 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2006-12-30 06:49
For those who know this solo (the trio of the 3rd mvt):
Are the piano subito's absolutely essential? And if so, why?
The Hadcock book has them in as editorial additions, and I understand that this may just reflect the way they are usually performed. There seem to be a lot of other instances in Beethoven where a crescendo is followed by a subito piano - I know Daniel Barenboim in particular speaks a lot about this in his conversations with Edward Said.
But I have been playing this excerpt the same way for about 3 years now, and it occurred to me today that it doesn't make much sense to me played like that. Is it possible that Beethoven just forgot to mark in the diminuendos and assumed the performer would interpolate them?
I have to admit I haven't listened to recordings with this in mind recently - just picked up the excerpt again today.
Thoughts?
Post Edited (2006-12-30 07:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2006-12-30 13:18
Alexis -
Is it marked "subito p" in the score? If Hadcock says it's an editorial addition, I'd trust him.
Beethoven's manuscripts are notoriously messy and hard to read, so there has to be a certain amount of editorial work to match repeated motives. Is there any other "subito p" marking in the score?
Beethoven marked some solo passages as piano -- for example, the arpeggiated solo in the 1st movement of the Pastorale.
Have you read my big posting on the solo? http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=768&t=768
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-12-30 23:38
Alexis wrote:
>> For those who know this solo (the trio of the 3rd mvt): Are the piano subito's absolutely essential? And if so, why? >>
To answer the query of what is actually written: the pianos are unprepared by written diminuendos, but not preceded by the instruction, 'subito'.
Several things may help here -- I'll do no more than sketch them.
The first is that crescendos in the classical style are written against bar structures and phrase structures, both of which involve a lightening towards their ends. So a crescendo DOESN'T reach to the very end of a bar or phrase, because it defers to bar or phrase structure, contra Barenboim.
Then, you can see that many of the crescendos in the clarinet part end on an appoggiatura, which normally (i.e. within the style) required the second note to be lighter. (An appoggiatura is a note that is dissonant to the harmony, and that resolves to a consonant note.) So, you play it lighter.
Further, looking at the accompaniment, particularly the contrabass line, you can see that the crescendos several times arrive at a sforzando on the third beat of the bar. So you can conveniently lighten the final eighth note and allow yourself to 'begin again' quietly -- but definitely -- in the subsequent bar.
I have to say that I've never heard this Trio played completely convincingly. The better versions are the more quirky ones that foreground the 'cellos, who then unfortunately mostly play their part more or less unevenly.
Tony
Post Edited (2006-12-30 23:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2006-12-31 19:38
Tony,
Would you mind elaborating on this subject? Are you saying that to crescendo from p to ff and then SUDDEN pp is not Beethoven's intent? Can you explain what would be a convincing rendition of this solo?
I think I speak for all of us here to say that your wisdom in these matters are always enlightening. Your comments some time ago about the Shubert Unfinished have completely changed my way of playing those solos. Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-01-01 00:00
Hi
Thanks for the responses Tony and Ken
Ken, I had read your post a while back but I didn't think it broached this subject. But admittedly, it has been a while since I looked at the excerpt or the score and your suggestions are excellent.
It still sounds like there should be an element of subito, particularly with those third beat sforzandos...but perhaps not a courageous crescendo right to the barline
I will investigate further
Happy New Year all
Alex
Post Edited (2007-01-01 00:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-01 22:22
DAVE wrote:
>> Tony, would you mind elaborating on this subject? Are you saying that to crescendo from p to ff and then SUDDEN pp is not Beethoven's intent?>>
I think I'm just saying that what seems to be 'a dynamic' in any chunk of music is actually modulated, and that in this particular case it has something of the character of speech -- continuous speech.
This means that if I say the sentence,
"I speak louder, Louder, LOUDER! and then soft again"
what happens is that the final '-ER!', though it LOOKS loud, needs to be quieter than, or at any rate equal in loudness to the following 'and' -- though the effect is indeed one of a crescendo through "I speak louder, Louder, LOUDER!" and then a subito piano on "and then soft again".
Apropos Barenboim, I read what he had to say: "...it requires a lot of courage and energy to really go with the crescendo to the end, as if you're getting to the precipice and then stop short....this is why I think this element of courage and of struggle are [sic] an integral part of performing Beethoven."
I think what's wrong with applying this vivid image to the Eighth Symphony trio is that the melody DOESN'T stop -- it goes on speaking, and part of our responsibility as players is to ensure that the listener HEARS IT GO ON. We have to create the impression of a subito piano, and you can't have a subito piano if there's nothing there to BE piano. And I'd say it doesn't require much courage to have the last loud note obscure the next quiet note -- all you have to be is CARELESS:-)
Barenboim may have been thinking of very different passages, of more dramatic music.
BTW, the technique of making such a subito piano work is, as almost always, the technique of SUPPORT -- coupled with whatever tonal variation is required to have the piano passage begin again clearly.
>>Your comments some time ago about the Shubert Unfinished have completely changed my way of playing those solos. Thanks.>>
Thank you, I'm glad you found them useful.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-01-01 22:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-10 17:13
D Dow wrote:
>> The subito p and the sfzordando are a to great degree part of the dnynamic language of Beethoven...these dynamic marks occur in most of Beethoven's later large scale works. For example: the enitre first move of Beethoven 8th symphony is filled with abrupt accents in irregular parts of 3/4 time.>>
This is true.
>> As to the Minuetto of Beethoven 3... I would add that the style of this trio is very smooth and song like...legato to the greatest degree...however, the upward figuration does require a good deal of crescendi in order to make the high G and high d's speak with any security..this should also be done in such a manner as to still sound as legattissimo as possible...>>
You mean Beethoven 8, of course. First, I want to say that a good player is in control of both the degree of crescendo and the security of the high notes, so that the one doesn't influence the other. The passage is not THAT difficult, though of course it may seem so under pressure. (EVERYTHING is difficult under pressure:-)
Second, the legato of which you speak applies WITHIN each bar, except where notated to the contrary (bars 64ff). So the degree to which the bar-long 'waves' stand out against the 'sea' of the longer-scale structures is a performance choice.
>> Barenboim still however wants this solo be dramatic and rightly so!!! It is a very nice aria for the clarinet....>>
It's worth noticing that Barenboim only came into this discussion because Alexis quoted him on the subject of Beethoven's subito pianos. Barenboim never mentioned the Eighth symphony, much less this trio, in his conversations with Edward Said, which I took the trouble to look up.
And in any case, these pianos aren't marked subito, as has already been established.
>> Also remember Beethoven builds the phrases over 2 and four bar phrases...the solo also ends on beat two with a high G....the acoustics you are in also need to factored in as well.
All true, as far as it goes.
>> The staccato should be very smooth too...>>
Some passages are marked mezzo-staccato, and so should be smooth. But how the OTHER staccato notes are played is a matter of choice for the performers, including the horns and the conductor, as I said previously about the bar-long phrases.
You see, I took quite a lot of care in my post not to be prescriptive -- who am I, after all, to tell people how to play? -- so I don't see why I shouldn't require the same of you. Pointing out as I did that the classical style assumes the background of speech in no way determines the DEGREE to which playing 'should' be speech-like -- it just provides an explanation of how a crescendo followed by a piano may occur more naturally than it does if you DON'T assume the background of speech.
Then, how that realisation is used by a player is up to them.
You tell him how to play the staccato, yet know no more about how the staccato notes 'should' be played than I do.
>> ps. Daniel Barenboim is a musical genius...>>
He is; but his genius doesn't lie in his opinions -- it lies in how he plays. As someone who has actually played chamber music and recorded some of it with Barenboim I'm very well aware that he would be the last person to 'fix' exactly how something is to be played -- with him a particular passage is different, sometimes radically different, every time.
If you mean that I'm presumptuous to disagree with one of his opinions, then the answer is that, first, he never gave an opinion about Beethoven 8 for me to disagree with; and second, even if he had, I would be perfectly entitled to disagree with it, giving reasons, without diminishing his status in the slightest.
Perhaps you have a distorted view of the sanctity of the opinions of great men.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-01-10 17:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dick
Date: 2007-01-10 18:47
This thread and similar ones are intriguing, and there has been a question percolating in my mind for some time. Certainly all the "standard" works for orchestra and individual instruments have been by now analyzed, dissected, commented on, etc., for many years (centuries, for some of them). No doubt all of this consideration has resulted in refineements in the performance of these pieces over time. My limited historical perspective tells me that many of these pieces were composed rather at the last minute, sometimes with revisions being done just prior to first performances. Does this imply that these earlier performances might not have been up to the same standard as today's performances might be? Or were the performers of the past just better at working out all the subtleties of the music in a very short time, and thus able to apply all the refined touches that would be expected of a modern performer without the benefit of all the experience and background available today? Just looking for thoughts on this - too bad we don't have any recordings to refer to.
Dick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-10 21:14
Mighty Dick wrote:
>>..Does this imply that these earlier performances might not have been up to the same standard as today's performances might be?>>
I can unequivocally assert this to be the case;-)
Canny Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-10 23:03
Do we detect a bit of upper crust sarcasm from Mr. Pay???
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-11 06:49
David Dow wrote:
>>Do we detect a bit of upper crust sarcasm from Mr. Pay???>>
I don't know what 'upper crust sarcasm' is -- but no, it was just a joke, a pun on the words 'might' and 'can', while I had to go away and do something else. (I may not be as ill-willed as you think.)
Anyway, I know that Dick was being serious, so perhaps it was ill-judged of me to go off at such a tangent, even a light-hearted one. I know that it irritates me, when engaged in a serious thread about the options available at some point in a piece of music, to have someone say, "well, player A plays it like THIS", or "player B's is the best recording, and he or she plays it like THAT" -- as though the credentials of A and B are sufficient to settle the issue. This is to engage with the subject on a superficial level, as if to say in a discussion of the foreign policy of country X in country Y, that the actions of country X must be right because they're initiated by Mr Z, and HE'S PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!
Dick wrote, quoted more fully than I did previously:
>> My limited historical perspective tells me that many of these pieces were composed rather at the last minute, sometimes with revisions being done just prior to first performances. Does this imply that these earlier performances might not have been up to the same standard as today's performances might be? Or were the performers of the past just better at working out all the subtleties of the music in a very short time, and thus able to apply all the refined touches that would be expected of a modern performer without the benefit of all the experience and background available today?>>
One part of my answer is that the actual rehearsal and performance of a piece of music is often much less complicated than a discussion of it would indicate, because the players hold a performing language in common. By 'a performing language', I mean a coherent set of musical habits and understandings, rather than English, French or whatever. So, what may seem like 'analysing something to death' when spelled out need not necessarily take that form in practice.
But sometimes it's MORE complicated, and for the same reason -- namely that there ISN'T a performing language held in common. Then our discussions may be rather tortuous. Past music, for its full expression, may require its performers to share a language some of which we have lost, or got out of the habit of using.
In 'Phrasing in Contention', I wrote:
"Mozart, putting the parts of an unrehearsed concerto before an orchestra, is said to have told them, 'You play well; I shall play well; it will go well!' Nowadays an inspired and inspiring director, given time, can adjust what the players do so that they don't get in each other's way and yet are still allowed for the most part to play as they individually feel is relevant to their particular parts — but this wouldn't often have been possible in the conditions Mozart encountered. A notation indicating the shape relevant to a particular situation would seem to offer the easiest practical solution, but composers didn't even try to use dynamics to show the shapes until the time of Beethoven, when the nature of music itself began to undergo a change.
"Mozart's music keeps pianists sitting for hours at the keyboard in the search for perfect simplicity — and they have an overall control. How is it possible that his larger-scale music, which today requires such careful rehearsal, and which is made or marred by the balancing of individual parts, could be launched into the world unaccompanied by any of the instructions that might have prevented it from being mangled? especially since, by all accounts, it could be played more or less successfully, with very little rehearsal?"
Though we'll never know how well they played, you might find a partial answer to your question in what follows this quote from the essay. (It's essentially to do with the surface structure of SPEECH, which is how it connects to what I wrote about Beethoven 8.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2007-01-11 22:32
No offence to Tony Pay (Tony I very much admire your musicianship!) It's like the trend of period instrument string players who religiously do not use vibrato based on comments (eg Leopold Mozart was it?) about the over use of vibrato needing to be avoided.
What I get from this is that vibrato was probably likely overused in certain situations and Mozart was providing his own personal taste on ornamentation (which vibrato is considered) based on the fact that he was a late Roccoco early Classical composer.
I find most period instrument recordings bland (especially the delightful Haydn cycle that Hogwood didn't finish ... most vexingly) and that is NOT a criticism (at least not a negative one on my part).
I heard the italian period instrument group (the harmonic garden??) playing in Sydney and they were certainly not afraid of using vibrato in their all Vivaldi program, to my relief.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
Post Edited (2007-01-11 22:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-11 23:01
Diz wrote:
>> It's like the trend of period instrument string players who religiously do not use vibrato based on comments (eg Leopold Mozart was it?) about the over use of vibrato needing to be avoided.>>
[snip of remarks about vibrato]
In order to keep things separate, I'm going to make a reply to your remarks above in another thread, probably called 'Vibrato', or something.
But meanwhile, I don't understand. I want to ask, WHAT is like the trend of period instrument string players etc in what I've quoted? (I take it that it's something to do with Beethoven 8, or perhaps another matter addressed in the thread.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2007-01-11 23:12
Tony - no, you made no comment rather seeing your name and equating period informed approaches to music and then writing my blurb.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-11 23:36
Diz wrote:
>>Tony - no, you made no comment rather seeing your name and equating period informed approaches to music and then writing my blurb.>>
This sentence means nothing to me.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-12 01:54
The sentence means nothing to Tony because he did not write it.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-12 01:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2007-01-12 11:13
Diz wrote it pretty late at night, sometimes here down under we write things late at night when we are tired and should really just go to bed, but to you guys up north it's the morning and you're wide awake and your brains are working properly. I know that there have been a few times when i've written postings and had to edit them (or regret them) in the morning.
In this case, i suspect Diz will make more sense in the morning (though i can get the gist of what he is trying to say)
donald
Mr Dow- if you mean that to be funny, it would help to put a little smiley face to let us know.... While i have been on the receiving end of snippy comments from Mr Pay, the guy is a genius and has written some darn good stuff for our edification. I hope you didn't mean your comment as a personal attack. This has been a very interesting thread.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-12 13:35
I am in total disagreement with what Mr. Pay has said...
Dear Donald
There may be alot of genius' out there...but then why is the world so totally screwed up??? The definition of genius is very narrow when one considers the disasters many a genius have concocted.
I also think the whole original instrument MOVEMENT has lost steam..no longer is intellectually or musically valid...after about 20 years of theorizing and using the language of 'genius' we are no closer in any way to understanding Beethoven or Mozart in my opinion.
However, if that is what does it for some so be it...
In matters of musical conjecture...
I much prefer Dan Leeson in this areas...also the writings of H.C. Robbins Langdon will enlighten far more than a blog. The Grove dictionary is also good to have about.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-12 13:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-01-12 13:41
D Dow wrote:
> I am in total disagreement with what Mr. Pay has said...
When you decide to delete all your responses to Mr. Pay (some of which had merit, some of which are sarcastic), we have to assume you don't have the courage of your convictions.
Intellectual intercourse has its downsides: you have to be prepared to illuminate with facts or educated summaries, and be determined to continue your arguments (in the rhetorical sense) to a conclusion. If you don't have the time or patience to "get into the fray", as it were, then there's little merit in starting or continuing the discussions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-12 13:48
Mr. Pay has not replaced my book on Beethoven by George Grove..
Mr Pay's ideas are informed by his performances in the OAE...ie historical approach.
However, all musical discussion in relationship to performance in this area is based on the idea that in Beethoven's time one performed a work a given way...
well that holds no water because we have no recordings or knowledge of matters of tempi balance etc.
All we have is many editions and scores to base a theoretical conjecture..
I also would like to add that real scholarship on these matters belongs in the realm of musicology..just what does this have to do with learning to play a clarinet or giving advice...Mr. Pay may be fine performer and writer but I doubt his ideas on historical performance are radically different than many other historical performance experts. In these areas he achieves kudos..
However, a student of any subject should also realize that ideas are meant to provoke discussion not arguement...I feel at times Mr. Pay too quick to attack rather than than discuss...
In terms of addressing others Mr. Pay should not refer to some as "Mighty Dick"...in spite of the fact he seems to have a sacred place here on the board. I know several musicologists who who would never refer to any student in such manner...
Is not this an adequate explanation of my my views on the topic...? I chose to edit my posts...but I notice Mighty Dick still remains...
Maybe by choosing not to say something inflamatory one ultimately will prove there is sound in silence...? Instead on becoming a negative academic I would prefer to should the way that scholarship is informed by respect. I do not pretend to be a scholar either....far from it.
Maybe making music is not about respect..maybe I am wrong or ill informed... but is not the way we address each other an area of contention here?
I also reccommend every serious student to read as many books as possible out there..some by Hildesheimer, Robbins Landon on Mozart and a very good set on Haydn...etc...
no one person has the total answer on such a broad field of music. My comments and barbs are a result of reading the way Mr. Pay has responed to previous posts...as far as Beethoven 8 is concerned I have nothing to say unless there is an attitude of respect.
This board is for beginners as well...
and in my opinion when anyone gets nasty I refuse to post....It is a reflection of the person posting
I would prefer to be remembered as a Mentor not as a teacher or clarinetist...
Happy clarineting all.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-12 14:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-12 16:18
David Dow wrote:
>>In terms of addressing others Mr. Pay should not refer to some as "Mighty Dick"...in spite of the fact he seems to have a sacred place here on the board. I know several musicologists who who would never refer to any student in such manner... Is not this an adequate explanation of my my views on the topic...? I chose to edit my posts...but I notice Mighty Dick still remains...>>
This appears to be exercising you to such an extent that I feel I should put you out of your misery.
I referred to him as 'Mighty' Dick jokingly, as I already said, adding that the joke consisted of a pun on the word 'might'; but the full explanation, FWIW, is that he wrote:
>>..Does this imply that these earlier performances MIGHT not have been up to the same standard as today's performances MIGHT be?>>
...thereby amusingly overhedging his bets, I thought.
I therefore dubbed him 'MIGHT'y Dick, and replied:
I CAN unequivocally assert this to be the case;-)
...and signed myself 'CANny' Tony.
OK?
With regard to the rest of your post: if you read what I wrote -- note, you do have to do this (and it's something that you and quite a few in this forum fall down on, actually, taking the trouble to read the details of what other people write) -- then you will see that it's quite uncontroversial.
All it amounts to is the statement that in the classical period notes and phrases were thought of as being already shaped -- there is considerable evidence for this -- and that therefore you CAN take advantage of that shaping TO WHATEVER DEGREE YOU WANT, to the point where YOU feel comfortable with such things as a piano following a crescendo in Beethoven 8.
That's all, apart from an explanation of how it works in detail, which seems to be difficult to get across for some reason. (I find that those who understand it often can't see what all the fuss is about.)
The rest of it is easily explained by your admission:
>> My comments and barbs are a result of reading the way Mr. Pay has responed to previous posts.>>
If I respond rather directly sometimes to a post, I do so for a reason; and the reason is almost invariably connected with the content of the post. If you, on the other hand, decide to be 'barbed' simply because you've taken against me personally over some interaction I've had with someone else, and you then try to APPLY sarcasm or whatever in response to something that doesn't really call for it, then OF COURSE you're going to get into trouble with me, because you wind up looking like a fool -- and I suppose I don't suffer fools gladly.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-01-12 16:58
I for one do not understand what all the fuss is about. Tony's comments were perfectly clear to me. I thought his use of speaking as an example for explaning the cresendo to piano in this solo was really helpfull. This solo is a dialogue with the horns after all with some chatter from the cellos.
I don't hear this solo (or this symphony for that matter) as dramatic in any way. I find it to be light and sophisticated. I also don't agree with Mr. Dow that the asscending patterns up into the altisimo have anything to do with increased volume or crescendo. In fact, I would say they are more effective when played with a dimmuendo or at a very soft dymnamic level (which is how these occurances are marked in the part)
I did not understand Mr. Dow's comment about supreme legato. How is supreme legato different than just legato? Does that supreme legato apply to the articulated motives as well? Doesn't the quality of legato and articulation really depend on what the horns are doing? When horns play legato, is it always supreme? I found this comment to be very confusing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-14 19:26
Dear Mr. Pay
On the contrary...I rather have enjoyed your wonderful asides.
As to Beethoven 8 one should stick with the standard phrasing done in modern versions...follow your conductor on matters of attack and shaping of phrases...
As to dynamics one still has to project within a concert hall..so naturally too soft of a clarinet is of no use if your colleagues are not playing under you.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-14 19:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charlie_star_uk
Date: 2007-01-15 07:52
I always thought the magical thing about this solo was how quiet and delicately the top high clarinet phrase comes out... whilst in tune and speaking on demand... isn't this why it is set for auditions? The orchestration is such that you will be heard however quietly you play, and if you have a well focused sound you can play very quietly and it will travel straight to the back of the hall.
Charlie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charlie_star_uk
Date: 2007-01-15 07:59
I am thinking of the end of the solo when I say this. Not the section with the subito pianos...
Charlie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-15 14:23
Hopefully the conductor is sensitve to the delicacy of the wonderful undulating strings underneath..you would be surprised how loud 12 cellos and 8 violas and 6 basses can be...especailly if not hemmed in at times.
The clarinet must also be sensitive to the lower figures in the cellos and violas as well..
The horns also begin the Trio so the clarinet must not only contrast their phrasing but try to add to and develp the musical idea...most phrases do taper off delicately..but in the center of the phrases just playing softly without line or dynamic will come off quite badly...follow the traditional dynamics closely..
In order to shape the phrases in an audition is one thing...but for a performance with a fairly large orchestra is quite different.
...as to being barely audible is not going to impress anyone. Is it not a solo more imressive with some dynamics..like from say a piano to forte...remember too the contrast between the horns and the clarinet is quite disctictive so you must also calibrate your sound to fit in the corresponding sound space.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-15 14:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-01-15 15:09
I"ve played this piece twice now in large orchestras and I did not have any problems projecting, blending or being heard. Obviously there are sections marked forte and sections where direction in the sound is needed but playing piano was not a problem. I don't think anyone is saying to play the whole solo soft.
"In order to shape the phrases in an audition is one thing...but for a performance with a fairly large orchestra is quite different.".........
Really?
"...as to being barely audible is not going to impress anyone."
I totally disagree. I have heard this piece performed by some very good orchestras as well as hearing many recordings and have played it my self twice and it is very impressive and beautiful to hear the piano markings done well. Just like the piano markings at the end of the solos in the 6th symphony 1st and second movements.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-15 15:17
Does not Tchaikovsky indicate pppp and pp in the Pathetique...???
The area you are talking about is the meno con teneressa...it starts off at triple pppand crescendos to a marked p....the notes are f# ,e , d , b,a, and throat f# etc...anyways the orchestration is lighter here than even in Beethoven 8....so I really don't see this as a good representation as what one would want from this essentially Classical style Beethoven Trio of the 8th.
Beethoven only resorts to pp dynamic.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-15 15:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2007-01-15 22:01
I apologise (to Alexis) if my rather misleading comment about period performance practice disloged this topic from Beethoven 8.
However, what ensued was an interesting discussion (more interesting than most that happen here).
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-15 23:02
Diz wrote:
>>I apologise (to Alexis) if my rather misleading comment about period performance practice disloged this topic from Beethoven 8.
>>However, what ensued was an interesting discussion (more interesting than most that happen here).>>
Your apology is in order; but actually, you flatter yourself; the exchanges that followed were as unilluminating as what you wrote was meaningless.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-16 00:05
I wonder if one plays so softly the conductor can't hear you he would still want you play louder...??? Conductors can be very existential. I really do think the approach of an ensemble player is to be very aware of the sound world around him/herself. There are some very fine players who simply do not sound at all right in certain repetorie.
Dynamics only make sense if they are audible...or do they?
ie..for example some orchestras play Beethoven 8 in the Trio with 4 horns doubling and others with just 2 on each part..obviously the sound with 4 horns is going to be quite different in effect from 2..
.....does one calibrate their tone according to the way the horns begin and start the phrase or does the clarinet player just not give a hang and play at whatever volume they want>..on either end of the decibal spectrum...?
I remember Rudolf Kempe in an interview(TV) discussing this work...he said the player must always phrase from within a group as one would have a "conversation." ..by this I believe he meant every single voice..(his German was very Eastern)..Then Kempe said .."you would naturally want to hear what the other person said.." This was in 1974 he said this..I saw this on TV in Munich ...he was a very good Beethoven man.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-16 00:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-01-16 06:16
D Dow wrote: "Dynamics only make sense if they are audible...or do they?"
This reminds me of the film "Spinal Tap", where the rock guitarist specially has his amplifiers built so that he can turn the volume up to 11!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-01-16 09:07
donald wrote:
>> one of us was trying to be nice>>
You're easily misled, then. It's very easy to write SUPERFICIALLY nice things.
Anyhow, the only meaning I can wring out of what he wrote previously is that he was suggesting that there was a connection between my involvement with period instrument performance and what I had to say about crescendoing to piano. David Dow made a similar suggestion, and the intention of both of them was dismissive. (Not really a PROPER background, you see.)
In fact, there is no necessary connection between the two things. And with regard to background, I recorded Beethoven 8 with Giulini, and played all the Beethoven Symphonies (some of them many times) under Rudolf Kempe, whose first clarinet I was when he was Principal Conductor of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra from 1968 to 1976.
I'm not going to write anything further, because although I've been resisting the feeling as unworthy, I now have the clear impression that I'm SLUMMING here.
Pick the bones out of that.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-01-16 10:39
I have performed Beethoven 8 under Rafael Kubelik and Beethoven 6 under Eugen Jochum(Principal clarinet under Jochum in 6 and 2cd under Kubelik) ..I also played Bruckner under Carl Maria Guilini in World Youth Orchestra......(as a Principal in Bruckner 8 and 9 during the late 80s)
I have also performed all of the Beethoven cycle under a wide variety of conductors..as Principal clarinet in all ----No 2 and 4 on at least 3 occasions..5 several times ...9 twice....7 three times...#3 four times and #6 twice and #1 four times and 8 four times...as well as played the clarinet in the violin concerto..piano concert 4, 5 and 3(principal clarinet as well with Anton Kuerti on Piano) as well as done the Mass in C..Christ on the Mount of Olives and also played the Missa Solemnis as well as the Overtures many times each...
I don't mind SLUMMING it here...the Bulletin Board is a great place!!!
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-01-16 16:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
