 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
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-06-14 18:33
Of course, as you remember, we used to have these discussions - sometimes rising to the level of arguments, about honoring the composers' selection of clarinet vs. transposing the music for greater playing ease. And if you have a late 19th or 20th composer writing for C clarinets and Bb clarinets playing at the same time, you might assume that giving some music to the C clarinets and some to the Bb clarinets was a deliberate artistic decision that should have some weight.
But I never hear the French horn players I play with dickering over whether or not to use C horns or Eb horns or F horns when the part is written for something other than Horn in F. I don't have the trumpet players in the orchestras where I'm the librarian deliberately asking for the D or A trumpet parts when there are C or Bb parts available in the set. I know some trumpet players who only use a C trumpet for orchestral playing. And 19th century flutes and (probably) oboes didn't sound like those of the current period, to say nothing of the changes in string instruments over the past 200 years or so.
If the goal is to try to reproduce what Verdi's or any other mid-to-late-19th century composer's audiences heard, then consistency should require that all of the instruments represent the state of the art in the composer's time. Otherwise, why do we single out the clarinet as the sole bearer of tradition?
If the goal is to produce a living, breathing performance of a great piece of music from the past, the fidelity of "sound" to the original instruments isn't the most important value. The point is to imbue the performance with what some estheticians of 50 years ago would have called the "feelingful" qualities of the music.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2025-06-14 20:54
Quote:
Maybe the C clarinet served as a poor approximate of the sound he was really after...
Berlioz is considered to have been one of the great orchestrators and I remember reading in the liner notes of an LP that, while Bb clarinets are used in other parts of the work, he scored some passages in Symphonie Fantastique specifically for C clarinet because of its "weak tone". In the "Witches' Round Dance" the theme is introduced by the C clarinet and then returns played by the piercing Eb clarinet for contrast.
I dug around to find corroboration and found this description by Elliot Jones:
Quote:
• At bar 21 the tempo changes to Allegro and the metre to 6/8. The return of the idée fixe as a “vulgar dance tune” is depicted by the C clarinet. This is interrupted by an Allegro Assai section in cut common at bar 29.
• The idée fixe then returns as a prominent E-flat clarinet solo at bar 40, in 6/8 and Allegro. The E-flat clarinet contributes a sharper, more shrill timbre than the C clarinet.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-musicapp-medieval-modern/chapter/symphonie-fantastique/
I've never played a C clarinet and I don't know if modern versions are still considered to have a weak timbre. Nor do I know if the part is still played on C clarinet by contemporary orchestras.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-06-14 21:56
kilo wrote:
> I've never played a C clarinet and I don't know if modern
> versions are still considered to have a weak timbre. Nor do I
> know if the part is still played on C clarinet by contemporary
> orchestras.
>
To the contrary, it more likely since the 1980s or so to be played on a C clarinet (the tone being anything but "weak"). Before that C clarinet parts were often played, even in major symphony orchestras, on a Bb clarinet. The weakness of C clarinets, generically, is faulty intonation, not weak tone. If you find a good, well-tuned C clarinet, it makes many parts easier. But, even today, I hear that it's difficult to find one that plays in tune. I found one years ago that, while not perfect, is within adjustment range, so I haven't shopped for one in a long time.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2025-06-14 22:24
Richard Strauss certainly made the artistic decision to use the C alongside other clarinets such as Alpine Symphony, the two Sonatines, the operas etc.
Prior to that the use of the C was more likely down to practicality of playing in keys. Classical composers used the C for key signatures with one flat or sharp and of course none. Bb for flat keys and A for sharp keys.
Early Italian opera such as Rossini, Bellini and Donizetti did the same thing. The Bellini opera I did recently had most of the C and some Bb in the first act, A for the overture and opening of act 2. Rest of act 2 was Bb with a tiny amount of C as the keys changed. Of course we used the Cs cause as per union rules one gets a doubling fee for the C as it’s considered a non standard instrument.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2025-06-15 00:15
Actually, the 4th movement of the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique is also for C Clarinet, most likely for the solo very near the end of the movement which (supposedly) is when the subject to be beheaded is wailing so the C clarinet, with it’s allegedly brighter sound would seem to be appropriate. However, I have never seen it played on anything other than the Bb which, of course, can be just as strident!
Another interesting aspect to note (no pun intended) is that the first part of the clarinet solo in the final movement and the Eb clarinet solo that immediately follows are written with the same notes for each instrument (not the same pitches but the same notes).
As far as the alleged weakness of the C clarinet? Hardly. Karl pretty much nails this in his post.
Peter also makes terrific points especially in regards to Richard Strauss’ use of the C (not to mention the other clarinets). He was very particular as to the sound he preferred. Whether or not that can be appreciated by the common audience member is debatable. His parts are devilish no matter what key clarinet is in your hands!
And yes, lots of C in Italian operas; however, my understanding (and please correct me if I’m in error here) is that many Italian clarinetists in opera orchestras in the past (and perhaps still?) generally chose to play many operas completely on the Bb clarinet (a full Boehm with a low Eb) and simply transposed what needed to be transposed.
And, for the record, I do have a C clarinet and have used it for a few pieces here and there over the years - but never when playing an Italian opera!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2025-06-15 03:17
Quote:
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.
It's kind of a case-by-case thing. The rigid adherence to particular clarinets is sometimes an instance of people placing 19th- and early 20th-century ideas about the "musical work" back onto earlier music. But perhaps sometimes composers were after a particular sound. (Never mind that a five-key boxwood instrument, or an Ottensteiner, or whatever other clarinet a composer from the 18th or 19th century had in his or her mind's ear will sound nothing like a modern Buffet, so why bother playing something on a C clarinet unless it aids in your interpretation of the music or makes playing significantly easier.)
Quote:
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?
Do you think every performance of, say, Beethoven's "Pathetique" sonata played on a modern piano sounds the same? We could swap out Artur Schnabel with Alfred Brendel and be left with basically the same performance?
When I listen to both Schabel's and Brendel's recordings, I hear a world of difference. I don't then need to hear the "Pathetique" played on a synthesizer to get a new experience: the different interpretations are the new experience. (I'm not opposed to someone playing Beethoven on a synthesizer or rewriting it for an ensemble of C clarinets. I just don't find it necessary to keep the piece "alive.")
Quote:
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.)
Why bother with trying to force music to evolve? If you like bebop and just want to play really beautiful eighth-note lines, why not play really beautiful eighth-note lines? I'd much prefer listening great bebop than mediocre originality. It's not as though the forms of earlier centuries, representational painting, tonality, rhymed verse, and so forth, have been exhausted (e.g. they can be applied to new subjects, combined in new ways, etc.).
It seems to me, there's too much focus on originality in the creative arts and not enough focus on technical facility. How many of today's composition students can write a good tonal fugue? Or how many avant-garde artists can paint a portrait? What would happen if young artists didn't stress about making something new (which isn't even new: "make it new" was Ezra Pound's Modernist slogan from the early 20th century!) and just lived with the art of the past and over time, allowed any originality to emerge on its own?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
