An Investigation Into Interpretive Options of Selected Clarinet Works

How does it go? An investigation into interpretive options of selected clarinet works Author Smorti, Nathaniel Mark James Published 2018-02 Thesis Type Thesis (Masters) School Queensland Conservatorium DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/3108 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/380573 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au 1 How does it go? An investigation into interpretive options of selected clarinet works. Mr Nathaniel Smorti BMus(hons), PGDip, MMus(perf) Queensland Conservatorium Arts, Education, and Law Griffith University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Music Research February 2018 2 Abstract: This submission examines and compares different approaches to preparing and performing a specific programme of Western concert clarinet repertoire. Historic and modern sources concerning contrasting performance approaches are used to inform preparation, performance, and evaluation of multiple concerts of identical repertoire yet differing approach. The paper reflects on the implications of these approaches on the performer, clarinet technique, musical outcomes, and interactions with other parties. An introductory chapter provides insight into the background of the researcher, details the research process, and compares the project to existing literature. Following this introduction is an autoethnographic narrative which details the data-gathering stage of the project. This leads into a discussion of the implications of the project and recommendations for future research. The submission consists of this paper and the accompanying three audio-visual recordings. Those who will benefit most from this study include music teachers, students, and performers who hope to develop awareness of the range of interpretive options available when approaching repertoire of this kind. While clarinet repertoire formed the basis of the action research portion of the study the issues the project deals with, and its conclusions, have application for the wider musical community. 3 Statement of Originality This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself. _____________________________ Nathaniel Smorti 4 Table of Contents: Title Page Abstract Statement of Originality Table of Contents Acknowledgements I. Foreword 6 II. Method 8 III. Review of Relevant Literature 10 IV. Project Design 17 V. Concert One 19 VI. Concert Two 24 VII. Concert Three 35 VIII. Conclusion 46 IX. Appendix One: Final Concert Programme Notes 50 X. References 52 5 I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Meta Weiss and Mr Paul Dean, collaborative artists Dr Stephen Emmerson, Mitchell Leigh, and Alex Raineri, Dr Vanessa Tomlinson, the Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre, as well as my many colleagues, friends, and family who contributed to this study. This study was made possible through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. 6 Foreword: The following account is intended to provide understanding and transparency to my background as an artist and the personal rationale for this project. In 2015 I was a student in an international summer school under a high-profile clarinet performer and teacher. In my first lesson with this teacher, playing the Allegro Amabile from Brahms’ Sonata for Clarinet and Piano No. 2 the master told me, “Your playing is very special, but too special. You are playing Smorti, not Brahms.” In the same trip I attended the International Clarinet Festival in Madrid and was struck by the variance in performances from different artists. It occurred to me that these artists’ concerts were different not simply because of their musical decisions and differing approaches of technique; deeper than this, there was great variance in why they were performing. Some would talk about their desire to create historically correct performances or to re-create the composer’s will as represented by the text. Some saw their role as communicating to their audience as engagingly as possible, delivering an accessible product. Some gave importance to their own voice; what they – as person and artist – wanted to express. I had recently completed a Master of Musical Performance, yet not until this summer school experience did I realise the impact these questions have on how I create music. I had not confronted the idea and implications of: Why I create music might not be why another creates music. Even the use of the word ‘create’ implied a value judgment which is not universally shared. I had always been encouraged by my tutors to use music to express what I felt, for the pleasure of my audience and my own edification. The way I would achieve this would be by aiming to convince and express myself through a given phrase or piece and rely on shared human experience to, hopefully, cause my audience to feel something in response. The above experience was a realisation for me that not only do other rationales exist, but that my rationale would in some contexts be contested. 7 I am not supposing there is a correct answer to the above issue, or that one’s own answer should be static. Musicians from different countries and schools approach music in varying ways, shifting through phases of their career. The lack of a static answer does not detract from the imperative implications of the question. Whether consciously or otherwise, the answer to this question can govern every musical decision made; whether deciding what tone quality is desired, how to articulate a given phrase, or what tempi will be employed and how much these will vary. Technical or musical, every decision is made in reference to a set of values which are rarely made explicit or openly discussed, at least in my own experience. Furthermore, different approaches to this issue can frame interactions with other musicians, particularly when one party is in a position of authority, such as a teacher, examiner, or judge. An example of this is the experience of a music student receiving feedback from several teachers, examiners, adjudicators, or other musical authorities. To use the example of Brahms’ Sonata No. 2, I. Allegro Amabile, I have been told that I clearly do not understand the Sonata as my chosen tempo was too fast – that its placement at the end of Brahms’ life requires a slow tempo to be used. The very same tempo has also been criticised as being far too slow by another teacher, as clearly Allegro Amabile is marked. I have been taught by various sources that the different sections must keep a constant tempo, and by others that the tempo should change to reflect the contrasting characters. I have been taught that vibrato must be used, must not be used, and is optional. I have been taught that measure ten must speed up, slow down, and remain in tempo; that the Tranquillo should be slower, the same tempo, and that the tempo change is in fact four bars beforehand. It has been said to me that leaps should be smooth and effortless, and that leaps should show effort and struggle. I write this not to bemoan or criticise the demonstrated differences of execution; I delight in the huge variation that can be found in recordings, performances, and teachings of the Sonata. However, these differences are not merely variations of aesthetic opinion, and neither are they presented as such. In each case, the details of these prescriptions are part of a larger idea of what it means to play the Sonata. I have been instructed to efface myself and to serve 8 Brahms’ intentions (often to defend a prescription of dubious historical validity). I have been given freedom to express myself. I have also been told that this is simply ‘how the work goes’. This project is the formal documentation of a personal journey to explore the wealth of variance in possible answers as to why I perform, how this affects the technical and musical decisions I make on a momentary basis, both in preparation for a concert and in the performance and how these different approaches may affect interactions with those around me. Though not widely discussed in the pedagogical contexts I have experienced, these issues have been considered widely in the published literature. In his book, Beyond the Score, Cook identifies many of the prevailing assumptions underlying much contemporary performance and pedagogical practices as modernist. He writes: This book is not intended as an attack on modernist performance, but it does show how modernist assumptions have boxed in both performance and thinking about performance, and it illustrates some of the fundamentally different performance options that have been accordingly ruled out. The key point does not have to do with playing this way or that way. It is that music affords an apparently unlimited variety of interpretive options, and we could be much more adventurous in our exploration of them if our thinking about performance was more flexible. (2013, p.3) It is my hope that the documentation of this endeavour will not only add to the wealth of knowledge concerning clarinet performance practice, but also meaningfully demonstrate the validity of the interpretive options Cook refers to, provoking other performers and music students to actively engage with these questions for themselves. Method: My research question is: How can different

Load more