Klarinet Archive - Posting 000521.txt from 1995/04

From: "Edwin V. Lacy" <el2@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Why not?
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 23:03:48 -0400

There have been some excellent comments concerning the different concepts
of clarinet tone held by jazz and "legit" players (that doesn't mean that
jazz is illegitimate!). I would like to add a couple of thoughts.

First, while no two clarinetists in any idiom sound exactly the same,
certainly there is a relatively narrow band of tone quality types
which are acceptable in the field of orchestral clarinet performance.
Students spend a great deal of time and effort in the attempt to sound
like their current idol. Witness the many posts about what mouthpiece
and what reeds are used by "Joe Schmoe, principal clarinet of the
Megacity Philharmonic," etc.

On the other hand, jazz musicians are encouraged to use whatever devices
are at their command to express their musical ideas. The use of a tone
quality which is considered unorthodox may be an intentional part of the
players repertoire of expressive devices, and not a sign of inferior tone
production or inferior musicianship.

I've been surprised that there has been no mention yet of Jimmy Guiffre,
outstanding jazz clarinetist of the 1950's "cool school" of jazz. His
tone was unorthodox to say the least. Many clarinetists might describe
it is reedy, mushy, unfocused, breathy, etc., etc. Yet there is no
doubt that his approach to the tone of the instrument was intentional.

Certainly, using the tone he normally employed in jazz would not have won
any orchestral auditions. Yet, before his success in the jazz field, he
was principal clarinetist of the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. So, while I
never heard him play anything from the traditional repertoire of the
clarinet, I have no doubt that he could do so very well.

In the final analysis, in any medium the primary determinant of tone
quality is the concept of sound which the player has in his/her ear. An
outstanding player could play on a wide variety of mouthpieces, reeds,
instruments, and with various embouchures, and would still sound
essentially like himself/herself. And, a single set-up, played on by a
dozen different players, would produce a dozen different sounds.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that we don't sound to
ourselves as we sound to audiences. So, the fact that one's tone may
sound great to the person producing it doesn't translate into comparable
exellence of tone to listeners.

Edwin Lacy
el2@-----.edu