Klarinet Archive - Posting 000189.txt from 2002/11

From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:32:34 -0500

Here we go again. Daniel Leeson writes:

> How your a clarinet of particular pitch responds to you is a matter with
> so many variables beyond those of the clarinet itself (your body, your
> teeth, your sinuses, for example) that how you perceive the physicality
> of playing would appear to have no standard or even, for that matter, be
> standarizable.

> It's like talking about whether Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto is a
> better piece than Brahms' 2nd. It's all in the mind of the beholder.

To say that one piece is not better than another because its merit is
strictly in the mind of the beholder belies the unassailable fact that over
time, certain orchestral pieces, through public opinion, critical notice,
and adoption by the musical community, ARE considered superior works (sic.,
"better").

I think the issue regarding schools of playing is also a fair one. Surely,
the traditions at the Vienna Philharmonic as opposed to Chicago are
distinctive enough to merit discussion; surely various approaches to playing
an instrument can be accorded the same privilege.

Granted, "schools" per se may be an artifact of the past, but to me, most
oboes in European orchestras still sound like ducks. So, to a lesser degree,
the approach to a certain sound is derivative of the past. This information
need not be controlling as much as it is informing.

>From a purely philosophical point of view, I see the clarinet as one of the
most existential instruments on the planet demanding considerate responses
to the most theoretical inquiry regarding the soup from which further
development is made.

As for Nancy's issue, she is asking for informed opinions from other
players, not a sweeping dismissal that suggests her question is stupid. It
might be helpful that other players with known experience contribute
specific insight, which then would help her approach the instruments in such
a way that the transition from one to another is made easier.

There are two types of responses that have emerged thus far regarding
questions that appear to impose certain generalities on the art of the
clarinet. One is to consider the theoretical implications as an interesting
way to frame a question and to provide insight; the other is to dismiss
concepts out of hand because the clarinet is "too complicated."

I think Nancy's question does help in deciding which instrument a wind
player should play first: the saxophone or the clarinet. My daddy said it
was easier to go from the clarinet to the saxophone than t'other way 'round.
Hmmm.

As for me, when I had an Eb, I found it considerably more difficult to play
than the A. I have never owned a C, so I don't know. So I am surprised that
she is more comfortable with her Eb than her A, given the relatively
similarities in size and tone between the A and the Bb, as opposed to the Bb
and the Eb. So maybe it has something do with her instrument, and not with
her.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Leeson" <leeson0@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)

> Buckman, Nancy wrote:
> > Dan,
> >
> > I think the point that I was trying to make was that it seems easier(to
me,
> > at least)to play the Bb instrument than any of the other clarinets. I
don't
> > know if that is by it's physical characteristics or what (as I said, I'm
no
> > scientist), but my Bb clarinet plays easier than any of the others. If
I
> > were to line them up in order of ease of playability, this would be the
> > order: Bb, C, Eb and A. I would guess that the eefer and the A clarinet
> > might be reversed, except that I play so much more eefer than A that the
> > little one seems easier. How do yours stack up in order of ease of
> > playability? Is there a scientific reason for my observations? I'm
pretty
> > ignorant when it comes to the science end of music. In fact, I usually
wait
> > to see what your response is to something like this because you are
usually
> > right on the mark (in my opinion).
> >
> > Nancy
> >
> > Nancy E. Buckman, Technical Assistant
> > School of Health Professions, Wellness and Physical Education
> > Anne Arundel Community College
> > Arnold, MD 21012-1895 USA
> > Phone 410-777-2316 Fax 410-777-2233
> > E-mail nebuckman@-----.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
> Nancy, I am not sure I can reply to your inquiry because I simply have
> not thought about it enough. And the reason why I haven't thought about
> it is because I don't believe it.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
> --
> ***************************
> **Dan Leeson **
> **leeson0@-----.net **
> ***************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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