Klarinet Archive - Posting 000536.txt from 1995/04

From: Fred Jacobowitz <fredj@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: "Jazz" Technique
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 12:22:25 -0400

This is to all those blinkered classical players who have't
acknowledged that there are other concerns in the world besides tone and
technique,
Non-classical musicians (by which I mean jazz, folk, rock and
all other popular music practitioners) aren't much interested in tone
quality. The idea is to SING. To say something emotional, not just sonic.
"purity of sound" is very much a subjective concept. These musicians use
whatever materials are on hand and give them flexibility to be musical.
Many jazzers use a standard Vandoren b-45 and most use standard French
symphony clarinets such as Buffet, Selmer and Leblanc.
They achieve their individually-unique sounds thinking musically and
gesturally.
The non-classical
world of music accepts many different sounds and styles within the
different genres; something that classical musicicans, sadly, don't do
anymore. Classical music has been co-opted (to borrow a term from the
CIA) by the Orchestra Drones, for whom music is not an issue because
that's what conductor's are for. For these players, it seems, playing
audition perfect is the name of the game; not realizing that auditions
are surreal experiences in which every nuance is blown way out of
proportion by the unique circumstance of performing ensemble music solo
in a huge, empty hall for a panel of perfectionists, and in comparison
with a hundred-or-so other auditionees playing the identical notes.
(whew! How's that for a run-on sentence?) I have been playing Klezmer,
Balkan and Jazz music for most of my life, in addition to classical and I
am always struck by the different aesthetic which seems to apply.
What is REALLLY interesting is that players like Stoltzman, who
is so despised by Americans, Those "Three queens", and other such musical
players are roundly criticised, not for lack of phrasing or musical
imagination, but for TONE Quality, or the lack of it. However, play their
recordings for non-clarinetists, or musically savvy audience members and
they universally LIKE these musicians. Why? Clarinetists delight in
tearing down Stanley Drucker for his vibrato and sound but every time I
pay his recordings for string players they RAVE. They are listening
MUSICALLY and not for tone. Then I play the same pieces with
big-name orchestra players (No, I'm not going to start a lynching here)
playing and they look at me saying, "How DULL!". Again, Why?
Seems to me that we musicians have lost the focus of our art. It
should be to create emotionally charged art, not sterile, sonically-perfect
museum pieces. This has been the thrust of much of the new music
movement--to create interesting, gestural, musical pieces. And musicians
have not been up to the challenge because we have not tried to be
musical, only note- and tone-perfect. And we wonder why the audiences
believe classical music is boring. Should be obvious.
I am issuing a clarion call here for less talk of "perfect sound"
and more discussion of why pieces and performances are musical and
moving. Up to thrity years ago it didn't so much matter what the specific
characteristic of a person's sound were as long as he/she was musical. I
think it's high time we return to our roots.

On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, David Gilman wrote:

> Scott,
> I haven't yet heard this soundtrack, but I have heard this same
> tendency among many jazz players, especially Dixieland players. Some of
> them are fantastic overall musicians who can play any kind of music well.
> There are, however, some out there who just don't project much volume or
> tone in the chalumeau and throat registers, even though they are very strong
> above there. I would guess that their setups are designed to aid the higher
> partials so much that the lower ones simply get buried. [High baffled
> mouthpieces? Different embouchure?] Has anyone else noticed this also? If
> so, does anyone know why this occurs?
>
> David Gilman
>