Klarinet Archive - Posting 000344.txt from 1994/10

From: Josias Associates <josassoc@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: National Schools
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:04:31 -0400

In the wake of Dan Leeson's provocative, but thoughtful gauntlet-
dropping message about whether recognizable national playing styles
existed, I resisted making an immediate contribution to the discussion in
the expectation that others would cover the subject adequately. Even
though that has actually happened, my resistance to adding my comments
continued to erode until I saw Lorne Buick's recent message on the
subject, which I found to be both perceptive and informative, and which
prompted me to submit these comments.

I recalled discussing this subject somewhat obliquely in the past
within the context of other subjects on the net. As an example, on May
19th, following a flurry of message traffic on ligatures, I sent a message
about ligatures off-net directly to Dan Leeson -- the message containing
the following passage:

"Some people tend to discount the importance of component
"improvements." I think it was Peter Hadcock who said that, whenever
he made changes to his playing setup, after a nominal period of time, he
thought his sound settled back to what it was prior to the change. While
that may be true for all of us to some extent, some differences are so
fundamental as to be impossible to overcome merely with playing skill.
For example, no amount of style or experience would have permitted a
French-style player of the 1950s who was used to playing on an
instrument having Buffet bore dimensions to play on British or German
instruments of the period and sound different from a British player on a
B and H instrument or a German player on an old Oehler-type Wurlitzer."

Although, as many people point out, national playing styles may
still exist, the relatively marked differences that existed in the 1950s have
narrowed and become blurred today because of equipment improvements
(some resulting from patents timing out) and the communications
explosion, which permits players worldwide to hear everybody else more
easily.

But consider what was going on in the 1950s. The players that
produced the so-called French-style sound weren't always French. For my
taste, Louis Cahuzac certainly wasn't one of them. In fact, many of my
favorite French-style players weren't French. One of the French-sound
standard bearers was Ralph MacLane of the Philadelphia Orchestra, who
played with a double embouchure (I never heard his teacher, Gaston
Hamelin, whose sound MacLane emulated). Two other important
proponents of that sound during that era were the principal players from
the Suisse Romande Orchestra (probably French) and the Oslo
Philharmonic.

The British standard bearers were Reginald Kell and Jack Brymer.
Kell's wide vibrato and distinctive style virtually reinvented British
clarinet playing for that period. I take it that Lorne Buick might not have
heard as much of Kell as others of us had, which might account for his
thinking that Kell sounded weird. (I tend to reserve "weird" for people
like Acker Bilk.) Even if most people, including contemporary English
clarinetists, no longer play like Kell (no pun intended), the man left a
noteworthy legacy of style. One example was his performance of
Debussy's Premiere Rhapsody (done with piano), which is the finest I've
heard. Another was his out-of-character performance of Alec Templeton's
Pocket-Size Sonata No. 1, a 1940s-vintage jazz piece. (Templeton was a
blind English pianist/composer/entertainer, who was enormously popular in
the post-war U.S. in both classical, jazz, and comedy performance genres.)

During the '50s, I found both German and British sounds similar
in their being more diffuse than the French sound. The English players
were usually distinguishable from the Germans because of stylistic
differences. The players whose sound in those years represented the
German style for me were Leopold Wlach and Alfred Boskovsky. My
earliest recollection of a departure from their style was when I heard the
brilliant Franz Hammerla, with his hard, glassy sound, playing the Spohr
Concerto No. 3.

Slightly off the subject -- but not too far off -- in 1951, I had
become friendly with a west-coast clarinetist, Dick Pickar, whom I played
with in New York City. In 1956, after he had received a degree from
UCLA, Pickar left California for Vienna to study with Leopold Wlach on
a Fulbright Fellowship. Knowing Pickar as I did, I was consumed with
curiosity as to what would happen when this brilliant young American
virtuoso, with his aggressive, focused sound linked up with the
conservative Wlach. What actually did happen was that, while Pickar was
enroute to Europe, Wlach died, and the two never met. As a result of his
modified schedule, Pickar had an unplanned opportunity to play in Europe
under Leopold Stokowski, who, a short time later, recruited Pickar for the
first chair at the Houston Symphony, where he played until his recent
retirement.

Regarding contemporary players, I'd like to add a few comments
and observations to those made by Lorne. First, the French players: In
addition to those mentioned by Lorne, there are others worthy of
comment. Jacques Lancelot has been recorded a lot. He has a bright
sound, but the most dominating characteristic is his fast, narrow vibrato,
which may be one of several French-school styles, but not the one I think
is the most appealing. I've only heard small samples of Eduard Brunner's
playing. Brunner, who I think is French -- though I'm not certain -- is
considered by many to be an important player, because, like Benny
Goodman, Brunner has influenced and motivated the composition of some
important 20th-century works like the Francaix Clarinet Quintet. My
favorite contemporary French players are Maurice Gabai and Paul Meyer.
Gabai reminds me a little of Harold Wright, and his muscular sound is
certainly nothing like the "French" sound of the '50s. Wright, of course,
was MacLane's most famous student, and, like MacLane, played with a
double lip.

A word in defense of the BBC's Colin Bradbury: Although I
understand and appreciate Lorne's comments about Bradbury's sound,
Bradbury has nevertheless made some amazing recordings of solo clarinet
literature, which have influenced my outlook on what should be in one's
repertoire.

Last, but not least, here are a few words about some Americans.
I heard two prominent American soloists at close range when I played in
groups backing them up, in both cases at Caltech. The soloists were David
Schiffrin and Eddie Daniels. I wonder if Lorne's wife could have
identified a recording by Schiffrin (who played the Weber Concerto No.
2) as an American. (He sounds European to me.)

I remember a number of interesting things about the Daniels
concert, which was a combined classical/jazz affair:

1. He played with a feedback speaker at his feet. He said that he
couldn't always rely on the hall giving him adequate acoustic feedback,
so he always provided his own;
2. He was the most demanding soloist I had played with. My guess
is that his demands were in the best tradition of Benny Goodman and
Artie Shaw, who were similar in that respect; and
3. His performance of Calandrini's "Solfegietto and Metamorphosis,"
a classical/jazz crossover transcription of a C.P.E. Bach organ piece was
electrifying. I'm still looking for the CD.

I think Daniels' recording of the Weber Quintet rivals Schiffrin's
excellent recording of the Quintet and Sabine Meyer's superb recording
of the Quintet using a string orchestra instead of string quartet. Also, his
sound seemed to have progressed since his concert at Caltech. With his
evolved sound and exceptional technique, the sky would seem to be the
limit for Daniels in any clarinet area he might devote himself to.

Connie

Conrad Josias
Engineering Consultant
Josias Associates
La Canada, California
josassoc@-----.com