{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0220380105135463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004448038819247877, 'mean_word_length': 4.826855123674911, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The clarinet and the viola in Sonatas op. 120 by J. Brahms and 
a pianist’s performing strategy

Background. Johannes Brahms composed his two Clarinet Sonatas, op. 120, in 1894, and dedicated them to the outstanding clarinet player 
Richard Mühlfeld. These were the last chamber pieces he wrote before his death, when he became interested in the possibilities the clarinet offered. Nowadays they are considered to be masterpieces of the clarinet repertoire, legitimizing the combination of piano and clarinet in new composers’ works. Brahms lavished particular care and affection on these works, and he clearly wished them to have the widest possible circulation, for he adapted them – with a certain amount of recomposition in each case – in two parallel forms: as sonatas for viola and piano, and for violin and piano. The violin versions are rarely heard, but the viola sonatas have become cornerstones of this instrument’s repertoire, just as the original forms have for the repertoire of the clarinet. Brahms was effectively establishing a new genre, since before 
they appeared there were virtually no important duo sonatas for viola and piano. These sonatas embody his compositional technique in its ultimate 
taut, essentialized, yet marvelously flexible manner. The purpose of this 
article is to show the interaction of variable and invariant components of the musical text as a factor influencing performance decisions in the process of working on a piece of music. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis of the musical text of clarinet and 
viola parts in the Sonatas of J. Brahms op 120, which are the material of 
this study. The article relevance is in the importance of comprehension the performing differences for pianists (especially, for those specialized 
on the sphere of chamber music) working J. Brahms’ Sonatas op. 120 with clarinetists or violists. Every piece could offer its own unique complex of special “challenges”, thus the need of analyzing specifics of performance in every such a piece of music appears. This uniqueness is the basis for the innovativeness of the results of the study 
of the performance specifics of J. Brahms’ Sonata op. 120 in a selected aspect. Results of the research. Clarinet and viola versions Sonatas by J. Brahms op. 120 occupy a prominent place in the performing repertoire, including training. Because the article provides a comparative analysis of the musical text of clarinet and viola parts with the same piano part; provides a comparative overview of the specifics of the artistic expression of the clarinet and viola to determine the performing strategy of the pianist in the ensemble. The differences found in the viola and clarinet parts are divided into the groups – octave transfers, addition of double notes and melismatics, changes in melodic lines, difference 
in the strokes (staccato, non legato, tenuto, portamento etc.). There is also a detailed description of clarinet and viola timbres. Due to the different possibilities of the instruments, it is quite obvious that the pianist faces certain creative tasks and in general they can be formulated as follows: when playing the viola, the dynamic range of the piano should be smaller than when performing with the clarinet. In addition, you need to pay attention to other details, such as pedal, texture quality, articulation. Yes, the viola sounds much more confident against the background of a “thick” pedal, while the clarinet in this case loses 
the volume of its sound. With regard to phrasing, it should be borne in mind that the clarinetist needs to take a breath, and the violist’s ability to lead a bow for a long time does not depend on his physiological characteristics. The question arises: which is more important – 
tempo or phrasing? In this situation, the specificity is that phrasing should be given more attention. The tempo when performing with the clarinet 
varies significantly than with the viola, and it is also chosen and changed for practical reasons that follow from the physical data of the performer. The pianist should also pay special attention to the differentiation 
of voices and the quality of articulation. In terms of sound balance, it is obvious that the clarinet needs more piano support than the viola, because it is dynamically brighter. Nevertheless, this does not mean that piano shades “p” should be avoided, because the contrast of 
dynamics expands the acoustic range of Sonatas and their expressive potential. Conclusion. The comparative-analytical description contributes to the awareness of the differences in the dynamic balance due to the change of the obligatory instrument. Accurate knowledge of where and how such changes occur not only focuses the musicians’ attention on the relevant details in the performance process, but also encourages them to make 
more informed decisions about the dynamic balance of performance in general.