 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-05-21 15:03
I can't speak from facts but that sounds ridiculous. Besides, it can be played with only the Bb clarinet, there is a version written for that when you purchase the trio. It just means leaving out one low concert d flat. Is anyone sure Goodman played it with two clarinets or did he do the whole thing on the Bb? ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: concertmaster3
Date: 2011-05-21 23:52
I honestly think that it's just time consuming to have to re-tune, especially without making a noise. Scordatura was used even in Bach, I believe it's in one of the Cello Suites, but I can't remember which one, it's been a while since I've looked at those on viola.
It's just an anecdote.
Ron Ford
Woodwind Specialist
Performer/Teacher/Arranger
http://www.RonFordMusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2011-05-22 00:19
I heard that Bartok was also overshadowed, only getting to play a single piano. In the original manuscript he asks the pianist to switch to electric piano for the final movement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-05-22 17:47
Ken and Tony, I respect both of you, I think you've both made excellent contributions to this forum and the e-mail list and I have a question. This may be a stupid question but it's a real one. I can't sort out whether you're serious or not when you post the sorts of insults you've posted about each other on this thread.
I ask because staffers on the two magazines I write for often exchange similar-looking barbs on the old "Scarlet Street" site, which we've kept running under its original name in honor of our deceased former editor of an earlier magazine. That editor carried on some serious feuds. The people involved in the feuds five years ago were not joking when they insulted each other. However, the current crowd constantly engages in ad hominem banter among good friends.
Sometimes, though, new or returning visitors to the site get confused and think they're seeing a genuine fight. I mean, saying somebody thinks El Brendel is funny is a serious accusation. (Kidding. But not really.) Early on in the new regime, I asked the usual suspects to clarify matters for me. They all assured me the fights were absolutely real. One of those guys even accused another of thinking Bela Lugosi was a better actor than Boris Karloff. I mean, *really*. Well, I've forgotten exactly how these replies made plain that, if all these assurances of dire enmity were true, then Georges Méliès really did send a rocket to the moon; but if the Pay vs. Shaw thing (I imagine this Thing having green scale and six legs, and maybe a tail with a stinger) is similarly real I wish you'd clue the rest of us in.
And I'd like to know more about Bartok than "So's your mother."
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-05-22 21:10
Lelia -
Like you, I've been on this board from very nearly the beginning, and I'm proud of my contributions.
For no reason I can discern, Tony (and, I think, only Tony) has it in for me. He seems to look for opportunities to make nasty, irrelevant comments, even when by doing so he shows himself to be an ignoramus, as in the Prokofiev thread.
I think that when he lunges out to bite me on the ankle, I've earned the right to make a single reply, as I did in this thread, the Prokofiev thread and, earlier, in the Off-Beat and To Ken Shaw threads. Remember that I didn't start any of the exchanges.
I imagine that Tony's having fun, and I think that my reply in this thread was rather funny. I suggest that I'm entitled to a single reply, and at any rate, I keep them short and easy to skip over.
I'm sure you remember Roger Garrett, who is an intelligent and well informed professional player and teacher. I'm also sure you remember how Tony drove him away with constant sniping. Even a troll can do damage, and I won't let this happen with me.
I know that it's better to ignore Tony, and I promise to do my best in the future.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-05-22 23:18
Ken,
You characterise the situation as a sort of vendetta against you.
You flatter yourself.
My objections are not to you personally, but to what you write, and so are specific to each occasion.
There are many examples. Here are some.
When you criticised a published paper, saying that it was full of errors, and then refused to say what those errors were, I objected to your lack of intellectual integrity. That objection still stands. (Actually, there is an update. I've now been told that Daniel Bangham didn't write it. But the guy who did, says that he thinks that it's accurate, but would of course be interested to know what's wrong with it:-) We STILL await your response.)
When you said that it was necessary to know Prokofiev's 'War and Peace' in order to play the flute sonata, I objected, because that simply isn't true. (You say that I showed myself to be an ignoramus, but closer examination of the exchange -- which incidentally was not here, but on the Klarinet list -- will show that it was not I who thought you were talking about the book by Tolstoy.)
When you put forward the opinions of 'professionals' about matters, as though those opinions constitute knockdown arguments, I find myself particularly keen to engage with you. As a wannabe professional, you don't understand that many professionals, even able professionals, are stupid.
So, it is simply not good enough to cite the opinion of some 'highly respected American bass clarinettist' in order to justify going against Wagner's request for a bass clarinet in A in Tristan and Isolde. Who he, compared to Wagner?
Nor is it good enough to cite some lesson you were given by -- I can't remember his name, so let's call him 'a respected American incumbent of a position in an opera orchestra' -- in order to justify the playing of the solo in Puccini's Tosca with 'unimaginable freedom' and 'heart-wrenching emotion'. The subject under discussion was a purely musical point; you show little ability to engage with that, preferring again here to cite the opinion of your chosen 'pro'. OBVIOUSLY, again, to any serious musician, you have to go back to the source. And the source shows a subtlety that gives the lie to the crude characterisation you described.
It's a constant in your posts. You want to argue by AUTHORITY, and you don't understand that MOST authorities are spuriously claimed.
You report that ARNOLD JACOBS says that muscular oppositions are a no-no in wind playing.
WHAT???
The current example is pretty trivial, I admit. But, WHO CARES what David Shifrin says about Bartok's reasons for asking for a scordatura violin in the Contrasts? OBVIOUSLY to anyone serious about the music, what he said is a non-starter.
Again, WHO HE???
(Gosh, HOW DARE I?-)
Do you prefer, OBVIOUSLY HE WAS JOKING???
So, in the grand design, Ken, I find you to be a poor thing. Roger Garrett was another, but let's not go into that.
Finally, yes, Lelia, the disagreement is real.
But it's not between me and Ken Shaw.
It's between what he writes, and WHAT NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN.
Of course, others may disagree. But, the hell with them;-)
Tony
Post Edited (2011-05-27 00:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2011-05-23 03:39
Quote:
I've always read that Bartok called for the second instrument because he wanted the sound of open strings for the tritones.
That's what the little zeros on the violin part in the score mean--play on open strings. You could play those notes on a conventionally-tuned violin, but it wouldn't sound the same.
Besides the difference in sound between open strings and fingered notes, there is the issue of WHICH strings the notes would be played on (which is a big deal, because the different strings have noticeably different tone qualities). If Bartok hadn't written it scordatura, the violinist would have to play the higher tritone (the A & Eb) on the two middle strings of the violin, which would have taken away much of its "bite."
Not to mention that it wouldn't sound like an out of tune fiddle any more.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2011-05-23 04:16
The real reason was that, while he was playing one, they could smack him in the head with the other.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-05-23 20:05
Lelia, I've solved the problem I had several years ago with Tony by refusing to read his postings. Unlike several others that have left the board, much to my chagrin, I decided to stay and contribute as well as be entertained at times by staying and ignoring what Tony says, even though he is very knowledgeable. That way I may not learn something from him that I didn't know but I refrain from being insulted and being tempted to answer in kind. I don't participate here to be insulted and that solves that problem for me, you may want to consider doing the same. That way I enjoy this board. ESP
PS. I've done the Bartok once with a violin player that only used one violin, I believe he re-fingered the passage to play it that way. It sounded very close to when I've done it with those using two violins but not quite the same. If I didn't know I may not have realized the difference, but I'm a clarinet player. ;-)
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2011-05-24 13:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2011-05-23 22:04
"I honestly think that it's just time consuming to have to re-tune, especially without making a noise. Scordatura was used even in Bach, I believe it's in one of the Cello Suites, but I can't remember which one,"
It is the c minor cello suite.
Regarding Bartok- I have played it a few times, and the violinist ALWAYS used one fiddle.
I have seen it performed where the violints used two fiddles.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2011-05-24 11:02
Well, I've read this whole exchange with much interest, and it strikes me that the real question is this:
Why does the Bartok Contrasts call for two clarinets?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-05-24 13:52
Bassie -
I've read that Bartok was nearly starving after he came to the U.S. Szigeti wanted to give him a commission that would occupy his mind and supply some income, and he and Goodman got together to do it. Since the Contrasts was written for Goodman, he pretty much had to play the premiere and make the first recording.
I think Bartok calls for two clarinets because the passage in question lies better on the A [plus, as Ed P. says, it calls for low E on the A clarinet, which isn't usually available on the Bb]. In 1938, Goodman had only recently branched out into classical music. When you listen to the original recording, you hear that he was pressed hard by the difficulty of the music. He gets through, but not with the panache of Szigeti and Bartok. Compare, for example, the clarinet and violin cadenzas. Goodman plays his accurately but without much excitement. (For that, listen to Drucker.) Szigeti, who was one of the great virtuosos, sails into his cadenza at high speed and brings it off triumphantly.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2011-05-24 14:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-05-24 13:56
Bassie, as I said above, there is a low concert Db in one place and you can't play that on a Bb clarinet unless you have a low Eb on your clarinet so you have to switch to the A clarinet. The piece comes with one part for A and Bb clarinet and an alternate part for only the Bb clarinet. Of course where the written low Eb is Bartok changed it in the Bb version. Some players like to use the A part where indicated and some prefer the Bb part, switching to the A clarinet for that one place to play the low concert Db. It's in the last mov't. I've done it both ways and prefer to do it the later way I described. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-05-24 19:32
Buster -
I'm not Tony (thank heavens), but . . .
Scordatura tuning was used regularly in the early baroque period. If you don't know Biber's Rosary Sonatas http://www.amazon.com/Biber-Heinrich-Ignaz-Franz-von/dp/B00005UNXG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1306264518&sr=1-2, you have an ear-opening experience in store. Hear them once and you never forget the sonorities.
When Paganini toured, he played his own concertos and sent the parts ahead so the orchestra could learn them. They were a half-step higher than the "official" key of the concerto -- if the concerto was in D, the parts were in Eb -- and Paganini tuned his Guarnarius up a half step to be more brilliant. That violin was already known as "The Cannon" for its power, but he wanted even more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Cannone_Guarnerius
Country & Western guitarists and banjoists routinely change their tuning to make a song lie better under the fingers or to get a particular sound. It's part of what you master, like transposing up a step to play C clarinet parts on the Bb.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-05-24 21:16
Buster, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Bartok himself included a Bb version for the Contrasts. I really don't know if that was him, the editor or publisher. It would have made sense to me but it could very well have not been Bartok's idea to publish it that way. No offense taken, you were correct to question it. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-05-25 22:43
Buster wrote:
>> The usage of scordatura in the Contrasts reminded me of a classical period practice I recall reading of: specifically, that classical composers at times, when writing for solo viola and orchestra, notated the solo part a half step lower than concert pitch, and subsequently had the soloist tune each string a semi-tone higher. i.e. increasing string tension to aid in sound projection. I cannot cite this with accuracy, but recall a specific reference of this technique being employed by Mozart in the Sinfonia Concertante K.364. (I believe I read this in Rosen, but as my literature is in a storage unit 200-some miles away, I do not have easy access.) Was this a common practice, and is it a technique utilized in the period orchestras you perform with?>>
It's certainly true that this technique was employed by Mozart in K364.
Our performances (in the OAE say) follow this practice. Modern players have been divided: some say that the projection of the modern viola renders the practice unnecessary; others (eg Nobuko Imai) say that it enhances what is possible.
The rationale is clear: the key of Eb mutes the violin, by limiting access to open strings, whilst the key of D enhances the viola against the orchestra.
It's interesting to contrast this with a possible view of K498, the Kegelstatt Trio, also in Eb. Here the viola doesn't need enhancement on period instruments; the problem is rather that the viola and clarinet tend to cover the FORTEPIANO.
That's exactly the opposite of the problem on modern instruments, where the viola is often at a disadvantage against the Steinway.
On another tack, I am of course amused that Ken is glad that he isn't me. If he were, he would have had the incredible privilege of having worked in chamber music with the likes of Daniel Barenboim, have played under the baton of Rudolf Kempe, have had Henze written a concerto for him, have worked in close collaboration with Berio, Boulez and Stockhausen, as well as played in countless concerts with great musicians. I've been incredibly lucky.
The downside would of course include being unduly irritated by, not so much the opinions, but the pontifications of people who, unblessed by such experiences, hold forth about what those experiences MUST CONSIST OF, presenting the scraps from the tables of practitioners without any real ability to assess the quality of the cooking.
But of course, if Ken were me, I'd have to be HIM. And in at least one regard -- namely that I'd have to have taken his attitude to his post about the Newark document -- I shudder to imagine what that would be like. I think I'd rather die.
Still, I suppose lawyers have practice in dealing with such matters.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-05-29 12:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-05-26 12:17
Earlier, Ed Palanker suggested ignoring certain messages. The trouble with ignoring people is that ignoring means ... well, ignorance, in my case, because I'm an amateur and I don't know it all. I'm disappointed that the petty disagreeableness is real and not a spoof, but the substantive posts on this thread (both congenial and adversarial) have taught me things I didn't know before and thus reinforce my long-held decision that I'd rather learn than relax. Thank you to all who take the trouble to share the knowledge.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2011-05-26 15:52
So might a composer choose the A or Bb clarinet to avoid (or emphasise) the weak throat Bb, for example?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-05-26 23:53
Buster wrote, about the difficulty of deciding what to do about instructions to play on a particular clarinet:
>>.... well, these are questions a performer must ultimately answer themselves, be able to "morally" justify, and finally sleep with at night.>>
I agree; I wrote about the 'morality' part of that in:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=337812&t=337777&v=t
Here's an illustration of a decision of the OAE clarinet section that you might find surprising: we are currently playing Don Giovanni on period instruments at Glyndebourne. Bars 5-8 in the overture for unison clarinets go: semibreve F (top line treble clef); semibreve F (bottom space treble clef); semibreve C (second space down treble clef); semibreve C (first ledger line below treble clef).
All this is for A clarinets. So the sounding notes are, D, D, A, A.
All this is in unison with two flutes, so the blend, intonation and dramatic expression are all at issue.
The fact is: clarion F tends to be an unfocussed 'fork' note, and the F below is similarly compromised. You can play them well in tune in isolation, but blending with two unison flutes is a problem of a higher order, especially when you're trying to convey the horror of the musical atmosphere over the pulsing strings.
So, we tried playing the passage on C clarinets, readily available for the rest of the opera. (There are many numbers for C clarinet in Don Giovanni.)
Immediate solution to the problem. THEN, you play D, D, A, A, all good notes, and the blend is tractable.
And that's what we're doing -- and it was a moral decision -- and we feel good about it, and are sleeping at night:-)
There are 9 bars to switch back to A clarinets.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-05-27 02:29
Lelia, I only avoid reading one persons answers, it keeps my blood pressure down, only one person. ;-) I won't allow myself to be intimidated like some other people have been and now we don't have those people contributing on our board because of one person. If someone can't answer in a respectable way, no matter what their opinions are, they should not answer at all, at least that's my opinion. ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2011-05-27 14:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2011-05-30 14:46
Tony wrote:
Quote:
The downside would of course include being unduly irritated by, not so much the opinions, but the pontifications of people who, unblessed by such experiences, hold forth about what those experiences MUST CONSIST OF, presenting the scraps from the tables of practitioners without any real ability to assess the quality of the cooking.
It recently came to my attention that there is a name for this sort of thing, coined by physicist Richard Feynmann. He called it "cargo cult science."
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
Of course, this phenomenon is not limited to the education, social science, or physical science fields Feynmann mentioned or the art of clarinet playing. I've encountered quite a bit of it myself in other "learned disciplines," which is perhaps why I've taken such a liking to Feynmann's terminology.
For instance, I wonder how many lawyers have ever stopped to think about what the words "go henceforth without day" or "know all men by these presents" really mean (the use of the subjunctive sounds incantational and magical and all, but in the end it's just secondhand linguistic fluff). :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-05-30 19:27
mrn -
IAAL. I work hard to remove every bit of linguistic fluff from my writing, legal included, and I can't remember the last time I used the subjunctive.
As a lawyer, I must know the meaning of "go henceforth without day" or "know all men by these presents," because they pop up in legal documents, and, more importantly, in preprinted legal forms. Court clerks (and other lawyers) use these forms because they're guaranteed to do what they say, and even more because preprinted part need not be read. I once (and only once) typed out a preprinted form, removing the henceforths and wherefors. My firm's document filing people bounced it back to me, saying that the court clerk would never accept my routine filing if he had to read the whole thing.
When, as here, a well known clarinetist says something I haven't heard before, I think I'm entitled to ask about it without accusations of "collecting scraps" or indulging in "cargo cult science." And, for what it's worth, I suggest that the principal clarinetist of the Cleveland Orchestra and Director of the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center outranks me, you and probably even Tony Pay.
Thanks for the Feynman reference. He's always great to read.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-05-30 20:36
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> And, for what it's worth,>>
Well, it's not worth much.
>>...I suggest that the principal clarinetist of the Cleveland Orchestra and Director of the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center outranks me, you and probably even Tony Pay.>>
In any proper domain of enquiry -- science is the obvious example -- the idea of 'outranking' has no place. What counts is the truth and explanatory power of the ideas put forward, not any real or purported eminence of the person putting them forward.
One example: I don't claim to 'outrank' Arnold Jacobs, who was probably one of the greatest and certainly one of the most famous tuba players in the world. But what I do say is that his characterisation of what is required to play the clarinet well is conspicuously defective -- and I can explain why. About the tuba, I have no opinion.
Anyway, I'm not at all intimidated by the name of David Shifrin. I can call rubbish when I read it.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-05-30 20:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2011-05-31 02:26
Buster said:
"and the second best piece of advice I ever received was "Robert Marcellus is dead."
-------------------
Well, the beauty of that phrase lies in the fact that he was the first to tell anyone that would listen to go and find out for themselves what was true and what wasn't - that it was their duty as musicians and critical thinkers to challenge - and he respected most those who actually took him up on it.
Unfortunately, his charismatic personality and stunning musicianship led many of his more zealous-like students to take everything he said as gospel. And he referred to them as "one of those stupid musicians".
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-05-31 12:54
Greg -
I agree that every player must find his/her own way of playing. You can't just imitate someone -- even Marcellus. But Marcellus was tremendously, and rightfully, influential. His playing had a profound effect on how I (and I suppose many other people) play, and his playing is a legitimate matter of discussion here.
When David Shifrin says something about the Bartok Contrasts, I suppose I can ask about it here, even if it's a joke that I'm too dense to appreciate.
Tony rejects that position, at least if the question comes from me. Buster also appears to object. To them (though of course not to you) I say Tough S**t.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-06-01 00:14
"I feel I can contribute but also feel as I have no stature to substantiate my contributions."
You don't need stature -- just accurate facts and rational argument to support your opinions.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-06-01 01:25
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> When David Shifrin says something about the Bartok Contrasts, I suppose I can ask about it here, even if it's a joke that I'm too dense to appreciate.
>> Tony rejects that position, at least if the question comes from me. Buster also appears to object. To them (though of course not to you) I say Tough S**t.>>
That's fine; I already said, "the current example is pretty trivial, I admit."
My general beef with you is to do with your undue willingness to promote 'received wisdom', plus your undue UNwillingness to engage in real debate about the issues that your promotion of that received so-called wisdom raises.
It's as though you want to BE the people you quote; and then -- like them -- remain inaccessible.
Jack Kissinger wrote:
>> You don't need stature -- just accurate facts and rational argument to support your opinions.>>
That's right. Stature is, at best, evidence of POSSIBLE credibility. And what that means is that you can't make any sort of contribution if you just invoke the stature -- and therefore the merely possible credibility -- of others, and then disengage from the detailed argument.
We shall see what happens in the future.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-06-01 15:24
Give that man an enema and he could be buried in a matchbox.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2011-06-10 21:08
Quote:
IAAL.
Me, too. That's why I can speak from experience. 
Quote:
My firm's document filing people bounced it back to me, saying that the court clerk would never accept my routine filing if he had to read the whole thing.
Well that seems pretty out of line (on the part of your document filing people) to me. You're the lawyer (you outrank them). It seems to me that if you don't like the way something's worded, it's your prerogative to change it. After all, it's just other lawyers who write those forms in the first place. Perhaps you thought of something they didn't. And as long as you follow the court's rules, I don't see how the court clerk can refuse to accept your filing.
What I found a lot in doing trial work is that there are a lot of lawyers out there who practice from their firm's set of forms and procedures out of habit or ritual without stopping to take the time to consider what the law or procedure rules actually require. Sometimes they become so influenced by their forms and clerical procedures that they have trouble distinguishing between what the law says and what they've always done out of habit.
There is some logic to that manner of operating, of course--oftentimes doing what's been done before is the safe and prudent approach, and it frequently saves time. But other times it leads to unexpected consequences or undesirable results. I have found that it frequently pays to reanalyze or reconsider what you're doing--even if it seems relatively routine or is a time-honored practice--because sometimes you find a better solution that way.
Same thing applies to clarinet playing or anything else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-06-11 02:28
mrn -
The bounce happened when I was just getting started. I made edits that removed legalistic words but made no substantive change. The firm clerk didn't refuse to file it, but said that everyone used the printed forms because that was what the court clerks were used to. I mentioned it to the partner, who agreed that the printed forms were the way to go, particularly for routine matters, since they made things easy for court personnel. My advanced civil procedure prof used to say "Blumberg [the form publisher] knows everything." This was one of the lessons I learned as a young lawyer -- that you don't have to fight every possible fight, and part of your job is making court clerks' jobs easier.
I read every form before I use it to make sure it says what I want it to say, but if it does, then I don't hesitate to use what has been proved to work well.
Every time I perform a piece of music, I think through it ahead of time, to remind myself of how it goes and generally how I will play it, but every performance has a life of its own, which, if you're making good music, is how it has to happen.
If my legal adversary makes a poor argument, I may write "This argument is without merit" before destroying it, even though (and perhaps because) judges have used that phrase again and again. It puts the judge in the frame of mind I want her to be in.
When I come to a cadence such as the one just before the singer's entrance in Shepherd on the Rock, I remind myself that there are two beats of IV, one of V7 and one of I, and I shape the phrase to fit over that sequence in (I hope) a shapely way. It's like reading great poetry aloud -- never exactly the same, but always with understanding.
My musical understanding is formed and refined by listening to the great players in the Schubert passage -- Wright, Marcellus, de Peyer, Leister and dozens of others. I don't imitate them, but my understanding is affected and improved by listening to them.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-06-12 00:20
With respect, and addressing no one in particular,
I cannot speak of the specifics of legal issues as Ken and mrn (I'm sorry but I do not know your name) as I have no direct knowledge. The usage of documents and forms, written by legal minds in the past based on their interpretations of law, may on a pragmatic level be necessary for smooth operation. However, one is validated in examining the root reasons/information behind the writing of those forms, and questioning how apt they truly are on an academic level. A document may prove itself to be most proper after investigating the source, or it may be seen as lacking. The questioning can always be done and the document must then prove its' merit. I would think this to be any lawyer's right (or duty?)
I wish not to put words in mrn's mouth, and please correct me if I misstate, but I believe what he is illustrating is the questioning mindset that is available (necessary?) when approaching musical performance, analysis and discussions.
Listening to a recording of any said performer to hear how a particular phrase or the like is handled is acceptable. Reading what a particular performer has written about the interpretation of a work, or a pedagogical approach to the clarinet is also fine. However, and I think most beautifully, we are afforded the right to question performances, recordings or writings we are presented with; we do not have to provide the proof in this situation. It was an enlightening day when I realized why I was permitted to question.
As a (side) jazz musician it is somewhat embarrassing that it took me so long to realize this, but classical music, as jazz, developed through aural and oral transmission. Early jazz men didn't learn in school, they sat at the feet of an elder, much like an apprentice and learned "the way". They then matured, mutated "the way" and passed it on to the next generation. Only many years later was a written codification of the rules attempted. Fortunately, we do have early recordings of jazz "pioneers" to reference, but the traditions still go far beyond that back to the days of slavery where we do not have an existing aural record; we only have an attempted codification.
This progression is quite evident in "classical" music, yet is much more difficult to analyze as it spans a longer period of time. Compositional techniques and methods of interpretation were learned sitting next to a "master", mutated, and handed down again. Only after a specific "period" of music had passed was there an attempt to write down and codify a set of rules. (Are we to assume baroque or classical period pieces, lacking many articulation and dynamic markings were played completely flat? Or were they performed according to an existing aural/oral tradition, which eliminated the need for a composer to write much in the way of phrase markings? I'd posit the latter.) The same progression applies to a pedagogical method of playing the clarinet, or any instrument for that matter. We have various writings, such as Quantz, L. Mozart et. al., that served as guides, but the "Conservatory Atmosphere" we have now is a relatively new development.
An unfortunate consequence of the conservatory is that it can elevate a teacher, or performer, to the level of an Authority to an unquestioning mind. However, when viewing how classical music has progressed over the past millennium, no one person can be said to be THE authority. While we are fortunate to have much research existing of past "periods", there are no concrete answers (we cannot send our ears back in the past unfortunately), and new evidence is constantly surfacing; thankfully so. For example, we would have never discovered, some 60 years ago, that K.622 was written for an instrument we didn't know existed. This constant looking back is necessary. The rules are constantly changing as we become more enlightened by the past.
In discussing and listening to professionals, we can and should question why they do what they do. They are just links in a chain: Marcellus passed on his version of Bonade, who passed on his version of Lefevre etc.. back to Stadler, and even further back to the beginning. -The same can be said of any pro. When listening to a performance, particularly a "definitive" one, it should be hoped that the performer has done his homework, looking back to the sources to form the presentation; not imposing their own ego onto an existing work. They then have to prove to us that what they do is apt. Our knowledge and understanding should not come from how they play something, but what led them to decide to play in a certain manner; only then can a performance truly be appreciated. (This becomes our onus when we become the performers.) When a noted pedagogue presents literature telling us how to play the clarinet, they then have to prove to us why we should listen. We must do the same ourselves when teaching if stating anything in a concrete manner.
In summation, the mindset mrn suggested is essential. Discuss a performer, but always question why. Glean your knowledge from all that has come before you, not just a few current professionals. Constantly question yourself- I know I continue to learn in doing so. And remember we are all just links in a long chain.
-JH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2011-06-12 19:28
Buster wrote:
> I wish not to put words in mrn's mouth, and please correct me
> if I misstate, but I believe what he is illustrating is the
> questioning mindset that is available (necessary?) when
> approaching musical performance, analysis and discussions.
I think you stated it very nicely. Thanks.
Mike Nichols
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
