Klarinet Archive - Posting 000330.txt from 2005/06
From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Basset clarinets are regular orchestral instruments
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:55:00 -0400
Dan Leeson wrote:
> We were having a discussion a few days ago about the use of basset
> clarinets as regular orchestral instruments and the main argument
> given against the practice was that one does not use the basset notes
> so why pay to have them.
I highly support the greater use of the basset clarinet and I would
encourage modern composers to make use of the instrument in orchestral
and other contexts. (I think Thomas Adès wrote a piece---the Chamber
Symphony?---which includes a significant part for the instrument; it was
originally intended, I think, as a basset clarinet concerto. And then
there are the beautiful works written for Alan Hacker such as
Birtwistle's Linoi.)
However, I don't think it is sensible to adopt the basset clarinet as
the "standard" instrument for orchestral and all other playing. There
are several reasons for this. First is that compared to the standard
instrument the basset clarinet is relatively cumbersome and it's
inconvenient to carry around relative to the actual need for the
extension. It's easier to have standard instruments but to have an
extra "basset" lower joint which can be swapped to when needed (as
provided by Steve Fox, Howarths, Guy Chadash and others)---something I
would encourage all serious clarinettists to invest in since it's not
expensive compared to the cost of a whole instrument.
One cannot fairly make the comparison to the bass clarinet. From what I
recall the bass clarinet was built to low C from earliest
days---building on the basset horn---and the existence of basses
descending to low E or Eb only is a compromise that was invented to make
the instruments more portable for band use. The bass to low C is
therefore the "standard" instrument written for in a great deal of the
instrument's repertoire.
By contrast the standard clarinet descends only to low E and this is the
instrument that is written for by most composers. This is particularly
worth noting in modern music calling for multiphonics etc., since the
acoustics are notably different from the basset clarinet, but it's
noticeable even in the standard repertoire. I feel that a basset
clarinet has a unique character distinct from the standard instrument to
low E, that goes beyond simply the added low notes.
(On the multiphonics issue, there *are* some modern pieces where a
basset clarinet can be useful, e.g. the Berio Sequenza IXa and other
Italian works written for "full Boehm" instrument. Using the basset
clarinet allows one to play the multiphonics which are not possible on
the ordinary instrument.)
I think this is a case where one simply has to respect the history of
how the clarinet family has evolved. Ultimately I think it's positive
that clarinet and basset clarinet have a separate existence. It gives
us more resources as players *and* composers.
Incidentally, on the economics issue, I don't think it's really a
problem. A friend in London has basset clarinets in both A and Bb. He
got the former to perform the Mozart concerto of course, but the latter
was bought for Clemenza di Tito---he for a long time principal with an
opera company (and has since frequently been a guest soloist for that
work). He told me that when he commissioned the instrument, people
almost queued up to tell him it was a waste of money; but in fact the
extra work that he received because he had the Bb basset, combined with
hiring it out to other players, paid off the investment (and more) in
less than a year.
-- Joe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
