Klarinet Archive - Posting 000495.txt from 1995/04

From: Neil Leupold <Neil_Leupold@-----.COM>
Subj: From classical to jazz
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 17:55:45 -0400

intouch Reply 4/27/95
Subject:From classical to jazz 1:39 PM
Sal Lozano wrote:

"I think any jazz clarinet player with a good sound, has had some sort of
training or has developed a "classical" approach to playing. It would be
obvoious [sic] in their sound, intonation, and basic musical skills.
Ultimately, however, a good sound is a good sound. No matter how you stylize
it."

With respect to the first half of this statement, I agree with it in principal,
but not in application (although at one point I USED to agree with it in
application as well). I think perhaps it's true that a jazz player with
classical training or a classical approach would manifest that influence in
his/her performance. We even see this sort of thing in pop music, with singers
like Whitney Houston and Pat Benatar - both operatically trained vocalists, and
you can tell. I guess my question lies in the apparent polarization of
approaches which the statement seems to imply. It suggests to me that the
scholarly study of jazz clarinet technique and performance practice is not
equally possessed of the same level of refinement and seriousness as the
classical discipline (as applied to _classical music_) with respect to sound,
intonation, and (this is nearly insulting...) "basic musical skills." It
almost seems elitist in its sentiment, as if the study of jazz clarinetistry
were nothing more than the improvisatory following of vague gut-level
instincts, with no modicum of academic definition or discipline. I think Artie
Shaw is rolling in his grave right now, and Buddy DeFranco will be sure to
follow.

And then there's the question of whether a classical influence really does
automatically translate into a desirable result when somebody is attempting to
play in the jazz idiom. This is not to rekindle an old flame, but let's take a
look at Stoltzman again. He is already considered a legitimate classical
player by virtue of his legacy in live and recorded solo and chamber
performances. Lots of people don't LIKE the way he plays classical, but
there's no question that he has done his homework and is performing the music
utilizing his classical background (having studied with Kal Opperman and gotten
a Master's degree in clarinet performance at Yale - we know all of this).

Something peculiar happens, though, when Stoltzman tries to play jazz. I
observed a video of him performing some interesting jazz pieces not very long
ago and yes, his classical background was quite evident in his technique. He
played with a very warm, mellow, covered sound - almost as if he were _trying_
to brighten it up, but couldn't quite do it. And then I also noticed that he
was playing with PERFECT classical clarinetist posture. The angle of his
clarinet with respect to his body was constant at all times, at about 30
degrees. I'm still working on bringing the angle down that low when _I_ play.
The point is that, after listening to bona-fide jazz clarinetists like Shaw &
DeFranco exercise their art, utilizing their disciplined study of the idiom to
feed their technique and interpretation, it became apparent to me that
Stoltzman's classical background was not a desirable component of his approach
to the music when attempting to play jazz.

Somehow, Eddie Daniels has been able to integrate the two disciplines,
classical and jazz, and come up with an astounding synthesis of discipline and
spontaneity in both his classical and jazz playing. And he comes from jazz
idiom FIRST (much like Wynton Marsalis), having plied his trade as a jazz tenor
sax player (and a phenomenal one at that) before picking up the clarinet and
becoming the success that he is today as a clarinetist.

Thus, I think it's a fallacy to state that: 1) a good jazz player _must_ have
had some classical training; 2) (the corollary...) classical training is
automatically beneficial to one's playing as a jazz clarinetist; and 3) one's
sound as a practitioner in either idiom automatically translates to the other
by virtue of some objective criterion which states that "this is a good sound",
regrardless of proper idiomatic interpretation and performance practice.

Let the pyrotechnics begin (I've got my flame-retardant tux on, so worry
not...)

Neil