Klarinet Archive - Posting 000603.txt from 2002/09
From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] My attempt to formalize my unstructured ideas
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:40:02 -0400
This response (which I think is by Paul Harris, but sometimes I get
mixed up about who really made the submission), is noteworthy for the
erroneous assumptions it makes about clarinet history, to say nothing of
the general snotty attitude of the posting. I see the author as holding
a set of assumptions, and then he makes up history to justify what is
consistent with those assumptions. Let me give a few cases.
Paul Harris wrote:
>
> A long article in which he outlines his position on why one should not
> substitute one Clarinet or other instrument for the one the composer called
> for. I have read with interest the positions and remarks made by a number
> of other people on this list in regard to this matter and am reminded that
> it has been performance practice through out many centuries to perform the
> music with what ever band or instruments available at the time and to not be
> too concerned about whether or not a composer really intended for this or
> that instrument to be used.
From where did this bit of incorrect information derive? There is not
the slightest evidence that suggests (for example) that in the classic
and early romantic periods, the performers used anything but the
instruments specified. Now if you have formal information to the
contrary, and are prepared to cite that source, I'd like to see it.
In the absence of such reliable information, this argument you pose is
worthless.
Paul continues:
Mozart wrote the concerto for the basset
> clarinet because that is what Stadler had at the time and he probably
> thought it sounded neat.
You have no idea what Mozart thought in terms of the basset clarinet
"probably sounding neat." What we do have a record of is Mozart's
opinion of Stadler as a player, but not a single word exists about
Stadler's instruments and Mozart's opinion of them. This is the teeny
bopper approach to a serious discussion.
Paul continues:
However, that didn't keep other performers of the
> era from performing it on their regular A clarinets and I suspect that
> Mozart would not have been offended as it was the practice to use what was
> available.
Once again, your imagination exceeds your grasp. In that era,
(1791-1803), there were no performances of the concerto on anything
other than the basset clarinet (and no performer other than Stadler
since he appears to have been the only clarinetist who owned such an
instrument) until at least 1803 when the work was finally published for
a standard A clarinet. In time, memory of the basset clarinet's
existence faded and it was not even hypothesized as being the real
clarinet for which the concerto was written until 1948.
Also your suspicion of whether or not Mozart would or would not have
been offended because "it was the practice to use what was available" is
a double error. First you have no idea what would have offended Mozart
so you make up his position to defend your own weak argument. And then
you add to the problem by suggesting a practice for which there is no
historical evidence to support your guesswork.
Paul continues:
Many composers before and since have actually written sonatas or
> concerto's for different instruments and then made an "edition" for another
> instrument. Brahms for instance with the viola variation to opus 120. In
> view of this, does it really matter if some one plays Strawinkys' three
> pieces all on the Bb or A if that is what he or she has to play it on and
> does it really matter if one substitutes a C clarinet part on an Eb or Bb
> clarinet if that is what they have. The slight difference in tonality
> probably won't be noticed by anyone other than Dan Leeson anyway.
The discussion is about substituting one clarinet for another, not about
a composer's willingness to have his/her work performed on a variety of
quite different instruments. And, to answer your question, ("does it
really matter ...?"), to some people it does.
Your reference to the "slight difference in tonality... being noticed
only by me" is a remark that is unworthy of you. In effect, by
isolating me as the only person who is interested in the subject (which
I don't believe to be the case), you form a band of people (centered
around yourself) who really know the truth; and this band is distinct
from a very small minority (me) who don't know anything. It is the
attitude of someone who has no valid arguments at all, who does not know
how to argue a case rationally, and who has no sympathy for any view
that differs from his own.
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
