Klarinet Archive - Posting 000254.txt from 1999/10

From: "Steven J. Goldman" <sjgoldman@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Funny Nielsen recording: Reply to gtg
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:56:43 -0400

This post really made me mad. Coincidently, at the time I was listening to
an old 78 with Jack Teagarden, Joe Venuti, a prematurely burnt out Bix, and
a young kid of 24 from Chicago on clarinet (if you don't recognize the
names, they are some of the cream de la cream of "white jazzmen" in the late
20's). This kid could blow the sox off of almost anyone, "legit" or jazzman,
period (let alone "most high school and college freshmen!!!) and he had yet
to develop his mature style (he still played with a typical Chicago 20's
jazz sound with a bit of its edge taken off).

Now I assume gtg was carried away with the moment, but if there are others
who hold this view I would ask you to stop for a moment and think about the
matter.

Musicians since the 19th century have thought of themselves as Artists
rather than artisans. The word artist derives from the latin for artifice,
i.e. artificial. They are magicians who, just as the scene designer, makes
what is totally artificial and man made seem to be real and emanating from
nature. We have done such a good job that, unfortunately, we sometimes fool
ourselves.

One of the things I enjoy most on the list are the discussions of "correct"
technique. The discussions are usually couched in terms of right or proper
vs. wrong or incorrect, what I gain out of it is a broadening of my outlook
on other ways of doing these things. And as all is artifice, there are no
absolutes in technique (by which I mean not ability to execute notes etc,
but things you do to get the type of tone etc. you aim for, and what results
from these). The classic example is vibrato. The way I see it, you may have
a preference, but if you claim that this is the only correct way to play,
you are simple pandering to your own or your teacher's ego (we all do it
sometimes).

gtg's post was particularly frustrating because it was the first time in a
long while that I have heard the term "legit" used (almost) in its old
derogatory context (i.e. jazz technique or a hybrid one is a bastardization
of good technique, much inferior, amateurish and to be avoided at all cost
by REAL professionals). This was actually the way it was viewed by almost
all upper echelon classically trained musicians during Goodman's height and
before. Goodman sought out several of the great teachers, not only Kell, and
the sad thing is that most looked down at Goodman and jazz in general and
did very little to "teach" Benny their technique, but rather used the time
as an easy and significant supplement to their income (I have heard this
from some who claim to know, and it is supported in the Bio "Swing, Swing,
Swing : The Life & Times of Benny Goodman" by Ross Firestone.

Now the problem with Goodman's classical interpretation have little to do
with technique (other than when he developed embouchure problems from trying
to make major changes a la Kell at midlife). I think the problem developed
because, the obsessive compulsive perfectionist that he was, he felt a
tremendous responsibility to play the notes in just the way the composer
intended. He is quoted as saying this. This totally intimidated him and the
spontaneity, the spark, the total ease that made his jazz playing so great
disappeared. His interpretations, while fair to good, were very
self-conscious. It wasn't Goodman playing, but rather Goodman trying to be
someone else. If only he was able to be himself, using his incredible self
expression and awesome personal technique, his classical performances (I
believe) would have been incredible. Idiosyncratic, with a technique that
others unfortunately would not except as legitimate perhaps, but incredible
none the less. Alas, Goodman's psychological makeup just would not allow
such a thing to happen.

As to accepting nontraditional technique, the good news is things are better
today, the bad news is that it's not all that much better. I was talking to
a Clarinet major at Northwestern last week. It was a real bad day for me
with the "collegium", having to play an instrument I am relatively
unfamiliar (renaissance flute) in a style I am unaccustomed to (early French
renaissance), having to transpose up a forth from a clef I never use (for
the singer's benefit of course). The student played recorder. To try forget
my feeling of personal inadequacy at the time, I asked him if he ever tried
techniques from different eras or instruments on his clarinet, as
experiments, to see how they affected the pieces he played. He seemed rather
taken aback by this question and seriously informed me absolutely not... why
bother. It's just not the way its done. I explained I didn't mean during his
lessons or performances (if he didn't want to wash out), but while alone,
for his own curiosity. Again he said absolutely not, you just don't do that
sort of thing.

I was saddened by this. Where was the sense of adventure and discovery. He
took his teachers preferences as LAW. Sure, there is a time and a place for
everything but experimentation with other techniques just may subtly
influence your "legit" interpretation for the better, in an way that MAY not
tick off the less broad minded.

Steve Goldman
Glenview, IL

sjgoldman@-----.com

PS: My second favorite jazz clarinetist is Pee Wee Russel, whose sound is
about as far from "legit" as Pluto is from the sun!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: gtg [mailto:gtgallant@-----.com]
Subject: Re: [kl] Funny Nielsen recording

<<Our 20th Century literature would be so much the
poorer without Benny.>>

Absolutely, but... the point of my post was that
Goodman must have been so in love with himself, that
he thought his classical playing was
performable/recordable. Most high school and college
freshmen have better technique than Goodman did. I
highly doubt he felt "obliged" to record the many
works written for him. I will assume that Stravinsky,
Bartok, Milhaud, etc. were all aware of his technical
and musical shortcomings in "legit" music. Both
parties came out smelling like roses in the end.
Benny commissioned new works dedicated to him (ego
maniac), and the composers were heralded by John Q.
Public - i.e. more press.

Most clarinet players I know have at least some
admiration for the King of Swing, including myself.
But can one honestly say that his classical playing
and recordings were good, or even ok? I cannot even
listen to him playing the Nielsen anymore, because it
makes me feel embarrased to be alive. This may be one
of the first cd's I will throw in the rubbish - no
joke. After listening to it twice, I reneg on my
origional statement that the recording was valuable as
a "bad cd and/or how not to play" example. Benny's
legit playing was an insult to the great classical
players of the day, who did not have the fame, press,
and clout to elicit a commision from a great composer.
Even so, I'm sure they still al kissed Mr. Goodman's
behind! :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org