Klarinet Archive - Posting 000124.txt from 1997/05

From: <chr@-----.de>
Subj: Re: I need some help, please - Dan Leeson
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:28:36 -0400

Dear Dan,

Even though you miss "language of substance" on this list, I will not
call your footnote "cock-a-doody" although I can't quite agree with it.

Crossing the break smoothly was a prerequisate to artful clarinet playing
in the 18th century as much as now. Your footnote caused me to pick up an
old 6-key clarinet (the traditional 5 plus c#'/g#'' - "Lefevre's key")
lying around here and try some of this out! The biggest problem for
smooth break crossing was the distance between the end of the register
key and the thumb-hole. After about 30 minutes of practice, however, the
coordination of catching the register key and closing the thumb-hole
simultaneously started to work and nascent smoother break crossing became
possible. Players who would practice a period clarinet daily (and what
choice did an 18th century player have?) would certainly be adept at
slurring the intervals mentioned in the footnote.

In any case the late 18th century literature is full of across the break
slurs in technical (arpeggios, scales, rapid thirds) and melodic
context. The Mozart Concerto K. 622 provides sufficient examples, but so
do Krommer, Hoffmeister, and even a little in Stamitz.

As far as the b'-d#'' slur is concerned this is even easier to accomplish
on the 6-key clarinet (although I admit to a certain advantage in that we
Oehler players still have to slide for this interval - albeit with the
help of rollers).

It seems the following could be a far weightier argument for your case:
Since most classical music compositions modulate into the dominant for
sometimes long periods (i.e. exposition in Sonata-Allegro form or
concerto) then the key of G major would already be in danger of
containing lots of c#s which are a problem on 18th century instruments.
C#' is extremely ugly and sharp when attempted on a "classical" 5-key
clarinet. Lefevre added this c#' key and explains it in his Methode
(1802). Also c#'' presents a big problem when it is to be slurred to or
from b'. This would require sliding between the two stick-like keys for
the 5th finger left hand. Again, even though the Oehler clarinet requires
this same slide even today, the keys and rollers facilitate it. On the
6-key instrument, I could not slide close to smoothly after 30 minutes of
trying. Shaped keys made in the first 10 years of the 19th century
ameliorated this problem quite a bit. (See also examples 3 and 4 of the
61 difficult passages Lefevre includes in Article 14 of his Methode.)

FWIW,

Don Christensen
Friedrichshafen, Germany
chr@-----.de

>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...
>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.