 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-11-29 14:58
How long is a piece of string?
OK, this is that sort of question. I'm sure there is no correct answer.
What to do when the composer has written something inconsistent, that looks like a mistake?
There's a nice example of this in the first movement of the Brahms Fminor sonata, which we have been discussing in another thread. I'm using the Henle Urtext edition, which I hope is as accurate as any. But maybe it isn't.
Look at bar 29. The last beat has a crotchet, with a slur leading to it and a dot on it. I assume we should interpret this notation as meaning: "Slur to the crotchet, but play the crotchet short".
The piano part of bar 29 is the same: the last beat has a crotchet, with a slur leading to it and a dot on it.
Bar 30 is just the same as bar 29, for both clarinet and piano.
Now look at bars 34 and 35. The piano part follows the pattern of bars 29 and 30. But the clarinet part is different; there are slurs, but no dots.
Now it may be that Brahms was being incredibly subtle; he wanted the pianist to play the same way both times, but the clarinet player to play differently. But I really doubt this. It seems much more likely to me that he simply forgot to write the dots in the clarinet part.
So what are we to do?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-11-29 17:04
According to Gustave Langenus, the last note of a slur that is marked with a staccato can be interpreted as a "thrown note." He has a nice example duo by Berr (Book II, Page 75) that gets the idea across pretty well.
In my edition (The Cost Effective G. Schirmer "Masterworks for Clarinet and Piano"), the clarinet part is marked just as you have stated.
AND,
My teacher has had me place tenutos over those ending 1/4 notes. He definitely wants the phrasing changed from "thrown" to "lingered."
My piano part keeps the terminal staccatos through all 4 of these statements of the phrase.
So, my editions votes with your edition, and my teacher votes for (sort of) following (what appears to be) Brahm's intention.
Hey, Brahms was the genius.
Now, lets have a look at all the ways that the fast runs in the Weber Concertino have been marked in various editions. Slur 2, tongue 2 in that one (in part), but slur 32 over there, and ...
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-11-29 19:58
With Brahms, the way I see it, it's always a good possibility he meant it that way. Very subtle things make his music work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-11-29 20:15
Brahms pretty much wrote exactly what he wanted, but, and there's always a but. Perhaps the publisher simply left out a minor detail when it first went to print, or maybe he simply didn't notice this little difference, who really knows for sure. We have to remember that a performer has to have some degree of freedom in their interpretation; otherwise it might as well be played on a computer. Though I must say, it has to be done in good taste and as close to the wishes of the composer as possible but still being able to put something of the performers self into it. When I teach Brahms, and I don't consider myself an expert, I encourage my students to do what Brahms asks for first, then to add some of their sole to the performance. What I don't like is when a player goes off the deep end, that's just me. Making a note at the end of a phrase a little shorter or longer is not going to upset me. ESP
www.peabody.jhu.edu/457 Listen to a little Mozart, live performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-29 21:14
Norbert wrote:
>> What to do when the composer has written something inconsistent, that looks like a mistake? There's a nice example of this in the first movement of the Brahms Fminor sonata, which we have been discussing in another thread.>>
The GENERAL advice I'd want to give in such circumstances is: look at the CONTEXT.
Which means: look at what the music is doing on the next level up from the notes.
Or more simply, ask: WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?-)
So the question might be: what does the clarinet DO in these bars? -- which of course, constitute the piano's version of the first subject theme?
Well, I'd say that the clarinet is REPRESENTING THE TENSION in the large intervals of the piano line. The piano, decaying (as is inevitable) can't do what the clarinet does in OUR first statement of the theme. WE have been able to create the idea that the large leaps ARE large -- even though they're trivial in technical terms. They GATHER THEMSELVES for the leap: and our sound can embody that, so that the passage is 'appassionato'.
Here, a bit later, our arpeggios are 'representing the tension of the piano intervals' as we join in with what, after all, are nothing more than 'spread out' harmony. But that they are representing tension means that we should play them 'in tension' -- that is, with a tense rather than relaxed sound.
Nevertheless, being a PART of the piano theme, they have to conform to -- whatever the pianist decides to do.
Now, those dots in the piano part can be taken in many ways. They can be light, they can be abrupt, they can be....whatever. We have to help them be what the pianist decides, by matching him or her.
And when they come back, I have no better solution than to do what the piano does, again -- whatever that is.
(Should I REALLY play them differently?-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-11-29 22:42
I keep my Wright/Serkin CD of the Brahms sonatas in my car (and have for almost 2-years) hoping that by playing it over and over, the osmotic pressure will transfer some of this magic playing to me).
So, i listened carefully (!) and, sure enough, these performers play those arpeggios just as written. The pianist cuts off the sound shortly after arriving at the top note; while in the second evocation, the Wright lingers on the top note.
Wright does not play the staccato variant in Langenus/Berr "thrown note" style, but something heavier --almost accented.
In this case, Wright (often full of surprises) does not follow the piano, but plays (sortta) "what is written."
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-30 02:32
I've checked this against the first edition (published by Simrock) and the Eric Simon edition (published by Schirmer), and they are written exactly like the Henle.
If this is written this way intentionally, the only thing I can figure is that perhaps Brahms intended for the clarinet to hold the notes a little longer the second time through so as to create a little bit more expectation in the clarinet part of something different from the piano, sort of a call and answer effect (which is perhaps made a little less obvious by the fact that the piano continues to play the main theme through the whole section).
The way I am hearing this in my head, the first time around the clarinet asks a question. In reply, the piano ignores the clarinet and keeps on its way (although perhaps more emphatically, because it is trying to avoid answering the clarinet), so the clarinet asks again, this time with at a higher pitch and in a slightly more drawn out manner, with more anticipation of an answer, which the clarinet finally gets this time, with the piano's immediate change of mood.
Another way to think of this (which is perhaps better) is that the clarinet and piano are having an argument or quarrel, and they go back and forth. The ever-persistent clarinet (getting higher-pitched and holding out the phrases longer) finally wins the argument when the piano ultimately backs down.
Post Edited (2008-11-30 02:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-11-30 03:10
If anyone is going to use any one recording as the "proper" way to interpret how a piece should go then one needs to make sure that that is the "correct" recording.
Let's not forget that the Stolzman recording won a Grammy for his Brahms recordings. Does that make that the finest interpretation for the Brahms Sonata? If so where does that leave the Wright recording? Please, let's not let anyone persons interpretation become yours. Use them as your guide but play it your way after studying it, working on it, analyzing it and then putting your heart and sole into it. Ultimately you need to play a piece your way because trying to play it exactly like someone else is not only a losing cause but is not performing, it's copying. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ebclarinet1
Date: 2008-11-30 15:45
Ed, SO WELL PUT. My best teacher made me play everything in 6 different variations of phrasing and expression. That taught me 10X more about music than all my lessons to that point. Wish I could go back and thank him.
Eefer guy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2008-12-05 00:45
let's not forget the possibility of a plain old copyist's error. happened a lot back then. As for the "correct" way to play a piece - if there were one correct way to play a piece, we'd only need one recording of it and there'd be no great musicians only great parrots - with apologies to Norbert. Heed the great advice on these posts and figure out what it means to you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-06 00:24
For what it's worth--
I use the Wiener Urtext Edition and the articulation is exactly the same in mm.29-30 as it is in mm.34-35. I am not trying to suggest that this edition is by any means more authoratative than another as I'm not an expert. In this case as well as generally, I'd take Mr. Pay's advice. If you're not an expert on music editing try using your performance or ensemble experience to solve these problems.
This is my first post on this board--used to be part of the Klarinet list back when I was in high school. I'm now probably your newest music school graduate; being out of school has certainly reminded me how wonderful it is to play the clarinet with others! I'm glad to contribute what I can here.
Post Edited (2008-12-06 00:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
