Klarinet Archive - Posting 000106.txt from 2009/02

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:34:55 -0500

At 7:01 PM +0000 2/5/09, Tony Pay wrote:
>You're very good for me, Jonathan, not because I learn anything from you, b=
ut
>because reading you is a spiritual exercise in experiencing myself being
>misrepresented.
>
[snip]
>What I wrote was to do with the possibility of M=B8hlfeld's using another
>complete instrument setup to give him greater power, and enabled him to go
>beyond what he had available in the rest of the piece. I didn't even menti=
on
>the Bb. We know that such setups are possible -- it's why we choose one so=
rt
>of reed to play the Schubert Octet and another to play the Copland concerto=
=2E

Please notice how my response does not begin with=20
a personal insult or attack. Let's deal with=20
facts.

=46irst this statement, that you "didn't even=20
mention the Bb" is simply false. Here is the=20
whole second half your post to jog your memory.=20
Clearly, you are talking about switching to the=20
B-flat here and not other instrument setups.

The entire context of this discussion,=20
furthermore, from the start is about the fact=20
that Muhlfeld switched to the B-flat at that=20
point and conjecture about the reasons why. To=20
suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Your old post:

>So, is there any *other* reason why Muehlfeld might have wanted to
>switch to the Bb at that point?
>
>And the answer, surely, is that there is another possible reason, and
>one that we might actually benefit from considering seriously in modern
>performances. It has to do with the fact those few bars are the high
>point, dramatically, not only of the slow movement, but of the entire
>piece.
>
>Remember, the clarinet has already cried out desperately at the top of
>its register as the key switches to Bb minor for the 'cello theme,
>before plunging through three octaves to join the 'cello in a contrary
>move from bare fifth to octave. After that stroke, amazing in its own
>right, the strings begin to build their implacable tremolo; and only
>then does the marking 'sempre piu' forte' appear, and the clarinettist
>must begin to make it bite.
>
>Perhaps Muehlfeld 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.

At 7:01 PM +0000 2/5/09, Tony Pay wrote:
>No, the use of the word 'bite' in "the clarinettist must begin to make it
>[the sempre piu forte] bite" doesn't necessarily refer to tone-colour, or
>cutoff frequencies. It refers to the fact that Brahms wrote 'sempre piu
>forte', and we must make his instruction do its work. Have you not heard o=
f
>metaphor -- this law 'has no teeth', for example?

So what does "bite" refer to? Define yourself in=20
concrete physical terms. Or do you prefer=20
ill-defined, "smoke screens". Loudness, power,=20
high-frequency content, attach characteristic,=20
=2E..??? Give me a physical answer. Sound is a=20
physical entity.

>OK, but if you want to use your more precise terminology, you need to be
>clear what you're referring to. I was using my terminology to label the
>notes; your terminology, carelessly applied to what I wrote, led you to wri=
te
>a nonsense response to my point.

Actually, other than the small (irrelevant) error=20
about which F# you were talking about, my=20
response made and makes perfect sense and the=20
argument remains unchanged. The point of the=20
response, was that there are more than one=20
fingering for each note including the high F#=20
(fifth harmonic), the high C# (third harmonic)=20
and even for the throat F# (1st harmonic, which I=20
mis-read as the high F#). So as I have said=20
several times now:

1. You have no way of knowing which fingerings=20
Muhlfeld used. (irrefutable fact)
2. And the fingerings were probably not the=20
motivating factor in the switch in any case (you=20
and I agree on this). So my response makes=20
perfect sense.

>What is at issue is the reason why F# minor on the Boehm A clarinet has a
>different quality from F# minor on the Ottensteiner.

No actually, this was never the point of the=20
discussion. To review, I pointed out that=20
Muhlfeld played the passage on B-flat, gave a few=20
reasons why, and noted that it would be most=20
appropriate for modern day clarinetists to do so=20
as well for similar reasons.

> I say that's a function
>of the clarinet system, and to do with the way in which the tonehole
>positions on the two systems are organised. That does give rise to differe=
nt
>fingerings, and makes F# on the Ottensteiner a note that has a more similar
>character to F natural on the Boehm than to F# on the Boehm.

That may be true of that one note. But there are=20
many notes in the passage in question. Muhlfeld=20
would have made a decision based on the overall=20
nature of the entire passage, not one note.

>The relevant fact is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you have no
>substantial experience of playing Ottensteiner clarinets, and your handwavy
>'science' is designed to obscure that fact.

Whether I do or do not is wholly irrelevant to=20
the discussion at hand. And what you call=20
"handwavy 'science'" is simply precise=20
terminology, unlike your continued use of utterly=20
ambiguous words and phrases such as "bite",=20
"extra level of intensity", "intimate eloquence",=20
"a sound-palette that allowed the clarinet to=20
disappear into the string texture" and so-on.

>I said, you can SET UP the Bb to give more power. He could equally well ha=
ve
>set up another A clarinet to give him more power.

Yes, and you can set up a saxophone to give you=20
more power, or a trombone for that matter, and=20
they are equally irrelevant to the discussion at=20
hand.

>You leave out (d), which is that he wanted to use another instrument with a
>more powerful setup -- perhaps a different sort of reed? You need to be mo=
re
>careful about the assumptions you make, you see, before you apply your
>'logic'.

Yes, and there are a million other equally=20
unlikely assumptions that could be made too. Are=20
you seriously suggesting he changed clarinets to=20
switch reeds as the primary motivating factor in=20
switching to the B-flat????????

>I don't have a fear of science. I rather have a more heightened sense of
>responsibility toward science than you. I didn't like it when you got the
>science wrong in capitals on the Bulletin Board, and refused to acknowledge
>it; and I don't like you using scientific terminology inappropriately here
>now.

Yet another blatant falsehood. Repeating=20
falsehoods doesn't make them true, Tony.

As you are well aware, not only did I immediately=20
acknowledge and correct the small (and I might=20
add insignificant) error in my hasty posting of=20
15 years ago both when you asked about it via=20
email, but I also went to the trouble of sending=20
the correction to Mark Charette so that he could=20
update the old posting in the archives as well=20
(something which I was unaware we could do until=20
Mark informed me).

--Jonathan
--
Jonathan Cohler
Artistic & General Director
International Woodwind Festival
http://iwwf.org/
cohler@-----.org

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