Klarinet Archive - Posting 000043.txt from 1994/11

From: Lorne G Buick - Music TA <lgbuick@-----.CA>
Subj: National Styles (part 1)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 00:23:22 -0500

Well here goes. I have had this topic on the brain long enough now, it's
time to post everything I have to say about it and then forget it (unless
it leads to even more interesting discussion... it's gotten so long, I'll
break it up into at least two parts.

We have one contributor who seems to be denying the existence of national
schools of clarinet playing (that's you, Dan :-) ), and since I hold the
opposing point of view I hope he won't feel that I'm attacking him (just
some of your oppinions!)

One thing specifically addressed to Dan: you have postulated that the non-
existence of national schools is the dogma, and that the onus is on anyone
who denies it to prove the existence thereof. My experience, readings, and
conversations with clarinetists lead me to the opposite conclusion; most
clarinetists recognize that there are, or have been at various times,
distinct national schools of clarinet. They also recognize, as do I, that
any given clarinetist may or may not sound like a representative of any
particular school.

Here's one way of looking at it. I'm sure we can all agree that Robert
Marcellus, Karl Leister, Michel Arrignon, and Jack Brymer have different
sounds. We might not even get as far as agreeing on words to describe
those differences, but we would agree that they sound different. I would
argue that each of these players represents his respective national school
of playing. Karl Leister sounds the way he does, not because he was born
in Germany (in fact, I don't even know if he was), but because he plays
German instruments and a German mouthpiece, and he plays them because they
help him to acheive the sound he has in his mind, a sound inherited from a
long line of German clarinetists playing German instruments going back to
the Baermanns.

Michel Arrignon not only plays French equipment in order to produce his
distinctly French sound (again, representing a national tradition
stretching back to the first players of Boehm system clarinets in the 19th
c.), but has been on the design team for the new Buffet Elite clarinet.
This clarinet is physically lighter, made out of thinner wood, and in my
opinion (and that of several others I know who have personally tried it)
is congenitally incapable of producing the dark sound which is
*traditionally* {in general} <usually> preferred by German and American
clarinetists. Here's a quote from MA himself (from an interview in The
Clarinet magazine, v16 n4, July '89):"... all of that helped me to arrive
at a more personalized style of playing, albeit one which is largely based
on the French school of clarinet playing." If Michel Arrignon says there
is a French school, who are we to argue with him?

At this point, (in the interest of objectivity) I would like to refer to
the article "an acoustical comparison of French and German clarinets", by
Gregg Miller, in The Clarinet magazine v19 n2 (Feb '92). Miller used
computer analysis of their overtone structures: his conclusion is "the
data shows that a quantifiable acoustical difference between the two types
of instruments does exist...." comparing his findings with research done
by James Pyne, he notes that "because French clarinets produce stronger
even- numbered partials in the chalumeau register and stronger higher-
numbered partials in the clarion register, they do indeed have a brighter
sound than German clarinets."

This is one of about a dozen references to national styles that I found in
my back issues, and my collection only goes back to '87. Each one
indicates that national styles are indeed a valid concept, even if some
are less prevalent than they used to be. Exempli gratia:

V20 n4, August '93: "Alive and well", by Victor Slaymark. "...it was the
Boosey & Hawkes 1010 model which became synonymous with the British style.
The uncommonly large dimensions of the 15.24 mm bore, parallel until the
bell flare, requiring a mouthpiece with an untapered cylinder of the same
diameter, gave this clarinet its distinctive tone quality with a
characteristic "bark" in the low register. " He goes on to mention Jack
Brymer as one of the leading exponents of this style.

Charles Stier discusses the American school in an article in v18 n4. In
his prologue to his reasons for switching to Wurlitzer Reform- Boehm
clarinets, he talks about the great European clarinetists arriving in
America after WWII and their influence on the next generation's choice of
instruments and sound, and the combinations of modifications and
mouthpieces used by Americans to achieve a dark and lyrical sound on
French instruments. He mentions Marcellus along with Harold Wright as
examples of this next generation. One of Dan Leeson's notes pointed out
that American and French players use the same equipment- I think it's
quite rare for French clarinetists to import American mouthpieces such as
the Kaspar, Pyne, Johnston, and many others which contribute to acheiving
a darker sound on the French instrument. The American school has a
different sound from the French , though they share much in terms of
background and equipment, because over the years a different concept of
clarinet tone has evolved, one that leans more towards the dark, German
sound while retaining the "fast French fingering system" (as Stier calls it)

more to come......... lgb