Klarinet Archive - Posting 000337.txt from 1997/01

From: Gary Young <gyoung@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: How much opinion vs how much fact
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:26:11 -0500

I think some of the contributors to this thread are wrongly assuming a
composer with perfect (or real good) knowledge of the clarinet when they
elevate the composer's score (which they take to be the perfect embodiment
of the composer's intention) to the level of infallibility.

I'm willing, for example, to accept that Brahms knew what he was doing when
he wrote the quintet and trio for A clarinet and the sonatas for Bb, and
that he had a reason (either aural or practical [fingering]) for assigning
the pieces to the two different instruments -- after all, he had then made
Muhlfeld's acquaintance and had Muhlfeld's advice. I'm not willing to make
that assumption so readily with his third symphony.

And of course the score is not the infallible expression of the composer's
intention (the most recent explanation why is found in Richard Taruskin's
essays), although one always needs a reason to depart from the score (or
the parts, which might differ from the score). So the fact that Brahms
wrote some parts of #3 for Bb and some for A is not conclusive regarding
what he really intended. (Maybe before he met Muhllfeld he (mistakenly?)
thought "the Bb clarinet" had a (forgive the expression) "darker" sound
than "the A clarinet" (as if the sound of all Bb's was different in some
objective or agreed-upon subjective respect from the sound of all A's) and
scored passages for Bb when he wanted that "darker" sound.)

And if we have a good reason to depart from his instructions, we should do
so. People who assert there can never be a good reason to do this are just
wrong (not to make any absolutist statement myself, of course). The
difficulty is that people disagree on what is a sufficiently good reason to
make such a departure. I think the best we can do here is listen to each
other's reasons for departing or not, learn what we can from each other,
and then make up our own minds. As Chairman Mao said (or was it Richard
Nixon?), let a thousand flowers bloom.

Is playing an A where the composer specified Bb any different from playing
faster or slower than a composer's metronome markings, when we think the
composer has the pulse of the piece wrong (as shown by composer-conducted
recordings that don't match the composer's mm marks, e.g. Stravinsky?).

The argument for strict compliance with the composer's instructions for
what clarinet to use is much stronger when we have reason to think the
composer knew something about the clarinet, and wasn't just guessing, or --
and this I think is quite important -- wasn't simply specifying (say) A
clarinet because he or she had to specify something -- A, or Bb, or C, or
whatever. (In other words, the selection or A or Bb might be no more
meaningful than the decision whether people in a certain country should
drive on the right or left side of the road -- we need a rule about it, but
it doesn't matter which rule we pick, just so we do pick one.)

So if William O. Smith says "A clarinet," we're crazy to use a Bb. But if
Stravinsky says "A clarinet," the conclusion is not so clear. With
Stravinsky, if we have a good reason to use a Bb, why not? We -- and he --
don't always follow his mm markings, so why be slavish about his instrument
specifications? (And don't anyone say: Well, then, you might as well play
the clarinet part on a theremin! That's like arguing (as people used to
do) that if you don't like the Republican Party, you should move to
Russia.)

End of 2 cents' worth.