Klarinet Archive - Posting 001018.txt from 1998/07

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] Mozart and the right clarinet
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 07:36:28 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.25
> Subj: [kl] Mozart and the right clarinet

> Dan Leeson wrote:
>
> "Bill Edinger has wandered into one of the most complex and difficult
> issues about the history of the clarinet..."
>
> I'm not sure "wandered" is quite as appropriate as "stumbled blindly,"
> but since I'm there, I'll ask for some clarification. Dan explained:
>
> "But even though the composer did not cho[o]se a clarinet in X because
> of the sound character of a clarinet in X, the choice of instrument
> causes that sound character to be part of the pallette of sound, so if
> we cho[o]se a different instrument, say a clarinet in Y because we wish
> to do so, then we get a different pallette than the composer visualized
> in the composition's construction."
>
> I don't understand, so let me play devil's advocate: if the composer
> didn't pick a particular instrument because of its sound, it just came
> out that way, how can we say that using a different instrument would
> differ from what the composer visualized? It would seem that he didn't
> actually visualize a sound at all, just a key, and timbre had nothing to
> do with it. Is that right? That doesn't seem quite right, especially
> for somebody like Mozart.

I think you understand what I said quite correctly but you won't
take the final step. This is the premise: the choice of clarinet
was a function of the key in which the composer wanted the clarinet
to play. It had nothing to do with the character of the instrumental
sound emanating from that instrument.

But now the world changes. Once the clarinet was selected, the composer
took advantage of that sound character and thus it became part of the
sonic palette of the work. I suspect (but don't know) that the sound
of a work that Mozart or Beethoven had in their heads was based on
the sound character of each of the contributing instruments. And,
furthermore, that palatte of sound was constantly adjusted by adding
or eliminating instruments at appropriate sounds, to achieve what
the composer found most satisfactory. So, if at any moment, Mozart
or Beethoven or Schubert added an A clarinet to the pack of
instruments (and selected that particular clarinet because of the
key signature of the work), then he perceived the work not in terms
of adding a clarinet but in adding an A clarinet.

In this way, the instrumental selection process excluded the
sound character of the instrument to a considerable degree but
took advantage of that sound character once it was selected.

Why should this sound strange? Were not the internal ears of
those composers mentioned sufficiently discriminating to take
advantage of a particular instruments unique sound character?

>
> Let me know if I should give up on this thread, by the way. It may be
> too far over my head. On the other hand, that's the only way to grow.
>
> Stumblingly yours,
>
> Bill Edinger
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================

-------------------------------------------------------------------------