Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-05-29 20:54
Sherman Friedland wrote:
>> Well Tone: here is what you said
"What NOT to do is be a lily-livered, I-follow-in-the-footsteps-of-a-legendary-American-clarinet-player, head-in-the-sand, OSTRICH;-)"
would you care to elaborate?>>
OK; though the last time I tried to explain myself to you I didn't get very far. Perhaps I'll be luckier this time.
Some context -- though not the complete context -- was the previous paragraph, which I add here:
>> But you must think about it, struggle with it, and make up your own mind. (You don't have to do it the same way every time, of course; I recorded the piece twice, and as I recall, played the MS version the second time.)
What NOT to do is be a lily-livered, I-follow-in-the-footsteps-of-a-legendary-American-clarinet-player, head-in-the-sand, OSTRICH;-)>>
The point is: if you're a performer, deciding that something is the right solution based solely upon the fact that someone else (however eminent) did it that way, gets you nowhere.
Bud Wright's great performance (I haven't heard it, but let's assume it IS great) wasn't great BECAUSE HE PLAYED THE NOTES HE PLAYED. It was great because of all sorts of other things about his playing, to do with his continuing response to what he'd played the moment before, to what his colleagues had played the moment before...and many other things besides, adding up to an ALIVENESS of presentation, both individually and as a group.
That aliveness has its roots in how you prepare. As a young player, you have to get into the habit of taking responsibility for your relationship with great composers. See:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2005/08/000322.txt
That responsibility means not only that you strike out for yourself courageously (you're not lily-livered) but also (and here's the paradox) you're prepared to question the basis on which you strike out courageously, as and when a different viewpoint presents itself. A sort of balance between questioning and assertion is required, so that when you come to perform, that 'assertion plus openness' can inform and enliven your playing.
A good teacher will understand which side of this balance needs to be strengthened and which frustrated in a particular student, at a particular time. If the student is too sure that their way of doing it is RIGHT, then they need to develop their ability to produce workable alternative versions. If the student is too concerned that they may be WRONG, then they need to be encouraged by being told that in the end, trust of oneself in performance is what excellent playing consists of.
In nes's case, not having heard him, we don't really know which side to support more; and anyway, I wasn't just writing for him. So, taking an even-handed approach, and having having presented the Mozart MS/ first edition evidence (casting 'doubt' on how it 'should' be played) I wanted to say something that represented COURAGE in the face of contrary evidence (namely, that a LEGENDARY AMERICAN CLARINET PLAYER played it a different way.) And, since nes is Australian, I used the metaphor 'one shouldn't be an ostrich' to do that. (BTW, what IS your name, nes? And, send me your email address, and I'll mail you the complete MS.)
So of course, the 'ostrich' wasn't 'Wright'. It was 'someone looking outside the workability of the music for justification of a textual decision' -- eg, to a legendary American clarinet player.
Notice how this fits in with my disparagement of the 'clarinet part annotated by Wright' as any sort of path towards excellence.
Does anyone really think that those trivial pencillings can capture anything important about his playing?
Tony
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
