Klarinet Archive - Posting 000230.txt from 1997/01

From: Mark Charette <charette@-----.com>
Subj: Re: How much opinion vs. how much fact
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:20:47 -0500

Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> Clarinetists (in general, all instrumentalists) have no
> business making arbitrary substitution of one pitched
> instrument for another, particularly in the face of an
> explicit request on the part of a composer with an
> unusually good ear, which is what Brahms is reported to
> have. When arbitrary substitutions are made, the impact
> on the sonic palette that the composer hears when s/he
> composes is altered to some unknown degree. And if one
> can substitute an A clarinet for some other pitched
> instrument with impunity, why not a tenor saxophone for
> a clarinet in B-flat, or an English horn for a basset
> horn?

But what constitutes arbitrary? The instruments have greatly changed
in some cases; the tone palette originally intended may have been lost
through the evolution of the instrument. Could it possibly be that
the substitution of a different pitched modern instrument ends up
being a more accurate representation of the period instrument?

Many of the instruments used in orchestras have undergone "progressive
refinement" even since the time of Brahms; the piano has undergone
incredible changes in the last century. Should we not play the music
of the previous centuries on our modern instruments because the sounds
are so different from what was intended at the time?

Why not a tenor sax for a Bb clarinet, if we can determine that a tenor
sax sounds closer to what we believe a clarinet of a different period
sounded like (after due diligence in our research, of course).

If the substitution is for expedience only, then possibly the
substitution should not be made, but I'm not so sure that it makes
as much difference as the "refinements" in the instrumentation have
already made.
--
Mark Charette "In the next world, you're on your own"
charette@-----.com - Firesign Theater