Klarinet Archive - Posting 000156.txt from 1995/06

From: Neil Leupold <Neil_Leupold@-----.COM>
Subj: RE>First things first
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 20:08:12 -0400

ntouch Memo 06/10/95
Subject:RE>First things first 3:54 PM
Dan Leeson wrote:

"The bottom line here is that the story is too imprecise to conclude
Stravinsky's real motivation, though I would love to be able to put the story
forward in support of my belief that he really was able to hear a difference
between the two instruments."

That's good & fine, but the Stravinsky example wasn't really a good one for my
purposes, to be honest. Since the piece is unaccompanied, it's obvious that
technical demand was not a motivator in Stravinsky's choice of instrument, per
movement, since the fingerings would be identical regardless of which
instrument was used. Timbre is one possibility; tonality is another. And
then there's the question of whether or not Igor could hear any difference at
all, or was merely using deductive reasoning when he pointed out the improper
instrumentation for the 3rd movement. Could it be that he simply noticed the
absence of another clarinet on stage and responded solely on that basis? As
Dan points out, we'll never know the answer so let's not dwell on it.

My focus is more directed toward the orchestral context, where transposition,
tonality, timbre, and technical demands ARE an issue if a composer wants a
player to perform his part on an A clarinet instead of the Bb. I've asked the
question of Tom Izzo in a separate posting, so perhaps he can shed some light
and tell us what a composer thinks when orchestrating the clarinet part(s).

Dan writes:

"Two other stories are applicable here..."

While I got a good guffaw out of the stories, I think we're in the apples vs.
oranges fallacy again. Maruice de Abravanel cannot realistically be used as
testamentary evidence, neither in support nor in contest of a composer's
sensitivity to timbral differences between the A & Bb instruments. Abravanel
was a conductor. Granted, he studied with Kurt Weill, but I'm not aware of any
well-known or widely accepted orchestral music composed by Abravanel which
would place him in the same category as Mozart or Mahler. His conducting
career, on the other hand, is very acclaimed, having conducted extensively at
the Metroplitan Opera and on Broadway, as well as with the Utah Symphony. So
even though Dan's story seems to actually support my counter-notion that
perhaps composers aren't always paying attention to timbre when deciding which
clarinet to score, it's a very weak correlation and of little use.

Dan offers:

"So we have to look at what composers did for internal evidence of their
intentions. I believe that such evidence was put forward in an article to be
found in the Nov./Dec. 1991 issue of The Clarinet. See, "Mozart and the
Clarinet in B-Natural" which carries the subtitle, "An Essay about
Clarinet Substitution in Music of the Classic and Early Romantic Periods." The
Clarinet."

I wish I had a copy of that article. 'Sounds like it takes a step in the right
direction, although just a single article will not suffice as incontrovertible
evidence that timbre is predominant over tonality and/or technical
considerations in a composer's mind - Mozart, or any other Classic/Romantic
composer.

Dan also says:

"I really don't care if it was deliberate, a mistake, or goodness knows what."

That's where we differ then. I'm quite interested in knowing whether or not
the choice was deliberate, arbitrary, or (assuming this is possible) a mistake.
We can't resurrect Mozart, Grainger, or Mahler, but perhaps we can determine
what the reasons are in our own era at the very least, rather than allowing the
answer to fade into hopeless obscurity as it already has for the eras past.
There is such a vast lacuna of understanding relative to how composers of the
past perceived their music and their resources, it seems shameful to ignore the
opportunity to know the answers in our own patch of history.

Finally, from Dan:

"Bottom line: it is not my business to presume that I know better about the
music than the person who wrote it."

Let me ask you this, Dan. Were Mahler alive today and you were playing his
piece in his orchestra, would you pass up the chance to ask him why he scored
the piece for simultaneous Bb clarinets and Bass clarinet in A? You of all
people on this list have exhibited the need for accountability, and yet you
seem to be in conflict with your own philosophy by blindly accepting a
composer's directions without asking "why" - even if just out of curiosity.

"I am hired to play the music as the composer wrote it, hopefully with enough
of a knowledge of performance practices of that era that justify every action I
take. And the instrument of choice for the composer is part of that total
package."

Agreed, but I still find myself asking "why". I am the clarinetist, after all,
and understanding the composers reasoning for choosing an A clarinet over a Bb,
or a D clarinet instead of an Eb, will only bring me closer to performing
his/her music precisly the way (s)he wants it. Does this make sense?

- Neil