Klarinet Archive - Posting 000125.txt from 1995/06

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Neil Leupold's comment on B-flat vs. A clarinets
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 19:55:38 -0400

I am always anxious to hear views on this topic but Neil offered little
but opinion on how he felt. He may be right, but somehow, saying "I don't
accept" this or that theory leaves one in an inconclusive state. If
Neil believes the ch be for other than character of sound of the
two instruments, what is that "other" for which the composer is requests
the change?

If Richard Strauss will write for 4 clarinets simultaneously, 2 in B-flat and
2 in A, and all 4 are playing at the same time, what useful purpose is
served by this combination if timbre or sound-character is not being
sought for? Same question with respect to Percy Grainger who requested
mixed clarinets in his band composition, "Hill Song Number 2"?

Continuing with these questions, why do composers request clarinets in
B-flat and bass clarinet in A simultaneously if it is not timbre they
are attempting to exploit.

Perhaps I did not understand the comment completely, but the rejection of
a theory has to be in conjunction with the establishment of one that
explains the circumstances.

And it is a complicated question because why Mozart and Beethoven used
A clarinets is not necessarily the same reason why Stravinsky used an
A (or B-flat) clarinet.

We clarinet players have a tendency to think that the composer's request
is not relevant. If a composer requests a clarinet in A, I have to presume
that he or she was not an idiot but had a specific purpose in mind. And
I cannot contravene the purpose without some heavy authority.

That authority is missing in most of the posts that I have seen that
argue the "It doesn't matter what clarinet is used" philosophy.

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