Klarinet Archive - Posting 000170.txt from 2000/08

From: alevin@-----. Levin)
Subj: Re: [kl] If the sound is lovely, this must be France
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:27:30 -0400

At 01:51 PM 7/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Here is an article I wrote for another list, but since I own it, I can
>post it here. It's in two parts. If you want to see the second part,
>you have to ask, otherwise I'll presume that no one read these golden
>words. It addresses the issue of National Sound Character.
>
>=========================================================
>
>If The Sound Is Lovely, This Must Be France
>
>National Sound Character: A Theme And Two Variations
>
>THE THEME
>
>It began simply enough. Someone posted a derogatory comment about
>"the awful English sound" of a certain player and, before anyone
>realized where we were heading, the discussion broadened to include
>"the lovely French sound," "the dark German sound," and "the
>personalityless American sound." The Russian sound was spoken of
>but not given a descriptive adjective. There was no reference to
>an Italian sound.
>
>Like many discussions between clarinet players, there were unspoken
>assumptions at work, and, in the absence of protests to the
>contrary, there appeared to be a consensus. In effect, people were
>speaking of a uniform and universally agreed-to understanding of
>the subject. Was I home sick during that lesson?
>
>It was as if the "awful English sound" had been officially and
>numerically rated on some awful sound characterometer by the
>"International Awful Sound Character Regulation Authority," an
>organization whose existence, was unknown to me. Assertions were
>made that a player's nationality could be identified simply by
>listening to him or her play, not only in the solo repertoire but
>even as a member of an orchestral section.
>
>Considering the fact that most Americans buy French clarinets,
>French reeds, mouthpieces based on French design - if not French
>mouthpieces - and study with teachers many of whom can trace their
>musical heritage back to French players like Gaston Hamelin and
>Daniel Bonade, this made little sense to me. Logically and
>historically we Americans should fall in to the "lovely French
>sound" category. Were these simply examples of French chauvinism,
>German nationalism, English jingoism, and American fanaticism?
>
>As for the English players having an awful sound, has the world
>gone mad? Tony Pay has an awful sound? Reginald Kell had an awful
>sound? Jack Brymer had an awful sound? Thea King has an awful
>sound? God should grant me such awful sounds. I don't think I
>ever heard an English professional clarinetist with anything other
>than a captivating sound.
>
>Did I understand the problem correctly? Was the discussion dealing
>with character of sound or national styles of playing, the latter
>being much more an issue of performance practice than instrumental
>technique? I am not sure that I would be able to tell a French
>clarinetist by either standard, but I did want to be precise with
>respect to what was being discussed. However, as more and more
>comments were posted, the more "sound character" was clearly
>defined as the issue, though it was very common to fall back on a
>phrase such as "national style." In context, however, the passage
>dealt with sound character.
>
>Not every citizenship was involved in the discussion, only five:
>American, English, French, German, and, to a much lesser degree,
>Russian. Italian clarinet playing was not mentioned a single time
>during the discussion except for a very minor and non-topical
>reference. Other countries were dealt with in an ad-hoc fashion.
>Austrian and Dutch clarinetists, for example, were said to sound
>German. Belgians were said to sound French. I doubt that the
>Austrians, Dutch, and Belgians, particularly the Flemish, would
>have agreed with this assessment.
>
>To my ears the whole discussion had a ring of racist thinking to
>it; i.e., a class of players - the class being defined by
>citizenship - were said to be alike in a specific way. Clearly, it
>was time to stir the pot; another notion that "everyone knows to be
>true" needed a closer examination.
>
>VARIATION 1 - THE VIEWS
>
>The following chronologically arranged submissions to the KLARINET
>list show the breadth of views held on the subject of national
>sound character. Deliberately omitted from the discussion, except
>where noted, were any postings that dealt exclusively with national
>styles as opposed to national sound character. I suggest that
>these two subjects are only distantly related, though the original
>submissions often spoke of them synonymously. In some cases, it
>was necessary to edit the text heavily.
>
>Personally, I learned a great deal from the discussion - which
>lasted two months - and being involved in it was not only
>enlightening but fundamental to an ability to speak of the issues
>involved in a structured fashion.
>
> 1. "There was a note from someone who suggested that he or she
> heard such differences and actually picked out players as
> German or French or English simply by the character of their
> sound. I think that what is happening here is reverse logic.
> One of the players was Sabine Meyer and the listener picked
> her out as being German, which is quite true. But Meyer's
> performances are so distinctive, so unique, so full of her
> personality, that she is recognizable through her playing, not
> her sound (which I find ravishing, incidentally). So I
> suggest that a collection of subconscious events created a
> monologue that went like this:
> 'Who is this person?
> Ah, that's Sabine Meyer.
> Her playing is so distinctive.
> Meyer is German.'
> And then out pops the conscious thought:
> 'That this is a German player is obvious from the
> character of the sound.'
> For what my opinion is worth, 'German' is not the correct
> phrase to describe Meyer's sound character. The correct
> phrase is 'superior by any standards.'"
>
> 2. "Maybe it's my tin ear, but I could never detect anything
> French in Louis Cahuzac's playing, anything German in Karl
> Leister's playing, or anything Italian in Gino Cioffi's
> playing. The idea that the clarinet sound is one thing in the
> hands of a Frenchman and another in the hands of an
> Englishman, and that these idiosyncratic sounds are somehow
> caused by the nationality of the player, is another example of
> the kind of old wive's tale that thrives in clarinetdom. A
> subjective observer will assert that Delecluse has a French
> sound, but an objective observer would have great difficulty
> in supporting such an assertion with specifics. I ask someone
> to tell me what the characteristics are the make Delecluse
> sound French. Be specific."
>
> 3. "I fling out the gauntlet: the idea of a national sound is
> a subjective statement that has no basis in fact and could not
> pass a blind test."
>
>The submitter of the next note speaks of "national styles" and
>"national schools," but the context of the postings shows that
>sound character is the central issue. Furthermore, the submitter
>broadens the context of the discussion to include a national
>characteristic to the sound of an entire orchestra.
>
> 4. "OK, I fling back your gauntlet regarding national sounds!
> There are certainly national styles of playing in terms of
> entire orchestras, identifiable by the collective sound of the
> woodwind section. For instance, a Leningrad Phil recording of
> Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony sounds quite different from a New
> York Phil recording. This has more to do with oboe sound than
> clarinet sound, but still, the difference is there. I think
> this is especially true of recordings from the 50's and 60's,
> less true of today's recordings. My husband, who is a Russian
> violinist, swears he can tell English, Russian and American
> violin sections on symphonic recordings."
>
> 5. "I just returned from London where I had the pleasure of
> presenting several master classes with advanced students from
> Estonia, Bosnia, China, Germany, and of course, Britain. Don't
> tell me there aren't different sounds of clarinet performance!
> I remember performing the Mozart Concerto years ago with a
> guest conductor from Vienna. And his comment after the
> concert was, 'Not a bad sound for a Boehm system!' In my
> first orchestral position, the flutist was from Germany, the
> bassoonist from Bulgaria, the oboist from Vienna, and me! We
> had many an interesting rehearsal and the conductor just about
> gave up on all of us! Jack Brymer once told me that, 'You
> American players all sound the same!' He was right, too. I
> didn't think so at the time, but after listening carefully I
> found there was much merit to what he said. I remember at the
> time racing considering all the individual players I knew in
> the States and thinking, 'How could he say that?' But, he
> heard us from a distance, and was right."
>
> 6. "I went to my record collection and start pulling out
> clarinet records to see if clarinetists from different
> countries sound different. No, let me rephrase that: it has
> always been obvious to me that they sound different, so I
> wanted to find out more specifically was why, and whether
> other musicians would agree. The only willing subject I could
> find in the house was my wife who is a professional
> flute/piccolo player, so I sat her down and made her listen to
> 11 clarinet records, only a few seconds of each and just long
> enough for her to either guess the nationality or form an
> opinion of the sound. Her first reaction was 'I might be able
> to identify the North American ones, but I don't know what the
> Europeans sound like.' Sure enough, she identified the
> Americans; guessed that the French ones were from the same
> country, but didn't know which country; and identified
> similarities in the Brits and Germans, though less
> consistently."
>
>The next posting makes a reference to French clarinet playing style
>(which is used interchangeably with sound "character") and includes
>Eduard Brunner in that group. Brunner is not French but Swiss. He
>was born in Basle, and was formerly principal clarinet of the
>Bavarian Radio Orchestra (Munich) then under the leadership of
>Raphael Kubelik. He is now professor of clarinet at the Hochschule
>fur Musik in Saarbruecken and lives in Munich. However, Brunner
>plays a French system clarinet (Buffet). The fact that one of the
>leading clarinetists in Germany and a key teacher in the Hochschule
>system plays on a French clarinet suggests either that the
>assertion of a national sound character is not a defensible
>statement, or else - if the assertion is true - that a national
>sound character is not a function of the clarinet itself.
>
> 7. "Although, as many people point out, national playing
> styles may still exist, the relatively marked differences that
> existed in the 1950s have narrowed and become blurred today
> because of equipment improvements and the communications
> explosion, which permits players worldwide to hear everybody
> else more easily. But consider what was going on in the
> 1950s. The players that produced the so-called French-style
> sound weren't always French. In fact, many French-style
> players weren't French. One of the French-sound standard
> bearers was Ralph McLane of the Philadelphia Orchestra, who
> played with a double embouchure. I never heard his teacher,
> Gaston Hamelin, whose sound McLane emulated. Two other
> important proponents of that sound during that era were the
> principal players from the Suisse Romande Orchestra and the
> Oslo Philharmonic. The British standard bearers were Reginald
> Kell and Jack Brymer. Kell's vibrato and distinctive style
> virtually reinvented British clarinet playing for that period.
> I take it that [X] might not have heard as much of Kell as
> others of us had, which might account for his thinking that
> Kell sounded weird. Even if most people, including
> contemporary English clarinetists, no longer play like Kell,
> the man left a noteworthy legacy of style. During the '50s,
> I found both German and British sounds similar in their being
> more diffuse than the French sound. The English players were
> usually distinguishable from the Germans because of stylistic
> differences. The players whose sound in those years
> represented the German style for me were Leopold Wlach and
> Alfred Boskovsky. My earliest recollection of a departure from
> their style was when I heard the brilliant Franz Hammerla,
> with his hard, glassy sound, playing the Spohr Concerto No. 3.
> Regarding contemporary players, I'd like to add a few comments
> and observations to those already made. First, the French
> players. Jacques Lancelot has been recorded a lot. He has a
> bright sound, but the most dominating characteristic is his
> fast, narrow vibrato, which may be one of several French-
> school styles, but not the one I think is the most appealing.
> I've only heard small samples of Eduard Brunner's playing.
> Brunner, who I think is French, though I'm not certain, is
> considered by many to be an important player, because, like
> Benny Goodman, Brunner has influenced and motivated the
> composition of some important 20th-century works. My favorite
> contemporary French players are Maurice Gabai and Paul Meyer.
> Gabai reminds me a little of Harold Wright, and his muscular
> sound is certainly nothing like the French sound of the '50s.
> Wright, of course, was McLane's most famous student, and, like
> McLane, played with a double lip."
>
> 8. "All this talk about national schools led me to do some
> research on my own. Have you ever thought of the language of
> the countries? The speech and accents are different in all
> languages right? Therefore the clarinetist's speech of music
> will also be different. It is also said that the various
> vowel sounds from the player's language makes a difference.
> The vowel sounds in the mouth are oo, eee, oh, aw, and the
> French ou all have their own flavor in the sound pattern and
> their characteristic equivalent sound. `aw' is typically
> English (except in military schools where `eee' is more
> common; ooh seems to belong to German, and `ah' to be the
> American. All have been ingrained and made more permanent by
> the mouthpieces, reeds, and instruments used in each case. It
> is up to the modern player to unearth them, to learn to
> produce them all."
>
> 9. "[X] has terrific ideas. Some pan out. Other may not.
> Most recently he voiced the thought that, perhaps, national
> language differences could be responsible for differences in
> clarinet sound character. He offers the fact that certain
> sounds in French do not exist in English and could contribute
> something that Americans can't do. His point was that the
> differences in languages cause different vowel sounds to be
> blown when playing; i.e., aw, ou, ee, ooh, etc. Nice thought
> but I don't think this one will fly. There is a great deal of
> difference in regional accents in the U.S. People from
> Brooklyn used to speak in a way that was absolutely
> impermissible anywhere else. Other regional differences in
> American English exist that are, to some extent as distinct
> from one area to another as American English is from British
> English. But those regional differences never added up to an
> inherent Brooklyn clarinet sound."
>
>The following posting makes several references to national playing
>styles and national schools of clarinet playing, but in context,
>the remarks refer to sound character.
>
> 10. "We have a contributor who seems to be denying the
> existence of national schools of clarinet playing. Here's one
> way of looking at it. I'm sure we can all agree that Robert
> Marcellus, Karl Leister, Michel Arrignon, and Jack Brymer have
> different sounds. We might not even get as far as agreeing on
> words to describe those differences, but we would agree that
> they sound different. I would argue that each of these players
> represents his respective national school of playing. Karl
> Leister sounds the way he does, not because he was born in
> Germany, but because he plays German instruments and a German
> mouthpiece, and he plays them because they help him to achieve
> the sound he has in his mind, a sound inherited from a long
> line of German clarinetists playing German instruments going
> back to the Baermanns. Michel Arrignon plays French equipment
> in order to produce his distinctly French sound. Here's a
> quote from MA himself (from an interview in The Clarinet
> magazine, v16 n4, July '89): 'all of that helped me to arrive
> at a more personalized style of playing, albeit one which is
> largely based on the French school of clarinet playing.' If
> Michel Arrignon says there is a French school, who are we to
> argue with him? At this point, I would like to refer to the
> article 'An Acoustical Comparison of French and German
> Clarinets,' by Gregg Miller, The Clarinet, v19 n2 (Feb '92).
> Miller used computer analysis of their overtone structures:
> his conclusion is 'the data shows that a quantifiable
> acoustical difference between the two types of instruments
> does exist...' Comparing his findings with research done by
> James Pyne, he notes that 'because French clarinets produce
> stronger even-numbered partials in the chalumeau register and
> stronger higher-numbered partials in the clarion register,
> they do indeed have a brighter sound than German clarinets'.
> This is one of about a dozen references to national styles
> that I found in my back issues, and my collection only goes
> back to '87. Each one indicates that national styles are
> indeed a valid concept, even if some are less prevalent than
> they used to be. Exempli gratia: v20 n4, August '93: 'Alive
> and well', by Victor Slaymark: '...it was the Boosey & Hawkes
> 1010 model which became synonymous with the British style. The
> uncommonly large dimensions of the 15.24 mm bore, parallel
> until the bell flare, requiring a mouthpiece with an untapered
> cylinder of the same diameter, gave this clarinet its
> distinctive tone quality with a characteristic bark in the low
> register.' He goes on to mention Jack Brymer as one of the
> leading exponents of this style. Charles Stier discusses the
> American school in an article in v18 n4. In his prologue to
> his reasons for switching to Wurlitzer Reform-Boehm clarinets,
> he talks about the great European clarinetists arriving in
> America after WW2 and their influence on the next generation's
> choice of instruments and sound, and the combinations of
> modifications and mouthpieces used by Americans to achieve a
> dark and lyrical sound on French instruments. He mentions
> Marcellus along with Harold Wright as examples of this next
> generation. One contribution to this discussion pointed out
> that American and French players use the same equipment. I
> think it's quite rare for French clarinetists to import
> American mouthpieces such as the Kaspar, Pyne, Johnston, and
> many others which contribute to achieving a darker sound on
> the French instrument. The American school has a different
> sound from the French, though they share much in terms of
> background and equipment, because over the years a different
> concept of clarinet tone has evolved, one that leans more
> towards the dark, German sound while retaining what Stier
> calls the 'fast French fingering system'."
>
>The following contribution is almost exclusively devoted to the
>issue of national schools of clarinet playing style and, thus, is
>not arguing the issue of national character of sound, the topic of
>the this discussion. But it clarifies the dialogue considerably
>because the analysis shows how easy it is to speak interchangeably
>of style of playing on one and character of sound on the other.
>
> 11. "I have been watching the exchange of ideas on national
> schools with some interest over the past weeks. First, I would
> like to add the following: this debate appears to pertain
> strictly to symphonic (i.e. classical, chamber music, etc.)
> players. For some reason, no one has stated this important
> limitation. If one would look at the ethnic clarinetists,
> distinctions according to nationality are readily apparent to
> anyone familiar with the music. Klezmer players, for example,
> have a fingerprint that is quite clearly identifiable. The
> same holds true for performers of other ethnic styles. I think
> that it is a mistake to hold a discussion on this subject
> without drawing a distinction between these two genres of
> performers. Second, it would be safe to say that one must
> also draw a distinction between the generations of players
> when this issue is being discussed. A player such as Cahuzac,
> can, for want of a better term, be referred to as a first
> generation player in that he spent most of his formative years
> studying with local masters and became steeped in the local
> tradition. Second/third generation players have more than
> likely done quite a bit of traveling and absorbed a more
> cosmopolitan exposure via electronic means, which would be
> reflected in their performance style. A look at immigration
> to this country would provide an illustration of this line of
> thought. The immigrant is likely to keep the traditions,
> language, dress styles, diet and so on of the country of
> origin; while his/her offspring will become more or less
> assimilated, losing to a varying degree, many of the
> distinctions of ethnicity. I think that this model hold true
> for instrumentalists as well, except for those that make a
> conscious effort to maintain the traditional practices of
> their respective schools."
>
> 12. "I am not at all sure that we are not 180 degrees out of
> phase on this one. In what way does ethos have to do with the
> matter of identification of the sound of a player by national
> characteristics? You used as an example, the Klezmer player.
> How would you distinguish the nationality of an Afro-American
> Klezmer player with the Boston New England Conservatory
> Klemzer band from that of a Klezmer player born, raised, and
> trained in Rumania ca. 1910 on the basis of sound alone? Here
> is a case where Klezmer players make a serious effort to take
> on the generic sound of a Klezmer player; i.e., one modeled
> after a now defunct period, not citizenship. While you are
> correct that the discussion on national sound character has
> been limited to players in the classical arena, it is as one
> leaves that arena that whatever national sound characteristics
> exist (and I am of the opinion that there are none, in any
> case) tend to be completely eliminated. If I try to duplicate
> a Greek clarinet player doing his or her local ethnic thing,
> all you could do would be to identify my playing as either
> good or bad playing of Greek ethnic music. You could not
> possibly tell that I was trained in America, Britain, France,
> or Germany. Depending on my nationality, I might find it more
> or less difficult to master the skill of Greek ethnic clarinet
> playing, but once I mastered it, the only sound left is that
> of ethnic Greek, not ethnic Greek with an American flavor. In
> effect, the wrapping of the player in a non-classic national
> ethnic tradition eliminates the very thing that you say can be
> used to identify them. Sure I can tell a Klezmer player, but
> can I tell a Rumanian Klemzer player from a Hungarian Klezmer
> player, from an American Klezmer player? I don't think so."
>
> 13. "Well, I have sat here patiently for the last several
> weeks and read everything that crossed the board on national
> sound character. Several posts were particularly thoughtful
> but, in my opinion, none have brought any cogent evidence to
> support what I perceive as a preconception of what the world
> is and then hunting for evidence to support that
> preconception. As for the assertion that there is a national
> sound character based on a variety of things, I can't swallow
> it. Performing style (such as Austrian waltzes with the
> delayed om pah) is not a national sound characteristic. It is
> a performing practice that can be emulated by any orchestra in
> the world. What started all this brouhaha was the assertion
> on someone's part (I forget who) that suggested that players
> with different nationalities sounded sufficiently different
> (for reasons that were never made clear), that one can spot a
> German playing or a Frenchman or an Englishman, etc. simply by
> listening to the character of their sound. That critter still
> does not wash. Frenchmen and women use the same clarinets,
> reeds, mouthpieces, ligatures, etc. as American players? Do
> they sound differently? If so, and if hardware is not the
> source, then what is it? Is it vibrato? Unlikely. Too many
> American players use vibrato. Is it simply because they were
> born in France? Is it because their training was exclusively
> French? Lots of Americans get good training over long periods
> in France. Bottom line? Of all the playing styles mentioned
> thus far, other than the German players, it was the French who
> were supposed to have such a characteristic sound. But from
> what? Garlic? Frog's legs? Then there was another note from
> someone who suggested that he or she heard a difference and
> actually picked out a player as German or French or English
>
>
Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

I go away for 10 days of fresh air and come back to hundreds of postings
and Dan on a fresh soap box. I wonder: to what extent are the perceived
differences related to a) different recording technology in different
countries; b) different eccentricities of the recording producers; or c)
different recording manufacturing technology?

I have to agree that (even though I think that there is a German sound
related to the construction of the German clarinets - and some differences
because different key systems allow players to produce slightly different
sounds in moving from one note to another) I can't recall any instance in
which I thought that I could pinpoint a conventional concert performer's
background from a LIVE performance.

Allen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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