Klarinet Archive - Posting 000393.txt from 1994/10

From: Martin Pergler <pergler@-----.EDU>
Subj: Sounds and nationality
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 16:46:47 -0400

Some comments about the dicussion on national sounds....

I agree with Dan that the idea that citizenship or place of residence
etc. determine a clarinettist's sound is nonsense. On the other hand,
all clarinettists aspire to something different in their ideal sound
(discussion on appropriate styles for different repertoire momentarily
postponed) and I do believe this is strongly influenced by the musical
environment they are in. This environment changes with locale, though
(see below) this is less true now than it was, say, half a century ago.

I guess my thesis is that while saying "nationality influences sound"
is hogwash, we can redefine the term "national sound" in many cases to
get something meaningful. (The fact that I am a math student is
coming through in the last sentence).

Let me start with two examples. The clarinet sound (again oversimplifying
in claiming there is one sound) of players of the Czech Philharmonic, and
the FOK orchestra in Prague has many similarities, contrasted with the
sound of, say, many American players. Furthermore, I feel that many of
the characteristics of this sound are shared by other Czech clarinettists
I heard in Prague during my visit two years ago, as well as several
conservatoy students I met. This is quite natural: for many years, for
political reasons travel abroad was very limited, and players' development
took place in a fairly closely knit group. Not many Czech clarinettists
studied extensively elsewhere, and very few clarinettists who were born
and studied elsewhere moved to CS to work. Of course, players were
influenced by others they heard, but the strength of this influence was
weaker than the influence of other players in the same group. Thus I
think we can speak of a "Czech" sound. It is a nice sound -- I like it.
I use it as an example because I am of Czech origin (even though born and
brought up in Canada) and so it comes to mind.

I was similarly struck by certain similar sound properties of clarinettists
in several Russian orchestras.

If instead we consider present day North America, Western Europe, etc., I
think the situation is different. Clarinettists cross the ocean(s) to study,
perform, etc. Many conservatories have teachers who often grew up
half-way across the world. I think sounds are much less localised, and
perhaps vary more from individual to individual. Part of this is a wider
range of influence; more important perhaps is the _absence_ of the small
closely-knit group of pre-eminent influence, because of freedom to travel.
In the absence of such groups, the individual sounds of superstar performers
and teachers perhaps exert more audible influence.

It was not always so -- in particular, in the first half of this century,
I believe (I don't know much about this) there _was_ a closely knit group
around the Paris conservatoire and principal French orchestras. This
created a characteristic sound. Hence perhaps "French sound" meaning
"what we believe were characteristic common elements of sound among
French-trained clarinetists at the beginning of the 20c" is perhaps a
valid concept. "French sound" as "common elements of the sound of 1990s
clarinetists of French citizenship" is probably a (nearly) empty set. I
don't know about "German sound". I'm not sure about "English sound" and
"American sound" -- it seems so me in each case, there are several
identifiable strains, often based strongly on the influence of a
particular seminal player, which interacted with each other and with
styles more often associated with another end of the world. I don't know
enough about this to really make a concrete point.

We now experience a much greater cross-pollination of musical
ideas than has historically been the case. In a sense it is wonderful,
since we can hear so many different ideas. We can experiment with
different styles in our playing, different approaches (perhaps
even "more authentic...", but that's another discussion) to different
repertoire. But this very same cross-pollination also serves to
homogenise our playing, for while perhaps there is greater individuality,
there is also perhaps less overall difference (greater entropy says the
mathematician in me).

It seems a bit curious -- I think say a 100 years ago the greatest
influence on sound was perhaps a close-knit, local group of players, with
more weight carried by certain pre-eminent representatives. Today, we get
comparable influence from a certain number of Clarinet Gods with different
backgrounds, and comparatively much less from a homogeneous local group.

Any comments on this rambling contribution welcome....

Martin

-------------------------------------------------------
Martin Pergler pergler@-----.edu
Grad student, Mathematics
Univ. of Chicago