Klarinet Archive - Posting 000233.txt from 1997/01

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: How much opinion vs how much fact
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:07:36 -0500

> From: MX%"charette@-----.24
> Subj: Re: How much opinion vs. how much fact

> 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).

Has anyone determined anything? You say, "if we can determine that ..."
but the facts are that no research of any kind has been done to
support or to contradict the environment of which we are speaking.
In actual practice we have a runaway train in which any player feels
that any reason permits substitution of almost any clarinet for almost
any other clarinet under any circumstances.

There is zero evidence that suggests that an A clarinet of today
sounds the way a B-flat clarinet sounded in Brahms' lifetime, so to
suggest that, in the absence of any real intelligence on this matter,
we are in a position to do as we wish is colossol arrogance (not that
you used those words - I have taken the discussion to an extreme).

Perhaps I am still burning from the time that Stanley Drucker suggested
that I be fired from a gig in which I played the Missa Solemnis
C clarinet part on a C clarinet. That is how far this kind of
arrogance can take us.

In no way do I exclude myself from the accusation that clarinet
players surround themselves with two qualities: ignorance and
arrogrance.

>
> 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
====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================