Klarinet Archive - Posting 000097.txt from 1997/05
From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: I need some help, please - Dan Leeson
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 13:32:21 -0400
Dear Members of the Klarinet List
I have been watching the list for about 2 weeks now to see the
level of input. Personally I am not a marching band person but for
those who like it, who am I to criticize? However, now I need some
technical help and I thought I would try here first.
The background of the matter is a very detailed paper co-authored
by me and Bob Levin of Harvard. We are about to submit it to a
scholarly journal called "The Mozart Jahrbuch" and the title of the
paper is "Mozart's Deliberate Use of Inocrrect Key Signatures for
Clarinets."
If interested you can read the paper in December.
However, I need some guidance on the accuracy of a footnote. Let
me tell you that I have worked this one to death and can find no
answer to the question whose answer I seek in any of the standard
literature or any clarinet tutors or books on orchestration from
ca. 1750 to ca. 1825. I am an experienced researcher and know how to
do this sort of thing, but so far I have struck out. Hard! The
matter has to do with key signatures for clarinet during the last
20 years of the 18th century.
First let me state some facts and then give both the footnote and
the question I am asking:
1) the key signatures in which composers where supposed to
write for clarinets were restricted to, at most, 4 flats and
2 sharps. (Levefre, 1802)
2) Earlier tutors are more conservative and limit the keys to,
at most, one sharp or one flat, others allow a little more
liberality.
3) Mozart himself was very conservative and even taught his
students that the limitation was 1 flat, no sharps.
4) He himself did write for clarinet in a written key of 1
sharp on three occasions, but never any more than this, and
two of the three occasions are in fragmentary works. However,
he was more liberal with flat keys using B-flat once, and d-
flat twice. I can find no instance where he used written e-
flat. I remind you that these are all written key signatures.
5) If a composer were about to violate these restrictions, he
was obliged to affect a change of clarinet so as to maintain
the key signature restriction. This is the principle reason
why changes of clarinets were requested; i.e., maintain the
clarinet in a restricted key signature.
I reiterate that these items are facts and I am not asking
questions here. Instead I am simply establishing a basis for the
one question that I have not yet asked.
The problem that I am faced with is this: "Why should flat keys be
more liberal than sharp keys?" Another way to say this is "Why are
not the written key signature restrictions the same for both
flatted and sharped keys? What's special about flat keys?"
And it is to this issue that I have devoted considerable time. To
that extent, I have added the following footnote to give an answer
to this question, though I hasten to add that the answer is derived
by me from the evidence at hand. There is no documentation from
this or any era to confirm my assertion. What I want from the
members of this list is an understanding of how they feel about the
accuracy of my conjecture.
And finally this: the assertions made deal with restrictions on the
18th century clarinet, not some modern system with keys all over
the place. This is really a question for people who have
experience on original instruments. And it is not a Boehm or
Oehler system question, either. It deals with the kinds of
clarinets that were used in Europe (and in America, too) in say
1780-1800.
Here is the footnote:
The reasons behind key signature limitations for clarinets
appear to have their origins in two distinct difficulties
associated with the execution of major key arpeggios, with
particular emphasis on issues arising from the placement of
the tonic and the third. Because the clarinet has two
distinct registers, the positioning of the tonic in one
register and the third in another was (and is) a well-defined
impediment to smooth performance on the eighteenth century
clarinet; i.e., g/b, a-flat/c, a/c-sharp, b-flat/d. Further,
certain tonic/third combinations at the beginning of the
instrument's second register could not be executed in all
left/right hand positions; i.e., b/d-sharp. On contemporary
clarinets, the addition of keys has, to a considerable degree,
eliminated the second difficulty, though the first still
requires both skill and practice. As we shall see, Mozart
appears to have taught this orchestrational consideration to
his pupils. Change and technological improvement was rapid and
within a few years, liberalization of the restrictions began.
However, the problems deriving from the above two technical
issues manifest themselves more frequently in sharp keys than
in flat keys, and this is probably why the key signature
restriction was more rigid in sharp keys.
OK. Now beat up on that footnote. Tell me what is wrong with it.
Tell me that it is full of cock-a-doody. I won't mind. My nose
won't be out of joint. I'll be grateful, providing you say
something that has substance. But I don't want shoot-from-the-hip
opinion based on 10 minutes of clarinet playing as a high school
sophomore in the midwest.
Tell me "it's crap for these specific reasons" and I'll listen with
great attention. Tell me "I don't think that's right but I don't
know why" and I'll shoot your dog.
One thing I noticed is that KLARINET needs a little energy thrust
into it. No one appears to disagree with anyone using language of
substance. Perhaps this question may stir the pot for a while.
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
*************************
* leeson@-----.edu *
*************************
PLEASE NOTE: NEW ADDRESS AS OF 4/15/97
Old address may be used until 6/1
=======================================
