Klarinet Archive - Posting 000511.txt from 2002/09

From: "Roger Benson" <rbenson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] My attempt to formalize my unstructured ideas
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:40:49 -0400

Whew!

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Leeson [mailto:leeson0@-----.net]
Subject: [kl] My attempt to formalize my unstructured ideas

Now that I have watched the list for a month to assure myself that
the
party who was using it for religious purposes as much as the
transmission of clarinet information is no longer doing so, I'm back
as
I said I would be.

I am trying in this far too lengthy note, to formalize some rather
unstructured ideas that I have voiced over the past 5 years of
posting
on this list.

There were a number of postings made over the past several weeks
that
dealt with personal agendas in approaching the playing of this or
that
work, though I am not speaking about matters of artistic
interpretation.
It was more simple than that. One person mentioned how in this or
that
section of Stravinsky's second version of Petrouchka, he (or she --
I
didn't pay attention) used an A clarinet instead of the one
specified by
Stravinsky because "it sounds better."

Then, as I perceived the ebb and flow of comments, it seemed to me
that
the direction being taken was that this kind of personal agenda (in
terms of which clarinet was the instrument of choice) was suggesting
that the matter was not really important to the composer, and once
again
Stravinsky's Petrouchka was used as an example; that is to say,
Robert
Craft's name was invoked and it was suggested that he never argued
about
which clarinet should be used in playing Stravinsky's music. And
since
Craft knew Stravinsky well by virtue of their longtime working
relationship, the leap was made which allowed one to conclude that
Stravinsky didn't care either.

Maybe I read it wrong. Maybe I was blinded by the enormity of the
hubris involved. And maybe the fact that no one came back to
question
the party making that statement caused me to feel depressed.

And yet some contributors to this thread headed towards even further
extremes. Not only did some agree that it was appropriate to make
the
kind of clarinet substitution arbitrarily, and not only did the
composer
not really care one way or the other, but it was seriously suggested
that some composers probably didn't know any better. That they
called
for a clarinet of specific pitch was more a function of their
ignorance
about what clarinets can and cannot do.

Er... yeah.

Now I am probably exaggerating the flow of the dialogue because
hearing
it as I heard it, momentarily caused me to lose my reason. This was
because, (a) the direction of that kind of conversation was enough
to
make any thinking musician crazy, and (b) no one was putting out a
hit
on the individuals offering a patently personal view as if it were a
universal truth.

I perceived the world of clarinetdom as being in the forefront of
performing musicians who want to play elegantly (as so many do) but
who
don't give a damn about how their actions affect the orchestral
palette
of sound.

The problem lies in the fact that the central interest is centered
around the pitch of a note more than in any of its other
characteristics. So if the music to be played requests certain
notes,
we presume that everything requested by the composer has been
satisfied
so long as those notes are what is heard (and played elegantly, of
course).

Now, even the most right wing element of the clarinet world would
object
if the great clarinet solo in the overture to Forza del Destino were
played by the clarinetist on a soprano saxophone, no matter how
beautifully it were to be executed. "That kind of change," one
would
hear argued, "has no performance authority."

But, trying to examine the question rationally, what really is the
objection to such a radical change? After all, all of the proper
pitches
were sounded. I have suggested that it was played very effectively.
What objectively and exactly is wrong with such a substitution?

The superficial answer is that "a clarinet is called for by the
composer, not a soprano saxophone." But that is only partially the
nature of the objection. What is wrong is that the character of the
instrument used changes the orchestral palette of sound.

It doesn't matter that the passage might be easier on a soprano
saxophone, or that it was beautifully executed, or that Verdi was
too
stupid not to use a soprano saxophone, or even that he would not
have
cared one whit had such a substitution been made. Nor does it matter
that all the right pitches were heard. It is the character of the
sound
that is objected to.

OK. I'll admit, it's an extreme case. But I was trying to make a
point.

Suppose instead that a certain solo for B-flat clarinet could be
executed by playing that solo on a B-flat bass clarinet, but an
octave
higher than written so that not only were the same pitches played,
but
the pitches were heard in the proper register. Could such a
situation
give rise to a disagreement of the same character as that which
arose in
the Verdi/soprano saxophone example?

"The passage is for a soprano clarinet," one might hear. "It was not
written for a bass clarinet playing an octave higher."

But that is the same superficial argument made against the use of
the
soprano saxophone in the Verdi overture. What is REALLY wrong with
this
kind of substitution is that the sonic character of the music has
been
altered by this kind of behavior, and that such an alteration is not
tolerable. A bass clarinet playing an octave higher does not sound
like
a clarinet. (Or, one could argue, a soprano clarinet playing an
octave
lower does not sound like a bass clarinet.)

So just how far can this argument about instrumental substitution be
carried?

I suggest that those who argue that, IN EVERY CASE, the substitution
of
a clarinet in X for a clarinet in Y, arbitrarily, without authority,
and
in violation of an explicit request on the part of a composer,
changes
the orchestral palette of sound to some degree. Some such
substitutions
may be said to be so minor as to affect that change to a
non-noticeable
degree. That's a debatable issue.

Thus substituting a clarinet in A in the Petrushka for the called
for
clarinet in B-flat because "it sounds better" is perceived as
tolerable,
not because it really does sound better (who is the authority on
that?),
but because it is harder to notice such a substitution. The nuance
in
sound character difference between the two instruments is more
subtle
than the proposed substitution of a soprano saxophone for a clarinet
in
the Verdi example.

The fact that the conductor may not hear it, or may not care, are
not
reasons that support the practice. That I steal money from a rich
man
who does not witness the act, nor care since he can afford it, in
way
mitigates for the moral correctness of the act.

Now it may be that some composers (maybe all of them) don't care
what
one does when in the pit, though I doubt that such a statement is
really
defensible. And it may be that some composers (maybe all of them)
don't
understand anything about clarinets, though I doubt that such a
statement is valid. And it may also be that the impact on the
orchestral palette of sound of arbitrary substitutions of one
clarinet
for another is impossible to detect, though I can't respond to that
because I know of no way in which the orchestral palette of sound is
measured.

But I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that this aspect of
clarinet playing (i.e., clarinet substitution based on what may or
may
not be good reasons) is a practice that is now out of control and
has
been for some time. It is as if we have license to do whatever we
wish,
to achieve whatever purpose we wish. That purpose may be simply one
of
laziness because we don't carry that many instruments to a job.
That
purpose may be financial because we don't have the money to buy the
instrument called for. That purpose may be one in which we are
convinced
that we are doing an inherently musical thing. But whatever we do in
this respect and for whatever reason, I know of no authority that we
have for doing it beyond what should be our own musical good
judgment.
And I perceive the situation as one in which our good judgment has
been
abandoned far too frequently for arbitrary and occasionally
questionable
reasons.

But whatever the range of reasons for doing it, when it comes to our
behavior in this arena, there may be insufficient self-constraint
and
even less authoritative constraint on our right and wisdom to do
these
things (i.e., from without, such as the actions of the conductor).
And I
am not sure that this is necessarily a healthy situation.
--
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

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

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