Klarinet Archive - Posting 000546.txt from 2006/03

From: "Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Transposed Parts
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:13:00 -0500

It wasn't I who used the word "insist." But Joe commented that "What I
interpret his [your] words as meaning is that if a substitution is made, it
should not be done casually." He doesn't generally make comments carelessly,
so it made me stop to think whether I could remember any instance in which
you had conceded that a substitution was musically legitimate. It seemed to
me your argument, which you have made whenever this topic has reappeared,
has been that the composer's request should have precedence over the
player's sense of convenience in deciding what instrument to use. I concede
it's always dangerous to reduce an amount of commentary as extensive as
yours on this subject to a single sentence summary, and I am certainly
leaving important elements of your reasoning out. Those and the explanation
below notwithstanding, I had always understood that, at the bottom line, the
subordination of the player's convenience to the composer's notated
instruction was the musical good and substituting instruments - reversing
the precedence and subordinating the composer to the player - was the
musical evil - always. That admitting exceptions was to start down a
slippery slope that eventually would steepen to the point of no recovery and
we, like most of the trumpet players I know, would play everything the
conductor will allow them to on one instrument (in their case a C trumpet).

The trumpet players who do this do it primarily *because they prefer* the
sound, response, "brilliance," penetrating power and to some extent the
intonation of the C instrument. In my opinion they go much too far and are
generally well beyond us on the slope. And I realize that neither Dan Leeson
nor anyone else in the world (except the conductor I'm playing for if he/she
can actually tell) can ever force me to decide one way or the other (insist)
between the instrument that's on the part or another one. But I'm interested
to know, based on Joe's comment and your reply below, whether there are
instances you can cite where substituting is at least defensible on grounds
more musically solid than the player's preference or technical ease.

Karl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dnleeson [mailto:dnleeson@-----.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 11:25 AM
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: RE: [kl] Transposed Parts
>
> Karl, I quote your original comments given below. I have no
> authority to insist on anything. But I know something about
> the musical consequences of playing on an instrument that
> does not overblow an octave. That phenomenon is precisely the
> source of the clarinet having multiple members of the family
> of soprano clarinets, and the origin of the entire multiple
> clarinet and clarinet character controversy. So what I'm
> trying to do, as best as I can, is to show that clarinet
> playing mentality deviates from the heritage of those consequences.
>
> Further, that deviation does not derive from knowledge of the
> history and origin of our instrument, or any serious
> understanding of the problem. The deviation is emotional and
> is almost entirely a question of ego: i.e., "Don't tell me
> what clarinet to play on!! That's my decision." That is the
> arrogance of which I spoke.
>
> Dan Leeson
> DNLeeson@-----.net
>
>
>
> From Karl Krelove
>
>
> Dan, is this true? I don't remember your ever having
> suggested, at least not in any general way, that there is
> ever a good reason to ignore the composer's express choice of
> instrument (assuming the choice was the composer's and not a
> copyist's or editor's).
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> help: email klarinet-owner@-----.org Klarinet is a service
> of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
>

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