Klarinet Archive - Posting 001035.txt from 1998/07

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] Mozart and the right clarinet
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 12:58:06 -0400

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.27
> Subj: RE: [kl] Mozart and the right clarinet

> 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?
>
It is an imperfect system. We see data and we try and form valid
opinions based on that data. I have zero idea if I am right, but the
logic is solid.

Your suggestion is valid but it presumes a totally unordered world where
things happend without cause. It is not a world that interests me even
though it might be right.

On the bottom level, I think that Mozart's ear was so refined that he
heard a difference in character between an A clarinet and a B-flat
clarinet in his head, something that ordinary mortals have difficulty
doing in a real live situation. For you and I (I should really speak
only for myself), hearing quality at that level is beyond us. We hear
the difference in quality between a bass clarinet and an E-flat clarinet
and everything closer to each other than that is the luck of the genes.

Accepting the premise of your very excellent question leads me to a
world of chaos where nothing happens because of a plan, but happens because
of accident. Not interested in that world thankyou.

>
>
> 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.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================

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