 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2004-02-02 00:08
Many of us are aware of the different schools playing like the french school, german school, english school, etc... but what i find interesting is their respective approach to teaching. It dawned on me that here in america we have different standards of playing, different players who epitomize different characteristics we would like to mimic in our playing like for instance in America we hold Marcellus, Bonade, Gigliotti, McLane, etc. in great esteem as the forefathers of/predilectors/proveyours/etc. of American clarinet playing, they are our quintessential models, our ideal so to speak. Because of this and because of the teaching methods they swore by we have developed our own style of clarinet teaching that promotes these good habits. I'm sure in other countries they have different paradigms and thusly i'm curious as to what are some varitable differences in teaching, things that one might do in say England that one might not pick up here in America. I think once we explore the musical ideas and how they are conveyed in different regions we can fully understand the differences in our respective schools of playing.
I think it's ridiculous to think that our concepts of clarinet playing are universal seeing as how our methodology and results vary greatly. Just like with our affinity for Leblanc, Selmer, Yamaha, and Buffet here in the states i'm sure Germany and England have their own preferred clarinet makers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Amy
Date: 2004-02-02 21:57
We don't really have a 'Big Four' over here in England, more a 'Big Three'. Selmer isn't all that popular in England clarinet-wise. Buffet is the brand that everyone raves about and I personally prefer Buffets compared to LeBlanc and Yamahas. I've never played a Selmer - none of the music shops I've ever been into stock them. Vitos aren't all that big here either, I don't know how popular they are in America. My first clarinet was a Vito and hardly anyone had heard of it - not even my teacher!
Post Edited (2004-02-02 22:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Topher
Date: 2004-02-02 22:28
My theory would be that with the development of the internet and other such opportunities to communicate and trade between nations, the different schools of music start to exchange ideas and combine somewhat. While there are still distinct differences, I am sure that the English school and the French school, for example, are starting to share ideas and combine, meaning they look a lot more alike now than they did one hundred, maybe even fifty, years ago. In fact, that is happening daily on this board. People from the various schools of teaching get to give their ideas for any question, and the person asking the question will get an answer that is a blend of all the different styles. While it destroys the individual philosophies, it does allow people to share ideas and tips and discoveries more effectively, meaning this new "e-school" can develop much faster and more efficiently than any other.
As for instruments, the same brands are offered in very similar form to a majority of the world through international trade, but the various social influences may make certain brands the "cool" brands to have in any given country or region. The internet will even that out some, but not quite as quickly as the spreading of new ideas mentioned above, as more than just some strangers' advice go into making a decision about such a major purchase.
In essence, I am saying that the internet destroys uniqueness and individuality, but it allows for free trade of information and suggestions. That's my two cents.
Topher
PS- If you haven't noticed, I haven't written a good essay in English for a while, and I had to blow off some creative steam. Sorry!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-02-03 02:15
Quote:
In essence, I am saying that the internet destroys uniqueness and individuality, but it allows for free trade of information and suggestions. Hate to play the devil's advocate, but I disagree. I'm not a pro or even a teacher of any of these schools, but I believe that the sharing of information and the many different options people are presented with through the internet (and those on this board especially) allow each person to create his or her own individual style while borrowing from here and there. We've had/seen lengthy discussions on instruments, reeds, ligatures, interpretations of pieces, and from this wealth of information I am picking and choosing what I want to be used in my playing. Thanks to the internet and easy access to many different recordings I'm able to order and listen to many different people play the clarinet in many different styles and so I can choose what I like about each. I might like a certain american clarinetist's amazing sound while preferring a slight vibrato that I heard an English clarinetist tastefully play in a few pieces. So I'd prefer to try to borrow from both to create my own sound of what I believe to be the best of both worlds! So while all these different regional styles may be breaking down, I think that the internet far from destroys individuality, but rather promotes it more than ever before.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-02-03 02:24
Topher wrote:
> My theory would be that with the development of the internet
> and other such opportunities to communicate and trade between
> nations, the different schools of music start to exchange ideas
> and combine somewhat.
I think that started closer to the close of the 19th century, when recordings replaced having to physically travel to a venue. The recordings also had the effect of introducing the idea of a "canonical" performance.
> While there are still distinct
> differences, I am sure that the English school and the French
> school, for example, are starting to share ideas and combine,
> meaning they look a lot more alike now than they did one
> hundred, maybe even fifty, years ago.
You might want to read "If the Sound is Lovely, This Must Be France
National Sound Character: A Theme And Two Variations:" by Daniel N. Leeson at http://www.ocr.woodwind.org/articles/Leeson/leeson4.html. A cogent article that goes into this idea of different schools in some depth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RM
Date: 2004-02-03 03:41
I highly disagree with the first post, stating that the American school of clarinet playing is based around Marcellus, Bonade,. etc. Hogwash
Sure, these men were our Grandfathers in terms of teaching and had a lot of influence, but remember, they are dead. Since Marcellus for example people have gone in all sorts of different directions, from Frank Cohen to Burt Hara to Stolzman and Neidich. There doesnt seem to be one "American School" anymore.
One thing that always baffles me is how the "traditional" players always seem to say something different from the next. People are using all sorts of different setups and clarinets now, and in time new schools will emerge. The "Bonade" school was just a stepping stone to the next phase, what that will be time will tell. Im sure the same goes for the British, French; it is always changing.
Frankly Im sick to death of people in the US worshiping these dead and buried men, whom many of us have never heard live. They cling on to these practices like the Bible. I think we should look to our current players and forget about the past. What is the saying, let sleeping dogs lie?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-02-03 03:52
Quote:
People are using all sorts of different setups and clarinets now, and in time new schools will emerge. The "Bonade" school was just a stepping stone to the next phase, what that will be time will tell.....Frankly Im sick to death of people in the US worshiping these dead and buried men, whom many of us have never heard live. They cling on to these practices like the Bible. I think we should look to our current players and forget about the past. But these people are role models not only for their school of thought and/or style of playing, but for their mastery of the instrument in general. Would you really like pepple to stop "clinging" on to the jazz of Benny Goodman? I never heard him live, but I can't listen to a jazz recording and not hope that one day I'll be able to connect chord progressions like he did.
Many people would like to hit like Babe Ruth, and yes, gloves were different, stadiums were different, bats were different back then. But no matter what changes in the game, the fact is that guy could slug 'em!
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-02-03 05:01
Someone who knows wrote:
> It is easy to say "forget the old timers, they had their era."
> The problem is, when you actually listen to the work, you HAVE
> to admit how great it is.
Very true.
For those non-believers, listen to some of the 1925-1929 Bonade/Philadelphia Orchestra recordings, or some of the 1935-1941 Bonade/Cleveland Orchestra recordings.
All recorded in an era before retakes and splices became a commonplace occurrence ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-02-03 12:37
I doubt the truth of the idea that national "schools" have been steadily coming together over the last 100 or so years. What may have happened is they diverged and then converged over that period.
Examples: if you listen to the early players from France, Germany, and Britain, c.1905 - 1935, the differences are not as noticeable as they became between about 1935 and 1980. The two leading British players around 1905 were Manuel Gomez and Charles Draper. Gomez was Spanish until early adulthood, but he was the leading player in Britain for two or three decades. It would not be true to say that he produced a reedy Mediterranean sound, whilst Draper produced a fat English sound. Cahulzac's (pardon spelling) sound was as wide if not wider than Draper's. It was with Kell and Brymer that the fat English sound really started, and post Cahulzac that the French became more focused and reedy. Kell played on (probably) English made clarinets as did Brymer, de Peyer etc. Draper played much of his career on French made instruments.
It is tricky to conjecture in the absence of a sufficient body of recorded evidence, but I would think it likely that the national distinctions in playing style were small before the Great War as compared to the period after the mid 1930s.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2004-02-03 15:51
Amy,
I disagree about the presence of Selmer clarinets in England.
I think they're reasonably well represented in the profession by B flat/A's, but if you were to look at basses and E flats I think they probably outnumber all the others put together.
jez
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
