Richard gave above.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2012-01-09 10:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-01-09 10:51
MarlboroughMan wrote:
> It's a simple
> question, requiring only a simple answer, such as Richard gave
> above.
It's not a simple question based on the baggage you've brought with it based on your previous posts. I wouldn't touch your question either ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2012-01-10 03:11
OK I'll take the bait and bite.
Here is what you are really asking:
"Do you really think that this is great clarinet playing and should it be held as a model for future generations?"
My answer is simply this:
> Indeed there are flaws - but the performances are unedited and live.
> It remains a product of a style of playing that is objective in interpretation and an artistic collaboration of instrumentalist (Marcellus) and conductor (Boulez). Nor sure how you can separate who decided to do what.
> It is an example of what I call the American sound of clarinet playing (but that is rapidly changing)
> I enjoyed all three versions and found each to be slightly different in execution but consistent in interpretation.
Not sure about mm 83 though - perhaps you play that better in this work as well.
DRG
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-10 15:24
You didn't answer the question, Dileep.
Hint: don't try to guess what I "really" meant to ask. You don't have to. I asked exactly what I meant.
The question, once again:
Do you think these are great performances of the Debussy Premiere Rhapsody? (You may, of course, include Boulez and the Orchestra as part of the performance--because they are).
Questions I didn't ask (because I'm not interested): Did you enjoy the performances? Is this an example of the "American clarinet" sound? Should these be given to students as examples of Debussy? Which part of this interpretation was Boulez, which part Marcellus? Were there flaws in this performance?
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-19 06:28
Considering the massive amount of crap that passes for acceptable performance practice of the Debussy Premiere Rhapsodie which includes egregious disregard for explicit performance instructions by the composer, the Rhapsodie is probably the poster child for the most abused composition of any masterpiece in our clarinet repertoire - regardless of whether there is (or isn't) a "school" of interpretation associated with any of those interpretations.
If one uses the "search" engine of this bboard and/or the Klarinet re-mailer to seek out threads about the Debussy, there is enough intelligent discussion to peruse for a month of Sundays regarding interpretation of this work, much of which is set in stark contrast to empty ramblings of embittered and disillusioned rants.
To suggest that this or any other performance of this work is illustrative of any definitive or "superior" rendition in relation to all others is a fools errand and serves as further proof that any attempt to cast it is as such (or not) is simply stirring up trouble for the sake of doing so.
Serious discourse in relation to this composition deserves better and there seems to be an agenda by certain individuals to divert attention from the inherent musical values of this work via silly, empty rhetoric for the sole purpose of purely calling attention to themselves.
This piece is much too important, and indeed sacred in our repertoire to accept anything less than our best, collective effort at interpretive and performance analysis as has been already illustrated by the hundreds of posts preceding this thread.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-01-19 07:00
>> Considering the massive amount of crap that passes for acceptable performance practice of the Debussy Premiere Rhapsodie which includes egregious disregard for explicit performance instructions by the composer <<
OTOH one of the best versions of this piece has exactly that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-19 07:12
Which *explicit* performance instructions? And why would it therefore make the work one of the "best" versions of this composition?
GS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-01-19 08:57
We might be missing a point here. There are many reasons a recording is IMPORTANT. One of them in this context is that the person who recorded it was a lover of French music and spent some time studying the original score and teaching it to vast numbers of students. Hearing many if not all of those points in the context of a recording is a miracle to some of us.
The other point is whether the recording is 'euphonic' or not. For some reason (and I'm still trying to figure out exactly why) the ONLY band recordings that sound ANY good are the old (and I mean old) Mercury recordings of the Eastman Wind Ensemble. Equally consistent is that most solo clarinet recordings of (presumably the best clarinet players) sound suspect at best save for a few notable exceptions.
The final point is (not necessarily germane to this particular 'discussion' but one worth bringing up) that some recordings (regardless of their note or performance purity) are such incredible examples of music making that you couldn't even imagine their NOT being there. I just heard one the other day on the Arts Channel, a version of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano concerto played by Alexis Weissenberg with Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic. The second movement was beyond beautiful. I wanted to rave about it on this Board but couldn't justify posting about a video without a ready link.
At any rate for those who seriously studied the Rhapsodie or studied with Marcellus (for whom he is more than just a name) or both, these recordings are very important indeed.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-21 12:42
I’ve been fortunate enough to have heard many excellent performances of the Debussy Rhapsody; a few of them have been live. I don’t think it is the most abused piece in the repertoire, by any means (that’s a distinction I reserve for the Brahms Sonatas), though the Rhapsody can and does rather brutally expose certain limitations, both technically and musically, in any given player on any given day. This must have made it frighteningly ideal as a Solo de Concours, though I can only imagine the trepidation many at the Conservatoire must have felt when it was given to them. It must have seemed both a fortunate honor and a mighty standard to bear.
Pseudo-mysticism is unhelpful and clouds the issue (which is of course why it’s used). This piece is not unapproachable, nor is it impossible to separate great performances from lousy performances (and everything in between).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-21 18:13
Debussy's music is not at all vague and is written in a quite helpful manner for the performer. Indeed his music shows a composer of scrupulous and methodical craftsmanship with attention to detail regarding articulation, dynamics, and even tonal color.
The music of Debussy is not to be loosely interpreted. One must follow the composer's every printed detail, thereby allowing or freeing the overall "palette" of the musical score to blossom into an "impressionistic" sounding work (freedom through discipline once again).
The visual equivalent would be to look at a painting of Monet up close and observe the prescision and detail of every brushed stroke with the exact texture and colors that the brush strokes impart....then to step back and observe that the sum of these details create the sense of "impressionism".
The true marvel of this "contest piece" is that the technical demands are so subtly interwoven into the musical texture that the most trained of listeners fail to perceive it's great difficulty.
Debussy knew of the inner mysteries of our instrument like few others, the result of which is a rich, complex work of extraordinary depth.
True, there is much musical substance to extract from this work, but in a stylistically informed way. As a performer, one has to be informed by the history, context, and stylistic considerations of any piece, particularly as formidable a work as this one.
Musical expression carries with it a tremendous amount of responsibility to understand and to be informed by these considerations. There are many different qualities of expression - some appropriate to Debussy and others to Beethoven or Stravinsky. One can not simply express themselves merely for expression's sake...simply to provoke rather than evoke a response from an audience.
The question becomes how far and in what manner is one to consider departing from the printed part. To say that one would only play simply what was on the printed page if one strictly followed all of the instructions is silly and beside the point. Of course every competent musician uses that as their starting point - as a so-called "blueprint" from which to depart.
The QUALITY, not the QUANTITY of the expression gleaned from that "blueprint" is what distinguishes a merely competent artist form a great one.
The Debussy can evoke all kinds of emotional responses from the listening audience. But if the audience is expecting something other than a performance informed by a style appropriate to Debussy, then they (and even the performer), are bound to be left feeling short or even disappointed. One can not of course play Debussy in the style of Wagner or Scriabin and expect to serve the composer. It's unfortunate that there are those audience members expecting something else.
But "pushing modern ways" does not necessarily have to entail throwing the baby out with the bathwater when the ultimate goal is to bring the music to life in an interesting, exciting, but INFORMED manner. In that sense, context IS everything.
One doesn't necessarily have to forsake expression for the sake of fidelity to the composer. The two are not inextricably bound.
In the above sense, I find the Marcellus/Boulez/Cleveland performances to be substantially objective and consistent with the work of Debussy.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), there is not an opinion in sight in this thread about the quality of the performances posted at the top of this thread by the very same person complaining that others should do so.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2012-01-21 18:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-21 19:47
Gregory Smith,
Are you addressing me at all in your last post? It's hard to tell, as so much of it seems to have been written in objection to arguments I would never make (my graduate advisor in music history was a prominent Debussy scholar, under whom I studied both romantic and modern era music, so I don't need an undergraduate lecture on style, context, or performance practice--perhaps other readers will, and the perspective you have shared will be useful to them). But if you did mean to address me, you have mischaracterized my posts: I have not "complained" at all towards any of you; only asked a question. You haven't offended me in the slightest by not answering: that is your prerogative (your most recent post doesn't answer my question either).
For what it's worth, I no longer expect an answer from you gentlemen, nor do I think it my right to demand it--you, after all, have every right to remain silent or write what you want to, and shouldn't be pestered, however you choose. I have no intention of badgering any of you, but even more than that (and I mean this most emphatically): I am no longer interested in your answer.
As for my own opinion, I, as you, reserve the right to express it where and how I please.
DAVE: thanks again for posting this recordings. I hope my little question hasn't overshadowed your kindness in giving us access to them. As it is, they are very important documents, as Paul Aviles suggested above.
Respectfully,
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-21 20:31
I have addressed my comments to everyone who reads this bboard interested in context, the quality and fidelity of the performances posted, and to a lesser degree, a seemingly steadfast determination to incorporate invective into discussions having to do with any and all things - most importantly those termed "traditional".
Hey, if that's your thing, go for it. Be the iconoclast.
But don't expect any sympathy from me and others about what you write that makes no sense including, amongst other spurious claims, that R.M. went to Moennig in order to sound more "German". Or that one measure of the Mozart Concerto does a case make. Or that the "flip" F - F# proves or disproves anything at all.
Armed with such incomplete information and then making unsubstantiated claims about it can't encourage confidence in knowledgeable readers of this or any other bboard.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2012-01-21 20:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-21 20:52
And in my 500th post contributing to this bboard for over a decade, I would only ask that readers use the search engine to comb through the substantial amount of qualitative discussions about this great masterwork - discussions that go far beyond the polemic-style posts that tend to dominate anything having to do with any particular clarinettist.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-21 21:03
Gregory,
I see you have been reading my blog. Unfortunately, you misrepresent my arguments by selective quotation, inferring the worst possible readings, and exaggerating what you think to be my goals (you are often wrong when you try to guess). I am not going to argue them here. The blog exists to give fuller expression of my ideas for those who are interested (and perhaps sympathetic to my goals)--not to quibble about here. If you aren't interested, don't bother reading it! I promise I won't quote you again.
You would do well to remember that I deferred to your expertise on the matter of RM and Moennig--and did so respectfully--and that was nearly two years ago, if I remember correctly. Anyhow, the record is here in this BBoard.
You are passionate about your opinions, and you are an accomplished clarinetist. So be it. I hold my own opinions too, and have some credentials to show I have earned them honestly. That we clash on certain matters is no great problem in my eyes--why not have differing perspectives reasonably presented? I'm not afraid of that. We needn't even agree in the end to remain civil.
I have enjoyed posting on this Bboard, and have tried, even when passionate in disagreement, to do so honorably and reasonably.
As it is, I've exhausted my interest in RM (and probably everyone else's in my opinions on the matter). He does not loom large in my thought on the clarinet, as he does for so many others. I'll gladly leave his legacy to you and to those who care so deeply about his work.
Respectfully,
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2012-01-21 21:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-21 22:19
Eric -
As you have oft repeated for all to ponder, (with the usual caveat that you couldn't, by any stretch, be referring to any former RM students who read or post on this bboard), no one "owns" RM's legacy. A truism indeed.
Considering the things I have read written about him here and other places (including blogs), thank goodness for that. I wouldn't disagree with anyone if they got the impression that if they DO, they could easily be considered a bit off - if you know what I mean.
Good luck with your blog though, whatever your purposes behind it entail. I get the impression that you have an out for RM in particular and me being his student and mainly a very close friend for many years, I'll be sure to know when to take things written about him with a large grain of salt (or not).
BTW, I have offered my opinion of the performances (even if they are hidden in a subtle and nuanced manner), but you have refused to answer your own question. Just for the record.
Best,
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2012-01-21 22:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-21 22:48
Gregory,
You are too worried. I've disagreed with your opinion on RM only twice, and only on very specific things. I think he was a fantastic clarinetist and have no desire to tarnish his legacy. If it helps you to know, I've often said to others that the Cleveland/Maazel/Marcellus recording of Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet is a study in what an orchestral performance and principal clarinet should be. (Perhaps you should also know that I listen to you almost every day, when my kids demand that we play Chicago with MTT conducting Ives 1! It's their favorite CD.)
One of my best friends was a Marcellus student and disagrees with some of my opinions on him, but agrees on others which you vehemently oppose. That's life!
My blog presents, as you suggest, what many would consider an iconoclastic position on American clarinetistry. I happen to think I'm reviving something important, and I'm not alone--many are excited by what I'm writing and doing.
Anyhow, I thank you for your good wishes. Please accept mine too, sincerely.
Eric
[My answer is simple: no. Now the record is complete.]
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2012-01-22 01:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-01-21 23:29
Not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but wasn't David Shifrin the Cleveland principal when Maazel recorded R&J?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-23 02:06
At the SoundCloud site on DAVE'S original post:
The 1st posted performance from Severance Hall should be dated Sat, 4/12/69 (not the 10th).
The 2nd posted performance is from a run-out to Toledo and is dated correctly Th, 4/18/69.
The 3rd posted performance from Severance Hall is dated correctly as Th, 4/10/69. (This 3rd posted performance was the opening performance of that week's subscription series. It was also the performance broadcast by WCLV as part of their syndicated series and the one preferred, on the whole, by the performers.)
It is interesting to hear the difference in RM's sound, legato, staccato, etc, between the Severance and Toledo performances. He seems to sound much better or more characteristic within the acoustic that he has built his playing/equipment around (Severance Hall). This seems to confirm the well known phenomenon that the acoustic of the space can shape the performer's sound/equipment choices in fundamental ways.
It is also heartening to see the number of plays and downloads by clarinettists from around the world who will, for the first time, experience a characteristic performance of the Debussy that they would not have otherwise heard.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2012-01-23 02:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2012-01-23 03:49
4/12/69 is April the 12th in American right? That's the day i was born!
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-01-23 12:38
Thanks to Gregory Smith for the info for not only recordings and dates, but also for some great insight into performing Debussy and this work in particular. It is wonderful to have these points illustrated and explained so clearly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-01-23 17:20
"It is interesting to hear the difference in RM's sound, legato, staccato, etc, between the Severance and Toledo performances. He seems to sound much better or more characteristic within the acoustic that he has built his playing/equipment around (Severance Hall). This seems to confirm the well known phenomenon that the acoustic of the space can shape the performer's sound/equipment choices in fundamental ways."
Agreed. Beyond this, it would be interesting to know what else was on the program (or programs)--and where these performances fell on them. If 'La Mer' was scheduled on the Severance Hall concert, for instance, and Ein Heldenleben on the Todelo (unlikley, but you see what I mean), there would be another set of challenges for Marcellus to navigate. This is one of the great difficulties for any section player coming out to solo, by the way--the switch back to section playing, if it is immediate, might call for some set-up gymnastics.
This also highlights a particularly necessary skill for a professional soloist. Any soloist needs to sound equally good, insofar as possible, in all venues, regardless of their differences acoustically [there is no telling concert audiences in Chicago that you're 'used' to playing Boston]. But of course they generally don't have to then go back to the section and belt out the second half of the program, either, as Marcellus probably had to in one or both of these cases.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-23 19:31
The program under Boulez's direction:
Adagio and Fugue for String Orch. K.546........Mozart
Concerto for Violin and Orchestra..................Berg
Rafael Druian, Violin.
-Intermission-
First Rhapsody for Clarinet and Orchestra.....Debussy
Robert Marcellus, Clarinet
Six Pieces for Orchestra, Op. 6......................Webern
Rhapsodie Espagnole....................................Ravel
(An exhibit related to this program was seen in the main foyer balcony.)
RM played the entire program.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-01-24 23:48
Help, for whatever reason I can't load or hear the recordings. Can someone send me a different link, other from the first post?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tdinap
Date: 2012-01-25 09:27
Ditto, it said it reached the download limit. Did Bob and I miss our chance, or is it possible to renew the page or provide a different link? Thanks!
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-01-25 23:38
I just checked the site. Two of the performances have reached their download limit, but you should be able to play them all. Bob, if you are having trouble hearing the recordings then it might be something with your computer. As far as re-uploading the recordings that have reached their limits, I don't think I'll do it any time soon. I am very busy these days. Perhaps someone who downloaded it from me can upload it to their own soundcloud.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-01-26 01:07
Thank you Dave and Tdinap. I'll look into the computer and add another sort of music program download.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-02-20 02:37
Dave -
I waited too long, and the SoundCloud page says the Debussy tracks have reached their download limit. Is there any way you can refresh or re-post them?
Many thanks.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-02-22 21:03
Ken,
Sure but you'll have to wait a few weeks. I'm super busy for the next month, so it will take some time to get to it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-02-23 19:29
Dave -
Thanks. Please put up a notice when it's ready.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-15 01:30
Ok this is odd, I am getting Sound Cloud offerings by David Mitchell.
Also a wonderful clarinetist (and friend) but I am not seeing the advertised Marcellus recordings.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2016-05-15 01:33
I'm pretty sure those recordings were only put up for a brief time, by design, Paul. I don't think Dave intended to have them up there permanently. And this post originates back in the dark ages of 2012.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2016-05-15 02:39
This in response to growing questions about the other, present Marcellus/Debussy/YouTube thread.
GS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-15 18:06
sorry.......still don't 100% understand technology.
The discussion from this thread is what's important.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2016-05-18 08:53
Haha!
I can put them back up soon if you guys want to hear them. Busy days ahead, so give me some time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-18 14:26
Hey Dave,
You can such search them once in the "Sound Cloud."
Awesome selections.........you play Yamaha now?
.....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2016-05-18 16:22
Paul,
You're losing it man.. I've played Yamaha for years.. actually, you've played my horns!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-05-19 05:52
Yeah well at my age it's a good day when I remember where I parked.
I hope I liked them!
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
