Klarinet Archive - Posting 000328.txt from 1997/10

From: benevolent1@-----.com
Subj: Re: K. 622
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:53:19 -0400

Although I do not dislike Mozart, or his concerto being discussed, I do
find Weber more pleasing to the ear. I want to get this out of the way
first. If you belive that this view make me a stupid person whose
remarks mean nothing, I really do not care. It is my opinion, and like
poitics, my personal fancy. Anyway, I really understand what Craig is
saying. There are pieces of music that are easily played on an
instrument which the piece was not written for. Many times notes in
music for oboes are cued in clarinet music for the express purpose of the
clarinet playing them. If a member of the audience were to be hearing
the piece for the first time, or even if they were familiar with the
music, but had never heard the passage on the oboe, it i feasible for the
audience member to believe the passage was written for the clarinet.
There are entire pieces of music that have the same effect when played on
an instrument the music was not scored for. Frequently the "Concerto do
Aranjuez," written for guitar, is played by marching bands on flugal
horn, or trumpet, with wonderful results. Some passages of the Mozart
are like that. Obviously, because of technical limitations, not every
instrument has the range of the clarinet. That does not mean that
hearing a French horn on passages of Mozart is a bad thing that would be
punishable by death. Some do sound pretty, and if I were not a clarinet
player, I would not understand the difference. Since I have the unique
opportunity to try such things, I played parts of the first Weber
concerto on clarinet and on horn, parts of the Mozart on both
instruments, and two horn selections on both clarinet and horn. I made a
recording, and played it for some brass and percussion players I knew. i
asked them to do me a huge favor and take out a piece of paper. I asked
them to listen to each of the four selections, played by the clarinet
first, and then the horn. After each "chunk" of concerto, I stopped the
tape and asked them to write which instrument they thought the piece of
music was written for. Their results follow.

1) Weber
2) Mozart
3) Horn piece
4) Horn piece

Subject 1: Subject 2:
male trumpet player, 16 female bass drum player, 17
1) clarinet 1) clarinet
2) horn 2) clarinet
3) horn 3) horn
4) clarinet 4) horn

Subject 3: Subject 4:
male trombone player, 15 male trumpet player, 17
1) clarinet 1) clarinet
2) horn 2) horn
3) clarinet 3) clarinet
4) horn 4) horn

Subject 5: Subject 6:
female flute player, 16 female saxophone player, 17
1) clarinet 1) clarinet
2) horn 2) clarinet
3) horn 3) clarinet
4) flute (I'm not sure if she understood 4) horn
the instructions, or was just
being a smart alec,

Maybe this means nothing to you, but I think it only confirms what Craig
thought, that it is *feasible* for K. 622, however improbable and
tasteless for you hard-liners, to be heard on another instrument. It
also proves that I have absolutely no life, and should get one fast.

With all the warmest regards possible,

Sarah
benevolent1@-----.com

"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment
a single man contemplates it, bearing within him
the image of a cathedral." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:49:02 EDT "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu"
<leeson@-----.edu> writes:
>> 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
>=======================================
>