Klarinet Archive - Posting 000357.txt from 2005/02

From: "dnleeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] And how did we get here?
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:33:36 -0500

Sometimes it is worthwhile to examine the first step in what
turns into a very slippery slope. Such is the status of the
discussion of composer's intentions as it now stands. So I'm
going back to the beginning.

Someone asked about quintets for clarinet and string quartet
limited to the period between 1800 and 1900.

I suggested the Reger quintet as being both underplayed and
underappreciated. Other suggest different works.

Then Oliver Seely come on line and made a suggestion that I felt
to be so uninformed, absurd, senseless, unreasonable,
preposterous, and unmusical that it shocked me. Oliver suggested
that the Mozart quintet for clarinet in C, basset horn, and
string trio be considered. It was clear that Oliver was confused
before the horses left the gate. That work is not within the
requested boundries of 1800-1900.

He also suggested a change to the instrumentation proposing that
a violin play the basset horn part, thus achieving the clarinet
and string quartet requested by the original poster.

How bad is this idea? In Shakespearean terms, let me count the
ways:

1) A violin cannot duplicate a basset horn's range once the
instrument goes below the lowest written note for a violin. I
believe this is a concert g.

2) The particular basset horn part for this quintet spends much
of its time in its lower register, thus further aggrevating the
general case spoken of in point 1.

3) The violinist would be burdened not only with a transposition
but with the addition problem of putting the unplayable notes
into a playable register, this impacting the position of the
choral voices of the group.

4) The work in question pits the forces of two wind instruments
against that of three string instruments, something than cannot
be achieved in Seely's thoughtless suggestion.

5) The work is essentially a double solo part against an
accompanying trio part. That musical need would be defeated by
the presence of a violin playing a basset horn part because the
timbres of the two instruments are so wildly different.

6) The work in question is incomplete, though completions of it
are available. One is by Franz Beyer. But this introduces
another dimension to the awfulness of Seely's suggestion, namely
that it doubly changes the character of the piece. The part
written by Mozart is made bizarre, and the section needed to
complete the work is made equally but differently bizarre because
it is the conception of another man based on Mozart's beginning.

7) The violin would have a difficult time fitting a basset horn
mouthpiece on the instrument, thus causing the f hole to be
enlarged, the symbolism of which is too delicate for further
discussion.

In effect, every one of these items works against musicality. But
maybe these things are not important to Seely.

Now I recognize the value of a discussion to go from the specific
to the general. It is good when this happens because one is
forced to think at a higher level of sophistication.

And this discussion proceded from the specific of Seely's awful
idea to the general of unauthorized (and perhaps unwelcom)
alterations to compositions at the speed of my DSL connection.
And it got there too fast. We didn't have time to think all the
pieces through. It's a much more difficult subject.

But I am going back to the beginning, now. This is what was
requested by the original poster. That is what I responded to.

Seely, when chastised by me for his grotesque and mishapen idea,
responded with a classic case of both misunderstanding and
confusion of thought. He said something to the effect that my
idea about the Reger was even worse than his because he thought
that the Reger was a poor work.

Now, from my perspective, that ended all dialogue. Seely's mind
works differently than mine and maybe even most musicians. I
don't suggest that mine is better or worse, just different, but I
don't think that Oliver thinks musically. His thinking is
action-oriented. If you don't have a string bass, then use a
contrabassoon, and to hell with the effect.

I am now going to practice my basset horn and take my thoughts to
higher things like an all-you-can-eat sushi dinner I am going to
tonight. I shall think of none of you as I swill down that hot
green horseradish like substance that is a substitute for dristan
(though it requires a transposition).

Dan Leeson
DNLeeson@-----.net

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wed Feb 23 - still 31 donations short of the goal. Nothing |
| in life is free - including 5 servers and bandwidth. A reed |
| costs a couple of bucks - what is the list worth? |
| https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org