Klarinet Archive - Posting 001005.txt from 1998/05

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Wind Ensemble
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:50:00 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.47
> Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Wind Ensemble

> Dee Hays wrote:
>
> >In 1782 the word "Harmonie" meant a very specific kind of a wind band.
> >By 1810 is slowly began to take on the meaning of a military band.
> >By 1850 it meant any band with wind and brass musicians. So the
> >phenomenon you are describing (i.e., a wind ensemble changing its
> >character over time) is very consistent with past history.
> >
> Dee D. Hays
> Canton, SD
>
>
> Fennell's idea, which I thought came about through collaboration with
> various composers who had not written for the band because of uncertain
> instrumentation, was to provide a standard instrumentation so that composers
> would be able to write with confidence that a group made up of a standard
> instrumentation would perform their works. These were some of the composers
> who were perceived to be better composers, but who would not consider
> writing for the band because of non-standard instrumentation.

You have it exactly backwards. Fennell's idea was to provide no standard
whatsoever for the instrumental group thereby permitting composers to
write whatever they wanted, providing that they used winds, brass,
and percussion. Thus he could (and would) do the Milhaud Dixtuor,
the Mozart serenade for 13 players, the Grainger Hill song for 23 players,
the Sousa marches, the Holst suites, the Stravinsky circus polka, etc.
all of which demand a different instrumentation.

He wanted to get away from the notion, then prevalent, that the
composer had to write for the standard band instrumentions under
the presumption that everyone had to have a part to play.

The American Bandmaster's association had defined was a standard
band was, and any composition that was to be considered for a high
school or college band had to subscribe to that instrumentation,
elsewise it suffered poor sales.

>
> So, my question is this: Is this purpose no longer worthy of consideration
> or is it something we should try to support?
>

In light of the above, this question is moot.

> Carl Schexnayder
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
> For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org