Klarinet Archive - Posting 000544.txt from 2001/08

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Which clarinet?
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:29:38 -0400

Neil Leupold wrote:
>
> I certainly
> know composers today, personally, who vary *radically* between them
> in their respective attitudes toward how rigidly they wish their
> instrumental designations to be followed.

I don't find this a cogent argument. Most of the music that has been
under discussion is pre 1850 music so what contemporary composers
believe relative to this matter is irrelevant to what it is we are
talking about.

Second, who is to say that the composers (more than 10, less than 5?)
are either representative or even correct? They, like Neil, are giving
their opinion on something.

Third, conveniently left out of the discussion are those composers who
believe the exact opposite, one of whom is the very strong Richard
Strauss. He not only made explicit statements about using the clarinet
called for, but wrote in a way that leaves little room for doubt; i.e.,
Electra with 4 clarinet players, 2 in A and 2 in B-flat. Also both opus
posthumous pieces for 15 winds, each with a clarinet in C balanced
against 2 in b-flat (in one case) and 2 in a (in the other).

It comes down to some-
> thing much more universal -- both psychologically and temporally
> -- than the fact that they are composers, in my estimation: hu-
> man beings have been and always will be diverse and varied and
> fickle in comparison to each other, by their nature. As the now
> famous example about his Three Pieces illustrates, Stravinsky was
> one whose intensity about choice of instrument probably equalled
> or exceeded Dan's.

Well, you have got to admit, Neil, it is a very strong example!

Based on simple common knowledge about human
> nature, coupled with the fact that we're talking about artists,
> creators, i.e,. people who are even *more* likely to vary in their
> proclivities concerning something like choice of instrument, I can't
> reasonably imagine that all composers -- even Strauss, Mahler, Brahms,
> etc. -- mirrored Stravinsky's (or Dan's) intense concern that a very
> specific instrument be used to play the notes on the page. Some were
> explicit about their attitudes, others were not.

I still cannot believe that you say this with a serious face. On one
hand we have absolute, unequivocal evidence about the instrument they
wrote for (i.e., they said, "clarinet in C," did they not?) and against
this you match statements which suggest that they really did not mean it
that strongly, that other attitudes may tend to diminish what they
wrote.

I am not able to look inside the heads of these men and women. I do not
know what they meant. I do, on the other hand, know very well what they
wrote because I've looked at the manuscript scores to confirm that what
is printed on the page by some publisher is what the composer asked for.

>
> To use a common tack in an argument such as this: doesn't the absence
> of evidence itself -- for so many composers (including the big name
> important ones from the Classic and Romantic eras) -- with respect
> to how intensely they felt about this issue, weaken rather than sup-
> port the notion that they all felt strongly about which clarinet was
> to be used when performing their music?

Once more I suggest that there is no absence of evidence, just an
absence of a willingness to accept the evidence that lies there in terms
of what the composer said in his designation of the clarinet type.

For those composers who were
> and are passionate about the issue, it seems they would express that
> insistence explicitly to ensure that their directions were followed
> to the detail. There are plenty of composers today who, when asked
> if they care if the Bb part is played on A, will say, "No, do what
> is easiest for you," even though it says "Clarinet in Bb" on the part
> as well as in the score. Are they daft and reprehensible for being
> so wishy-washy? Or are they a reflection of the variability in at-
> titude that was likely to have existed 200 years ago as well?

I really am unable to speak about what they are, daft or wise. And it
doesn't matter what they are because when you apply their attitudes to
the technical restrictions that existed in 1800, what they say is
irrelevant to the issue.

--
***************************
** 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