Klarinet Archive - Posting 000255.txt from 1996/03

From: Jim Freeman <collnjim@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: clarinet tone in orchestras
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 02:31:49 -0500

On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Stan Geidel wrote:

>
> of playing, but with tone quality as well. To me, there are
> two things you absolutely *need* to play the clarinet professionally.
> They are: (1) excellent intonation, and (2) a keen sense of rhythm.
> There are many fine young players who have a "beautiful" sound,
> and many many more who have flawless technical ability. But,
> to make the transition from "fine clarinetist" to "outstanding musician"
> you *must* play in tune, and you *must* have excellent rhythm.
> You cannot function professionally without these two ingredients.
> Then the final transition--from "outstanding player" to "great
> player" comes when you learn to make music.
>
> .
> What is primary is intonation and rhythm. If these
> elemen ts are there, you sound good.
>
> Closing points...
>
> 1. Very rarely will a conductor stop an orchestra to
> ask the clarinet player for a more beautiful sound.
> That same conductor will stop in an instant if
> you are out of tune or out of rhythm.
>
> 2. Have you ever had the experience of hearing
> a clarinet player whose sound you really did not
> like at all...only to have a respected colleague
> say to you, "Didn't that clarinet player have a
> nice sound?"
>
> 3. Intonation and rhythm are what separates the
> best from the good. A beautiful sound will
> sound bad if out of tune. If you play out
> of time, people will not even hear your
> beautiful sound...they will simply hear that
> you can't play in time.
>
> I'm off the soapbox. Your turn.
>
> Stan Geidel
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Dr. Stan Geidel
> sgeidel@-----.net
> Muncie, Indiana
>
> Visit the Online Clarinet Resource
> on the World Wide Web at:
> http://www.iquest.net/~sgeidel/
>
I really have to disagree rather violently to the points that Dr. Geidel
have articulated so well. Of course, we need to be able to produce a wide
variety of tones in order to be effective interpreters of our repertoire.
Of course we need to play with good rhythm and intonation. But to say
that beauty of tone is subsequent to any other attribute of clarinet
playing ( or music in general), seems to be saying that the typing is more
important than the sonnet, so to speak. The only thing we make is sound.
Why shouldn't we strive to make as beautiful a sound, appropriate to the
phrase we are playing, as we possibly can?

The tyranny of objective values has, in my opinion, negatively impacted
wind
playing in this country. Which is to say the disregarding of attributes
which it is possible to have opinions about (i.e. tone, phrasing)in favor
of attributes which audition committees can more easily agree upon (rhythm,
pitch, intonation) have lead to the production of many players which (to
my ears anyway) just don't sound good or play in a captivating way. So what
if a player can play with
spottless rhythm, technique, and intonation. This, to me , is like a
beautiful library, gracefully designed, comfortable, with convient hours,
which doesn't happen to have any books. Beauty should be why we get out
of bed. Intonation and technique and rhythm should be byproducts of our
search ... symptoms of the disease you might say.

response to closing arguments:
1. conductors usually don't respond to players' tone because criticizing
someone's tone can be like criticizing someone's face .... by the time
that the criticism has been made, it's really too late to do anything
about it. Also, you can assume that if a conductor has participated in
hiring someone,
that he/she already at least tolerates the tone of the clarinetist in
question.
2. All this means is that standards of beauty differ. Many clarinetists I
know make a lot of leaking air sounds when they play. Most string players
HATE this, but most clarinet players don't even notice when other
clarinetists do this. Does this mean we should'nt be concerned with
extraneous air noises, just because many clarinetists can put up with it?
3. Nothing to argue with here, really. Of course rhythm and pitch need to
be taken care of, but, can we really say that this is the end of the
road? Did Harold Wright get the Boston gig because of his rhythm? Of
course not. He got it because he was an artist, and part of being an
artist is to beautifully execute the rhythms we are given to play.

end of the rant, I guess

Jim Freeman (collnjim@-----.edu)

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org