 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Micaela
Date: 2004-05-15 16:40
I've been listening to a bunch of musicals that are either from the '20s and '30s or written in a jazzish style, mostly by the Gershwins and Cole Porter. I've noticed that almost all of them are reorchestrated (I mostly have new recordings- recent revivals). I don't know much about this style, but I have the feeling that these versions are a bit "beefed up" from the original. Is this generally true of recent interpretations? Can you recommend any recordings that are what the composer originally intended? Or are these new versions really more or less accurate?
I'm a classical musician who's finally getting into the baroque period instrument thing and I'm curious if there's an equivalent here. Being a clarinetist, it's far too easy to ignore baroque music.
Micaela
(been gone for a while due to finals and computer problems- but now I'm home and have free time)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2004-05-16 15:05
I'm not sure I understand your question. The "baroque period instrument thing" you refer to has to do both with the instrument and with period performance practices.
The analogue here would be, I guess, the "period instruments" of the 20s and 30s, which would mean (in the case of saxophones, and I'm just speculating) Conns and Bueschers instead of Selmer Mark 6's, and rubber round-chamber mouthpieces instead of later high-baffle models with more projection and edge. In other words, a much darker and more mellow tonal quality.
Not sure what the analogue would be as far as clarinets go. As to changes in performance practice since the 20s/30s, are you talking about style, rhythmic sensibility, quality of blend?
Your question makes me think of 2 contemporary groups that MIGHT be concerned with authentic period practice circa 20s-30s: the Beau Hunks (who released a 2-cd set of re-recorded music from the Little Rascals shorts) and Vince Giordano & his Nighthawks, who plays arrangements from the mid/late 20s and early 30s in pretty much original style.
(by the way, as I write this I'm listening to a period-instruments performance by Aston Magna of the Schubert Octet--featuring the dazzling Eric Hoeprich on period Bb and C clarinet. With your interest in period instruments, I bet you'd love it)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-05-16 23:55
I think the orchestrations are probably beefed up, as you say, to cope with modern in your face volume levels. I can't possibly comment on the American scene as I am in Australia. Our professional musical shows began being miked, both on stage and in the pit, during the early 1970's. This began with the advent of the 'rock opera'. It did not catch on in general musical theatre for at least another decade. Theatres were generally a little smaller and purpose built as were the orchestra pits. Properly trained and practised stage singers were able to project, in the same way that opera singers do, enough to strip paint on the wall at the back of the theatre. Pit tops were genarlly also open which allowed for a genuine accoustical balance between the pit and stage as still happens in opera. Somewhere towards the end of the 80's the use of radio mikes became standard on stage. This also led to the necessity of miking the orchestra and in order to get rid of any pesky natural accoustics the pit tops were closed. Hence we arrive at the era of the sound engineer!
As for orchestrations I think it is probably true to say that in line with big band orchestration show orchestrations have enlarged. The standard saxophone line up in 20's bands is 2 altos and 1 tenor all doubling a variety of horns. The three reed line up was more than likely used in theatre shows of the 'jazz' type. This is in distinct contrast to the 5 reed format in vogue in theatr for many years. Likewise the light theatre orchestra of the 20's and for some years before was a little smaller than you might expect consisting, as far as wind and brass, of flute and pic (1 or 2 players depending), 1 oboe,2 clarinets, 1 bassoon, 2 horns, 2 cornets, 2 trombones added to which there were a complement of strings and usually 1 percussionist. A modern orchestral show would probably have 3 trumpets, 3 trombones and often a tuba to beef up the brass and almost definitely 5 reed doublers. The ubiquitous drum kit now has pride of place, with amplified bass the drum kit has led to the demise of much naturally accoustic music as players striving to be heard above it resort to more amplification. Older shows generally had 1 'traps' percussionist who did the lot.
Actual arrangements, for the sake of performance practice which is the point here, from the period have more than likely been lost as the rights holders, producers etc. of the shows often had them orchestrated to suit every particular artist and consequently chaged them regularly. Another 'devil in the detail' issue is that shows., prior of course to Showboat, were either opera, light opera or revue. Most Gershwin and Cole Porter shows were in the revue form. The revue was just a collection of songs held together by a loose, very loose, theme. There was no real story line as there was in later musical comedy. The revue form made things easy in some ways. If a singer left the show a new singer could simply be slotted in to sing the same song or another song as long as it could be loosely fitted into the theme. Libretti, and indeed orchestral scores, for these sorts of shows were constantly evolving so full orchestrations of the period are unlikely to be found.
As for the period instrument issue there may be some merit. Older clarinets and saxophones, and importantly mouthpieces, definitely sound different and there is possibly cause to experiment. I am about to do something along these lines with a 1920's C melody sax with original mouthpiece and a 1920's Levin (Swedish) accoustic guitar.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micaela
Date: 2004-05-17 03:18
Thank you very much! Very interesting!
I guess the period instrument thing was a bad analogy. I was just thinking of an authenticity issue- like groups that play Mozart with 6 first violins instead of 20. I wondered how the original "sound" was different.
Mark- no wonder those "plots" don't make any sense! The songs are terrific, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-05-17 06:50
Side note: Sir Arthur Sullivan's operettas were written for the group Mark described above ... often referred to as a "vaudeville orchestra". He (Sullivan) nagged Gilbert and Carte endlessly until he got it beefed up to 2 flues, oboe, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons 2 each horn and cornet, 3 trombones (bass added), then one Jack of all trades percussionist, and a small compliment of strings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2004-05-17 16:45
Probably most of the Porter and Gershwin musicals have orgininal cast albums, although there've been some recent Gershwing revivals that are mostly pastiches, as opposed to actual original books. For the 1920s and 30s you might want to look for recordings of their works by the Casa Loma Orchestra or Paul Whiteman's band - they may be close to the original show orchestration.
Porter's "kiss me kate" (1948) is definitely available on CD, as is the musci from Irving Berlin's "annine get your gun" (also 1948 with Ethel Merman).
Of course, the best early show music would be Louis Armstrong's 1929 recording of "I can't give you anything but love," which he famously performed on Broadway in the Blackbirds Review (?) of that year. That pretty much set the stage for american popular music ever since imho.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael McC.
Date: 2004-05-18 01:57
The orchestrations may not be different, but playing styles have changed greatly over the years. For example, the Benny Goodman 1929 Carnegie Hall recording of "Sing, Sing, Sing" sounds extremely different than a studio recording I have from the late 1960's, although it is the same arrangement, orchestration, and band leader. Not necessarily better or worse, just different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: justwannaplay
Date: 2004-05-18 11:34
This is a very interesting topic. I'd like to thank DougR for mentioning the Beau Hunks - living in the UK, I sometimes long to see a Little Rascals short, but they are not really known here, so now at least I can listen to the music. Their other CDs look great too.
Can anyone summarize what clarinets were like in the 20s, 30s? What makes, models are exemplary for the period?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-05-18 14:35
An interesting discussion re: "early" musicals, the earliest I recall playing [US vintage, not G & S] was Anything Goes, which we played in the '60's, quite dated in story, perhaps modernized in orch, was quite "standard". My thots, J W P, re: 20-30's cls, I believe the school and popular music scene "good" cls were mainly Selmers, with Penzel Mueller, Pedler, Pruefer, Bettoney, et al and some cheaper Fr imports. Am not sure, but believe that Buffets were the symp/classic favorite. The metal cls were our cheapies then, with a few "good" ones, but somewhat dying out [by the 40's]. I believe Al Rice is authoring another book to bring his research toward "Modern Times", so I'm sure all of us would be happy to read any comments he might have, and enlarge/correct my shaky memory! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-05-18 14:48
Sorry, Conn/Elkhart, your's were also among the best. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: justwannaplay
Date: 2004-05-18 15:06
In case you're interested Don (and Michaela) 'Anything Goes' is playing right now in the London West End, Theatre Royal Drury Lane, Trevor Nunn directing. It's gotten very good reviews. I don't know whether Broadway has been doing something similar in the past few years, but the West End had been very good with revivals (Oklahoma, My Fair Lady (Cameron Mackintosh productions), now 'Anything Goes'). I keep meaning to book for 'Anything Goes'; when I do see it I'll keep in mind this thread.
Thanks Don for the run down on clarinets of that era - I love nostalgia!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-05-18 15:40
And TKS in return, J W P, I am the proud owner of a [2] DVD set of Hugh Jackman et al in T Munns [NEW] OKLAHOMA !, as a "gift" for contributing to our PBS fund raising, after seeing it on PBS, a fine MODERN updated/enlarged-upon performance, sure would like to play it again. Living in OK, its our state song, so when our visiting musical groups, as in last Sat nite's symp concert, and Sunday's Mid-America Air Force Band concert, perform it [out of courtesy?], we all rise and sing, perhaps scaring the performers !! Always gets the applause! I hope others will give a better early 1900's cl review than I can. John Moses et al, please comment on the "Broadway Scene", Ive heard great things, hope to see some of our revivals. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-05-18 16:18
micaela -
Let me take this string off on the other branch you mentioned -- period instrument performance. As I've said before, I play recorder a lot and have been to many baroque and renaissance performance workshops.
Recorder requires no embouchure and no keys, and the fingerings are close enough to modern wind instruments to make it easy to pick up. Also, there's a large reservoir of amateur recorder players who continue to play. Modern flutists, oboists and bassoonists can easily learn the baroque instruments. Serious baroque instrument players have settled on a pitch of A-415 (1/2 step below A-440), and there are enough good players around to support the workshops, and also to make it possible to make a living making recorders at 415 as well as 440.
High quality classical wind instruments are only starting to appear, and they have numerous keys, which makes them more expensive than recorders. To play them well, you need a well-developed embouchures and familiarity with keywork. Thus, classical wind players tend to be professionals, who need paying gigs to live. Finally, there's no profit in making a classical clarinet in plastic, as there is for recorder.
There's much less baroque music for clarinet than for the other winds, and, as far as I know, there are no period-instrument workshop for the classical period. I think that's because of the lack of amateur recorder players, the lack of inexpensive instruments, and, finally, because classical period performance pitch seems to be settling at A-430, which means another set of instruments and, for those with perfect pitch, playing "in the cracks."
I've just gotten a Steve Fox replica of a Grenser classical clarinet (at A-430), and I'm hoping I'll find a place to play it. Perhaps Al Rice’s book will stimulate something.
If you'd like to talk about recorder, you're welcome to contact me off line. For more on classical clarinet, let's talk here and on the Early Clarinet list.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-05-19 15:34
I just finished playing a production of No, No Nanette!, which was first produced back in the 1920's (and was apparently a rave revival back in the 1970's, if the notes I've seen are to be believed). Several things about the music stick in my mind:
1) Odd instrumentation. The original arranger called for a "full" pit orchestra, complete with oboe, English horn and bassoon. My book (Book IV or V) was scored for baritone sax (lots of bari playing), bassoon and bass clarinet (with the part written out for bassoon should the player not be able to deliver on bass clarinet.
(My bassoon skills were, to say the least, a bit rusty. The last time I played one for a show was back in the early 1970's, and it showed. While the lip came back pretty quickly, the fingerings, particularly the venting components of same, were elusive down to the last night, and I kept a fingering chart open and ready, just in case. (I ended up buying the bassoon, too.)
2) Cut time, everywhere you looked. Not having played in concert bands for many years, I've seen very little cut time in that time span. Even most of the 1920's stock music that my "Vegas style" group plays for dinner and cocktail music is done in four rather than in cut time in which it was written. But, Nanette was firmly wedded to the 1920's quickstep concept, and virtually all of the music was in a snappy two beat style.
One area where this caused no end of difficulties was in a bluesy number called "Where Has My Hubby Gone Blues". It was a very slow, almost a "slow drag" blues tempo, with lots of liberal interpretation as to where the words should fall by the female vocalist. But, it was still scored in cut time. As a result, the conductor was beating 3 second or more cut time strokes, the vocalist had little idea as to where she was supposed to be, and the two of us in the winds who had the critical parts were swimming somewhere in the middle. All pleas to the director (who wanted to do this all "authentically") were in vain; in two it was written and in two it stayed...
3) Sappy repetition was the rule of the day back in the Earlies. Where a modern show may have three choruses of a tune tops and a bridge or two to join them together, these old shows have at least three or four vocal choruses, followed by a substantial dance component that carries the same tune on for a total of nine minutes or more, and then a final vocal recapitulation. Steven Sondheim these guys weren't; it's as if they are trying to imprint the words and music on the audience through sheer repetition.
(Actually, there may be more to that than is immediately evident. Recall that early shows were often loosely constructed cloud castles meant to showcase song for sheet music sales. If that was the case with Nanette, they did a damn'd good job on the two "hits" in the show. After two weeks of them, I am completely sick of "I Want To Be Happy" and "Tea For Two"; both songs are beaten to death in the show.)
4) This was the era of the "two choruses" in shows. Nowadays, you only have the money for a limited pit orchestra, limited on stage help, and sparse scenery (unless you are Lloyd-Weber). Back in the days of cheap labor, it was more than feasible to have two completely separate groups of guys and gals that would be trotted out on stage at the appropriate time. You had singers in the singing chorus and dancers in the dancing chorus, and seldom if ever did the twain meet. In Nanette, songs started out with a lead doing the singing (or a duet or a quartet), then they were joined by the singing chorus, and then the dancing chorus got trotted out to dazzle everyone with some nifty moves, all before a big finish with that final vocal chorus.
Nowadays, at least here in the Land of The Free and The Brave, you have to do it all. The dumb blonde chorus girl isn't the institution that she once was, and you pretty well have to sing, dance, look passably good (most don't bear close inspection, but theatrical makeup and sixty feet can make a world of difference) AND have some minimal acting skills. (Most who "have it all" don't last long in the chorus, as they are too much in demand for the lead roles.)
As a result, the structure of the numbers in an old show like Nanette or Anything Goes can be more than a single chorus can stand. Often, the dancing aspect gets chopped way down (cutting out much of the interesting music in the process), just so you don't have dead chorus members at the end of the first act.
One good thing about the old shows is that they were written before the industry started to force in a ballet (a la the opera) halfway through the event. Some of those ballets are the worst parts of Broadway and West End productions, and are often cut these days in recognition of just that fact. I've played six or seven productions of Bye Bye Birdie, but never once have I had to play the ballet within same. But that the same could be said for Carousel...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-05-19 15:47
It would be good to see any comments about a concern: that "Original Cast" on a recording means vocalists, not instrumental performers. Such recordings occasionally seem to be mere propaganda, as the real performances have greatly abbreviated instrumental groups, much smaller than those used for the recordings. So at least in that respect, the "Original Cast" recorded sounds aren't to be trusted.
I first noticed this some years ago when stunned at the Broadway performance of "Man of La Mancha." There was a non-large orchestra, although the recording I'd heard sounded like the N. Y. Phil did the backup.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-05-20 02:12
Terry ... fascinating ...
Makes one wonder if the original orchestrations were "people specific" hence unusual combinations of instruments (bari sax, bass clr and bassoon). I'm assuming that the original pit player had the instruments at his/her disposal.
I would love to play bassoon again, not having played one since high school - and then quite badly. I found bassoon fingerings a bit of a mystery then ... unfortunately they are hideously expensive, even for a cheap student model ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-05-20 04:23
I doubt that they are written with a particular instrumental performer in mind. As I said, the book (it was Reed Book V) was set up with all of the bass clarinet playing doubled on bassoon (i.e., with parts written out for both instruments). If it was set up for a specific player, why would they have gone to that trouble?
I've been told by others (of a similar age) that it's quite common for bassoon players to make the bassoon to sax transition. I can't say that I've noticed any great similarities, but then again I'm not a "natural" bassoon player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
