Author: orchestr
Date: 2008-10-06 02:08
Couple of things: We have to realize that Goodman was a rock star in his time. He also, from what I've heard, could be a real jerk. Maybe Copland didn't want to correct Goodman because he was afraid of him? Who knows? He certainly changed all of his high C#'s because Goodman wasn't happy with them. Also, for argument's sake, should we all play the Cb in m 413 and 415 as a C-natural because the Goodman/Copland recording has it that way?
Secondly, I tend to agree with Tony. I think the end of the cadenza can have a lot of style, and it seems to me almost like a perpetual motion thing that pauses and fermatas might interrupt.
I'm also not sure Copland's marking of "freely" should apply to the whole Cadenza. It definitely applies to those opening phrases of the cadenza, but just because a composer writes an unaccompanied section in a piece doesn't make the entire thing an ad lib cadenza that you can do whatever you want with it.
Final point, Copland is pretty specific with what he wants, writing fermatas, breaths, "slower, hold back, (short), somewhat slower, gradually faster" etc. Seems to me like if he wanted to encourage freedom of interpretation, he would leave all of that out and let us interpret it however we felt it.
I am playing devil's advocate a bit, and I understand some of Alex and Ed's points. I know in the little composing I've done I've a) been open to alternate suggestions for how to play something, and b) left a lot up to the performer, assuming they would know what I meant (maybe Copland assumed we'd just "know" to put a fermata on the high D?). I'm performing this for the first time and I may very well do the same thing if I'm not happy with any other way. It just seems like no one else has questioned it, ever since the "authentic, definitive" Goodman recording. I had a teacher who used to say "A recording is just the last bad interpretation" whenever I'd say "but I have a recording that does such-and-such!"
Post Edited (2008-10-06 16:35)
|
|
Keepers
