Klarinet Archive - Posting 000084.txt from 1997/06

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Use of different key clarinets
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:41:17 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.09
> Subj: Re: Use of different key clarinets

> PROLOGUE:
> I originally sent this message almost a week ago.
> (Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 23:58:15 -0400)
> Then the list went into a coma, and my message bounced. Now that we have
> been collectively revived, I don't intend to try to revive the complete
> thread; rather I'm asking a related question that I cannot recall being
> discussed during my several years as a member of this mailing list.
> END PROLOGUE; BEGIN RESEND OF MESSAGE:
>
> Dan L. retold the story of the clarinetist who feigned a switch between his
> A and B-flat clarinets. And even though Dan reversed the keys of the
> instruments in a subsequent paragraph --
> >Conductor ... stopped and asked him to play in on an A
> >and not the B-flat. But here the story changes.
> >
> >Stalder did not have his B-flat with him, so he made some body motions
> >as if to change clarinets and went back to his A.
> -- I always enjoy that story.
>
> Now I have to tell another conductor story and then ask what the
> play-the-specified-instrument purists use for "Peter and the Wolf." I have
> read and been told several times that this piece was definitely written for
> B-flat clarinet with a low E-flat extension; yet most of us do not own such
> an instrument and, therefore, play the part on the A clarinet.

What Prokoffiev wrote for is not known to me and I doubt if there
exists an autograph to confirm the truth one way or another. What
is known is that the first printing of the work requested a
clarinet in B-flat. I have (or used to own) a copy of the part
from the Russian edition. And it did call for a low E-flat as
executed on the B-flat clarinet.

So either the editor or music copyist made the decision about which
clarinet to use (in which case the matter remains unclear) or else
Prokoffiev made the decision to use a B-flat clarinet for the solo
but left no evidence to confirm that.

Therefore, we are left in an uncertain state as to which clarinet
satisfies the composer's request. Well, that's life. It is not
a perfect system. There will always be confusion here and there
about intent. But, in my opinion, that does not change the big
picture which is to say that players take a great responsibility
on their backs when they chose, in the most arbitrary fashion
possible, which instrument to use under which circumstances.

It is supremely easy to suggest that Mahler knew very well what
he was doing when he called for a clarinet in C, but that
Mozart or Beethoven or Schubert's identical instructions can
be disregarded for this or that apparent difference in
circumstances, or that the same instructions can be ignored
for composer XXX because he is ignorant or a poor composer
or both. To do so is to make this sort of decision on an
arbitrary and casual basis with disregard of the character
of a sonic palette in the composer's head. To even presume
that no such thing was in the mind of the composer at the
time of composition is an assumption that is questionable
at best.

>
> On one occasion when I had the opportunity to play this piece, the conductor
> noticed (only after several rehearsals) that I was using my A clarinet
> instead of my B-flat. He hadn't observed a color difference or any
> difficulty in my playing; rather he simply noticed a later switch to B-flat
> for the next piece. He then offered to transpose the part so that I could
> use the B-flat instead of the A! His explanation was that he had observed
> in the past (with other clarinetists, of course) that the A clarinet tends
> not to
> speak as easily as the B-flat; on the other hand, he had not observed that
> I was having any trouble getting my A clarinet to speak on time!

Here is a wonderful case. The conductor, who has no particular knowledge
of either the circumstances behind the selection of the orchestral
sonic palette makes a decision on his or her opinion of how easy or
difficult it is for the A clarinet to speak. That alone is a question-
able conclusion which, therefore, makes its selection inapplicable
to the issue of the reasons behind orchestrational choice.

>
> Well, the edition already included both A and B-flat parts (with several
> wrong notes in the transposed A part), and I politely explained that the
> B-flat part
> called several times for the low E-flat, which I would be unable to play.
> (He apparently hadn't realized that the part went below the range of the
> B-flat instrument.) I continued to play on the A clarinet in subsequent
> rehearsals without any pretense of switching instruments or any further
> comments from the
> conductor. And, yes, this was *not* a professional orchestra.

I had exactly the opposition situation which was instructive. Years
ago I was playing Rite of Spring with a conductor who was Stravinsky's
protege. Don't ask me his name. I have forgotten it. He wrote
a book on Stravinsky's life. Robert something or other.

Now Stravinsky was alive at the time so I asked the guy about the
big solo bass clarinet line that occurs just before the big pile
up at the end. The orchestra gets quieter and quieter and then
everybody drops out except for the b.c. which has a big, unaccompanied
solo. I was always confused about the lower end of the solo because
Stravinsky asks the b.c. to make what I thought was a very
uncharacteristic leap upwards while, at the same time the musical
direction of everything is down, down, down. And the leap upwards
appeared to me to be simply for the intent of avoiding both a
low E-flat and, I think, a low D. I opined that Stravinsky
orchestrated the b.c. part the way he did was because those
notes were not available on the b.c. in 1916, the year of the
first performance in Paris.

Robert Craft!!! Now I just remembered.

Anyway, I asked Craft to ask Stravinsky if the last two notes of
that solo might be played an octave down. Craft called
Stravinsky who told him he thought it was a great idea and that
he was unaware of the existence of those notes on the contemporary
b.c. but that he was certain that the player of orchestra in
the Theatre de Champs Elysee in 1916 did not have them. So I
did it that way and it worked fine.

A few years later I did the work again with a different conductor
and foolishly played the part the same way. The conductor then
tried to rip out my gall bladder without benefit of surgery, and
no matter how I tried to tell him that the change had Stravinsky's
approval, he told me to shove it. So I played it the way it was
written.

Now this may sound as if I am arguing against myself by speaking
about such an anecdote. After all, I am suggesting that I have
the authority to modify the printed text when in other cases
I claim the exact opposite.

The second conductor was right. My statement that I had
authority is no more valid than someone stating that the devil
made him/her do it. It is too apocryphyl. There was no
documentation in support of my assertion and, therefore, it
could not be accepted.

But clarinetists (and others) make statements about what should
be done under what circumstances with far less authority than
I had for the Stravinsky solo and then go ahead and do it
under the assumption that their speculations should be good
enough to do anything.

>
> So now I ask: do the pros out there all make a point of playing "Peter and
> the Wolf" on a B-flat clarinet with a low E-flat? Or do you just play on
> the A and hope nobody notices (or cares)?
>
> Mitch Bassman
> mbassman@-----.com
> Burke, Virginia, USA
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================