 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: TomD
Date: 2015-06-23 23:51
In movement #1, measure 53 ( measure #1 being where the clarinet starts ) I have heard something peculiar in some recent performances. I first heard David Shifrin do this live a couple of years ago, different than his recording from the 1980's and now Julian Bliss does it on his new CD. Specifically, it sounds like instead of F#'s, they are playing F naturals. I'm not sure exactly but it's something like that. When I heard David do it, I thought he made a mistake it was so noticeable. Does anyone know if something was discovered historically that caused this change?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 00:15
The first bit of that passage, beginning on a written G, should have F#s. During the second bit, which starts on an E, the first F should be sharp and the second should be natural. The music is tonicizing F# minor (concert pitch) at that moment, so a written F# in the clarinet part wouldn't work. I think this section of music is correct in the K. 621b fragment (though I don't have it at hand to check), and it's usually marked and played the correct way in the recapitulation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 00:57
I think we are talking about actual measure number 109? Then what I am seeing are two concert "D#s" that make sense in the context of hovering around concert "C#" (moving up to and away from concert "E") which is the third of the tonic over beats one and two, and the fifth of the submediant over the third and fourth beats.
Unless Mozart revamped the concerto since the 18th Century.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 01:04
Paul,
Did you not read what I wrote?
The harmonies change in the bar; just look at a score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 04:22
Yes, A to F#min. Chord change on beat 3 not beat 2.
Just to confirm, we ARE talking bar 109?
...........Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-24 04:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-06-24 04:42
I'm only a casual observer here, never played the Concerto or ever likely to. But I'd still like to see the measures involved, with the notes in question marked "original" vs "as played by Shifrin and Bliss", perhaps also with the "guitar chords" A and F#m wherever they go. Or would that get the copyright thugs after you?
My question is, can you determine the original intent? What if dissonance was Mozart's intent, but it sounds better when modified? Which way would you rather play it or hear it?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 04:49
There's a V of F# (in first inversion) on the upbeat of beat two. As I said, the music is tonicizing F# minor here, which means on beat two the clarinet has scale degrees 7-6-5-4 and resolves to scale degree 3 on the downbeat of beat three. Scale degree 7 is lowered (as it normally is when playing descending passages in the minor mode), and scale degree 6--the written F(#)--should be lowered as well, unless you really like the sound of Dorian scales in Mozart's music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-06-24 05:33
fskelley wrote:
> I'm only a casual observer here, never played the Concerto or
> ever likely to. But I'd still like to see the measures
> involved, with the notes in question marked "original" vs "as
> played by Shifrin and Bliss",
>
> My question is, can you determine the original intent? What if
> dissonance was Mozart's intent, but it sounds better when
> modified? Which way would you rather play it or hear it?
>
When I was a student, the editions I used to learn the concerto had D# all the way through measures 108 and 109. In several other parallel spots in the movement (20-21, 158-159, 296-297) the same relative pitches were used.
The notes Tom notices in the two recordings are in the Baerenreiter "urtext" edition published in 2003, which also includes a version for basset clarinet, which as I remember both Shifrin and Bliss use. There is, of course, no known original manuscript, so editorial decisions have to be based on the most primary sources available. This is not, however, a matter of (Mozart's) original vs. some editor's performance preference or the preferences of the performers themselves. The Baerenreiter edition is a scholarly attempt to reconstruct something as close as possible to what Mozart did write.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 06:02
I don't think it sounds right. If you're not yet in F#min why would you play it as though you were?
Of course I don't like the basset renditions either. As much weight as there is on the side of that being how Mozart intended it to be played. I think it has that sound of "inevitability" on a standard "A" clarinet. And as much as the continuous descending (and then ascending from the cellar) note figures make "musical" sense, the sound just comes of too weighty and contrived for my tastes.
We may never know for sure though what exactly was heard 220 or so years ago.
I also don't find the manuscript without accompaniment meaningful. What was Mozart's harmonic intent in this moment?
............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-24 06:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 06:18
It is in F#--a C# major chord is V/F#.
But if you wish to ignore basic music theory, we do know what Mozart wrote. Did you look over the manuscript?
But continue playing F# if you think your ears are better than Mozart's.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 06:24
And yes, I think I will continue to play a written "F#." It sounds better. The downbeat of beat two is not the upbeat of beat two (where it diverges).
............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-24 06:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 07:13
Quote:
The downbeat of beat two is not the upbeat of beat two (where it diverges).
The harmonic rhythm, though, isn't eighths--it's quarters. The eighth rest/eighth note C# major chord is a rhythmic elaboration of a quarter note C# chord.
I don't have time/energy to argue with or offer a harmony lesson to someone with their fingers in their ears (figurately as well as literally, it seems). I explained the measure's harmony and posted Mozart's manuscript; I think the OP can see why the F natural is the correct note.
Paul, you favor F# simply because you're accustomed to it and/or not sensitive to hamrony. Just for funsies, try playing the measure slowly on the piano and see what you think.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: claaaaaarinet!!!!
Date: 2015-06-24 09:07
I first had the F natural in question explained to me by Charles Neidich. I made a note of it in my part and started practicing it both ways: with and without. Over the years I came to prefer the F natural and now I can't hear it any other way. Most players I know also play the F natural. Neidich has a new published edition of Mozart Cto forthcoming, which should be interesting. I guess we'll see that F natural along with other refinements and a new basset realization. Hopefully some critical notes as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 11:47
Played on the piano, the "five of" occurs a half beat before the third beat and not before.
What could I be missing?
Just spent some more time listening to other clarinet players play this including Neidich. I cannot agree with the rationale used by Neidich. He moves harmonically too soon. Maybe he didn't look at the score or play this on the piano.
Seriously though the urtext melodic fragment may have existed in Mozart's mind with an entirely different rhythmic under pinning. We just don't have enough information to say this is "the most correct version."
..............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-24 12:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-06-24 13:29
Paul Aviles wrote:
> I don't think it sounds right. If you're not yet in F#min why
> would you play it as though you were?
>
It's called anticipation. Quite common.
>
>
> Of course I don't like the basset renditions either. As much
> weight as there is on the side of that being how Mozart
> intended it to be played. I think it has that sound of
> "inevitability" on a standard "A" clarinet. And as much as the
> continuous descending (and then ascending from the cellar)
> note figures make "musical" sense, the sound just comes of too
> weighty and contrived for my tastes.
>
I feel exactly the opposite. When I was a kid and first played it I didn't know about the basset thing. I do remember thinking there were some really odd bits in it where a descending line jumped up a seventh and then continued downwards. Years later I discovered that they probably should have continued downwards. It made so much more sense that way.
Post Edited (2015-06-24 13:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-06-24 14:17
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Played on the piano, the "five of" occurs a half beat before
> the third beat and not before.
>
>
>
>
> What could I be missing?
>
>
Well the A chord has stopped sounding by the start of beat 2. But yes, it's hard to argue that the C# chord is in effect from the start of beat 2 when the clarinet has an E natural (concert) unless Mozart had been listening to Jimi Hendrix.
> Just spent some more time listening to other clarinet players
> play this including Neidich. I cannot agree with the rationale
> used by Neidich. He moves harmonically too soon. Maybe he
> didn't look at the score or play this on the piano.
>
>
> Seriously though the urtext melodic fragment may have existed
> in Mozart's mind with an entirely different rhythmic under
> pinning. We just don't have enough information to say this is
> "the most correct version."
>
No but we do know that Mozart wrote a F natural at an early stage in it's development and at a later time some anonymous hack at a publishing house wrote an F#.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2015-06-24 16:20
Paul- you may not think that it sounds right, but Mozart certainly did when he wrote this sketch. That's why he also writes the same thing in the parallel passage of the opening orchestral tutti in bar 21. Given that this is the only original source we have, it's a bit of a no-brainer about which note to play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 16:48
But doesn't the parallel passage line up with the "five of" chord?
That doesn't happen that way for the solo line in bar 109. So it's similar but not harmonically the same situation.
We know MOZART knew what he wanted at any given moment, but there is no rhythmic or harmonic accompaniment written down by Mozart to say that is what he had in mind when he wrote out that sketch.
OR
Maybe the real key to this is bar 25 of the score where the melody is set "in a round." To me the whole passage we are talking about for the clarinet is really the solo line trying to "catch up" to the harmony. It stalls out the "joke" to have that one instance of "foreshadow."
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-06-24 18:15
Somewhere, sometime, somebody will be playing the Concerto for an important audience containing passionate advocates of both F and F#. Think your own professor/teacher and the chairman of the music dept. And the player has done it both ways depending on who was listening, but now is forced to make somebody mad. Maybe they don't even decide for sure until they get to the passage. Extra sweat in an already stressful situation.
Let's say your prof is the kind of guy who will say nothing, but quietly ruin your future career. While the dept head can do you no harm long term, but might stand up and start screaming "NO NO NO" with your first "wrong" note. Which do you choose?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2015-06-24 18:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 19:38
Quote:
Well the A chord has stopped sounding by the start of beat 2. But yes, it's hard to argue that the C# chord is in effect from the start of beat 2 when the clarinet has an E natural (concert) unless Mozart had been listening to Jimi Hendrix.
But it isn't hard to argue: the harmonic rhythm is moving in quarters, not eighths. So if you wanted to do a harmonic reduction of this passage, you'd have alternating tonics and dominants in quarters.
I think with regard to harmony, the rhythmic ornamentation of eighth rest/eighth note is there because a.) Mozart wanted to avoid an unwholesome vertical sonority with a chromatic half-step; b.) He also wanted to avoid leaving unresolved leading-tones in the melodic line, and a leading-tone supported by an unambiguous dominant chord would be too powerful.
The eighth rest does create a small moment of uncertainty, where you could hear the clarinet line in the new key or in the old key. Given that we have the harmonic rhythm established by the previous bar, I can't hear beat two in the old key, and playing an F# creates a sort of cross-relation in my ears.
Quote:
Just spent some more time listening to other clarinet players play this including Neidich. I cannot agree with the rationale used by Neidich. He moves harmonically too soon. Maybe he didn't look at the score or play this on the piano.
I think he's just sensitive to how harmony works. Only a pedant would argue that a harmony has to be completely and unambiguously present in the music to be functional. But to paraphrase Wanda Landowska: You play Mozart your way, we'll play him his way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-24 20:36
But that's just it. I believe Mozart WAS being deliberately ambiguous.
And if you can hear a key change before it happens pax vobiscum.
And in bar 21 the alteration happens on the second part of the second beat OVER the accompanying "five of" chord. In bar 109 are hotly contested candidate appears in the first part of the second beat. To me that is a big difference
.............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-24 20:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomD
Date: 2015-06-24 20:49
Wow! I had no idea that this seemingly simple question would evoke such a response. Very interesting thoughts...thanks!
As an aside, I agree with Paul in that I don't really care for the basset version. It might be that I have listened to and played the "A" clarinet version for so long that I'm a creature of habit. However, I have to admit that there are some passages where it really works and makes sense. And I love it at the end of the third movement with the low "D" just before the final trill. It really "anchors" the whole thing IMHO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-24 21:08
Paul,
Measure 21 is exactly the same but in the key of B minor--it's a "question" of G#/G natural.
Also, notice that in the fragment, Mozart has the accompaniment written for m. 21 (it's the eighth note/eighth rest). He presumably didn't sketch this out later at m. 109 because it's a double exposition, and the accompaniment figures would be the same.
Mozart is telling you the answer: it's right in front of your face in his own handwriting; it isn't ambiguous at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2015-06-24 23:11
The concerto isn't the only place where older editions tried to even out some of Mozart's unexpected accidentals. In the 13 wind serenade adagio (movement 3) the penultimate note of bar 20 and the first note of 21 both used to be given as written Bb for basset horn 1 - but in the autograph the first one is clearly B natural. When I began to hear recordings doing it that way it sounded wrong, but you get used to it. As with the concerto, there's zero doubt from the way it's written that this is what Mozart wanted. I wonder how the early editors justified to themselves doing something that was such a deliberate alteration of the music?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-25 01:03
Somehow I get the impression when YOU guys say bar 21......you're not looking.
There IS a difference between the position of the 8th sixteenth note (bar 21) and the 6th sixteenth note (bar 109). They are at two different harmonic locations. With the harmonies being so straight forward I find it hard to justify the "Neidich Hypothesis" with other than........."well that's what Mozart wrote down in a sketch without underlying harmonies.'' What I am saying is that Mozart may very well have changed the harmonic underpinning (in his head) while writing this down. You cannot assume it will be the same as the exposition. Mozart was, if nothing else, a guy who liked tinkering with the melodies and harmonies of his works.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jarmo Hyvakko
Date: 2015-06-25 01:26
IMHO: Since this f natural came on market i have really tried to learn to like it, but repeatedly failed in it. And when i got an opportunity to perform this piece with our orchestra, i played the sharp. My arguments for this are:
The only existing manuscript fragment is only a scetch for a concerto for bassethorn in G. In the end of the scetch Mozart clearly begins to write notes in A major instead of G. And there are some quite rediculous bars there f.ex. bars 23-24 i think no one would dare to demand the orchestra to play as it stands in the fragment!
It looks like Mozart had added the natural into the orchestral tutti afterwards, it's so tightly squeezed in there, whereas in clarinet solo the natural is written clearly. So, i think Mozart has changed his mind there and made a correction to the orchestral tutti.
But
Just try to apply the flat note in the passage bars 243-244, where the passage goes a third up. Quite unthinkable!! (The fragment has ended far before this place). My theory is, that Mozart has changed his mind back to the "original" at that point
So, how important is a paper Mozart himself has thrown to waste paper basket before a restart?
Jarmo Hyvakko
Jarmo Hyvakko, Principal Clarinet, Tampere Philharmonic, Finland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2015-06-25 01:28
If you look carefully in bar 21 you'll see that the 6th note is also adjusted. You probably won't (want to?) see it at first, but if you compare it with other bars you should recognise it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-25 01:46
I KNEW IT.....we must be looking at two different bar 21s. The IMSLP rendering has the key signature indicated "G#" as both the third and sixth notes (running sixteenths) of the bar.
We must be talking about two different things. Right?!!?
And thank you Jarmo Hyvako for the bars 243-244 analogy !!
............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-25 01:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2015-06-25 02:31
Paul- no: bar 21 is bar 21. We're not looking at the IMSLP version, we're looking at the Winterthur fragment (although I'm sure bar 21 is the same bar in both). In the fragment, the 6th note is adjusted to a G natural.
Jarmo- Actually Gilles Thome has recorded the fragment on basset horn in G and bars 23-24 also sound fine.
The passage in 243-244 is completely different because the chords on the first and third beats of these bars stay the same (with inversions), whereas in bars 20-21, 108-109 and 296-297 the harmony is changing.
Seeing that this fragment is the only discovered source in Mozart's handwriting, it has to be taken seriously as the most important that we have. Add to that the harmonic logic and the fact that Mozart follows this pattern in both of the examples in the fragment, it really doesn't make sense to play it any other way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-25 03:34
Quote:
Seeing that this fragment is the only discovered source in Mozart's handwriting, it has to be taken seriously as the most important that we have. Add to that the harmonic logic and the fact that Mozart follows this pattern in both of the examples in the fragment, it really doesn't make sense to play it any other way.
It's pointless: logic just bounces off of them.
If you guys really want to play the wrong note, go for it; a half-step isn't going to make or break a performance (though why you wouldn't want to play the correct note is beyond me).
I just wish you'd say you prefer the F# because that's what you grew up playing and not try to justify it with pseudo scholarship. Students who read this board and are studying the concerto may get the idea that your choice has some historical or theoretical underpinning and is therefore valid, but that isn't the case.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-06-25 04:22
Thank you for pointing me to the "real" bar 21 (could possibly have saved some confusion earlier though).
I could still see where y'all might have an argument that the quarter note change is happening in an inner voice that did not make it to the page of the coveted fragment. As it stands I will concede that the written Mozart fragment as it stands supports your argument in terms of the melody versus the figured bass (given that it is indeed the lowered note as interpreted). I still find the mysterious missing inner voice NECESSARY to complete the picture as Mozart must have heard it in his head.
But next time you may try to be more specific rather than condescending.
.............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2015-06-25 04:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jarmo Hyvakko
Date: 2015-06-25 05:14
It's interesting to notice, that even the so called critical editions don't follow the autograph fragment exactly, not even the neue Mozart Ausgabe: They haven't changed bars 23-24 to be played according to the manuscript. And for example Bärenreiter has even changed phrasing in many places such as bar 84. So, also Very Wise Men, who are not "pseudo scholars", also consider the early printed versions (Andre, Breitkopf, Sieber) as valid sources, even more valid than the manuscript fragment, which is as clearly as it can be, a rejected sketch. I may be wrong, but i have understood, that the flat note doesn't appear in any of them.
Having also taught students to try to master this piece, my opinion is, that this problematics should be instructed to students. Actually every time i teach this piece, i have got both the manuscript fragment and original Breitkopf clarinet part with, from which i show students these interesting things!
Jarmo H.
Jarmo Hyvakko, Principal Clarinet, Tampere Philharmonic, Finland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-06-25 05:49
Jarmo Hyvakko wrote:
> Actually every time i teach this piece, i have got
> both the manuscript fragment and original Breitkopf clarinet
> part with, from which i show students these interesting things!
>
What year was the Breitkopf edition you use published? Unfortunately, my Breitkopf copy with piano reduction, which was more or less accepted as canonical when I first studied the concerto in the mid-1960s, doesn't show a publication date. The Breitkopf score on IMSLP is identified as an 1881 printing, part of their critical edition of Mozart's works published between 1877 and 1910.
There are extensive notes about the concerto available at the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe which are unfortunately in German and out of my reach (does anyone know of an English translation or even a summary?), but I think I see a reference in it to a published edition as early as 1801. My guess is that the editor (Franz Giegling) of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe edition of the concerto (which is the basis of Baerenriter's published edition) is based on more early sources than just the Winterthur basset horn fragment we've been talking about - earlier editions certainly than 1887. Often early performance parts are also available - not composer's ms but prepared by copyists close to the time of the earliest performances. I wish I could read Giegling's notes.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-06-25 05:55
Apologies, Jarmo. My annoyance was directed more toward Paul.
The fragment isn't exactly a rejected sketch; Mozart left the solo line completely intact. There isn't a sound reason why he would have changed that one pitch while keeping everything else the same (so far you've only offered conjecture).
The NMA and the subsequent Barenreiter edition place the accidentals above the pitch at these moments, in what I assume was an attempt to shirk the decision and allow performers the opportunity to decide what to play. I'll have to look at the critical notes in the NMA and see what their reasoning was (I suspect tradition kept them from placing the accidental directly in front of the pitch). The old Breitkopf scores are notoriously mistake-ridden; I don't see why one would use them as a "scholarly" edition nor value them over the fragment as source material.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-06-25 06:06
Apparently there was a very early edition (1801) of many of Mozart's works published by Andre, who had some material directly from Constanze. I can see a reference to it in the German notes at NMA, and it is also mentioned in a 2008 post here by Barry James (http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=270346&t=270216). I wonder if there's a facsimile of this edition in a library somewhere, maybe in Salzburg.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclarinet
Date: 2015-06-25 16:46
Lots of interesting ideas and opinions on this extremely important measure in our only Mozart Concerto! Pianists are lucky--they have at least 26 Mozart Concertos.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
