Klarinet Archive - Posting 000073.txt from 2009/02

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:53:16 -0500

On 3 Feb, Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org> wrote:

> Mühlfeld played it on B-flat with Brahms obvious knowledge and obvious
> approval. We are in agreement that it was probably not because the
> fingering was easier (it may have been slightly harder or easier, but not
> very decisive).
>
> I say it was the sound/intonation/resonance. You say it was the brightness.
> Or in inverted Cole Porter, "You say po-tah-to, I say po-tay-to."

I suppose I want to say that Mühlfeld's decision may have been the result of
a balance of many things. Perhaps Brahms's opinion was crucial, perhaps not.
(Why 'obvious' again?)

Consider, Jonathan, how you and I -- as good players, I take it we can assume
that -- go about making such a decision.

First we try one way, then another. We get better at both ways.

We consider the logistic difficulties. If we're considering switching
instruments, we decide whether or not to switch mouthpieces as well. Can we
guarantee not pulling off the reed in such a fast switch? What sort of reed
do we have on the other instrument if we DON'T switch mouthpieces?

What effect are we after, in that passage? Can we organise that the
reed/mouthpiece setup will support that?

How about pitch problems, in a given environment?

...and so on.

The nub of my 2000 post was that perhaps Mühlfeld's decision was similarly
based, not solely on the characteristics of the instruments, but on what he
could do with them and their setups in the circumstances; and whether that
fitted what he, and perhaps Brahms wanted.

An eminent clarinet-playing friend just wrote to me to say that HE chooses to
play the passage on the A clarinet precisely because he feels he can get MORE
tension on the Boehm A clarinet than he can on the Bb, even with the
admittedly less acoustically favourable notes.

I suggested that Mühlfeld might have made the opposite decision for the same
SORT of reason -- he could get more tension on it -- but that's just a guess.

By the way, Cole Porter either didn't know or didn't care, but no Englishman
says 'potahto'. 'Tomahto', yes.

Now, I'm going to go through the rest of your post, because it seems to me
that you use 'science', not in order to illuminate, but as a smoke screen.
You should stop that, because it's counterproductive in the world. We're
trying to say something helpful to other players here. Jargon doesn't help.

I'd written:

> > ...F# minor and D major on the Ottensteiner instrument that Mühlfeld used
> > involve 'simpler' fingerings, in the sense of your 'obvious' physics,
> > than do F minor and Db major.
> >
> > That's a consequence of the fact that the top C# and throat F# are
> > fingered using just the thumb +/- speaker key, and the clarion F# using
> > just RH1 (plus LH, of course).
>
> First, their are many fingerings (even on the Ottensteiner) for the
> specific notes you mention as there are for any fifth harmonic notes. So
> you have no way of knowing which ones he used.

If you want to switch terminology to 'first, third and fifth harmonics' from
my '(chalumeau)/throat, clarion (and altissimo)' -- the brackets are there
because I didn't mention chalumeau or altissimo -- then, fine. It seems
unnecessary jargon to me.

But then, the notes I was talking about are all first and third harmonics,
NOT fifth harmonics. So you didn't read me carefully enough.

What I called 'the top C#' CAN be played as a fifth harmonic; but one of the
reasons the F# minor arpeggio on the Ottensteiner is 'smooth' (like the
Fminor arpeggio on the Boehm) is that you have a perfectly respectable top C#
(third harmonic) with just LH thumb and speaker key, a standard fingering
(third harmonic) F# with just LH+sp+RH1, and a standard fingering (first
harmonic) for throat F# with just LH thumb.

The effect of what you write, to an uninformed reader, is to suggest that I
don't know what I'm talking about, and you do.

Whereas, although I'm obviously not an expert like Mühlfeld, I've played the
Brahms quintet on both an original Ottensteiner, and copies, around a dozen
times, once in the BBC Promenade concerts a few years ago.

> Second, if the issue is not simpler fingering as you seem to be saying,
> then it must be something other than fingering. (Certainly, the fingering
> is pretty simple either way.)
>
> Your guess that it might be that Mühlfeld's B-flat clarinet was somehow
> more powerful than his A is probably not correct. His instruments were
> both made by Ottensteiner, and I would be willing to bet that they have
> very similar cutoff frequency curves. That would mean that they have very
> similar "brightness". Certainly, the A-clarinet, with the larger, longer
> bore, would produce more sound energy. So the A is likely the more
> "powerful" of the two.

But, we don't need to go into what you've read in Benade about the clarinets
he happened to test, or talk about cutoff frequencies. I didn't even say
that a Bb Ottensteiner is 'more powerful' than an A Ottensteiner; though,
owning copies of both, I can report that my Bb does have a different, more
positive character.

What I said was, "Perhaps Mühlfeld found that he needed something more at
that point to give Brahms what he asked for. Perhaps he saw that he could
achieve an extra level of intensity by changing clarinets -- perhaps even by
picking up another complete instrument, including mouthpiece and reed.

"After all, for the rest of the piece he would want a setup favouring a sort
of intimate eloquence, a sound-palette that allowed the clarinet to disappear
into the string texture, yielding to the first violin almost as often as
being a solo voice in its own right. Indeed, given the nature of his
Ottensteiners, this would probably have been his special quality.

"But here he could have something else -- something that he could push even
further, giving him an extra four bars of terrifying crescendo... before the
relief of the recapitulation."

Anyone reading that with a professional performer's eye would recognise that
I'm talking about setting up the Bb to give more power -- and we know that's
possible.

Your scientific stuff is just a smokescreen.

> I think it is much more likely that the sound/intonation/resonance of the F
> minor stuff was better than the F# minor stuff (whatever fingerings he
> used).

On what basis? Do you play Ottensteiners?

> Third, it is obviously true that on any modern day clarinet that F Minor
> is both slightly easier to finger and has better
> sound/intonation/resonance, and the instrument IS brighter...

Yes,

> ...(the cutoff frequency curves of modern day B-flats is noticeably higher
> than that for A clarinets).

...more smokescreen. Since we KNOW it already, why talk about cutoff
frequencies?

> Therefore, whether the reason was that he wanted a brighter sound (your
> supposition in your post from 2000), or that he wanted a better
> sound/intonation/resonance, the conclusion is the same: it should be played
> on B-flat as I said.

As I said before, many things come into the equation. I've tried it; and
very often, depending on the circumstances, I don't.

Tony
--

_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
mobile +44(0)7790 532980 tony.p@-----.org

... Don't worry. I forgot your name, too!

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------