Author: Loliver
Date: 2012-05-22 08:37
In my opinion, the world of oboe seems to be geared more towards tone quality and that side of things, whereas the clarinet is geared towards ease of the ability to play rapidly. If one compares pieces from the ABRSM grade 8 lists for both instruments this becomes clear...the pieces for clarinet are generally longer and much more complicated, with much less emphasis on tone, and more on speed of fingers. With oboe pieces seeming to come more from the tone quality side, the pieces seem to be alot slower, with more opportunity for the sound of the instrument to come through. Examples being Mozart clarinet concerto for clarinet, and Handel sonata 366 for oboe. It is much easier to get the notes for the oboe pieces and get it up to speed, but it takes time to develop a good sound for the piece.
Part of the problem comes down to the key system- the oboe system is far more complicated than clarinet or flute, and much of it can come out of adjustment fairly quickly with regular use. Possibly the only way that the oboe could compete with the fluidity and smoothness of the clarine or flute fingering is if one had a thumbplate-and-automatic oboe, needing only one octave key, and eliminating the need for the awkward conservatoire Bb and C, which appears to be a stumbling block.
The other problem is the bore is conical, unlike the straight bores of the flute and clarinet. To avoid a large spreading of keys, the oboe utilises many pads- one finger may cover a hole, and close a pad or two somewhere else, whereas on clarinet the finger will just close of open one pad, with one minor exception.
Maybe the largest part of the problem is that due to oboes being developed with composers such as Handel and Haydn and the like, people are used to, and enjoy, the parts that they were given, long notes, with ample chance for expression and tonality to shine through. As the clarinet emerged later, when better pads and keys were available, composers sought to use this fact.
|
|