Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Considerations on the Performance of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto K622 Thomas Puwalski Musc 640 Dr. Richard King Twenty-first century clarinetists contemplating a performance of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto, K622, confront choices that performers of prior generations didn’t have to face. Clarinetists face the usual performance practice decisions musicians make in interpreting the music of Mozart, such as tempo, articulation, and phrasing. But the clarinetist faces a few additional challenges such as ornamentation, authenticy of notes, and even what instrument to play. The Clarinet Concerto comes from the last weeks of Mozart’s life. One of his friends and colleagues was the clarinetist Anton Stadler, whose playing inspired Mozart to write a piano trio, the quintet for clarinet and strings, and the obbligato parts in La Clemenza di Tito. Much is known about the relationship between Mozart and Stadler, and much of it has been used to speculate about modern performances of K622. The only existing autograph of the concerto is a sketch that Mozart had started in 1787 for a basset horn in G. He drafted the main melodic line for two hundred bars before setting it aside. In 1791 he returned to it, changed the key from G to A major and changed it from basset horn in G to basset clarinet in A, the latter being designed by Stadler and built to his specifications. The basset clarinet was a clarinet that had an extended range to a written low C, four semitones lower than that of a normal clarinet. Neither Mozart’s autograph nor Stadler’s instruments have survived. Compounding the problem, the earliest publication by Johann Adre was done in 1801, ten years after the piece was premiered, and was arranged for a clarinet of normal range and not the basset clarinet, which Stadler was known to have performed on. 1 Performance practice is often dependent on what is fashionable at the time, and for the first 75 years of the last century, all of the recordings of the Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto were done on modern, non-extended clarinets, and didn’t deviate from the published notes. An in-depth look at the performances of some of those recordings is available in Mozart’s Clarinet Concert: A Clarinetists View1. In this work the writer, David Etheridge, analyzes the recordings of Anthony Giggliotti, Robert Marcellus, Rudolf Jettle, Harold Wright and others. The first chapter presents a formal analysis of the concerto and some of the history surrounding the piece; the remaining chapters are devoted to detailed description of tone color, articulation, trills, and overall philosophy of the performance. Etheridge does this with great clarity, but in the end, what you are left with is performances that different in only subtle ways. All the performers essentially are playing from the same editions, with dynamics, articulations, and phrasing all very similar, and all the performers covered in Ethridge’s book use the same cadenza, based on a few measures from the Clarinet Quintet K581. The only real differences in those performances are slight variations in tempo and the handling of the trills, those being the only ornamentation. Having attended master classes with a few of the aforementioned clarinetists, I can say that for some reason the Mozart concerto was thought to be different than any piece written for clarinet. It had become a holy relic, something touched by God, a piece of music so deep in meaning, so sublime in its effect, that a performer dare not change any of the sacred text. In 1948, musicologist George Dazely published these “heretical” words: 1 David Etheridge, Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto: the Clarinetists View. (Gretna. A) 1983. 2 … like most of his works for solo clarinet, Mozart’s Concerto in A (k622) was composed for Anton Stadler. He seems to have been a virtuoso performer on clarinets of various sizes which were being developed at the time, and the solo works that Mozart wrote for him include, in addition to the concerto and the Quintet (581) for A Clarinet, the obligatos to two arias in La Clemenza di Tito; that to “parto, ma tu, ben mio” for Bb clarinet and that to “mon Piu di fiori” for basset horn in F. The basset horns In F and G, as is well known, had extra levers extending their compass down to written low C, a major third beyond that of modern clarinet, and it is clear from the part for it in the first of the Titus arias that Stadler’s B-flat instrument also had this extension. On the other hand, the parts for A clarinet in the Quintet and as present published lie within the ordinary compass of the instrument. It might therefore be supposed that Stadler’s A clarinet, unlike his others, had no extension to the low C--a rather odd state of affairs. It is, however, the writer’s opinion that the solo part in the published text of the concerto (the autograph which is not known) is not as Mozart originally wrote it, but has been adapted to bring it within the usual compass of the clarinet.2 Dazeley goes on to show the measures that would have been altered and offers corrections. These corrections seem very convincing, especially when one compares them to the draft of the concerto for basset horn in G. He concludes his article by saying: It rest with some public-spirited firm of instrument makers to construct an A clarinet with basset horn compass, hand it over to one of our basset horn specialists, and so make it possible for the musical public to hear at any rate the concerto in something like it’s original and authentic form.3 This groundbreaking article has led to an increased scholarship on Mozart and in “authentic” clarinet performances. Though Dazeley’s article mentions nothing on ornamentation in Mozart, most recent recordings of the concerto use generous amounts. This I think is partly due to a translation of Daniel Gottleib Turk’s 1879 keyboard treatise, in which proper ornamentation of contemporary music (1879) was extensively George Dazeley, The Original Text of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto, Music Review, 9 (1948), pp 166. 3 Ibid., pp.171. 2 3 covered. Turk felt that ornamentation, noted and improvised, should follow the character of the music, and extemporary embellishments must be used sparingly and in the right place. … Since the art of variation presumes, in addition to a great deal of knowledge of harmony, a very refined taste, good judgment, skill in execution, security in counting, only an accomplished master, and only when he is when he is well disposed, should attempt to include ornaments of this kind… Only those places should be varied (but only when the composition is repeated) which would otherwise not be interesting enough and become consequently become tedious”4 Turk felt that the nature of ornamentation was changing, due to the fact that composers who had learned their skills in earlier days were now including ornaments as a feature of their melodic lines. He warned against using too many ornaments, especially on melodies already adorned by the composer. There are certain compositions or individual sections which are so communicative and speak directly to the heart of the listener, without any false glitter, that in such cases a beautiful tone corresponding to the character of the music, played softly or strongly, are the only means by which the expression should be made more intense.5 There are some other important sources that assist in developing a more informed performance of Mozart’s Concerto for Clarinet. Colin Lawson’s book, Mozart; Clarinet Concerto6 is certainly worth reading. In it he discusses the historical aspects of the concerto, its origins, performance practice, Stadler’s clarinet, and its revival. He has managed to include all pertinent historical documents on this subject in the bibliography: 4 Turk, Klavierschule (Liepzig and Halle, 1789), translated by Raymond H. Hagg as School of Clavier Playing (Lincoln, NB and London, 1982), pp. 360-1. 5 Ibid., p.313. 6 Colin Lawson, Mozart: Clarinet Concerto (Cambridge: University Press, 1996). 4 that alone would be justification for this book. But as good a book as this is, you really can’t “hear” it, and that is where Colin Lawson goes one better. In his 1989 CD7, Lawson gave an absolutely splendid performance of the Concerto with the Hanover Band. For this recording Lawson used a specially constructed historical reproduction of a basset clarinet. When listening to the recording, the first thing that struck me was how similar a reproduction instrument can sound to the modern equivalent. The sound is just not that different, and falls comfortably within modern concepts of clarinet tone. What is very different is the pitch of the recording, it is very low compared to the modern American A=440 pitch standard. The Hanover band also uses a harpsichord on the concerto, something that modern scores do not. The wonderful thing that Lawson does in this performance is his ornamentation. He uses it very much the way Turk described in his treatise, always keeping with the character of the music. The transcription below is taken from this recording. I use it not to illustrate how this concerto should be played, but to illustrate what some of the possibilities are. I caution the reader, the following passages are for study purposes only, the ornaments that are used are the result of study and a complete understanding of an historical context. To do a performance using a transcription of another performer’s ornamentation would defeat one of the purposes of ornamentation, which is to allow the performer to interject some of his knowledge and style into a piece. 7 Mozart, Symphony No. 40, Basset Clarinet Concerto, The Hanover Band and Colin Lawson, Nimbus 5228, 1990 Compact Disk. 5 The first place in the concerto that Lawson deviates from the written part occurs in bars 119 and 120, and it is in the second reiteration of the material that ornaments are added, and only one different note is added in bar 119. In bar 120 it is a short scale passage that encases the goal tone. In the Nimbus performance, any time ornaments are played; they are played with a decrease in the dynamic level and played in a way that makes them recede into the context of the piece. I’ve written the notes as they appear in the Breitkof and Haertel edition on the top stave and the added embellishments that Colin Lawson adds on the second. I’ve only added a few bars prior to the ornamented bars, due to space constraint. The next occurrence of ornamentation is at the first half-cadence. What I find remarkable is that on all the recordings done prior to 1980; no clarinetists do anything other than a slight retard at this spot. This is a very traditional place for a performer to add embellishments. 6 As the concerto continues and the original material reappears Lawson adds notes judiciously at bar 176, adding a turn, but playing the written melody notes at the same time they occur in the written music. The measures starting at bar 200 illustrate Turk’s concept of using as little ornamentation as possible and only on the repeat of a figure. The added notes occur in bar 203. 7 The section at 216 shows the greatest amount of “composition” by the performer. This kind of playing was unheard-of in prior generations. I feel that is smoothes out the melody and helps the changes of register. The lead-in to the recapitulation bears a striking resemblance to the same spot in the Clarinet Quintet K581, but instead of the arpeggio, Mozart gives us a held note while the flutes and bassoons play the lead-in. Lawson plays a little triplet eingang to lead into the repeat of the main theme. He then ornaments bar 254, with a slight ornamentation that includes the written notes. 8 At the half cadence at bar 316, Lawson adds some higher tension non-chord tones and suspends the C before resting on the B; he then uses Mozart’s lead in notes to take in to the closing section. In listening to Colin Lawson’s performance of the Concerto, I find his use of a six-keyed “original” basset clarinet not the defining quality of this recording. His sensitive use of 9 ornamentation, coupled with his sensitivity to the melodic lines, makes this a great performance period, not just a great period performance. There have been other recordings of the Mozart Concerto since the early 1980s. They fall into three categories: Original period-type instruments with the low C extension; modern extended basset clarinets; and regular modern clarinets. The recordings that I’ve listened to done on modern basset clarinets have exhibited a tendency to not use much, if any, ornamentation, while the performers using the period instruments generally use more. On the recording of the concerto with Franklin Cohen8 as soloist with the Cleveland Orchestra, Cohen uses a modern non-basset clarinet. He has edited the part in keeping with the idea of the basset clarinet’s extended range; he also ornaments the concerto in a very sensitive manner. The non-basset clarinet is the instrument that is used by nearly all orchestral players, while the basset clarinet has become an instrument of soloists and period music specialists. Contemporary clarinetists performing Mozart’s Concerto will have to be able to answer many questions before performing K622. The days of clarinetists performing this piece the way “my teacher told me to” are over. We have choices: of instruments, of ornamentation, and most importantly of style. As long as these questions are being asked and answered, Mozart’s last concerto will be the first concerto clarinetists want to perform. 8 Mozart, Clarinet Concerto, The Cleveland Orchestra, Decca 289 443176-2, 1995 Compact disk. 10 Bibliography Dazeley, George. “The Original Text of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto.” Music Review, 9 (1948), pp 166. Etheridge, David. Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto: the Clarinetists View .Gretna: Pelican Press, 1984. Lawson, Colin. Mozart: Clarinet Concerto. Cambridge: University Press, 1996. Turk, Klavierschule (Liepzig and Halle, 1789), translated by Raymond H. Hagg as School of Clavier Playing (Lincoln, NB and London, 1982), pp. 360-1. Mozart. Symphony No. 40, Basset Clarinet Concerto, The Hanover Band and Colin Lawson, Nimbus 5228, 1990 Compact Disk. Mozart, Clarinet Concerto, The Cleveland Orchestra, Decca 289 443176-2, 1995 Compact disk. 11