Klarinet Archive - Posting 000030.txt from 2007/03
From: "Kevin Fay" <kevin.fay.home@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Hearing is believing, or is it?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:50:05 -0500
Dan Leeson posted:
<<< Keith Bowen's response to the matter of the note from Danyel about the
impact of gender specificity gives the impression (impression hell; it says
so outright) that Keith believes his ears (and mind, of course) to be
capable of identifying certain specific performers; i.e., he knows when
Brendel is playing because he can identify his touch (?), his technique (?),
his interpretation (?), his ethnicity (?) whatever. Keith does not state the
source of his knowledge, so I ascribe it to a mystery. Maybe he can do it.
I can't, which does not mean much.
Every musician is, or should be, proud of their ability to hear things, such
as accuracy of pitch, precision of rhythm, correctness of tempi, etc. By
broadening that sensitivity so as to be able to recognize the identity of
the performer (or characteristics of a specific performer's musical
interpretation) appears to me to be more ego than science.>>>
Sorry Dan, but this is poop. There a certainly some musicians whose sound
and style is so unique that their identity is easily recognizable.
I can't tell the difference between a German or a French (or an Elbonian)
trumpet player by sound. But I can certainly tell you if a particular
trumpet is Maynard Ferguson, or Louis Armstrong - even folks who model their
sound on theirs just aren't the same.
In the saxophone world, there are many folks whose sound is unmistakable.
While it seems that every young alto player sounds like David Sanborn, those
of us old enough to have heard them should easily recognize Bird, Ben
Webster, Danny Moss, Sidney Bechet, Long Tall Dex, Stan Getz, Gerry
Mulligan, Sigurd Rascher, and so many more. . . .
Clarinet is a bit harder, as the range of acceptable tone quality is much
narrower. But I can recognize some individual performers - and individual
performances - by listening. I'm often able to correctly guess Dieter
Kloecker, Charlie Neidich, or Richard Stolzman when they are played on the
radio. *Lots* of folks want to sound like Benny Goodman, but I'll gues him
correctly 90+ percent of the time.
For piano, it must be tougher still given that it's harder to get a unique
sound out of the instrument. Personally, I couldn't do it; I do not have a
discerning ear for piano playing. For one who has studied a particular
performer in depth, however, I'd be surprised indeed if certain individuals
could not be identified by their playing.
I quite agree that it is silly to qualify playing characteristics of groups
of performers by nationality, skin color, age or gender. (Everyone *knows*
that a woman couldn't possibly be a successful orchestral trumpet player -
especially all of those guys taught by Barbara Butler or Susan Slaughter,
right?)
I think it's equally silly to assert that one can never identify any
*individual* player by their performance. Most of the time, you can't tell
who's playing, especially in orchestral music. But if you can't tell that
it's the Ellington band, you're just not listening very hard.
When I was in school, we'd sit around and play "drop the needle" - put on
records precisely to see if the other players of the game could identify who
and what they were listening to. I was pretty good with alto players, less
so with tenors - but could tell if they were using an Otto Link or not with
about 80% accuracy.
I suppose it's possible that I have better ears, or are just plain smarter,
than you are. (I rather doubt it on both points, though.) We get your
point, but you've driven your reductio down absurdium lane on this one, I
think.
. . . but I like it when you argue with Keith in front of us. You'd suspect
you two were best enemies or something.
kjf
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> It's the Woodwind.Org 2007 donation drive!
>>> Visit https://secure.donax-us.com/donations/ for more information
