 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-03-16 16:28
Sir Thomas Beecham wrote:
>> The English may not like music -- but they absolutely love the noise it makes. >>
I'd like to suggest that the alternative view of music that Beecham here attributes jokingly to the English is in fact alive and well on this Bulletin Board, and accounts for many disagreements.
Of course, music can be many things, and 'the noise it makes' is an important one of those things.
But it is not the only important thing; and therefore players who are concerned only to produce a sound -- 'their' sound -- that they can 'love' may miss the mark when it comes to music whose priorities are not exhausted by sheer sound quality.
Among conductors, Karajan was plausibly accused of being overly concerned for beauty of orchestral blend at the expense of the clarity of the musical argument; and I suppose that other conductors might face the opposite charge. But an individual player such as a clarinet player can lean too much to one end of the spectrum 'blend/clarity' too.
Mike wrote:
>>... there is a kind of "tension" between one's ability to shape phrases and the use of continuous vibrato. Vibrato obscures the shapes of phrases under the vibrations. It's harder to make subtle dynamic changes with all the "shaking" on top.>>
Extending the second sentence to read:
>> It's harder to make subtle dynamic OR TONAL changes with all the "shaking" on top.>>
...(because vibrato involves tonal as well as dynamic modulation, as does the showing of longer phrase-shapes), Mike's 'tension' can be seen to be one aspect of the 'blend/clarity' spectrum in playing.
An example: I recently gave a recital in Amsterdam in the course of which I played both the Saint-Saens sonata and the Brahms F minor sonata. The recital was largely aimed at students, and in the bar afterwards one of them said, "I was surprised at the sound you made in the second half of the Saint-Saens third movement. The high notes were quite small and weak -- and yet you showed that you could make a full, resonant sound in that register when you played the Brahms."
In order to hear that 'small and weak' sound as intentional, you had to be in the position of being able to imagine that the sound of a clarinet could be something chosen by a performer to fulfil different functions according to context; and that this choice could be a higher priority for the performer than the attempt to 'make their OWN sound'.
Actually, I've always read this movement as an experiment in tone-colour: the chalumeau of the clarinet is something like the first trombone in a low brass ensemble in the first part, and something like a high oboe (or even piccolo) in a high woodwind ensemble in the second part. And because the other parts in those ensembles are played by the piano -- which has very different decay envelopes in those registers -- the clarinet needs to be played quite differently in each case.
That's why several of the posts in the recent BBoard thread with the subject 'Finding 'your' tone' miss the point. Indeed, as was implied by one of the posts in that thread, since you CANNOT DO OTHER than make your 'own' sound, good or bad -- and to a large extent independently of the equipment you use -- you need some other criterion to determine its progress as you develop as a player.
What better criterion than the criterion of fulfilling what is required by the music, according to you?
And, piece by piece, rather than as something that always BELONGS to you?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-03-16 17:33
Tony, points well taken and "making" music is much more than playing the notes at the proper interval but I think that you are well down the continuum of a refined sound pallet and range of dynamics at your control. Many of us are still developing the pallet of sound colors that we will use to paint our musical picture. Like the artists of old we must grind and mix the colorants and vehicles until we produce the color that we want to use in our painting.
One must have the right color (or personal sound) before making the painting which involves using that color, in form and brush stroke technique, to make the picture. The first goal, or perhaps a concurrent goal, is to develop a satisfactory color pallet (above and beyond the primary colors) and then apply the brush stroke technique and form perception to the picture. Yes, there are great pictures using only the primary colors but the technique and form are the outstanding characteristics. More colors require a more sophisticated application of technique, form, and shading. Developing a huge color pallet without the proper technique and form makes a not so good painting as you suggest.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-03-16 18:14
I'll go out on the limb here......clarinet tone should never be "weak". It may be delicate, soft or small but in my mind never weak. Weak points to insecurity and perhaps being insufficiently supported. Weak and timid are never appropriate as they just convey a lack of conviction.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2009-03-16 18:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-03-16 18:30
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> Weak points to insecurity and perhaps being insufficiently supported.>>
Yes, I remember your deep understanding of the concept of support.
AND my own insecurity.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-16 18:31
Maybe that particular student in Amsterdam (assuming they were Dutch) just hasn't got as full a grasp of the English language as Tony has (like the majority of us on here) and used the words 'small and weak' as they couldn't find in their vocabulary or just didn't know a more descriptive and wordy way of putting it and used simple terms, what with English not being their main language.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2009-03-16 18:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2009-03-16 22:17
What kind of "student" would walk up to an international player like Tony and tell him his tone seemed "small and weak" at times?
Maybe the kid's hearing and discretion were "small and weak".
Well, it was in the bar....
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-03-16 23:11
Old Geezer wrote:
> What kind of "student" would walk up to an international player
> like Tony and tell him his tone seemed "small and weak" at
> times?
An honest one?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-16 23:47
Children can be so cruel.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-03-17 01:57
Tony,
Would you recommend working towards an ideal and individual sound that one could then use as a point of departure into other colors, timbres, et cetera? Or would you recommend developing a variety of different tones without being necessarily tied to a "reference" tone?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-03-17 02:13
Regardless if I know nothing of support I still maintain that a "weak " tone is never desirable.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-03-17 02:49
This conversation is intellectual masturbation.
The only criterion for sound for any one individual is...."do you like how it sounds to your ear?"
There are too many good sounds that work. I, myself prefer a sound that I believe to be the Truth. But others will differ.
Vibrato can be used effectively on the clarinet. Not required, but it can work fine.
Perhaps, though being an egghead intellectual, I cannot understand what this thread is about and how it can possibly lead to any fruitful conclusion or the changing of personal opinion.
By the way, here is my Bliss Pastorale that I performed this afternoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khzox9DLlWE&feature=channel_page
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Blinn
Date: 2009-03-17 03:30
I very much enjoyed your rendition of the Pastorale. Lovely playing.
Mike Blinn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2009-03-17 04:10
Dileep:
Your statement:
The only criterion for sound for any one individual is...."do you like how it sounds to your ear?"
assumes music has to sound good, well just like all movies don't need to have a happy ending, music and tone for that matter can be more than just beautiful. Actors loose/gain weight, put all sort of costumes to be in character.
To me, tone is the same, one needs the ability to put it "in character", even if that means sounding ugly.
Tony, argues that one may not necessarily need vibrato to play all (or almost all) characters. More importantly perhaps, he argues that sounding weak intentionally *because of the music* may be something to consider over keeping a nice tone *because it sounds nice*.
Whether these arguments are food for thoughts or intellectual masturbation, is up to the reader.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2009-03-17 07:09
I'm confused.
Why can't a tone be 'weak'?
Why does there always have to be conviction?
Many human emotions don't have 'conviction'
there's no 'conviction' in happiness, just a pure emotion.
Is there anyway who cries strongly with conviction? I always thought that to be something that shows a fragility in us, maybe a 'weakness' perhaps?
Music can be pretty, but if prettiness were m only aim, I think I would be wasting my life doing this. . .
Having all the rest is why music is so appealing.
A question to Arnold:
How many Shostakovich symphonies have you heard, or played? Brahms? They both have strong moments, and very weak moments.
Stravinsky wrote the opening to Rite of Spring specifically so that it was uncomfortable, perhaps he was looking for a weak sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2009-03-17 07:17
Tony wrote:
>> But it is not the only important thing; and therefore players who are concerned only to produce a sound -- 'their' sound -- that they can 'love' may miss the mark when it comes to music whose priorities are not exhausted by sheer sound quality. <<
I think this (and most of your post) is an example of a more general approach I learned. I never intended to learn it, but it just happened from listening actively to all sorts of music. It is basically to be able to seperate objective understanding of music from my taste, what I like, etc. which is subjective.
This allows you to be able to know when you are contributing to the music, or maybe what you do doesn't contribute to the music, and maybe you should choose to play something else. As opposed to just play YOU and think (maybe assume) it's right for the music.
I also think it is fine if someone wants to play something that is not especially good, just because they like it. Sometimes I like to listen to music that I know is not very good, and I simply accept it and it doesn't bother me, because I like it in spite of that.
So it is the same for tone, which is an example of this. Someone can choose to see what tone is best for specific music. Or they can choose THEIR tone and realize it might not the best choice for the specific music.
>> The only criterion for sound for any one individual is...."do you like how it sounds to your ear?" <<
I used to think pretty much like that, until I unintentionally developed my approach (described above). After "living" with both, I prefer my current approach. I think it is ok for others to have the different approch, but usually it sounds like people with the different approach tend to not accept any other approach...... The above quote is simply wrong because of people who don't consider that the only crierion.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2009-03-17 07:49
Tony Pay wrote:
> Actually, I've always read this movement as an experiment in
> tone-colour: the chalumeau of the clarinet is something like
> the first trombone in a low brass ensemble in the first part,
> and something like a high oboe (or even piccolo) in a high
> woodwind ensemble in the second part. And because the other
> parts in those ensembles are played by the piano -- which has
> very different decay envelopes in those registers -- the
> clarinet needs to be played quite differently in each case.
>
My image of this movement is of a Marche Funebre: the first part is the funeral on earth and the drama around it and in the second part - is the funeral from a different point of view : the "spirit" (that's a humoristic point of view, of course). Any way- the spirit in my scenario looks down and thinks that its not so bad to to get rid of earth - I suppose that "your" spirit sounded weak because it prefares the life on earth....:-)
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2009-03-17 09:00
clarnibass wrote: ''Sometimes I like to listen to music that I know is not very good, and I simply accept it and it doesn't bother me, because I like it in spite of that.''
Are there examples of this music you consider to be ''...not very good...''? I must admit I'm a bit baffled by your statement. Surely, if one person or another likes some particular music, then it IS good. What else needs to be understood? The music did something to you by its very existence and your having heard it performed - how can this music possibly be considered to be ''not very good?
Are you inferring perhaps, that at one time you felt guilty about listening to music you considered to be ''not very good"? If I'm correct here, I suspect that your statement is a ''get out of jail'' clause for you own benefit to perhaps justify some purist views to which you may subscribe.
Should you be the arbiter anyway, of music that you ''know is not very good''? What is good, what is not good and what are your criteria?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-03-17 11:09
There is a difference between "technically not very good" (eg hiss and squeak) and "expressively not very good" (dull and boring playing) and "stylistically not very good" (lousy arrangement).
For example, Janis Joplin's voice was, by an Opera singer's standard, technically not very good. Doesn't mean she couldnt convey a lot of expression and style. OTOH some synthesizer migh be technically very good, yet some may find a specific piece lacks expression etc etc.
So, I can enjoy a godawful recording by a technically mediocre player, just because the performer manages to give me goose pimples.
"Good" is not an absolute standard, and it is a very generic adjective.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2009-03-17 14:23
I very carefully listened to your Youtube bit and have to say I found your sound which you call the "truth" rather unpleasant and mawkish, your phrasing disjointed and your musicanship questionable.
The pianist wasn't bad....
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-03-17 14:47
Chris P wrote,
>>Maybe that particular student in Amsterdam (assuming they were Dutch) just hasn't got as full a grasp of the English language as Tony has (like the majority of us on here) and used the words 'small and weak' as they couldn't find in their vocabulary or just didn't know a more descriptive and wordy way of putting it and used simple terms, what with English not being their main language.
>>
I'll bet Chris is right, although we'll probably never know. English is a common second (or third, or eighth...) language among educated people in Amsterdam, where the identical twin of one of my college roommates married and settled down. Often the Dutch speak English so well that it's easy to forget they can make mistakes in vocabulary and syntax.
Or not. Maybe this person spoke quite literally and didn't consider "weak" a negative word at all. Maybe he felt that 'weak" was the perfect tone for that passage. I'm a retired stained glass designer-builder. Among graphic artists and artisans, calling a design or a finished work "pretty" or, worse, "very pretty," is an insult on the level of spitting in the artist's face. For a clarinet player to restrict the tone pallette to prettiness or even to the infamous "full, round, dark tone" would not serve composers well at all.
Nonetheless, when somebody whose native language isn't ours says something that sounds that rude or startling, it's a good idea to ask questions and get a clarification. If indeed there's a linguistic misunderstanding, the other party probably will thank you, as I profusely thanked my aunt who lived in Mexico, when she choked on my Spanish vocabulary in 1965 and warned me that in Mazatlán, people only used the word "camisera" (literally, chambermaid, as in cleaning lady) as the euphemism for room-service prostitute! The worst part of my mistake was that I spoke Spanish fluently enough that someone might have assumed I knew exactly what I was implying about my aunt's beloved employee. Needless to say I immediately eliminated that word from my Mazatlecan vocabulary....
I've never heard Tony play Saint-Saens, but I've heard him play. Never mind weak or pretty or dark tone or whatever -- he sounded right.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2009-03-17 14:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-03-17 15:12
Lelia Loban wrote:
> I've never heard Tony play Saint-Saens, but I've heard him
> play. Never mind weak or pretty or dark tone or whatever -- he
> sounded right.
But - maybe he was weak at some point. Maybe on purpose. Maybe not (for many different reasons - for all we know, it could have been the seat the student was sitting in). In any case, if the statement was true and not some negative statement just to "sound" informed (we already have enough "negative because I want to sound like I know something" here), it's a great starting point for a discussion with a performer/teacher:
"I thought you sounded weak in that phrase"
"What do you mean, weak?"
"Thin - I couldn't hear it clearly, and the piano was overwhelming"
"Do you think it was out of place in the context of things"
"Yes, I understood the meaning and flow behind the previous and following phrases to be ..."
And we're off to the races!
The statement Tony describes the student making was clearly in context and not negative, to boot.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-03-17 16:02
Lelia wrote, in part:
>> ....when somebody whose native language isn't ours says something that sounds that rude or startling, it's a good idea to ask questions and get a clarification.>>
Yes, I think that's right.
I need to clear up the business about the student. (And after all, he might be reading this.) What he said occurred in a conversation about playing in general in which he showed himself to be very perceptive, not only of music in general but of his own attitudes. His reaction to the 'high' Saint-Saens passage did indeed include (I seem to remember) the word 'weak'. However, it didn't have the status of an opinion, but rather the status of the beginning of an exploration of the subject with me -- which, Lelia will be pleased to hear, we went on to make.
The point of including the story in my original post was to say that you can hear a piece of clarinet playing in two ways (crudely speaking). You can hear it as a sample of the player's sound; or you can hear it as a part of what the piece is 'doing' at that point.
I was hearing my playing at that point as one voice among three (and sometimes more) other voices; and so the sort of attack and diminuendo I was producing was designed to match the piano, whilst being a tiny bit more sustained than the piano, in order to help the phrase-connection of the whole ensemble. Also, I was after a 'pale' sound -- again, like the high register Steinway.
(The idea was to highlight the contrast with the more sustained sound of the lower register of the piano in the first part of the movement -- where of course, I also was playing with less attack, and a more sostenuto style. As Sarah Elbaz says, there are 'two worlds' with the same, yet very different music.)
The student, more conditioned to listen to the clarinet 'sound' in order to judge it 'good' or 'bad' in general terms, was initially hearing it the first way; but appreciated the point in discussion, and (hopefully) now has a more balanced view available to him, in which 'beauty of sound' is not the only determining factor in how he plays.
The whole subject was addressed in various ways in the classes on the previous days.
Another example involved the playing of the Schumann Romances for oboe, but on the clarinet, which I have always felt to be an interesting problem. The foreword to the Henle edition of these pieces reads:
Quote:
In a letter of 19 November 1850 (now in the Biblioteka Jagiellonska, Krakow), the publisher Simrock acknowledged receipt of the manuscript for the Romances, and at the same time asked whether Schumann "would be in agreement if we were to print on the title page: for oboe and piano and on page three: for clarinet and piano, since it is not looked upon with favour when several instruments appear on the title page."
Schumann's reply, dated 24 November, is reported in Wolfgang Boettischer's Robert Schumann: Einfhrung in Personlichkeit un Werk (Berlin 1941), although the original letter has been lost:
"If I had originally written the work for clarinet and piano it would have become a completely different piece. I regret not being able to comply with your wishes, but I can do no other."
Nonetheless, Simrock not only published an alternative violin part but an additional part for clarinet as well. We have followed this practice in our edition.
Clara Schumann, on the other hand, mentions only the alternative violin part in her complete edition of Schumann's works, published By Breitkopf and Hrtel under her auspices beginning in 1878. This may well be in accord with her own practice of playing the piece with the violinist Schubert in Leipzig, and perhaps with Wasielewski in Dusseldorf as well.
Now although I have never played these pieces in a concert -- hey, I take what Schumann says seriously! -- I have engaged with the idea of playing it in such a way that I fondly imagine he might have said, well, OK, if you play it LIKE THAT then I don't mind.
What would that be like?
Well, how the oboe naturally behaves as it goes higher in its range is different from how the clarinet naturally behaves as it goes higher -- and the same with 'higher' replaced by 'lower'. Therefore I BEGIN by making sure that my sound in the high passages is small and focused, and that in the lower passages sufficiently rich and present. And then I try to imagine what the oboe is 'good at' doing, and make sure that I am 'good' in the same way on the clarinet.
All that is interesting instrumental discipline, not only for me, but for a student, who is generally -- though not always:-) -- less expert at doing it. And if you take seriously what Schumann says, then you can be sure that you are at any rate on the right track.
But -- once in Spain I had an excellent student who responded well to all these demands, and produced what I thought an excellent performance in the final concert.
One of the other clarinet teachers shook his head. "Far too tight a sound in the upper register," was his judgement -- a classic 'first way' response.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-17 16:33
But a 'tight sound' can also be interpreted or misinterpreted in a multitude of ways (both positive and negative), as can many other monosyllabic descriptions.
You can have a 'nice, tight sound' (very precise, full and compact) or use 'tight' to mean thin, pinched or stifled. The problem with the English language is there are too many words that can all mean a single thing, and single words that mean a variety of things all depending on the context.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-03-17 16:50
Chris P wrote:
>> But a 'tight sound' can also be interpreted or misinterpreted in a multitude of ways (both positive and negative), as can many other monosyllabic descriptions.>>
How does the 'but' in that do any work? What I mean is -- given that his was a negative comment, as I made clear -- how does what you write after the 'but' affect my assertion that the teacher in question was judging, not from the musical effect, but from his own general preferences in clarinet sound?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-17 16:52
I use the word 'but' because I use the word 'but' - no specific reason other than that.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-17 18:47
I think the broader point Tony is making is that the technical aspects of our playing should always be informed by the music.
Developing one's technical skills (including developing "a tone") in a vacuum (outside of any musical context), then only tackling the task of attempting to make music after one has developed this repertoire of isolated skills is backwards, because the technical demands (including tone) the music makes of us will differ from piece to piece, and from passage to passage.
In fact, when you view technical aspects of playing in isolation like this, it can actually interfere with your musical perception. The reason why the Dutch kid said what he did was that he was basing his perception of what was good music based on conformity to an external tone standard (no doubt the kid's playing was judged by similar standards by his teacher(s)). When Tony violated that standard by varying his tone, the kid was perceptive enough to figure out that what Tony did must have been intentional, even though it didn't comport with the kid's criteria for good playing. That's why he said something about it.
A more natural approach to playing the clarinet is to learn how to think about and understand the music *first*, so that you understand what the music is supposed to do and can form a good mental image of the music, then develop the technical aspects of playing to make the music sound that way. In other words, the skills you need to play the instrument well are 1.) a good ability to comprehend the music and form a mental image of it (a fancy name for this is "audiation") and 2.) a general ability to translate that mental image into sound using the instrument. In this way, YOU can adapt to the music and its demands. The other way around, you often end up adapting the music to you, which isn't nearly as effective.
To put it succinctly, the real "fundamentals" of clarinet playing aren't technical, they're mental. You develop the technical side of playing as needed to accomplish whatever is demanded by the music, but figuring out what the music asks of you is the essential first step.
Not to say that practicing scales and arpeggios and other exercises are a waste of time--they're not. But you really can't expect to "prefabricate" all aspects of your playing that way, especially things like tone color, because it can make your playing sound too artificial and bland. We've all heard clarinetists who sound like this.
That's also not to discount Ed's advice in that other thread not to put too much stock in what the guy sitting next to you says about your tone and that it's you, the conductor, and the audience that count (I think I'd also add the composer to that list)--as I said in that thread, I liked what he had to say about that. I think you SHOULD produce tone colors you want to hear, but you should want to hear them because they sound RIGHT to you in the musical context, not simply because you like them in isolation. Not to say that you should never try to make changes to your setup or embouchure that affect the way you play across the board, either, but what you don't want to do is to think of tone color as a static quality of one's playing--it should be thought of as a "degree of freedom" in one's playing that can be varied and manipulated for expressive effect just like dynamics, articulation, etc.
With apologies to the 2nd Viennese School (because I'm purposely misusing their term), there's a little bit of "Klangfarbenmelodie" (in the literal sense of the word) in all music, even in a single line played by a single instrument, if you care to look for it. But you have to think about music in those terms to convey that musical dimension to the listener.
Post Edited (2009-03-17 18:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-03-17 23:16
All this is fine theoretically. In the end however we don't have rebuttal time after a concert. If you sound thin and weak in a passage even if you are doing so intentionally, it has to pass the ear test.. If the general perception of an audience is thinness and weakness in a passage then you lose the battle.
How far can you go? If thinness is desirable for a dieting person it isn't for a clarinetist's tone. Likewise weakness of tone is a negative. If we can justify these two qualities then let's go ahead with stretching the parameters of "in tune" and "in time". Let's also put some spit on the reed to give the tone some extra angst once in awhile. I suppose all these work if you can sell them to the audience.
Marcellus imo didn't have a chameleon like tone... He just sounded great and consistent. No huge variations in tone from register to register. In addition he was subservient to the composer and not to his own clarinet tone. My impression is that all this talk of the miriad of tonal qualities in a clarinet is overdone. It is like lateral thinking or "thinking outside the box". It is only desirable two percent of the time.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-18 02:16
Arnoldstang wrote:
> Marcellus imo didn't have a chameleon like tone... He just
> sounded great and consistent. No huge variations in tone from
> register to register. In addition he was subservient to the
> composer and not to his own clarinet tone. My impression is
> that all this talk of the miriad of tonal qualities in a
> clarinet is overdone. It is like lateral thinking or "thinking
> outside the box". It is only desirable two percent of the
> time.
Maybe Marcellus would have agreed with you--I don't know. But there are plenty of other well-respected American clarinetists/teachers out there who we know do or did care about using different tone colors because they either said as much at one time or another or you can clearly hear it in their playing: Harold Wright (who was famous for being a "tonal chameleon"), David Shifrin, David Pino (who wrote a section in his book about this topic that is so on point, it could have been written by Tony), Frank Kowalsky, Bernard Portnoy, Richard Stoltzman, and the list goes on.... Clearly if that was Marcellus's point of view, it was not universally shared by his peers.
But honestly, I can't even imagine trying to play something like Debussy's Premiere Rhapsodie with little or no tonal variation a la the Marcellus Mozart recording. After all, isn't color what French impressionist music is all about? Surely even Marcellus realized that! (Frankly, I'm not convinced that Marcellus was just a "one tone" guy, either, even if many of his imitators are. Certainly I'm not convinced of it solely on the basis of his one and only solo recording.)
Incidentally, Portnoy even bothered to write an article about this:
http://www.clarinet.org/journal/anthology/1956-04-Portnoy.asp
Post Edited (2009-03-18 03:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-03-18 12:47
But succinctly speaking, is Tony implying there is something wrong with HERBERT VON KARAJAN ????!!!?????
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-03-18 13:51
Surely it is right to vary ones approach, including sound/tone, according to a range of factors in the situation. These might include the type of piece (style, historical period, tempo etc), the characteristics of your particular instrument (e.g clarinet instead of oboe in the Schumann mentioned above) and of your particular clarinet, the nature of the ensemble one is playing in (e.g with piano? in a clarinet quintet with strings?, in a full symphony orchestra? etc) and the nature of the scoring (as in the two sections in the Saint-Saens with which we originally started).
To take another example, in the Stravinsky three pieces, the first has a very low tessitura and is mostly quite slow and ponderous and quite quiet. The second is rather faster and (from memory, I think) all in the upper register. Would one expect exactly the same sound/tone in both? For the third (which, perhaps significantly, is, of course, on the other clarinet) it's getting close to jazz and, I'm sure readers will agree, yet another sound could be justified.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-18 17:00
Paul Aviles wrote:
<<But succinctly speaking, is Tony implying there is something wrong with HERBERT VON KARAJAN ????!!!?????>>
I think what he's talking about is something along the lines of the difference between the Philadelphia Orchestra under Stokowski and Ormandy and Philadelphia under Eschenbach.
Stokowski and Ormandy created/maintained the lush, romantic "Philadelphia sound" the orchestra became famous for in their recordings. Eschenbach tends to favor more clarity and a little more "edge."
In Houston (also a former haunt of Stokowski--and, for that matter, Beecham, too), we were sad to see Eschenbach go. He was well loved by the public and by the members of the orchestra, too.
In Philadelphia, according to accounts, Eschenbach was not nearly as well received by the public or by the musicians.
Doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with Eschenbach--just a difference in style/approach.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2009-03-20 15:10
Jazz sax players have been varying their sounds to fit the music from the beginning...from breathy subtones to razor sharp edge.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-20 16:29
FrankM wrote:
> Jazz sax players have been varying their sounds to fit the
> music from the beginning...from breathy subtones to razor sharp
> edge.
Good point! That reminds me...isn't that the whole reason why Brahms wrote "sotto voce" in his Sonata #2? That's his way of asking for subtone, is it not? (This is not just a rhetorical question, btw.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-03-20 16:39
Yes they have but the variation in clarinet tone for classical music is small in comparison. Jazz sounds can utilize growls, spit in the tone, air noise, which can all be very effective. My point is that Stanley Drucker sounds like Drucker and Phil Woods sounds like Phil Woods. I guess both of these individuals could claim they have a wide scope on tonal colours but in the end they really stay within their own personal sound parameters.
In my estimation the teachers that make these assertions about incredible tonal variation are overstating the case in order to set the bar high for students.
Going back to the original post I really don't see anything brilliant about playing a thin weak high note on the clarinet. You can justify it all you want but the upper register is already biased towards thinness. I would be more impressed with a soft, full high register or perhaps even a low note that isn't "tubby".
Regarding Debussy on the clarinet, what tonal approach would one take and how would you achieve it?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-21 05:47
Arnoldstang wrote:
> In my estimation the teachers that make these assertions
> about incredible tonal variation are overstating the case in
> order to set the bar high for students.
I think you're coming at this from a different angle than I am, which is why we're not on the same page. This is not about setting a bar with regard to tonal variation; it's not about *how much* tonal variation a player uses, it's about whether they are thinking about tone color as variable quality of one's playing at all.
You're always going to have a personal set of qualities to your sound that are yours. Nobody's disputing that. And it's also true that some players have more appealing "personal sounds" than others--I don't think anybody disputes that either.
The distinction that I am trying to make (which I think is the same as the point Tony's making) is that those things that are *truly* unique to each of us in terms of sound are those things that we have no real control over. Those things that we can change or control are just that--variable. They can be adapted to fit the musical context.
When somebody talks about doing things to model "their sound" off of a recording of someone else, the assumption is that every player can possess only one sound that they use all the time. Yet if it is possible to model one's "personal sound" off of another player--in other words, change one's sound to fit a certain model, then the premise that you can possess only one sound is not really true--any tonal concept you are capable of achieving is "a sound" you possess in your palette of tone colors.
So the idea of *creating* a single personal sound is really nothing more than making a *decision* to limit one's playing to one particular tone color out of the array of possibilities you have at your disposal. If you have good musical sense and good taste, it makes no sense to me to arbitrarily limit one's artistic options in this way. That's the key--if you have good musical sense, you can identify what kind of color the music suggests and adapt your sound to fit the music. That doesn't mean you have to make exaggerated tonal changes or that there is a certain level of tonal contrast that is the gold standard. What it means is that you view tone color as something you can use to create musical interest, just as you do dynamics, accents, and articulation. What I think is most important is not how much you vary the tone color, but rather, that you think of tone color as an expressive device at all. In much classical music, subtle tone changes are what are called for. Yet, if you aren't thinking in terms of tone color at all, you won't even be able to use subtle tone changes as an expressive device.
> Regarding Debussy on the clarinet, what tonal approach would
> one take and how would you achieve it?
Well, there's more than one way to do it. Here's what I think, for what it's worth. I think the very beginning calls for a soft, sweet semi-resonant tone (resonant enough not to sound airy, but not so resonant as to have a pronounced ring to it); the tone should sound distant, not fuzzy. Later sections that are at slightly higher dynamic levels seem to suggest a more resonant, woodier tone, albeit with some warmth to it. Certain effects (such as the trills and some of the rapid runs) call for a transition into a bright, brilliant tone. You can achieve these effects by adjusting the size/configureation of your oral cavity, the position and state of relaxation/tension of your tongue, and lip and jaw pressure. In summary, there seem to be two spectra of tonal variation at play--softness vs. roundness and mellowness vs. brilliance. Again, this is my take on it based on my own impressions of the work--someone else might have a different, more informed opinion than I do. It's also quite difficult to express these ideas adequately in words.
The trick is to know what you want it to sound like and then figure out how to translate that concept into real sound with the instrument. No one can explicitly instruct you in all aspects of this task. It necessarily takes some experimentation for you to develop your own experience, and, consequently, an ability to do this.
I would not look at this as a "raising the bar" sort of thing, though. It's more along the lines of adopting a point of view than an external standard of performance.
Post Edited (2009-03-23 15:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-03-21 14:46
We're on the same page now....just a few paragraphs off. Thanks.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2009-03-22 15:04
"I'll go out on the limb here......clarinet tone should never be "weak". It may be delicate, soft or small but in my mind never weak. Weak points to insecurity and perhaps being insufficiently supported. Weak and timid are never appropriate as they just convey a lack of conviction."
It depends on the musical context. In my contemporary ensemble we play a piece called Introduzione alla Oscuro by Salvatore Sciarrino. In the piece we are musically depicting a man dying. He is sitting in front of a record player, listening to a record, reliving certain moments of his life as he drifts in and out of consciousness. We depict his heartbeat, his varying breathing, his kaleidoscopic emotions and his fleeting memories as he approaches death.
The clarinet is playing at the moment of his death.
I suggest this is not the time for "sufficiently supported air" but for mirroring the weakness of the man as he dies.
In this case weak and timid *are* appropriate for they help create the atmosphere the other musicians are creating - a sense of frailty, dimness and incapacity.
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-03-22 18:29
Simon wrote:
>> It depends on the musical context.>>
Yes, I've played the Sciarrino piece too, and what you say is right.
However, my use of the word 'weak' in the opening post of this thread has been taken far too literally. In the passage in question, I was simply matching the piano sound. I wasn't creating an atmosphere of 'weakness', as is required in the Sciarrino.
Mike wrote:
>> What I think is most important is not how much you vary the tone color, but rather, that you think of tone color as an expressive device at all. In much classical music, subtle tone changes are what are called for. Yet, if you aren't thinking in terms of tone color at all, you won't even be able to use subtle tone changes as an expressive device.>>
As Mike says, the most common use of tone-colour variation is very subtle; you could say it comes about because what characterises excellent playing, at least in tonal music, is the control of the PRONUNCIATION of the notes that comprise phrases.
For an example in speech, think of how you say the syllables of the word itself: 'pronunciation'.
There's a variation, not only of dynamic, but of tone-colour too. It's as though some syllables are more resonant than others.
So, saying the word involves a highlighting of syllables, following the model: 'pronUnciAtion' -- with the 'A' a little more than the 'U' -- even though the highlighting may be done in different ways.
In music: one criticism of Dileep Gangolli's performance of the Bliss Pastoral would be that he too often fails to understand the pronunciation of the solo line.
So, for example, when the harmony requires him to phrase a triplet following the model of the word 'tenderly', he sometimes allows himself (or his instrument) wrongly to foreground the 'ly'. This sort of mistake compromises his ability to use larger-scale structures to generate affect.
Hearing where one's playing 'goes wrong' in this way is almost always a matter of instinctive correction; but if you listen to good players on any instrument -- even ones who seem to have pretty much 'the same sound' throughout -- you can become more sensitive to how they use it.
As I say, it's one of the most important facets of excellent playing.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2009-03-22 20:38
Good source, but slow going, "Acoustical Aspects of Woodwind Instruments", by Cornelis Nederveen. Also, "Vibration and Sound", by Morse. The entire system is exceedingly complex, but it also allows for the diversity and expression of the fantastic virtuosity of performers.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2009-03-22 21:40
It is an interesting thread, and it seems to me that much of the debate comes to a simple question: Are you listening to music or are you listening to the clarinet? I find that an incredible number of performers, on any instrument, have a tendency to listen to an instrument and what it is doing based on their assumption of what that instrument is supposed to do. They listen to the clarinet in a symphony instead of listening to the orchestra. They listen to performances, rather than music. If you read most criticsism in newspapers etc. of music, they rarely talk about the piece. There are statements such as, "the third movement was a bit slow" but this, unfortunately means absolutely nothing. Too slow for what? Is it too slow for the piece or slow compared to the critics favorite recording? "The sound was thin." Thin for what? Thin for the piece of music or thin according to that listeners idea of what a clarinet is "supposed" to sound like. There is no ideal. Two players with very different sounds could play the same piece effectively, and not very much alike. The question is not is the sound weak? but rather does the sound work in the musical performance? "The clarinet should never sound thin or weak" is an absurd idea, I think. It should never sound too thin or two weak for what the MUSIC demands, nor should it sound too dark, too full, or too strong.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-03-23 17:50
My persistent attack on the word "weak" was in reference to standard repertoire. I don't believe it is an absurd viewpoint. Perhaps you could even condone a weak argument as desirable in a debate but it really is stretching the point I think. If you want to depict frailty and dying in a clarinet tone go ahead a produce a pathetic tone and even use nannygoat vibrato as it might be suitable but this is very, very seldom called for in classical clarinet playing or music making.
In earlier posts on Woody Allen's playing we see how even in this genre there is a general dislike for frailty in tone. It does however point out as Bubalooy says that we isolate things in performance that should be taken as part of the whole and not put under a microscope to examine.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-23 20:12
Arnoldstang wrote:
> Perhaps you could even condone a weak argument as
> desirable in a debate but it really is stretching the point I
> think.
This a different use of the word altogether.
"Weak" in the context of an argument refers the argument's lack of ability to convince or persuade--i.e., weak as "less able."
"Weak," in the context Tony and Simon are using the term, refers to the character of the sound as being less intense or less energetic--i.e., weak as "less energetic."
"Less energetic" does not mean devoid of good musical taste, however. Neither does it mean playing without focus, out-of-tune, or with no control.
Woody Allen lacks focus in his sound, doesn't seem to have a good grasp of jazz phrasing/articulation, and exhibits a lack of control over the instrument. In that sense, his playing is "weak" in that it exhibits a lack of ability. He's probably actually incapable of producing the sort of "weak" sound Tony and Simon are talking about (which is small, quiet, and lacking in intensity, but still musically appropriate) because of that. For one thing, Woody appears to lack the breath control to play anything at dynamic too much below about a mezzo-forte. To make a long story short, Woody Allen is the other kind of weak, not what we're talking about here.
Getting back to standard repertoire. I look at the first half of the 3rd mvt. from the Saint-Saens Sonata as being a sort of a march to the dungeon. The second half starts is like the sad little voice of the prisoner once he's been left by himself in the darkness of his cell. The character of the music is more of a "weak and pathetic" feel, but it still has to have a sort of spiritual beauty to it--it's tired and weak, but not lacking in tonal focus or musicality of line. Antonio Saiote (who's on the recording of this piece I own) plays this with vibrato, but not with "nanny-goat" vibrato--that would spoil the effect. As for me, I wouldn't use vibrato at all, but that's really just because I don't think I need it and generally don't use it--in fact, I think it's easier to sound "spiritual" without vibrato. Gregorian chant, which is sung without vibrato, is a good example of this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2009-03-24 19:08
Karajan in Bruckner and Brahms is pretty specail..I wonder if anyone here conducts this music from memory...? I remember seeing Karajan conduct Bruckner 5 live in concert and can say it was pretty special. I was also amazed that the Berlin Phil blended so nicely..oh well.
David Dow
Post Edited (2009-03-24 19:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
