 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 1999-11-22 02:35
Rex --
I always enjoy your postings, and some of your older postings suggest that you may be able to answer a riddle for me and, I trust, for many other American players.
As you are no doubt aware, the overwhelming American preference in artist clarinets is for small bore clarinets (no more than ~14.6 mm or ~0.575") regardless of maker.
Conventional wisdom over here is that larger bore clarinets (anything over ~14.7 mm or ~0.580") suffer from incurable intonation deficiencies so that their proper use is limited to jazz or pop music where precise intonation is not as critical as in orchestral playing.
I read somewhere that the preference of the top British players of the past (Kell, Brymer et al.) was for the top of the line Boosey & Hawkes clarinets. Although they were no doubt hand picked and custom regulated, these clarinets were reputedly very large bore, possible as large as 15.2 mm or 0.600".
I find it impossible to believe that these players surreptitiously switched to smaller bore clarinets for their recording sessions. And yet my recordings of British clarinetists from the present generation all the way back to Kell and Draper, both solo and orchestral, demonstrate impeccable intonation.
Are we sometimes provincial Americans missing something here? Your comments from across the pond will be most appreciated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-11-22 03:17
John Scorgie wrote:
-------------------------------
Rex --
I always enjoy your postings, and some of your older postings suggest that you may be able to answer a riddle for me and, I trust, for many other American players.
As you are no doubt aware, the overwhelming American preference in artist clarinets is for small bore clarinets (no more than ~14.6 mm or ~0.575") regardless of maker.
Conventional wisdom over here is that larger bore clarinets (anything over ~14.7 mm or ~0.580") suffer from incurable intonation deficiencies so that their proper use is limited to jazz or pop music where precise intonation is not as critical as in orchestral playing.
I read somewhere that the preference of the top British players of the past (Kell, Brymer et al.) was for the top of the line Boosey & Hawkes clarinets. Although they were no doubt hand picked and custom regulated, these clarinets were reputedly very large bore, possible as large as 15.2 mm or 0.600".
I find it impossible to believe that these players surreptitiously switched to smaller bore clarinets for their recording sessions. And yet my recordings of British clarinetists from the present generation all the way back to Kell and Draper, both solo and orchestral, demonstrate impeccable intonation.
Are we sometimes provincial Americans missing something here? Your comments from across the pond will be most appreciated.
-------------------------------
I'd like to throw in some comments if you don't mind. IMHO, what most of us Americans tend to forget is that the player is ultimately responsible for playing in tune. Instead we look to equipment to solve the oddities of intonation. We have the "looking for better mousetrap" syndrome. The professionals that you mention probably could have played in tune on garden hoses. Years of training, listening (and listening and listening) and knowing the characteristics of the equipment are the basic elements to playing in tune.
In our concert band, there are six clarinets on the first clarinet part. Of those six, four play pro level Buffets and two play pro level Leblancs. None of the instruments are anywhere near the same age and model. Yet four of us (2 Leblancs and 2 Buffets) are able to stay in tune with each other despite significant equipment differences. Of the other two, one goes sharp as she goes up and the other goes flat. Yet both play very similar instruments. Where does the major difference then lie? With the players.
This is not to say that one should settle for poor or obsolete equiment. Good equipment, finances permitting for us hobby players, does make the task much easier.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rex Tomkinson
Date: 1999-11-22 15:14
Thank you for the nice comments John. I can only give you my personal viewpoint-and I will try to be fairly brief. You refer, of course, to the Boosey and Hawkes '1010' model; favoured by so many of the top English players, including (as you say)Gervase de Peyer and Jack Brymer. Reginald Kell is often cited as being an exponent of the 1010, but I think his instruments may have been Martels with a bore circa 15mm. (I will stand corrected) The 1010 went out of production in the early 1980's and the largest of them had a bore of 15.3mm! It is worth mentioning that the term '1010' had nothing to do with bore measurement-it related to the original catalogue number and effectionately remains in use.
I think it is fair to say that there is a significant, if dwindling group of ageing 1010 'freaks' over here, prepared to scour the country and follow up any lead in pursuit of a 'good one'-and happy to pay any amount or sacrifice any living relative for it! So much has been said and written in denigration of the 1010. Even writers such as O.Lee Gibson in his excellent book 'Clarinet Acoustics' has some harsh things to say about it. He even suggests that certain top players used instruments that had been made to a 'somewhat smaller size'. He is quite wrong, of course. I am the proud owner of a 1010, made in 1965 and previously owned by Jack Brymer. Some of his recording were made on it. I would be happy for mr O.Lee Gibson (or anyone else) to subject the instrument to the closest scrutiny. They would find it to be (as they say over here) a 'bog standard' 1010.
The fact is that, of the numerous people who have tried my 1010's, not one of them took any heed of mouthpice bore and without exception used there own, smaller mouthpiece to try a few notes, before rejecting the instrument with the comment "It's out of tune." People who say that miss the point. It IS out of tune if played like any other clarinet. It has to be controlled and played in tune. Everyone talks about the drawbacks of the wide bore, but what of the benefits? There are many. The greatest of them (for me) is the tremendous flexibility. It is almost as if they have a built-in pitch control; they allow the player to 'move' the note around and place it more accurately. I also use R13's quite extensively and although I love them, I find that it is more difficult to influence the sound of them. Therein lies the answer to your question John; the old school of English bore players have a seemingly bottomless well of cross-fingerings and other devises with which they tame the instrument with ease. This whole area is a lost art. I do seem to have rambled on-but I would like to end by saying that I am not a dinosaur; I like the modern sound and enjoy listening to a wide cross section of styles, but very few of them really grab me. Put on any Brymer recording (many are now out on CD) and just listen the seamless, vocal beauty of his sound. And while you're at it, see how many intonation problems you can spot. I rest my case. Good luck John, I hope to chat with you again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 1999-11-22 15:27
Rex,
I just posted a question on the Klarinet list; perhaps you can help:
Who was the clarinetists on the 1926 Elgar directing Elgar recordings using the Royal Albert Hall Orchestra? (I listened to the EMI remasterings of the Elgar Variations this weekend on CBC2) As I put it on the Klarinet list - "tone to die for" - solid, not spread, and beautifully shaped & phrased.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 1999-11-23 09:24
Mark
Although I have no certainty on this point, I believe the regular player in the Albert Hall Orchestra was Charles Draper. Elgar would have wanted Draper if he could get him, and was known to specify Draper when possible. I haven't heard the recording, so I have not compared it with the several solo Draper recordings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 1999-11-23 10:42
Rex, I don't know if you are still reading this bit of the board, but I was very interested to read that the 1010 had gone as wide as 15.3 mm. When did it balloon out to this size? I bought a pair of 1010s in 1979. Do you think they might have been this wide? If so that might partly explain the significant difference between the sound and behaviour of these clarinets to a 1955 1010 which I later acquired.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-11-23 12:10
Graham Elliott wrote:
-------------------------------
Although I have no certainty on this point, I believe the regular player in the Albert Hall Orchestra was Charles Draper. Elgar would have wanted Draper if he could get him, and was known to specify Draper when possible. I haven't heard the recording, so I have not compared it with the several solo Draper recordings.
--------
Micael Bryant believes it was Draper on the recording. All I can say is that if it is Draper, I'm going to have to find more recordings of him. Whoever was playing corresponds to my mental picture of what a clarinet should sound like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 1999-11-23 15:04
I will undertake to provide a list of the CD recordings of which I am aware which include Charles Draper, and I can be even more boring/sad by listing the 78s I have but which are not on modern release. The point of the second exercise is to create a list of recordings which the record companies should re-issue. I will try to do this by the end of the week and post on a separate message.
Mark Charette wrote:
-------------------------------
Graham Elliott wrote:
-------------------------------
Although I have no certainty on this point, I believe the regular player in the Albert Hall Orchestra was Charles Draper. Elgar would have wanted Draper if he could get him, and was known to specify Draper when possible. I haven't heard the recording, so I have not compared it with the several solo Draper recordings.
--------
Micael Bryant believes it was Draper on the recording. All I can say is that if it is Draper, I'm going to have to find more recordings of him. Whoever was playing corresponds to my mental picture of what a clarinet should sound like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rex Tomkinson
Date: 1999-11-24 23:46
Graham
Regarding the 1010 bore (and I am fast becoming one myself!)
I said in my posting that "the largest of them had a bore of 15.3mm", but on reflection it was badly worded. It is difficult to get accurate info relating to these instruments, so I normally resort to consulting a small group of fellow anoraks; all very knowledgeable but not always in agreement. The consensus is that the 1010 always had the 15.3mm bore. If this is the case, it does pose the question as to why your 1970's model differs so greatly in sound from the earlier ones you have tried. A friend of mine recently aquired a so called 'London and Paris' 1010 dating from the 1930's. I prised it from his grasp long enough to play a few notes and was astonished at the beauty of it's tone. It rang like a bell and I could'nt detect a dodgey note on it. My friends explanation for the distinctly different sound was that they were made with very thin walls. I just don't know if this is true, but it seems likely because it was as light as a feather. So I guess your 1010 does have a whopping 15.3mm bore, just like the rest of them! I would love to hear from anyone with knowledge of the 1010's history/production. Anything.
And by the way Graham, I may have one or two Draper 78's that have'nt yet been made into plant-pots; I'll dig them out and let you know what I've got. All the best.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
