 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-14 19:29
When a composer writes in metronome markings (a composer-not an editor), is this the gospel truth or do you feel it should be taken with a grain of salt? In Debussy's "Rhapsodie pour Clarinette", the metronome marking for the scherzando after figure 6, is 72 to the quarter note (previously indicated at figure 5)? Everybody takes it considerably faster than that. (What tempo did the very rigorous Pierre Boulez take?)
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rdc
Date: 2014-06-14 23:55
From the Franklin Cohen recording with the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by Boulez, I have marked in my music that he takes it at 72 at Figure 5, 80 at Figure 6, and 104 at the Scherzando after 6.
I've wondered about the tempo here as well, but to listen to it and play it, it feels about right to my ear.
Hope this helps.
R. Chest
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2014-06-15 04:55
Not sure what the autograph score says, but remember that many editions of classic pieces have the suggested tempo of the editor rather than something that the composer intended. One man's interpretation. Again, can't say in this instance, as I haven't seen the original manuscript.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-06-15 07:47
Debussy carefully corrected the orchestral score http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Music/Manuscripts/Premiere/.
The Scherzando after rehearsal number 6 (p. 23) has no metronome indication, so it's up to you to set the tempo, remembering that "scherzo" means "joke" in Italian. The flutes and oboes have 16th-note decorations, and I've always felt both lightness and urgency in this section.
I would not take Frank Cohen's tempo changes as gospel, even with Boulez conducting. There's no greater master of the instrument, but his solo playing leaves me cold.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-15 09:53
Clarinetist: I did explicitly say "markings by the composer, not the editor", so this would imply that I am aware that there exists a difference.
Ken: It is true that there is no metronome marking for the scherzando after figure 6, but Debussy indicates: "même mouvement", which one would imagine to mean: the same as at figure 5; also "modérément animé" (identical tempo indications). I agree, Ken, that this would be way too slow; too sluggish and lacking in wit.
I've used the Debussy piece more to illustrate my basic question: is the composer always right in his metronome markings? In the Debussy piece, I think this is just a matter of negligence: Debussy's failing to indicate a new tempo metronomically. When a composer conducts or plays his music, his or her tempi are often very different from what they themselves have indicated. Then again, this might be due to the fact that they are composers, not performers.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-06-15 12:14
>> In the Debussy piece, I think this is just a matter of negligence: Debussy's failing to indicate a new tempo metronomically. When a composer conducts or plays his music, his or her tempi are often very different from what they themselves have indicated. Then again, this might be due to the fact that they are composers, not performers. <<
I wouldn't call it "failing" (or maybe it's alanguage barrier that I don't know what this expression means). Things like tempo - and many other things - can be different depending on the situation. It's possible and sometimes likely that someone purposely doesn't indicate a specific tempo.
The tempo of some parts can depend on the tempo of other parts, also without a specific tempo. It can depend on who is playing, with different tempos sounding better with different players, but not in a bad way (if it is in a bad way, there's sometimes the option of not playing it).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-15 14:43
Claribass: you've made some interesting points. "Failing to" has nothing to do with "not succeeding in" in this context. It simply means "omitting to".
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2014-06-15 17:34
My feeling is that in general one must us common sense and their good musical sense as well. I feel that since most composers probably play their scores at the piano when composing, or computers today, they may write a mm marking that doesn't make as much sense when performing it on the instrument or ensemble it's being performed on. With the exception of the piano of course. We all know about the differences on opinion in performing the Beethoven works but of course there's good reason for the differences of opinion in his case. My feeling is that one should play what a composer indicated but not nessasary as a science but as an art. In other words, if a section says 100 to the quarter and one feels it flows better at 108 for the player I won't go crazy to denounce it if it's played in good taste. I feel it's all about being musical and as I said, using common sense. Playing something much faster than a composer indicated, say 120 or 132 instead of 100 because you can makes very little musical sense to me. In the case of the Debussy writing mm 72 and someone plays it at 76, maybe even 82 as Russianoff wrote on my part, won't get my undies in a knot. (I play it somewhere in-between myself.) I know, I'm not being a purest, I can live with that if it sounds "musical".
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2014-06-15 17:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-15 19:52
Dear Ed, Eminently sensible comment as usual! 82 at that particular point of the Debussy is far slower than what most people do, wouldn't you say? I'm sure you had many, many ooccasions to play pieces in the presence of composers during your long tenure at Baltimore. What was their attitude to their own metronome markings and to liberties conductors would take when they drifted away from these indications?
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-06-16 01:16
My own stance is that I prefer 'problems' to 'solutions' when I'm in the process of generating a performance.
So, this tempo indication is pretty clearly a problem that won't go away.
You can wobble around, looking for SOLUTIONS: "Boulez is a stickler, and he did this,"; "Frank Cohen played that, BUT his playing leaves me cold,"; "RUSSIANOFF wrote that," etc etc.
In the end you're left with YOU, and what Debussy wrote, and you have to make up your OWN mind.
So, here's my advice. Play it at the tempo Debussy wrote, several times, with your pianist – or perhaps with your playalong computer track.
If you're any good – and if you aren't, perhaps you should abort the whole enterprise – you'll find that HOW you play changes. And that might make you understand Debussy a little better. 'Scherzando' can occur in different guises.
Then, see how you want to play it. You might decide that you want it faster, but...how much faster?
I thought I'd written here, but I now can't find, my story of how I once rehearsed and then performed in Italy the Brahms F minor sonata with Valery Afanasiev, a pianist who worked quite extensively with Gidon Kremer. We didn't know each other, so the runthrough was our first encounter.
He began around crotchet=60, and during the seemingly infinite length of time before my entry, I had to work out what to do.
What happened was, I found myself playing not only at his tempo, but perhaps even slightly more expansively. (Check with your metronome:-)
And, we went through the whole first movement like that. It was really quite instructive, and we both played very differently from how we might have played at a faster tempo.
At the end he said, "Good.
"Did you think, perhaps...it was a little SLOW?"
"No-oo...," I replied...
The performance two days later was a bit faster, but not by very much. And nobody commented on the tempo.
Tony
Post Edited (2014-06-16 01:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2014-06-16 03:59
I was waiting for someone to comment on the second of Stravinsky's Three Pieces. I recall seeing a note at the beginning of the three indicating that the metronome markings should be "strictly adhered to."
The second is very difficult, especially at Stravinsky's tempo of eighth note=168. I've heard a number of performances, and many of the best ones are played a bit slower. My observation--for whatever it's worth--is that there are a only a few elite players who play it well at Stravinsky's tempo.
The liveliness of a concert hall should also be a factor when selecting a tempo.
In a very lively hall, with a lot of reverberation, I would think that the second piece, played at 168, would sound like a messy jumble of notes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marcia
Date: 2014-06-16 05:39
I can't answer for dead composers, but from my limited experience with living composers--they are extremely picky about every aspect of their music. One piece was rather "off the wall", the composer was on the rehearsal room, and it started with various instruments coming in and sustaining a particular pitch, in succession. This was a long time ago, but I don't think there was much time indication, rather free flowing. But the composer was adamant that coming in a nano second too early or late was not acceptable. It became a very frustrating experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2014-06-16 08:17
"In the end you're left with YOU, and what Debussy wrote, and you have to make up your OWN mind."
Precisely.
But it depends on the composer, Ruben, as you know. Debussy said "You know what I think about metronome markings? they're all right for one measure, like those roses which only last for a morning."
I bet if you asked Steve Reich, he'd have a totally different answer.
Post Edited (2014-06-16 08:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-16 13:53
Clarinetist: No, I didn't know the Debussy quote; it sounds very "Debussiste". Tony: it irks me no end when a student plays something for me and argues: "Leister does this, Meyer does this, etc."; as if that proved anything. Furthermore, Leister and Meyer usually do nothing of the sort. The student didn't listen closely enough. It is usually the mature students and not the youngsters that do this. I certainly enjoy what other people do, but ultimately, it is the printed score, my rational analysis of it coupled with my intuitive artistic sense that makes me decide what to do.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2014-06-16 17:24
Ruben, Yes, I've had many occasions to perform a new piece with the BSO with the composer present. A few solo or ensemble pieces too. I can say from experinece that more then one time the conductor would turn to the composer and say something to the effect of "don't you think that was a better tempo" and I never remember the composer saying no. And I'm not only talking about young unknown composers. Of course it didn't happen all the time but it did happen. Sometimes nothing was said, the conductor just did it at a different tempo, and it worked. We did one piece by a local composer and there was a long passage for the woodwinds that was impossible to play at the tempo he wrote, I'm telling you impossible. Something like sextuplets in large intervals at 160 to a beat for a whole page changing on every beat, no pattern. Everyone was bitching about it before the rehearsal. At the first reading it was chaos so the conductor gave us "that look". One of the flute players said, that's just impossible to play at that tempo. The composer came up on stage and said, oh, that's just an effect, just fake it. He doesn't know how close he came to getting a clarinet part in his face. That was not the first time I've heard a composer say that either. It's just an effect. Composers write on a computer today and the computer can do anything. Just thought I'd share that with you all. :-)
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-06-16 18:14
"So, here's my advice. Play it at the tempo Debussy wrote, several times, with your pianist – or perhaps with your playalong computer track."
But Debussy just wrote "Scherzando" without any metronome indication. That's what this thread is about.
Of course you must find a tempo where the music "works right," but for me that's too indefinite. That's why I wrote about the meaning of scherzo and noted what else was going on in the score. The flutists and oboists have to feel comfortable playing the little twiddles, but the figures must be like champagne bubbles.
You can't play music effectively without knowing what others are doing. Most clarinetists master the solo part, but very few master the score. Knowing EVERYTHING about what's happening gives guidance, from Debussy himself, about the proper tempo, which is one that works for everyone, playing together.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-06-16 22:33
Ken Shaw wrote: >> Quote:
"So, here's my advice. Play it at the tempo Debussy wrote, several times, with your pianist – or perhaps with your playalong computer track." >> But Debussy just wrote "Scherzando" without any metronome indication. That's what this thread is about. >>
Well, let's sort this out.
For most clarinet players, namely those playing with a piano and with the published piano and clarinet parts, Debussy wrote what AMOUNTS TO a metronome indication, namely 'Meme mouvement' both 7 and 9 bars after figure 6, with the addition, 'crotchet equals crotchet' to the instruction 9 bars after figure 6.
At figure 6, he had written 'a Tempo (Moderement anime)' – sorry about the missing accents.
To what does that 'a Tempo' refer?
Well, it can only refer to figure 5, which is marked 'Moderement anime (SCHERZANDO) crotchet=72' [my capitals].
Now, there IS a change in what Ken Shaw has called the 'corrected' orchestral score. That is, that there is no repeated (from 7 bars after figure 6, which remains) 'Meme mouvement, crotchet equals crotchet', 9 bars after figure 6.
But we have no prima facie reason to change tempo at the 'Scherzando' marking 13 bars after figure 6. The accompanying figurations in the music are the same, two bars later, and in the music following.
So, I'd say the mystery remains.
Had Debussy wanted to correct performances that took his 'Meme mouvement' instructions too literally, would he simply have REMOVED that one instruction?
Why would he not have written, for example, 'Un peu plus vite' 9 bars after figure 6, along with the 'Scherzando', which as I've pointed out already occurs at figure 5?
>> Of course you must find a tempo where the music "works right," but for me that's too indefinite. That's why I wrote about the meaning of scherzo and noted what else was going on in the score. The flutists and oboists have to feel comfortable playing the little twiddles, but the figures must be like champagne bubbles.
>> You can't play music effectively without knowing what others are doing. Most clarinetists master the solo part, but very few master the score. Knowing EVERYTHING about what's happening gives guidance, from Debussy himself, about the proper tempo, which is one that works for everyone, playing together.>>
I can hardly disagree with any of this, since I say similar things very often here myself.
What I had wanted to say in my post was that, GIVEN the mystery, we might well want to take it on board – at least temporarily – in order to undercut what our ears are 'used to' from recorded (and other) performances.
I play that passage 'well faster' than 72 – as my children might have said a few years ago – but not as fast as some.
Why?
Because, as someone else pointed out was true for him, those 'some' don't feature very significantly in my world.
Tony
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-06-16 22:49
I can't be the only one here for whom the mention of champagne bubbles immediately brought Lawrence Welk to mind. Well... maybe I am. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-16 23:32
Tony Pay: the original Durand edition (has there been another since?) is probably pretty slipshod and rife with mistakes, omissions ,etc., knowing Durand and French editions in general. The clarinettist Guy Dangain, whom you probably know personally, has done considerable work on the original manuscript, which he studied at the Bibliothèque Nationale. I will try to get in touch with him.
Just as a matter of curiosity: why did you go along with the very eccentric Afanasiev's preposterous tempo? What was behind your attitude? As musicians have to play together and get on at least in playing terms, I'm always interested in psychological reactions to different rehearsal and performing situations.
To conclude, isn't it nice to talk about music, discussions on barrels permitting?
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: runner
Date: 2014-06-17 00:21
I like pianist Angela Hewitt's comment the best: "The music will tell you how fast to play a piece."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-06-17 00:55
>> Tony Pay: the original Durand edition (has there been another since?) is probably pretty slipshod and rife with mistakes, omissions ,etc., knowing Durand and French editions in general. The clarinettist Guy Dangain, whom you probably know personally, has done considerable work on the original manuscript, which he studied at the Bibliothèque Nationale. I will try to get in touch with him. >>
Actually, I don't know Guy Dangain. But that seems like a good move:-)
>> Just as a matter of curiosity: why did you go along with the very eccentric Afanasiev's preposterous tempo? >>
But what could I have done?-)
In the moment, I was shocked. But, I did know that different tempi can reveal different aspects of a piece. My instinctive reaction was not to betray that knowledge, and to send the meta-message that I was up for it.
That reaction turned out to have been the right one...
...and actually, it's partly as a result of that experience that I've taken the line I have in this thread.
Afanasiev was interesting in many ways, as appeared in our subsequent conversations. He claimed to live in the Palace of Versailles, and to have had a relationship with Greta Garbo at the end of her life. He also said that in the group including Gidon Kremer, he was often vilified for taking 'unexpectedly unreasonable' slow tempi in concert performances.
>> ... isn't it nice to talk about music, discussions on barrels permitting? >>
Indeed:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2014-06-17 06:56
If one can't perform something with a certain amount of individual interpretation, and that means tempo as well, within good taste of course as I mentioned earlier, you might as well just listen to a computers performance. That way a composer can have it performed exactly as they want, right down to the exact mm marking to the fraction as well as "perfect" dynamics as they indicate in the music. Why bother have a live performance if one wants to hear the exact intent of the composer. (OK, a little tongue in cheek, maybe)
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Klarnetisto
Date: 2014-06-17 21:05
I've been doing a lot of research lately on tempo in performance practice (especially tempo change in romantic music when not indicated in the score).
I've found that the prevalent attitude was that metronome marks in the 19th and into the early 20th century were meant to be treated as mere suggestions. Then, they were meant only as suggested _opening_ tempi, with the understanding that tempo would ordinarily change over the course of a movement even when there was no indication in the score to do so.
Mahler wrote that metronome marks were almost meaningless, because "unless the music was to be ground out like a barrel organ," the tempo would ordinarily have changed by the second measure! Remember that Mahler was known more as a conductor in his day than as a composer, and was regarded as among the very best in the field. Richard Strauss (also a top conductor) said that Mahler was one of the only conductors who really understood tempo change. Mahler's own conducting scores had a number of metronome marks for tempo changes in them that didn't appear in the final scores; he obviously assumed that it was up to conductors to make their own choices in that area. The case was similar with Elgar and his scores -- another composer-conductor who was noted for great freedom of tempo.
This started to change over the course of the 20th century. It's said that Paul Hindemith carried a pocket metronome with him at all times, and would produce it to check tempi whenever there was a question, and insisted that his indicated mark be observed exactly!
Klarnetisto
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-06-17 21:26
Maybe this is an illustration of why composers are often not great conductors of their own compositions (Mahler and Strauss having by reputation been exceptions).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-17 23:39
Dear Klarinetisto: very interesting and researched. We will all give that some thought. You are right to say or imply that there is a difference between a composer not respecting his metronomoe markings because he hasn't got the necessary performance skills (example: Ravel) and a Mahler or Strauss, who were master conductors
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Klarnetisto
Date: 2014-06-18 03:18
The composers whose work with tempi I've been studying have all been master performers as well: Mahler, Franck, Pierné, Elgar, Scriabin...
Klarnetisto
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-18 08:43
Klarinetisto: How about writing a book about your findings? Surely there should be a need, a market and a readership for this topic.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-06-18 22:19
Klarnet: Please add Bartok to the list; a fine pianist and very meticulous in his metronome markings, which few people respect.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-06-18 23:41
Scott Joplin said, "Never play ragtime fast at any time".
Joshua Rifkin and many others have respected this. A great many others (most?) have not. "Maple Leaf Rag" is routinely played at a ridiculous speed... Disney Main Street pianist and such. So which pianist is more of a musician- the one who heeds the composer's wishes? ...or the one who does not?
I suppose the Main Street pianist's version of Claire de Lune might not be so swift either. And to be fair, to play "Maple Leaf Rag" at its original brisk march tempo in Disneyland or Magic Kingdom might not be all that well received. Musicians depart from audience expectations at their peril.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-06-19 06:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
