Klarinet Archive - Posting 000138.txt from 2005/01

From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] RE: Klocker
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:48:44 -0500

At 05:57 AM 1/11/2005 -0800, dnleeson wrote:
>Well, I am not sure why speculating about his intentions for not
>request cadenzas would be of value. I speculated on one and was
>quite incorrect. What is most important is that there are no
>cadenzas. What is there is something else, and contemporary
>clarinetists are not comfortable with this 18th century custom of
>improvising a lead in.

I disagree, somewhat, about the value of speculation. It certainly allows
for a discussion which can bring to light factual information. I draw the
line at presenting such speculation as factual information or drawing
further "factual" conclusions based only on the assumption of our
speculation as fact.

You speculated that the clarinet being monophonic played a role in Mozart's
choice not to include a cadenza in K.622. We now know that is not the case,
but we've also furthered our collective understanding of how K.622 fits
into Mozart's concept of the concerto. Not such a bad thing, in the end.

As for being wrong, I'm just shocked and dismayed that you aren't perfect
=). Would that I could have your track record for accurate factual information!

>It has come to the point of using the Eingang for K. 581 in the
>absence of any good ideas of what else to do. While the idea is
>not a bad one, it is an overworked solution to the problem.

I have not spent any significant time analyzing K.581, so I am curious as
to what is unclear about it.

-Adam

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org