 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-04-13 21:50
The contestants: Larry Combs vs. Stanley Drucker
The contest: Brahms for Piano and Clarinet
The Winner--To me, Drucker clearly comes out ahead in terms of beauty and clarity of tone and intonation. Also, the Clarinet Quintet as performed by Drucker is sublime. What do others think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyso_clarinetist
Date: 2003-04-14 01:01
wjk wrote:
> The contestants: Larry Combs vs. Stanley Drucker
> The contest: Brahms for Piano and Clarinet
> The Winner--To me, Drucker clearly comes out ahead in terms of
> beauty and clarity of tone and intonation. Also, the Clarinet
> Quintet as performed by Drucker is sublime. What do others
> think?
I am not sure exactly of the recordings you speak of but of hearing them both in person and in many symphony recordings and Larry almost everyday of my clarinet life though his amazing recordings and in orchestra hall, I don't see this as any contest. Larry is an absolutely fantastic clarinetist and I don't see many others that can come close to his level of consistency and mastery. I am not going to go things that I don't agree with in Drucker’s playing (if he really even means to sound the way he does) but larry is what a master clarinetist should sound like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: R13A
Date: 2003-04-14 01:18
AHA, HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
I guess it depends on which Brahms for clarinet and
piano .........# 1 or 2 ?????
no generalizations here
regards
dennis
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aussie Nick
Date: 2003-04-14 06:42
"....but larry is what a master clarinetist should sound like."
Before you go generalising like that, you might want to consider that many players would not share that view... I'm not going to get into a heated discussion though as it won't get us anywhere.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-04-14 11:52
There is nothing worse than comparing apples and oranges....
both are incredible artists of the first rank
both have very different concepts of tone which make them individuals rather than contestants...
for many years I never shared my admiration of Gervase dePeyer with players because so many people knock him....yet his Brahms Quintet with the Melos ensemble is awesome!
This kind of circular arguing is not really relevant to learning, we should admire individuals for their individuality not what we think is better in a subjective case like this.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-04-14 12:48
cyso_clarinetist wrote: "...but larry is what a master clarinetist should sound like..."
This has to be one of the most useless proclamations posted here in recent memory.
I never realized that there was a specific sound one must acquire to be a "master clarinetist" (your words)
Let's just pretend that we never read such nonsense...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-04-14 13:18
HAT...I totally agree.
What bothers me is the ridiculous blanket adoration (and condemnation) of one player over another by people (as you rightly pointed out) who haven't the slightest idea what it takes to maintain a high profile symphonic postion.
Sure, one can have a favorite artist, but the notion of x is "better" than y is a comparison that should be left to the schoolyard recess crowd, and should not be dignified here...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-04-14 13:57
The way I worded the thread "the contestants, the contest...." should make it apparent that there was some component of "tongue in cheek" here. I essentially wanted to get a discussion going as I enjoy the varying opinions offered. I love the suggestions offered re: various recordings and artists. Obviously, both artists are superb in their own ways, and we are all free to offer our opinions, professional and non-professional!
Post Edited (2003-04-14 16:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-04-14 14:26
I agree with Hat and GBK in full....sadly this is one of the problems which confronts learning and thinking openly about music. Great playing is great playing, and as musicians we have to be open to different interpetations and playing styles.
Tone is also another hot topic which alot of mindless thinking can ruin any clear insightful discussion about .
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vic
Date: 2003-04-14 14:55
David Dow, GBK and others are absolutely correct. It's the same as comparing Van Gogh to Monet, Benny Goodman to Artie Shaw, or Scott Adams to Gary Larson. I prefer Monet, Shaw, and Larson, which takes nothing away from the genius of Goodman, Adams, or Van Gogh. I prefer Combs over Drucker myself, but they're both superlative artists.
Now - I wonder if I'm the first person to ever combine Gary Larson and Benny Goodman in the same sentence.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2003-04-14 15:36
Pomposo or what!?!
Not only was it very evident from the natue of his posting that wjk was not trying to be too serious, but wanted to stimulate discussion re relative merits of players, but it seems obvious that he was refering to preferences rather than to absolute standards of proficiency as such. Since when, DD, has expressing a subjective opinion been such a sin? And how can your view of the acceptability or otherwise of that be held up as a shining principle when you did not even have the nerve to confess to liking the playing of de Peyer? If you cannot even express a positive opinion, seems the value system adopted has something wrong in it somewhere.
And that old chestnut about being unqualified to express a negative opinion until and unless you can do the thing as well yourself ......... well on that basis most music critics are charlatans (which I know is what many professional musicians like to think, poor souls). Karajan was often criticised just as he was often praised, and in neither case by people who were provenly as good at conducting as him. Was that out of order?
Personally I can acknowledge that de Peyer was a great technique and did not do things by halves musically as well. He probably has polarized opinion, and that may signify something to his credit (such musicians rarely bore all of us, even if they only entertain half of us). But for my part I land on the negative side of that opinion divide. I do not like his playing. But I know of people that do not like the playing of Alan Hacker, though for my part, I usually do.
Comparing artists is perfectly valid. These are big enough boys to take it on the chin. They do not need a little army of loyalists to defend them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-04-14 15:56
Well this certainly inflamed some passion. It is always going to be a matter of opinion, even when offering well-researched criticism. Rather than throw darts, let's see some folks put up articulate, well thought out and considered analysis of the artists. This will stretch your writing skills as much as your listening skills. Define your terms in a way that your readers can relate to neutralize some of the subjectivity ("sublime" means very different things to different people).
Nothing wrong with scholarly critique and debate. Baseless opinion or criticism doesn't really help the discussion.
And that is my baseless opinion on the matter ;->
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-04-14 17:17
cyso clarinetist spared us with the comment: "I am not going to go things that I don't agree with in Drucker's playing (if he really even means to sound the way he does)...."
Drucker's sound may be unintentional? Such an accident, many would enjoy greatly. Your parenthetical sarcasm is about as ill-founded as your earlier wisecrack re Amati Clarinets.
In case anyone cares (and of course, no one should), Eddie Daniels is my pick as the best clarinet player. But then, so what? Anyway, I've never heard him play any Brahms with piano accompaniment, so my comment doesn't even count in this thread.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2003-04-14 19:20
this is all so cute... Personally, I'm liking David Shifrin for the sake of remaining among the living. I do think, however, that comparing them to anyone else takes away from their own personal uniqueness. Personally i'm not a big fan of Drucker but one can not say his technique is quite masterful. I'm also not a card carrying member of the Larry Combs fan club but once again you cannot deny his ability to be amazingly consistent with beautiful outcomes. I personally would really like to hear chamber music played by Ricardo Morales, Scott Andrews, Steve Barta, et al... some of those players that we love to hear but don't get to enough... Maybe a better comparison would be that on their musical expression of the piece as we as individuals see it but always keeping at the forefront of our minds that disagreements are in fact the spice of life and everyone's opinion, no matter how jaded it might seem to some, is still a valid one...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2003-04-14 21:51
"I am not going to go things that I don't agree with in Drucker’s playing"
Oh boy, I bet Stanley is losing sleep worrying what you think!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2003-04-14 22:19
Why not give our opinions on who we think is better? We do it all the time in other areas. Baseball we know who can hit and who "stinks". We know who's a good pitcher and who "can't throw for his life". In football we know what team is wonderful and what team "sucks". While I agree that it's not correct to downplay someone, we all do it in other areas of our life and I see no reason to get so upset about doing it here.
So someone doesn't think a certain clarinet player is great? No harm in their opinion. And if you disagree, then so be it. I have heard things on this board that I disagree with. However whether I choose to rebuttle or not is up to me, and I personally just keep my opinions to myself.
Obviously there are many others who think differently in order for Drucker to stay on top like he has, but what's wrong about someone disagreeing? I've never heard either of these two people, so I can't offer my opinion. But I can't think EVERYONE is great. I'm bound to form an opinion at some point.
While I can understand someone getting mad for reading something like that, it's only because you yourself have a different opinion. You all responded because you didn't agree that Drucker's sound was unpleasant nor did you completely agree that Larry Combs was what a "masterful clarinetist" should sound like. I mean, some people might say that I have a masterful sound (very few people, but someone might say that). Does that mean that you are not going to allow someone to disagree and share their opinion that I don't?
While you may not write something like that, I find no harm in this. Freedom of speech and whatnot. And it's a harmless opinion. Perhaps it would have been better if he had written "I think" before his comments instead of stating them as a fact, but if he thinks that strongly that to him it IS a fact, so be it.
I do agree however that you shouldn't go on comparing apples and oranges if you haven't tasted either. So until I hear both these recordings, I won't offer which one I think is better, but I know I'll end up picking a favorite, and when I do, I'll stand by it.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-04-15 13:20
Just to add some historical insight to this discussion
Drucker has played for an orchestra in one chair for almost 55 year....
he has flawless technique and a very exacting approach to all music he plays
he also has an ability to change or alter his tone depending on the music...
this is something alot of players don't do(I have heard him sound incredibly different from one piece to the nextie.Brahms and Ravel)
Combs has a Germanic sound, while Drucker has defintely a lighter concept of sound
Combs plays on German instruments as well and plays in one of America's most German sounding orchestras! (by that deep brass and dark wind section tone)
Combs has one of the nicest pure legatos in the business
combs is also open to jazz and can play jazz
The facts are you have two very different animals who work in the same profession
As for tonal concepts one would really have to go far to find fault with each.
No one is a machine or plays perfectly, remeber how difficult a part in Stravinsky can be and it might be easy to come up with a fault in any section of any great orchestra depending on the good/bad day scenario which can happen anywhere/time.
Larry Combs has a very refined sound and technique and is certainly closer to to the Marcellus idea of playing, yet he is very different than Mr. Marcellus.
Drucker is certainly closer to the older McLane and Wright school by virtue of his tone and technique.
They are both moster players./
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
