 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2015-07-10 18:33
A couple of threads have mentioned the "correctness" of contemporary playing, and the impossible perfection produced by modern recording techniques.
It seems to me that the culture in general values technique and precision over subtilty and finesse. Think of the fancy Victorian and early 20th century buildings and contemporary ones. For example, the Chrysler Building compared to the new World Trade Center.
When I was growing up and taking lessons in the late 80s and early 90s, with different teachers, everything was about playing things "correctly", exactly as written. It was much more recently that I learned that exactly as written isn't always correct. Much is expected that's not written. Music isn't always notated exactly as meant to be played. Sometimes the editor adds too much. And, in the end it's perfectly legitimate to change stuff.
The first I really heard this was listening to Schnabel play Beethoven. You can hear Beecham's transcriptions of Handel (for better or worse-I'll leave that for you to decide!). Clarinetwise I was listening to de Payer's version of Pierne's Canzonetta online. It's "a little rubato", but makes a lot of musical sense.
Technical accuracy is great, but it's not always good music. Beecham said (rightly or wrongly) that conducting was a dying art. He felt the younger generation didn't have the same passion. I read somewhere that Horowitz was criticized for a mistake, and said, "I am Horowitz, not Heifetz." Which of course casts no aspersions on Heifetz, but merely makes the point that great music isn't always perfect.
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2015-07-10 18:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
