 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jenthemusician
Date: 2014-01-06 22:11
Rose etude 11 is in 3/2 and Larghetto. Since I want to practice it with a metronome, should I play it with a half note or a quarter note equealing 60-66? Thank you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2014-01-06 23:14
or set your metronome on 104ish and count quarter notes
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-01-07 02:45
The Complete Rose says 56-60 for 32 #11.
It's marked con duolo ("with sorrow" or "with anguish"). For me, it works best at 56. You let the sorrow and tears well up in the rising figures and decrease when they fall. You can take a little extra time during the emotional meltdown of the sixteenths.
If I play it at 52, it's hard to keep the phrases going, and I start playing one note at a time.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2014-01-07 08:07
David Hite's edition of the Rose 32, which does suffer from being over edited, has it marked at 52.
56 also works fine, but I think the slightly slower 52 makes the sixteenth notes in measure 7 not as hurried.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-01-07 20:14
GBK wrote:
> David Hite's edition of the Rose 32, which does suffer from
> being over edited,
Glen, I only have the Hite edition of the 40 Studies, which is more a de-editing of Rose's original work. I've gone back even beyond Hite's versions, using his identifications of each étude, to the published editions of the violin sources (my wife is a violist who originally studied violin), and I find it interesting to see what Rose left out and added to make them more useful (in his view) for clarinet study.
Are Hite's 32 Studies done the same way, or did he only edit further what Rose published?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-01-07 20:32
I don't see the need to play this metronomically in any case. It's not that sort of music.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2014-01-07 20:42
I DO like the Hite edition of the Rose 32 for the work he has done fixing many of the glaring errors in the old Carl Fischer publication, and the Artistic Studies series of books are a very good value for the price, but the excessive clutter of Italian expressive terms is annoying, unnecessary and borders on the ridiculous.
Do we really need placidament, calme, pacato, pacatamente, riposatamente and placabilmente when they all essentially mean the same thing?
or how about the difference between deciso and intrepedemente?
or the difference between piangevolmente and lagnoso?
or the difference between lagrimosamente and luttuosamente?
or my absolute favorite: How do you play con tinto?
Mr Hite, we know you speak Italian, but don't shove it down our throats.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-01-07 21:24
I don't mind the Italian -- it's the incessant hairpins I can do without.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-01-07 16:30
GBK wrote:
> but the excessive clutter of
> Italian expressive terms is annoying, unnecessary and borders
> on the ridiculous.
>
Are these Hite's or the original composers' instructions?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-01-07 16:47
Tony Pay wrote:
> I don't see the need to play this metronomically in any case.
> It's not that sort of music.
I agree, FWIW, but, still, an inexperienced student needs somewhere to start. The tempo markings give someone who doesn't find a tempo in the music itself a point of departure.
I don't in fact remember, even as a high school student studying these, ever having having had my attention directed to any metronome markings at all in these studies (we only had the Fischer edition). I don't remember if my teachers suggested tempos or let me find my own. It seems to me that, except as a whip to drive a student to play a fast etude faster than his comfort zone or a brake to a make a student play slower, the markings add little that humming through the first few bars wouldn't provide. Maybe I've just been playing them too long to put myself back at the beginning of the process. It's interesting. I can't actually tell you (and I'm deliberately not running to my copy of Carl Fischer to check) whether Rose even included metronome markings. I assume they're there, but it's one (of many) expressive markings in those études that I just look past and almost literally don't see.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2014-01-07 17:41
GBK, you know Mr. Hite is no longer with us (he died in 2004)?
I do agree with you about the Italian.
Someday I mean to check out Ethan Sloane's edition which purportedly has markings he received from Harold Wright.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2014-01-08 07:40
I'm completely interested in knowing more about the errors in the Fischer. I've seen other editions (and own the Hite) but some of the stuff in the revision by Melvin Warner mystifies me. It's entirely possible that after having played many of these etudes for several years for lessons (roughly 1983-1991) that the "original" Fischer versions are seared into my brain.
At this point, I'm hoping not to be teaching my students in a way which is "counter" to the current view on them!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-01-08 05:43
Katrina wrote:
>
> At this point, I'm hoping not to be teaching my students in a
> way which is "counter" to the current view on them!
I'm not sure there's a "current view on them" that really matters much. These pieces aren't meant for performance, and if authenticity or fidelity to the "composer's intent" were important, we could do little to establish either, because they weren't composed by Cyrille Rose, they weren't composed for the clarinet, and Rose altered the originals enough to make authenticity a non-issue. I suppose the best way to find the most authentic text is to go back and play the originals, which Hite made much easier. You still need to take out double stops and find places to breathe that violin students (the original targets) don't need. The problem, as Tony and Glenn have pointed out, is the overlay of extra, musically unnecessary and sometimes very idiosyncratic expressive information that editors have added. These don't, IMO, represent a "current view" but only the individual editor's view - at best a representation of how the editor teaches his students to play the studies.
Many of the errors in the Fischer edition are obvious and correction doesn't really need to be sanctioned by Drucker or Hite or anyone else. Just fix it. I still find errors I never noticed (I've been mentally correcting them for 40 or 50 years and never noticed what was actually printed) when a student asks "why aren't there enough beats in this measure?" or they play a note that's clearly wrong when I hear it - one that I've been unconsciously correcting and just visually filtering out.
I should add after my practice session this afternoon, having gotten out my copy of the Fischer edition, that the metronome markings are among those editorial additions - they don't, as it turns out, appear in the Fischer edition (explaining, I guess, why I never noticed them).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TAS
Date: 2014-01-09 04:18
Play it so that each phrase is a complete musical statement....that makes sense.
Don't quibble about triflles in tempo.
TAS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mmatisoff
Date: 2016-07-28 19:57
I tried playing this Etude using a metronome, and I couldn't nail down the tempo. It's a beautiful piece, and I find that if I follow the dynamics, I get a better sorrowful sound. I listened to several musicians, and each one played at a different tempo and some even changed the dynamics. I'm working out the bugs in Rose's Etude 11 and Baermann's #18 and 19. Along the way, I'm improving my fingering (including resonant fingerings) and work hard to obtain a centered sound. I enjoyed reading the comments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
