Klarinet Archive - Posting 001023.txt from 1998/07

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Mozart and the right clarinet
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:57:39 -0400

At 05:19 AM 7/25/98 EDT, Dan Leeson wrote:
>> 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?
>
I have no problem understanding that the key of the clarinet for a given
work was chosen on the basis of the key of the piece, given the nature of
the primitive clarinets of the time. And I have no problem with the
concept that the composer would take advantage, in a BROAD way, of the
distinctive characteristics of the clarinet, vs., say, oboe or flute. For
example, the likely reason the K622 was written for basset clarinet was to
take advantage of the extra low chalumeau range of that instrument as
compared to a standard clarinet.

But have we, in 200 years of study and analysis, gone well beyond what even
a genius like Mozart could have devoted much attention to, given his
circumstances at the time? Have we, with the luxury of almost unlimited
time, ascribed motives to him that he simply did not have time to consider
when he was cranking out manuscript as fast as he could feed to his family?
Was the K622 written for basset clarinet merely because the soloist
requested that he write a concerto for it, and the low notes stuck in,
almost as an afterthought, to please the commissioner? Is all the interest
in sound palette just a way of trying, through analysis, to figure out WHY
this stuff sounds so good, when in fact it may be little more than happy
accident? Or even worse, if it had been written in a different key in the
first place, would we now think it sounded WRONG in the current correct
key, because we would be USED TO the sonorities of the original?

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://www.concentric.net/~bhausman
Essexville, MI 48732 http://members.wbs.net/homepages/z/o/o/zoot14.html
ICQ UIN 4862265

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.

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