 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-06 16:56
I heard a clarinetist on the radio playing the Mozart Clarinet Quintet this week lapsing into mini-cadenzas every 16 bars, adding gruppetti here and there and sundry ornaments. Some musicians seem to regard Mozart as a Baroque composer. Throughout the 20th century, most clarinetists played the same cadenzas, gruppetti and appoggiatura when playing Mozart. I'm not saying that the historically informed movement can't improve on this, but I hear things that go against the grain to my mind.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2020-12-06 18:22
Prepare yourself for many and varied opinions on this topic. I will make just two comments...
- The HIP movement (historically informed performance) is as much, if not more, about these type of decisions than appreciating the characteristics of historic instruments. Of course we can imagine HIP performers who overdo it and end up making Mozart sound like Corelli, and probably others who do next to nothing
- an old teacher of nine used to tell us" mozart composed most of the ornaments he wanted into the score (mostly appogiatura). Thus may or may not be true, but it's useful to keep one's eyes open.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-06 20:30
PS: I forgot to add that the person I heard was playing on a modern clarinet.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2020-12-06 20:48
You may be able to find some writing here on the BB by the late Dan Lesson who was very knowledgeable on the topic.
Tony Pay would also have expertise in the subject
Post Edited (2020-12-06 20:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2020-12-07 00:27
Look at the contemporary evidence by Leopold Mozart, CPE Bach and others. They all generally suggest ornaments on repeated material. In many ways it should be a matter of taste and of scholarship. Perhaps the question should be, do the ornaments enhance the melodic line or is the performer ornamenting to make themselves sound better?
Peter Cigleris
Post Edited (2020-12-07 00:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-07 00:42
Peter: true, but I think Wolfgang superseded Leopold Mozart, CPE Bach, Quantz and the like. He was turned towards the future more than to the past.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2020-12-07 01:56
I have never added anything when playing the Mozart Concerto. I have on occasion added some "extra" notes when playing the Weber concertos and Concertino. Not necessarily in Baroque style. I don't feel too guilty about that, but would never do that with Mozart. To each his/her own.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2020-12-07 02:52
Dan Leeson SAID a lot about it – not here, but on the Klarinet mailing list.
Actually I think he was quite good at it himself, judging by his bassethorn playing on a Canadian recording of K361 that I own, but can't at the moment access to check.
SAYING stuff about it, though, is not much help.
I'm not particularly good at it, so I choose the minimal approach, apart from decorating repeats – eg in the last movement of K581.
How do you get good at it? They say, by doing it a lot; but you don't want to spoil performances trying. You want the embellishments to arise naturally, out of genuine musical impulse. But we don't swim in the style the way performers of the time did.
Bad musicians think they're doing 'the right thing' when they embellish, because the historical evidence is that performers did do that. But they're often not doing the right thing by HOW they embellish.
Fools rush in...
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2020-12-07 05:28
Tony makes some great points.
It is probably best to err on the side of less, especially if you are not well versed in the style and vocabulary. In a similar way, I have heard players embellish pieces playing in a "jazz" style and go way overboard playing things that are almost a parody of jazz styling.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2020-12-08 01:38
As others have stated, Mozart would have expected some ornamentation by soloists, for example in solo concertos or vocal arias. There are some written out versions with added ornamentation which Mozart did of his own arias, which were probably made to provide guidelines for some specific singers. And Mozart's student Barbara Ployer even wrote out some embellishments for the Clarinet Concerto. I think these provide excellent insights into the kind of embellishment which Mozart would have found appropriate. In the examples that I have looked at, the amount of ornamentation would be considered by many today to be "excessive", but of course I can't help but marvel at the elegance and imagination in Mozart's own ornamentations, which are obviously far better than anything I could ever come up with myself.
There are also contemporary reviews of concerts where singers were criticised for their poor (and sometimes harmonically inappropriate) ornamentation. So even back then there existed bad musicians who didn't know how to ornament.
Ruben: can you tell us who the clarinetist was that you heard on the radio? It might be interesting to discuss specific ornaments that he/she did and why we do/don't like them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2020-12-08 01:53
I have seen Ployer's embellishments for the Mozart Piano Concerto in A major, K. 488, but didn't know she wrote some for the Clarinet Concerto as well. Can you provide a source or link for that?
Post Edited (2020-12-08 04:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nelson
Date: 2020-12-08 03:53
In his 1950s recording of K622 the late Bernard Walton, one of England's most respected teachers and orchestral players, greatly adds to what (I assume) Mozart wrote in the Concerto. In the first movt at bars 216 to 219 (7'34" on youtube) where my part has 4 bars of semibreves, Walton embellishes with an almost continuous stream of semiquavers. I realise the subject here is ornamentation in Mozart but in Bernard Walton's (or Karajan's ???) approach to the passage, is he responding to Mozart's invitation to embellish? I've had this recording for about 60 years (re-released many times) and I'm still not sure about this inclusion....
Grateful for any thoughts
Nelson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-3xu1NIas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-08 04:11
Attachment: KV581.ornaments.jpg (913k)
I think that perhaps Liquorice typed "clarinet" instead of "piano" out of habit! No big deal.
Meanwhile enjoy the attachment. (Sorry about the empty posts above!)
Post Edited (2020-12-08 04:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2020-12-08 06:01
cigleris, That's a good question, one I really can't answer. Maybe I'm thinking the reverse and would add embellishments playing Weber because he did come after Mozart. Perhaps because I have heard the odd note being added by some playing Weber.
Maybe that in my mind Mozart is so very straight forward that adding anything extra or changing anything would be sacrilegious? Maybe that's silly.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
Post Edited (2020-12-08 06:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-08 16:52
The ornamentation often-for subjective reasons- irks me, but my real qualm is the use of multiple cadenzas that disturb the musical discourse ("musical discourse", Is that English? - "discours musical" in French). Whereas ornamentation was undoubtedly used at the time of Mozart, is there any historical justification for adding cadenzas now and again?
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-09 03:22
Attachment: KV581.violin1.jpg (1336k)
In a musical conversation the first violin has listened attentively to the ornamentation of the clarinet and responds in a similar vein, perhaps elaborating those ideas further, but without copying them. (see attachment).
Ruben, cadenzas are justified at 6/4 cadences - often you can "hear them coming" in the bars beforehand - violin syncops on the tonic note over changing harmonies are a typical indication. On a dominant chord followed by rests in the accompanying parts, one may play an embellishment followed by a rest and then a brief "lead- in" (called an Eingang in German). The embellishment of the chord can be very brief or a more entended melisma, but only on the one harmony. In his keyboard music Mozart often writes out an extended scale. Or you can skip the embellishment entirely and go straight to the Eingang. This happens a lot before the return of rondo themes. I'm sure there are a lot of posts on this topic. Short, punctuating chords are often a call for the soloist to add embellishment, but these are not really cadenzas, because they won't add extra harmonies and hopefully won't stop the accompanying parts from maintaining some sort of rhythmic continuity.
It is rare to play two *cadenzas* in a row, although one could embellish two chords with pauses in a row, keeping it very short, even if quite elaborate. I'm thinking especially of the ending of the last movement Adagio in the Clarinet Quintet. The first pause needs some embellishment, which might even have the flavour of a cadenza (but only on the one dominant seventh harmony), but the second pause should probably not be embellished, or perhaps only very modestly. (Baerenreiter puts the pause on the rest in the clarinet part, not on the note, but we don't need to be too literal.) Since the violins then continue with the melody, then the clarinet should not play an Eingang. The first violin *could* play an Eingang, say a tirata (rapid upward scale, usually an octave), but it might spoil the sudden return of the theme in Allegro, and might make life hard for the 2nd violin to enter and match them. But if it were very rapid and brilliant it might be effective.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-09 15:29
Dear CDH, thank you for this very informative, very erudite report. It needs to be studied more than simply read, which I will certainly do. As usual, there is more than meets the eye when discussing the subject of cadenzas. One question: were performers of the past expected to improvise cadenzas or were they written out, either by the composer of the performer?
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-10 02:55
Ruben: All of those things happened - performers improvised on the spot, prepared the whole cadenza or a general outline beforehand (which may or may not have been written out), or their teacher or the composer may have written one for them. Professional players mostly improvised (prepared and unprepared), while amateurs were more likely to have something written out, which they might memorise and *pretend to improvise.* But all all of these would have their origin in improvisation. Like us, they would try things out beforehand and then select the ideas or passages that they liked best.
Performers who "improvise" a lot often have their favourite types of passages. One often gets the sense with someone like Robert Levin, who has done a huge amount of improvisation on the fortepiano, that he is drawing of a vast library of previous ideas. That can go two ways: infinite possibilities, or getting stuck in a rut. But the interesting thing is that *in the audience* it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a completely spontaneous and a partially prepared cadenza, unless you happen to have heard that performer improvise something similar before. And don't bother asking the performer afterwards - they are prone to lying
There is nothing wrong with having a prepared or written out cadenza or embellishment, but they mostly turn out better if you composed them through improvisation, rather than deliberately setting out to compose them.
One thing I always consider nowadays is how my colleagues will react if I do something really spontaneous, because even in Early Music Groups not everyone is really used to it. Sometimes, I have added a really beautiful melismatic ornament and another player decided that it was free for all and added trills on random notes in the accompaniment. Or three of four players understand the rhythm, but one player comes in early. Once in a clarinet cadenza, I added just two notes and the conductor looked terrified. Or it puts pressure on the first violin to do something similar, and maybe they aren't that comfortable with classical ornamentation. So now I make sure I have done all the possible options in rehearsal. If anyone is answering my ornamentation with some of their own then they can have a few options prepared too. And if I have several cadenza or Eingang options I choose in the previous tutti so I am not forcing myself to make a split second decision.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2020-12-10 14:42
All of that rings bells with me.
You link to Craig Hill’s website in an earlier post. (Are Cdh and he one and the same, perhaps?)
The idea that bars 216/17, 218/19 are prefigured at double speed in bar 214 had never occurred to me, and certainly constitutes an argument against embellishing them.
How to make that correspondence clearer in performance?
One idea of how to do this gets round another problem too – namely the unsatisfactory nature of the C# and D# on the period instrument. That idea is to put the second half of bar 214 down the octave, as well as bars 217, 219 and the first beat of 220. Then there’s a rhyme between the three large downward leaps.
Yes, the clarinet now goes below the ‘cellos, but not the basses; and if well-played, constitutes a very striking feature that prefigures and justifies the basset passage in 223.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-10 18:07
CDH: very enlightening and I thank you for participating in this discussion. If I may venture an analogy: during my youth, I would hear some of the great jazz musicians improvise on the same tune night after night. What they would do was not radically different from one performance to another. I imagine that is what performers did in their cadenzas in the past. They may not have written them out, but more or less settled on one version.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-11 07:50
Attachment: KV622.bar213.jpg (1422k)
You got me Tony!
I'm not sure that the G# in bar 214 should be down the octave. At a simple level, I don't think the arranger of the clarinet version made changes which were not prompted by the range problem, and certainly not in anticipation of matching other passages. Looking at the four bars leading up to that point (from bar 210) there is a melodic logic which seems to demand that the phrase end in the middle octave. Playing just the clarinet part with the bass makes things a bit clearer, because the clarinet doesn't cross the bass line for just one note. (It wouldn't cause a wrong inversion, simply cross parts.) Mozart seems to be expanding the interval as he goes, starting with the just the descending sixth, then a diminished 14th and diminished 19th, until as a perfect 19th it is inverted and goes from low E to the final trill (with lots of embellishment in between). Apart from the desire to take over from the violins in bar 216, the evolution of ever increasing intervals is a good reason why Mozart wrote a throat Bb when we might have preferred him to place that note an octave higher.
Tony raises an interesting question - how to make some of those correspondences clear in performance? One simple way would be playing with more emphasis on the upper note of each pair. That goes against the way many players like to emphasise the basset notes, but it doesn't prohibit the player from giving each note an individual shape and weight. I have a kind of pressing crescendo in mind for the first of each pair of semibreves: slow motion torment.
That basset passage at 223 is derived from bar 213 and 215 - I called it "x" on the attachment.
Another example of Mozart's creative process is the music at the beginning of the development. The re-use of the opening theme is obvious, but the continuation in the 2nd bar is clearly inspired by bar 115, here magically transformed into the major key. The link back to the initial phrase is like bar 101, being similarly composed of four descending notes and their rising inversion. I don't mean to suggest that Mozart is composing in a formulaic manner, but I do think that when he wrote the melody in bar 115 he knew it would work well in the major. The genius is that he saw that it didn't have to be the head of the subject (melody), but could act in a different function.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2020-12-11 13:51
Thanks Mr Pay and Mr Hill for your great input to this discussion (Hi there Craig, hope things are going well over the ditch, Marie Says hello)
Post Edited (2020-12-11 22:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2020-12-11 14:52
I can’t help mentioning Gwydion Brooke’s cadenzas in the Bassoon Concerto K. 191 with The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and Sir. Thomas Beecham (Jupiter Symphony 41, also with Brymer Mozart Concerto, 1960).
I think audiences today would would be positively scandalized - but I love it. I’m sure it’s not an accident that Beecham was involved in such a thing, or maybe he encouraged it specifically to stick it to the “establishment”. Brooke goes for it, and leaves it all “on the field”. It’s very “bassoony”. IMO it’s very musical and eminently entertaining, but not at all HIP approved. At the same time, the spirit may be more in keeping with original practice than more stuffy renditions.
But I think people should applaud between movements...
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-11 23:29
The discussion between these two eminent musicians is over my head, but maybe if I actually study what they have said, it will be less so.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2020-12-12 02:44
The thing is, Craig, that though I've played the concerto many times – and many times post 1984 on basset clarinets both modern and then period – I have never ever played 217 and 219 down the octave.
That's because I never found a way to make doing that 'work'.
My solution in bar 217 was always to play a C# as written for a minim, and then a legato semiquaver diminished seventh arpeggio from C# to top Bb over beats 3 and 4. Then in 219 something similar: D# for a minim and then triplets D#F#ACBA lightly articulated. (Both these additions have their first notes tied to the preceding minim.)
What do I mean by, 'work', in the above response to, 'down the octave'?
Well, I cannot hear throat Bb to basset C# AS AN INTERVAL. I just hear the C# as a LOW NOTE.
I say that psychologically, the basset register note is another animal, or another person, to the listener. Its arrival is too big a shock to think of both notes as belonging to just one voice. I've written elsewhere of how this sometimes happens in K622:Quote:
I have myself come to consider the Concerto to be a much more operatic piece than I did a couple of decades ago. We know that by 1791 Mozart had decided that his future lay in writing operas, because he said so. Therefore it is no surprise that in K622 there are several passages where he has the different registers of the instrument engage in a dramatic dialogue.
One of the best of these, to my mind, is the passage in bars 115-123 of the first movement. Mozart has already called our attention to the idée fixe of the work -- namely the number three. In addition to his ubiquitous three-note figures, this is instanced by the falling or rising third, and by the use of that third in both legato and staccato form. (It's amusing to note the two fragmentary versions that appear in the second violins at the end of bar 2 of the solo entry, and at the end of bar 4.)
The passage in question juxtaposes the falling, filled-in G/E third (notated pitch) in the clarinet register with the separated EGE three note quaver phrase in the chalumeau register, followed a bar later by the G/E third in separated crotchets.
It's as though a female character is pleading with a male character -- perhaps a young woman trying to win her stubborn brother round to her choice of partner? (They're brother and sister because they both belong to the 'Three' family, you see:-)
First we have the female, cajoling legato version of the falling third, leading to a version of the clarinet's second theme; which is answered definitely -- I'd say in the negative -- by the male version, separated, two octaves lower. She tries again, only to receive the same answer. This provokes an outburst, first diatonic triplets leading to a reiteration of the third a fourth higher (C/A), then chromatic triplets, and then semiquavers, all leading to C/A, and finally to C/A/F# in the pause bar. A woman in love will have her way! ...and the only way I can imagine motivating it in the case we're discussing is to include the orchestra in the equation.
I might begin by playing the G# down the octave (another character), having the orchestra burst in with surprise in 215, and then having them respond to the basset/baritone notes in 217 and 219 by playing their 3 repeated crotchets leaner, tighter and louder in those bars.
(You could do that without the low G# of course – I agree that it's unlikely that Mozart wrote it.)
Doing it that way never occurred to me though. I was solving the problem of the duff C# and D# by getting off them as quickly as possible. But that meant I never saw the connection you made between the structures of bars 214, 216-219.
Anyway, thanks for making me think about it:-)
Tony
Post Edited (2020-12-12 07:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-12 11:37
It seems that Tony and I both have a sense that the semibreves (whole notes) from bar 216 in the first movement of KV622 are the "same voice.” Actually, I believe there is only *one voice*, not two, since the model for the classical concerto is the generally the solo aria, and not the operatic duet. It's a fine distinction because one might also regard the "two voices" as being from the same character - an internal dialogue if you like. And like the solo aria, when large leaps occur, it’s not because another character is present, it’s because a new feeling suddenly overtakes the protagonist. It’s a moment of psychological and emotional drama. In the last movement of the concerto it’s naturally about humour too.
Tony finds that the low C# on the instruments he has played, both period and modern, feels simply like a “low note”. I’m not sure whether he feels like that about all the basset notes, whether he finds that generally or only in some contexts, but I think I know what he is talking about...
On a Riga style basset clarinet (i.e. with the bulb) made by Peter van der Poel in 1998 the basset notes feel very well integrated into the low register, and in balance with the rest of the instrument. I imagine that this is because they are not really “bell tones” - only the low B produced with the knee-hole has something of that quality. Compared to straight basset clarinet I initially found it surprising, and I know that other players may have felt a bit disappointed that the basset notes weren’t so powerful - *all that money* right? But the result is that I can play those large intervals from bar 216 - 220 as if they are one voice. (They do need to connect, in an implied legato if not actual legato. Those vast intervals express torment. The angst of all the chromatic scales just bars earlier is palpable.) Anyway, the fact that I can make it work is lucky, because if I didn’t have a L.H.C# key there’s absolutely no way I could manage a respectable middle C#, and lets just say I’d prefer not to have to play a semibreve D# above middle C! Incidentally, I am able to overblow the low Eb to get a very good throat Bb, so perhaps that also plays a role.
I guess I would have to say that to me the basset note is psychologically the SAME animal, but one which has been pushed to the brink by the key of F# minor and chromatic scales, and who senses the chasm opening underneath them. Simone Kermes comes to mind ...
Thanks for the discussion Tony.
Post Edited (2020-12-12 11:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-12 17:39
CDH: Maybe you and Tony can put your minds together and edit a new edition of the Mozart Clarinet Concerto. I'm sure there would be a market for one.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2020-12-13 21:35
I very much enjoyed this version of the Mozart Clarinet Quintet from Jon Manasse, which otherwise demonstrated more ornamentation by Mr. Manasse than I am use to hearing on this work, but beautiful IMHO nonetheless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YezKFi3GzQ
Post Edited (2020-12-13 21:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-14 10:58
Attachment: KV581.embellishment.jpg (1375k)
To be played very gently, the lightest breeze of embellishment despite how it looks on the page... pathos of the descending semitones and three gnawing graces notes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2020-12-21 04:10
It's of course up to each performer to decide whether a PARTICULAR passage of Mozart requires ornamenting. I suppose judging that such a passage DOES require ornamenting involves a feeling that something is missing from the passage as we have it.
I don't object to Craig's version; but although I have worries about all sorts of moments in K581, this is one that I don't feel I'll resolve by embellishment. I seem to spend much of my time playing K581 in the endeavour not to SPOIL it. (I have heard it played unspoilt...)
Going back to bars 214, 216-219 in K622, I find it quite possible to imagine the arranger confronted with having to put 217 and 219 up the octave (supposing them to have been written in the basset register) deciding to do the same with the second half of bar 214 (supposing that to have been a chalumeau G#, which of course he would not have been obliged to change).
Moreover, when I suggest that my throat Bb to low C# is likely heard by my listener not so much as 'an interval' but as a relatively normal note followed by a surprisingly 'low' note, this has nothing to do with deficiency of timbre. The problem is to motivate the unusually large leap, and bar 214 can do that, as well as underlining the rhythmic relationship you point out.
I should say that my basset clarinet, 'straight' though it is, has a perfectly homogeneous low register (at least, when nowadays played by me:-). I have investigated the bulbous bell, but decided that its character is not worth the reconstruction of my own instrument.
By the way, Craig, your couple of paragraphs about 'A Straight Basset Clarinet' doesn't characterise my own instrument, which was based on a Kaspar Tauber Viennese clarinet. It's true that Daniel Bangham came to think that the Simiot keywork mounting style was more reliable, and perhaps he adopted that and then was careless about his PR for subsequent instruments.
You might also read more of Sol Babitz before dismissing him. Certainly, as far as I know, he said nothing about the necessity of playing old wind instruments in classical music; but he did say many wise things about how we nowadays habitually parse Mozart.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2020-12-21 16:01
Tony returns us to the original question. In the course of this thread I put up several examples of fairly elaborate ornamentation which went without comment. Was it too much? Was in a sufficiently Mozartean style? Was it completely grammatical in context? And was it even necessary? (All difficult questions, so I'm not at all offended or surprised at the lack of takers.)
To my mind, there is probably nothing so bare in Mozart's solo clarinet writing that *requires* ornamenting the first time, but repeats are another matter (all my examples were for repeats). Not because the music is bare, but for variety and out of a feeling that it is not inappropriate for a performer to display their own taste and inventiveness. (Immodest, I know.) But more than that, the performer has the chance *inflect the meaning* differently the second time, and can draw the attention of the audience to that via ornamentation. It's true one could simply phrase the music differently or use different dynamics, but it's very possible this wouldn't register with the audience. Plus, the historical treatises all mention ornamentation to fill this role. So, at least to me, the question is ultimately not whether a passage *requires* ornamentation (in Mozart it probably doesn't) - but whether whether the ornamentation on repeats *adds* to the experience. Done well, I think it does. Is the ornamentation done well ...?
One of the reasons I offered that last embellishment of the 2nd group in the recapitulation (Clarinet Quintet, 2 posts up), was because there is practically nothing before or after it in the second half which can really be ornamented. And since it is truly a solo moment with an accompanying texture, it seems like a good candidate. *If* you do that 2nd repeat, it's very long! Should one play such a long repeat if you're only going to repeat yourself exactly? Most players don't observe it, and yet it appears in both of the earliest prints. So I ornament. The spin-off is that often we end up making an even more climatic development section on the 2nd time.
Tony referred to a webpage: https://mozartbassetclarinet.wordpress.com/a-straight-basset-clarinet/
To be absolutely clear, this instrument is of a quite different construction to Tony's own basset clarinet from Bangham, which you can see on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3NCGSvKHCQ The owner told me it was a based on the Simiot instruments, and it certainly *looks* to be that way. It is actually a pair of regular clarinets with an extra extension joint. My comments about the various designs of basset clarinets are not intended to disparage any particular one, but I do think our perceptions are shaped a bit by the instrument we have. (And, when we strive for homogeneity of registers, what we are being homogeneous with!) And that includes my perception which introduces the next paragraph...
Since I can't imagine that Mozart wrote the notes in 217 (C#) and 219 (D#) just above middle C (Clarinet Concerto, 1st movement), then I am forced accept that he composed them in the basset range. One simply has to find a way to make it work. I think they *can* be linked to the proceeding notes - perhaps even using hierarchy and shaping as I suggested in an earlier post. But I also don't see a huge problem with these notes being something of a surprise. In fact, one could anticipate the barline ever so slightly, so that the surprise is actually that the note came early. (You might then also want to play the high A slightly delayed.)
I'd also like to clarify that although I do find that these extraordinary four bars derive from bar 214, and can justifiably remain un-ornamented, a rhetorical performance doesn't imply that *everything* has to be made clear to the audience. We're not trying to communicate an analysis. In performance I hope to make the connection *perceptible*, but I know that many listeners won't hear it, and that is ok too. I'd rather leave a detail like that ambiguous rather than try too hard to point it out to everyone. It is often repeated that Mozart played for cognoscenti and layman: to put it the other way round - he played for the layman *without offending the cognoscenti!* That's an attitude which goes against the desire for a completely clear, unambiguous delivery at all times, but sometimes I'd prefer some to leave some mystery. For that reason I also accept that the four semibreves can also be played as isolated notes. In short, I think there are many possibilities for this passage, all without ornamentation. It *can* also be ornamented, but not because it is too bare. In which case: Is the ornamentation well done?
I'm afraid Tony has really misinterpreted my little piece on Sol Babitz, which was intended to draw attention to his pioneering work and express admiration for the uncompromising attitude of the article in question, drawing a sharp contrast with our own current "Early Music" practices. Why else would I single out an article from over 50 years ago? Certainly not to mock it, because unfortunately it is already obscure. I think my intention to question modern practice should have been clear by the last few words which read:
"What happened to the Early Music movement? Have we been hijacked by the modern aesthetic? Sold out? Or grown up?"
Anyway, those interested can read it here (slightly tweaked now for further clarity):
https://mozartbassetclarinet.wordpress.com/sol-babitz/
Better still: read his article in the 1967 Mozart Jahrbuch if you can find it - his uncompromising stance challenges us after all these years, and his detailed investigation of the sources remains a model.
Post Edited (2020-12-21 16:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2020-12-21 17:23
Repeats already differ somewhat from the first time through just because they are repetitions. They invoke recall, they reinforce, they position a kind of weight. They might or might not imply an elaboration or a progression. How careful one must be introduce added "direction" into the music. Done well, whether by learning or taste or instinct, and the music is enlivened and its overall relevance is more clearly detailed. Mishandled, even a little, and things seem to happen and go nowhere, and it's boring, the opposite of what was wanted. I doubt any composer poises this difficulty more pointedly than Mozart.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2020-12-22 01:10
I'm glad the topic I introduced got so many responses, including those from some eminent and very erudite musicians. This proves that our clarinet board can go beyond the reaches of plastic reeds and barrels at times.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
