Klarinet Archive - Posting 000519.txt from 2006/03

From: "Doug Potter" <doug@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Transposed Parts
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:17:46 -0500

Dan, I'm sure we could find a way to agree less :).

Let me see if I can get this right. What you're saying is that we should
play what the composer wanted - and should not have the arrogance to assume
the composer was stupid or that we know better than the composer. And that
we shouldn't automatically hold non-professionals to different standards
than professionals.

What I'm trying to say is that we do what we can with what we have. I'm
happy to know that C clarinets exist - and can even imagine that it be nice
to own one. But given no one pays me to play (and so can't fire me) and the
slight call for C clarinet parts, I can't justify to myself the purchase of
a C clarinet on the household budget. If I had a C clarinet, I would
certainly use it to play the sections that called for it. I'm sure I
remember someone on this list saying almost exactly this same thing -
although that may have been about an A clarinet.

And yes, we can hold professionals to higher standards. I expect them to
know more. They studied music in college - theory, composers, styles, etc.
I didn't. I'm interested enough to learn more - I have learned more. But I
hope people who do this for a living know a lot more than I do.

As Adam so nicely points out, we can't know exactly what the composer
wanted. Even if we ask them (which we may be able to do if they're living),
human language can't completely convey what they wanted. And if they could
convey exactly what they wanted, would we want every performance to sound
the same exact way? I think performance is a compromise between what the
composer specifies and what we play. We obviously can't completely ignore
the composer any more than we can exactly match what they wanted. Are we to
avoid playing K622 because we don't have a bassett clarinet? (I'm pleased to
know the difference between a bassett clarinet and a bassett horn.)

In the Smetana, the specified clarinet is always closest to the current key.
Did he put any more thought into it than that? I don't know - and wonder
whether we have any way of knowing. That is not the case for the Dvorak,
where he specifies Bb only when the key signature would otherwise be six (or
is it five?) flats or more.

And I'm still looking for that Bb transcription.

Doug
http://ConicWave.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Michlin [mailto:amichlin@-----.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:54 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Transposed Parts

Given that most, if not all, pre-20th century choice of pitched
clarinet was dictated by the key of the composition, I'm not clear as
to what sin players are committing by substitution. I suppose the
argument could be made that the composer, having chosen the pitch of
clarinet based on the key of the piece, was consciously aware of the
individual sound characteristics. This, however, seems as impossible
to discover as figuring out whether Mozart would have preferred to
use a Contra Bassoon in the Gran Partita if only he had had the
opportunity. Speculation, speculation, speculation.

Also, using the same slippery slope logic of substituting a tenor
saxophone for a clarinet, if we insist that C Clarinet parts
absolutely must be played on C clarinets, why should it not follow
that we are committing a musical sin to play such parts on a *modern*
C clarinet? Next you know people will insist that the music can only
be played on the exact clarinet that premiered the music in 18xx.
Even worse, we know many composers wrote for specific players and
heavens knows we can't replicate the exact body structure of those
players, perhaps the works shouldn't be played at all!? Lions and
tigers and tenor saxophones, oh my!

Substituting Bb for A or Bb for C just doesn't seem like a hangable
offense in the scheme of greater things. I would argue that if one
has both instruments one should choose the clarinet specified (we can
at least give the composer the benefit of the doubt). I would not
argue that everyone who has ever had a C clarinet put in front of
them without owning the proper instrument is committing an act of
arrogance and, by extension, a crime against the composer.

-Adam

At 08:12 PM 3/25/2006, dnleeson wrote:
[...]
>What this shows is that clarinet players (not all, but many) are
>only concerned with the pitch they produce, and that it should be
>in the right register. The presumption is that if those
>constraints of pitch/register combination are met, then
>everything is OK. But with that attitude, one could just as well
>assert that the player wishes to execute on a bass clarinet (or
>even a tenor sax instead of a clarinet), playing the music an
>octave higher where necessary in order to retain the right
>register. The subject of the character of what is produced
>appears not to enter the equation.
>
>To maintain that the behavior of professional players is or
>should be inherantly different from the behavior of non
>professionals is a very questionable thesis. It may be better
>(or in some cases worse), but both performers should make an
>effort to achieve that which has been requested by the composer,
>to the extent of their abilities. Even though there may be
>exceptions, it is a false hypothesis to presume that the clarinet
>player knows better on which instrument s/he should play.
>
>If there is any scorn to go around, it is to the arrogance of
>clarinetists who believe that they have a right to do whatever
>they wish.

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

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