Klarinet Archive - Posting 000666.txt from 2000/10

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] And while we are at it ...
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:37:47 -0400

I have already responded to another posting on the use of high G (or
anything above high D) under the guise of improvisational liberties, so
I won't repeat myself here.

Insofar as improvisations, the general rule is this: the slower the
movement, the greater the opportunity. The busier the music, the less
the opportunity.

Dan

ShawThings@-----.com wrote:
>
> Dear Dan & all,
> I've not heard the Joaquin recording, so I don't know the context of the high
> G's in K622, but perhaps they could be considered in the context of (the
> missing) improvisation which you complained about in your previous post.
> I'm sure they wouldn't be in the slow movt. (BTW, if you regard the slow
> movt. as presenting the most opportunities for improvisation, [do you -your
> message seems to imply that?] is it because of its tempo, harmonic
> structure, or both, or because of historical precedent). Do you think that
> changes of registration (usuall dangerous, IMO), could be regarded as a tame
> variant of improvisation?
> Best wishes,
> Tim Shaw.
> _______________________Original message_______________
> In a message dated 12/10/00 10:22:30 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time,
> leeson0@-----.net writes:
> <>
> Now I'd like to open the matter of the other end other clarinet's range.
> In Joaquin's recording I notice that he uses an edition that allows him
> to go up to a high G on at least two occasions.
>
> And I would like to put forward the suggestion that there is no
> precedent for this note anywhere in Mozart's writings for clarinets.
> For an entirely different study, I examined the manuscripts of every
> single thing that Mozart ever wrote for clarinet (where those
> manuscripts existed, of course) and basset horn, and NEVER does he go
> beyond either a high C# or high D. (I don't have my data in front of me
> to be certain which note it is.) And he uses that otherwise highest
> note only once or twice.
>
> So I ask the question: what is the defense for the use of high G in K.
> 622? In the absence of any autograph material in which that note is
> found, I suggest that we have no business playing that note, and its
> presence in any performance of K. 622 is contraindicated. The
> probability is very much on my side that Mozart never wrote it!
> --
> ***************************
> ** Dan Leeson **
> ** leeson0@-----.net **
> ***************************
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

--
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

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