Klarinet Archive - Posting 000391.txt from 2000/06
From: "Alf Hörberg" <alf.horberg@-----.se>
Subj: SV: [kl] Alf Horberg's comments
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:31:11 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Pay <tony_pay@-----.com>
Subject: SV: [kl] Alf Horberg's comments
Tony, I'm glad to hear that you think that the idea in bars 298-299 work. I
was wrong when I wrote that it jumps one octave, it's actually two. To jump
one octave in this spot is of cause unavoidable since we run out of notes if
we go on. But like this it stays at least in the chalumeau register and to
me that's an improvement. And as you correctly pointed out, the orchestra
follows and play in a higher register this time.
I wrote:
> Tony, the 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
With "a motif" I ment bars 294-295 together, not only the arpeggio and I
still think it's very unlike Mozart to break the arpeggio with a repetition
like this. To compare it with bar three sounds a bit strained to me since
that is not an arpeggio.
Assuming there were a low B-natural the theory works to copy the exposition,
otherwise I have no answer how to change it.
I wrote:
> 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 take the word "cadence" back. it doesn't apply in this case.
About the 7th, I meant the motif before the one we are talking about, in bar
293, the triplets resolving with a 7th. On top of that another 7th resolving
the next motif in bar 295. This is another repetition that I find illogical.
Again, if... there were a low B-natural, this would work better the second
time. Like in the exposition.
I was thinking of a "pointed bell" as a bell that points out from your
body. OK, I get the point ;-). I'll use "angled bell" from now on.
I can't speak for Eric's construction, but to make the ANGLED bell itself,
requires a longer tube since it's made in two pieces, knee-joint and a
bulbous bell. My very own theory is that Lodz intention was to make a
clarinet to low C. for some reason (probably on the request of Stadler's) he
chose to make it with a bulbous bell, fit on a knee-joint to make it angular
to prevent it from being too long, for practical reasons. (Didn't the
clarinetto d'amore, being straight, have a bulbous bell?). The result he
came up with was a tube that all together was too long, so he had to drill a
vent hole for tuning the low C. Stadler, playing around with his new toy
discovered that by closing this vent hole he could reach even a low B that
had come there accidently. Full of exitement he showed it to Mozart who
decided to use it. That is if...Stadler's instrument worked the same way as
Eric's discovery on his own instrument. To me, these two spots in the
concerto work musically very well and sort of gave the answer to the last
questions that I had. From there on to say that this is the truth is another
issue. I wouldn't go that far.
Alf
I'm looking forward to what Alf has to say tomorrow. But meanwhile,
> I've been thinking further about one aspect of the matter on my own.
>
> I wrote:
>
> >Alf Horberg wrote:
> >
> > > --- 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 have to confess that, trying this out, I've changed my previous
> opinion that this solution won't work; it does work very well.
> Thanks, Alf.
>
> Because, with Alf's idea:
>
> You still get a change of octave in 298, which works well with the
> violins and violas in 298;
>
> My reasoning about requiring the clarinet for the first inversion
> isn't strong, because the first inversion is already there, with 2nd
> violins in the bass;
>
> Though I always liked the 'cello echo of the low C#, I find I can
> equally like their unprepared entry.
>
> So now I have a choice.
>
> This is all quite independent of the 'low B' question, of course.
>
> Tony
> --
>
> ... You like these math ones? How about: lim 3 = 8 ?
> w -> oo
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
