Klarinet Archive - Posting 000323.txt from 1997/10

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: K. 622
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:49:01 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.91
> Subj: K. 622

> Well, it's interesting. Neglecting (a big neglection I acknowledge)
> technical limitations, I could hear the flute's timbre, or bassoon's
> timbre playing K. 622. This is something I can't do with Weber. Maybe
> this is due to an extreme bias towards Weber, but maybe not.
>
> I am a student, and I have far less experience than most members of this
> list, so I have less to present when it comes to "musical" reasons to
> back up my beliefs; this will come as a result of time and experience.
> However, citing only my ear, I like Weber better. Is this wrong? I am
> not taking any postings as saying I'm wrong, but there seems to be
> discontent about an appearent blasphemy against Mozart. This is not my
> intention.

First, no one cares that you prefer the Weber over the Mozart. It
is not against the constitution. Second, what you are offering as
your ideas on the subject are all mixed up by virtue of the fact that
you are speaking from an emotional point of view and making
technical decisions based exclusively on that emotion.

It is technically incorrect that K. 622 played on a flute is
indistiguishable from the same work played on a clarinet (though,
in your defense, you did not make a statement as bold as that).
But even your less severe statements about use of the flute or
horn or bassoon to play K. 622 have significant technical flaws
that you gloss over because of your affection for the Weber.

It's OK to be emotional about music. We wouldn't be doing these
musical things if it were not so emotional, but that does not
mean that you can abandon reason and make technical assertions
that derive from your emotional state.

K. 622 not only does not work as a flute concerto, it is
inherent in its design that it cannot do so, and that statement
is supported by voice leadings, instrumental ranges, use of
chalumeau voice as a technical device, etc., etc., etc. There
is no emotion in that technical statement, just facts.

What you feel you can do is contradict reason because you
like a piece of music, and you can't. The laws involved
are immutable and cannot be altered by affection for or
against another work.

Just consider one immutable fact: the flute cannot go below
written C (though Mozart rarely wrote down to that note,
only to low D). The clarinet of K. 622 had a written
compass a full octave lower and anything written in that
range cannot be executed on the flute (discounting
transposition). And there is no way that you can get around
that argument.

You have to start thinking more objectively, and the reason
is that people will expect rational reasons from you for
the musical things that you do. After a certain age, you
assertion that you are doing something because you like it
that way will no longer command respect, because the person
asking you doesn't like it that way. So you are at an
impasse.

>
> One thing I have against K. 622 is the repetition. Weber Op. 73 shows
> some repetition, but it seems to move quickly and remain interesting
> longer. This may be due to bad performances of K. 622: every note
> correct, but lack of the spontaneity that made them interesting. So,
> having only these performances to judge K. 622 by, that is my verdict.
>
> I may have a very different opinion to hear it as it was performed at
> its commissioning.
>
> --
> Craig Countryman
> cegc@-----.net
> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1711
>
> Quote of the Day:
>
> "When you have completed 95 percent of
> your journey, you are only halfway
> there." -Ancient Japanese proverb
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================