Klarinet Archive - Posting 000384.txt from 1994/02

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Octave modifications in Mozart
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 22:50:38 -0500

Garrett Fitzgerald continues his comments about changing the text
of K. 622 in order to accomodate the range of the contemporary clarinet.
He changes the run in m. 198 (except for the first note which is outside
of the modern clarinet's range) so as to make as to make the playing
of it into a one directional line. Great idea!! Can't hurt and is
very close to the scholarly position on that measure.

Garret, you said you changed the downward run in m. 188 after the
clarion B. If by the clarion B you mean the third line B, there is
no such note in m. 188. You may have meant m. 189. If so, your idea
is sound but there is much too much clarinet an octave displaced from
where it functions with the given orchestral accompaniment, even though
that accompaniment is sparse and modest.

Your response to this problem in my previous note still has me
vibrating in my shoes. I said that the orchestral accompaniment
has to match the range in which the clarinet is playing or else
one can have some heavy acoustical problems. Your response was,
"Good point. If I ever get to play it, I'll have someone take a
look at the orchestral part."

I suspect that that was a throwaway for you, but I am astonished
at such a suggestion. How much of this are you going to change
simply to allow the clarinet to play in an octave that avoids a
single clumsy leap? And equally important, who is the someone
that you are going to have take a look at the orchestral part? Do
you think that the problem of voicing is one that can be solved by
any old arranger; i.e., just stick it up or down an octave and to
hell with proper voice leadings?

The change you suggest for m. 169 of the final movement is a very
logical idea and creates a sensible balance for the parallel
passages at 171 and 173. I salute you for this. Here, however
is the problem of which we spoke earlier: the timbre of the
clarinet in the register your propose is going to cover the
flutes in those same measures. While this happens in m. 171 and
173 in any contemporary performance, one has to ask if one right one out
of three is better than none out of three?

You say, "I don't know what he [Mozart] did to make it sound so
good." If you ever find out, you'll make a fortune. The issue
of why music strikes one a certain pleasant way is a large
unknown. And why some find Mozart's music beautiful (while
others find it dreadful) is also a great mystery.

You are not clear about what you do in m. 301. Let me suggest
an approach. There are two runs in that measure. Begin each
run as written (i.e., in the wrong octave) and leap downward to
the correct octave for the rest of that run. And even though
m. 302 can be played an octave down in its entirety, treat the
first half of the measure just like m. 301 so as not to create
a parallel passage that is obviously not parallel.

Two questions: what grace note do you play in m. 220 of the
last movement: D or D-flat? Also what note do you play as the 6th
note of m. 109, f-natural or f-sharp (and in the later parallel
passage at m. 297: b-flat or b-natural)?

All fascinating questions and remarkable problems that can
occupy a lifetime to decide on. Good thinking on your part.

====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org