Klarinet Archive - Posting 000151.txt from 1995/06

From: Neil Leupold <Neil_Leupold@-----.COM>
Subj: RE>Re- Re>Tom Izzo's commen
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 19:23:47 -0400

ntouch Memo 06/10/95
Subject:RE>Re: Re>Tom Izzo's comments 3:27 PM
Tom Izzo wrote:

"I must admit that when I write for chamber orchestra (2-2-2-2-2hn, strings) I
write for the Bb,
unless I'm requested otherwise; and my large scorings tend to Eb, Bb, Bb, Bb
Bass, for orchestral writing, though I do require some doublings in my longer
works; and all of my Jazz selections require saxes doubling on Bb Clars both
Sop & Bass."

Okay, Tom. I'll start with you then. I posed the question hypothetically in
my initial posting on the subject. Since you are, in fact, a composer of
orchestral works, utilizing the conventional resources of a modern symphony
orchestra, why do your large scorings "tend to[ward] Eb, Bb, Bb, Bb Bass, for
orchestral writing"? Why, when writing for chamber orchestra, do you "write
for the Bb unless requested otherwise"? What rationale do you, as a modern
composer, use when deciding which clarinet will play a particular part? Are
composers of the 20th century simply conditioned by reflex, as a product of
their conservatory training or via some other influential factor, to use the Bb
as a starting point - branching out only for purposes of experimentation with
timbre and technical ease of performance? I think this is the root of the
discussion. Help us understand how a composer thinks about the clarinet in his
orchestral works.

Since you have dedicated a good amount of energy toward understanding and
developing the timbral differences in your clarinet choir music, I suspect you
probably have a keener sensitivity than a composer who has not concentrated on
clarinet choir music (as illustrated by my Eskimo/snow analogy). By this
token, you're probably not quite representative of composers who don't share
your additional talent, but perhaps this is a better way to go: from the very
specific down to the more general.

- Neil