Klarinet Archive - Posting 000262.txt from 1997/06

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: Dan and clarinets
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:49:48 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.33
> Subj: Dan and clarinets

> Well, I've been off the list for a while and was surprised to see that
> there is still an ongoing dialogue about clarinets and pitch. I still go by
> the idea (and it is just that, with no real hard evidence apart from
> interpreting my observations) that, originally, clarinets in different
> pitches were made due to mechanical deficiencies (tooling, materials etc).
> It was not possible - or maybe not thought of - to make a clarinet that
> would play in all keys (not until Muller anyway...ok there were others -
> Simiot etc.). This forced instrument makers to make clarinets in different
> keys. This also limited the key(s) in which the composer could write the
> clarinet part. This also forced the poor traveling musician to carry around
> different clarinets.

This is a very interesting perspective on the matter but it is all
speculation on what might have happened.

>
> As Muller's clarinet came into acceptance, I believe composers
> began to see the difference in the "sonic palette" of different keyed
> clarinets and used this to their advantage. So the answer, as far as I'm
> concerned, is yes. We should stick to the composer's intended clarinet just
> in case he's using his head for something besides a hat rack.
>
Muller's 1825 clarinet never gained half a toehold on the clarinet playing
community. It was a complete failure in terms of its primary objective; i.e.,
to eliminate the necessity of having multiple clarinets. If one examines
the Muller clarinet tutor of 1825 one sees that this point is hit over
and over again and that with the Muller clarinet you can play in all keys
and, therefore, do not require a change of instrument for more complex
keys, particularly those in sharps.

But I do like your final sentence.

>
> Dan, I also would like to make another point about the following
> statement you made: "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." Do you think Kell interpreted the Brahms
> sonatas the way Brahms intended or do you think one of the other more
> standard (loosely used) recordings is/are what Brahms intended?

I have no way to know Kell's motivations or Brahms intentions. The
matter of performance interpretation is not the issue. It is simpler
and more precise; i.e., explicit, unambiguous, clear, and non
contradictory performance instructions such as which clarinet is
requested by the composer and the performer's obligation to
accept or reject the request.

There is a joke whose punch line is "Why do you always answer a
question with a question?" to which the response is "Who always
answers a question with a question?"

That is exactly what is going on here. I make a statement. Someone
then brings up a perfectly valid music question but one that is quite
unrelated to my statement and then says, "But what about this?"

To which I can only respond, "Who cares? It is not the subject
being spoken about.

Sigh! If it were not for my nagging, this list would drown in
questions about mouthpiece facings, and reed selection. Important
points, to be sure, but not all of clarinetistry's topics.

>
> Steve
>
> Steve Prescott
> Instrument Rep.Tech./ Clarinetist
> Indiana State University
> mipresc@-----.edu
>
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================