Klarinet Archive - Posting 000145.txt from 1994/06

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Noreen's interest in K. 361/370a, the GP
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 08:11:31 -0400

In response to Noreen's inquiries about the GP, there have been no
substantive articles on this subject in the last 10 years at least.
I do a search on this topic every year to find out what's been
written on the subject and little has turned up in the last 10
searches. There have been a few doctoral dissertations dealing with
the work, but mostly they summarize what is already known or
speculated. Little original research is done in those that I have
read. There are few open questions that need research.

As for the two clarinet parts, there are several hidden traps, one
terrifying one in the 2nd clarinet. The variations movement has a
difficult alberti bass passage for the 2nd clar. and the autograph
score has the passage as tongued. Most of the extant editions
(Kalmus, Breitkopf, Broude, Musica Rara) slur the passage under the
assumption that Mozart must have made a mistake. I don't think
it is as simple as that?

The first clarinet has several lead-ins (in German: Eingange [singular]
or Eingange [plural]) to play throughout the work. The ones in the
5th movement are written out and the others are simply indicated by
the presence of a fermata on a dominant 7th chord. Two things might
be considered: (1) the one in the 5th movement is heard several times
what with repeats; try doing it differently the second and third time
around; make one up; improvise one on the spot; (2) the implied
Eingange require a little imagination and should be improvised; see
movement 1, m. 14, for example; in the score it is just a fermata
leading to the allegro; but there are a ton of hidden messages in
that fermata.

It leads to a much more complicated question of performance practice
and that is too long to go into.

I point out that the clarinet, not the oboe, is the concertmaster
in this composition. So whoever plays 1st clarinet is the leader.

Finally, the issue of contrabassoon vs. contrabass, there isn't much
of an issue. In terms of what is explicitly requested in Mozart's
own hand (the autograph of the GP is in Washington, DC and I have
seen it, held it in my hands, and own a copy of it) says "Contrabasso"
as clearly as can be seen. But if this is not sufficient evidence
of the composer's intention, I also point out that "pizzicato" is
explicitly requested in two separate places.

This leaves little doubt as to what Mozart wanted. What you chose
to play it with is, of course, your own affair. I once played it
with a contrabass clarinet on that line. I suppose one can find
many reasons for changing what is requested, and that's OK. But
the composer requested a contrabass. That is unequivocal.

The problem of the instrument arose in the first printing of 1803.
There the title page reads " Deux clarinettes, deux hautbois, deux
cors de bassette, ..., et contrabasson." But, in the face of the
autograph's explicit request, this publication, like many of that
epoch, holds little authoritativeness.

There are two other arguments that suggest something other than
a contrabass. The first is "If Mozart had had a contrabassoon,
he would have used one." The second is "It sounds better with
a contrabassoon (or whatever) than with a contrabass."

As for the second argument, that is debatable and does not constitute
a scholarly contribution to the discussion. Besides, it is always
a bassoonist who makes the statement and it cannot be accepted as
other than bias.

As for the first argument, it is erroneous on two counts: (1)
Mozart had a contrabassoon; he uses one in the Masonic Funeral
Music so it is not true that he did not have the instrument and
therefore used something else; (2) more important is the fact that
this argument can be used to make any substitution; i.e., "If
Mozart had had a baritone sax he would have used one." This may
or may not be true, but it is certainly irrelevant in any case.

I recognize, Noreen, that there is a great deal of excitement in
examining the various textures of this work by making all sorts
of changes. And that is good. I think that exploration of these
issues is important. Thus, using something other than a
contrabass is an interesting experiment and I'm for that. But
do so with the realization that one is deviating from the
explicitly requested instrumentation.

One must come toa conclusion somewhere in one's musical life,
that Mozart knew more about what he wanted than you or I do.
If he requested something (a specific instrument, a note, an
articulation, etc.) he did so with a purpose. To whatever
extent we change his requests, we deviate from that purpose.

I once heard Stolzman play the bassoon concerto on a clarinet.
It was beautifully played, sounded terrific, was a great idea.
I hope that I hear it again some day. But it is absolutely
counterproductive to think that something better was achieved
than when the same work is played on a bassoon.

I have said enough on this subject and will stay out of it from
here on it. Good luck with your performance.

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