Klarinet Archive - Posting 000833.txt from 1997/05

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: A clarinet
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:24:20 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.25
> Subj: RE: A clarinet

> Is it known whether Rufus Airie was playing the first two pieces at the
> correct pitch, i.e. was he transposing down a semitone (which I think
> would require a low e flat) ? If not, then Stravinsky may well have
> noticed the wrong pitch without being particularly aware of the 'wrong'
> tone colour.

Airie, who documented the event in the 1950s in the magazine called
"The Clarinet Player" did not state what he was doing. And I don't
think it matters as much as Stravinsky's intentions in writing
the works for two different clarinets. There is no rational reason
for requesting a clarinet player to change instruments on an
unaccompanied work if not for timbre.

However, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone, even a
player as good as Airie, would prefer to not change clarinets but
would transpose the music in order to preserve the sounding key.
It's possible I suppose, but very hard to believe.

>
> >----------
> >From: Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu]
> >Sent: 29 May 1997 11:18
> >To: klarinet@-----.us
> >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.
> >
> >As for the rest of your note, it is terrific, but if I respond,
> >I am simply going to repeat myself (which I have probably done
> >too many times already), so if it is OK with you, let me turn
> >to the younger people on this list whose perspective of the
> >clarinet is being formed and suggest the following to them:
> >
> > Don't believe anything about clarinet playing just
> > because the "big expert" says so. It may be true.
> > It may not be true. Depite the fact that it requires
> > no special training or even any intelligence to hold
> > an opinion, most of what you will hear about the
> > clarinet and clarinet playing is raw, unvarnished,
> > opinion or else hand-me-down stories that have little
> > basis in fact. This is particularly true with
> > respect to the unfortunate vocabulary used by many
> > musicians, clarinet players included, that attempt
> > to deal with very subtle, complex notions by using
> > a single, badly chosen word that attempts to
> > summarize them. Demand proof. Insist on rational
> > thought. Probe. Think. It takes a great deal
> > more than fast hands an three opinions to play
> > the clarinet.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Dan's argument, stripped to its essentials, seems to be this (this is an
> >> invitation to Dan to tell me where I've misunderstood him):
> >>
> >> 1. Composer X had (or has) a very sensitive ear. Cf. Dan's "Mahler, who
> >> had a pretty good ear" and "a person with as good an ear as Mozart (and
> >> Beethoven, too)." In other words, X can (or could) tell the difference
> >> between A, B flat and C clarinets.
> >>
> >> 2. Therefore if X uses (say) an A clarinet, it is because X wants the A
> >> clarinet's particular contribution to the "sonic palette" X seeks.
> >> (Fallback position: When X uses (say) an A clarinet, for whatever reason,
> >> X will exploit the A clarinet's particular contribution to the "sonic
> >> palette" X seeks.)
> >>
> >> 3. Therefore, if we use a B flat clarinet to play X's piece, we are
> >> violating X's intention in a significant way -- i.e. not merely by using an
> >> instrument that differs from the one X specified, but one that differs in a
> >> way X regarded as important. We're screwing up X's sound palette!
> >>
> >> At first point 1 sounds trivially true -- don't all composers have good
> >> ears? Well, no. In particular, there is no reason to think a priori that
> >> a randomly selected composer could tell the difference between A, B flat
> >> and C clarinets in a blind test consistently. So as a general argument,
> >> this fails.
> >>
> >> Dan loads the argument by citing Mozart, Beethoven and Mahler. Suppose Dan
> >> could prove to us that these composers could tell an A from a B flat,
> >> consistently in a series of blind tests. (And just how would he do that,
> >> if not by a rhetorical appeal to our enormous respect for these composers?
> >> How can we tell which composers can distinguish clarinets and which can't?
> >> For certainly not all can.) So what? This brings us to step 2. Did
> >> Mozart write the Concerto and Quintet K. 581 in A major because he wanted
> >> the special sound of the A clarinet? That's what step 2 says. Or did he
> >> write the pieces for A clarinet because he wanted them to be in A major?
> >> Isn't the latter a real possibility? Dan's reply (the fallback position
> >> of step 2) is that this does not matter: even if Mozart wrote the Concerto
> >> for A clarinet because he wanted it in the key of A,
> >>
> >> "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?"
> >>
> >> Here I confess puzzlement. However you state it, step 2 requires the
> >> concept of the A clarinet's "unique sound." What does Dan mean by this?
> >> Dan has, in a series of fascinating postings to Klarinet and articles on
> >> sneezy, argued that "dark," "bright," "mellow" and other such terms do not
> >> denote any intersubjectively meaningful properties of clarinet sound.
> >> (Note that this view is consistent with the possibility that a given
> >> person, say Mozart, could always tell whether a clarinet was an A or a B
> >> flat -- it just means he could not explain the difference to anyone else in
> >> intersubjectively meaningful terms. It's like chicken sexing.) But aren't
> >> these the very terms that people use to describe the difference between the
> >> sound of an A and that of a B flat? (E.g. Fred Jacobowitz, in a recent
> >> posting, said the A's sound is "mellower" than the B flat's. I want to say
> >> the same thing.) If these terms are meaningless, how can we describe the A
> >> clarinet's "unique sound"? What could possibly make us think it is unique?
> >>
> >> On Dan's view, if I understand it, that leaves only experimentally
> >> verifiable physical properties of clarinet sound as a basis to distinguish
> >> A from B flat clarinets. Moreover, those objective properties must not
> >> underlie the use of such ordinary words as "dark" and "bright" and "mellow"
> >> to describe clarinet sound, for if they were the objective basis of such
> >> talk, then such talk would be intersubjectively meaningful. At this point
> >> I reach the limit of my knowledge, and can only ask: Are there any such
> >> demonstrable differences between the sounds of A and B flat clarinets? If
> >> not, then Dan's step 2 (and thus step 3) is inconsistent with his view that
> >> "dark" etc. have no meaning.
> >>
> >> Well, I've gone on long enough. I hope this makes some sense. Thanks for
> >> your patience with this quasi-philosophical stuff. I've found Dan's
> >> comments always stimulating and often persuasive, and it may well be I've
> >> missed his point here.
> >>
> >> Gary Young
> >> Madison, WI
> >>
> >=======================================
> >Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
> >Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
> >leeson@-----.edu
> >=======================================
> >
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================