Klarinet Archive - Posting 000791.txt from 1997/05

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: A clarinet
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 01:13:23 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.79
> Subj: Re: A clarinet

> On Wed, 28 May 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:
>
> > If you say, "I find the sound character of a C clarinet penetrating
> > beyond my wishes to penetrate" I can understand that, but such a
> > criticism is blaming a black cat for being black. That is what the
> > sound character of a C clarinet is supposed to be, and that very
> > cahracter was used by composers in a way to suit their ends.
>
> Now, Dan, are you very sure of that? Were the composers of the 19th
> century so myopic and ignorant that they were totally unaware of what
> every 20th century clarinetist knows about changing clarinets for
> technical reasons? Can we say with certainty that when a composer such
> as Mozart wrote for the C, the Bb or the A clarinet, that he did so
> exclusively because of the differences in the tone of the instruments, and
> that it had nothing to do with availability of instruments, the key of the
> work in question, or technical considerations for the performer?

So the question arises as to what the motivation was for a composer
to use a specifically pitched clarinet in music of the late 1700s. And
it is a pleasure to grapple on this problem with such an articulate
person who demonstrates a keen intellect.

Insofar as what is provable with respect to this issue, I can prove it.
Why did Mozart (and others, of course, but let's stick to the late
1700s and then go slowly up to 1825) call for a clarinet of specific
pitch? Was it for the sound character or was there another reason?

An examination of more than 70 tutors for the clarinet and instrumentation
texts of that epoch shows that they were absolutely unanimous on
this issue. And it had nothing to do with sound character, either
(though that may appear that I'm arguing against myself - be patient).

The sole reason for calling for this or that clarinet was to restrict
the written key signature. In mid-Mozart, that restriction was that
the clarinet's key signature should not ever have a sharp in it or
more than one flat in it. And should that restriction ever have
to be violated by modulations in the music, then the clarinetist was
directed to change instruments so as to live within the restriction;
i.e., if the music went to sounding A major, the clarinetist was
directed to switch to clarinet in A so that he or she could continue
to play in written C major.

That was the sole reason for selecting a clarinet of specific
pitch and is documented in every clarinet tutor from 1775 to 1825.
Now slowly, over this period, the restrictions were relaxed to
the point where one could use a written key signature of 1 sharp,
too. Mozart did that three times in his lifetime (including
basset horn music).

Eventually he went as high as 4 flats, and by 1825 all the tutors
agreed that one could use the clarinet in as many as two sharps
or 4 flats. And to stay within that constraint, the composer
was directed to change instrument to as to maintain the
key signature restriction.

However, and it is a big however, once the clarinet of specific
pitch was selected by virtue of the reason above, is there any
doubt that a person with as good an ear as Mozart (and Beethoven,
too) would not exploit that particular clarinet's unique sound?

While it may be argued by some that the Beethoven 1st piano concerto
sounds just as good played on a B-flat clarinet, there are others
who maintain exactly the opposite; i.e., the change from the
requested C clarinet has a distinctly negative effect on the
entire sonic pallette of the piece. And in any event, why should
the clarinetist have any say in the decision of which instrument
to play when directed by the composer to do otherwise?

>
> If you play a Mahler symphony with a bass clarinet in Bb and one in A, how
> many people can tell that, especially given that much of what you would be
> playing would be in the context of a large orchestra and an often thick
> texture? Can the conductor tell the difference? Can other clarinetists
> tell the difference? Could Mahler himself tell the difference?
>
Is this a democratic process? We ask how many people can tell the
difference between an A and B-flat bass clarinet and then chose
the instrument following the vote? There is only one person
involved in that decision: Mahler. Not you. Not me. Not the
audience. I figure that if Mahler, who had a pretty good ear,
tells me to play on a b.c. in A, then that is what I am going to
play on, if it is at all humanly or financially possible. I
recognize that almost everyone does it differently, but is that
correct? That is the central core of this discussion.

> Some of the people on this list, unlike old-timers like myself, haven't
> been subscribed long enough to have had the benefit of your often stated
> positions about the differences in clarinet tone quality. It's not my
> intention to disagree with you, but to say that I haven't yet been fully
> convinced. As a philosophical stance, I think there is a problem. It
> seems to me that you are refuting other people's positions as
> unsupportable or untenable with assertions of your own that are not
> necessarily more supportable or more tenable. Despite historical
> research, the instinct favoring "authentic" performances, and the desire
> to recreate the composer's intentions as nearly as possible, in the final
> analysis, we have only one final arbiter, and that is our basic musical
> instincts. I think there is room for a considerable range of informed
> opinion, and that the question doesn't lend itself very well to
> black-or-white pronouncements.
>

I have said nothing about historical performances in my notes on the
subject. You have brought the matter up, but it is really
irrelevant to our interesting discussion. This is not a performance
practice issue but a matter of a sonic pallette as selected and
used by the composer but arbitrarily ignored by the player.

I made a statement about C clarinet, you asked me to prove something,
and I have done the best I can, objectively, rationally, and
dispassionately. I am, of course, unhappy that you find my
arguments unconvincing, but that is the wonderful thing about
dialogues such as this. You talk. I talk, You talk. I talk.

Then we think about this for a while. And slowly our thinking
on these matters begins to be influenced by rationality. That is
about the best one can hope for.

> I'm a skeptic on both sides of the question. I'm ready to be convinced by
> whatever evidence or weight of logic seems most credible.

I think skepticism on all questions is the best armor to wear. Thanks
Ed, it is always a pleasure to hear your views. They influence mine
in many ways.

>
> Ed Lacy
> el2@-----.edu
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================