 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2012-05-01 21:09
I've been having some thoughts and thought that this might be the place to ramble on about them. Hope you don't mind...
Instrumentalists have been copying vocalists for centuries. The greatest compliments were paid to historical greats including Stadler and Mühlfeld when their playing was likened to the sound of a human voice. Some people take that to be proof that instrumentalists such as these must have used vibrato, although it's unlikely that vocalists back then used vibrato in the way that we often hear singers using it today. In any case, I've been giving some thought to the idea of what the clarinet would sound like if we tried to copy the human voice.
This evening I've been enjoying listening to a recording of Christoph Prégardien singing Schubert. I tried to imagine what I would play like if I really was to emulate what this wonderful singer was doing. Jazz players do this when they "lift" a recording from a previous jazz great, trying to emulate every aspect of that person's playing, even on a different instrument. The result, if I were to "lift" Mr Prégardien's singing, would be far more dramatic, emphatic, colourful, emotive and dynamic than the way in which I would normally approach such melodies. In other words, my playing would be very different if I tried to play a Schubert melody the way in which it was sung by one of the foremost Schubert interpreters of today. Some things might be distasteful when applied to the clarinet (eg. portamenti) but others would take my playing to a different realm, which I may previously have judged as "over the top". But listening to this highly convincing recording, I have to question why such a rendition on the clarinet would be considered "over the top"? My "clarinet version" might sound bland and flat in comparison.
A few nights ago I heard Jörg Widmann performing the Brahms Quintet with the Hagen Quartet. It was a great performance. What a pleasure to hear such a work played by such a fantastic string quartet! I'd never heard Mr Widmann play before, being only familiar with his compositions, for which he is establishing an extremely successful career. I enjoyed the performance very much. But what struck me afterwards was that, the moments in the performance which had really impressed me had to do with tempo flexibility, communication within the ensemble, colour, balance and architecture. I didn't come out thinking "What a fantastic clarinetist". I came out thinking "What a fantastic rendition of a masterpiece". Which, while may sound a bit cliché, is certainly the very best of compliments.
So now I'm wondering whether my entire approach to making music is really too much focussed on "playing the clarinet well", rather than presenting a convincing performance of the music. It's hard not to get wrapped up in producing a beautiful tone on every note and playing perfectly in tune, not to mention accurate rhythm and clean technique. And these things are surely important, especially if most of your playing (like mine) is in an orchestral context. But I do feel like assigning more of my attention to things like copying vocalists, focussing on the bigger picture of the pieces which I play, and generally thinking outside of my usual clarinet box. I hope some of the results are good!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2012-05-01 23:38
Hi Liquorice,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this - I have had similar thoughts in the not too distant past.
I think there are some players who follow this through quite well - Neidich, Stolzmann, Paul Meyer and perhaps Brunner, although I haven't listened to enough of his recordings. There is also a truly brilliant recording of the Weber Grand Duo with Pierre-André Taillard playing a Romantic instrument. (my favourite - incredible irrational tempo changes in the 3rd movement!)
To me, they play in a way that allows them to put a lot of edge into the sound, and the sound seems to maintain its tension through this edge. They also allow the sound to be frail, either through vibrato, or just simply letting the sound be inconsistent, and less like a pure sine wave. I just don't hear this level of variation in Brymer, Leister, Ottensamer - brilliant players, but different. Like Renaissance art (the latter), compared to Brueghel (the former). I would be very interested actually to hear an orchestra play in this way - I'm not sure it happens all that often. I did see the Concertgebouw play Sibelius 1 at the proms, and that seemed to come close.
I also have a Brahms related story. Last year I played this quintet, with a group of mixed ability. All university students to some standards, but with strengths and weaknesses. We had the advantage of quite a long rehearsal period leading up to the concert. Knowing that we were not going to deliver a flawless performance in terms of intonation, ensemble, blend, we targeted musical ideas above all else, and hoped the rest would fall into place. Personally, I find Brahms very unforgiving to perform because unless you get the tempo changes and fluctuations right, it just sounds rushed, or dragged. There were several times where I made a blanket statement, like 'rushed' or 'dragged', and then realised that statement could only be applied to a very small section. So we spent a lot of time ironing out these corners, with everyone aware of what we were doing. We also rehearsed the space between movements, to know how long to wait before embarking on the next part of the journey (as the quintet is). Now, I can't really comment on what people in the audience thought - it was unfortunately a lunch-time concert attended by 20 people at most (such is life). But I do know, its one of the best performances I've been part of, purely for the amount of musical intention that was realised, in place of the search for perfect intonation and ensemble (which, as a matter of fact, fell into place quite well)
Anyway I'm not sure that applies, but as its a forum to express thoughts...
Incidentally, I think we have met in Zurich a few years ago, for the Zurich Oper Akademie auditions - you told me I was an interesting player, before your colleagues told me my Mozart was not fluid and/or beautiful enough! I'd love to say that everything I played on that day was my intention....but maybe only 70% actually was!
Best wishes
Alex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-05-01 23:50
YES.
I think you are on the right path here. I recommend checking out all of the old recordings you can get your hands on. And I mean really old. The 1917 Brahms quintet recording by Charles Draper, for instance, in many ways shatters so much of the nonsense written about "objective" performance.
There are a couple of CDs out there on the Clarinet Classics label--"The Clarinet: Historical Recordings Vols I and II" which by themselves debunk so many conservatory lies it's astonishing. And if you don't have them already, I highly recommend the CD box (or downloads) of Reginald Kell's complete Decca recordings. They were the ultimate eye-(and ear-) opener to me--at least as far as classical clarinet is concerned.
Good luck with the journey.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2012-05-02 01:37
Just a thought that was brought about by the posting...
I'm wondering if instrumental music can only replicate vocal music exactly with the result being overwrought due to the lack of text. Of course lyrics will give a clearer meaning to a song resulting in more vivid attacks, connections, and articulations.
I'm wondering if the reason our ears interpret instrumental melodies played this way as "over the top" is because there's no philosophically pragmatic "logical" reason to stress certain elements.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-02 02:23
Katrina,
But what about music sung in a language that is foreign to the listener?
I surely can't parse German... I need a translation, which however accurate, only gives an interpretation of the original text. Given that, I can't judge if something is logically stressed in the original language; nor if it is an incorrect annunciation.
Yet we listen to Schubert, Schumann etc.. song cycles all the time (hopefully...)
And however well a translation is done, it can never be truly representative. Living in a foreign country for 5 years, and obviously being forced to learn a differing language, it didn't take too much time for me to realize mentally translating between English and Spanish would never let me say exactly what I wished to say. I had to learn to stop thinking in English to be able to actually start digesting Spanish; as difficult as that is. Conversely, I could never imagine accurately translating James Joyce into Spanish....
Yet, in in spite of all of these factors, we can enjoy text sung in a foreign language; without truly knowing if it is over-the-top, or over-done.
What if all of this is tied into the way we are "wired" to interpret music. The speech and music areas of the brain are intertwined in complex ways... unfortunately the specifics are far beyond my realm of knowledge. (Though the case of Congresswoman Giffords is a very clear demonstration.) Maybe the way we physiologically "parse" music in our brains, be it instrumental or vocal, is related in some manner to the way we handle speech. Attempts at making concrete correlations withstanding.
That could be how we can mentally grasp highly-contrapuntal textures, or coherently convey the "push and pull" in an ensemble amongst ourselves- and have it understood by the audience. Or create the abstract "musical conversation" term we so often invoke.
Our aural parsing of text and music may all be tied together in that manner. As for the specifics, it's far above my pay grade. (and verbing weirds language ;-)
But to get back to the subject line.
'Clarinetting' for the sake of 'clarinetting' is not truly the point of what we do.
Yet, maybe we need to know how to 'clarinet' to begin to know how we can avoid doing it.....
(Or what jazz musicians often say to to over-zealous improviser... "It's the notes that you don't play kid....")
just my 2 sense on the topic
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-02 02:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2012-05-02 04:20
Ultimately, there is, to the less-developed parts of our lizard-brains, some latent "sense" that words have, even in languages we don't know. At least that's a general theory which occured to me while reading the original post.
None of what I've writyen was intended as criticism...just kinda thinking "out loud" so to speak.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2012-05-02 08:10
I think Katrina's onto something regarding the text. The feminine endings of most words in Italian and German often correspond to the way we would shape phrases in music. And the range of consonants are an inspiration to us regarding the many possibilities of articulation. But text does allow for pulsations or or shapings which may just be too much for instrumentalists to emulate without words. An example which springs to mind would be Brahms's Lied "O Tod, wie Bitter bist du". A singer is able to put a really explosive sound "Bitter", which would underlie the harsh emotion of the text. If we were to just play the same melody on the clarinet, would it really sound good if we put such a strong , explosive articulation on that note?
After more consideration, I think the biggest difference of approach between my playing at the moment and that of top-class singers, is the shading and shaping of melodies. In a personal obsession to try and play real legato on the clarinet, I have to admit that my playing tends towards being very sustained and "even". Just copying a few phrases in the way that Prégardien sings them changes the way I sound quite distinctly. There is far more shading, colouring and internal emphasis even in short figures in the way that Prégardien sings. I wanted to play *legato* because I thought that I was emulating the human voice, but I think I've gone too far down that route and lost the plot a little. Anyway, it's going to be interesting re-thinking things from here!
Alexi- I remember you from the audition. It's always a pity when someone that you like doesn't advance because the other people on the audition committee have different taste. I hope things are working out well for you where you are.
Post Edited (2012-05-02 08:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2012-05-02 08:30
Eric- I'll have a listen to some of those recordings you mention. I have noticed in listening to really old recordings that some players tend to be less concerned with rhythmic accuracy and less "objective" in approach. But I've also heard players who sound to me very, very square, with little of the shadings which I'm referring to in vocal performance. Listen to this recording with Haydn Draper and tell me what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzNfpadgFc4
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2012-05-02 09:09
I'm very interested to hear the Draper recording of the Brahms Quintet. It costs $69.95 on amazon, and even more on amazon.co.uk! I found it on clarinet classics, but they only include the first two movements. Does anybody know of another source for this recording?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-05-02 12:22
Liquorice--
Agreed on the "square" quality on many old recordings. I find this a lot too. But even then, I tend to find some very interesting qualities. Each era has it's own sort of "stilted" quality, in terms of rythmic approach. Listening to even the square players of other generations tends to help me hear what the "squareness" of our own day and age is as well, and not confuse our current areas of stiffness with "proper" music making (as these accepted rules, too, shall pass).
Thanks for the Haydn Draper recording. There is a lot in it I can't buy into, of course--intonation, and Draper's seeming lack of interest in finding the true metrical swing of the meter he's in. But still, even with those troubles, there is a certain gusto to the performance that I find generally lacking in what is done today. So as a listener my first reaction is "Dang, that sounds like high school students!" in a negative way regarding intonation and precision...but then my second reaction is "Thank goodness they still sound like High School students" emotionally--where the verve and essence of the music hasn't been slowly taken out over years of "refeignment".
If you can get them to ship abroad, two mvts of Charles Draper's Brahms quintet can be found here
http://www.amazon.com/Clarinet-Historical-Recordings-Vol-2-Maria/dp/B0000044D6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335960460&sr=8-1
I'm not sure if the price is worth the experience--perhaps a music library (as I doubt you'll be listening to them more than a few times).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-05-02 12:50
Gigliotti took voice lessons at the urging of oboist Tabetou
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JonTheReeds
Date: 2012-05-02 16:09
How did we get to a place where the emphasis/rule on classical clarinet is in producing a pure tone?
In the band I play in, the clarinets have to play with a pure tone without vibrato, whereas trumpets, trombones, saxophones (even flutes!) can, and are required, to play with vibrato, fluttertonguing, portamenti, trad jazz 'oomph' and more
I love the sound of a pure clarinet, but why is this instrument denied the full range of colouring, whereas in other instruments it's actually demanded
Obviously, jazz is different, and I was wondering if this could be the reason: to differentiate classical from jazz, the clarinet went in the other direction?
--------------------------------------
The older I get, the better I was
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2012-05-02 18:56
My initial exposure to step outside of the "clarinet box" was a chamber music coaching by a string player, who although quite famous, was clearly unaware of, or uninterested in clarinet playing. I was pushed to play outside of what I thought were the boundaries of acceptable clarinet playing.
This really opened me up in all context, from opera pits to large wind ensemble. For example, in a concert band with a large clarinet section, one can produce the most exciting pianissimo section sound by playing the type of shallow tone one gets criticized for in lessons.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2012-05-03 04:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2012-05-03 23:22
JonTheReeds wrote: >How did we get to a place where the emphasis/rule on classical clarinet is in producing a pure tone?<
Actually, I think in most settings this is not entirely the case, although the issue of vibrato tends to be a little more rigid. Besides all sorts of traditional ensembles (wind band, symphony orch, wind quintet, etc.) I have played regularly with vocalists (church setting) since high school. I have always felt free to vary sound, articulation, etc, especially since I could be playing a part written for violin, a part written for trumpet, a descant too high for your garden variety church soprano, or improvising. It certainly is fun to do this. For section playing, though, you do want that section to sound as a unit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2012-05-03 23:41
I think we clarinetists can learn a great deal from vocal technique and expression. It won't be executed nor sound the same on our instrument, but it can free our playing. I have found WW5 playing to be liberating as well because of the interplay of the voices, literally, since chamber playing at its best can be a conversation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-03 23:48
clarinetwife wrote:
>For section playing, though, you do want that section to
> sound as a unit.
At times I have been forced to use vibrato to help an orchestral wind section sound a cohesive unit out in the hall.
Now as a "general rule", I don't employ vibrato as a device in solo, or even in 90-some odd-% of orchestral playing. However, if playing with a flute, bassoon and oboe in a sustained chord where they are using vibrato for example, I may be forced to add a slightly quiver to my sound to maintain a cohesive section sound.
To a listener in the audience it may not even be perceptible, and if I'm doing my job correctly it likely shouldn't be.... but intonation/cohesive "section sound" often relies on matching both the pitch and timbre of instruments.
All of this is of course highly variable depending on the hall, familiarity of the musicians, and what the music demands of the players. (The block wind chords at the end of the 1st mvmt of Scheherazade can be much more striking, or proper if one wishes, if played sans vibrato. Of course the absence does make the blending of the passage that much more tenuous.)
All the flexibility talk brought to light in this thread can be extrapolated, and micro-managed in a "section" setting to help blend etc...
Unless, of course, unified blend is not called for at some particular point...
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-03 23:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2012-05-04 00:07
Buster wrote:
> clarinetwife wrote:
>
>
> >For section playing, though, you do want that section to
> > sound as a unit.
>
> At times I have been forced to use vibrato to help an
> orchestral wind section sound a cohesive unit out in the hall.
>
> Now as a "general rule", I don't employ vibrato as a device in
> solo, or even in 90-some odd-% of orchestral playing. However,
> if playing with a flute, bassoon and oboe in a sustained chord
> where they are using vibrato for example, I may be
> forced to add a slightly quiver to my sound to maintain a
> cohesive section sound.
>
> To a listener in the audience it may not even be perceptible,
> and if I'm doing my job correctly it likely shouldn't
> be.... but intonation/cohesive "section sound" often relies on
> matching both the pitch and timbre of instruments.
Yes, I've certainly done this too, and I think the audience can have an "ooh!" moment with that chord without being able to or needing to identify what it is that is going on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
