QUEENSLAND CONSERVATORIUM GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

THE MOZART BASSET CLARINET CONCERTO K.622: CURRENT PHILOSOPHIES ON FORMING AN INTERPRETATION

Justin Beere, Bmus.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment Of the requirement for the degree of

Bachelor of Music with Honours

October 2009

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this work has not previously been submitted in whole or part by me of any other person for qualification or award in any university. I further certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, this dissertation contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the dissertation itself.

Signed ……………………………….

Date …………………………………

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my ever-patient supervisor Dr Scott Harrison for his guidance and assistance through this project. The study would not have been successful without the very generous case study subjects and my sincere thanks go to Paul Dean and Craig Hill who were so willing to take part and taught me so much in the process. I am indebted to the Librarians of the Queensland Conservatorium and Dr Stephen Emmerson for ideas on content and resources. Gregg Howard and Dr Brydie- Leigh Bartleet were critical in the early phases in assisting with process and formatting issues on projects of this scale. Finally, I would like to thank dear friends Gwenneth Lippiatt, Joy Conolly, Stewart Kelly and David Ouch for their tireless assistance in proofreading, formatting and many early morning discussions on philosophy and content.

iii

ABSTRACT

Mozart’s writings for the clarinet and historically related instruments provide some of the richest and most studied and performed repertoire in the clarinettists’ canon. Mozart’s final instrumental concerto, K622 for the basset clarinet and orchestra has remained one of his most popular works. There is a significant amount of ambiguity surrounding the work, given that Mozart’s autograph is lost and that there is limited information available on the construction of basset clarinets of the late eighteenth century.

Given this ambiguity, attitudes to interpreting the work have evolved significantly over the two centuries since its composition. It is the central aim of this study to gain a sampling of contemporary scholarship and prevailing attitudes towards K622 by analysing performances by Paul Dean and Craig Hill, arguably Australia’s two finest living exponents of the work. These performers both have relatively recent studio compact disc recordings, which will be deconstructed and analysed. The author will then interview each subject discussing their opinion and solutions to score ambiguities. Chapters three and four will present the case studies. In chapters one and two, a framework for the new research will be built around a thorough literature review of current scholarship and research on the history of the piece as well as a brief overview of the arguments and implications of historically informed performance.

The aim of the research is to provide a thorough starting point for any student learning this concerto, containing a brief but highly credible sample of current interpretive trends by two leading and respected soloists.

iv

CONTENTS PAGE

Acknowledgements iii

Abstract iv

Table of Contents v

List of Musical Figures vi

Introduction 1

Chapter 1 Literature Review 4

Chapter 2 Foundations for Performance Analysis 9

Chapter 3 Case Study A – Craig Hill 17

Chapter 4 Case Study B – Paul Dean 29

Conclusion 38

References 42

Bibliography 44

Appendix A 46

Appendix B 47

Appendix C 48

Appendix D 49

Appendix E 50

v

LIST OF MUSICAL FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Leopold Mozart’s definition of whole and half tone trills. 13 2. Example of the main note trills from 1/224-5 and 1/310 13 3. Leopold Mozart on shaping trills 14 4. Detached articulation in bars 1/69, 1/73 and 1/95 19 5. Chalumeau articulations in bars 2/54,and 3/307-13 19 6. Hill’s articulation at 1/143 and 1/148-9 20 7. Hill’s slurring at 1/87-90 and 1/202 - 205 22 8. An alternative suggestion of 1/87 – 90 and 1/202 – 205 22 9. Hill’s non-harmonic articulation bar 1/61 22 10. Hill’s extempore ornamentation bar 1/176 – 179 23 11. Appoggiatura trill – bars 1/74 24 12. Appoggiatura trill bar 1/74 24 13. Eingänge no. 1 – bar 1/127 25 14. Eingänge’s 2 (1/315) and 3 (2/58) Hill’s interpretation 25 15. Hill’s register emendation bats 1/331-334 26 16. Hill’s emendation suggestion 3/311-313 27 17. The Basset ‘B’ natural, bars 1/295, 3/146 – 8 27 18. Pamina – bars 1/115 – 17 30 19. Papageno and Sarastro – bars 1/169 – 173 30 20. Dean’s articulation in 1/87-90 32 21. Dean’s slur placement at 1/110-112 32 22. Dean’s articulation in bars 1/6-8 33 23. Dean’s only use of extempore ornamentation at 2/23 34 24. Dean’s Eingänges 34 25. Dean’s register transposition bar 1/326 35 26. Dean’s register transposition bar 1/331-333 35 27. Dean’s register transposition bar 1/337 36 28. Dean’s slow movement transposition bar 2/54, 2/56 36 29. Dean’s Rondo melodic transposition 36

vi Introduction

Clarinettists are indebted to Mozart, whose compositional fluency and idiomatic writing style undoubtedly brought the clarinet into focus during his career. For centuries Mozart’s music and his relationship with the clarinet have intrigued both performers and scholars alike, especially in relation to the Clarinet Concerto in A, K.622. Since the first performance of this work in 1791 by Austrian clarinettist Anton Stadler, it has ascended a place in the repertoire, to be arguably the finest and indisputably the most performed clarinet concerto; a central pillar for any maturing student or professional soloist.

Given that the work’s original autograph is lost (Rice, 2003) and the instrument for which it was intended is now seldom used in performance (meaning its key system and sound are virtually unknown), arguments concerning the concertos palaeographical authenticity and its subsequent interpretative representations have become a multi-faceted scholarly debate.

It is crucial that the modern performer is not only aware of the musical practices of the composers’ time, but is also knowledgeable of the many ways of interpreting the manuscript. The fundamental ideologies of historically informed performance in many ways conflict with common practices of modern performance, causing points of contention for the aspiring interpreter.

It is within the context of this ambiguous history that the central question of this research arises. In the two centuries since the works’ composition, leading interpretations of the piece have evolved in line with current scholarship and taste. This evolutionary process continues and it is the aim of this dissertation to compare and contrast interpretations of this concerto by renowned contemporary Australian clarinettists Paul Dean and Craig Hill to assess a sample of current scholarship and trends.

In developing the framework for the project, the following methodology has been employed. A thorough literature review was undertaken to ascertain the existing knowledge in the field. It was evident from this review that a number of musical devices could be explored, and these are detailed in chapter three. The main part of the study was conducted through fieldwork, with two exponents of the clarinet concerto. I therefore employed a case study methodology (Stake, 1995) to explore the themes. These performers were chosen because they are Australian musicians to whom the study had ready access, the recentness of their recordings of the work, and the contrasts apparent in their interpretation according to the musical devices described in chapter 3. They were, in this sense, a convenience sample (Bradburn and Sudman, 1988).

The case studies were approached from two perspectives: a preliminary analysis of the recordings was undertaken to establish how each performer approaches indefinite points within the score. The second stage involved semi-structured interviews with each subject to explore the themes from the literature, the musical devices, and material from the recording analysis. This style of interview was chosen because in "an informal interview, not structured by a standard list of questions, the interviewer can choose to deal with the topics of interest in any order, and to phrase their questions as they think best" (Nichols, 1991, p. 131). Semi-structured interviews can also reveal a “richness of data” (Oatley, 1999, p. 1) and this can cause the material to be viewed through different lenses. Each case is therefore presented using the devices as a thematic tool, and conclusions drawn about possible performance practice for clarinettists. The project had approval from the Griffith University Ethics Committee (GU Ref No: QCM/15/09/HREC).

The 2003 ABC Classics Hill performance is on period basset clarinet in ‘A,’ with the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra, a specialist eighteenth century period orchestra. This will be used to illustrate a historically informed performance. The second case study examines Paul Dean’s performance on the modern ‘A’ clarinet with the Queensland Orchestra, which was released by Melba records in 2009. This recording will provide an example utilising modern instruments. Analysis of these recordings will aim to draw connections and highlight differences between the artists’ ideas and their approaches to the concerto and also to gain further insight into the differences or similarities between the two schools of playing.

To the best knowledge of the author, studies of this kind have not yet been undertaken. Etheridge’s text, “Mozart Clarinet Concerto: The Clarinetist’s View,” touches on areas of the interpretive process of eight renowned European clarinetist’s

2 recordings of the twentieth century, however, conclusions arise from Etheridge’s own interpretive investigation (Etheridge, 1983).

In essence this dissertations’ methodology intends to address these questions to provide a convenient resource for clarinettists and musicians seeking some current prevailing ideas on interpretation of Mozart’s clarinet concerto.

The project does not aim to be a definitive guide to performing this work. It does, however, endeavour to act as a companion to aspiring clarinet players wanting to develop their own understanding and interpretation of a work that is so highly regarded within the classical music canon.

3 Chapter I

Literature Review

Over the past sixty years, a resurgence of interest in the Clarinet Concerto has seen vigorous investigation into Mozart’s life and music, in the hope of acquiring greater knowledge and understanding. An instigator of this inquiry was the article printed by George Dazeley in 1948, entitled “The Original Text of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto,” which questioned the authenticity of the first published edition of the concerto by Breitkopf and Härtel. The combination of this article and the rediscovery of a review of the Breitkopf edition printed in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung (AMZ) in March of 1802 prompted an investigation into the originality of Mozart’s concerto, as they knew it. Dazeley proclaimed that the “ . . . solo part in the published text of the Concerto (the autograph of 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” (Dazeley, 1948, 10). It is noteworthy that this statement was made without knowledge of the 1802 AMZ review (Lawson, 1996, p.52). The anonymous reviewer of the AMZ pointed out that

. . . Mozart wrote this concerto for a clarinet, which goes down to c [sic] . . . But since clarinets with such a low range are still rarely encountered today, one must be thankful to the publisher for the transpositions and the alterations made to suit the common clarinet, which might even have improved the concerto. But perhaps it would also have been a good idea to publish it entirely in its original version, and indicate these transpositions and alterations with smaller notes.

It is clear from this point that Mozart’s Concerto was intended for an instrument then unknown to both clarinettists and researchers. An especially valuable source pertaining to this study is the surviving autograph of Mozart’s sketch catalogued by Kochel as K621b (Appendix A). The autograph of K621b, written for basset horn in G, contains the first 199 bars of Mozart’s sketch of the first movement. This sketch was written for virtuoso and close friend of Mozart’s, Anton Stadler and housed since 1951 in Rychen Stiftung, Winterthur. It is clear that Stadler must have added an

4 extension to his basset horn as Mozart’s writing includes notes down to the second ‘C’ below the stave.

The most intriguing discovery within this score is the alterations that Mozart made at bar 180. Studies by Colin Lawson have concluded that Mozart most likely changed his mind while writing the concerto (Lawson, 1995, 35). The first 179 bars of this twenty-four-page score are written in the key of G. Incidentally, a change of key from G to A occurs in the orchestra part with the addition of parts for a pair of Bassoons. It is noticeable that the handwriting also becomes darker and smaller at this point. Lawson suggests in his book “Mozart Clarinet Concerto,” that this is due to the use of a new pen and quill (1996, 52). It is reasonable to conclude that this was the point where Mozart became aware of Stadler’s new extended clarinet and began writing the concerto for a clarinet in ‘A’. The autograph of K.621b has since been reproduced and is available in the Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA) collection, V/14/4.

Pamela Poulin’s studies into Anton Stadler uncovered some revealing information that was included in a concert programme dated on February 20, 1788, announcing the arrival of a new clarinet. Further studies proved fruitful after Poulin discovered another programme of a concert given in Riga in 1794, which contained an engraving of Stadler’s own special instrument. This instrument, named the bass klarinet, was capable of reaching two tones below the normal compass of the clarinet to notes, D#, D, C# and C. Theodor Lotz, the court instrument maker, who made many of Stadler’s clarinets and improvements to the basset horn also built the bass klarinet as described in the programme. To avoid confusion with the modern bass clarinet, clarinettist Jiri Kratochvil in 1957 renamed Lotz’s instrument ‘basset clarinet’ (Cook, 1997, p.10).

In 1957 audiences witnessed the first modern performance on a reconstructed basset clarinet of the clarinet quintet K581 by Kratochvil some five years after the first basset performance of the Clarinet Concerto by Josef Janous (Lawson, 1996, 52). Lawson also states that Kratochvil later went on to publish a series of articles regarding the concerto’s reconstruction. Articles by Alan Hacker further established the belief that Mozart’s composition was for the basset clarinet. The article, “Mozart and the basset clarinet,” written in 1969, explains how “ . . . many players and musicologists had long suspected that the concerto was written for an extended

5 clarinet,” (Hacker, 1969, 360). This information has subsequently established this work as Mozart’s basset clarinet concerto in A, K.622.

It is Anton Stadler, the dedicatee, who is said to be responsible for the loss of the basset clarinet autograph as well as number of other compositions by Mozart, including the clarinet quintet K.581, which he claimed were “stolen” during a tour of Europe during 1791-95. A list of the performance dates can be found in appendix B. A letter from Mozart’s wife Constanze after the composer’s death to the publisher Johann Anton Andre in May of 1800, regarding the location of these works manuscripts suggests this theory:

For information about the works of this kind you should apply to elder Stadler, the clarinettist, who used to possess the original MSS. of several, and has copies of some trios for basset horns that are still unknown, Stadler declared that while he was in Germany his portmanteau, with these pieces in it, was stolen. Others however, assure me that the said portmanteau was pawned there for 73 ducats; but there were, I believe, instruments and other things in it as well (Etheridge, 1983, 12).

Stadler’s last documented performance of this concerto was in 1796 (Lawson, 1996, 37). However, from 1796 to 1800 there is a distinct lack of concrete historical data surrounding performances or publications of K.622. This caused a great amount of uncertainty among performers and scholars regarding the authenticity of the manuscripts we use today, some two hundred years after the work’s conception.

Publishers Breitkopf and Härtel and André were both searching intensely for Mozart’s manuscripts of the concerto at this stage (1796). Pamela Weston, renowned English clarinettist, scholarly writer and pedagogue discovered that these publishing houses had approached Niemetschek, a close friend of Mozart’s, to find the lost manuscripts. According to Ian Cook’s dissertation, “An overview of current research: The basset clarinet as the intended instrument in the clarinet concerto K622 W.A. Mozart,” Niemetschek offered Härtel a copy of the concerto on the twenty-sixth of July 1800 (1997, 29). Breitkopf and Härtel went on to publish the score in 1801 for A’ clarinet and piano. Weston believed that the source of the concerto is a mystery because it was

6 a copy and not the original (1996, 65). Very soon after, published editions by Sieber in Paris, and Andre in Offenbach surfaced, which are considered now “as the earliest complete sources extant today (Meyer et al., 1987).

Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty of the concerto’s gestation and completion period it is difficult to confirm the exact dates the concerto was written. We do know that Mozart completed the piece at some stage between the completion of “Die Zauberflote,” K.620 dated September 28, 1791 and Eine kleine Freimaurerkantate K.623 dated November 15. There is evidence however, stating that whilst conducting “La Clemenza di Tito,” K.621, Mozart finished the concerto in October of 1791 (Weston, 1995, p. 64). A letter from Mozart to Constanze dated October 7 of that same year is perhaps more conclusive in establishing a possible time frame of the concerto’s completion, where Mozart wrote, “ . . . I orchestrated the whole of Stadler’s Rondo.” Stadler premiered it on the sixteenth of that same month in a benefit concert, two months before Mozart died. The concerto was apparently received well. According to Poulin, Mozart gave Stadler the original score of the concerto along with travelling money to embark on the tour of Europe (Poulin, 1995, p. 24). This was a decision by Mozart with unforseen ramifications.

Since this time many publishers, scholars and performers have released their own versions of the score for both Bb’ and ‘A’ clarinet as well as the basset clarinet, in an attempt to restore the score as originally conceived by Mozart. The basset reconstructions by Alan Hacker in 1974 and versions in the Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA) in 1977 by Franz Giegling are among the most widely accepted. Giegling also produced a critical commentary, outlining the reconstruction process (Barenrieter, 1957).

Further significant developments were also made to the reconstruction of the basset clarinet part by Pamela Weston’s edition with Universal Publications in 1997. This came after the discovery of Christian Friedrich Gottleib Schwencke’s “Grand Quintetto pour Pianoforte,” an arrangement of the clarinet concerto for piano and string quartet made in the 1790’s (Cook, 1997, 29). Schwencke’s arrangement realised the full melodic register of Mozart’s original melody. The piano was given Mozart’s solo melody line of K.622 in its original compass. It also included a

7 considerable amount of ornamentation of the melody line, which infers clearly the prevailing performance practice of the late 18th century. However some would argue that this is more representative of a pianistic viewpoint rather than a view taken by clarinetists. Today clarinet players face a collection of editions comprising of numerous versions for both clarinet and basset clarinet. A list of current major editions is listed chronologically in appendix A.

Nevertheless, from the data provided throughout this chapter regarding the concerto’s genesis and scholarly journey it is now possible to hone in on the finer musical details that exist within the interpretation of 18th century composition.

8 Chapter II

Foundations for Performance Analysis

In order to obtain a greater understanding of the interpretation of the musical components indicative of 18th century composition and specifically that of Mozart’s, each of the foundations (musical devices) will be discussed in a historical context in collaboration with relevant scholarship. This will rely heavily on the most authoritative text of the age, “A Treatise on the Fundamental Principals of Violin Playing,” by Leopold Mozart, Wolfgang’s father, to illuminate ideas about presenting a historically informed performance of the Mozart basset clarinet concerto K.622. The treatise provides a valuable resource for understanding, reading and interpreting score indications of the 18th century, all of which can be applied to performing this style of music on the clarinet. The devices selected to assess each recording were determined by specific areas within of the concerto, that instigate the need for further investigation due to their historical ambiguity. Throughout the dissertation, where musical examples are cited the following system of bar number referencing will be used; movement/bar number. Thus, an example citing the first movement, bar 100 will appear 1/100. This chapter will also address each of the devices as they appear in the recording analyses

First and foremost, it is important to ascertain the principles indicative of a historically informed performance. There already exists a large degree of research in this area and this dissertation does not intend to produce a comprehensive overview. It does plan to provide a broad background, to ascertain how certain techniques or understandings may be applied to the clarinet concerto. Factors influencing historically informed performance may include, exploring its emotional content and historical background, attempting to honour the composer’s intentions, knowing the intended instrument and its capabilities and more importantly having knowledge of the musical practices of the period.

Thus, for the purposes of this study the following musical devices: tempi, articulation, ornamentation and register transposition will be explored.

9 Tempo Tempo can essentially be defined as “the speed, at which a piece of music is performed,” (Scholes et. al., 2009) The single most problematic issue when deciding on tempi is due to the evolving nature of our understanding of the Italian terminology. The various uses of these designated terms within the different styles and genres have undoubtedly impacted the way we interpret a composer’s marking today. When approaching Mozart’s clarinet concerto the performer is faced with only two tempo markings, Allegro and Adagio, with Allegro titling the first and third movements. In defining Allegro, Grove Online states that, “practically all the lists of tempo marks in musical dictionaries and handbooks give allegro as the standard moderately fast tempo, though its very ubiquity has led to its use with a variety of different shades of meaning . . .” (Fallows, 2009). The translation of Leopold’s treatise denotes that allegro “ . . . indicates a cheerful, though not too hurried a tempo, especially when moderated by adjectives and adverbs, such as: Allegro, ma non tanto, or non troppo, or moderato . . . ” (Knocker, 1948, p. 50). It has also been recognised as ‘quick’ and ‘moderately fast,’ (Fallows, 2009). As the metronome wasn’t invented till after Mozart’s lifetime it is impossible to apply specific metronomic speeds. Today a performer is likely to correlate the term allegro with a metronome marking of approximately 120 - 169 beats per minute (bpm) depending on the proceeding adjective, if one trusts the very subjective guides labelled on many metronomes.

Adagio translates to mean ‘at ease,’ ‘leisurely’ and ‘slow and stately’ (Fallows, 2009), The Leopold Mozart treatise also describes adagio as meaning slow, which demonstrates that at least some definitions remain the same today, (Knockers, 1948, p. 51).

As there is no marking on the Winterthur manuscript we can only assume that these tempo markings were written on the parts viewed by the editors of the first editions or were simply a product of the editor’s interpretation. This subsequently complicates the ambition of estimating Mozart’s intended tempi. The performer must approach tempo markings as guidelines rather than concrete tempos with a direct beat per minute translation.

10

Articulation Pay defines articulation as “ . . . a word that carries the dual connotation both of dividing and joining the sound . . .” (1996, p. 306). This becomes apparent when considering the role accents, staccatos, mezzo staccatos and slurs play in connecting and separating the sound. It is understood however that there is a lot of detail Mozart did not write into his scores. Lawson states that, “he simply expected that certain conventions would be observed, especially in relation to articulation and phrasing,” (1996, p. 73). These ‘conventions’ can be further understood if we consider the articulation style of the classical period.

Numerous passages within the concerto are exempt of articulation indications, imploring the performer to make decisions about the use of tonguing or addition of slurs. These unmarked sections denote the detached classical style of Mozart’s period, where a slight separation is necessary. In spite of this, there is a tendency to add slurs to passages that either threaten the player’s technical fluency or contradict the way the player envisages musical line. The risk is that overuse of slurs can obscure the character of the music. Pay believes that “if we begin with what is actually written, we have a better chance of avoiding the error.” This cautions the overuse of slurs due to the effect it has on the phrase. Slurs included by the composer or “paraphrases” as Antony Pay suggests were deemed very important in the performance of 18th century music (Pay, 1996). Leopold Mozart reiterates this by stating that, “among the musical signs the slur is of no little importance, although many pay but little attention to it,” (Knocker, 1948).

Modern players more familiar with works post the romantic period are used to playing from scores filled with dynamic and articulation markings. In comparison, there is very little use of expressive indications in the concerto (Barenrieter edition and Winterthur manuscript). Leopold Mozart expresses that notes underneath a slur “must all be taken together in one bow-stroke; not detached but bound together in one stroke, without lifting the bow of making any accent with it,” (Knocker, 1948, p. 45). Therefore the act of a slur causes an accentuation (down- bow) on the melody, which is followed by a slight ‘decay’ across the slurred notes where an accent is not desired. This of course, also applies to the clarinet, where the breath rather than the bow

11 executes the ‘decay’.

It also vital to clarify other types of articulation featured in the concerto. These include staccatos and staccatos under slurs. Mozart’s violin treatise defines Staccatos as, “struck; signifying that the notes are to be well separated from each other, with short strokes, and without dragging the bow,” (1948, p. 51). This would imply that a silence should occur between notes affected by a staccato marking. This should not be confused with the detached style of unmarked notes, which indicates only a small amount of separation. Conversely staccatos under slurs signify that “ . . . notes lying within the slur are not only to be played in one bow- stroke, but must be separated from each other by a slight pressure of the bow, (1948, p. 45). This articulation was therefore used by Mozart to warrant a much more legato style of staccato with less separation than a staccato or unmarked note.

Ornamentation There are many different types of ornamentation that need to be considered. This musical device can be categorised into three distinct types; those written by the composer, the extempore ornamentation created by the performer and the structured sections that invite the player to embellish. The ornamentation that Mozart himself included can be troublesome when interpreted incorrectly. Initially, we must ascertain the type of ornamentation used in the concerto and then construct understandings about their musical role. These include Vorschläge, trills, turns, and Eingänge’s. We will first start with the Vorschläge. The German term Vorschlag (plural Vorschläge) according to Neumann is a “ . . . single ornamental pitch that precedes its principal note . . . (1986, p. 6). Two types of Vorschläge that modern players commonly encounter are the appoggiatura and the acciaccatura or grace note. It is important to distinguish the difference between these two types of ornaments; given that the appoggiatura is defined by falling on the beat and the grace note precedes the occurrence of the beat (Neumann, 1986, p. 6). These are sometimes referred to as ‘long’ and ‘short’ appoggiaturas.

The long appoggiatura can be seen as “ . . . pointing up the dissonance, or to camouflage impurities of voice leading,” where it represents the rhythmic value it is written as within the context of the beat. For example, bar 1/61 would be performed

12 this way, the appoggiatura becoming a full valued semiquaver. This would also be the case in the adagio movement in bar 2/7. Although consistency applies to the first two movements a discrepancy is generated in the third movement where the formula seems not to apply. Bar 3/57 is an example of this where the appoggiatura is written in the same manner as the previous movements, though performances usually place the ornament before the note to take on a more rhythmical role rather than grammatically indicating dissonance.

Another ornament, which is visited in the concerto, is the trill. Only two types are featured, the appoggiatura trill and main-note trill. The violin treatise by Leopold describes the trill as “ . . . a pleasing alteration of two neighbouring notes which are either a whole tone or a half tone apart,” (Knocker, 1948, p. 186) (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Leopold Mozart’s definition of trills, (Knocker, 1948, p. 186).

This intervallic distance of trills is never indicated specifically within the concerto, implying that all trills should be considered within the realm of the key signature. It is suggested that in 18th century performance, trills dogmatically “ . . . start with the upper note,” (Neumann, 1986, p. 3). Many performers are happy to indulge this theory without first taking into account how the music approaches the trill. Neumann states that, “a scalewise moving melody carrying a trill or trills is similarly sensitive to interference,” (1986, p. 120). Adding an appoggiatura to an ascending melodic line, which would dramatically shift the accentuation of harmonic progression, is an example of this. A main-note trill is subsequently more appropriate. This can be cited in bar 1/224-5 and 1/310, which is shown in figure (2).

Figure 2: Main note Trill – bars 1/224-5, 1/310

13 In shaping trills Leopold Mozart recommends that there are ‘four species’ of trills, which are categorised by their speed namely into slow, medium, rapid, and accelerating. The slow is used in sad and slow pieces; the medium in pieces which have a lively but yet a moderate and gentle tempo, the rapid in pieces which are very lively and full of spirit and movement, and finally the accelerating trill is used mostly in cadenzas, (figure 3).

Figure 3: Leopold Mozart on shaping trills (Knocker, 1948, p. 188).

Eingänge is Mozart’s own term denoting an ornamental passage that leads into a theme, a sort of small-scale cadenza. It also serves a different purpose, referring to the embellishment at the end of an ornamental passage that follows a fermata, which extends the phrase and usually over a dominant seven chord, (Neumann, 1986, p. 264). In the first movement there are two places where this occurs at bars 127 and 315. The Eingänge’s are one area within the concerto where the performer does have the opportunity to freely embellish or demonstrate their artistic flair in a non-thematic manner that is an endorsed product of the 18th century Eingänge’s.

Eingänge’s should not be confused with the Cadenza, which is “ . . . requested by the composer through the expedient of arriving at a fermata on the tonic chord in its second inversion (the tonic six-four chord) usually towards the end of a movement.” (Leeson, 2006, p. 9). Leeson also points out that there are several key elements that distinguish the cadenza from the Eingänge, stating that the resolution that occurs in a cadenza is a multi-stage process which can happen over a period of several minutes where as the Eingänge is much shorter in length consisting of only a few notes to fulfil its task. Since this does not occur in any of the movements nor is there allocated space, it is possible to hypothesise that Mozart did not wish for such an extended type of embellishment (cadenza) in this particular concerto.

14

Perhaps the most controversial form of ornamentation is the extempore embellishments of the melody added by the performer. These can include simple ornaments, like appoggiaturas, slides, turns, trills and more lavish components that extrapolate a particular melody. Although it is often admonished in today’s performance practice, we are aware that composers encouraged improvisation and artistic licence within the 18th century, (Neumann, 1986, p. 179). Thus, it is important to understand some of the guidelines, which surrounded the practice of this type of ornamentation.

The literature on improvisatory ornamentation is voluminous, however, Leopold Mozart states that it should only be used “ . . . when playing a solo, and then very sparingly, at the right time, and only for variety in often-repeated and similar passages.” Türk reinforces this by stating that ornamentation should only be used in those places that need variation, for instance when a melody is repeated or where it would not be interesting enough and would consequently become tedious, (Lawson, 1996, p. 75).

To know exactly where an opportunity arises for some artistic display is problematic and relies on musical judgment. If the structural design of the concerto is considered, it is more likely that improvised ornamentation will occur in the development and recapitulation, where the solo material is repeated. This is of course undertaken at the discretion of the performer who is ultimately in charge. An understanding of the principles mentioned above, should assist the performer to take his cue from the directions of the composition without unnecessarily over ornamenting.

Register Transposition Although it has been conclusively proved the basset clarinet was the intended instrument of Mozart’s concerto, modern players still perform it on the ‘A’ clarinet by modifying certain passages to fit within their chalumeau register. Many questions arise regarding the way in which players deal with these areas and how to overcome the range issues without detracting from the overall flow and melodic contour. Performance of this work on basset clarinet it eliminates the prospect of having to reconfigure the melody to be idiomatically viable. One must be aware of the impacts

15 that alterations of this kind may have on the melodic and harmonic sonority. These issues will be addressed within each case study to supply examples of possible solutions the players themselves have issued. Common emendations for the modern system can be also located in existing texts and articles by Lawson, Adelson and Dazeley.

In summary, it is clear that understanding the role of these devices in 18th century performance, can dramatically affect ones interpretation of this particular concerto. Together, the concepts of tempi, articulation, ornamentation, and register transposition, will provide a platform for the analysis of both Craig Hill’s and Paul Dean’s interpretation to develop better understandings of their musical decisions.

16 Chapter III

Case Study A - Craig Hill

This chapter is an analysis of Craig Hill’s performance on period basset clarinet with the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra (ABO). Various decisions made by Hill in his interpretation will be examined. Extrapolating data and quantifiable information from something as abstract as a work of music is problematic and this document does not intend to offer a conclusive approach to performing the work. It does strive rather to identify and analyse any influences that helped in the shaping process of Hill’s performance. This chapter will draw on findings from an interview held with Craig Hill to gain understanding on specific decisions made about tempo, articulation, ornamentation, the Eingänge’s and register transposition within each of the concerto’s movements. Score excerpts discussed will refer to the Barenrieter edition, the publication preferred by Hill.

Hill’s performance of this concerto is a direct result of his studies with early clarinets and his devotion to period playing. The instrument utilised in this recording is a period basset clarinet manufactured by Peter Van de Poel, which follows the Riga engraving very closely; see appendix D. Although established as an important figure within the period clarinet performance field, Hill also performs regularly on modern clarinets. The understanding of each system and the challenges and issues that can be faced, provides a well-versed viewpoint on forming an interpretation of this work. His definitive orchestral experience has been with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and also as principal clarinetist of the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra.

The interpretation: This performance is highly influenced by the ideology of historically informed performance. Hill says that performing this work, or the clarinet quintet K581 on the modern clarinet is no longer an option. . . . I want to save myself the frustration of not being allowed to do what I want to do. Make the sound and do the articulation and the inflection. I think it

17 would be very hard to copy what you do on the period clarinet on the modern clarinet . . . Hill’s interpretation attaches particular importance to the relationship between the solo part and the orchestra, vocalisation, variation and the accentuation of the melodic line. “Nuances come quick and fast, in Mozart. It’s very changeable all the time.” Hill strongly believes that a player should work from the full orchestral score to associate the clarinet part with the orchestra. This will inevitably assist in discovering the interpretive possibilities.

Tempi: Tempo is often determined by a metronomic interpretation of a composer’s marking. The three movements of this concerto, namely, Allegro, Adagio and Rondo: Allegro all have vague translations as discussed in chapter two. There are several important points that were raised by Hill in relation to his preferences on tempo management. “I think the first movement shouldn’t be too fast. I think in modern performances the tendency is to play too fast.” Hill’s recording performs the first movement at approximately 120bpm. The contrast between Hill and many other leading interpreters is conclusive in appendix E. The second movement on the other hand adopts a metronomic marking of 52 – 54bpm. Hill felt that it was important that one “ . . . listen to the orchestra part and not allow the violins to feel that they’re getting bogged down in their quavers . . .” The third movement conversely, is more flexible with tempos shifting between 76 and 84bpm. Hill stated that “ . . . it’s important that it’s not too hectic.” This Movement also registered slower in the duration table (See appendix E).

Articulation: Articulation according to Hill is something that should be established innately by the vocalisation of a phrase. “I would just start by singing it and seeing what articulation my mouth did automatically. There is generally a requirement that you show the pulse,” (Hill, 2009). It is evident in Hill’s performance that articulation assumes an important role in shaping the melodic fragments. The first movement features a plethora of unmarked passages, which are emphasised frequently throughout Hill’s interpretation. Bars, 1/69, 1/73 and 1/95, which are shown in figure (4), are prime examples of this.

18

Figure 4: Detached articulation, bars, 1/69, 1/73 and 1/95.

Hill often relishes in annunciating the articulation of the lower register passages. “You have to articulate more in the low register,” said Hill (Hill, 2009). This is exemplified throughout all movements though more convincingly in the Adagio movement at 2/54 (figure 5) and 2/56 and in the third movement from bars 3/307 -13, where Hill adds staccatos as the melody descends into the chalumeau register (figure 5). In reference to the modern clarinet however, Hill does think that the level of articulation would be different, as it tends to become “overly rough and abrupt,” encouraging that it is more appropriate to play with more slurs (Hill, 2009).

Figure 5: Chalumeau articulation – bars 2/54, 3/307 – 13

19

Articulation is also employed as a vehicle for variation. This can be heard in bars 1/143 – 4 and 1/148 – 9 where Hill alters the type of articulation throughout the passage by displacing the uses of slurs and tongued notes. Hill’s rendition is demonstrated in figure 6.

Figure 6: 1/143 – 4 and 1/148 – 9

Other passages that receive special attention are the Alberti bass fragments, which occur from bars 1/134 – 37 and again at 1/324 – 5 in the closing section. These bars are articulated with a two-slurred two-tongued pattern across each group of four semiquavers. Although this particular type of articulation is not necessarily advocated in the performance of Mozart’s music, it is Hill’s belief that it suits the character of the melodic line, providing it with a sense of clarity and preventing the line from becoming unclear or muddy underneath the sound of the orchestra. This is justified by Hill’s statement that “there are no rules,” for articulation but “It always has to sound good. It’s the first requirement.” Hill expressed different views about the use of this articulation in scalic passages like 1/69, 1/103 and 1/141, stating that he would “find it a little bit relentless,” (Hill, 2009). “ . . . When I see a slur it means a slight accent and slight decay on the slur, so I don’t want to do that in places where I don’t want an accent,” (Hill, 2009). This philosophy is obvious in the third movement at bar 3/7 where Hill has omitted the slur to avoid any unwarranted accentuation. Hill’s belief is that, . . . seeing a slur is like seeing a melisma; it’s a syllable . . . it’s the same way a syllable has a beginning, middle and end, every slur has that as well; a hardness or softness at the beginning . . . it develops the tone in the middle at a certain rate depending on what vowel it is

20 and the jaw closes at the end of the syllable. Hence why we need a diminuendo at end of every syllable we speak. Jaw closes and we diminuendo . . . The theory that a slur must decay is also highly advocated in Hill’s teaching of the concerto. Hill states that . . . the articulation is not defining the line. It’s the same as syllables of words not defining the lines in singing. There are separate words in single phrases. I think the articulation in playing this music is the same. You don’t need to slur to make a long line. It’s the placement of the accents. This information also gives greater insight into the execution of the opening four bars of the exposition at bars 57 – 60. Regardless of whether a performer shows the four bars in two separate phrases or as one, the implementation of this articulation technique can assist in providing a clear melodic contour in order to evade any unnecessary accentuation. This is clarified in Hills statement: At some point there is a diminuendo, it can be half way through, at the beginning of the slur or right at the end. You have a choice. But it has a diminuendo at some point. Hill believes that this type of phrasing stems from the bow management of string players. This can be viewed in a single down-bow; as the bow draws towards the tip, regardless of any finger movement the dynamic naturally lessens. This philosophy harks back to Leopold Mozart’s treatise, as discussed in chapter two.

The inclusion or exclusion of slurs is a choice that Hill makes with full consideration of the melodic line. In the first movement there are number of places where the accentuation of the phrase can change. Bars 1/87 - 90 and 1/202 – 5, which are given in figure 7, illustrate this. Hill follows the articulations written by Mozart in his Winterthur manuscript, where the accentuation of the line shifts from the second beat of the bar to the first beat of the bar. This is consistent in each occurrence of the phrase throughout the movement. The alternative is to continue the articulation of the first two quavers of each bar, and maintain the accentuation of the second beat (figure 8).

21

Figure 7: Accentuation – bars 1/87 – 90, 1/202 –

Figure 8: Alternative Accentuation – bars 1/87 – 90, 1/202 – 5

Another feature of Hill’s version of the concerto is the articulation of non-harmonic tones. He believes that “ . . . dissonances are generally tongued,” (Hill, 2009). This is to pronounce the ‘clash’ clearly and prevent the dissonance from sounding like an error. An example of this is demonstrated in bar 1/61, where Mozart has written a dissonance of a major second against the bass. This passage also demonstrates how Mozart indicated the presence of a non-harmonic tone to the player. The problem with this fragment however, is the way it may be interpreted. Today, we see a lot of performances, which slur the entire group as shown in figure 9. Hill on the other hand, slurs the first two notes and articulates the proceeding two. This is indicated in the K621b sketch very clearly, suggesting that Mozart desired the last two notes of the group to be tongued. The recurrence of this fragment in bars 1/255, 1/274, 1/276 and 1/307 is always performed in the same manner.

Figure 9: Non-harmonic articulation bar 1/61

Ornamentation As discussed in chapter two we know Mozart supported the addition of extempore ornamentation and used it quite often in his own performances. It is convention that embellishment of any kind is only to be implemented in repetitious passages for variation and must suit the character of the music. Hienrich Koch perhaps articulates most eloquently, stating that, “we have to ask whether a musical idea, expressed in

22 noble simplicity, needs embellishment and whether it would not be advantageous to try to execute it in its elevated simplicity rather than smudge it with idle glitter,” (Lawson, 1996, p. 75).

Hill challenges this statement through the frequent use of carefully considered ornamentation in his performance. This is not without conditions however. To Hill, one must always ensure that the addition of improvised or devised ornamentation is appropriate to the style and content of the melodic phrase. The following text highlights some of Hill’s choices employment of embellishments such as turns, grace notes and some melodic extrapolation.

Features of Hill’s extempore ornamentation are presented in bars 1/114, 1/176 – 79, 1/301 – 2, 1/313, 2/42, 2/44, 2/82, 3/118 – 119, 3/191, 3/252, 3/316. Figure 10 demonstrates the type of ornamentation employed by Hill. This embellishment occurs in the development of the first movement on the repeat of the theme from bars 1/176 - 179. Here, Hill extrapolates the melody by adding a turn in bar 176 and then adding in an arpeggio starting on ‘G’ across bars 1/177 – 8. The first beat of 1/179 is then inflected with the addition of a grace note before the written ‘G’.

Figure 10: Extempore ornamentation bars 1/176-9

Hill justified the use of ornamentation by proclaiming that “It’s bad manners to play the same thing exactly same twice in classical music. It needs to varied some way and if there is not a really reason to vary the dynamics then it should be done by varying the notes.” Hill also embellishes throughout the third movement. A key ornament utilised is the turn, which is implemented in bars 3/119 and 3/252 where the repeat of the rondo theme takes place. Another interesting ornament used by Hill occurs at bar

23 118, where ‘F’ sharp grace notes are added before the second and third quavers of the bar. See figure 11 for both of these examples.

Figure 11: Extempore ornamentation – bars 3/118 -119

With regard to the starting of trills, Hill performs the majority of trills from the upper note and slightly accelerating. This is demonstrated in bars 1/74, 1/153, 1/268, 1/261 1/342, 2/53, 2/92, 3/51, 3/96, 3/177, 3/296, 3/315 and 3/317, one of which is shown in figure 12. It is pertinent to point out that Hill also feels there are many main note trills in the concerto that we often overlook. These are heard in Hill’s performance at bars 1/224 and 1/310. Regardless of these examples, Hill is of the opinion that it is very easy to become preoccupied about the proper practices of trills and that it’s important “ . . . to do what sounds good . . . I think the trill can start from the upper note or the main note, it doesn’t really matter. What does matter more is the way they start and the speed and shape of the trill.”

Figure 12: Appoggiatura trill – bars 1/74

Hill’s understanding of the Eingänge’s that occur within the first two movements in bars 1/127, 1/315 and 2/ 58 is that “the player can do what they like within reason.” This was elaborated in saying, “I don’t think they should be overly long but I do think that the pause at the end should be quite expansive. I think it really is a moment of reflection before proceeding. So that the very final note should be allowed to really stretch a long way, but the melody fragment . . . leading into that final note . . . it’s free choice, but I personally prefer something simpler the first time and something more elaborate the second time.”

24 The first Eingänge at bar 1/127, which is shown in figure 13 deviates very slightly from what the written fermata suggests with the addition of a ‘B’ and ‘C,’ before the written ‘A.’

Figure 13: Eingänge no. 1 – bar 1/127

The second Eingänge, (1/315) as performed by Hill explores themes that are recalled from earlier in the work. This is achieved through the combination of bar 1/298 followed by 1/293, (figure 14). Hill states that, “it sounds organic, because it’s music that’s just been in your head as it’s a recall from where you have just been. I don’t think that it shouldn’t be like Mozart didn’t compose it. It’s allowed to sound like it’s a part of the piece. I don’t think there’s any obligation that it should sound purely composed of ornaments. It should have a compositional element.” In the third Eingänge (2/58), which occurs in the Adagio movement, Hill draws inspiration from the slow movement of K.581. This is also one of the suggested embellishments given in the Barenrieter edition. A discussion regarding this type of ornamentation revealed that, The most important thing is that certain intervals have to be satisfied. The melody has to travel a certain distance; in order for it not feel like it has been constricted. So that means travelling through a bit of the range and just being really sensitive to that tri-tone that is contained in the dominant seventh. It is expressed.

Figure 14: Eingänge’s 2 (1/315) & 3 (2/58)

25 Hill also articulated his thoughts on the insertion of a cadenza. “I don’t think that that’s appropriate, the music is so elevated that there’s not room for display of that sort.”

Register Transposition Given that Hill uses an instrument capable of performing the concerto in its original compass, there is no need for register transposition of melodies. Clarinet players of the modern system, however, who want to explore more of the chalumeau register in their interpretation, are faced with many challenges concerning acceptable transpositions. Due to Hill’s experience with the modern clarinet he offered some solutions to performing passages that are outside of the normal clarinets register. A prime example of where this occurs can be found in bars 1/331 – 34, which is displayed in figure 15. We first need to consider why Mozart included this extra bar. Also, why does a descending pitch change occur in the orchestra part in this bar but not in the clarinet part? This would necessitate the need for an extra octave in the lower register. Hill believes that when approaching problematic areas that require adaptation of register, there needs to be consideration of the musical punctuation.

Figure 15: Hill register emendation – bars 1/331 – 34

Hill believes this to be a better solution as it makes better counterpoint against the violin part via contrary motion. The fact that the clarinet plays a ‘Bb’ is acceptable, as the orchestra has already introduced it in that bar. The proposition of transposing this phrase in bar 1/333 up to start on the ‘C’ above the stave is not supported. Hill believes that if the player considered the line in the orchestral part this would not be an option, especially since the clarinet is the accompaniment line here. “If you look at the orchestra it’s clearly organised like three ducks coming down the wall. The clarinet is actually accompanying at that point . . .” This was also the case in the Rondo movement. Not only is this passage in the weak register of the clarinet but also

26 it seems ineffective against the orchestra part. Performers who play on the modern clarinet are faced with a difficult decision here. Some may choose to play it as it is written; others may to decide that is more appropriate to play it in the lower register with some form of adjustment. The figure below 16 exemplifies another solution to that offered by Hill, which again aims to achieve better counterpoint within existing texture.

Figure 16: Hill register emendation - bars 3/311 – 13

It is also important to note other register transpositions made by Hill in his recording. Special attention is given to notes ‘C#’ and ‘D#’ in bars 1/216 and 1/218, by taking them down into the basset register, subsequently adjusting the scope of the phrase. Hill also employs the use of a low ‘B’ natural in the basset range. This is accomplished by closing the tone hole on the curve of the basset’s lower bell joint. This tone hole is clearly marked on the Riga engraving, and Hill feels that there are two places where this extension of the basset’s range appears convincing. These are shown in figure 17 in bars 1/295 and 3/146. Bars 1/95 and 1/97 are also altered to match the repeat at bars 1/283 and 1/285 in the development section.

Figure 17: The Basset ‘B’ natural, bars 1/295, 3/146 – 8

When approaching melodic fragments that gesture the need for a geographical adjustment it is also important to be mindful of your audience. According to Hill no one on an audition panel wants to hear it played on a basset clarinet or with excessive

27 chalumeau transpositions. However, in a performance context, one can be more liberal with their octave adjustments.

In review of this chapter it is clear that Hill’s interpretation is a direct result of careful thought and planning. This is exemplified by Hill’s detailed approach to elements of tempi, articulation, ornamentation and transposition. Although Hill develops his interpretation from the full score in union with historical texts relevant to 18th century performance practice, he enforces that performance rules are only guidelines for expression and that there is a requirement that Mozart’s melodies speak with definition and clarity.

28 Chapter IIII

Case Study B - Paul Dean

Case study B probes the interpretive decisions made by Paul Dean in his performance of Mozart’s K.622 with The Queensland Orchestra, on the modern ‘A’ clarinet. Using the devices that were defined in the second chapter as a guide for analysis, partnered with the interview findings, this chapter will formulate an overview of Dean’s reading. It is important to note, that in light of the interview with Dean, particular elements of interpretive focus, which were not incorporated in the second chapter were strongly emphasised as interpretive inspirations. The influence of Mozart’s opera Die Zauberflote K.620 on melodic characterisation is representative of this. An understanding of this relationship will form the core of the following investigation.

The interpretation Paul Dean’s rendition of the concerto is primarily a product of his own musical thinking, although he credits both Robert Marcellus (American clarinetist) and Floyd Williams (his former clarinet teacher) for inspiring his approach to the piece. In the interview Dean recalled a lesson with Marcellus on the concerto, revealing Marcellus’ belief that the work is operatic, containing a dramatic conversation between three distinct characters. Dean suggested that the “ . . . concerto is just Magic Flute for clarinet and orchestra and the clarinet is the three characters, Pamina, Papageno and Sarastro,” (Dean, 2009). These three characters play a central role in Dean’s development of the theatrical conversation between the concerto’s melodic lines. It undoubtedly affects Dean’s approach to articulation, tone production, dynamics and phrasing. Adopting this theatrical approach however, has subsequently shaped an interpretation that lacks the presence of many ideals associated with historically informed performance practice.

We must first establish the roles of the characters, Pamina, Sarastro and Papageno. Pamina (a soprano) is the daughter of the Queen of the Night who is being held prisoner by the evil Monostatos and waiting for Tamino to save her with his magic flute. To Dean, Pamina represents a “sort of sweet innocence,” (Dean, 2009). One

29 example of this, which was given by Marcellus to Dean, is the second subject in the first movement at bars 1/115 – 17 (figure 18).

Figure 18: Pamina – bars 1/115 – 17

The second character is Sarastro, a bass role, who is the “ . . . high priest of Isis and Osiris, and Pamina's father. He invites Tamino and Papageno to prove their worth through a series of tests; if they pass, they will be rewarded with brides,” (Metropolitan opera website). Dean states that “ . . . every time it goes into a minor key, or this sort of sinister thing . . . you think of it as Sarastro.” This can be found in bar 1/116 – 8, which is shown above in figure 17.

Dean stated that Marcellus “ . . . saw the first movement as being dominated by this clash and dialogue between Pamina and Sarastro . . .” The adagio movement was described by Dean, as an aria for Pamina drawing connections with Ach, ich fühl's, es ist verschwunden (Ah, I feel it, it is vanished) from Die Zauberflote. The third character that comes into play is Papageno (a baritone), who is a bird catcher for the Queen of the Night. Papageno is a very uncomplicated and cheerful character that only dreams of having a wife. He joins with Tamino in his quest to save Pamina from Monostatos and uses the magic bells given to him by the three ladies, which allow him to enchant the captors of Pamina to dance away. According to Dean the rondo movement is very much dominated by the conversation between Papageno’s playful personality and the robust argumentative Sarastro. This is exemplified within bars 3/169 – 173. In Dean’s recording more weight is given to the lower register fragment, which is contrasted by a delicate playful quality to the upper register melody, see figure 19.

Figure 19: Papageno and Sarastro – bars 1/169 – 173

30 Dean was asked to discuss the premise of performing the concerto on a period basset clarinet and why he prefers the modern system for his interpretation. . . . the whole period instrument thing is that its so black and white, it’s right or wrong and music is living, the Mozart is a living piece of music and . . . playing on an original basset in A is completely valid and wonderfully interesting but ultimately it’s only as good as the musician behind it and it’s very much about the interpretation of those beautiful melodic lines . . . (Dean, 2009) Dean also suggests that modern players do not have to adopt the same stylistic and historical understandings that a period performer would. This became more transparent when Dean discussed the various outcomes of interpreting a score, stating that regardless of instrument choice or the use of 18th century performance practices “ . . . ultimately it’s about your taste.” This belief allows for great spontaneity in Dean’s interpretive decisions, which is demonstrated by the following statement. “It’s done . . . the next day I could’ve played it entirely different. I don’t necessarily think that that is my definitive interpretation of the Mozart concerto is just the one that’s being captured on CD on that particular day.”

Tempi Dean’s approach to forming tempos is not definitive. He believes that one must allow the music the breathe but by getting the “ . . . actual mechanics of it right with the metronome . . . ” at a reduced tempo will establish a foundation for greater interpretive freedom. In appendix E, the table of recording durations, it is noticeable that Dean’s performance of the first movement in particular ranks faster than most with a metronomic translation of approximately 126bpm. He admits, “the one in the recording is too fast,” but says he prefers a “faster first movement.” Working with Guillaume Tourniaire, a young French conductor, definitely influenced the speed of the tempos according to Dean. “His real forte is opera, he likes that upbeat ACO and attack the Mozart, rather than just make it nice . . .” The adagio movement is performed at around 44 – 48bpm. Dean believes, “the slow movement came out really well and it’s probably the tempo I wanted.” The rondo movement is performed at approximately 92 – 96bpm. “The last movement was pretty quick . . . I was surprised the tonguing was as clean as it was . . .” The lively and dance-like character of

31 Papageno, which Dean wanted to convey within the melody explains the fast pace of the final allegro tempo, (Dean, 2009).

Articulation As we have discussed in previous chapters, decisions on articulation within this concerto by the performer plays a significant role in developing the shape or direction of the phrase. Dean pressed that one must always consider two questions when adding articulation of any kind, “ . . .is it music? Is there a musical inner logic to why you are articulating?” (Dean, 2009) This is apparent in Dean’s rendition of the first movement. The articulation written by the NMA in bars 1/87 – 90 is strongly opposed by Dean. He feels that the addition of slurs to bars 1/89 and 90, which repeat the melody from bar 87 does not continue the flow of the phrase. Dean cited that “ . . . it just makes sense to me that every time you play that figure that you play it the same . . .” This does of course contradict the Winterthur manuscript which suggests the opposite, both are demonstrated in the figure 20 below.

Figure 20: Articulation bars 1/87 – 90

Although Dean prefers the Bärenreiter editions, he disregards many articulation markings. Dean’s fundamental philosophy believes that “ultimately we all play our own edition, or I think should aspire to playing our own edition. What they put on the page is just a starting point. You have to do what is musically logical,” (Dean, 2009). The use of slurs is indicative of this. The aim to develop characterisation between melodic dialogs has affected the additional usage of slurs. This unquestionably creates a much more singing style of playing. An example of Dean’s slur placement is shown in figure 21.

Figure 21: Slurs – Bars 1/110 – 12

32 Accentuation of the melodic line is also another feature of this performance. Dean believes that the first and third movements need to evoke a sense of “virtuosic . . . bounce.” This is clearly evident in bars 6 – 8 of the rondo movement where Dean tongues the first two semiquavers and places emphasis on the first and second beats through the use of a slur. This pattern is also repeated every time this melody occurs, see figure 22.

Figure 22: Articulation bars 1/6 – 8

This notion is not reflected in his execution of the Alberti passages that exist throughout the first movement. The sections proceeding bars 1/134 and 1/324 are examples of this, where Mozart did not implement any articulation markings. Dean is strongly adverse to the use of a two-slurred two-tongued pattern on the semiquaver groupings. “That’s awful because that just puts the emphasis on the clarinet and the clarinet is not the important thing there, the clarinet is a part of the orchestra at that point.” Dean’s solution here is to articulate the start of each grouping to maintain the “bounce” and clarity of the beat without placing undue focus on the clarinet melody, allowing the melody in the strings to be more dominant, (Dean, 2009).

Ornamentation Dean does not place any particular importance on the use of extempore ornamentation in his interpretation. This is consistent with Dean’s perception that the music doesn’t need it. “It’s . . . perfect, and nothing I can add to that is going to make it better. That’s my philosophy . . . this is great music and I’ve got to interpret it to the best of my abilities. But me personally adding ornamentation to it would just get in the way of the music. Besides the use of a very subtle ornament in the second theme of the adagio movement, which is illustrated in figure 23, the use of extempore ornamentation is entirely circumvented.

33

Figure 23: Ornamentation – bar 2/23

It is crucial to mention however, that Dean was not objectionable of others using ornamentation in their interpretation if it “fits the flow of the phrase.” “It’s not right or wrong. It’s just not me. I don’t like to get in the way of the music. I don’t want to add my own little touch because I feel it is shallow.”

Mozart’s notated trills are generally started from above except those in bars 1/225, 1/310, 3/315 and 3/317 where a main note trill is used. The approach to the appoggiatura is always determined by the flow of the phrase and how much focus is placed on the dissonance. Specifically, the appoggiaturas written by Mozart in the first and second movements are played within the context of the rhythm (long appoggiatura) to highlight the dissonance, whereas the appoggiatura in the last movement is of lesser value, taking on the role of a grace note.

In relation to Eingänge’s, Dean prefers to employ the NMA suggestions with no particular justification other than the fact that he has always used them. Eingänge’s used by Dean are shown in figure 24.

Figure 24: Dean’s Eingänge – bars 1/127, 1/315, 2/58

34 Register Transposition

In relation to register transposition Dean selectively alters melodic content in order to draw a closer connection to the basset clarinet part. Dean reasoned this by stating that the concerto was . . . definitely written for Basset clarinet in ‘A’, but for the next 100 years after that it was played on a regular clarinet in ‘A’. It’s a fantastic piece of music. I don’t think a few notes in my interpretation up the octave makes enough of a difference to relegate my ideas on the concerto pointless.

Evidence of transposition however, can be found in bars, 1/326, 1/333, 1/337, 2/55-56 and 3/301-2. Although there are numerous other places where transpositions of the melody can take place Dean avoids the need to change notes for the sake of an octave difference.

The first example is located in bar 1/326 where Dean takes the E, G and C down the octave to maintain the melodic contour, without a noticeable displacement in the arpeggio. This is demonstrated in figure 25. The second example, which occurs at bar 1/333 is part of a descending three bar phrases, which would normally span over three octaves and out of the range of the modern ‘A’ clarinet. Deans accommodates for this by combining the first two beats of bars 331 and 332. Figure 26 exhibits this.

Figure 25: Transposition – bar 1/326

Figure 26: Transposition – bars 1/331 - 33

35

Other transposition also occurs in the first movement at bar 337, to extend the melodic contour. This is achieved by lowering the notes following the throat E including those in beat two, down the octave. (See figure 27)

Figure 27: Transposition – bar 1/337

The adagio movement has two transpositions of the melody. These occur on the second beats of bars 2/55 and 2/56, where Dean shifts the three demisemiquavers down to allow the arpeggio run to expand without interruption (See figure 28).

Figure 28: Transposition – bar 2/55 and 2/56

In the rondo movement, Dean alters the melodic content, only in bars 301 – 2. This example is exemplified in figure 29. Here we can see that Dean, similarly to that the manipulation of the second movement, has simply displaced notes higher than C and D down the octave to create contrast with the following melody.

Figure 29: Transposition – bars 301 – 302

36

In light of the information presented, it is perceptible that Dean’s approach to this concerto was heavily influenced by Marcellus’ vision of creating of a theatrical dialog that stems from characters within Mozart’s Die Zauberflote. This melodic narration, obviously affects Dean’s execution of the foundations as explained in the chapter two. Dean’s believes that by playing “what’s in your heart,” ultimately “articulation, speed, ornamentation” is irrelevant “as long as it adds to what you want to do to the piece,” (Dean, 2009).

37 Conclusion

The aim of this dissertation was to compare and contrast interpretations of the Mozart clarinet concerto by renowned contemporary Australian clarinettists Paul Dean and Craig Hill by discussions of current scholarship and trends.

The research has revealed that ambiguities of Mozart’s scoring and loss of manuscript directly effects the way in which every clarinettist prepares and performs this concerto. Whether or not we believe that it is essential to perform Mozart’s basset clarinet concerto with a historically informed approach or a more personal reading, individual interpretations are innately a product of their time, personal taste, teachers and instrument selection.

The contrast between these two schools of thought is apparent throughout the two performances explored in this project. The interpretive philosophies held by Craig Hill and Paul Dean, exemplify vastly differing schools of thought. This was apparent in their approach to almost all aspects of tempi, articulation, ornamentation and register transposition. The following passage will compare and contrast these four themes to draw conclusions on the artists’ use of each particular device.

The most striking contrast in tempi was observed in the first and second movements. Dean’s choice for a faster than average allegro and slower than average adagio created a dramatic distinction between the two movements. Hill’s performance adopted a different feel with a considerably slower first movement and less contrast of tempi between the first and second movements. The third movement of Dean’s was also performed considerably faster than Hills.

In analysis of articulation, each performer placed particular importance on the manner specific passages are to be performed. Additional tonguing in the basset and chalumeau registers, importance of melodic vocalisation to determine articulation patterns and execution of slurs characterised performance by Hill. Dean’s approach to articulation exhibited a greater amount of slurring than Hill’s, without emphasis on accurately representing practices of 18th century performance. One area of articulation where disagreement exists between these interpretations lies in the tonguing of Alberti passages in the first movement. Hill prefers to articulate these fragments with a two-

38 slurred two-tongued pattern whereas Dean’s use of articulation to recreate the vocal patterns of his operatic characters, robustly advises against the use of this type of articulation in that area as assumes the focus, where it be would otherwise be in strings.

The widest interpretive gulf between these case studies was the utilisation of performer-devised ornamentation. Dean avoidance of the use of any extempore embellishment whatsoever, with a view that the work is beyond the need for such a display of artistry contrasts with Hill’s fundamental beliefs that variation is essential in melodic repetition, with ornamentation a tool for greater expression and harmonic development. In relation to the use of Mozart’s writing of appoggiaturas, trills, turns, both performers, play these in a similar fashion, though Dean determines such content by observing the “flow of the phrase,” rather than relying on historical traditions for reference.

Each clarinettist viewed the function of the Eingänge quite differently. Dean is not primarily concerned with the function of this device or with invention of individual expression, instead re-creating those offered by the Barenrieter edition, cited in chapter four. Hill on the other hand believed that each Eingänge undertook a specific role in developing melodic content, employing a compositional approach in order to develop melodies and themes already presented before the embellishment. It is also crucial to note that neither performer included a cadenza, or believed it was appropriate to do so.

The final area that continues to stimulate scholarly indecision is register transposition of melodic content that extends outside the lower compass of the normal clarinet. Performers on the modern clarinet attempt to adjust or transpose melodies to fit within the range of the modern instrument, in order to present a more informed interpretation many difficult decisions about appropriate execution must be made. As there are no definitive answers for transposition or alteration of melodic fragments, only approximations, it is often left to the performer to make their own judgment on how and where transposition should occur. Although performing this recording on the period basset clarinet, where octave transposition isn’t necessary, Hill believes the adjustment must be considered in the context of constructing a solid counterpoint rather than create awkward displacements of the melody. Dean on the contrary, defies

39 this with his adaptation of bar 1/333, by shifting the melodic line up two octaves and restarting the arpeggio descent that was originally intended to begin below the stave.

It is clear that each performer manifests interpretive decisions within the framework of their own of individual musical preferences. This embodies Dean’s aim to project theatrical conversations within the work that are associated with characters from the Die Zauberflote.

Perhaps the most surprising result of this project was that out of a desire to discuss solutions from opposed readings, from two musicians with vastly different fundamental beliefs, an overriding consensus was reached between the artists. Despite disagreement on nearly every fundamental of ornamentation, articulation, tempi, transposition, and despite very different instruments set-ups and orchestral forces, both Hill and Dean commented on the need for the underlying interpretive approach to be about the music and what sounds best to the interpreter, while considering the modern audience. Beginning with essentially the same philosophy, to create an interpretation that is a honest and truthful product of the interpreter, it is refreshing to see such contrasting results. Such different interpretations are undoubtedly a good thing for this art form, which justifies its continued existence and the work being done to constantly learn more about the history of interpretation.

For those approaching the work for the first time, the study provides some illuminating insights into the historical issues faced in accurately understanding the style of the late eighteenth century and Mozart’s ambiguity with this particular work. As well as the literature review and recording analysis, the case studies present, two enlightened viewpoints with practical solutions to the interpretive issues that arise, detailing the opinion of arguably Australia’s two finest living exponents of the work.

In order to assume more thorough conclusions about interpretation and performance philosophies, further research is required to develop ideological generalisations and expand the sample. As stated in the introduction, this paper does not aim to be a definitive guide to performing Mozart’s clarinet concerto. Through exploration of further case studies and a more thorough score and recordings analyses this study could be developed to present increased analysis of current scholarship. The work presented in this paper rests as a framework to assist the clarinettist in interpreting this

40 iconic work. A widespread sample was obviously beyond the scope of this study, but should potentially be viewed as the beginning of a further in-depth understanding of the work, and the array of potential interpretative philosophies one must consider in preparing this masterpiece.

41 REFERENCES

Bradburn, N.M., & Sudman, S. (1988). Polls and surveys: Understanding what they tell us. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cook, I. (1997). The basset clarinet as the intended instrument in the clarinet concerto k.622, W.A. Mozart. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Newcastle, Newcastle. Dazeley, G. (1948). “The original text of Mozart’s clarinet concerto,” Music Review 9, 166. Dean, P. (2009). Interview with the author on 28th August 2009. Brisbane. [Compact disc recording in possession of author]. Etheridge, D. (1983). Mozart’s clarinet concerto: The clarinettist’s view. Los Angles: Pelican. Fallows, D. (2009). Adagio. Groves Music Online. Retrieved 25th September 2009 from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/00606.

Fallows, D. (2009). Allegro. Groves Music Online. Retrieved 25th September, 2009 from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/00606.

Hacker, A. (1969). Mozart and the basset clarinet. The Musical Times, 110(1514), 359-362. Retrieved September 21st, 2009, from the Jstor periodicals database. Hill, C. (2009). Interview with the author on 22nd August 2009. Melbourne. [Compact disc recording in possession of author]. Knocker, E. (1948). A treatise on the fundamental principles of violin playing. New York: Oxford University Press. Lawson, C. (1996). Mozart clarinet concerto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, S., Meyer, W., et al. Preface. Konzert fur klarinette und orchester. Meyer, S., Meyer, W. et al. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1987. 3-4. Mozart, W. A. (2003). Mozart barenreiter urtext – Concerto in A major for clarinet and orchestra [Sheet music]. Kassel: Barenreiter. Neumann, F. (1986). Ornamentation and improvisation in Mozart. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Nichols, J. (1991). A practitioner's handbook for institutional effectiveness and student outcomes assessment implementation. New York: Agathon Press.

42 Oatley, N. (Ed.). (1998). Cities, economic competition and urban policy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Pay, A. (1996). Phrasing in contention. Retrieved September 21st, 2009, from http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Study/Phrasing.html.

Poulin, P. (1995). An updated report on new information regarding Stadler’s concert tour of Europe and two early examples of the basset clarinet. The Clarinet, 122(2), 24-28.

Rice, A. (1992). The baroque clarinet. New York: Oxford University Press. Scholes, Percy, et al. Tempo. Groves Music Online. Retrieved 26th September, 2009 from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e6699.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.

43 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelson, R. (1998). New Perspectives: On performing Mozart’s clarinet concertos. Australian Clarinet and Saxophone, 25(2), 3-8. Brymer, J. (1976). Clarinet. London: Macdonald. Chailley, J. (1971). The Magic Flute: Masonic Opera. London: Lowe & Brydone. Eisen, C. (Ed.). (2006). Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Life in Letters. London: Penguin Books. Irving, J. (2003). Mozart’s piano concerto. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. Koons, K. (1998). Comparing published editions of Mozart’s clarinet concerto, K.622. The Clarinet, 25(3), 11- 21. Leeson, D. (2006). Embellishment and Improvisation in the clarinet repertoire of the classic and early romantic periods. Australian Clarinet and Saxophone, 9(1), 9-29. Lawson, C. (1987). The Basset Clarinet Revived. Early Music, 15(4), 487-501. Retrieved September 21st, 2009, from the Jstor periodicals database.

Lawson, C. (2000). The early clarinet: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, R. (1947). Magic Flute. New York: Boosey and Hawkes. Mozart, W. A. (2009). Clarinet concerto in A, K.622 [Performed by Paul Dean]. On Sublime Mozart: Works for Clarinet [CD]. Brisbane: Melba. Mozart, W.A. (2003). Concerto in A for basset clarinet [Performed by Craig Hill]. On Mozart Clarinet Concerto & Aria: Australian Brandenburg orchestra [CD]. Brisbane: ABC Classics. Mozart, W, A. (Composer). (1987). Konzert fur klarinette und orchester [Sheet music]. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel. Neumann, F. (1982). Essays in performance practice. Michigan: UMI Research Press. Neumann, F. (1993). Performance practices of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. New York: Schirmer books. Rink, J. (Ed.). (2002). Musical performance: A guide to understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stowell, R. (2001). The early violin and viola: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weston, P. (1971). Clarinet virtuosi of the past. London: Robert Hale.

44 Weston, P. (1996). Schwencke’s Mozart concerto: A hypothesis. The Clarinet, 24(1), 64-66.

45 APPENDIX A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE WINTERTHUR MANUSCRIPT K.621b

Extracted from “A Current Overview of Research: The Basset Clarinet as The Intended Instrument in The Clarinet Concerto K622 W.A. Mozart,” by Ian Cook, p.18.

46 APPENDIX B

ANTON STADLER’S CONCERTO TOUR OF EUROPE 1792-1795 31 January 1792: Berlin 23 March 1792: Berlin 4 May 1792: Warsaw 11 September 1792: Warsaw 27 February 1794: Riga 5 March 1794: Riga 21 March 1794: Riga 13 May 1794: St Petersburg 16 September 1794: Lubeck 27 September 1794: Lubeck 29 November 1794: Hamburg 20 December 1794: Hamburg 12 September 1795: Hanover

Extracted from “Mozart Clarinet Concerto” by Colin Lawson, p. 36.

47 APPENDIX C

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

Date Editor/Publisher Instrument

1941 /1959 Jean Albert de la Clarinet in Bb Tournerie/Southern Music

1943 Simeon Bellison/Carl Fischer Clarinet in Bb

1945 Harry Bettoney/Cundy-Bettoney Clarinet in Bb

1946 Frederick Thurston/Boosey & Clarinet in Bb and A Hawkes

1951 Ulysses Delecluse/ Alphonse Clarinet in A Leduc

1959 Eric Simon/G. Schirmer Clarinet in Bb

1959 Reginald Kell/International Clarinet in Bb and A Music

1974 Alan Hacker/Schott Basset clarinet and clarinet in A

1977 Franz Geigling/ Bärenreiter Basset clarinet and clarinet in A

1981 Klaus Burmeister/ C.E. Peters Clarinet in A

1987 Trio di Clarone/Breitkopf & Clarinet in A Härtel

1993 Jack Brymer/ J.B Cramer Clarinet in Bb and A

1994 Alamiro Giampieri/ Ricordi Clarinet in A

1994 Guy Dangain/Gérard Billaudot Clarinet in Bb and A

1996 Ethan Sloane and Ruth Clarinet in A Wright/Southern Music

1997 Pamela Weston/Universal Basset clarinet/clarinet in A (four solo parts)

Not Specified Kalmus Clarinet in A

More detail can be viewed in Koons’ article, “Comparing Published Editions of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto, K.622,” printed in “The Clarinet,” 1998.

48 APPENDIX D CRAIG HILL’S BASSET CLARINET CONSTRUCTER BY PETER VAN DE POEL

Reproduced with his kind permission.

49 APPENDIX E

TABLE OF RECORDING DURATIONS

Name Allegro Adagio Rondo: Instrument Allegro Year

Michel 11:59 7:31 8:42 Clarinet Arrignon 1998

Jack Brymer 11:46 7:19 8:20 Period basset 1996 clarinet Michael Collins 12:04 7:40 8:11 Basset clarinet 2000

Paul Dean 11:57 7:05 8:13 Clarinet 2008

Claude 12:22 6:55 8:57 Clarinet Faucomprez 1986

Martin Frost 12:14 7:00 8:33 Basset clarinet 2003

Craig Hill 12:40 6:20 8:50 Period basset 2003 clarinet Eric Hoeprich 12:49 6:23 9:04 Period basset 1988 clarinet Emma Johnson 12:38 7:34 8:27 Clarinet 1985

Karl Leister 12:30 6:57 8:59 Clarinet 1995

Robert 12:23 7:44 8:49 Clarinet Marcellus 2008

Andrew 11:48 8:17 8:35 Clarinet Marriner 2004

Sabine Meyer 11:53 6:35 8:25 Basset clarinet 1990

Harold Wright 12:39 7:06 8:56 Clarinet 1993

Highlighted in bold example the fastest and slowest lengths of each movement.

50