Klarinet Archive - Posting 000356.txt from 1997/10

From: "Dr. Lynn Cholka" <lcholka@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #308
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:15:49 -0400

Dear Dan,

For real beginners try the _Preparatory Instructor of Clarinet_ by E.C.
Moore and A. O. Sieg (9n two volumes) - GREAT for establishing good
finger position, using all the standard alternate fingerings, tonguing,
reading in different time signatures, etc. For intermediate players I
like the Hite _Melodious and Progressive Studies_ Bk 1. I have found
these to be excellent. I supplement with scale and finger studiesfrom a
variety of sources.klarinet-digest wrote:
>
> klarinet-digest Friday, October 10 1997 Volume 01 : Number 308
>
> Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
> Re: K. 622
> Re: Procaccini's Clown Music
> Long phrased, hard to breath, pieces
> Ed Bland's Music
> RE: K. 622 -Reply
> Re: Ed Bland's Music
> Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
> Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
> Re: K. 622
> etude books
> Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:09:55 -0400
> From: njs5@-----.uk (Nick Shackleton)
> Subject: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
>
> One thing should be clarified in this discussion. Makers do not design the
> bore of the clarinet with the purpose of achieving a particular tone
> quality, they design it to achieve acceptable tuning when played in a
> particular way. So if different models exist that have different bore
> designs, and you try them all while trying to maintain your own special
> sound (maybe, using your own special mouthpiece) you will probably find that
> some play more in-tune than others. The ones that you judge out-of-tune,
> another player with a different tonal ideal and a different embouchure may
> find to be beautifully in tune.
> Nick
> >In a message dated 97-10-08 09:24:29 EDT, you write:
> >
> ><<
> >>Golly, that was a long note from Jerry Korten. I read it several
> >>times. I wish I knew all that stuff that Jerry knows, and that is
> >> not a disingenuous statement. I'm really impressed by the
> >> breadth of his knowledge in this respect. Serious statement.
> >
> >Dan if you read O. Lee Gibson's book you will learn two things:
> >
> >1 - you and I did not learn english the same way O. Lee did and so you will
> >have to read the book again as soon as you finish it so that you can
> >undertand it.
> >
> >2 - a lot about clarinet acoustics
> >
> >It is an expensive little 90 page book ($20 at Patelson's).
> >
> >
> >> The problem I have is that I'm not sure what a summary of his note
> >> would say. I don't know if he agrees with me or disagrees with
> >> me. It's not clear.
> >
> >There is a reason a specific sound can be associated with a "brand" of
> >instruments. But neither Buffet nor Leblanc have a single acoustic design
> >anymore so one cannot make a "Leblanc sound" or a "Buffet sound" statement
> >fairly nowadays.
> >
> >>...SNIP
> >
> >
> >> But I really have to question the interpretation of that geometrical
> >> fact, because here we leave the safe world of science and enter
> >> the distressingly unclear world of opinion and interpretation.
> >> Jerry quote Lee as suggesting that:
> >
> >> "The rather confused and varied sound of a Buffet
> >> may [note MAY!!!, not does] come from the more
> >> complicated bore."
> >
> >> Somehow measuring a bore as polycylindrical on one hand (which is
> >> about as scientific as one can get) and then suggestings that this
> >> phenomenon produces a "rather confused" sound on the other (which is
> >> about as opinionated and unscientific as one can get), and suggesting
> >> that one may be a causative factor to the other leaves me very
> >> uncertain about what was said here, what might be concluded here,
> >> or whether or not any truth has arisen as a result of such work.
> >
> >Your BS detection device is working perfectly. How else to get a heated
> >discussion going?
> >
> >
> >> It's hard for me to understand how to measure or even describe something
> >> as unclear as the phrase "rather confused sound." And when I leave
> >> the safety of a single clarinet and presume that the assertion applies
> >> to all clarinets of a single manufacturer (and whose source is not
> >> known to be polycylindricality by maybe is caused by that), I have
> >> to admit that I'm on very uncertain territory.
> >
> >Yup.
> >
> >> So if Jerry was attempting, by the use of Lee's words, to demonstrate
> >> how LeBlanc's engineering can be shown to be a direct and causative
> >> element in the sound produced by a LeBlanc clarinet (and apparently
> >> confirmed by LeBlanc's marketing department, as if they were an
> >> objective group of individuals), then I am not sure that he has
> >> achieved that end.
> >
> >If manufacturer A uses design A and gets sound A and manufacturer B uses
> >design B and gets sound B then one assumes the causative element is the
> >design.
> >
> >BUT...
> >
> >Here is the problem, who decides sound A is different from sound B? I don't
> >have a problem with this arguement as I easily hear the difference in A and
> >Bb instruments for instance, but this is a subjective judgement until we can
> >figure out how to measure these differences.
> >
> >
> >>SNIP...
> >
> >
> >> But if Jerry, in his note, felt that he had offered a serious
> >> enough level of precision in showing exactly how LeBlanc
> >> achieved that end (i.e., through something other than
> >> polycylindricality), all I can see is a statement of technical
> >> fact followed by questionable interpretations of that fact
> >> (or, in reality, a lot of facts).
> >
> >Some fact some opinion, as you can tell. You should try to get a hold of a
> >purely cylindrical bore instrument such as the LL's from around 1970 to play
> >it and see what differences exist in timbre. I say the 70's because the
> >current marketing literature from Leblanc states that all "professional"
> >level instruments use polycylindrical bores (Opus, Concerto, Infinity...) and
> >I am not sure if this is meant to include the LL which used to be a pure
> >cylinder.
> >
> >> =======================================
> >> Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
> >> Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
> >> leeson@-----.edu
> >> =======================================
> >
> >Jerry Korten
> >NYC
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:37:14 -0700
> From: "Lou Polcari" <polcari@-----.net>
> Subject: Re: 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.
>
> Hi Craig.
>
> Firstly, let me commend you just on the fact that you have listened and are
> thinking about these subjects and works of music. For instance, do you know
> who Weber wrote his Clarinet Concerti and Duo Concertante for? Do you think
> its kinda wierd that this opera composer would have written all this music
> for the clarinet? Do you know what other instruments he wrote for in this
> manner?
>
> Do you who Mozart wrote the A Major (k622) Concerto for? Do you know
> anything about this man and what he did for development of the clarinet? Do
> you know the circumstances around its publication? This is all very
> interesting.
>
> Now, let me remind you that you are writing to a group of musicians that are
> professional clarinetist, or academics, or both. I my self have a masters
> in clarinet performance from the University of Oregon's School of Music, and
> have studied over 45 grad hr. in music history. I tell you this so you
> might better understand the kind of responses you are receiving I am asking
> not to be discouraged at all or take it personally.
>
> Keep up the good work Craig, and do some research to find more about these
> things. When you do, I think you will agree that each has its place. About
> playing these concerti on other instruments, the question is why? Aside
> from the fact that they were written for the voice of the clarinet, why
> would a flutist with so much very good flute lit want to play the Mozart?
> Or any other instrument for that matter.
>
> Craig have fun, do good work, do some research, then let us know what you
> think.
>
> Lou Polcari
> polcari@-----.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 08:17:37 EDT
> From: "Dr. Ronald P. Monsen" <RPMONS00@-----.edu>
> Subject: Re: Procaccini's Clown Music
>
> Just a suggestion about the low Eb's in the clarinet part: this quintet-
> which I do not know-may very well have been written for a group in which
> the clarinetist owned and performed upon a full-Boehm system instrument
> which has a low Eb to allow transposing of A clarinets parts on a Bb
> instrument. I believe that many Italian players in fact use such an
> instrument--the name of the composer may suggest that the group it was
> composed for was from Italy? Does the score give any information as to
> the group? Who publishes this work--I would like to see it.
>
> Ron Monsen
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:35:22 +0200
> From: Leonardo Fuks <leonardo@-----.se>
> Subject: Long phrased, hard to breath, pieces
>
> Dear colleagues,=20
>
> I am planning to run one experiment on breathing habits, focused on
> respiratory endurance and strategies for putting breath pauses in long
> continuous phrases.
> For such experiment, I need to choose some well known pieces/excerpts that
> represent a performance challenge, even for professional players.=20
> By now I would think about using (parts of) :=20
> CLARINET
> - -Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, 2nd movement solo
> - -Mozart's concert, first movement
> - -Ravel's Bolero solo
> ??
> ??
>
> SAXOPHONE
> - -Ravel's Bolero solo
> - -Debussy's Rapsodie
> - -Villa-Lobos Fantasie
> ??
> ??
>
> I would very much appreciate if you could provide me suggestions for other
> works, advice, oppinions, etc.=20
>
> PLEASE SEND ME MAIL PRIVATELY.
>
> Thanks a lot and the best regards,
>
> Leonardo Fuks
> leonardo@-----.se
>
> Music Acoustics PhD Programme
> Royal Institute of Technology
> Tal, Musik, H=F6rsel
> Drottning Kristinasvag 31
> S-10044 - Stockholm - SWEDEN
> ph-(46)(8) 7909266 ; fax (46)(8) 7907854
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:57:28 -0400
> From: Mark Charette <charette@-----.com>
> Subject: Ed Bland's Music
>
> Please excuse this somewhat commercial announcement, but from
> time to time I get questions about publishers and composers
> through sneezy, and dispensing some of the information via
> the Klarinet list saves me an immense amount of time.
>
> I just received a note from Ed Bland, a pretty well-known
> composer, saying that a description of his pieces for clarinet
> (as well as for other instruments) are available at 2 sites:
>
> http://members.aol.com/Eobland/ebindex.htm
> http://members.aol.com/Osmundmus
>
> I have no connection with Ed, have never received anything from
> him, and I'm just passing this on as information. His works
> are listed (along with over 5000 others) at:
>
> http:/sneezy.mika.com/clarinet/Databases
> - --
> Mark Charette, MIKA Systems, Inc., charette@-----.com
> ">>As far as I can tell, no."
> ">Fortunately, this is not correct."
> "Proving once again that ... the best way to extract useful infor-
> mation is to post wrong information." - Roger Glover, F90 mail list
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:07:57 -0500
> From: James Sclater <Sclater@-----.edu>
> Subject: RE: K. 622 -Reply
>
> Dan,
> Your statement
> "K. 622 not only does not work as a flute concerto, it is
> inherent in its design that it cannot do so..."
>
> seems a bit off the mark for me. First of all, I would ask if you had ever
> heard K.622 done as a flute concerto? Your flat refusal to consider the
> possibility that it might work in an arrangement seems, at the very least,
> premature. While it seems that Mozart never did an arrangement for flute, it
> seems reasonable to assert that a person of his creative genius could make it
> work if he wanted to do so and were presented with the right incentives.
>
> Your statements about "immutable laws" involving instrumental ranges deals
> with elements to be dealt with in the creative process. With all due respect
> to your other good ideas, you seem to be railing against something which
> hasn't happened yet . A composer with the understanding possessed by Mozart
> could make such an endeavor work. The idea that an arrangement wouldn't sound
> like the clarinet version seems reasonable enough, but that's not the point.
> There is a long history of successful arrangements by composers/arrangers who
> really knew what they were doing. No reason this couldn't happen here.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:09:51 -0400
> From: Mark Charette <charette@-----.com>
> Subject: Re: Ed Bland's Music
>
> Mark Charette wrote:
>
> >http:/sneezy.mika.com/clarinet/Databases
>
> a typo; should be
>
> http://sneezy.mika.com/clarinet/Databases
>
> - --
> Mark Charette, MIKA Systems, Inc., charette@-----.com
> ">>As far as I can tell, no."
> ">Fortunately, this is not correct."
> "Proving once again that ... the best way to extract useful infor-
> mation is to post wrong information." - Roger Glover, F90 mail list
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:38:48 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
> Subject: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
>
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:
>
> > If you cannot recognize the sound (or do so to a
> > > lesser degree when you are not playing), you have to consider the
> > > possibility that your "recognition" is not at all aural, but is
> > > due to other factors such as brand name influence, physicality of
> > > the instrument, the feel and placement of the keys, and other
> > > psychological factors, etc.
>
> You kind of left out an important part of the equation here.....that is,
> psychological factors aside, what about the way the darn thing blows?
> Resistance in an instrument is all important (anyone who disagrees with
> this either does not understand resistance in the horn, or labels it as
> something else....we call that semantics). That has literally nothing to
> do with brand name, feel and placement of keys, and the other ambiguous
> etc. you mention here. This is not a psychological factor, this is a
> musical factor....one that is realised by the performer.....BOTH aurally
> and in terms of the way it feels (not with the hands but the air column).
> My recognition with a person other than myself would naturally be "to a
> lesser degree" because I have reduced a part of the test by 1/3 to
> 1/2.....that is, the resistance factor. By the way, I would think that
> you could concede that the sound is different when the reed is rattling
> around and vibrating within one's head than it might to a person sitting
> two feet away? Put your fingers in your ears and eat a crunchy
> peanut......sounds like a cow munching doesn't it! Take your fingers
> out....the amplification of the sound is created by eliminating the
> outside influences .........same concept with blowing and hearing as
> opposed to simply listening.
>
> Roger Garrett
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:43:53 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
> Subject: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
>
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:
> > > I have no
> > > doubt that you believe you can, but, so far, the above scenario
> > > gives rise to the possibility that you are truthful but fooling
> > > your self; i.e., you really can't tell but are using things other
> > > than sound to arrive at the conclusion that you are attributing to
> > > sound.
>
> "Gives rise to the possibility." Hmmmmm.....now this is very
> clear...are you saying that I could be right, but for the sake
> of not yet giving up......Ok.....but remember this, some insurance
> companies made a ton of money about five years ago when some yahoo
> predicted a major earthquake in the middle of Illinois...to occur on a
> specific day. These insurance companies all made out with lots of profit
> for selling earthquake insurance.......and you know, the earthquake was
> based on "the possibility". The possibility that the sun might explode
> tomorrow over something we do not yet understand is there....remote but
> there.....
>
> Roger Garrett
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:02:28 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
> Subject: Re: K. 622
>
> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Lou Polcari wrote:
> > in clarinet performance from the University of Oregon's School of Music, and
> > have studied over 45 grad hr. in music history.
>
> How is Wayne Bennet doing? Have you played for Bob Ponto yet?
>
> > About
> > playing these concerti on other instruments, the question is why? Aside
> > from the fact that they were written for the voice of the clarinet, why
> > would a flutist with so much very good flute lit want to play the Mozart?
> > Or any other instrument for that matter.
>
> Are you asking to provoke thoughts or are you hiding an opinion within the
> question? If it is the latter, I have a response.
>
> Many composers have their works transcribed for other instruments, and
> many composers give permission for their works to be transcribed for other
> instruments or medium. For example, why would a violinist want to play
> the Beethoven Trio, Op. 11 which was originally intended for Clarinet,
> Piano and Cello when there are so many other wonderful trios out there for
> Violin, Piano and Cello? I believe they do because the piece is GREAT!
> Just because the composer added the optional part doesn't mean that it
> doesn't work well. I like the Beethoven Trio, Op 1, No. 1 for Violin,
> Cello and Piano....so much so that I transcribed it for clarinet, added
> some of the double stops into the cello part, and performed it on a
> recital a couple of years ago. I really enjoyed playing the piece....it
> is wonderful music. Frankly, there are a ton of other trios I could have
> chosen, but I really like THAT trio.....and I have always been jealous of
> violinists for having that piece to play. Along the same lines, many
> scholars have written that the K.622 is the best wind concerto that Mozart
> wrote. IF that were accepted by someone, it would stand to reason that
> they might want to play that piece on their instrument. Nothing wrong
> with that.
>
> Along the same thread but a different color thread, what about the works
> of Bach? I think if Bach had heard some of his organ works played by a
> wind band....(and all those instruments had been available to him then),
> he might have written for that medium. Why play Bach with a band when
> there is so much good original literature for the wind players? Why did
> Vaughann Williams transcribe his Folk Song Suite for Military Band for
> Full Orchestra? Same reasons.
>
> Roger Garrett
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:11:14 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Djsclar@-----.com
> Subject: etude books
>
> Subj: appropriate etude books
> Date: 10/09/97
> To: majordomo@-----.us
>
> I am new to the clarinet list and am hoping for some suggestions regarding
> some more appropriate etude/method books for my high school students. I am
> looking for books as an alternative to the Rubank
> beginner/intermediate/advanced books. These books although filled with
> scale and chordal studies just seem so dull and purely technical without much
> melodic interest. While I have been recommended the James Collis series of
> books, I am not sure which of the series might be of intermediate or advanced
> high school level. Does anyone know this series of method books? are there
> others I should know about? I have a few working out of the Klose books
> (Volumes 1 & 2) but also find this book difficult to use. Many of the etude
> books I worked with as a student such as the Rose 32 and 40 studies,
> Polachek, Cavallini, Perrier,etc. .are just to advanced for these students.
> Wondering what many of you fellow teachers are using. I am hoping for some
> suggestions. Many thanks.
> Dan Spitzer
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:27:57 +0100
> From: Ian Dilley <imd@-----.uk>
> Subject: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
>
> But can you tell the difference blindfolded with someone else pressing
> the keys? :-)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roger Garrett [SMTP:rgarrett@-----.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 2:44 PM
> > To: klarinet@-----.us
> > Cc: leeson@-----.edu
> > Subject: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #301
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:
> > > > I have no
> > > > doubt that you believe you can, but, so far, the above scenario
> > > > gives rise to the possibility that you are truthful but fooling
> > > > your self; i.e., you really can't tell but are using things other
> > > > than sound to arrive at the conclusion that you are attributing to
> > > > sound.
> >
> > "Gives rise to the possibility." Hmmmmm.....now this is very
> > clear...are you saying that I could be right, but for the sake
> > of not yet giving up......Ok.....but remember this, some insurance
> > companies made a ton of money about five years ago when some yahoo
> > predicted a major earthquake in the middle of Illinois...to occur on a
> > specific day. These insurance companies all made out with lots of
> > profit
> > for selling earthquake insurance.......and you know, the earthquake
> > was
> > based on "the possibility". The possibility that the sun might
> > explode
> > tomorrow over something we do not yet understand is there....remote
> > but
> > there.....
> >
> > Roger Garrett
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of klarinet-digest V1 #308
> ******************************

Lynn Cholka
Clarinet professor, Stetson University
lcholka@-----.edu