Klarinet Archive - Posting 000832.txt from 1997/05

From: Gary Young <gyoung@-----.com>
Subj: RE: A clarinet
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:24:19 -0400

Dan--

Thanks for your generous response. I agree completely about the Stravinsky
Three Pieces. I think that you have given for this composition precisely
the kind of evidence we always need in order to show that a composer
intended us to use an A (or whatever) clarinet because of its sonic
properties, and not simply for some other reason or no reason at all
(he/she had to pick some kind of clarinet, which kind didn't matter to
him/her, so he/she just randomly picked an A). In the case of the Three
Pieces, I don't see any issues of pitch relationship among the three pieces
that require just the pitches the A and B flat produce when used as S.
specified (am I missing anything here?). There seems no explanation here
except that Stravinsky thought there is a sonic difference between A and B
flat, and wanted that difference to be produced. Your anecdote confirms
this.

My point is precisely that we cannot make a blanket assumption that all
composers, or all the compsoers we love, selected the clarinets they did
because of their sonic qualities. We always need the sort of evidence or
reasoning you give for Stravinsky's Three Pieces (on reflection I think my
requirement of an actual statement from the composer is way too
restrictive). This doesn't mean we arbitrarily disregard a composer's
specification of instrument. But I think it does mean that if we have no
such evidence or reasoning, and if it is for technical reasons extremely
burdensome to use the designated clarinet but significantly easier to use
another, because of difficulty fingering or insufficient time to change
instruments or intonation problems from changing to a cold instrument to
play an exposed part, then we are not violating any significant composer's
intention by using the other clarinet. The burden of proof is always on
someone who wants to depart from the composer's indication. I think this
is a heavy burden of proof. There is a strong presumption, though a
rebuttable one, that the composer's specification should be honored -- not
because we know the composer must have wanted the specific SOUND of a
specific clarinet, but simply because we try to honor the composer's
discernible intentions as much as possible, even if we aren't sure what
motivated them. So in practice I suspect that you and I would end up in
the same place (on the same clarinet) in most cases, though probably not
all (Brahms' Third).

Here's a further point. I'm not sure what to make of it. In Fundamentals
of Musical Acoustics, at p. 488, Arthur Benade writes: "Figure 22.9 shows
the variation of cutoff frequency across the low register scales of several
clarinets. For reference purposes, the curves for both A and B flat
Boehm-system clarinets are drawn with heavy lines. One can clearly see the
close correlation between the darker tone color and lowered f [with
subscript c] of the A clarinet relative to its B flat brother." [Figure
22.9 is at p. 489. The rest of this passage is well worth reading.]
Benade thinks there is a sonic difference between A and B flat cls., that
this sonic difference correlates with (= is explained by or is identical
to?) differences in cutoff frequency, and that when we say that one cl. has
a "darker" sound than another, we are responding to this difference in
cutoff frequency. If so, then this suggests there is an objective basis
for the use of the term "dark" to describe clarinet sounds, and that Dan's
impressive array of evidence to the contrary, taken from this very listserv
(see his article on sneezy), must have some other explanation. (But what
other explanation could there be than Dan's?) (Maybe someone versed in
physics, like Jonathan Cohler, could shed some light on this.) (I hope I'm
not covering old ground in this paragraph -- I must admit I didn't take
time to check the archives for earlier discussions of this point.)

Here's a test case for everyone. Simeon Bellison produced an edition of
the Mozart Concerto for Bb clarinet. The clarinet part looks more or less
the same as that for an A clarinet, except it says "B flat clarinet." The
piano part, however, is in B flat, not A. (I must have acquired this in
primary or high school for use in some contest, though I have no
recollection of ever playing it on B flat. I later used this edition when
I performed the Concerto on A clarinet with orchestra.) There is no
indication anywhere in this edition that the piece was originally for A
clarinet, or that Bellison changed it to B flat so young clarinetists with
only B flats could nonetheless become acquainted with this extraordinary
music. Was Bellison justified in doing this? If not, would he have been
justified if he had added an explanation of what he had done? Is what
Bellison did any worse than performing the Concerto on an ordinary A
clarinet instead of a basset clarinet?

Sorry to have gone on so long. Dan's comments always get me thinking.

Gary Young
Madison, WI

----------
From: Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu]
Subject: RE: A clarinet

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.91
> Subj: RE: A clarinet

> On May 28 Dan Leeson wrote (I've snipped virtually all of his (as usual)
> thoughtful comments):
>
> 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.
>
> The question is: What evidence do we have that a certain composer
selected
> a certain clarinet for a certain composition because of the "sonic
palette"
> he or she wanted to create? As far as I can see, we never have such
> evidence, unless the composer happened to say or write "I wanted the A
> clarinet here for its distinctive sound," or at least, "Here I used the
> distinctive sound of the A clarinet." As far as I know, Mozart, for
> instance, never said such a thing -- if he had, surely Dan would know and
> would have adduced this statement in support of his position.

Gary - I cannot believe what I read. You want evidence that a
certain composer selected a certain clarinet for a certain composition
because of the sonic palette?

Stravinsky: three pieces for unaccompanied clarinet, 2 for B-flat
clarinet and 1 for A clarinet (or maybe the other way round, I forget).

Rufus Airie was rehearsing the works in the hall that he was planning
to use that evening. Stravinsky was there at Airie's request.

Airie was playing all three works on one clarinet (i.e., ignoring
Stravinsky's explicit request) and was stopped dead in his tracks
by the composer.

Stravinsky said, "I wrote the one you are playing on B-flat clarinet
for a clarinet in A and that is the way I want it played."

One can argue that Stravinsky "saw" the fact that Airie was using
only one clarinet and was just showing off. Who knows?

But you cannot ignore Stravinsky's motivation for writing those
works for UNACCOMPANIED clarinet and requesting a switch from one
instrument to another. There is no rational reason for doing this
if it does not have to do with instrumental sound.

<snip>