 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Melissa
Date: 2003-12-24 20:59
A friend of mine was in a competition last year with her alto sax. She played a jazz piece and when she was done the adjudicators asked her if she was classicly trained and she said yes. They told her they could tell and she was given a low score causing her to place last. My question is that I would love to put together a Dixieland ensemble but I'm also classicly trained so would adjudicators notice? What should I do to have the perfect Dixieland "tone/feel"? I'm not really sure what I want to ask I just know I wouldn't want an adjudicator to say the same thing to me.
Thank-you and Happy Holidays!
Melissa
Post Edited (2003-12-24 21:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-12-24 21:08
Melissa wrote:
> She played a jazz piece and when she was done the
> adjudicators asked her if she was classically trained and she
> said yes. They told her they could tell and she was given a low
> score causing her to place last.
Do you really think classically trained and a low score are cause & effect? I personally don't think so, nor do many jazz musicians. Ask Eddie Daniels, for instance, who played jazz in his youth, studied classical and received his Masters at Juilliard, and then went back to jazz. The classical training sure didn't seem to hurt him ...
However, if you can't "loosen up" because you've always had everything written out for you explicitly, which can be a problem with someone who's not ever gone out on stage and played jazz, you'd be marked down.
I encourage anyone who's interested in playing jazz for whatever reason to form a small group with a couple of friends and ... play. A lot. Anywhere (garages with the doors open are good on Saturday & Sunday afternoons because you'll attract a nice crowd).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario Poirier
Date: 2003-12-24 21:16
This is a very interesting question worthy of an extensive thread with many contibutors. Here is my take on this issue:
1 - It is possible for a "classically" trained to master another musical genre (jazz? celtic? Kletzmer?, etc.) as long as we undersstand that classical training is only a technical fundation for the "control" of our instrument. Whenever we dabble in a new musical language (such as jazz), a new vocabulary and grammar must be learned. And new messages must be crafted.
2 - There are a few "attitude" problems that we (classically trained) must eliminate:
A - We tend to be arrogant about our craft and do not respect enough other musical languages.
B - As a result, we do not listen, study, practice enough these other languages. For instance, we will spend years at a few hour per day mastering the classical, romantic and modern repertoire on the clarinet, but will only "dabble" superficially in other musical genres. Of course people will notice since we are quite superficial in our approach.
C- WE PLAY TOO MANY NOTES... We love to hear ourselves going up and down classical scales and arppegios (i.e.: boring) at wrap speet totally ignoring what makes the different music sings.
In many musical sub-cultures (jazz is just one of them), people jam all day long for years until they learn the idioms by rote. A classical musician (with a strong technical mastery in his/her tool kit) can similarly master a new idiom by immersing him/herself fully in it for a couple of years.
So, listen, jam, play, with other people who love dixiland. Give it generous time and realize that dixiland has as much of a language to master as the music from Mozart, and you will get there. On the other hand, dabble in it one a week for a couple of hours for some kind of rehearsals and do not be surprised if people hear your classical bacground breaking through.
Mario Poirier
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Melissa
Date: 2003-12-24 21:21
Mark - They told her that is why she scored low. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
but yes, I don't think she "loosened up", so that probably was part of her "classical" training coming through... maybe? I'm not sure.
Post Edited (2003-12-24 21:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-12-24 22:56
Hi,
Melissa, it is hard to figure where your friend went wrong playing a a jazz piece on alto except that when I play classical alto and jazz alto, it is two entirely different styles, tone, etc. I have been accussed of playing a "bar room style" during a university wind ensemble rehearsal for several solo passages; the director and I had a good laugh on the break. One must know when to play what style and where.
One of the greatest compliments I ever had was from my former clarinet teacher (a student of Gigliotti) who happened to be at a wedding reception where I was playing tenor and clarinet. On a break, I chatted with him and "apologized" for playing jazz/dixieland after all the terrific training (Klose, Rose, etc) he gave me . He said "you sound great and are playing in a way that I wish I could; how about a lesson?" He certainly did not have an attitude problem about jazz versus classics.
I recently listened to some tapes that were made of a dixieland group I played clarinet with about 20+ years ago. In listening to myself play, I could really tell I was using a very focused and really "classical" sound; everything seemed right. Just because it's jazz, there is no reason that the classical basics (per Mario's post) can not technically equip one well for jazz gigs. As Mark C said about Eddie Daniels "The classical training sure didn't seem to hurt him ..."
There are a lot of us on the BB that play many different types of music; we just know when to shift gears. I believe the whole thing is about selecting the style which should be appropriate for the setting but the better you know your instrument, the more successful the transition.
HRL
Post Edited (2003-12-25 02:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2003-12-24 23:05
There can be different tones, but really I think it's a way of thinking about it. If you're thinking "classically" while playing jazz, you might end up with wrong styles of phrasing in the music, and while soloing, you need to have a boundary as to how much is thinking and how much is letting loose. I took only a few jazz classes, but in these classes, the instructor showed us how it's not WHAT notes we pick, but how you use those notes that matter. He demonstrated a solo on three notes. He used a very fun sounding syncopated rhythm and good dynamics. Just three notes, and it seemed very good. Then he demonstrated a solo on many more notes and arpeggios, but he did them in a very even, boring successive rhythm with no dynamics.
So no matter how much training and theory you can put behind a solo, you also need to think on a different level. I've heard jazz CDs where people will make ONE note work for four or eight measures because they do so much to it (bending, accents, rhythm) and they are just having fun.
Hopefully that helps a bit.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jeff Forman
Date: 2003-12-25 12:17
Melissa - Mairo's comments about playing too many notes is one of the main points that gets overlooked. I played bluegrass banjo for over 30 years before taking up clarinet 3 years ago. I took it up to play dixieland (a VERY close relative of bluegrass - the syncopation and "breakdown" style arranging - where instruments take breaks sequentially - are quite similar in both genres).
I have learned over the years that in this type of genre, the notes you don't play are just as important as the notes you do play. See, what's going on is that you set up a melody the first time around and the listener then expects that same pattern each time through. If you stay faithful to the syncopation and the rhythm, you hook the listener when you have just the right amount of non-playing blended into the playing and his inner ear fills in what he was expecting.
The best example I can give is from neither genre, but it will hopefully make the point. Frank Sinatra. There was a guy who was so great at anticipating a note, delaying a note, leaving out half a note, etc. that his style was virtually un-copyable. But it was maddeningly addicting, and aesthetically magnificent. Just as the melody line was starting, he would take a drag on his cigarettte or a swig from his drink, and instead of coming in on the note, he'd come in when the note was three quarters done and finish it. You couldn't write this stuff out. He just did it. And that's what I think is the key. You have to play dixieland and bluegrass from the gut, not form a staff. It's all about closing your eyes and feeling it.
My instructor is a Peabody grad who studied with Anthony Gigliotti and Loren Kitt, and he insisted that I learn to read music. And I've posted questions to this board over the past coupple of years about that tug of war. I wanted to just learn by ear which is how I have played for decades, and he made me learn to read. Of course, that has been helpful, and I'm glad that I have learned to do so.
But in order to play dixieland, I think you have to do a couple of things.
a) Listen to a ton of it. Find a player and a song that hits you and listen to it a zillion times. Believe me, each time you listen to it, you will hear something different - some passing note, some rhythm lick, some hesitation, some fill-in - that will blow you away. As a recommendation, I would listen to Tim Laughlin and Tom Fisher trading clarinet licks on Sweet Georgia Brown. The entire song is streamed on his web site:
http://www.timlaughlin.com/music.htm
Actually the song that has the most "playing off one another" is Shine, in which Tim Laughlin is on clarinet and Tom Fisher is on Soprano Sax. But it's not streamed. Buying that CD is worth it, though. It's great dixieland.
b) Recognize that it is a concept and an attitude you are looking for, not a note for note duplication. My band made a demo tape and there was a lick I did in Roll In My Sweet Baby's Arms that when I listened to it completely blew me away. And try as I might, I can't reproduce it exactly. Because many things contributed to it. That moment, and what was happening with the other instruments being the most important. And you can't re-create that exactly. So while I can do things that are kind of like it, it never quite comes out exaclty the same. But hopefully, each time is meaningful in its own right.
c) LISTEN TO THE OTHER INSTRUMENTS WHEN YOU ARE IN A JAZZ/DIXIELAND BAND. I know I just shouted, but I see too many great musicians who are so intent on their own playing that there is no band dynamic. I've always said that all-star games are horrible games to watch. REgular season games where there is a superstar or two and workhorses around them have a flow and a rhythm to them that all-star games don't. So if you are listening to the bass player or the drummer, your gut and your hands will have you filling in what is needed at the moment. - And that is why I think classical people have difficulty with jazz. Because as note hounds, they usually want the security blanket of having it written out. Jazz involves risk. With apologies, classical requires proficiency. Different skill sets IMHO. Of course, the classical trained musician has the buiding blocks (scale proficiency, finger dexterity, etc.) So you guys have a leg up. I have the ear and the passion. I wish I could take a pill that would blend my ear and passion with a whole lot of proficiency. Unfortunately, I think practice, practice, practice is that pill.
That's my two cents. Sorry for the long post, but it's a passion of mine.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
