 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: crnichols
Date: 2006-10-09 03:08
There are certain musicians that seem to have an appeal to audiences rather than from their respective musical communities. Among them are (this is by no means comprehensive) James Galway, Richard Stoltzman, Emma Johnson, Reginald Kell, and Benny Goodman. Is it better to have mass appeal or be respected in your respective community? Which do you think defines success? Explain your answer.
Christopher Nichols, D.M.A.
Assistant Professor of Clarinet
University of Delaware
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2006-10-09 04:06
I've thought about this before. And I've come to the realization after meeting so many professional musicians it shouldn't really matter.
If you are a professional musician you have dedicated your life to an art, in our case, the art of playing the clarinet. If you appeal to the masses (as do Stoltzman, Kenny G, Emma Johnson, etc.) then Godspeed.
Honestly, if one pro clarinetist can't respect another for whatever musical reason (I can't speak for personal reasons!) knowing full well that they have also spent their lives perfecting their trade through endless practicing, schooling and the like, then that person is just plan shallow. Stale. Petty, even.
Liking someone's playing is one thing. Respect for that person is quite another.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jack
Date: 2006-10-09 04:36
Christopher,
If I am correct in inferring that you personally do not respect the playing of Stoltzman, Johnson, Kell or Goodman, than I wonder if you simply have a grudge against those that are successfull? I doubt big time that our clarinet community does not respect these musicians. What defines their success: They are artists with a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve and they achieved it by making the requisite sacrifices.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crnichols
Date: 2006-10-09 05:24
Dressed to Kill, actually the Emma Johnson thread was my motive in starting this thread. That thread was going in this direction, and I wanted to have a closer look at it.
Jack, actually I didn't mean to imply that at all, and I'm happy you brought that up. I never want to be thought of in that way, and if you gathered that from my initial posting, some others probably would as well. I shall clarify. I mentioned those individuals because I've heard some things in the past, either here or in the first person, about them that I thought were inappropriate in some fashion. I respect each of them wholeheartedly for a variety of reasons, and I enjoy, appreciate and benefit from something about their musical contribution. I may not want to approach everything in the same fashion, but why would I? I have my own ideas. Also, I find that these different approaches is what makes listening to different musicians interesting. If everyone played everything exactly the same, I think that would be boring. Your statement is outstanding. "They are artists with a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve and they achieved it by making the requisite sacrifices."
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking forward to reading.
Christopher Nichols, D.M.A.
Assistant Professor of Clarinet
University of Delaware
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-10-09 05:45
I don't know many clarinetists who don't have respect for those clarinetists who are mentioned in the first post. Actually, I don't know even one!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sylvangale
Date: 2006-10-09 07:03
James Galway is a very respectable flutist... but sadly he's put out many not so respected "Greatest Hits" cds featuring flute renderings of popular elevator music.
I think a couple of his latest compilations out, Meditations and Ich war ein Berliner, are wonderful steps towards respectability.
Ich war ein Berliner is even something for the whole musical family as it's not just overtly flute feature works. For clarinets, Karl Leister is clarinetist for Reicha and Danzi quintets.
Ich war ein Berlinger Track List
The quartet has some groovy photos:
( Günter Piesk, James Galway, Lothar Koch, Karl Leister, Gerd Seifert)
Quartet picture 1
Quartet picture 2
Regards,
Stephen
♫ Stephen K.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D
Date: 2006-10-09 13:49
How many people on this board would love to make enough money to live off (and more) from playing?
There are an awful lot of composers in history who died penniless but are now regarded as greats. If we knew what the musicians of the day sounded like then there would probably be the same situation with them. Unfashionable at the time, respected later.
Respect is a matter of fashionable taste in so many cases.
Frankly I'd rather be paid. As I am currently unemployed I have to say that if someone offered me a few quid to reinact the Vanessa Mae wet T-shirt in the sea shoot then I'd do it!
I'm never going to be a good enough player or singer to compete with even the most unfashionable 'popular' musicians so my opinion is pretty worthless. But to make living doing something I love.............would I really care what other people thought..........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2006-10-09 14:03
Wasn't there a cello soloist - a quite good looking young woman - who used to play her cello topless?
Anybody remember her playing? I don't. But on the other hand, memory of her is etched into my synapses.
All that glitters is not . . .well, you get the idea.
b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2006-10-09 14:29
I spend too much time performing, almost every day and night, to think about the recognition factor. I do enjoy seeing my former students and colleagues on jobs, and getting good feedback from them. But it's the audience response and personal satisfaction that makes me feel best.
I've been playing professionally for 40+ years, and still love it. And if I'm recognized and respected, that's nice, if not, I'm still having a ball...! ...!
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-10-09 14:46
Bruno wrote:
> Wasn't there a cello soloist - a quite good looking
> young woman - who used to play her cello topless?
> Anybody remember her playing? I don't.
> But on the other hand, memory of her is
> etched into my synapses
Charlotte Moorman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Moorman
A Google image search will lead you to the requisite pictures...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2006-10-09 14:54
Perhaps this rolls the thread around to an area where I feel a lot of conflict. I am very anxious to get students to listen to a wide variety of artists and to think outside the box, but I don't want them to imitate technical aspects (such as raspiness or vibrato) that will cause them harm as they try to advance through school bands, college auditions, etc.
Right now, the best that I can come up with is that the artist has already paid his/her dues to convention, and is in a position of much greater freedom than the average player.
The students generally don't find this satisfying and neither do I.
Any thoughts?
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-10-09 15:00
I was having a drink once with this extremely talented pianist. His conversation revolved around disrepecting his musical colleagues with joyful abandon. Of a sudden, he pulled up short:
'Garn,' he mused, 'Aren't musicians b!tchy? Are clarinetists like that?'
'No,' I said, 'We all gang up and take the mick out of Emma Johnson'.
And strangely, that won me a good deal of respect in his eyes...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John O'Janpa
Date: 2006-10-09 16:10
It is nice to gain the repect of the "music community", if that's what floats your boat, but it is also nice and often financially rewarding to appeal to mass audiences.
Lawrence Welk and his performers were/are a great example of this. Many of his musicians were top notch players, who undoubtedly were capable of playing music that was technically much more difficult.
Welk's philosophy was "Give the audience what they want."
The show has been on the air for fifty years.
I'm sure he has tried out some players that grumbled all the way to the bank,
but he didn't keep them around very long.
If your goal is to earn a living at playing music, it's hard to ignore "the masses."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2006-10-09 17:25
It all has to do with artistic integrity. You know it and you feel it yourself if you’re selling your soul whether you admit it or not. I couldn’t care less about the clarinet community. What matters is if you can feel honestly proud of your career or not.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2006-10-09 17:36
I remember Pete Fountain from many early Welk shows.
He went from mass appeal to more mass appeal,surely he is an outstanding musican and clarinet player!
Surely he receives "much respect in professional circles."
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2006-10-10 07:10
It all has to do with artistic integrity. You know it and you feel it yourself if you’re selling your soul whether you admit it or not. I couldn’t care less about the clarinet community. What matters is if you can feel honestly proud of your career or not.
Alphie
RIGHT ON!
but then again, the social realm determines your success and future as a musician. if you are terrible and you don't know it, then it might backfire on you. Someone's gotta say it.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2006-10-10 13:25
You can’t be that terrible and still have a successful career of some sort. Take Kenny G, a musician I don’t admire but respect a lot as a musician in the genre he has chosen. The mistake people who hate him do is to see him first as a soprano saxophone player and not as a musician in the popular romantic genre as of many singers. I’m sure that the people who hate Kenny G don’t hate popular singers who sing the same type of music. The problem is that he is doing it on a saxophone and some people feel offended about that and the fact that he’s successful. He’s not the world’s leading saxophone player but for the genre he has chosen he’s doing it very well. Nobody can say that he’s bad in what he has chosen to do and I think he is proud of what he has achieved and to 100% can stand up for his career. He should not listen to the clarinet and saxophone communities.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-10-10 14:21
In my country (the U.S.) we have a saying that "money talks and b_ _ _s_ _ t walks" --- in other words, money brings respect as far as the vast majority of the population is concerned. So someone like Kenneth Gorelick need not care what anyone in the clarinet or sax communities thinks about him, as we are an infinitesimal proportion of the population and we are not the demographic group which has made him a multi-millionaire. The vast majority of the people in this country are musically ignorant, think that Kenny G IS saxophone playing and IS jazz music, and love his music. He has stated many times that he's satisfied with his role as the provider of background music for everyday people going through their everyday lives, so clearly he is not staying up nights having self-esteem anxieties. As for us, perhaps we should ignore musicians such as him and focus our attentions on the less financially-fortunate artists who truly need our support (and might even care about what we think).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2006-10-10 17:42
We used to describe bands as being a "musician's band"....implying that they were doing great stuff that was too "hip" for the general public and only other musicians would enjoy them. (ie:they were not making $$ and were unpopular).
The entertainment industry, being what it is, I have unbelievable respect for any reed player that's making a living from performing, be it Stoltzman or Acker Bilk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-10-10 17:58
This issue is so much more than a single topic. I like to categorize success in theree types: Financial success, Social success (within your own little society of players), and Musical success.
Most often:
Mass Appeal = Financial Success
Peers respect = Social Success
Moving and Accurate performances = Musical Success
What I think pro players should be concerned about:
Carry the message in the music accurately, with respect for the composers and audience, and make a few $$ out of it. That is financial and musical success.
The social success in your own little peers society is quite irrelevant. Your peers are likely to be more critical of your playing, they are also likely more narrow minded. The successful clarinet players that you mentioned are often criticized for their sound or technical abilities. This is, in my opinion, narrow minded and if the message intended in the music is carried across, then peers should learn to recognize it. The mass-appeal player should be proud to be criticized because s/he dares to do something different. In doing that s/he is, in my eyes, a very successful musician.
On the other hand, a bad musical interpretation of the pieces played can and should be heavily criticized. I am among the ones who don't like to hear Bach played like Brahms, I even think that it is *wrong*, not *different* or *interesting*. When the reading of a piece by a player is wrong, there cannot be any musical success in the performance even if the performer received mucho $$ for it.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
