Klarinet Archive - Posting 000105.txt from 2008/07

From: "Daniel Leeson" <dnleeson@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Re: Once again, a C clarinet issue
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:43:47 -0400

The idea of the performer modifying the composer's musical text was not a
local phenomenon. It was a recognized performance practice throughout
Europe for several centuries ending only in the early romantic period.

Substitution of one instrument for another was never a broadly accepted
practice. With very few exceptions, the instrumentation called for was the
instrumentation that was expected to be used.

One is a recognized performance practice, while the other is not.

The question is in degree. If the entire clarinet section all chose to play
certain music entirely on E-flat clarinets under the assertion that they
prefer it that way, there would be a storm of controversy, and the players
would be accused of anarchy.

But if the entire clarinet section chose to play only on A clarinets, is
that the same degree of anarchy?

And if the clarinet section is requested to play on C clarinets (because
that is what the composer requested), do they have the right to ignore that
explicit direction?

I don't know that it is a matter of anarchy, but it certainly would have an
affect on the character of the music.

Dan Leeson

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Roberts [mailto:timr@-----.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:24 AM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: RE: [kl] Re: Once again, a C clarinet issue

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:50:59 -0700, "Daniel Leeson"
<dnleeson@-----.net> wrote?
> Tim, somehow I am unable to grasp the center of your concern.
>

No doubt. It's really more of a rhetorical question than a serious
academic exploration.

> On one hand, I have said and continue to say that player created
> ornamentation was (and should be today) a part of a performer's bag of
> tricks.
>
> On another hand, I try to make players aware that the instrument called
for
> by the composer is not one of the variables that the performer should feel
> free to change at will.
>

I suppose that's really the crux of the matter. In your view,
ornamentation is a variable that the performer should adjust, while
instrumentation is not.

For me, as I think about it philosophically, it's not immediately clear
that those two positions are quite as black and white as that. In both
cases, we are talking about having the performer participate in the
music-creation process: in one case by adjusting the notes written by
the composer, and in the other case by adjusting the timbre of those
notes. We are presenting something that differs from what the composer
intended. It just struck me as odd one morning that one such
"adjustment" would be considered OK, while another "adjustment" would be
considered taboo.

> I don't see the contradiction that you allude to. Help me out here and
> explain the matter a bit better. Maybe then I will be able to get to
heart
> of what is troubling you.
>

I think we've already spent more time on this than it's worth. This is
really the kind of philosophical matter that is best explored in a pub
after a few too many single-malt scotches.

--
Tim Roberts, timr@-----.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org