Klarinet Archive - Posting 000235.txt from 1997/06

From: "Edwin V. Lacy" <el2@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: Improvisation & A Clarinet Sound, Related Topics? (very long)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:47:38 -0400

On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> Now it is my turn to ask a question of you: give me a number of
> reasons why you feel the substitution of a clarinet of one pitch
> for a clarinet of another is sound musical practice.

Fair question, and I will try to answer it, even though I have to take
note of the fact that you have not yet addressed my question as to whether
or not the question of sonic palette belongs properly to the domain of
performance practice.

I think I am correct in interpreting your position on the question of
which clarinet to use as follows. For you, if the part says that the
composer wrote it for A or Bb or C clarinet, or for K-flat clarinet or
anything else for that matter, that is what you feel obligated to use. For
you, that is an absolute. Your choice of what instrument to use begins
with and is guided by that basic predetermination. And, why not? That
position is certainly easily justifiable. But, if an occasion arises
where it might be preferable to use another instrument for technical
reasons, you will be less likely to do so than might some other
clarinetist who has placed the matter of "sonic palette" somewhere lower
in the panoply of issues with which the musician has to contend.

I hope that is a fair characterization of your viewpoint. I, on the other
hand, come at this question from a different perspective. For me, the
overriding and controlling factor is musical intent. I hope I can justify
being called an "interpretative artist." To me, that means that I must be
more than an automaton, dutifully performing within narrow bounds every
"jot and tittle" of the score to the extent that I am able to determine
them. Rather, I have to address the question of what were the composer's
intentions with regard to musical expression, and have to try to figure
out how to best re-create those intentions within the limitations of the
conditions under which I perform.

Now, that opens up an entire realm of additional problems for me as a
performer. It means that while I have to have respect for the score, I
have to go a lot further than that. I am not allowed to change such
fundamental factors as the rhythm, the pitches or other technical factors.
However, I not only can, but _must_, within that context, try to interpret
the music in such a way as to convey to the listener the musical
intentions of the composer. So, a certain note may be played slightly
longer or shorter, or louder or softer, or with greater or lesser emphasis
than indicated by the score in order to produce a _musical_ entity, rather
than a mechanical one. Nothing in the scores of any of the great
composers indicates that we can or should do this. However, if we do not,
the result is a sterile, inexpressive, matter-of-fact reading of a score.
Just as you have suggested that Mozart, among other composers, intended
that there should be certain improvisatory elements in a performance, so
must he have assumed that performers would do more than slavishly follow
the dictates of the score, especially given the limitations of musical
notation.

Written music, after all, is inadequate to show the way that great
performers play. It is at best an approximation of what musicians do and
what composers intend that they do. The extent to which the written score
is inadequate varies according to the era, the musical style, and the
degree of fastidiousness of the composer. We know that Baroque composers
seldom indicated in their scores what articulations the performer should
use. Yet, I think we can be sure that they did not intend that we should
just articulate every note, and much less that we should always articulate
in the same manner. These composers assumed that the performer would
articulate in the manner which was acceptable in that time and place.
Today, we don't know as much about what those conventions were, and some
musicians have made a lifetime study of trying to rediscover them. Yet,
the theories that devolve from these pursuits are almost always more rigid
and inflexible than were the practices which they intend to restore.

On the other hand, some modern composers have tried to make their scores
more explicit with regard to musical requirements on the composer. Among
the composers whose music is often performed and who fall within this
category are such examples as Hindemith and Stravinsky. Yet even in the
instance of such composers, there is room for interpretation and for
questions as to what their actual intent was concerning many musical
factors. Going still further were some of the avant-garde composers, who
in some cases had to supply written explanations with their music which
were more extensive than the scores themselves. Usually, this was the
result of an attempt to explain exactly to the performers what they should
do, and to limit or eliminate the factor of individualistic interpretation
of the music. Even in such an extreme example, the requirement that the
performers should bring some of their musical experience and sensibilities
to the performance, while lessened, is not completely eliminated.

Now, let me attempt to bring this to a more practical level. In fairness,
let me state that while the clarinet was my first instrument, it is not
now my primary one. I am a woodwind doubler, with bassoon as my principal
performing medium. For many years, I have sat in orchestras right next to
the clarinet section, and observed clarinetists changing instruments,
sometimes but not always according to the dictates of the score.
Ordinarily, I do not think about which instrument they may be playing at a
given moment. If I concentrate on it, I can tell which one they are
playing, but to do so is a rather convoluted process. I have to listen to
what note the clarinet is playing, then listen to what notes the other
woodwind instruments are playing, and determine what the transposition is
between these two. For example, if the oboist, flutist or bassoonist is
playing an A, I have to listen to the clarinet to see whether he/she is
playing a B or a C in order to tell which clarinet is being used. This is
the case whether I am sitting in the orchestra or am in the audience. So,
the conclusion I have reached from this, admittedly possibly an
insupportable one, is that there are other factors that are more central
to the question of how the composer's musical intentions are being
conveyed.

On a still more mundane level, when I judge band and orchestra contests, I
have often found it necessary to make a comment like, "If it is in the
score, I ought to be able to hear it." The converse of this statement
would be, "If I can't hear which instrument is being used, other than
through a difficult process such as outlined above, then that must not be
an extremely critical factor in the determination of how successfully the
basic musical intentions of the score are being carried out.

Now, obviously, you can easily say that my ears are just not good enough,
and that I ought to be able to tell purely from the tone quality of the
instrument which clarinet is being played. Taking that reasoning further,
if I can't tell that, then I may just not be critical enough with regard
to respecting the score. If that is the case, I have to accept your
censure.

However, to me, to understand, experience and appreciate a musical work
and/or a musical performance does not depend to a great degree on which
clarinet a performer has chosen to use. When I listen to the music of
Mozart, or Bach, or Shostakovich, or any other composer, I want to get out
of the music as much as I can of what the composer wanted to put into it.
That is a highly subjective process, and each of us brings to it the
totality of our musical sensibilities. What a musical work means will be
different for every listener, so we each have to decide which perceptual
factors are critical for our understanding of the music, and what the
balance of importance between them is.

So, as far as I am concerned, if a clarinetist wants to play in one sharp
on the A clarinet rather than in the six sharps on the Bb which the
composer indicated, that will not be a major concern to me. More
important will be, how satisfying is the player's basic tone quality, how
expressively does he/she play, how effective is the performer in conveying
what I perceive to be the intentions of the performer, etc.

Ed Lacy
*****************************************************************
Dr. Edwin Lacy University of Evansville
Professor of Music 1800 Lincoln Avenue
Evansville, IN 47722
el2@-----.edu (812)479-2754
*****************************************************************