 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-09-12 05:00
In my search for the perfect recording of the Brahms (so far I have Stoltzman, Wright, Leister, and Klocker... I have Shifrin and Soames on the way...), I'm starting to feel that the clarinet may be an instrument that is far less capable of passionate expression than my other two favorite instruments, piano and violin (both of which can be notoriously passionate). I've noticed this is many other pieces, but I'm thinking about the Brahms now, so that's what got me started.
Compared to some of the best of the piano/violin world, the best clarinet players seem to be lacking in passion in their playing. Two examples of very passionate players on piano and violin that come to mind are V. Horowitz and J. Heifetz. When listening to recordings by these two masters, I find their playing to be explosively passionate. Comparatively, many masters of the clarinet seem to play in a style that, while nearing technical perfection, is much less engaging. Some players (most notably Stoltzman) are capable of achieving passionate extremes, but often at the cost of tonely purity and control. Another good example (if you are curious what is motivating my questions) is the Prokofiev Sonata, Op. 94. When played on violin the piece sizzles with excitement (particularly the 2nd and 4th movements). When played on clarinet (by Larry Combs in my case), the piece is very well done (and quite passionate by clarinet standards), but still doesn't come close to the passion felt in the violin version.
This makes me wonder if the clarinet is physically more difficult to draw such passionate extremes from (because doing so is detrimental to tonal control, etc). Or is it just a matter of "clarinet philosophy" (or pedagogy, whatever you call it) that encourages more reserved style as opposed to the explosive vitality often found in the best of violin/piano music (for example, vibrato is a very effective expressive tool in violin and many other wind instruments, though it is traditionally frowned on for clarinets).
I'm certainly capable of appreciating the clarinet's better qualities (like it's voice-like fluidity and ability to create nuances in color and dynamics, and it's place as probably the most passionate woodwind instrument...) so I'm not making overly strict comparisons, and I realize that technical aspects of the instruments make it impossible to compare them exactly. However, I'd like to think that the power to play with such excitement and passion can (at least in theory) be achieved by any player no matter what instrument they play. Am I expecting too much, or do I need to redefine my concept of passionate playing when it comes to clarinets??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: morgan
Date: 2004-09-12 05:26
When I was in high school, I remember playing Osborne's Rhapsody for clarinet incredibly passionately. In fact, I've been told that I'm very expressionistic with art -- my emotions are automatically channeled through whatever I am playing or doing. I am not a great player by any means, though, although I hope to get better.
It is true, though, that some clarinet playing leaves me cold. I don't know enough about different players' performances to give examples, but I have heard clarinet music on my local classical radio station that, while technically perfect, was completely expressionless. I guess this is due to the clarinet subculture, which I have found to be rather conservative, at least from the people I have met and the posts I have read.
When I listen to clarinet playing, I like to listen to Benny Goodman. I just downloaded "Benny Goodman: The Centennial Collection" that was released less than a month ago on iTunes. His clarinet playing has a bright, happy, and occasionally mellow sound. This is what I'd like to sound like, when it's appropriate. A dark sound (what does "dark" mean again? ) is OK, too, as long as it's not completely dull and mechanical.
BTW, if this were posted on a site where we could moderate posts, I'd mark this "Flamebait." It's bound to start a war of some sort.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-09-12 05:38
I feel akin to some of the opinions here: I'm not a relentless note-cruncher, but what I have over many other clarinet players is the ability to play musically and from the heart. In some ways, this will get me far. In other ways, it certainly won't - the relentless note-crunchers always win auditions over me.
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! ![[down]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley23.gif) Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: buedsma
Date: 2004-09-12 07:07
I did play 10 years violin and do concentrate solely on the clarinet now.
I think you are right when saying that it is education/promoting a certain way of playing clarinet that takes a lot of passion out of the music.
I did play a lot of etnhic clarinet when i was 15 , before starting the formal education. I'm 42 now and starting again for a few years of classical education in a private school for clarinet and it did strike me again the first lesson : everything that makes clarinet music live for me is more or less discouraged . ( vibrato , slides )
i also did look for some clarinet recordings that had the same passion as the violin counterparts but couldn't find them. Keep in mind though that the nuances of the real , live clarinet sound are harder to capture on record, the timbre of the clarinet sound disappears more in an orchestra then a violin sound, further most classical players tend to play with hard reeds for a steady sound and to be able to get the high notes in a consistent way.
When looking for more expression, ethnic clarinet players are sometimes surprising me with all kinds of ( classically not allowed ) techniques. They also play on softer reeds what creates a more vibrant sound
But anyway , i'll stick with the clarinet and i'm not going to take up the violin anymore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-12 09:17
I'm in agreement that the passion problem is more one of philosophy than anything else. Benny Goodman was a good example of someone who could get past that. Even excluding the vibrato, sliding, etc., what he really had was a strong dynamic range that he would not compromise over matters of technical perfection or the 'dark' sound.
A player on the classical side that I really enjoy in this respect is Gervase de Peyer. Listen to his classic recording of the Brahms Bm quintet. Not passion-inhibited at all. I have also noted a little bit of raucousness in his recordings of the Weber concerti, particularly #2--and believe me, it did NOT detract.
Gervase, if you're reading the mail out there, you are a guy who plays with true abandon. Thanks for having those recordings out there when I was coming along during the mid-70's. Your Brahms quintet is one of my favorite ways to spend some quiet time, and I make all my students listen to the first movement. You get more power and drive out of that A clarinet than most folks get on a B-flat.
In a recent clinic I also watched Richard Stoltzman plead with some excellent college players to adapt their instruments to the music, and not the music to their instruments. Unfortunately Stoltzman is controversial (to clarinetists, but probably not to listeners) and that causes a lot of players to reject much of the wisdom that he has to impart.
I see the same thing in flute players all the time. Get an imperfect tone onone note and they are basket cases. How did this happen?!
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-09-12 14:24
The clarinet is capable of expressing a great deal of passion, unlike many other wind instruments. Passion begins in the heart of the artist and flows into the instrument. One must be willing to fully express this emotion through the instrument. If the player is overly cautious about having a note or two sound thin or shrill for a moment during the process, then the sound will remain more controlled. It's true that many players aren't willing to have even one note sound less than perfect, thus limiting the expression of the instrument.
It's true that in most orchestral pieces the clarinet should have that wonderful, fluid, perfectly full and rich tone--but in popular, jazz and klezmer there is a place for the expression of passion. Stoltzman does accomplish this quite well on his instrument.
Personally, I believe the violin and the clarinet are two of the most expressive instruments--although passion is possible on almost any instrument if it's in the hands of one with a passionate soul.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-09-12 14:39
The concept of music evoking emotions, reactons, whatever, some sort of pedagogical improvement, is based on 19th century´s metaphysics, none of the relations of cause (listening to a composition performed) and effect (realizing, and finally reverberating in the same kind of emotion) is objective, not even intersubjective. It depends heavily on a converntional agreement about the opinions of authorities, however these come about. This is not at all to say that the process of performing-and-listening is free of psychological, inner reactions - but those do not refer to a work of art a s i t s e l f, those are fundamentally of the same category as is my inner state to several mugs of beer, as far as the cause-effect-departement goes. It is one of the most fundamental bourgeois intern discriminations that the effects music has and those e.g. beer has be of significant difference, but this difference cannot be even formulated without massive pure speculations. An instrument is a tool, a very refined one, with an outstanding tradiiton of craftsmanship and composition, but nothing but a tool. It may very well be a task for a composer to incorporate something like 'passion' in her/his compositions, as it may be for a performer, to play in such a way she/he will title 'passionate' - but such depends simply way to much to inner psychological settings of the performer/composer/listener, and it´s certainly not an attribute of a tool to be passionate or not. What are we talking about anyway, when we use this word "passion", but the ole´ "sweaty brow and loads of vibrato"-illusion? How 'passionate' the delieverance is of a composition, is subject to so many fashion-trends, one aera teaches pupils and audiences alike to fall for a rich, vibrating, full sound in clarinet playing, the next for a dense, clear and focused one, one plateau/sytle/genre/scene features extremely expressive, wildly dynamic playing as 'passionate', the other crystal clearness and full control...When one listener hears 'envigorated passion', the other hears 'blase schmaltz', it is as plain and trivial as that, and definitely neither embodied in the instrument nor the player, a question of just congruent opinions only.
Interesting, though, is the apparently opposition of 'exact performance ' and 'passionate performance' in many posts around here, as if the accuracy of an interpretation would somehow be opposed to 'inspirited,passionate playing' (the metaphysical masterplayer´d be then those who´d vaguely trancend this binary relation and be able to play in an exact way and do so passionately). Music isn´t at all about something starting in some organ and effecting some change of state in some other organ of somebody else, is it?!
markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-09-12 14:40
"The clarinet is capable of expressing a great deal of passion, unlike many other wind instruments"
I disagree- I've heard passionate performances on flute, oboe, bassoon, horn, trumpet, trombone and saxophone.
I do agree to some extent that the clarinet in classical music often sounds a bit lacking in passion. I agree with other posters that it's more in the way of playing than the instrument itself. I think vibrato is a key issue. Most of the really passionate classical players use vibrato (eg. Stolzman, De Peyer), but their styles of playing are often frowned upon by the classical clarinet world. Jazz players and ethnic players are "allowed" to use vibrato, so they can really make the instrument sing and deliver passionate performances.
When I was younger I always approached playing in a very passionate manner. In one international competition that I played, every single jury member commented negatively on my sound (including some players who sound pretty awful themselves!). So I changed my sound to fit into the accepted box, and now have a job in an orchestra. But I do feel that this style of playing is limited in terms of expression.
Is this a symptom of the technological society we live in, with our perfect CD recordings? Maybe we should be re-thinking our approach to classical clarinet playing?
Post Edited (2004-09-12 14:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-09-12 14:44
By the way- I recently heard the Barenboim/Zukerman recording of the Brahms sonatas (on viola). It's the best recording I've ever heard. Beats any clarinet version for me!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-09-12 15:54
Liquorice...
I have the Kashkashian/Levin Brahms Sonatas on Viola. They are really great also, and are more passionate than most clarinet versions I've heard (except for Stoltzman's). I also found a CD on www.amazon.com that is the Reger Sonatas played on viola (the Reger Sonatas I have for clarinet are by Ib Hausmann, and they are actually quite passionate as well). I look forward to hearing that one also.
DH
PS - I need to find some other words for passionate... I've said "passionate" so many times it's starting to sound stupid! = )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2004-09-12 16:12
Play any note--A, 440, for example--and it is just a sound, really a controlled noise which is, in and of itself, inconsequential and uninteresting. To help make it more expressive, the enunciation can be altered (attack hard or gental), the tambre can be changed via voicing or instrument change (viola vs clarinet). It can be soft, loud, short long, swelled, straight, growled, scooped, any number of changes give it more character or feeling. One of those very effective ways of giving that little note artificial intensity is vibrato. The stronger the vibrato, the more impressive that A 440 becomes, even though it still remains an A on the printed page. What I am trying to express is that the more "tools" that little A is born with (played), the more important it can become to the art of sound. So why should we clarinetists continue to leave the vibrato tool out of our "note adjustment kit"? It may be the one factor which is the heart of this thread--clarinets do not play with passion. Really, the only thing separating a violin, flute, trumpet, cello, viola, oboe, bassoon--the list could go on ad nausium--is vibrato.
All instrumentalists encounter the directive, "senza vibrato" from time to time, to change the intensity of the phrase being played. That also implys that for the most part, those intruments are expected to use vibrato as a means of expression--so why not also the clarinets? In keeping with the times, maybe we should add a "viagrabatto" pill to our clarineting and imbrace the of passion that may result in our performance.
Vibrato--for when the musical moment is right!!
Post Edited (2004-09-12 17:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-09-12 17:18
In my experience, the problem arises when people try to MAKE the clarinet sound passionate, rather than ALLOWING it.
People can get so worked up with fingerings, mouth position, tricky fingerings, etc. On top of that, they then try to "play passionately", which is so often inexplicably accompanied by swaying back and forth, up and down, and all over the place, so that they "look passionate." However, with such external movements, it is quite easy to lose some of one's internal sense of time.
Each of these factors, more often than not, cause the performer to lose a bit of their forward energy. This is even more dangerous in slow passages, when forward energy is much more difficult to come by, but all the more vital. Once the performer fails to completely engage himself in complete forward motion, he has already lost the audience, and the "passion" sounds even more forced.
One of my teachers (saxophonist) once told of an experiment he once did with some of his students. He told them to close their eyes while he played. He then played a delightful passage, full of emotion, and asked his students what they thought he might have looked like while playing it. They said he must have been moving around drastically, swooping up and down and back and forth with each line, to make the piece come alive as such. In fact, he had hardly moved an inch.
I might wager that clarinetists are simply upset that one of the "passionate" tools, vibrato, is not as readily available to them, rather than searching for the true source of passion, which is largely related to an inner, unrelenting, sense of musical energy and forward motion.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2004-09-12 17:34
I actually do believe that the physical differences among instruments affect how passion is expressed in the music. For example, the mechanism of the piano is so wonderfully touch sensitive that the physical experience of playing the instrument is simply different than playing a woodwind. I do not play strings, but it seems that string players have a lot to work with in the physical vibration of the string.
Having played quite a lot with choirs and vocalists, I have always felt that the clarinet is the one instrument that approximates most closely the human voice. But you have to let your clarinet SING if you are going to explore this. When I was in college I played for a master class for Mitchell Lurie. I met him at a reception the evening before and mentioned that I was going to play the second movement of the Weber Concerto No. 1. He responded, "you mean you are going to sing the second movement"
I like a dark fluid orchestral sound. I also think I would enjoy hearing Liquorice play in a setting other than orchestra where the envelope could be pushed a bit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2004-09-12 19:47
A clarinet can be the most passionate musical instrument and pleasing sound in the world because I wish it. Making it happen, I see it as simply two types of human beings in the world that vocalize and/or pick up instruments and emit sound, 1) technicians 2) musicians. Manifested in the person are 3 possible combinations of infinite and varying degrees of subjectivity. There are technicians that play perfect rhythmic dots and push buttons but musically dead as hammers. There are musicians passionately cry out to the world through their horns when fashioning the simplest melody, who can transform a tuning note into music but struggle forging a fundamentally smooth and even 3 octave chromatic scale. A musical instrument is inanimate until a living breathing individual picks it up (or performing seal) and strums, bows, plucks, articulates, bangs or breathes life into it.
Two instrumentalists who immediately come to mind that represent my ideal of a "musician" is clarinetist, Bob Spring and cellist Yo Yo Ma. I've seen both in concert and their performances stir the soul and portray an undeniable passion for music, their craft and pure joy of performing and entertaining.
Does anyone honestly believe ANY instrument (including voice) could by its very existence and/or design prevent artistic freedom and flexibility or defeat these artists' physical and intellectual abilities to express themselves? I think not.
Musical instruments are tools and extensions of humanity and for creation; they are a means to an end but not the justification of it. I can paint a beautiful picture in my mind (or play what I dare to dream the perfect rendition of the Mozart, or a definitive jazz, blues or rock solo) and it legitimately exists still contained within my mind and not on canvas. Now, if I am unable to express that solo through a musical instrument (in good working order and of accepted quality) it's NOT the cause or limitation of that instrument ..... all factors are brought together to produce the final product. Question? Am I out of tune because the tuner displays sharp or flat or because I'm not blending or matching pitch with my stand partner, soloist, or ensemble? No, a clarinet is just as beautiful an utterance as the first cry of a newborn baby. v/r Ken
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-09-12 22:12
which brings us back to the same question... If there is no instrument capable of prevent artistic freedom and flexibility, where does this inhibition, so often present in the playing of some clarinet masters, come from?
I think the clarinet culture explanation can account for a lot of it, but here is something else that I was thinking about today. While I don't have any hard data to back this up, I assume that there are many more violinists/pianists than clarinetists.... Perhaps the fact that there are fewer clarinetists period is partly why there are fewer clarinetists who possess such passion in their music. While there are many passionate violinists, there was only one Heifetz, and there are surely many more violinist who play WITHOUT passion than those who can play with it. Maybe if there was as many clarinetists as violinists, there would be more Robert Springs for us to enjoy...
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-09-12 22:39
Energy and a sense of motion, I think, are more highly "built in" to pianos and string instruments. To play repertoire pieces on piano, you absolutely MUST plan ahead in order for your fingers to not collapse over each other. This forces you to know what is coming far in advance, which leads to a better understanding of phrases and forward motion. The same applies to string instruments: bowings and fingerings are determined by looking at the overarching phrases and harmonic contexts and, in an orchestral setting, are determined by the sharp eye of the concertmaster. Because of this, I might suggest that the average pianist or string player is forced to develop a finer sense of overall form and direction (which lead to a sense of energy and conveyance of passion) than the average clarinetist.
As clarinetists, we have easy reading. Aside from a few occasional tricky fingering passages, it's completely possible to play an entire piece note by note. While this can be overcome, a note-by-note mentality isn't beaten out of us, and is quite easy to fall back on, especially once you are more comfortable with the piece. This can literally suck the passion out of a performance.
Also, in both pianos and string instruments, heavy physical movements are built into the instrument and, unlike wind instruments, assist in emotional sound production rather than distracting from it. Four->One in a violin can be a very definite movement in which the bowing leads you to a defined, energetic downbeat resolution. However, there are no such luxuries in the fingering and blowing of a wind instruments: the downbeats and energies must be completely internalized with little assistance from the instrument itself.
Moving the clarinet to indicate and assist with energies doesn't behave the same way as moving a bow for a violin or your body for the piano. Movements as such do not produce the sound on the clarinet like in these other instruments, and thus you may be adding yet ANOTHER thing for yourself to think about and coordinate in addition to your fingers and airstream, not to mention the intonation and tone problems that can accompany wild movements.
In essence, we have to try harder.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2004-09-13 03:52
""I might wager that clarinetists are simply upset that one of the "passionate" tools, vibrato, is not as readily available to them, rather than searching for the true source of passion, which is largely related to an inner, unrelenting, sense of musical energy and forward motion.""
Do you think that violinists, for example, would be willing to relinquish their use of vibrato and instead, search for their true source of passion?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-09-13 04:30
"Do you think that violinists, for example, would be willing to relinquish their use of vibrato and instead, search for their true source of passion?"
Not at all. I'm saying that vibrato is not one of the most significant sources of passion. While it seems important, it's overrated in terms of "passion", by my definition anyways.
For violins, it's a mega-bonus technique: vibrato hides minor intonation problems and allows a performer who is slightly off-pitch to gracefully and quickly get back into tune, provides a smoother tone that blends better with the section, and sounds more "passionate" and singing-like.
Since violins are working with a fretless board and have only finger memory to trust for pitch (on clarinet, the fingers get you pretty close without any guesswork), it would be a bit difficult to get rid of vibrato, but I think you could get a wonderfully passionate performance without it in the hands of a skilled player.
I think vibrato can be used perfectly well by a skilled clarinetist. I don't think it's a magical "add +3 passion" technique, but rather icing on the cake if used well.
My complaints come because to my ears, in a large number of cases, vibrato is accompanied by a "look at me!" attitude toward the clarinet, a sort of "I sound like an over-the-top fantastic opera singer, so i MUST be passionate!" vibe, often accompanied by an enormous deal of effort on the performer to "look passionate and be physically and violently moved by such passion". To me, it sometimes comes off as a rather thin facade.
Then again, it could be a reverse syndrome: Playing with vibrato convinces the player that they are more passionate, and they, in turn, actually DO play more passionately.
However, it remains my opinion for the moment that vibrato has very little to do with it.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-09-13 08:27
Try Alan Hacker's recording on original instruments with Burnett (assuming you mean the sonatas). This is very gutsy, though has been heavily criticised for coarse tone. It is the opposite extreme of the very thoughtful and beautiful Klocker rendition which has been criticised for lacking passion. I feel though that there is a good deal to be said for interpretations which have great inner feeling and are not neccessarily too demonstrative.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2004-09-13 11:29
""I feel though that there is a good deal to be said for interpretations which have great inner feeling and are not neccessarily too demonstrative.""
I can't say I understand this statement at all . Inner feelings, by the use of the very phrase, are those which stay inside the person.
Do you mean by ''inner feeling'' that the passion/emotion/feeling stays inside the performer - for the performer's benefit only?
Or do you mean that this passion/emotion/feeling is in some way conveyed to the audience by another means - other than what is actually transmitted to the ear?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-09-13 11:30
Hi,
If you want passion with your clarinet playing, try some of the Eddie Daniels CDs. There are some cuts that make me really swoon with the emotion of his playing.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2004-09-13 15:36
"I assume that there are many more violinists/pianists than clarinetists...."
Hmmm, as a former band and strings teacher, I would argue the opposite given the numbers of middle school clarinetists vs those of violin, that I taught over the entire course of my 35 yr career. And, if more of those student clarinetists would continue their musical efforts as adults, there most likely would be more Robert Springs or Larry Combs to inspire us with their virtuosity.
BTW, it has always been my biggest disapointment as a (now retired) music educator to meet one of my former students and learn that they gave up playing their instruments after high school, or college. And some of them had real potential for musical success as adults. So, from me to you, if any of you "out there" know of any adults who "used to play" any musical instrument, please encourage them to rediscover their muscial roots and take up their choosen instrument once more. Invite them to a concert or a rehearsal. Perhaps your church group is in need of musicians. Help them find an instrument, if need be. Music should enrich ones total lifetime, not just their youth. They may even thank you.......once they get their chops back.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-09-13 15:40
"I can't say I understand this statement at all . Inner feelings, by the use of the very phrase, are those which stay inside the person."
I don't think that's what graham means by that phrase at all. Rather, I think the point is that the performance is passionate (with "inner feeling") without announcing to the world that "Yes, I am playing with passion, see, because I am doing passionate things." Rather, the musicality speaks for itself without passion-gimmicks. Music played with feeling, I think, is not at all quantifiable, but is achieved in a much more subtle manner that often speaks to the listener on a subconscious level.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-09-13 21:12
Here's a link to a thread on good recordings of the Brahms sonatas. http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2002/10/000208.txt. Since that time, a recording of one of the sonatas by Ettlinger has come out, but it's not the same as the LP on French RCA/Erato.
For real passion, try the Lurie recording on Crystal or the Pieterson recording with Hephzibah Menuhin. Also Isaac Stern's recording of #1 on violin. For great subtlety, try the second Wright recording with Peter Serkin.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2004-09-14 03:05
I had a huge argument on another forum about the difference between genuinely felt emotion and expressed sentiment. One is moving, the other makes me gag.
Some people seem to think that you either have a "passionate performance" or a "correct performance", and that for some reason you have to sacrifice one for the other.
Speaking as both a clarinettist and composer, in my playing I try to have both, and when my works are being played, I will go for the players who can get all the notes etc with a good tone, as well as putting the emotion into it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-09-14 10:28
"I think the Paul Meyer versions are with orchestra. They're very good, but
for me they don't work as well as with piano."
Ken- I think you're thinking of Wolfgang Meyer. Paul Meyer recorded the sonatas with pianist Rene Duchable. They're OK but don't really move me.
Thanks for your link. I agree about the Zukerman recording. I only heard discovered it recently, and for me it's a huge revelation. Hope I can find the Peterson and Ettlinger recordings sometime.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2004-09-14 16:20
My answer to the question is this:
It's always the player who's amiss!
Are women less passionate than men?
The evidence denies that. But then...
They do need more time to reach bliss.
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-14 16:44
It happened on opening night
The glow of the warm theater light.
Went out with my miss,
Took no time to reach bliss,
I guess I'm just doing it right.
(sorry, couldn't resist) ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2004-09-14 20:41
Well, Glenn, you behaved like a true Don Juan!
Between Acts, there's almost no time to get it done!
I admire your voracity;
her zeal and audacity.
It sounds so romantic and fun!
Henry
Post Edited (2004-09-15 22:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gardini
Date: 2004-09-14 22:57
Perhaps it depends on what ear you are using.
Try listening to your clarinet recordings with more of your left ear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/science/14ear.html?th
Doesn't passion really come from the heart and not from a body part or instrument. Or am I a "girly-man" to think that?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2004-09-14 23:36
If passion is what you would feature,
tap into the MIND of your creature.
But if your vibrato lasts more than four hours,
Immediately seek out a teacher.
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-09-15 00:03
The clarinet is absolutely no less passionate than any other instrument.
However, many clarinet PLAYERS may seem less passionate, a phenomenon attributable perhaps to clarinet players imprinting on other clarinettists as models, to the exclusion of other artists e.g. flutists, oboists, bassoonists, singers, string players or even pianists.
This tendency perpetuates what I refer to as "clarinettism", a sterile, academic, technical, mechanical (or , as one of my history profs used to say "messianical") approach to a wonderful instrument that can be as expressive as any string instrument.
Most of my clarinet teachers had musical models that were not related to clarinet playing at all. They knew great artists, performed chamber music with them and participated in their clinics. I am inspired by only a few clarinettists, my preferences are artists like Emil Gilels, Leonid Kogan, Isaac Stern, Aaron Rosand, Julius Baker, John Mack, etc. One of my greatest thrills was to be coached by Janos Starker in the Mozart Quintet.
I agree with theclarinettist that there are few definitive recordings of standard clarinet repertoire. I have a prized collection of orchestra and chamber concert broadcasts from my days in the 70s as a PBS radio announcer. Some of these performances are the epitome of clarinet playing both technical and musical, something difficult to find in most commercial recordings (ex. Marcellus and Judith Raskin in Der Hirt auf dem Felsen).
While the style is not exactly what I subscribe to, I would like to recommend to theclarinettist Kell's recording of the Brahms Quintet (with the Fine Arts Quartet) as an example of tasteful passion (no "chewing the scenery" here) and refined elegance.
Also check out Artie Shaw's version of "Nightmare". You'll need a cold shower afterwards.
Post Edited (2004-09-20 18:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-09-16 07:51
u- hu...not any more atonalists around here than there used to be...
I agree with the more empirically based statements by Alex - but, although we clarinetists don´t have to munch our way through two staves at the same time, which makes reading "easier" one might say, we´re left to the terror of intonation. and this makes more than up for the lighter burden of "just one line". Depends utterly one the composition we´re playing, Alex, whether we have an easy reading, - none of the New Music /avantgarde-stuff, which made (not only) the clarinet explode with possibilities, I´d call exactly "easy to read".
Another thing which strikes me as strange here: It is striven here for the perfect rendering of a Mozert piece, and in the same breath of the perfect rock/blues solo on our instrument. Now being an ardent eclecticist, I couldn´t agree more to this romping throughout the aeras - but nobody so far has metnioned the powerful and burning passion expressed in quite a handful of the freejazz´s performances, or the late Coltrane´s (and Dolphy´s) shaping of the until then rather static blues-form, or any of J. Zorn´s links between hardcore and avantgarde (there´s an example of, e.g., 8 seconds of no-fun composition and all-consuming passion in one single stroke, if there ever was one!). And the techniques I had to use, when I played in a hardcore/postrock-band, to "let rip" (as they had it), weren´t anywheres from the passion-related departement. What I cannot comprehend at all is the repeated conservatism, which has musical evolution peaking in the 19th century, and even relates contemporary nonclassical music around this (this position doesn´t mean late Coltrane´s jazz, or Ornette Coleman´s, but swinging retroisms galore, doesn´t mean weird note-bending-slide-swamp blues, but the "where´s my baby gone"-type, doesn´t mean A. Ayler but Kenny G., etc pp).
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-09-16 21:57
Very thought provoking comments some of which remind me of a panel discussion I watched on tv last night about Freud. What is passion anyway, is everyone's interpretation of it the same....I don't think so. I do sort of feel that string instruments are capable of evoking more sounds that can stir one's emotions than can the clarinet. To some extent, I feel, clarinet music in general has tended to be written so as to emphasize manual dexterity rather than "soulful" sounds. This is a generalization, of course. In the 1920s it was popular for clarinetists to imitate a horse's braying.....hardly a passionate sound. Whereas, on the other hand, I have never heard a violin attempt such an abomination. Unfretted string instruments can play notes that are between those on clarinet fingerings.just as birds can..and therein I think lies part of the problem with clarinet music and it's passionate character. But....some clarinet playing can make me cry!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TheSouthpaw
Date: 2004-09-16 22:24
Check out Jonathan Cohler's recording of the Brahms sonata - one of BBC Magazine's CD's. If that isn't passion, I don't know what is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-09-17 06:15
BobD,
"playing notes that are between those on clarinet fingerings" means we´re talking splits smaller than a halftone here, and that again means New Music, avantgarde, decidedly non-Brahms music (certain ethnic and advanced jazz´s ways of treaing the cl´s ambitus nonwithstanding): A cl nowadays is able to produce exact 8th-tones, and the sheer numeric combinatory possibilities on the cl make the supposed violin´s advantage here at least very slight, to say nothing of the woodwind´s and in particular the single reed´s abilities of extremely complex timbres and shadings of sound. Not that the total range and its differentiation alone qualifies the instrument´s versatility, but the wider the horizon is as far as technical opportunities go the less inhibited a performer is by her/his tool to realise a work of art. Bartolozzi´s landmark of a book "New Sound for Woodwinds" here has some lines on the comparison violin-clarinet, though there are more recent and advanced investigations in bookform available right now. One must not confuse the categories "differentiation of ambitus" and "expressive versatility", those apply to any and all instruments, the latter hardly quantifiable.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-09-17 13:40
Markus...that's just what I was thinking but didn't know how to say it. I sometimes tend to confuscate the negative.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-18 22:11
Tom J., I think that you really hit the nail on the head with the concept of 'clarinetism.' It is a frequent, and surprisingly unacknowledged, passion killer!
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
