 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-06-14 18:00
I recently read in a different thread that if a [Victorian] composer wrote something for a C clarinet, that the composer wanted it played by a C clarinet.
I'm left wondering if that's true - or if it is an assumption.
Does the classical performer/orchestra ever fight the view that it's playing "dead music"?
Are the same pieces doomed to be played the same way by the same instrumentation without variation for eternity - only swapping out the players and conductors like one would replace a worn bearing on a conveyor belt?
Does humanity exist to serve the music, or does music exist to serve humanity?
I love history and appreciate how amazing a tool was in the context of the time it was being used. So I do understand the desire/need/want to keep a reference point. (I love Hogwood's Academy of Ancient Music)
Still, I wonder...
Would the Victorian (or earlier) classical composer...given access to all the sounds our modern ears have heard and enjoyed, and all the tools we now have available...have written the same piece the same way with the same instrumentation?
Perhaps Verdi would have used synthesizers/computers/AI reproduction to replace the need for any of us musicians?
Maybe the C clarinet served as a poor approximate of the sound he was really after - but was the closest thing he could come up with...and now (in modernity) there is some other sound he would have preferred?
Why I ask the question about "dead music" is:
One of the issues the "old-time jazz" players face is convincing folks that the music isn't dead. The successful groups/players have found success by using the past as a foundation, but continuing to keep the music alive and new. (Tuba Skinny, Tim Laughlin, Connie Jones, et al). Sometimes even playing current pop tunes in the style of the vintage.
In the old-time jazz world - it is nice to very rarely/occasionally hear a strict imitation of how an early group/composer performed a piece...it is generally frowned upon to do so routinely, as folks seem to think of it as "dead music" - stuck in the past.
As a result, most old-time jazz folks work hard to prevent that, and keep the music alive, evolving, new and different. (Whether successful or not, this is the goal.)
Which made me wonder about classical - especially in light of the recent statement about C clarinet. So please understand my question isn't intended to be mean-spirited - but is an honest question. Do folks look at classical music as "dead music"? If so - how do the classical players/conductors address that?
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
