Klarinet Archive - Posting 000130.txt from 1995/06

From: Neil Leupold <Neil_Leupold@-----.COM>
Subj: RE>Dan Leeson's comments on
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 23:26:45 -0400

ntouch Memo 06/09/95
Subject:RE>Dan Leeson's comments on my comments 6:44 PM
Dan wrote:

"If Neil believes the choice be for other than character of sound of the two
instruments, what is that "other" for which the composer is [sic] requests the
change?"

I did state in my initial message, in reference to Stravinsky's Three Pieces:
"...it leaves open again the likelihood that the final movement was written in
Bb in order to provide a tonal (in terms of the key of the instrument) - rather
than timbral - contrast between the first two movements and the last. The
piece being unaccompanied, it would be left to the audience's memory of the
first two movements in order to notice (consciously or otherwise) the change of
key-quality in the last."

The strength of the statement, posing what I see as a perfectly valid
possibility and not just a whimsical opinion, was further substantiated by
Larry Liberson's account of Stravinsky's reaction to a player who performed the
entire Three Pieces on one clarinet, rather than performing the first movements
on A and the final movement on Bb. Laura Bornhoeft wrote:

"It seems that Stravinsky was present at a performance of his Three Pieces in
which the performer used the same clarinet for all three. (They're
unaccompanied, what should it matter?) Apparently Stravinsky made a rather
nasty remark about it."

To which Larry Liberson responded:

"Stravinsky was upset, no so much because of the color difference, but due to
the fact that the pieces in question were being played, to his ears, in the
wrong KEY."

Dan asked:

"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"?"

This is a very good point, and brings to bear the idea that perhaps both timbre
_and_ tonality are prominent factors of consideration when a composer endeavors
to orchestrate his/her music. In orchestral music, I find myself asking if a
composer really does treat the clarinetists so considerately as to write the
part for the A clarinet - specifically because of the technical demands. If a
piece is in concert-E, it will be appreciably more difficult to perfom on a Bb
clarinet instead of an A. Could this be a bona fide reason for a composer to
score that part for the A clarinet instead? Or is tone color the only
consideration? Do composers ALWAYS consider the timbre, or could an argument
be made that there are plenty of times where the A clarinet was scored instead
of the Bb because it would simply be easier to play? This is why I think it
would be neat to ask today's composers themselves. I had a roommate/composer
who could not detect any difference in timbre between the A & Bb clarinets.
His only consideration when orchestrating clarinet parts was key/tonality -
very much in keeping with Stravinsky's reaction to the incorrect performance of
his Three Pieces.

Dan also asks:

"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."

It seems like you're comparing apples to oranges here. Of COURSE the timbre is
different between soprano and bass. It's hard to make an argument about how
sensitive a composer is being to such an obvious difference without talking to
the composer personally. If you had Bb soprano instruments and an A bass
clarinet playing simultaneously, the more appropriate question would be, "What
timbral difference does the composer observe between A & Bb _BASS_ clarinets
which motivates him/her to score for an A?" You tell me: are there also
pieces out there scored simultaneously for A and Bb _bass_ clarinets?

Dan goes on to say:

"...the rejection of a theory has to be in conjunction with the establishment
of one that explains the circumstances."

I feel I did so by posing the idea that considerations of key and tonality
could be equally as valid as those of timbre. I did not go so far as to offer
erudite scholarly evidence in support of the idea, but I did not offer an
unreasonable alternative.

"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."

This seems like a great subject for a term paper or graduate thesis. Maybe
I'll take it on and get back to you in a few years, unless somebody has already
done the research and can offer up evidence in this regard.

"We clarinet players have a tendency to think that the composer's request is
not relevant."

I'm certainly not one of them. I'm particularly pedantic about a composer's
indications, but that doesn't keep me from questioning his/her rationale.

"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."

Well, that's my question. How specific was the composer's purpose? Is it
impossible to think that in some cases the choice of instrumentation might have
been arbitrary AND to good effect nonetheless?

- Neil