Klarinet Archive - Posting 000434.txt from 1996/03

From: Donald Yungkurth <DYungkurth@-----.COM>
Subj: Leeson/Clarinet Development
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:04:06 -0500

Dan Leeson has done his usual excellent job of clarifying his viewpoint in
light of Steve Prescott's suggestion about clarinet development.

For those on this list who are following these discussions, I don't think I
need to take the space to quote Dan's remarks in their entirety. Dan
explains the probable reasons for the use of clarinets in various keys in
Mozart's time, while ohter woodwind instruments overblowing the octave did
not appear in various keys. He then says:

>However, once additional clarinets were in existence, it is >my suggestion
that composers used the added color >palette donated by the instruments of
various lengths. >Perhaps "used" is not the right word and I should say
>"took advantage of" but I am not really sure. It is rather >that, as Mozart
wrote a work and heard it in his head (to >whatever extent he did), and he
was using a clarinet in C >(or B-flat or A or B-natural), then inside his
head he heard >the orchestral palette including the sound of a particular
>clarinet, and he used that clarinet to its best advantage >considering its
contribution to the palette.

This is, as Dan points out, his suggestion, and I have no problem accepting
this opinion. Mozart, being Mozart, deserves our respect and we can make
pretty lofty assumptions about his abilities and standards. On the other
hand, we certainly don't *know* what Mozart heard in his head or, more
particularly, what sound he expected from a clarinet, any more than we can
ever know what clarinets sounded like two hundred years ago, whether played
by Stadler or a less gifted musician.

Not too many years ago, when "authentic or original instruments" were used,
it usually meant mostly (to my modern ears) that the intonation was bad and
the instrumental tone was on the raucus side, by present standards. I did not
like them.

More recently, "original instrument" performances are tending to have
excellent modern intonation and tone and are distinguished more by tempo,
dynamics, balance etc. They are interesting and not painful to listen to,
unless the strings play without vibrato while having less than a perfect
unison. Many slightly different pitches, without vibrato, do not seem to
blend and are strident to me. But I digress - back to woodwinds!

Dan says a bit later, in reference to using the composer's choice of
clarinet:

>As you all know, I think it matters very much. David >Neithamer of Richmond
added a very thoughtful which >said (correctly) that my interpretation of the
matter is >literal and his is more practical. He is right of course.

It seems to me that in the modern orchestra (as opposed to those attempting
to recreate some concept of historical sound or performance practice), the
clarinetist's responsibility is to the conductor and is clearly in the
practical rather than the literal camp. Orchestras around the world are
tending to sound more and more alike, compared to the differences one heard
in the late '40s and the '50s, when I did my first serious listening to
"classical" music.

The practical clarinetist today probably has to be concerned with satisfying
his conductor in the following ways:

1. Impeccable intonation throughout the entire range of the instrument.
2. Tone that blends well with the rest of the woodwind section.
3. Ability to balance dynamics with the section or the whole orchestra as
needed.

With these considerations and the kind of sound generated by the modern
orchestra, the practical musician is likely to be more desirable and
acceptable than the literal musician who blindly follows printed intructions
intended for an 18th century musician. If the modern performing artist
decides that he can best give the result expected by his conductor by using a
clarinet other than that specified by the composer 200 years ago, it that a
bad thing?

Don Yungkurth (DYungkurth@-----.com)