Name: Daniel Ottensamer
Occupation: Clarinetist
Nationality: Austrian
Recent release: Daniel Ottensamer's nonumental 7-CD compendium The Clarinet Trio Anthology is still available. More recently, he released an album with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra of orchestral clarinet pieces available via Sony Classical.

If you enjoyed this Daniel Ottensamer interview and would like to find out more about his work and current live dates, visit his official website. To keep reading, read our 2013 Andreas Ottensamer interview with his brother. 



When did you first start getting interested in musical interpretation?

While studying my first clarinet concertos – I must have been around 14 or 15 – I realized that there is another, deeper layer to the music I was playing. That I could express something with a piece.

As all young musicians you first have to master the technique, there is so much your fingers and whole body have to learn, before you can even think about something like interpreation. I was listening to different clarinet players with different interpretations of the piece, I was studying. Slowly I developed my own understanding of the music and with the help of my father, who was also a clarinet player and held the same orchestra position as I do now, I found my own musical taste.

I would describe my style as simple, natural and non-artifical music-making.

Which artists, approaches, albums or performances captured your imagination in the beginning when it comes to the art of interpretation?

I was listening a lot to my father’s recordings of many clarinet concertos. Experiencing him in his day-to-day musician life with the variety of playing as a soloist, in the orchestra, in the opera, doing chamber music, for me reinforced my wish to do the same.

I also remember vividly my first visit to the opera at the age of 7, witnessing the clarinet solo in Puccini’s famous opera “Tosca”, which had a big effect on my musical development.



These 1.5 minutes of music inspire me up to this day, they showed me how deep the impact of music and interpretation can be on an audience.

Are there examples for interpretations that were entirely surprising to you personally and yet completely convincing?

Jazz clarinetist Benny Goodman recorded some classical clarinet concertos, which were composed for him by composers like Aaron Copland and Paul Hindemith. The interpretations are very different from those of classical clarinet players, but very convincing and interesting.

Coming from a different background than a musician only trained in the classical field, his tone, phrasing and articulation are lighter, sometimes more flexible.

This works exquisitely well in Coplands Clarinet Concerto, which he premiered in 1950: It draws its inspiration from Jazz and sometimes even Folklore, set in a classical form – with the addition of Benny Goodman’s jazzy tone, it’s just perfect!



What, would you say, are the key ideas behind your approach to interpretation?

To be honest: I never have a preset of ideas, when it comes to interpretation. I am not someone, who is analyzing every bar, I mostly listen to my gut feeling! This has a lot to do with my upbringing, being surrounded by music all the time, it is in my DNA and therefore I do not interprete consciously, but from my voice within.

For me, music must have the chance to “just happen in the moment” – overthinking can make you stiff, almost rigid. This is why my interpretations change in every concert, depending on the way I feel in that very moment.

Do you see yourself as part of a tradition or historic lineage?

We have a long and intense music-tradition in Vienna. This city was and is a centre of European classical music and I understood its rank at a very young age already. Also, the Viennese clarinet sound with its special way of phrasing and articulating is a tradition which I inhaled as a child and while studying.

Last but not least, I am part of my family tradition: Together with my father and brother I contributed to the history of the clarinet in my very own way – and I’m excited to see, how the next generation will shape this history even further.

Could you describe your approach to interpretation on the basis of a piece, live performance or album that's particularly dear to you, please?

All albums of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra show the special Viennese tradition of making music, particularly when it comes to phrasing and articulation. Especially in the recordings of the famous New Year’s Concerts, the orchestra’s way of making music is perfectly described: It’s the mixture of a certain amount of relaxation in the music – a typical Austrian kind of laissez-faire – and still taking every bar, every single note very seriously.

It’s a feeling and approach that I deeply connect with.

What was your own learning curve / creative development like when it comes to interpretation - what were challenges and breakthroughs?

First of all, for me it is very important to have the necessary technical skills, in order to be able to have your own convincing interpretation. Without these skills it can be frustrating and in my opinion nearly impossible to find your way into and with a piece.

In many cases, the score will be the first and foremost resource for an interpretation. But the score is only the starting point of my work.

Can you explain about how “reading” a score works for you?

It is very important to me to understand the music, not only the score. The score is just a language with quite a small vocabulary. You can easily understand the theory of a piece of music, how it was composed, built, constructed.

I use the score only as a guideline for the music. But to find the meaning, that lies embedded in between and within the notes, is the quintessence of a piece – and of reading and understanding a score.

What role does improvisation play for your interpretations?

Admittedly, improvisation does not play a huge role in the classical music field that I consider myself being a part of. For me, it is more about finding a deep connection to what is written by the composer than to add to and play with a piece of music.

The closest I get to the feeling of improvisation is in the cadenzas of concertos: Historically sometimes performed on the spot, they still breathe the air of spontaneity and musical freedom, though being written down.

Interpretations can be wildly different live compared to the studio. What is this like for you?

I totally agree with that. Recording a piece in the studio is mainly focused on finding the version, that speaks – if I may put it that way – to an eternal audience.

If I had to choose, I would always go for the live experience of a concert. Compared to a studio session, interpreting a piece live draws its strength from a lot of different aspects: The audience, but also the acoustics of the concert hall as well as your own feelings, affect an interpretation.

To play in front of an audience is much more satisfying – you give something and get back so much in exchange!

With regards to the studio situation, what role do sound, editing possibilities and other production factors play for your interpretation?

There are some recordings where you feel, that the sound is all natural and pure, with not additions whatsoever. Especially with some Lied recordings you get to imagine yourself sitting in first row or even better in a private session, the singer only performing for you without an artificial concert atmosphere.

Barbara Bonney’s recording of “Vier letzte Lieder” by Richard Strauss is a great example of that. I love the purity and clarity of this recording and my aim for my own albums is exactly the same: I try keeping it simple and clean.



Artists can return to a work several times throughout the course of their career, with different results. Tell me about a work where this has been the case for you, please.

The Mozart Clarinet Concerto is a piece that accompanies a clarinetist through their whole life. So it is natural that interpretations change through the artists age and personality.



For me, the interpretation of a work which I repeat many times through my career, changes the most. Interpretation here is like a painting: While the first coat is drying, you think about the next layer, a color scheme, some details. You might even leave your painting alone for a while and set it aside.

Looking at it with fresh eyes in a different light after some time, eventually gives you new inspiration, shows you new possibilities and enables you to work further on it.

Part of the intrigue of interpretations is that the process is usually endless. Are there, vice versa, interpretations that feel definitive to you?

There is only one answer to this: No. For me, there can never be something like a “valid” or “right” interpretation that everyone can agree on – I can’t even agree on my own ones!

For example: My Mozart recording, that I did around ten years ago, still has a certain appeal to me. But: I play the piece completely different now. When it comes to interpretations everyone should be as free as they want; you can always disagree about taste, historical accuracy, or even right or wrong notes.

Let me end this on a question: If there were definitive interpretations – why then would musicians go on stage and play their hearts out?