The fact that some instruments are written differently to how they sound is just another example of the idiosyncrasies that characterise the field of music. Regrettably, I don’t think any one individual could start a revolution (so to speak) in the way we wish to think about music. It has too much history and it seems easier to just get behind it and pass it on (that’s what teachers do right?). As someone who often assumes the role of educator, I am constanly bedevilled by feelings of insecurity about not having a set of robust answers to all of music’s quirks. I realise this even as I attempt to explain something to a questioning student; whilst thinking to myself, I must look into this further to arrive at a more substantial answer or theory. Often in my defence, I will say, ‘Look, just don’t shoot the messenger; who am I to reinvent the wheel?’. Of course, there are answers to everything and more often that not, I suspect we need to have a recourse to history; if we are to understand anything. All things evolve, all theories, all bodies of knowledge etc…they move forwards. I wonder how often things are revised rather than just added to; rather like a clunky software program where the best approach is to add ever more loops to get around bugs rather than address the bugs. Over time what one ends up with…is a mess!
Well, I don’t want to state the case too strongly; about music and its quirks. Let’s just say they exist and that sometimes they happen for a good reason; even if you don’t know what it is. On the other hand, I do have an explanation for why we have transposing instruments. As a guitar player first and foremost, I didn’t need to be aware of transposing instruments; although the guitar in fact sounds an octave lower than it is written (you knew that right?). But back to the point: the reason we have transposing instruments is because it helps the player of a particular family (invariably it is wind instruments) of instrument maintain a consistent fingering across all members of the family. For example, take the clarinet family…there are clarinets in Bb, A, Eb and so forth…What the player of the clarinet family wants is one set of fingering that achieves the sound they want regardless of the family member they happen to be playing. Otherwise, it is way too confusing.
So it becomes possible to play the same note (in absolute concert pitch terms) on different members of a family (range permitting) with the same fingering simply by altering the written instructions; in other words, by calculating a fixed transposition. For example, if you wanted a player of a Bb Clarinet player to perform a concert ‘A’ then you’d write a ‘B’ on the musical stave. If they are playing a Clarinet in Eb instead, then you’d write it a major sixth (9 semitones) higher than A; in other words, an ‘F#’. The fingering remains the same, the pitch remains the same; what changes is the written instruction. But it all ends well!
The only thing that ‘gets’ me or possibly amuses me is the idea that the players don’t even know this is what’s going on. I don’t suppose beginners have to know much about it; they just need to follow instructions. But it’s more amusing (in a sense) when they reached more advanced years as an enthusiast perhaps, and come to realise that they have been fed a ‘lie’ their whole playing lives. I love to see their reaction when they learn the truth. But I guess I am talking about a small minority who don’t know any better. But having an explanation may be less obvious to them; they might just view it as one of music’s quirks.
