Download mozrtperformancefinal

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