Klarinet Archive - Posting 000581.txt from 1998/01

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: Matt Snyder and vibrato
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 06:50:08 -0500

I very much enjoyed reading Matt's comments about vibrato and I
have little disagreement with what he said, though there are two
areas in which I want to do a little poking.

First, one of Matt's reasons for thinking the way he does is
that "it feels correct." I don't have his note in front of me as
I write (even though I should) and thus, I cannot be 100% sure
that he didn't say "it feels right." But if he will forgive
me for giving only a paraphrase of his remarks, I'll stick with
the general notion that his approval of the use of vibrato is
partly because he finds it emotionally satisfying.

As much a proponent of vibrato as I am, using that as an argument
to justify its use is a slippery slope to hell. It can be used
to justify anything and is the worst possible argument in terms
of its durability. If there is no historical/musical/rational
basis for the use of vibrato, then it should not be used and
saying that it sounds right simply does not justify it. One
must look elsewhere for support of any performance practice.

The second item is that I think that vibrato is to present day
clarinet players as sex is to present day people; i.e., when
people speak of sex today, it is invariably within the context
that previous generations (a) didn't know anything, (b) didn't
do anything, and (c) were opposed to everything on relgious,
moral, philisophical, or narrow-minded grounds. To which I can
only comment, "horse-hockey." Previous generations knew exactly
what was going on and clothing them in a permanent Victorian
cloak is simply doing what is called "Setting up a straw man,"
which is defined to be "an argument that is patently absurd
on its face."

It is the same thing with Vibrato. It is largely argued that
previous generations didn't do it, didn't like it, and didn't
like anyone who did do it. It is the "today we really know"
argument and it is also "Setting up a straw man." Classical
players have been using more or less vibrato for years, but
only when a clarinetist is so very good that he or she becomes
seriously disliked (and feared) that the argument arises,
"Well, s/he uses vibrato, you know." When Kell was playing,
many were also using vibrato, but he was singled out because
he was so very skilled as a player. But Kell's main
performance practice was not so much vibrato as it was
rubato, though it is true that he used vibrato. But it was
how he stretched and pulled a phrase that was scaring the
hell out of everyone, so his vibrato got jumped on and the
man never really recovered from the attack. So much so, that
when I met him at a party in Carmel he would not even speak
to me about clarinet playing, so wounded was he. Of course
by that time he had stopped playing completely.

Now none of this contradicts what Matt was saying, only that I perceive
the basis of his argument as having flaws because he asserts that
current day practices in the use of vibrato by classical
players is fundamentally an absolutely new and distinct
phenomenon. I don't believe that this characterization is
entirely accurate.

And in any case, we really don't know very much about classical
playing before say 1920's or so since we don't have recorded
sound good enough to tell us what was really going on. Who
is to say that Brahms' clarinetist did not use vibrato? There
is no writing that I know of that speaks of this aspect of his
playing, either pro or con. And if we go as far back as
Stadler, there is absolutely 0 evidence that he did not use
vibrato (and, of course, no evidence that he did, either).

So let us stop presuming that sex and vibrato are inventions of
this generation, never really done much before the 1950s.

=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================