Klarinet Archive - Posting 000103.txt from 1997/05

From: Fred Jacobowitz <fredj@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: I need some help, please - Dan Leeson
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 18:37:45 -0400

Dan,
I think that your research is valid. I add for your consideration
the speculation that the older instruments may have simply sounded more
comfortable in flat keys. For example, violinists abhor flat keys partly
because of the larger intervals; the wide 4ths and 5ths, etc. I wonder if
the unusual set of overtones on the old clarinets, with their dependence
on the overblown 12ths, could have been a consideration, both in terms of
tone color and of tuning. Am I making any sense?
I know that back then composers put a HUGE amount of importance in
what key they wrote in because of real or imagined tone colors and
emotions related to them. Could this be a reason that they wrote for
clarinets in flat keys in general? Now that I think of it, Beethoven
wrote his Trio in F and his wind music in flat keys, Brahms wrote in flats
in his Sonatas, etc.

Fred Jacobowitz
Clarinet/Sax Instructor, Peabody Preparatory

On Sat, 3 May 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
> =======================================
>

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org