Klarinet Archive - Posting 000227.txt from 2004/03

From: "Brian Schuth" <brian@------.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] reasons for basset clarinets
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:37:59 -0500

It's certainly dangerous to suggest a basset clarinet should always be used=
because it sounds "better." I know plenty of people who think A=3D442 sou=
nds 'better' than A=3D440, not to mention A=3D415. I know a lot of amateur =
singers who are always a touch flat because it sounds "better" to them. I t=
rust Dan Leeson a great deal more than most when he says something sounds "=
better", but I'm not sure that justifies the universal use of basset clarin=
ets.

Without going on a postmodern discursus, I think it's safer to talk about t=
he fact of some difference in sound, rather than in terms of the merit of t=
hat difference. Should the difference be great enough that it makes compose=
rs fall in love with the instrument en masse, that would be a different arg=
ument; but I don't think that's very likely.

The historical case for basset clarinets in certain repertoire is very stro=
ng. The case for playing basset clarinets because of their extended range =
has some justification, but until one can obtain such instruments easily fo=
r most clarinetists, it seems a bit perverse to insist on their universal u=
se. The case for basset clarinets because they sound intrinsically better =
seems suspicious at best.

And just to throw in some bait at the end -- do people write more music for=
cello than for violin because the cello has a more extended range? I'm no=
t sure that Eb at the bottom is all *that* exciting to have... but as I'm n=
ot currently able to afford a basset instrument, I will hold out the possib=
ility I might be seduced one day... bjs

Brian Schuth
brian@------.com
Eastport, Maine