Klarinet Archive - Posting 000063.txt from 1994/07

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Edgar Pearlstein's clarificiation
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 22:40:41 -0400

Edgar, I am sorry to give the impression of jumping on you, but you have
jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

First, when you say "I don't think people expect to hear, say, Mozart played
with valveless horns and with the relatively crude clarinets of his day,
using wooden mouthpieces and home-made reeds. That is unless they are
mostly interested in an academic experience."

It is my opinion that neither you nor I know what people expect to hear
so it is difficult to accept your generalizations. There are many,
many people today making a good living playing on valveless horns and
"relatively crude clarinets" (your terms, not mine) with wooded
mouthpieces and home-made reeds, and they sound terrific.

Second, and far more important, is your view that the Mozart clarinet
was played by Stadler (for example) in a "relatively crude"
fashion. Just how crude was that? If Mozart, whose
opinion I think infinitely more valuable than mine, praised Stadler's
clarinet playing, then I would be very grateful to be able to play
that "relatively crudely."

It is a common belief "real" clarinet playing began only in the early
part of this century and everybody who lived before that time was either
a klutz or else was so hampered with the primitiveness of the
instrument that they could barely execute.

Such a view is, to be graphic, ca-ca! Stadler could probably hold
a position with most of today's orchestras though he might have
pitch problems. And certainly the great clarinetists of the mid
1800s could ride circles around many of today's excellent performers.

Just because the instruments were early doesn't mean that great
artistry could not be accomplished on them. After all, Stadler
performed the Mozart concerto on his instrument. And I doubt
if he fell all over himself while doing so, blaming the primitiveness
of his instrument on his inability to execute. From everything I read
about him, he creamed everything he played. I sure don't.

Third, your use of the term "academic" as something equivalent to
"worthless" is, in my opinion, way off the mark.

Finally this, you say you would have preferred to use the word
"musicologist" rather than historian, but you don't say why. But
whatever word you use, you still give it a flavor of someone on
the other end of the spectrum from a performer, some kind of a
dreamer who hypothesizes vague solutions to very practical
performance problems. Perhaps this is what you meant by academic.

I think you need to rethink your judgement on what musicologists
do that has some value to performers, and what it is that
performers do to influence musicologists. Musicologists and
performers are not in enemy camps.

Your opinion is just as good as anyone else's on this board, but
when any opinion is offered, one has to be prepared to be shot at
by someone who holds a different opinion.

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