Klarinet Archive - Posting 000401.txt from 1997/01

From: Gary Young <gyoung@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: How much opinion vs how much fact
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:04:58 -0500

Jerry Korten writes: "To make an assumption that a composer, such as
Stravinsky or Brahms, was only casually acquainted with the difference
between an A and a Bb is naive and insulting. You should not publicize such
views." Wow!

Though I didn't express such an "assumption," I did suggest the possibility
that Brahms and Stravinsky might not have sufficiently understood the
difference at certain times in their lives. So to Jerry I reply as
follows.

Wherever they are now, Stravinsky and Brahms are both able to take
criticism, and can handle my naive comments. So who have I insulted? Your
comment suggests you harbor an underlying composer worship (as opposed to
composer respect), which might be warranted for a particular composer, but
then again might not -- it is always an empirical question whether a given
composer at a given time had a sufficient understanding of the difference
between A and Bb clarinets (or C or whatever) to make an intelligent or
even practicable choice between them.

We might not be able to answer this empirical question with the evidence we
have, and it would be wrong to "assume," in the absence of sufficient
evidence, that a certain composer didn't understand the difference (putting
the burden of proof on the composer, as it were). But certainly some
composers don't know from clarinets, and certainly every composer has to
learn about clarinets (perhaps from a clarinettist), it isn't innate
knowledge. Brahms was not born knowing about clarinets, he learned about
clarinets more and more as he grew as a composer. Didn't Brahms know more
about the clarinet after meeting, hearing, talking and playing with
Muhlfeld than Brahms had known before? Didn't he know more when he
composed symphony #3 than when he was playing pianos in Hamburg seaport
brothels? So what is naive about raising the question whether Brahms or
any other composer has learned at a certain time in his/her life what
he/she needs to know to use clarinets well, and in particular to make an
intelligent choice between Bb and A?

Brahms is not exempt from critical examination in this regard, though I
love his music as dearly as anything in life. Unless I have misunderstood
some of the comments in this thread very badly, at least some good
professional performers have trouble dealing with the Bb-A change which
Brahms put in the third symphony (bars 33-36 of the 1st mvmt, say 8 seconds
to change from Bb to A, to an instrument that is probably cold, starting
with a passage of throat tones rising over the break). I've never played
#3 in orchestra (just ## 1 & 2), so I haven't had to solve this problem on
a practical, need-to-play basis. But it is at least arguable (publishable)
that the problematic nature of this change shows that Brahms had not yet
figured out the best way to use these instruments, that, in particular, he
underestimated the difficulty of changing from one instrument to the other
in a short time. Perhaps there is no uniform best solution to this
question (given the sounds Brahms wanted in this place), and performers
should feel free to play whatever clarinet will permit them to make the
music sound best, given Brahms' other indications of what he wanted. The
orchestra is in A major when Brahms asks for A clarinet, which makes sense;
if any departure from Brahms' request also makes sense, it is to start on
the A clarinet before Brahms requests it, presumably (since there is no
other good place) at the very start of the movement, as David Blumberg
suggests. Surely this is a permissible topic of discussion?

Of course one needs good, non-frivolous reasons to depart from what a
composer wrote (although "what a composer wrote" is hardly unambiguous,
another topic). Simply "feeling" like playing the piece differently does
not count as a good reason. But to go to the opposite extreme and ban
discussion of what might count as good reasons, as you seem to want to do,
is (I think) just as arbitrary and indefensible as following blind
feelings. Does this make any sense to you?