Klarinet Archive - Posting 001052.txt from 1998/01

From: Labadorf <Labadorf@-----.com>
Subj: Re: transcriptions
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:37:17 -0500

In a message dated 1/24/98 12:39:21 PM, Bill E. wrote:

<< Tom asks why transcribe from original instrumentation if that's not
what the composer intended? The answer, of course, is "So that
clarinettists can play Adagio for Strings, flutists can play K 622,
concert bands can play the William Tell Overture, etc." Is it good
art? Maybe not. Is it required to experience music in its perfect form
in favor of not experiencing it at all? I don't think that either. >>

I would have no objection to a flutist playing K 622 so long as I or anyone
else didn't know about it. For personal pleasure, okay, but not for public
performance! My point is with audience perspective.

<< I
believe it was Vaughan Williams who addressed this issue in general when
he declared (referring to the playing of music), "If something is worth
doing, it's worth doing badly." I believe he was a lot more than
half-serious about this. >>

Vaughan Williams was a fine composer, but I disagree with him on this point.
Are you sure he was not being sarcastic? Again, in private quarters, playing
badly is okay. Didn't we hear on this list a report of the Vienna Phil
playing Ravel badly? That audience did not put up with it.

<<But where do you draw the line? How
democratic can art be? >>

This is definately a judgement call - one that I would not trust to anyone.
As I mentioned in my first posting, I'm not against transcriptions as a rule.
The transcriber has to know what will work. But I think you would be hard
pressed to find very many pieces that sound as well or better than the
original setting.

Tom L.