 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: LaurieBell
Date: 2016-04-18 14:56
I have a stylist question concerning the Beethoven Quintet in Eb for Piano and Winds op. 16 III - Rondo.
QUESTION: Would you play the opening theme with separation (not quite staccato)? Or would you play it legato? Or would you support the piano playing in a different style than the winds (piano plays legato, winds play with more separation?)
The Rondo is in 6/8 (played two beats to the measure). The piano enters first with the theme, marked in the music with staccato notes with a slur (or tie). The winds enter 8 measures later, repeating the theme; however their music is marked with staccato notes "without" the slur.
Our ensemble has had some discussion over the style of the staccato notes and agreed we should play them with some separation, but not overly short (like in a march).
However our pianist plays these notes in a marked difference, which almost sounds legato to me. When I questioned her about that, she played the theme once and it sounded like it had separation, but when she applied the pedal it fills in the separation with sound, making the passage sound legato.
I've listened to a variety of performances on YouTube and some are played with a distinct separation, while others are not. As a clarinet player, this rondo sounds instinctively to me like it should be played with separation. Our ensemble has agreed to disagree and so the piano plays the theme in one style, the winds in another. But that really bugs me musically. Would love to know what you think.
Here is a recording on YouTube that reflects how I interpreter the rondo (with marked separation of the theme):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztAFrBzwfw8
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-04-18 17:09
A conductor one presented a wildly unorthodox performance of a Brahms symphony. Brahms was in the audience, after which he remarked "Ah, so it can be done that way, too." As long as a performance makes musical sense, it's fine. Glenn Gould's Bach performances often had little to do with how Bach would have played or what he expected, yet I find (most) of them fascinating and enjoyable.
As a matter of phrase structure, the opening of the Beethoven is the familiar device of two short repeating phrases and a third that's twice as long, also using the same material. Think of the second phrase of the Mozart Concerto, F-D, F-D, C-B. You need to play the first two descending thirds as separate gestures and then play the C as if it were going to be a third descending third. The longer C is a surprise, as is the fact that it is a suspension.
Just so, the finale of the Beethoven begins with a pickup and downbeat, a repeat of that and a third group that extends the first two. It doesn't have to be emphasized. I think Gieseking does it just right, and Sidney Sutcliffe, Bernard Walton, Dennis Brain and Cecil James match him perfectly. For me, Gieseking and Brain in particular were players who never did anything wrong.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2016-04-18 19:46
Clive Brown in "Classical and Romantic Performance Practice" writes that:
"Beethoven seems consistently to have meant portato by dots under slurs in keyboard, wind, and sting music".
He mentions a letter in which Beethoven clarified what he meant by this symbol and also Beethoven's care in correcting copyist's parts. He goes on to say:
"Despite his often chaotic writing in other places, Beethoven invariably wrote dots under slurs with absolute clarity."
So we can be fairly certain that Beethoven didn't want the piano part to be played with much separation. The only question that remains is, did Beethoven then assume that the wind players would copy the pianist's articulation, or did he want them to play it with more separation?
I think that it would sound too lugubrious if the wind players copied the longer piano articulation. Perhaps your "agreeing to disagree" solution is the best? Who says that a theme always needs to be played the same way on every repetition, anyway? First the piano presents this rather cantabile theme for the final Rondo and then the winds take it up with the typical enthusiasm of a wind group :-)
Ken's structural suggestion is good, but that can still be executed with more or less articulation.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to access the Youtube link. Maybe because I'm in Europe?
Post Edited (2016-04-18 19:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2016-04-18 22:37
Thanks Ken. The link still didn't work for me, but the search turned up the recording.
For the Rondo opening Walter Gieseking ignores Beethoven's articulation instructions. I suppose that's one solution!
The slow movement is exquisite.
I do find myself mildly irritated by the bassoon player's habit of playing the last in a series of staccato notes always longer than the preceding notes. I imagine it's his way of leading towards the next barline, albeit unnecessary. It's also interesting to hear how much the common tone conception in double reed instruments has changed in the last decades!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2016-04-18 22:49
For tempo, blend, narrative and phrasing, I prefer this recording:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLNrvl8JKQg
Unfortunately I couldn't find their 3rd movement on YouTube.
Post Edited (2016-04-18 22:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-04-18 23:10
Liquorice's suggestion of playing the two phrases differently is a good one. And the texture supports his interpretation: the piano's sixteenth notes in the wind's phrase seems to call for a little more gusto. Maybe some of the charm of the opening is having the winds enter with a little more ruckus after 8 bars of the cantabile piano.
Ken, the phrase structure you're talking about is called a "sentence." The term comes from Schoenberg and is now commonly used in discussions of classical era music. This Beethoven phrase, however, as well as the opening of the Mozart Concerto, are both periods (the other main type of phrase structure). Proptionally, sentences are 2+2+4 with some sort of cadence at the end, and periods are 4+4 with some sort of cadence in the middle and at the end (both the Beethoven and Mozart have a half cadence in bar 4).
Not really a big deal to mix up sentences and periods. But one thing that is important to note (and it may affect the way you play these phrases) is that because periods have a cadence at the midpoint, they feel more balanced. And because sentences only have a cadence at the end, they feel as though they have more drive toward the end of the 8 measures.
Post Edited (2016-04-18 23:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2016-04-19 04:45
Beethoven also arranged this piece for strings instead of winds. It might be useful to hear how string players articulate these passages. Wind players, string players, and pianists have very different approaches to articulation-the difference between tongues, bows , and fingers. Someone has to give in, and its usually the wind players. After all, this is a piano piece. The instruments are almost an afterthought. If you were in an orchestra playing a piano concerto you would imitate the soloist even if you didn't agree with his interpretation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-04-19 06:52
elmo -
Beethoven met Mozart and was very impressed by his Quintet for Piano and Winds. He wrote his own Quintet in imitation of and tribute to Mozart. I've heard both the Mozart and the Beethoven in arrangements for piano and strings and think they don't work well. The arpeggiated horn passages in particular get lost on strings.
While [forte]piano and winds articulate differently, I think that it's essential to agree on how phrases are played and to match what the others are playing.
brycon -
I learned the 1+1+2 or 2+2+4 pattern from singing early music. Josquin des Prez used it a lot.
I think of the World War I song:
And then we'll bury the hatchet.
Bury the hatchet.
Bury the hatchet in the Kaiser's head.
When I come across a "sentence" or "period," I remind myself or anyone I'm coaching to bury the hatchet.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
