Klarinet Archive - Posting 000148.txt from 2009/02
From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:00:31 -0500
On 6 Feb 2009, at 15:58, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
> On Feb 5, Tony Pay wrote:
>
> Are you seriously suggesting he changed clarinets to switch reeds as the =
primary
> motivating factor in switching to the B-flat????????
>
> > Yes.
>
> I must say, I was stunned by this response. It took me awhile to absorb =
the absurdity of it.
:-)
> First, if this was your point, then you are a master of circumlocution.
> Why didn't you simply say so, instead of using so many varied and
> ambiguous terms?
Because I hadn't get round to it yet. I was too busy trying to
explain to you why your own 'theoretical' pronouncements of what is so
about Ottensteiner clarinets are wide of the mark.
Let's face it: you had told us that it was OBLIGATORY to play that
passage on the Bb, because M=FChlfeld had been reported to have done so;
and that moreover there was no argument possible because there were
PROPER SCIENTIFIC reasons why it was better on the Bb.
My line was: first, that a player's choice of whether or not to do so
always depends on the context; and second, that your so-called
'scientific' reasons actually don't bite when considering the
Ottensteiner, which has a different design.
See, I have a history with this problem. Indeed, I feel it as MY
problem, in a way.
What happened to me was that around 15 years ago I had to play the
Brahms quintet on period instruments, with period string players. So,
the question was, what instrument should I use? I didn't have
anything late enough -- or alternatively, early enough.
To cut a long story short, Nick Shackleton lent me his prized original
Ottensteiner. He didn't really want to -- after all, I might have
damaged it -- but, because he was a lovely man, he understood that
such instruments might be said in a way to 'have their own purposes'
-- and he thought it would be churlish to let his possessiveness stand
in the way of his Ottensteiner's 'fulfilling its proper function' at
least once more.
But, what to do about the Bb bit? I knew from the Simrock edition --
actually, I spent quite a lot of money having the publishers (or their
representatives) photocopy the original publication for me -- that
there was an ossia part for Bb in the slow movement, and that M=FChlfeld
had reportedly played it that way on at least one occasion; but
unfortunately I didn't have access to an Ottensteiner Bb.
So I played it on the A. But I did notice that the passage was in a
way more suited to the Ottensteiner system than to a Boehm system.
Then, I bought a pair of Ottensteiner copies from Schwenke and
Seggelke, and in due course was asked to play the piece again.
But this time I found myself in terrible trouble, because I couldn't
get on with the mouthpieces that came with them. In the end, I had to
cobble up a conical bore mouthpiece from a modern German one -- which
is another story -- but the upshot was that I didn't have sufficient
time or inclination to investigate what the situation with the Bb
clarinet might be.
After a bit, I had a copy of another period mouthpiece made, which
worked better, and played the piece from time to time -- but always,
entirely on the A.
When the matter got mentioned on the Klarinet list, I was convinced
that it was about time I investigated what it was like to play that
bit on the Bb.
BUT when I tried that, I found that there really weren't many
advantages (for the reasons I tried to outline in this thread --
against heavy opposition from you, I might add).
And when you get into it, you find that, as well as the switch to the
Bb, the switch BACK to the A clarinet is really horrible too -- you
have again these FOUR admittedly slow beats to do it in, and then have
the theme to play again. Plus, in both switches, you have the reed
tied on with that stringy thingy -- too easy to pull off, even if
you're an expert -- and coming back, you're EMOTIONAL because of what
you've just played...and what you're about to play... so it just
didn't seem worth the bother.
But, the really significant point is that I COULDN'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE
OF PLAYING IT ON THE Bb OTTENSTEINER ANYWAY. What had M=FChlfeld
noticed that I hadn't?
So finally, it occurred to me that the switch would be trivial to
perform if he'd had an instrument complete with mouthpiece and reed
waiting for him.
And THEN, I could for the first time consider the notion that the
second setup didn't need to be very like the first one, requiring only
to be played loudly. In fact, it could be DESIGNED to be played
loudly.
> Second, I find this theory highly unlikely for the following obvious and
> very significant reason:
>
> At m81 of the second movement, the B-flat clarinet and reed would have
> been sitting unused for a minimum of 20 minutes at this point! The first
> movement is 12:30 and we are 7:30 into the second. There are only four
> slow beats of rest.
>
> It's not like changing reeds between movements or pieces, where one would
> have time to try the reed, possibily readjust it or re-wet it. When a
> reed has been sitting unplayed for 20 minutes on a mouthpiece (or even
> 7:30 if you assume he stopped between movements to prep and play his new
> reed--which would be very annoying in performance), I most certainly woul=
d
> not want to have to immediately play a difficult passage, and I am willin=
g
> to bet that most other clarinetists (including Mhlfeld) would agree.
>
> Furthermore, the odds that it will have that exact sonic quality that you
> describe, in in your circumlocution, after sitting unused for 20 minutes
> (or 7:30), are virtually nil.
You're SO sure of yourself, aren't you?
It's interesting -- why don't you ask me, who's tried it, rather than
conjecturing? You're extrapolating again from your limited experience
of your own reeds and mouthpieces.
In fact, German setups, with their heavier reeds, are less sensitive
to longish periods of not being played. One of the striking things
about Leister's masterclasses, which you can view on the Internet, is
the way he is able to pick up an instrument and play it immediately,
without seeming to need any sort of warmup.
In the end, I find it not so difficult to believe that M=FChlfeld could
do that too, ESPECIALLY when he had only to play forte and beyond in
the relevant passage.
Now, what I finally want to say to you -- and what motivated me to
respond to your post in the first place -- is that I don't think you
represent at all well the scientific ideal. Though I understand
Keith, who said that musicians are better off not trying to meddle in
science, I think that THE SCIENTIFIC IDEAL is something we can ALL
aspire to.
The scientific ideal is always on the lookout for more information.
As my friend Michael McIntyre put it, it involves saying to yourself
something like, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks
like a duck....let's see if it SWIMS like a duck."
What YOU do is rather to take a few bits of knowledge you've picked
up, and then hold forth, dogmatically.
It wouldn't occur to you to enquire of me what my experience has
taught me, and find out more about the truth of the matter, as a real
scientist would.
You're too concerned to win an argument.
Tony
--=20
_________ Tony Pay
| ony :-) 79 Southmoor Rd
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
mobile +44(0)7790 532980 tony.p@-----.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------
