 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: S.H.J.
Date: 2012-06-22 23:11
An interesting take on an old warhorse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbmCqYp-CHY&feature=share
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-06-23 12:07
The notes Copland wrote weren't good enough?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2012-06-23 13:40
(Chuckle at Ed's comment.)
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2012-06-23 18:25
I like Eddie Daniels. I love how he interprets jazz and love the way he sounds. However, I didn't really like this interpretation of Copland. Two things that bothered me the most was the overuse of vibrato in the upper register, and the cadenza. Now, I'm okay with people doing that, I think David Shifrin uses a minute amount of vibrato on classical pieces, along with Harold Wright. But the vibrato that Eddie Daniels used was so wide, that it sounded like a theramin! The high notes with how rich of a sound people can get, doesn't need that much vibrato! It was pretty unbearable. Second thing was the cadenza, and this goes to what Ed said. I liked the idea of spinning off of the cadenza, but it was a little much as well, and took away from the style in my opinion, people I'm sure will disagree with me on that. But, what was wrong with what Copland wrote. I'm even okay if Eddie wanted to change a few notes here or there, but it was a little much. Definitely not my favorite Copland interpretation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2012-06-24 11:59
What was the point of that performance? I hate to say this because I respect Eddie Daniels' playing hugely but that to me was an excuse for him to show off big time. There was no depth in interpretation, the vibrato was disgusting in the opening section as others have said. Where was the pure floaty playing that really makes the opening section so special and magical? The cadenza, well its a cadenza... Though Copland took the trouble to write it out we should try and be as loyal as we can be. I wonder what Copland would have made of that? Surely Benny Goodman could have done what Eddie Daniels did? It's interesting that he didn't.
I don't think playing the Concerto like that has added anything to the interpretation.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2012-06-24 12:38
Yes I agree with the last post. The improvisation was completely unrelated to the piece. For me, it damaged the piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-25 04:46
I love this take on Copland. It has a real jazz feel about it. Perhaps he has destroyed the work but he made music in the process.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2012-06-25 08:13
Did Copland envisage a "jazz feel" when he wrote the concerto John? For me personally there was no music making other than moments for Eddie to show off his jazz technique. Having the orchestra clicking their fingers is hardily making music.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2012-06-25 15:43
Lighten up guys. There are plenty of straight versions out there to listen to. Why are we prepared to listen to Mr Daniels improvising on CPE Bach, but not on Copland?
Maybe it didn't all work out to everyone's taste. I liked the idea that he did it though. It's like he jumped in the deep end, somewhere between the islands of legit and jazz and took the risk. I found it interesting and exciting to see where he would come out! Not bad for a guy in his 70s either!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-25 17:47
Peter, Yes, i think Aaron Copland was all about a jazz feel. Clicking fingers is definitely music.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinet60
Date: 2012-06-25 19:26
When I studied this concerto with Bernard Portnoy he said that Benny Goodman (who it was written for) played the Concerto too "straight" and that Copland wanted more of a jazz feel (I have an early recording of Goodman playing this and it is fairly straight). As far as the cadenza - in classical music, according to the Harvard Dictionary of Music - is "an improvised or written-out ornamental passage" Therefore, his additions and flourishes are certainly within the the scope of the performers prerogative. Although there are many formal performances of this piece out there that are wonderfully played, Eddie's performance is fresh and interesting....congratulations to him!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-06-25 19:48
Quote:
Why are we prepared to listen to Mr Daniels improvising on CPE Bach, but not on Copland?
To my understanding, in the music of Bach and others of the period, improvisation was a key element. I don't believe that Copland intended his piece as a basis for improvisation.
That is not to say that makes it wrong. There are a number of jazz players who have used classical works as the framework for improvised works. (Works of Miles Davis/Gil Evans, Bob Beldens' Turandot immediately come to mind.)
I would rather hear a new composition that re-invents the themes in an entirely new way or which uses the themes as the basis for exploration. To me, this performance did not add anything valuable to what Copland wrote and for me, the improvisations did not in any way evoke the spirit or sense of Copland's music.
I would either rather hear the work played straight or in some way re invented, giving us an entirely new perspective. This was to my ears, neither fish, nor fowl.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-25 21:57
clarinet60 wrote (in part) Quote:
When I studied this concerto with Bernard Portnoy he said that Benny Goodman (who it was written for) played the Concerto too "straight" and that Copland wanted more of a jazz feel (I have an early recording of Goodman playing this and it is fairly straight).
Did Portnoy discuss the work with Copland, or was this Portnoy's opinion?
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-25 21:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley Wong
Date: 2012-06-26 01:48
Before recording the concerto, Stoltzman called Copland to discuss Goodman's version. Here is a website that includes a radio interview that Stoltzman gave about that conversation (with a printed transcript):
http://www.prx.org/pieces/15715-virtuoso-voices-richard-stoltzman-copland-s-jaz#description
Some music journal had a more detailed article about Stoltzman's recording and his discussion with Copland - I'll see if I can dig it up.
Brad Wong
Western Michigan University
Post Edited (2012-06-26 01:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2012-06-26 11:50
Clarimeister wrote: ‘’ But the vibrato that Eddie Daniels used was so wide, that it sounded like a theramin!’’
Gosh -that's some hyperbole - to say the least! Well, I noticed a very limited use of vibrato. And, to my ear, it was fairly thin. I’m referring to the passages of the video at 1.32 to 1.35 and 6.32 to 6.34. There was some additional vibrato used at the end of the improvisation. But, WIDE, I hardly think so, and not much in any event. Give some thought to what would the piece would have sounded like if the strings eschewed vibrato?
***************************************************************
‘’ But, what was wrong with what Copland wrote.’’
and, Ed wrote: ‘’ The notes Copland wrote weren't good enough?’’
Nothing I’d say except that Eddie Daniels wanted to perform his own interpretation, with, one suspects, the complete approval of the Orchestra Sinfonia G Rossini!
***************************************************************
Cigleris wrote: ‘’ What was the point of that performance? I hate to say this because I respect Eddie Daniels' playing hugely but that to me was an excuse for him to show off big time’’
Ditto as per above comment, and don’t forget, the recent discussion of the Julian Bliss performances of the so-called “Goodman” music.
and also.......‘’ Though Copland took the trouble to write it out we should try and be as loyal as we can be.’’
Why? What’s loyalty got to do with anything? Loyalty to what may I ask? Have you been acquainted with Aaron Copeland at some time or other? Has he intimated this to you (that the piece needs to be played in such-and-such a manner)or perhaps you have read this written by some authority? If this IS the case, then some sort of loyalty may be desirable. I don't think you should be placing arbitrary performance restrictions without a full knowledge of the composer's intentions.
and also this............‘’ Did Copland envisage a "jazz feel" when he wrote the concerto John?’’
Who knows? Maybe he did, maybe he did not. I’ll go out on a limb here and state, I’m sure he would have approved, even though he’s not around to ask.
***************************************************************
Arnoldstang wrote: ‘’ I love this take on Copland. It has a real jazz feel about it. Perhaps he has destroyed the work but he made music in the process.’’
I’m sadly not familiar with the piece ‘’as written’’ although I suspect that the Daniels version comes close, albeit with his own embellishments. Far from saying that he ‘’destroyed’’ the piece, I would rather rather he has probably added to its lustre. I thoroughly enjoyed it. If only I were as clever and had other musicians, from any genre, play and interpret MY works! I don't have any works at all, let it be known.
***************************************************************
Liquorice wrote: ‘’ Lighten up guys. There are plenty of straight versions out there to listen to. Why are we prepared to listen to Mr Daniels improvising on CPE Bach, but not on Copland?’’
Yes lighten up, of course, it's obvious we all know it was not really a classical performance - NO ONE WORE A TIE!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2012-06-26 17:48
lol I guess if you think the vibrato at 1:32 was thin, that's ok. But to MY ears, it sounded horrid. To each their own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-26 20:05
Well I met Aaron Copland and spoke briefly with him. He didn't mention anything about Eddie Daniels' performance of his Concerto. Of course it was 39 years ago but I think my memory is accurate.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2012-06-27 00:07
Clarimeister wrote"........But to MY ears, it sounded horrid..........''
I don't doubt that it did................but what of the strings use of vibrato? Was that horrid as well?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-27 02:34
I found a lot to like about this performance. In fact, I think his embellishments of the "actual" Concerto (e.g. the notes that were written down) sounded great for the most part. Vibrato and rhythmic liberties included. The Adagio sounded beautiful to me; I think was the best part actually, but to each his own.
I had more issues with some of the improvisation. Mainly the parts that had absolutely nothing to do with the written music. It sounded great to hear him work around Copland's harmonic structure...but when it transitioned suddenly into a blues (and he got everyone to clap/click on 2 and 4...) well...it just felt out of place. Especially when he went back to improvising on Copland's Whole Tone Sequences... then he goes back to playing over a minor/diminished triad sound. Also, the conductor was rushing on 2 and 4...as we say in Jazz Very distracting.
The Final "movement" was ok. I actually thought it sounded best when he wasn't overdoing it. Actually, though I have NO idea what Copland's intentions were, the parts where the accompaniment is accenting 2 and 4 I feel is where any swing should be put, if any at all in the piece. Check out 13:52 to 14:07, for example. The parts that are written to be "swung" (the dotted-eighth sixteenths) just never sound good when attempted to be swung to me (and I apologize if I offend...but the Orchestra's attempt at swing, and the resulting over-inflection just didn't work). Eddie seems to split the difference and plays more of a triplet feel..."trying" to swing these lines has always made them sound corny to me, but playing them straight just feels lacking. Eddie plays these lines about as close to ideal as I could think (maybe it could be even a little straighter). Just my opinion.
The ending was great, I thought...the improvisation really worked for me here.
So, all in all...I thought it was an entertaining performance, and with some minor changes, would be what I could consider a definitive "hybrid" performance of this. There's just too much superfluous stuff in it that I think takes away from the overall excellence of everything else in it. Nothing against Eddie (as he is a huge idol/hero of mine) but I sometimes find his playing a little "cute" at some points...but he's always had a tendency to try to be cheeky.
The audience enjoyed it, so ultimately who cares what we think. It would be interesting to know what Aaron Copland would have thought of this performance, but since we'll never really know, then I guess it doesn't matter. I would pay to hear this live, is all I know...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2012-06-27 03:16
ned - the strings use of vibrato was nothing of that compared to how distraught Eddie Daniels' vibrato sounded like. It didn't catch my ear like Eddie's did. Now, could that have been the fault of the recording, very possible. But, from what I heard. His use of vibrato was unbearable. Now, that's not to say that vibrato shouldn't or can't be used in this piece. I just said it was a little too much. Feel free to disagree with me all you want...... :/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-27 03:40
As long as he doesn't sub a major pentatonic built off the 9th in his improv. it's all good by me. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2012-06-27 22:22
I agree with most of the criticism here, his playing and vibrato etc.
I don't think he attempted to make a definite straight interpretation of Copland.
I didn't like the first part,it's probably the music but it seems to me that soloist and/or orchestra didn't know how to interpret the music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-28 00:48
Get over it and let the thread rest people....
No one is forcing you to actually watch the video, let alone accept it as the "Bible of how one can play Copland".
Of course you're free to form your own opinion, but why does the public at large need to know what it is?
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-06-28 03:26
Buster, this is a discussion board. We share info, offer opinions, and grow in knowledge and discernment. The end result is better musicians and teachers. Why would you want to stop that?
I'm a big fan of Eddie's playing. I've talked with him before and we have a couple of mutual friends. Still, I'm not a fan of this performance. I have to agree with the others that have said the improv style and content, while good in and of itself, just didn't fit the rest of the piece. The result is a bit of a Frankensteinish creation with some ill-fitting parts loosely stitched together.
If you want to just take off on some foot tappin', finger snappin' improv, why tack the Copland on either side of it? You don't do either piece justice. Fortunately, the crowd was hip enough to appreciate what he was trying to do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-28 04:08
-The name is Jason, I take care to post it.
-Offering information spurring meaningful discussions that do allow the community to grow are certainly the aim of a forum such as this; I never said that I wished to stop that.
Reading opinions, and what's worse, posters criticizing/supporting other posters' opinions rather than actually having meaningful discussions, are a waste of time for those actually looking for growth. (That I'd like see ceased.)
Doesn't that practice make it nearly impossible to have an end result of "better musicians and teachers" as you wish; much as I do?
Further, Mr. Wong took the time to post a link that spoke with some clarity of what Copland himself said... Why not let a reader take that as they may, watch the video, and leave it at that. But I do note that it appears nobody took the time to read what he offered as it was never once mentioned in a following post.
Rather, we have an inane fight over trivial matters, and empty posts saying "I like this" or "I agree with so-and-so..." Aren't we more intelligent than that? I hope so..... or we should just stick to Facebook.
To read posters posturing themselves in some vain attempt to elevate their opinion, or perhaps their own self esteem, is maddening for some that actually wish to effect change. Those that criticize, or support, Eddie's playing of the work here are equally guilty.
If my words seem incendiary or harsh, or I appear to be a reactionary or contrarian, than simply disregard what I have written.
You will notice that I did not give my opinion of this video; and you won't get it. Why in the world would anybody want to read my opinion anyways.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-28 04:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-28 05:06
I am not here to argue anyone's opinion or in fact even pretend to validate mine as being...valid...but I'll just briefly state two things.
I listened to the Copland quote. Eddie did exactly that. And as I believe I've stated...I think it sounds great. Maybe Copland would've loved it, as this quote seems to imply he was more interested in individual, personal interpretation than the rehashing of previous "gold standards".
To that end, it was mostly a success.
I explained why I had issue with the parts that seemed out of place. I even tried to explain where. It also comes from the viewpoint of a jazz musician, looking at this piece being played more as a sort of "jazz concerto", so that was the rationale. It just didn't maintain the character of everything else he was doing...fun, yes, but kind of reduces the overall impact (for me). But Eddie can do whatever he wants, I've been buying his records for years, that doesn't mean I have to like EVERY thing he plays/does...nor should he care if I (one person/fan out of hundreds of thousands) like it or not, at this point.
Anyway, that's my take on that. I was attempting to actually create discussion, and thought I stated enough information to do so. I guess not.
---
And Jason, I don't know if you're referring to me as one of the folks "posturing" to validate some opinion (especially with the rolling eyes emoticon on your sarcastic reply) but I assure you, it is not. I thought in fact it was from a different viewpoint than all the other replies, but I suppose that's a moot point if opinion in general is viewed to be "useless".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-06-28 05:45
Jason, if you don't want to read other people's opinions, there's a simple solution. Turn the computer off.
BTW, I have read all that's been posted, with links. I just didn't feel it was particularly relevant to this performance. Why? Because I think Daniel's cadenza went way beyond the boundaries of musical relevance to the piece. As an improviser/arranger, I have problems with using a cadenza to play something that is totally out of character with the rest of a work. Are you going to take the Cadenza in the Adagio of the Mozart Clarinet Concerto and launch into a bombardment of poly-tonal pentatonic scales? I hope not. I think what Eddie did here was just as out of character.
The Copland starts out with a restrained reverence, almost like a modern mass/church setting. Then, before it takes itself too seriously, it launches into the cadenza, which is a little lighter and more playful, yet still in keeping thematically, rhythmically, and harmonically with what came before. If you don't want to play what's written, then fine. But what you do play should still be in the context of the piece. Eddie went somewhere else entirely.
In fact, I would argue that it was bad entertainment. The audience obviously was taken aback and wasn't sure whether to really snap or not. There were embarrassed giggles. If he had played the Copland within the bounds of the piece and then done a free styling jazz encore with finger snaps, I believe the audience could and would have gotten into the mood of both pieces much better.
Post Edited (2012-06-28 05:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-28 18:18
> Jason, if you don't want to read other people's opinions,
> there's a simple solution. Turn the computer off.
I quite often do. Or I will read a Blog if I wish to receive unfiltered opinions.
But sometimes I choose to post instead of turning off the computer- at times when I can offer actual information, or if I see a discussion that truly serves to educate nobody about anything cease. I'd think that my right as a member of the musical community at large with some quantity of experience; and more importantly, a dues paying contributor to this BBoard.
And I apologize Lorenzo, my sarcastic post was not directed at you... it wasn't directed at anybody truthfully, but rather at what was being written of.
Perhaps it was a weakly fleshed-out attempt at saying "we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill everyone. Let matters rest."
Or perhaps I am just a bad guy.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-28 18:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-06-28 18:37
Buster wrote:
> and more importantly, a dues paying contributor to this BBoard.
Lest anyone misconstrue this, I am assuming that Jason means this in the literary sense, not the financial sense; there are no "dues" required to contribute your musings on the BBoard.
I take a slightly different tack on the matter vis-a-vis Jason. I separate opinions into two camps: those that have factual support, and those that don't. For instance, take John Moses's delightful and personal anecdote [http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=373406&t=373406] of playing the Concerto for Copland.
We could, for ths one case, take the stand that Copland enjoyed anyone "playing with" and improvising on his Concerto.
We could (and I actually do - but it's only my opinion :^) take the stand that Copland enjoyed sitting down with gifted players and discussing the liberties they were taking with his Concerto and the general give-and-take between composer and performer. In this case, it seemed that what John did and what Copland wanted - at least at this point in his life - were sympathetic. It might not be the case before, it might not be after, but it certainly seems the case at that moment. And possibly ONLY with John.
We could take the stand that Copland NEVER wanted anyone to change what was written in the Concerto, but that would be contraindicated by John's experience. Since I know John and have great respect for both his playing and personal integrity, I discard that as an all-encompassing statement.
Does Eddie Daniel's take on the Concerto fit any of these? It's speculation, and it's always difficult to form a fact-based opinion from only one data point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-29 04:18
Jason, I wasn't offended. Just curious, as you posted your comment immediately after my take on this topic, and I was trying to speak "intelligently" from the viewpoint of the piece as a "jazz concerto". I thought I was being reasonably polite, ha.
Were I being dense, I could give a rebuttal on why your proposed substitution is ok in the context of the cadenza (under specific conditions) but I figured you were being sarcastic/facetious. As it stands, few people here are probably that interested in that anyway. I'll reserve the Jazz nerd speak for another day.
Thanks for making it clear, regardless.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-29 06:18
Lorenzo,
My post merely fell in line after what you had written, due to the whims of the network I suppose; it truly wasn't directed at anybody. And though I see it could be inferred, I did not wish to speak facetiously, or better, humorously of the matters at hand. That doesn't serve to aid any reader present.
If we are to speak of the harmonic content Eddie chose to use in his improvisatory cadenza, we can take 2 stances....
1. The whole-tone sequences, though composed by Copland, were an improvisatory device scarcely, if ever, employed by Goodman. Thus, we could say that a subbed out pentatonic on the 9th (or 2nd), though quite acceptable in the eyes of Woody (Shaw, not Herman) would be foreign to Goodman.
Further, the b9 and #9 devices used in the "blues" portion of Eddie's cadenza, though concurrent with Goodman, were not a stereotypical BeBop harmonic ii-V that Goodman chose to use.
From that perch we could view the performance as a bit out of place.
2. Copland did choose to use whole-tone progressions in the cadenza, maybe even in contradiction to the improvisatory language that Goodman used himself. Taking that view into account, a subbed-pentatonic on the 9th/2nd scale degree would be a device quite acceptable to the composer....
(For those not immersed in "jazz" harmony, pentatonics built on varying scale degrees are quite common in the jazz vernacular of the 60-70's and onward. For example, take a D major pentatonic over a C major7 tonality. We have D-E-F#-A-B.... or the 9th, 3rd, #11-tritone, 13th and 7th of the C major tonal center. Seek thee "Lydian chromatic" if you want to do some truly in-depth research.... Though it may sound as if this harmony is quite "out", it assuredly is a bi-tonal device employed by Coltrane in his modal-chromatic period; further extrapolated and expanded upon by the "trumpeter"/innovator Woody Shaw. i.e. You have heard it if you have listened to their recordings.)
If we take an analysis of Copland's varying works, including the flute sonata which has been transcribed for clarinet, we do find this harmonic bi-tonality used as a counterpoint device. With that in mind, wouldn't Eddie's improvisatory choices, in part, coincide with what Copland composed in other works; though they may stand in contrast to what Goodman himself (the muse of the work) would have used?
Does that make this performance fail or stand on its own merit?
Further, taking into loose account that Copland was eager to hear what other clarinettists proffered the work, are the BeBop harmonic choices Eddie chose to use not applicable as well? (He did "win" an international competition on "jazz" saxophone; and played extensively with the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Vanguard Band... or THE modern Bop-Big Band this side of Bob Brookmeyer/Maria Schneider.)
If we read John Moses' post, which I wish not to degrade lest you misread me: he did have the immense fortune to work with the composer, a luxury I would kill to have had... Isn't the totality of what Eddie chose to use applicable as an improvisatory cadenza as he is merely a more modern voiced "jazzer" than Goodman himself?
Which stance are we to take?
What are we to "tell" our students, if we have them?
Isn't arguing about vibrato quite an empty aside to other matters that actually hold water?
What are the parenthetical boundaries of Copland in this work?
How do they apply to the video that was posted?
How can we convey anything of meaning if simple infighting over inconsequential matters lacking 'tangible' knowledge pervades this thread?
That's as close to an opinion as you'll get from me as a (primarily but not exclusively) orchestral clarinettist...
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-29 07:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-06-29 13:31
I liked it very much. In fact I prefer it to most performances I've listened to.....which is most of those on record. Perhaps it was what both Copland and Goodman were striving for.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinet60
Date: 2012-06-29 15:11
Although Eddie pushed the limits with his interpretation of the Concerto, he also took the piece out of the "museum" and made it alive and fresh. If Copeland's idea was to make this a hybrid classical/jazz piece, let's keep an open mind about this interpretation. There are many pieces in the clarinet repertoir that leave very little room for much variation, but the extended cadenza here does open up room for ideas. It's just one player's attempt at the piece, and there are plenty of other good ones out there as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-29 15:35
Rick wrote, in part:
>>...he also took the piece out of the "museum" and made it alive and fresh.>>
ALL good players take pieces 'out of the "museum"' when they perform. It's what performance MEANS. As a result, the piece comes up 'as new'.
Their doing that doesn't mean that they need try to ALTER it.
It's a common misconception, prevalent here -- but too common also, sadly, in the profession itself.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinet60
Date: 2012-06-29 15:49
And who determines whether a cadenza (which is open to interpretation) has been "altered" or is acceptable? Is it the audience, the critics, other clarinetists, the classical music police? all of the above? There have been many other clarinetists performances criticized on this board for having too much vibrato, too little vibrato, too slow, too fast, etc...When it comes down to it, it's what we like as individuals, and nobody can change that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-29 17:47
Rick wrote:
>> And who determines whether a cadenza (which is open to interpretation) has been "altered" or is acceptable? Is it the audience, the critics, other clarinetists, the classical music police? all of the above? >>
Well, it's obvious that on this occasion Eddie Daniels DID significantly 'alter' Copland's cadenza -- which, by the way, although headed "(freely)" at the beginning, contains many rather specific instructions: 'short', 'plainly', 'somewhat faster', 'slower', 'hold back', 'more deliberate' etc etc; and then, finally, over the semiquaver run, '(ad lib.)', surely a redundant marking to the run-of-the-mill rhythm-destroying liberty-takers we usually have to endure.
In fact, what Daniels did was to write his OWN cadenza, based on Copland's.
Given that he started out with that intention, this particular performance isn't a great issue for me. I haven't listened to the recording, but I did take the trouble to go hear him play it with the LSO, amplified, a couple of months ago. And why it isn't an issue for me is because it's a one-off, as he himself acknowledged -- as was his version of Bernstein's 'Prelude, Fugue and Riffs' in the same programme. So there's no danger that I'll have to set straight some pipsqueak student who comes to me citing Daniels's performance as some sort of legal precedent or justification for the tat they produce -- as they sometimes unfortunately do with other recorded performances.
See, the trouble with your use of the word 'interpretation' in the above is that it implies that there is some written-down music that is satisfactorily performable in such a way that it ISN'T subject to interpretation.
But there is no such written-down music. Every living performance worth its salt -- even the most restrained -- lives in its own unique way.
The ones that AREN'T worth their salt aren't unacceptable because they do or don't take liberties. They're unacceptable because they DON'T WORK.
They may be unacceptable even when they take no liberties at all, if they approach the score with an insufficiently rich response. They could be said to be pedantic in quality -- and therefore to 'not work'. So you can go wrong both ways.
Now, what you ask is, roughly: who determines...what is acceptable? -- or, as I would put it, what works?
I say that if you love music, and learn to love it more by listening to it, you come to inhabit a different aesthetic universe from the one you started in. It's difficult not to see this as some sort of progress, even though you were appreciating every step along the way. And other people can help you to some extent, by calling attention to features and relationships that you initially missed.
>> There have been many other clarinetists performances criticized on this board for having too much vibrato, too little vibrato, too slow, too fast, etc...When it comes down to it, it's what we like as individuals, and nobody can change that.>>
As others have said here, we can produce reasoned arguments, of the sort I mentioned above.
Daniel Leeson once said, on the Klarinet list, of some musical argument -- I think it was about why 'Yes, we have no bananas' is an inferior work to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony:-):
Quote:
It's simply another version of the statement "I don't like asparagus." Now he can give 500 good reasons why he doesn't like asparagus but, in the final analysis, it still remains opinion.
I replied:
Quote:
If he says "I don't like asparagus", we just learn something about him; whereas if he gives the 500 good reasons, we stand a good chance of learning something about asparagus too.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-06-29 17:50
Wow, talk about extremes. We have gone from (paraphrased but quoted to avoid confusion), "Let's just talk about the content harmonically/thematically and not offer opinions" to, "All that matters is what we like." Believe it or not, we can critically analyze the performance on other levels. Otherwise, all those composition, orchestration, and arranging courses I took were a waste of time and money, not to mention private lessons.
There are accepted conventions and they don't exist so someone can be the classical music police. They exist because bright and talented people have devoted their lives to figure out what works musically and why it works. By applying the principles that make music work on different levels, we can indeed critically analyze a work or performance within the context of the composer, performer, period, form, style, and harmonic/melodic/rhythmic content.
My problems with the cadenza were these:
1) the transitions into the two finger snap sections were clunky,
2) the finger snaps themselves weren't in keeping with the style of anything else that happened before or after and seemed to distract and thus detract from the great playing,
3) the improv on a blues progression in the first finger snap section did not fit thematically, harmonically, or stylistically with anything else in the piece,
4) the Barber of Seville quotes were a little too contrived, poorly executed, and that even trying to do something humorous was not in keeping with the work or style. However, if they had been worked into the cadenza better instead of just dropping out of nowhere, I may have had a different opinion.
Honestly, if he had left out the finger snaps, the blues, and possibly the Barber, I would have thought the cadenza was genius. His improv over the second finger snap section was fantastic and completely in keeping with this piece with its utilization of augmented triads based on major second chord progressions.
Of course, this is just my opinion, but it is an informed one.
Note - I see I was posting at the same time that Tony was. This post is not a comment on his in any way, shape, or form. He did make some excellent points.
Post Edited (2012-06-29 18:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinet60
Date: 2012-06-29 18:02
Yes, and John Moses' opinion on this board is quite informed as well as he actually performed and discussed the piece with Copeland (Quote):
>" So, finally, Copland sat down with me in the recording booth and said, do >want you want & I'll follow you. He wanted me to freely interpret his written >notes, so I added a little here and there, and Copland made some >suggestion, and loved it. We did a few different "takes", but the more I >went off the page, the more he seemed pleased. So I believe Copland >would have been amused and pleased with Eddie's new take on his >Concerto.
>That's only a guess on my part, but knowing Copland's feelings about the >more free interpretations of his Concerto, I think he and Eddie would have > >had a ball putting it together!"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-06-29 18:43
Did you read my post thoroughly? I in no way objected to Daniels taking liberties with the cadenza. I just had problems with some of his musical choices, and I even gave you salient reasons why I didn't like them.
I respect John Moses, but I do not think he can realistically speak as to what Copland's opinion would have been in this instance since this performance was obviously far beyond anything Copland himself could ever have envisioned. Just because Copland wanted people to take liberties in his cadenza doesn't mean that anything a performer chooses to add will be good in concept or execution.
I gave you rational and somewhat thorough explanations as to what I didn't like. Why not think for yourself and address those points instead of throwing out someone else's opinion as a blanket statement to try and stop discussion?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-06-29 18:57
If you want to speculate on what Copland's opinion would have been, we can. I think we can glean a better idea of what Copland's ideas on the subject might have been by looking at his comments in a radio interview on another unconventional take on one of his works, ELP's Fanfare for the Common Man:
"Interviewer: Just before I left London, I heard a piece of music of yours, Fanfare for the Common Man, which had been taken by a rock group Emerson, Lake & Palmer. How do you feel about that?
Copland: Well, (laughs) of course it's very flattering to have one's music adopted by so popular a group, and so good a group as Emerson, Lake & Palmer. A lot depends on what they do with what they take, and naturally since I have a copyright on such material, they're not able to take it without my permission; so that in each case, where I have given my permission, there was something that attracted me about the version that they perform, which made me think I'd like to allow them to release it. Of course, I always prefer my own version best, but (laughs) what they do is really around the piece, you might say, rather than a literal transposition of the piece, and they're a gifted group. In that particular case, I allowed it to go by because when they first play it, they play it fairly straight and when they end the piece, they play it very straight. What they do in the middle, I'm not sure exactly how they connect that with my music but (laughs) they do it someway, I suppose. But the fact that at the beginning and the end it really is the Fanfare for the Common Man gave me the feeling I ought to allow them to do it as they pleased.
Interviewer: I know your original work is just over three minutes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer have managed to turn it into a nine minute work.
Copland: (Laughs) Exactly, well, it's those six minutes in the middle...(laughs)"
I think Daniels' cadenza, at best, would be analogous the six minutes in the middle that Copland wasn't so sure about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-06-29 19:11
And, in the end, does it really matter what Copland's opinion would have been on any unconventional version of his works? Does it matter whether or not Beethoven would have liked the disco version of his 5th symphony?
At a certain point, when the performance deviates far enough from the original, the composer and his opinions become non-factors, don't they? An unconventional rendition becomes a new work that has to be judged on its own merit. That's all I'm doing with Daniels' cadenza.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-29 19:26
ww.player said (is there a quote function...how did you do that, Tony?):
My problems with the cadenza were these:
1) the transitions into the two finger snap sections were clunky,
2) the finger snaps themselves weren't in keeping with the style of anything else that happened before or after and seemed to distract and thus detract from the great playing,
3) the improv on a blues progression in the first finger snap section did not fit thematically, harmonically, or stylistically with anything else in the piece,
4) the Barber of Seville quotes were a little too contrived, poorly executed, and that even trying to do something humorous was not in keeping with the work or style. However, if they had been worked into the cadenza better instead of just dropping out of nowhere, I may have had a different opinion.
----
and I (coming from the viewpoint of this performance as more of a loosely interepreted "jazzy" take on the Copland) have the same exact issues with it. Simply put, the character of the performance changed entirely. It sounded like Eddie started playing another song completely, instead of just continuing what he was doing. It was jarring.
It was most likely intended to be fun and light-hearted, but it came across as awkward and uncertain. To me. I don't know if it was arranged or not, but the two finger-snapping sections felt both contrived and uncertain. Again, that's just me.
On a whole, there is a lot to like, and purists may disagree, but I think some of the things Eddie did with the piece overall are worth incorporating into the regular performance of this piece. Notably his use of swing in the later sections, during sections not written to "be swung". When you consider the accompaniment there, which is emphasizing 2 and 4, it makes sense (though I'm less enamored by the orchestra's use of swing, though it's "written")
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-06-29 20:18
Lots of sour grapes and jealousy here IMO........
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-29 20:33
Bob Draznik wrote:
>> Lots of sour grapes and jealousy here IMO........>>
That's a major contribution.
I salute you, maestro.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-06-29 20:43
I made my contribution previously, the latter was just an observation.........
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-06-29 20:58
All of you have very interesting opinions. I had mixed feelings about the performance, especially the cadenza, but sometimes it's nice to take some risks and try new things.
How would Copland have felt about it? It's very hard to say, but my guess is that he might have mildly disapproved, but he wouldn't have been strongly critical. Unlike some other composers, Copland didn't always feel that things had to be done exactly "his" way.
Copland had never imagined that his violin sonata would someday be played on the clarinet, but he was quite approving when Timothy Paradise approached him. When William Warfield suggested changing "bah bah" to "moo moo" in "I Bought Me a Cat" in "Old American Songs," Copland went along very willingly. Late in life when Copland wrote his "Duo for Flute and Piano," he relied on flutist John Solum for advice in one spot.
In "Copland Since 1943" (with Vivian Perlis), Copland makes the comment that he had never thought about writing a clarinet concerto until Benny Goodman approached him. He admitted that he didn't have much experience writing for the clarinet, except in his orchestral parts, and he depended on Goodman for advice here and there. Copland also admitted that he had "clarinetist David Oppenheim around for moral support." (p. 93) Here's another interesting Copland comment: "I always thought it would help if a player had some feeling and knowledge of jazz, yet when jazz clarinetist Johnny Dankworth attempted the clarinet concerto in concert, he ran into difficulty." (p. 96)
Here are Copland's comments about the cadenza: "The cadenza is written fairly close to the way I wanted it, but it is free within reason--after all, it and the movement that follows are in the jazz idiom. It is not ad lib as in cadenzas of many traditional concertos; I always felt that there was enough room for interpretation even when everything is written out." (p. 93)
Finally, I wonder (like Lorenzo) what Copland would have said if he had heard those quotations from "The Barber of Seville."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-29 21:05
Lorenzo wrote:
>> On a whole, there is a lot to like, and purists may disagree, but I think some of the things Eddie did with the piece overall are worth incorporating into the regular performance of this piece.>>
It's this that I would want to take issue with.
There is no 'regular performance of this piece.' What happens, as in any written piece, is that each performer does their best to create a performance that corresponds with the TEXT, including whatever they know or can come to understand about the background circumstances in which the composer wrote it, and the stylistic conventions operating at the time.
What the composer said about it can also be included, but should not be regarded as definitive; see:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=185092&t=184698
The discussion in some of my posts in that thread makes the case that the composer may not always be the best judge of the situation. So I'm not all that desperately concerned about what Copland would or wouldn't have liked.
I also go on to talk about that with regard to other composers, in particular Luciano Berio.
In this way we avoid the 'Chinese whispers' problem of progressive mangling of texts, as well as setting proper and real problems for our students.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-29 21:11
Bob Draznik wrote:
>> I made my contribution previously, the latter was just an observation...>>
I'd say that your previous contribution was equally worthy of my salutation:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-29 21:54
fair enough, Tony. What I simply meant is that the next time this piece is performed, what Eddie Daniels did I felt was something that would sound nice incorporated into the next interpretation. Of course, everyone has a personal interpretation of music (I mean...I would hope they would) but what I heard in Eddie's take were some things that people don't do, either by lack of awareness or just close-mindedness.
I'm not talking about vibrato or bending or notes, but incorporating actual, bona-fide swing rhythm into the piece. Of course, easier said than done, we've all heard examples of what happens when this is done by classical musicians not familiar with "real" jazz swing. I think Eddie finally showed how it can be done, and how context (e.g. what the orchestra is playing) makes a difference. Of course, there's a lot there...he takes metric liberties of all sorts in his phrasing as well, and there is the note bending and all of that.
I didn't mean "regular" as in standardized. I fully acknowledge there is no standardized performance of any piece of music, unless our goal is to just create human MP3's of previous performances...
Hope I've clarified it, even if there is still issue with what I actually mean
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-30 07:00
ok. fair enough. thanks for the links...though are they supposed to be .txt extensions?
So then your assertion (if I read everything correctly) is that since swing is not part of Copland's stylistic elements (regarding his music) adding it to this piece is the equivalent of changing parts of it to "french" in what is inherently a "german" piece (using the language analogy, picking random languages). Or, to put it another way, it's trying to add stylistic elements that are not appropriate to the work, as it's not part of *this* composer's overall style, as demonstrated with his body of work and how his pieces have been played in the past.
I'm not attempting to make a dissuading argument, mind you - only trying to see if I understand your point of view correctly.
I do get this point of view...the equivalent exists in jazz, after all, in essentially the same manner. Different set of languages/dialects, but similar rules...you want to speak one cohesive language if you want to present a performance that is stylistically accurate and consistent.
interesting, wasn't thinking of it in this way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-30 10:30
Yes, that's pretty much it:-)
What I find is that this piece successfully treads the line between Copland's own natural style and Goodman's own natural style, leaning first in one direction and then the other. Whatever Copland thought he was doing, and whatever he subsequently hoped for in the piece's afterlife, it remains true that that's what he actually did. What's on the page is a beautiful synthesis, and I don't want it spoiled in its essence.
Daniels's effort was explicitly trying for something different, so I don't mind so much. But I want to argue against his influencing performances of the piece in the future.
In a way, the Copland concerto is 'about' the relationship between two styles -- between French and German in your language analogy -- so how they interact is a delicate matter.
You wrote:
>> interesting, wasn't thinking of it this way. >>
Thank you for perhaps the nicest response I've ever had here:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-06-30 13:05
Quote:
What I find is that this piece successfully treads the line between Copland's own natural style and Goodman's own natural style, leaning first in one direction and then the other......
Great description. That sums up the work perfectly to me. The piece captures the essence of each in a unique way.
I agree about trying something differently. It reminds me of Herbie Hancock's recording/improvisation on the 2nd movement of Ravel's piano concerto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnDUulft0dQ
As much as I like Herbie's playing and find this an interesting take on the piece, I would not want this to become the standard.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-30 15:15
what was bad about it?
I actually wanted to see that, it was advertised on Fathom Events to be aired on the big screen...but as with all those Fathom Movie events, it was one showing only and during an inconvenient time...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2012-06-30 15:38
There's a point when it becomes more about the performer than the piece.
That should never happen.
Hancock made it more about him than Gershwin, and it was sloppy too.
Think Benny Goodman playing the Nielsen, or a Weber Concerto (I have the LPs).
NYPO played it basically the same night, and it was much better played by their pianist. Still had the excitement, and musicality, but without the egocentric "touch".
Both Clarinetists were great.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-06-30 18:05
Quote:
There's a point when it becomes more about the performer than the piece.
Yes, but was the audience entertained?
;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2012-07-14 16:53
A thread on Copland I missed--It's obviously been a while since I've been on here!
Buster wrote:
Quote:
As long as he doesn't sub a major pentatonic built off the 9th in his improv. it's all good by me.
I was thinking along the same lines when I listened to it--I just didn't know how to describe it in that precise technical sense (although the word "modal" comes to mind). The improvisation is anachronistic in spots--suggestive of later jazz styles. It just doesn't quite fit.
In my opinion, the best part of this piece--as Copland wrote it, that is--is the opening "movement," and I was disappointed by this performance with regard to that part of the piece. It seemed superficially phrased to me, and the quite prominent vibrato seemed to disrupt the blend between the clarinet and the strings.
One of the beautiful things about this piece (in particular, the opening section) is how the clarinet seamlessly flows into and out of the orchestral sound. That didn't really happen in this performance. That's not to say that you can't make it work with vibrato--Richard Stoltzman did in his recording of this piece--but I don't think the vibrato helps. Clarity in the vertical dimension seems so important to Copland's music, that anything that obscures that clarity (which would include any unnecessary vibrato, in my mind) seems out of place.
Don't get me wrong--I admire Eddie Daniels' playing a great deal (especially his improvisational ability)--but this performance doesn't live up to the other performances/recordings of his I've heard.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
