Klarinet Archive - Posting 000336.txt from 2000/06

From: "Tony Pay" <tony_pay@-----.com>
Subj: SV: [kl] Alf Horberg's comments
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:46:46 -0400

Alf Horberg wrote:

>Tony,  theathe reason why I find the repeated FDFD annoying is that
>it's so unlike Mozart to change a beautiful line in a motif from
>the exposition in such a simple way. I believe strongly that it's
>a typical trick from the editor when he gets stuck and can't go
>all the way. The same with bar 299 but I'll return to that. Also,
>he's landing on a seventh twice in a row. Normally he would like
>to leave that 7th as quickly as possible with a nice cadence:
>F...B...C, instead of: F...F...C.

I don't really hear 295 as "a beautiful line in a motif". It's only
an arpeggio, after all. Whereas the FDFD repetition *is* motivic,
being after all the third bar of the whole piece.

Notice that the root of the chord is left out of the bass line in
the orchestra (concert E this time around) as the clarinet reaches
the repeated 7th you mention, which looks a deliberate reaction to
the 7th as opposed to the 3rd in the exposition. (I suppose the
editor could have altered that, but it seems unlikely.) You could
play the unaccompanied low F in a different, hushed sort of way to
make this moment work better.

>--- As for bar 298-299 it has given me headaches trying to figure
>out what to do with it. It just doesn't feel right. The whole
>phrase is descending in the parallel place in the exposition. Here
>suddenly, in the recapitulation bar 298 it jumps up one octave in
>the same manner as we recognize from other places in the 1803
>edition.

But again, look at the orchestra. This time, just violins and
violas, *higher*, accompanying the change of octave after the first
beat of 298. And this time, the orchestra needs the low clarinet
for the bass of the first inversion chord at the resolution in bar
300. The clarinet's concert C# is taken up by only the cellos on
the last beat of that bar as we (clarinet players, I mean) return to
the soprano line -- which I find a wonderful touch. Sure, the
switch of octaves in 298 is a surprise -- but that sort of effect is
often a positive feature of this particular work.

And as I say, FDFD *need not* be felt as a defect. (Could you think
of her a little differently, and let her into your heart, perhaps?-)

>I want to go with your suggestion to play it one octave lower and
>change bar 299 so it becomes identical, or similar to bar 111 in
>the exposition, playing down to low D. The 16th in bar 299 would
>be: b.g.f.low d.f.g.b.d.f.g.b.d.f.d.b.d./c.

I wrote:

> > And the same notes appear 4 bars later at the beginning of 299,
> > and *could* be repeated an octave lower at the *end* of 299.  (I
y try this the week after next when I have some performances
> > in Spain.)

...so my suggestion was rather to play the last four sixteenths of
the bar as FDFD instead of FGFG, opening my own heart a little
further.

But imagining it again, I think that that might compromise the
feeling of contrary motion between clarinet and orchestra by going
lower than the resolution in 300....

We'll see.

>I don't know if the Eisenbrandt has a vent hole, but I can't see
>how you can do without one since the pointed bell requires a
>longer tube than a normal bell because of the knee joint. I can't
>remember if Eric's low B was one hertz flat or sharp, but it was
>well in the ballpark of perfection or the idea wouldn't have came
>up.

It seems churlish of me to correct your English, which is *so* good,
especially considering my own lack of talent linguistically, but I
think your phrase 'pointed bell' is misleading. I think you mean,
'angled bell'. 'Pointed bell' suggests a bell that ends in a point,
which *isn't* what we want for this one! (For those out of their
depth, this particular bell is quasi-spherical, and sticks out at 90
degrees to the rest of the instrument.)

My point;-) about the vent hole was: if Eric (sorry to have spelt
him wrong, BTW) can make a clarinet that goes down to low B *without
a vent hole* -- which is how you could think of his instrument, if
the low B is perfect -- why couldn't he make a clarinet that goes
down to low C without a vent hole?

Because if he could in fact have done that, then the existence of
the low B has no particular significance, being merely a byproduct
of Eric's design decision.

The crucial thing is: how 'forced' is it to have a vent on this
particular sort of instrument? If it is forced, then the way is
clearer for this low B stuff. If not, well, it's much more
speculative, I'd say.

The main difficulty with doing it without a vent, and a shorter
instrument, would I suppose be that the keywork down to the lowest
hole might need to go over onto the knee-joint. That might not be
impossible -- think of basset horns, after all.

Tony
--

... Q: Why can't mathematicians tell the difference between
Halloween and Christmas? A: Because OCT 31 @-----.

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org