Klarinet Archive - Posting 000099.txt from 1994/10

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Lorne Buick's very interesting note
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 21:09:34 -0400

Lorne mentions that at least one musical organization appears to require
all of its clarinet players to execute on the same manufacturer's instruments.
He did not indicate if this was a conductor's decision, a management
perogative, or some other unifying force, and I am not sure that it matters
from whom this dictum is derived.

On one hand I can well understand circumstances that would mandate such an
action. If, for example, a particular clarinet manufacturer were to make a
gift of some sort to the orchestra under the stipulation that this requirement
be met, it would be very logical to have such a rule enforced. For years, the
first clarinet players at the Met, the NY Phil., and the NYC ballet all used
the same brand, were advertised as such, and may even have had their
instruments supplied to them by the manufacturer to take advantage of the good
publicity.

But, barring this, I cannot conceive of a sillier requirement that all players
have to use the same brand name. It serves no musical purpose that they do so.
A Buffet tunes well with a Selmer which tunes well with a LeBlanc which tunes
well with a Yamaha which tunes well with a ... And if certain specific notes
are out of tune (as they are often with two Buffets or two Selmers, etc.),
then some accomodation has to be made to get the notes in tune, this
independent of manufacturer. Just getting the same brand does not eliminate
this problem.

The only purpose such a mandate could serve would be the inflation of the ego
of the proposer. There is no evidence at all, ZERO EVIDENCE, that instruments
of the same manufacturer tune better together than instruments of various
manufacturers.

If, on the other hand, the conversation took the turn that "instruments of the
same manufacturer have the same character of sound," then I would like to have
that argument put to me in some objective way, because it sounds like
nothing more or less than my comments about choice of clarinet based on social
pressure and not musical values. I hear statements such as "brand X blows
easier than brand Y" but I find such statements true only for the individual,
not necessarily true for everyone; i.e., for that person brand X is to be
preferred and that's OK with me, but please do not insult my intelligence to
tell me that you know what's best for me.

If your instrument plays in tune throughout its range, and if it does not have
some anomolous condition that would prevent it from blending with other
clarinets, then anyone who would insist that you much change brand to achieve
some homogeneity in the section should have his ass sued off for (1) being
arbitrary and (2) discriminatory.

Envision therefore a section of clarinets where the 1st player executes on a
transparent plastic clarinet, the 2nd player on a bright red ebonite
instrument, the E-flat player on bamboo, and the bass clarinet on
metal, all of different manufacturers, of course. What a sight! Iconoclasts,
every one.

When I was a kid, growing up in the New York area, I thought that clarinet
players were the most intelligent, all-knowing, sophisticated, intellectually
sound musicians in the whole world. But when I hear that people are listening
to arguments that they all have to have the same brand, I may have to re-adjust
my thinking about their superior mentality. It is like insisting that we all
have the same religion because everything will sound better that way too!

As the kid said to Shoeless Joe Jackson after the black sox scandal, "Tell me
it ain't so, Joe."

====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
(leeson@-----.edu)
(dnl2073@-----.edu)
Any of the above three addresses may be used. Take your pick.
====================================