 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: teniralc
Date: 2009-07-05 07:08
Does anyone have a fairly concise list of orchestral clarinet parts that are written in C? Other than Strauss Rosenkavalier, Blue Danube, Symphonie Fantastique, Mahler 1, Mozartiana and Barber of Seville? I know there is some Schubert, early Beethoven, Mozart and Rossini. It would be great if there was a complete list to be found.
Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2009-07-05 14:17
What to include on such a list?
For some works that have parts for C instruments, some editions include transposed parts as well: the Beethoven 1st and 5th symphonies come to mind.
I've played Tchaikovsky's "Mozartiana" from two different editions. One has the finale on C, the other on A.
The Bizet symphony: the score I own shows clarinets in C. I've played the piece from parts all in Bb, and parts in Bb and A.
In Mendelssohn's 1st symphony, it's Bbs all the way -- except for the last 30 bars, where it's Cs.
And so forth. This would be a good list to have. But it would indeed be sizeable, with lots of fine print and footnotes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-07-05 16:26
How many parts in C clarinet, let me count the ways.
Larry, how many symphonies did Beethoven write after his last 9th. ( Oh, I'm sorry, that was his last wasn't it?)
Davyd, there are now many parts being published with the C clarinet parts already transposed to Bb. I haven't come across one transposed to A yet but I guess it's possible. We still play from most of the original parts in the BSO because they don't buy new parts unless they have to. Sometimes the publishers get a bit ridiculous as the case of printing Peter and the Wolf with a Bb part instead of the original A part. It's a bit difficult to play all those low E's on the Bb clarinet. I got that part once while playing at the Eastern Music Festival and made the librarian call the publisher and get the original part sent in over night mail. Lipping down a half step was a bit of a problem for me and I didn't really want to transpose the whole part from Bb to the original A. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MoonPatrol
Date: 2009-07-06 02:00
I wonder how a real C clarinet would sound on the 4th movement of Beethoven's 5th?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2009-07-06 02:48
The last movement of the Beethoven 5th was written for C clarinet.
Sounds nice, floating above the rest.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Servinsky
Date: 2009-11-15 13:50
Rimsky Korsakov's Russian Easter Overture- all in C
Tom Servinsky
Atlantic Classical Orchestra
tompiano@bellsouth.net
772 260 7110
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-11-15 17:34
Beethoven's 1st symphony is all for C, Haydn's Creation has C parts in the 1st and 2nd parts of the oratorio. (I've just done this tonight on period instruments where you most certainly need a C). The last movt of Beethoven's 5th sounds great on a C whether it be modern or period.
Other works include:
Beethoven Vln Concerto 2nd movt,
Brahms 4th Symphony 3rd movt though this might be a copyist mistake due to the low Eb
Most of Mahler's symphonies
Schubert 9th symphony (2nd movt on A rest is C)
Mendelsshon 5th Symphony
Most of Verdi's operas
R.Strauss Sonatina and Wind Symphony in Eb
Bizet Symphony in C
the list goes on...
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-15 18:14
Smetana -- Ma Vlast (of which "Die Moldau" is the most famous movement and calls for C clarinet--if you don't have a C clarinet, transposing it for A clarinet works best)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-11-15 18:25
mrn,
that's right but the first section works well on the Bb. I did this recently. The only use of the A is in the very last section.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-15 21:30
cigleris wrote:
> mrn,
>
> that's right but the first section works well on the Bb. I did
> this recently. The only use of the A is in the very last
> section.
You're right. I probably should have qualified my remark by noting that it was just my opinion and what the basis of it was. It may not be "best" for everyone. I did feel compelled to mention the idea of transposing it for A, though, because I felt it did have some advantages over the more immediately obvious solution of transposing it to play on the Bb.
We performed this piece a few weeks ago, and (not owning a C clarinet) I chose to transpose the opening section on A primarily because I generally find it easier to achieve a good legato in keys with flats than keys with sharps. With two flats in the key signature (when on A clarinet) you generally only have to move one hand at a time, you avoid finger motions in opposite directions (like the middle-of-the-staff C#/B interchange), you avoid a lot of left-hand throat-key action, and you also don't have to play any forked fingerings (like clarion F#), all of which you'd have to deal with if playing with 3 sharps on Bb clarinet. None of those little technical issues are that big a deal--they're things we regularly encounter, after all--but I knew I could play the opening with maximum smoothness and minimal effort by avoiding them, so for that reason I chose to play it on the A clarinet. For me, under the circumstances and given what I was trying to accomplish, it was the best solution.
Of course, the trade-off for all this smoothness comes in the "wedding dance" section of the movement, because then you have to deal with brief clarion Eb-F trills, which are more awkward than the D-E trills you'd have on the Bb clarinet, but I figured that was a small price to pay. (I suppose I could have had the best of both worlds by making an instrument switch to Bb at the double bar or at rehearsal letter A, but I just didn't think of that at the time.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-11-15 21:40
mrn,
I understand your position, I to have transposed C parts on A. Everyone should know this skill.
I choose Bb for this just because of the section that comes after that which is for Bb.
Nice piece though.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John25
Date: 2009-11-16 08:56
There were hundreds of operas written in the first part of the nineteenth century and most have passages for clarinet in C. A few years ago I played "Emilia di Liverpool" by Donizetti. There was so much for C clarinet that I went through the part and counted the actual bars, and found out that 75% of the opera was for clarinet in C.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bill28099
Date: 2009-11-16 13:51
Why is it that conductors of major orchestras allow clarinet players to violate the intent of the composer and transpose the C clarinet parts? In non professional groups I can understand players not owning a C but when you get to the pro ranks shouldn't you be using the instrument that the composer had envisioned.
A great teacher gives you answers to questions
you don't even know you should ask.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2009-11-18 04:51
Bill wrote: "In non professional groups I can understand players not owning a C but when you get to the pro ranks shouldn't you be using the instrument that the composer had envisioned."
Not necessarily. With my contemporary group, I have worked with hundreds of composers. I have asked every composer from whom I have received a part for A clarinet, why they wrote it for A clarinet instead of Bb.
It might surprise you to know that not a single composer, *not a single composer* has ever given me a reason for writing the part for A clarinet. I expected at least a couple of "they say the A clarinet sounds darker" but no, the composer usually shrugs his shoulders and says "no reason". I think composers have greater concerns than "is the clarinet player playing my music on the soprano clarinet to which I arbitrarily assigned the part." After all if he writes a concert C, you are playing a concert C whether you play a D on Bb clarinet or an Eb on A clarinet. They are both soprano clarinets which, to a composer's ear, differ in timbre much less than we think.
In a rehearsal break 20 years ago, one of Canada's foremost composers walked up to me and said, unsolicited, "In instrumentation manuals much is made of the difference in timbre between A and Bb clarinets. I don't hear it. I find there is much more difference in timbre between individual players' sounds."
My experience with composers suggests their choice of soprano clarinet is not sacrosanct.
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-11-18 06:20
I've used C clarinet extensively in professional orchestras for over 10 years. I can honestly say that 90% of the time it really is an improvement, whether for the lightness of articulation in Italian operas, blending with other woodwinds in the upper register or special character of the sound. (Play the variations from the Schubert Octet and you'll never want to play it on B-flat again!) And unlike Mr Aldrich, I've worked with composers who wrote for the A especially because of it's timbre. Richard Strauss writes in the preface to Rosenkavalier that under no circumstances should the C clarinet parts be transposed onto other instruments. It was obviously important to him too.
I find it very strange that more clarinet players don't play C clarinets. Usual excuses are intonation and cost. Intonation is no problem if you practise on the instrument and presents much less difficulty than E-flat clarinet, for instance. Regarding cost I can only laugh- consider how much flute and bassoon players have to pay for just one instrument.
In Italy last century many players transposed everything onto the full-Boehm B-flat. I even know players who played the Mozart and Nielsen concertos on B-flat clarinet. Most clarinetists today would find this shocking, but still find it absolutely OK to play all the C clarinet parts on either A or B-flat.
Admitteldy, different players produce very different timbres. But I'd say that the difference in timbre between C and the B-flat is bigger than the difference in timbre between the B-flat and the A. SO much of the classical orchestral repertoire is written for C clarinet. Why has it become standard practice to only play on B-flat and A? I believe it's because of tradition and laziness. What a pity...
(End of rant .-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TonkaToy
Date: 2009-11-18 17:00
Simon,
Finally.
With very few exceptions I've always thought that composers didn't really care one way or the other what clarinet a part was played on. I'm a clarinet player and I can't always tell what instrument someone is playing on.
Specifically addressing the number or 18th century operas written for C clarinet I've always guessed that clarinet in C was more a function of the copyist or publisher than the composer. Jeez, Rossini wrote at a frantic pace and was always late in delivering. I can imagine him writing at concert pitch simply because it was easier and faster.
I have never played a C clarinet so I have no idea how they play or sound. I studied with players in major orchestras who never had either. A part is C, simply meant that you transposed. It was just part of the job. I never heard any of them agonize about not being "true to the composers intentions".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-11-18 17:15
TonkaToy wrote: "I have never played a C clarinet so I have no idea how they play or sound"
I rest my case...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TonkaToy
Date: 2009-11-18 17:56
And I'd hazard a guess that 99.999999% of composers have never played or heard a C clarinet either. They simply write in C because they're lazy or it's expedient to do so.
You also noted that:
"In Italy last century many players transposed everything onto the full-Boehm B-flat."
So obviously composers weren't writing for C clarinet because of the glorious sound of the C clarinet they heard everyday in the theaters they worked in, they were just taking the path of least resistance. It's easier and quicker to write in concert pitch sometimes. Why go through the mental calculations of doing the transposition and writing the extra sharps on the manuscript when the strings and all the other winds are in concert pitch?
With a few notable exceptions (Strauss obviously) where composers have been explicit in their desire for a particular instrument I think it's reading too much into it to insist that composers specifically wanted the parts to be played on a C instrument. Never underestimate human sloth and the desire to quickly be done with a task.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-11-18 18:21
So why did Schubert use the C clarinet in only one movement of his Octet? And that is a movement that uses up to 4 flats. It would have been technically much easier to play on the B-flat clarinet. Was he just lazy for that one movement? I doubt it. Was Verdi also just lazy for almost one third of the arias in his operas? And why does his laziness just happen to coincide with the witch scenes in his opera 'Macbeth', for example? Have you read what Berlioz wrote about using different clarinets? Strauss isn't the only notable exception by any means, and I'd suggest that your 99.999999% figure is a ludicrous exaggeration.
The next part of your post reads "I studied with players in major orchestras who never had either".
It sounds to me like you're just being fed what you've been taught. I'm suggesting that there is much more to the story than your limited point of view. If you want to discover more then go and actually play some repertoire on a C clarinet that was written for it, and then get back to me. Unfortunately it sounds like your mind is already made up though. Your loss...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-18 18:55
TonkaToy wrote:
<<And I'd hazard a guess that 99.999999% of composers have never played or heard a C clarinet either. They simply write in C because they're lazy or it's expedient to do so.>>
And your guess would be wrong, I'm afraid. With a few exceptions (like Richard Strauss and Mahler, who happened to like the sound of a C clarinet), composers used C clarinets because they were writing for clarinets that look like these (click link):
http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/ugw/ugwf1b.html
It was not only difficult to play in keys with more than one sharp or flat with one of these old-time 5 key models (because the fingerings were necessarily awkward), but the intonation and sound quality you'd get by trying to do that was unacceptably bad.
So it wasn't out laziness--it was out of necessity.
Incidentally, if you think we have it complicated, I sit next to the horn section in our orchestra--they're always playing parts written for horns in wacky keys, like horn in E. Why? Basically the same reason: once upon a time, horns didn't have valves. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_horn
Post Edited (2009-11-18 18:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2009-11-18 21:36
And MRN and I will need C clarinets or transposing skills again this spring.
My copy of Mendelssohn's symphony #5 has a lot of C clarinet work.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2009-11-19 15:52
TonkaToy wrote that composers "simply write in C because they're lazy or it's expedient to do so."
I think it is important to remember that, as mrn noted, the clarinet was in an early state of development at the turn of the 19 century. Because of the difficulty of playing in extreme keys there were rules in the classical period which governed which clarinet should to be used, depending on the key. A lot has been mentioned, here and elsewhere, about how keys such as D major were "forbidden" on Bb clarinet. A workbook belonging to one of Mozart's students has Mozart's handwriting in the margin, instructing the student that clarinets should only play in C or F major.
Mozart had in his possession at the time of his death a table indicating which clarinet was to be used according to what the concert key was.
As this relates to the Schubert Octet variations movement on C clarinet,
if Schubert were simply "following the rules" by assigning the C major movement to the C clarinet, *not because of the tonal characteristics of the instrument but because D major was thorny for the Bb clarinet* then one could say that since this C clarinet assignment was done for secretarial reasons (the rules) and since D major is no longer a problem for Bb clarinet, one is not doing anything immoral by playing it on Bb clarinet. In other words, because of the rules, he did not choose the C clarinet for its sound but for its ease of playability in C major. If D major had not been a problem for the clarinet in its infancy, perhaps Schubert would not have put the C major movement on C clarinet. That last sentence is admittedly empty conjecture. What is not conjecture is that composers, even into the romantic period, had the clarinet assignment imposed on them, to a certain degree, because of the technical limitations of the still-developing clarinet (ie they were not choosing the clarinet because of its tonal characteristics but because they knew certain keys imposed the assignment of one clarinet over the others).
This is not an attempt to give myself and others carte blanche to play on whatever instrument they want. I am simply pointing out that classical and romantic composers made their clarinet assignments on clerical orders (ie The movement is in E major. The guidelines dictate I score the part for A clarinet).
This is not to say that a composer has never assigned a part to a clarinet because of its perceived timbre. But in my experience with hundreds of composers I have not witnessed this yet. Often this whole Bb/A question is discussed among those who don't have any experience with composers. In the absence of dialogue with composers some postulate that Bb/A interchangeability is an affront to the composer. This sounds noble as theory and might even make one feel virtuous for defending the composer's wishes. I contend however that dealings with composers dispel the notion of the sanctity of soprano clarinet assignment.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I go out of my way to ask composers why they write a part for A clarinet (when they don't need a low E). Not a *single* composer has ever had an answer. When you get your 8th or 9th shrug or blank stare for an answer, you realize how absurd this Bb/A discussion is. *It has nothing to do with the real world*. When I ask composers to reprint the A clarinet part in Bb and they have no problem with it, this debate on this issue seems academic.
In 2006 in Amsterdam I performed the premiere of a clarinet concerto by an up-and-coming Dutch composer, Robin DeRaaff (www.robinderaaff.com).
In the concerto there is a section that is not only very high (constantly around high C) but also very fast.
For the premiere I played it on the Bb clarinet, as written, but for the North American premiere and the recording I transposed the very high fast part onto Eb Clarinet, without telling Robin (since he was in Amsterdam).
When he came to Montreal to hear the second performance he exclaimed, "I noticed you put the high section onto Eb Clarinet. It sounds much better that way and you compete better with the piccolo!"
I can't help wondering - if composers don't mind if we play their parts on a clarinet other than the one specified (even, in the above case, *preferring* the change to what they wrote), where does the notion come from that a composer's instrumental indication is unchallengeably sacrosanct?
In my experience that notion definitely does not come from composers.
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TonkaToy
Date: 2009-11-19 17:58
Thanks Simon. You stated your argument much more elegantly than I.
I was perhaps being a bit flip when I suggested that composers were being lazy or expedient when writing for the clarinet at concert pitch.
While I do believe that to be the case in some instances, of course the 18th and early 19th century clarinet's technical limitations and rules governing which clarinet a composer should use is a much more satisfying and cogent explanation.
Since this thread began I've done some reading and aside from the often cited examples of Strauss and Mahler the only composer, that I could identify, who expressed a preference for the C clarinet based on its sound or other acoustic characteristics was Berlioz.
In fact, I found a quote in Albert Rice's "C Clarinet in the Classical Period" from a gentleman named Michel writing in 1801 that appeared to urge clarinetists to use the B flat clarinet and transpose C parts when technically possible because the B flat clarinet offered, "...an advantageous compensation in its more vigorous tone...".
Additionally, R. M. Longyear, in his article Clarinet Sonorities in Early Romantic Music (The Musical Times/April, 1983) in writing about the harsh sound and limitations of the C clarinet says that, "The last major composers to write for the clarinet in C were Liszt (Les preludes, Faust Symphony, Coronation Mass), Smetana (Vltava, Sarka), and Verdi, and one may doubt whether their music was in fact played on that instrument for by 1850 the 13-keyed clarinet was in general use and every professional clarinetist could easily transpose parts written in C to the B flat instrument".
So, the argument that using a C clarinet for a Rossini opera makes one more true to the composer's original intent just doesn't hold a lot of water for me. If someone wants to use a C instrument so they don't have to go to the trouble of transposing, fine, have at it. I'm not even saying that if I could find one that played in tune and didn't sound like a cross between a bad oboe and a klaxon that I wouldn't use it to avoid the hassle of having to transpose on sight. It is just that the original argument for using a C clarinet; that the composer was looking for a particular sonority, that you must use one to remain "true" to the composers intent seems specious.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-19 20:00
TonkaToy wrote:
> While I do believe that to be the case in some instances, of
> course the 18th and early 19th century clarinet's technical
> limitations and rules governing which clarinet a composer
> should use is a much more satisfying and cogent explanation.
Well, there is one spot where I've never understood the reason for using a C clarinet, and that is the opening to Barber of Seville Overture, which is in E Major on a C clarinet. The part that follows it is in E minor (which would be a good key for C clarinet, as opposed to E Major) and it's on C clarinet, but I don't understand why the opening is that way.
As for Italian operas being written with lots of C clarinet parts, even late in the 19th century, it's worth noting that one of the more important opera clarinetists of the time, Ernesto Cavallini, principal of La Scala in Milan, played 6-key boxwood clarinets long after the invention of modern keywork. Verdi wrote at least one solo in one of his operas specifically with Cavallini in mind (I don't remember which one).
I'd also add that you can still often get better results from a technical standpoint by using one key of clarinet over another. Even if you can play cleanly in all keys with little effort, one clarinet may still play more smoothly and with better legato (and intonation and sound quality, for that matter) than another in a particular piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-11-19 21:19
Simon- using the Schubert Octet as your example is a particularly bad choice. You are correct that the movement starts in C major, but by variation 5 it is in C minor (3 flats) and variation 6 is in A-flat major (4 flats). From a technical standpoint it would have made much more sense for Schubert to have used the B-flat clarinet. The theme would have been slightly more tricky in D major, but the A-flat major variation would have been much easier to play. It's much easier to play in D major than it is in A-flat major on an early 19th century instrument.
I also think that it is important not to overlook one of the major differences between modern composers and composers from the 18th and early 19th centuries- namely that the earlier composers where highly sensitive to the emotions of different keys in the tonal system. Look at Christian Schubart's Ideen zu einer Aesthetik der Tonkunst (1806), in which he describes the characters of all of the various major and minor keys. We are looking at a completely different aesthetic here. Mozart consistently uses specific keys for setting the mood in his operas. He must also have been very aware of the different sound qualities of the various clarinets. There must have been some thought process involved when he changed his concerto from G major into A major, for example. Why are clarinets used in some arias in his operas, but not in others? Could it not be that when the clarinet to be used for a specific key in an opera aria didn't match the mood which that aria was supposed to express then he left the clarinets out of the instrumentation?
Of course some of these questions don't have definite answers. But it's certainly worth at least trying to play the music of great composers on the instrument that they specified. Most of the times that I've done this I've been pleasantly surprised to find how well the C clarinets works in these pieces, and I wouldn't gladly transpose the part and lose the particular magic which the instrument can add. Even in contemporary music I would consider it normal to at least try to play what the composers wrote, before offering an alternative which the composer might find better.
First try to play what the composer actually wrote. You may be surprised to discover that some great composers actually knew what they were doing!
What I find baffling is the attitude of people like TonkaToy, who has himself admitted that he's never played on a C clarinet and has no idea how they play or sound, and yet makes sweeping statements about their intonation and bad sound quality!
But of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion...
Post Edited (2009-11-19 21:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-11-19 22:59
I absolutely agree with Liquorice's post.
"Why are clarinets used in some arias in his operas, but not in others? Could it not be that when the clarinet to be used for a specific key in an opera aria didn't match the mood which that aria was supposed to express then he left the clarinets out of the instrumentation?"
I to have wondered this and believe Mozart was writing with colour in mind. One example is the use of basset horns in the Magic Flute.
I was pondering this on the weekend just gone whilst in rehearsals for Haydn's Creation (which was done on period instruments). As you may know the part is for Bb and C clarinets with quite a lot of tacet. There are only a few instances in the 1st and 2nd parts of the Oratorio where Haydn uses the C. The 3rd part is all Bb. One of the main things that got me thinking though was the recit after the Representation of Chaos. The opening movement is clarinets in Bb and stay on Bb for the recit and first choir entry when they describe God giving light to the world with the huge C major chord. Now here I have a problem, why didn't Haydn specify the C clarinet here? Instead the two players stay on the Bb and change to C after the tacet aria in A major. There are certainly enough bars rest to change instruments after the little 1st clarinet solo. Surely this would have strengthened the tonality of C major here much in the same way as Beethoven does in his 5th Symphony to show the struggle between light and dark with the light winning in the last movement.
Can we suggest that Haydn was not following convention or didn't have a clear idea in terms of harmonic colour and timbre? Did Haydn's age have something to do with it? Was he very much set in his ways and therefore following the conventions from his heydays. Was it that the clarinet players they used at Esterhazy were not very good? Who knows? I have however, always felt that Haydn was unsure on how to use the clarinet and that it was really Mozart, who was more 'in tune' with the ideas that Christian Schubart talks about in his 1806 book.
In the case of Schubert's Octet perhaps he was placing emphasis on the character of the tonality here. By this time the 12 keyed instrument was the norm and Schubert may have felt that Ab was not so much a technical problem as it is on 5 keyed instruments.
I, like Liquorice am of the opinion that 18th and 19th really knew what they were doing and used this as part of their compositional language and the emotional ideas in their music.
Peter Cigleris
Post Edited (2009-11-19 23:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Noqu
Date: 2009-11-20 17:11
pewd wrote:
> And MRN and I will need C clarinets or transposing skills again this spring.
> My copy of Mendelssohn's symphony #5 has a lot of C clarinet work.
When we did Mendelssohn's 5th last year, I typeset a Bb clarinet version, (now available at IMSLP). Just in case you are interested (I did it out of necessity, because I neither have a C nor the required transposing skills).
Greetings - noqu
(Edited to make the link clickable)
Post Edited (2009-11-20 17:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-20 17:40
Noqu wrote:
> When we did Mendelssohn's 5th last year, I typeset a Bb
> clarinet version, (now available
> at
> IMSLP). Just in case you are interested (I did it out of
> necessity, because I neither have a C nor the required
> transposing skills).
I've sight-transposed things before, but I never got very good at it, and these days I'm way out of practice in sight-transposition, so that's a big help! Thank you!!! 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Noqu
Date: 2009-11-20 19:40
@mrn: Nice to see that all this work can be put to use again :-)
I just remembered that there were a few typos which I didn't yet find time to fix in the uploaded version. Basically these were:
Mvmt (clarinet) bar:
I (1) 320: should be C sharp (not C)
IV (1) 4: should be half A (not quarter rest, quarter A)
IV (1) 33: should be G sharp (not F sharp)
I (2) 26: should be G natural (not G sharp)
I (2) 94: should be G (not A)
I (2) 209: should be pp (not sf)
IV (2) 69: should be F sharp (not G)
Greetings - noqu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2009-11-21 04:09
Peter and Liquorice - We are in agreement about the important points - the points that matter ("earlier composers where highly sensitive to the emotions of different keys in the tonal system"). I am not referring to more subtle, spiritual aspects like musical affect however. I think we are simply discussing different things. I am talking about clarinetists missing the forest for the trees and being too self-flagellatory.
It is not realistic for a horn player to show up with 5 different French horns because his part is for horn in D, horn in E, horn in Eb, horn in B and horn in F. It was necessary to write for those different horns in the past but the horn has evolved. (If a horn player is not exhibiting "laziness" by playing 5 different horn parts on one horn, how is a clarinetist "lazy" for playing a C part on Bb?)
Trumpeters regularly play Bb parts on C trumpet for more zing.
For their voices, singers commonly perform songs in a key different than the one written by the composer.
Never has the term "lazy" been applied to a horn player who plays a B horn part on F horn or a singer who sings an aria in a transposed key. So why level that charge against a professional who, in my case, does not want to use his C clarinet in the opening of Tchaik 2 last movement because the movement starts with the second row of the winds and the cold C clarinet is a quarter-tone below the warmed up bassoons and 2nd clarinet? I feel I am doing the music a service by not playing painfully flat. Why look dimly on a professional who, once again in my case, plays the Brahms 1 slow movement solo on the "wrong" clarinet because I think it resonates better, who plays the opening of the last movement of Mahler 4 on the "wrong" clarinet because I think it resonates better, who plays Peter and the Wolf on the "wrong" clarinet because it is a difficult solo and I need all the notes to come out?
I see a need to defend players who play parts on the "wrong" clarinet for well-considered, musical reasons, especially when the admonition is accompanied by a whiff of moral superiority (as it often is).
I find composers' intentions much more severely violated when, for example, someone adds slurs in a series of detached notes because he or she doesn't want to learn to double-tongue (*that* might be a better example of "laziness").
Every couple of months a thread arises on this board regarding the morality of playing a part on a clarinet for which it was not written. Often the following relevant point is raised: The timbre of the modern clarinet is so far removed from the sound-world of the clarinet of Mozart's time, nitpicking over often imperceptible timbral differences between modern A and Bb clarinet could be seen as missing the point. In the case of classical composers, we are not playing on an instrument that sounds anything like the instrument for which they wrote the part. As one writer put it in another thread, "My modern clarinet has very little in common with the clarinet for which Mozart wrote except for the apparent key signature."
Since classical-era music was originally written for a combination of players producing a more intimate, nuanced sound, some feel we are violating composers' intentions by playing that music on modern instruments, since modern instruments have become, by classical-era standards, turbocharged and hyperfocused to project to the last row of the upper balcony (arguably displacing the pliant, downy, more personal sound of the instrument the music was written for).
This is all to say I find there are greater violations of composers' intentions than playing a passage on an alternate clarinet, since often neither clarinet sounds similar to the instrument for which it was written.
In another thread on this very topic, Tony Pay wrote:
"The great pianist and scholar Charles Rosen, put the matter rather well. He wrote: "It is the moral duty of a performer to choose what he thinks is the musically superior version, whatever the composer's clearly marked intention..."
This is what I did when, as mentioned a few posts ago, I put a section of a new concerto onto Eb clarinet, which was originally written for high Bb clarinet. No subtle A/Bb clarinet nuances here ..... full on, high-register screech Eb clarinet. And the composer preferred it to what he wrote! To my mind, this is anecdotal evidence that the performer should not be merely a supine, obsequious, passive conduit of the music, but rather a dynamic, intelligent contributor to it.
I feel that objection to Bb/A interchangeability is misguided if it disregards composers' opinions on the subject. How can one defend a composer's wish or interest without ever finding out what that wish or interest is? The crux of the matter is what composers feel about Bb/A interchangeability. I learn over and over they don't care. For every composer I ask who doesn't care, there are a hundred contributors to this board who write that the composer *does* care. This claim is baseless because it leaves out the opinion of the person it purports to be defending: the composer.
From a similar thread, I quote Tony Pay once more (in case, understandably, you are more inclined to believe him than me): "As someone who spent 15 years of his life at the cutting edge of contemporary music, playing new pieces in the 70s and early 80s as principal clarinet with the London Sinfonietta, I agree that the majority of living composers aren't particularly interested in which clarinet their music is played on."
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2009-11-21 17:48
I certainly do not consider someone "lazy" if they play a C clarinet part on their Bb. For one thing, as Tonka Toy has already noted, many professional clarinetists (and most amateurs) don't own a C. (Though, while that was particularly true at the time he was studying, I think it has changed over the last 10 (?) years or so and C clarinets are becoming more prevalent. Even so, I would be surprised to learn that a majority of clarinetists in professional orchestras own and play one even now.) What I do find puzzling are the posters on this Board who take the position that an orchestral clarinetist doesn't need a C clarinet but then invariably chastise someone who asks about Bb transpositions of A parts, assuring them that they need an A clarinet if they want to play in an orchestra -- even if that orchestra is a regional or amateur orchestra.
I do resent it, however, when a clarinetist who doesn't own a C and therefore transposes Beethoven or Smetana or Mahler refers to me as lazy when I use the clarinet the composer called for.
Simon, I note that Tony refers to "the majority of living composers" and you have stated consistently that your conclusion is based on composers you have talked to. If you asked a composer whether s/he cared what clarinet you played on and the answer was "yes," however, wouldn't you honor the composer's wishes, if possible? I think Tony was very deliberate in his use of the qualifier "living" and note that he did not generalize from "living" to "all." To me, if the composer is living, the solution is obvious. Unless the composer is already on record as being indifferent about which clarinet a performer uses.... ask. There is no need to assume that the composer is ignorant of differences (imagined or otherwise) among different clarinets.
With composers who are no longer living and who are not on record one way or the other, the issue is not so easy for me. In the absence of solid evidence, it seems to me an act of arrogance to assume that the composer was ignorant about the instruments s/he wrote for. As a result, I think that, unless one can show a good reason not to use the instrument called for (instrument not available, insufficient time to make a switch, intonation issues, blending issues), one should make every effort to use that instrument (regardless of the difference between modern and period instruments). Dan Leeson has stated the opinion that, even though early composers had their choice of clarinet dictated by the key they were writing in, once they had identified the appropriate clarinet, they wrote its part to take advantage of its characteristics. IMO, the composer deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2009-11-21 17:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2009-11-21 18:38
Noqu:
awesome. You just saved me several hours work.
THANKS!!!!!
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2009-11-22 00:40
Jack wrote, "I do resent it, however, when a clarinetist who doesn't own a C and therefore transposes Beethoven or Smetana or Mahler refers to me as lazy when I use the clarinet the composer called for."
That is ironic. I've seen an about face on the transposition front. When I was a student, clarinetists from previous generations were proud that as students they were trained to transpose every etude, not only up a tone for transposing C parts but also transposing down a semitone for transposing A parts. It was a cop-out to use a C clarinet back then. Now it's a cop-out *not* to use a C clarinet.
"Simon, I note that Tony refers to "the majority of living composers" and you have stated consistently that your conclusion is based on composers you have talked to. If you asked a composer whether s/he cared what clarinet you played on and the answer was "yes," however, wouldn't you honor the composer's wishes, if possible?"
Of course. I hope I didn't give the impression that composer's wishes are not to be honored. What I was getting at is that composers have much more important things on their mind than soprano clarinet assignment, as evidenced by the incredulous look on their faces when I ask them about this issue. They really don't care, so we shouldn't make it a big issue.
"There is no need to assume that the composer is ignorant of differences (imagined or otherwise) among different clarinets."
Agreed. However my experience is that many composers are indeed ignorant of differences among different clarinets. Not that it matters. They are concerned with bigger issues. (As an aside, many clarinetists are also ignorant of differences among different clarinets.)
"In the absence of solid evidence, it seems to me an act of arrogance to assume that the composer was ignorant about the instruments s/he wrote for."
Agreed. My point is that I think it is an act of arrogance for anyone to presume that a composer places his soprano clarinet assignment over quality of execution (phrasing, legato, etc) in terms of importance. I believe that if I could have shown Mahler that I think the opening solo in the 4th mvt of his 4th symphony resonates better in Bb major on A clarinet that in A major on the Bb clarinet (as written) he would not have been scandalized that I thought that. Working with living composers has shown me that players' opinions do matter. Composers *want and value* our input. It doesn't make sense that just because a composer is dead, a player is not allowed to apply his experience or musical intelligence.
I don't want to give the impression that I am on a holy mission to undermine the composer's authority. Asking composers why they wrote a part for A clarinet started almost by accident. My contemporary ensemble was going on tour to Europe and I had to travel with Bb/A/Eb/bass/contrabass clarinets plus alto sax. There was only one piece for A clarinet and it was by a guy my age from Montreal so I took the liberty of asking him if he would reprint the part for Bb clarinet so I could take one fewer clarinet on tour. He shrugged and said "of course". I saw how much he didn't mind that I asked him why he wrote it for A instead of Bb. He looked at me blankly and said "No reason". That got me wondering if all the hand-wringing on this and other boards over playing a passage on the "wrong" clarinet was misplaced. So I started asking all the composers who gave me a part for A clarinet why they wrote it for A. No composer has had an answer yet. It is not a priority (Tony Pay found the same thing). It doesn't matter to them therefore it shouldn't matter to us. That is not to be flippant but rather to say that, to most composers, quality of expression is more important than what clarinet we play it on, so perhaps we should share the same priorities.
A final thought: One of the things I find inconsistent with the "correct" clarinet movement is that it strikes me as conveniently selective. Take the case of D clarinet for example. A large portion of Eb clarinet parts were written for D clarinet. I own and play a D clarinet and its tone is quite different than the Eb clarinet (less strident, less piercing). But nobody questions the integrity of someone who plays a D clarinet part on Eb (Rite of Spring, Til, Mahler symphonies, Schoenberg op. 9 Chamber Symphony, etc). Is it more important how characterfully John Yeh portrays Til on Eb clarinet or is that all eclipsed by the fact that he is playing it on the "wrong clarinet"? Everyone who finds it a transgression to play a part on the wrong clarinet can not, in good faith, play a D part on Eb, of which there are many. Of course in a real world this attitude is not realistic. And that is where I am coming from. Let's keep this discussion grounded in respectful, real-world applicability and not denigrate as "lazy" those who value quality of expression and execution over, what is to composers, a secretarial issue like soprano clarinet choice.
----------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-11-23 21:32
Simon- I actually think that we agree more than we disagree. I fully agree than the quality of execution is more important that the choice of soprano instrument. I also use the "wrong" instrument when I believe that I can do a better job under the given circumstances.
One of the points that I am trying to make is that, having made the effort to get good results on a C clarinet for over a decade, I find that many times I am able to produce a BETTER quality of execution in those pieces where the composer designates C clarinet because of the idiomatic qualities of the instrument. This leads me to believe that many composers (including Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Rossini, Verdi, Mahler, J Strauss and R Strauss) didn't just write for C clarinet because it happened to be in the right key, or were too lazy to transpose the parts, but because they really did want the sound or articulation which a C clarinet lends itself better to.
I agree that the sound of the modern C clarinet is very different from the C clarinet of Mozart's time. But I still find that the special tendencies of articulation and sound peculiar to C clarinets are evident on instruments through 18th to 20th centuries.
The other main point that I am trying to make is that, in my opinion, the difference in sound quality between the C clarinet and the B-flat is BIGGER than the difference between B-flat and A clarinets. So I find it puzzling and disappointing that more modern clarinetists don't explore the special characteristics of the C clarinet, but wouldn't dream of not having either an A clarinet or a B-flat.
I leave you with a quote from Nikolaus Harnoncourt's book "The Musical Dialogue":
"Clarinetists should definitely rediscover the rich colour gradations of the various instruments. Mozart wrote for G, A, B-flat, B and C clarinets. I conducted the Overture to Die Entführung aus dem Serail using C clarinets and would not gladly do without this fresh colour."
Post Edited (2009-11-23 21:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-23 21:58
Liquorice wrote:
<<One of the points that I am trying to make is that, having made the effort to get good results on a C clarinet for over a decade, I find that many times I am able to produce a BETTER quality of execution in those pieces where the composer designates C clarinet because of the idiomatic qualities of the instrument. This leads me to believe that many composers (including Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Rossini, Verdi, Mahler, J Strauss and R Strauss) didn't just write for C clarinet because it happened to be in the right key, or were too lazy to transpose the parts, but because they really did want the sound or articulation which a C clarinet lends itself better to.>>
Or they wrote the part the fit the instrument they knew they were going to have. In other words, whatever they dreamed up in their heads after choosing what key to write in may very well have taken into account the kind of sound they would have expected from the clarinets.
Of course, whether you have a C clarinet or not, you still have to figure out what the composer was trying to accomplish musically and take it from there. It may be that in some circumstances, using a C clarinet makes it easier to create a kind of tonal character that fits what the music is doing, but at the same time it is also quite possible that what the music is doing would be much more readily pulled off with a different clarinet than what the composer specified, but the composer was locked into using a C clarinet due to the instrument technology of the time (and might have made a different choice if writing for modern instruments). Figuring out what the composer was trying to accomplish is, of course, a judgment call in any case.
So ultimately, in any circumstance, what you have to do is use your head, try to figure out what the composer heard in his head, and make the best use of the equipment you have to reproduce what you think the composer was after, whether that means you use what the composer specified or not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-11-23 22:31
mrn wrote:
"Or they wrote the part the fit the instrument they knew they were going to have. In other words, whatever they dreamed up in their heads after choosing what key to write in may very well have taken into account the kind of sound they would have expected from the clarinets."
I have to disagree here. As I mentioned in my previous post regarding the use of the C clarinet in Haydn's Creation.
I wrote:
"One of the main things that got me thinking though was the recit after the Representation of Chaos. The opening movement is clarinets in Bb and stay on Bb for the recit and first choir entry when they describe God giving light to the world with the huge C major chord. Now here I have a problem, why didn't Haydn specify the C clarinet here? Instead the two players stay on the Bb and change to C after the tacet aria in A major. There are certainly enough bars rest to change instruments after the little 1st clarinet solo. Surely this would have strengthened the tonality of C major here much in the same way as Beethoven does in his 5th Symphony to show the struggle between light and dark with the light winning in the last movement."
Haydn had the C clarinet and the Bb and more than likely the players had a A also, so why didn't he use it? There is plenty of time to change and using the C clarinet would have reaffirmed the brilliant C major chord.
I agree that we as performers have to try and honour the composer but if it does make sense to play a passage on another instrument to make it easier then so be it, but, if we have the instruments at are disposal and it works on the instrument specified then we should endeavour to play it on that instrument.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Kmiecik
Date: 2009-11-26 01:20
Referencing back to the original request, there is a great article in "The Clarinet" by Theodore Jahn about the repertoire for the C clarinet. It can be found in Volume 11, Number 3 (Spring 1984). It has a very comprehensive list of solo, ensemble, and orchestral works which use the C clarinet.
If you don't have access to back issues of the journal, let me know and I can scan a copy of at least the repertoire list for you at some point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Torino
Date: 2011-08-14 02:32
Could you send me the list of repertoire from "The Clarinet" Mr. Kmeick?
http://10kforclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gary Van Cott
Date: 2011-08-14 05:09
>Peter and the Wolf with a Bb part instead of the original A part.<
It is my understanding that this was written for a B-flat clarinet with a low E-flat. Common when it was written.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-08-14 07:47
Since everything has been covered I have to say I haven't played very many C clarinet parts, however Russian Easter Overture and beethoven's 9th, 3rd movement were a ball busters! Some of the notes fly by!
Several operas have parts in C.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gsurosey
Date: 2011-08-15 15:58
Is owning/playing on a C clarinet (and even a D clarinet) more or less prevalent outside of the US? I always see Bb, A, and Eb here, but almost never see the others (and I've never actually seen a C or a D clarinet in person).
----------
Rachel
Clarinet Stash:
Bb/A: Buffet R13
Eb: Bundy
Bass: Royal Global Max
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2011-08-15 21:31
>Is owning/playing on a C clarinet (and even a D clarinet) more or less prevalent >outside of the US?
In Europe it is (or was) more prevalent for an Eb player to own a D clarinet. As it is expected for a 1st or 2nd clarinet have both Bb and A clarinet, it is (or was) standard to see the European Eb player own a D clarinet. This should come as no surprise, since such a large percentage of "Eb clarinet" parts are actually written for D clarinet.
I have a D clarinet and the timbral difference between D and Eb clarinet is surprising. The D clarinet's sound is a lot less nasal, pointed and "shrieky" than that of the Eb clarinet. There is an astonishing difference in timbral character considering they are only a semitone apart.
A fact which makes much of the ethical handwringing in threads of this nature so curious.
Hours are dedicated to debating the ethicality of Bb/A interchangeability, while a much greater sonic violation takes place when a D part is played on Eb.
All the writers of the above posts, step forward and admit it!
When you play the big Eb clarinet parts that are partially or entirely for D clarinet (Rite of Spring, Till Eulenspiegel, Schoenberg 1st Chamber Symphony, etc) how many of you play them on D clarinet?
If you don't play them on D clarinet, but are willing to go to the mat to defend the sanctity of Bb/A assignments, surely you can see the duality of your position.
Rachel - my apologies for hijacking your question and using it as a soapbox for a rant (Isn't that what happens anyway in nearly every thread?)
Before anyone argues my point, know that I don't actually give a tinker's cuss about the difference in timbre between the different *modern* clarinets. I'm just rattling the cages of those who care about something I find irrelevant; namely, the difference in timbre between modern clarinets. Modern clarinets are increasingly designed to fill 3000-seat halls and as a result, have to be hair-splittingly focussed and intrinsically hyper-centered. The inherent sound quality of a French-bore instrument is so far-removed from its ancestor's original, vocal, HUMAN, gentle, pliable, downy quality that you can barely call them relatives. (I realize I am posting this on the wrong bboard.)
Two rants for the price of one!
Back to practising the Hummel quartet on my 5-key boxwood instrument, while trying to ignore the spectre of tonight's concert: wretched, puerile, chaotic, antisocial, contemporary music. The things one does to pay the bills!
(Luddite) Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-08-16 10:55
I think that one way and another every facet of this discussion has been covered, both here and in another thread:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=299375&t=298020&v=t
A balanced view of the matter seems to be what is needed.
By the way, Simon, you were a bit naughty when you wrote above, quoting me quoting Charles Rosen,
"It is the moral duty of a performer to choose what he thinks is the musically superior version, whatever the composer's clearly marked intention..."
...and leaving it at that, because the actual quote goes on:
"It is the moral duty of a performer to choose what he thinks is the musically superior version, whatever the composer's clearly marked intention--it is also the moral responsibility of a pianist to try to convince himself that the composer knew what he was doing."
No?-)
Anyway, enjoy the Hummel. I'm currently preparing Liszt's 'Faust' symphony, which is written for C and A clarinets; no Bb anywhere; quite a lot of the slow movement is in B MAJOR for the A clarinet; and the C clarinet in the outer movements in awkward keys too. I'm using my Ottensteiner A, plus an admittedly too late (but German system) C clarinet. The OAE is doing it in the Edinburgh Festival, and then in Spain and Poland, with Jurowski, which might be very good.
Though I find it difficult on these instruments that I didn't grow up with, it's my impression that Liszt knew what he was doing.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2011-08-17 23:33
Tony - We get the broadcasts of the OAE's romantic concerts over here. I listened to the Wagner concert again recently and greatly enjoyed it.
"it's my impression that Liszt knew what he was doing."
Funny you should mention Liszt. I recently finished a book of letters from Clara Schumann to Brahms. Clara felt that Liszt was an egocentric, showy, shallow composer. Her letters put it in unequivocal terms. My orchestra plays his music frequently and his orchestration always strikes me as bland and workmanlike, particularly in the 2nd piano concerto.
When you mentioned Liszt, I found myself wondering, what would a showboat composer of vehicles for his own flashy technique know *or care* about soprano clarinet assignments?
>I'm using my Ottensteiner A
I have a Pillinger copy of a Hess-Ottensteiner mpc (tip opening .85). Did Hess make mpcs for Ottensteiner clarinets? Or is the Ottensteiner name on the mpc not related the the instrument-maker? (This mpc was one Ed Pillinger sent me when I was looking for a mpc for my Lotz Bb, admitting that it was inappropriate for such an early clarinet but that he had it already made and I might want to try it. It plays remarkably well but its bore is not a good match, pitch-wise for a Lotz copy.)
"By the way, Simon, you were a bit naughty when you wrote above, quoting me quoting Charles Rosen," -snip- "No?"
Not naughty given the context. Perhaps naughty, however, by whatever ethical rules bound me when quoting someone quoting someone else. But if I had been thinking more clearly I would have actually included the second sentence of the quote, since it better underlined my point at the time. I was relaying how I transposed *onto Eb clarinet* a passage in a concerto for Bb clarinet I was premiering. This is, to some, the mother of all violations. And yet the composer preferred it to what he wrote, because it put me in a better position to compete with the marauding piccolo behind me.
Rosen says it is my "moral responsibility to try to convince myself that the composer knew what he was doing." What if *my direct experience* with composers has taught me many don't know what they are doing? On a daily basis I come face-to-face with composers' hazy and ill-thought-out intentions.
Today we rehearsed a piece that ended with the clarinet playing a pppp fluttertongue clarion Ab, fading to niente. Obviously a fluttertongue in that range can't be pppp nor fade to niente. The composer looked nonplussed and I suggested a bisbigliendo on the note. I played it for him and his face lit up and he said "that was the effect I was looking for!" In other words, he wanted a colour trill to niente but he wrote fluttertongue. This type of faultiness occurs all the time with modern composers. For many living composers, their intentions are a dog's breakfast. Some are always changing their mind up until the concert (and beyond). Why, just because a composer is dead, should we presume that he was conclusive and unwavering in everything he wrote?
I am not saying all this because I have a hate-on for composers. Music today is a fluid, collaborative thing. Composers don't expect the performer to prostrate himself before the text of the piece.
How this might tie into music of the past is that unless we claim that the fundamental nature of composers has changed over the centuries, we must be open to the notion that there was always an element of that collaborative, the-text-is-not-the-final-word aspect in the gestation and arrival of a new piece.
If I ask scores of composers if they mind if I play an A part on Bb and none of them mind, it is not an irresponsible supposition that if I had asked, say, Shostakovitch if he minded if I play the slow movement solo from his 5th symphony on the A clarinet, he would not have minded either.
We are doing a piece by one of Canada's leading composers in China in September. It is for clarinet in A, but I have to take Bb, Eb, bass and maybe contrabass clarinets to China. To lighten the load I asked the composer if he would mind transposing the part to Bb so I could take one fewer clarinet to China. He said of course he didn't mind and he made me a part in Bb. That's the way it always goes when I ask this of composers.
So when people on this list suggest we cower under our covers at night from the transgression of playing the Shostakovitch 5 slow movement solo on A clarinet, or the Strauss Oboe Concerto on A clarinet, or the Peter and the Wolf solo on Bb, I can't help thinking they arrived quickly at this opinion, which appears to me an intellectual position based more on moral high-ground conceit than from direct experience with composers' essential qualities.
In the face of current composer apathy to the issues we discuss in these threads concerning Bb/A/C interchangeability, I find it hard to believe it meant so much to composers of the past, seeing it means so little to composers of today.
However I, like other contributors, want to feel the warm fuzzies when it comes to the music of composers I care about. Perhaps that is the heart of the matter. I want to feel I am doing right by the masters, by playing the music of Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert on the "right" clarinets ("right" in terms of both authenticity of sound as well as C/Bb/A assignment). But I can't help thinking, if I walked up to Beethoven after a concert and said "tonight I played the slow movement of your violin concerto on A clarinet because the A clarinet was warmed up and in tune and because it sounds richer", would he really have cared? I have not met a modern composer who would have cared (let alone noticed the difference) and that fundamental facet of his nature informs my opinion on whether his colleagues 200 years earlier would have cared. Ironically I don't like my own opinion. I prefer the warm fuzzies; an opinion based on feel-good projection. But I can't ignore 15 years of witnessing and experiencing composers' natures.
All the best,
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
