 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2023-09-09 15:55
Küffner's Quintetto op. 32 has enjoyed great popularity since the mid twentieth century when it was published under the name of Carl Maria von Weber as "Introduction, Theme and Variations". It's an attractive work in its own right - the beautiful introduction alone is reason enough to perform it, and the variations are a gift.
This new edition presents the original scoring with two violas, a 2nd violin part is offered as an alternative for viola 1. You can download it free from the Historical Clarinets website:
https://mozartbassetclarinet.wordpress.com/kuffner-quintetto-op-32/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-09-09 18:10
Just another example of my "childhood" being taken from me. First it was the "Wagner Adagio" and now this. Even Leister recorded this work as Weber.
oh well
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gerwin
Date: 2023-09-09 22:03
I’m with you Paul. Hours of practising the 32th notes, and now it appears to be somebody else’s. Feeling old…
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2023-09-10 13:06
Oh for heavens sake.
I bought the music for the Baermann Adagio (from his Quintet) at Ward Music (Vancouver) in 1988, it was marked as "Baermann, formerly ascribed to Wagner"... a similar note was made on my Sabine Meyer LP.
No big secret, it's been known since the 1950s that this was NOT by Wagner.
Likewise, the Kuffner piece (which I first performed in 1987, my first ever experience playing with a string quartet I recall) has LONG LONG LONG been known to be by Kuffner NOT Weber, it wasn't hard for me to work out as a 14 year old (a few years before playing the piece, I was lent a pile of ICA Clarinet mags and read an article that included this fact) so I'm sure you grown ups can accept the fact.
btw in the days before IMSLP it was quite difficult to get the parts for the Baermann, I had that piano reduction from Ward music, and wrote out string parts from that (aided by close listening to my Meyer LP). I still have the hand written parts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2023-09-10 13:09
Thanks Craig, for the link to the Kueffner, great to have that- my old copy of this is just for "standard" string quartet, not the 2 violas.
Thanks for sharing!
(and you're right about the introduction)
Post Edited (2024-04-09 15:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-09-14 00:47
While I (like many of us) was presented this piece in high school. I was never provided names/titles of examples of the piece being played in recorded format.
I'm curious whether there are "go-to" recordings that everyone used in the 1960s-1990s.
I'm further curious whether folks here would mind sharing a link to their "favorite" online version.
I've been on YouTube listening to random versions - David Shifrin's stood out as unique to me so far - the stretching and compressing of timing, the addition of turns, etc., but I'd love to follow further recommendations.
Thanks!
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
Post Edited (2023-09-14 07:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-09-14 04:42
Thanks Cdh!
That was very interesting. Dieter played with the pulse a lot too - but in a very different way than Shifrin. Dieter seemed more to pull/push entire phrases, where Shifrin seemed to pull/push measures. The added embellishments each added were quite different as well. Pretty cool stuff!
I'd love to see other recommended examples!
Thanks,
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-09-14 07:06
Thanks Paul!
The example you shared is more in line with how I was taught to play the piece (if I could dream of playing that well!)
However, I notice one thing in common amongst many of the samples I've listened to (including the Leister link you provided)...is that at measure 153 (referencing the music linked to in the original post), folks are playing two quarter notes. Where the music shows a dotted quarter followed by an eighth note ![[E5]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/e5.gif) to ![[Bb5]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/bb5.gif) . Is this just a versioning difference in the example provided, or is this simply how most of the artists choose to contrast the change in pace coming in the next measure?
Thanks again for another fun example!
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-09-14 15:37
I quickly played through the "Historical Clarinets" edition and think there are a fair number of errors in there. I would like to go through it comparing with the edition I have (not a prime edition by any means......but it only has one note issue that I know of).
Promise......I'll get back to it in a day or so.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cdh
Date: 2023-09-14 17:31
Hi Paul,
There was just one wrong note (bar 55, note 1) which was correct in the score anyway. It's fixed in the part now.
Any other "errors" which you think you have spotted reflect the original print, which incidentally is completely free of wrong notes in all the parts. So the readings unfamiliar to all of us cannot simply be dismissed as printing errors.
The handwritten fair copy of op. 33, which Küffner submitted to the publisher, is now on IMSLP. It shows a very diligent composer and scribe at work. Completely clear and free of errors.
Rather, the edition of op 32 we all grew up with was based on a hand written copy of the original printed edition. And we don't know what the editor, Kohl, may have changed because no-one knows where the source he used is.
In any case, this new edition includes a score so that those passages such as the broken chords in bar 123 & 131 can been shown to be correct. Somebody, I suspect Kohl, recomposed the cello part, changing the harmony at the cadence to enable the alteration to the clarinet part.
If you liked the piece when it was Weber, maybe you still like it as Küffner - and he wrote lots for clarinet - and much of it is on IMSLP.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-09-14 18:27
See, this is where we differ in opinion. If the "original notes" don't make sense harmonically then perhaps there were notes written incorrectly from the start. There is a rather modern work I'm involved with now where there is a clear use of 'blues scales.' The printed part would suggest that you follow through with a low Ab to match the throat Ab earlier in the bar............however, there are MANY things that point to that not being the composers intent.
We may actually consult the composer (eventually) on this one but as far as Kuffner is concerned, he may just have to rely on those who put all their faith in "print."
....................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2023-09-15 00:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-09-15 03:54
Yes, I was a bit rough to start. But you KNOW what I meant.
Now for the corrections (you should have both parts in front of you for this):
o Meas.8 C passing note (and the following B) sets up the C maj chord of next bar (makes it sound more like meas 12)
o Meas 55 C....not a B
o Meas 123 the "Weber" outlines the G dom 7th chord - why not?
o Meas 125 should follow the contour of meas 118 (an established dominant chord noodle)
o Meas 131 Again, it's nicer to define Dom 7th (more fun to play and to HEAR)
o Meas 217 last note of first group of six should be G. The "corrected" F natural makes the next F, which is sharp, sound "lonely." I actually like the contour of the next group of six better in the "corrected" score.......I'll give you guys that one.
o Meas 221 and 222 here the material opts to go "down" rather than squeeze out a high G. That's fine and really a matter of which you prefer
As far as our problem with Ab vs A natural goes, the composer responded! He did NOT want the following As in the bar to be flat (as one would normally do within a bar). So there may be many instances of this in historic music where the composer either submitted an error or felt that we should know what he meant (as well as the age old publishing error possibility).
I'm not completely "ragging" on research, and "sticking to the integrity of the score," merely pointing out that musical judgement can clear up some "obvious" errors .......sometimes.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 622
Date: 2023-09-15 19:50
Paul Aviles wrote:
> I'm not completely "ragging" on research, and "sticking to the
> integrity of the score," merely pointing out that musical
> judgement can clear up some "obvious" errors .......sometimes.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. I am obviously not Craig, and I am not speaking for him—I am simply using my own musical judgement to consider (not definitively determine) why certain editorial decisions have been made:
> o Meas.8 C passing note (and the following B) sets up the C
> maj chord of next bar (makes it sound more like meas 12)
C passing to B on beat 3 of bar 8 and then to F# is somewhat awkward melodically and disrupts the neighbor motion on beat 3 in the corrected edition. C passing to B functionally reinforces G major, which could make sense in a context where the underlying harmony wasn't a seventh—it's already moving elsewhere.
What ultimately sets up B-flat major in bar 9 is the F7 that occupies all of bar 8. Bar 12 is split with Bb major in the first two beats, so passing tones all in B-flat major DO effectively lead into beat 3, where the harmony changes again to F7.
Additionally, if the goal is to make bar 8 to sound like bar 12, neighbor motion on beat 3 over a dominant seventh accomplishes this more effectively than a passing tone on a weak beat.
> o Meas 55 C....not a B
Craig noted this as corrected in the part two posts ago.
> o Meas 123 the "Weber" outlines the G dom 7th chord - why not?
This doubles the seventh in the violin part and robs the violin of the opportunity to present the seventh in its position late in the bar. This melodic device is incredibly common in this and many other works.
> o Meas 125 should follow the contour of meas 118 (an
> established dominant chord noodle)
In bar 118, the clarinet doubles the first viola—in bar 125, the clarinet doubles the violin. It's the B section, this change provides additional textural interest and has the benefit of signaling to the listener that the music is moving somewhere else after the repeat.
> o Meas 131 Again, it's nicer to define Dom 7th (more fun to
> play and to HEAR)
Same as bar 123.
> o Meas 217 last note of first group of six should be G. The
> "corrected" F natural makes the next F, which is sharp, sound
> "lonely." I actually like the contour of the next group of six
> better in the "corrected" score.......I'll give you guys that
> one.
A G in this position (concert F) is dissonant to the E-flat major underneath. An F in this position also mirrors the motion between the identical position in the previous bar. The F# in beat 2 isn't particularly lonely, at least as far as its function is concerned—it strengthens the G (and the underlying harmony) before moving to the flattened seventh at the end of the bar.
Again, this is one person's opinion, and it is not my intention to invalidate anyone's preferences. Corrected editions are not the be-all/end-all. Prominent "urtext" publishers still make mistakes, or new research comes to light that may necessitate textual changes that cut against our previous understanding of the work. No research, performance, or interpretation is definitive—they only serve to enrich our musical understanding and keep the art alive.
I for one am very grateful to Craig for his work in presenting this and many other pieces of music (all of it completely free to us, by the way), and I look forward to his future contributions toward understanding the clarinet literature.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-09-16 18:56
Dear Craig Hill,
I owe you a profound apology. I was not aware that you the person behind the website "Historical Clarinets," or your impressive resume, or your superlative playing. It would never be my intent to cudgel any creative or interpretive artist because the end result does not agree with my taste. So had I known you were the font of this fresh look at Joseph Kuffner I probably would not have even responded about notes (good or bad in my opinion which is just that).
however
Since the cat is out of the proverbial bag I did respond to the invitation to listen to more Kuffner and enjoyed these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feno9AB-0d0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ij6GyJX5fo
For what it's worth I found myself responding more positively to the linear representations of the underlying harmonies in these selections. This is only my opinion.
and again,
I am deeply sorry for what was basically inexcusable cyberbullying.
..............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2023-09-17 02:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2023-09-17 01:49
Just to make it clear- it's Craig Hill (from the Melbourne Symph) rather than Chris Hill (who is also an excellent fellow).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-09-17 02:03
yes, sorry again, it is indeed Craig Hill.
I am correcting my first apology now.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
