 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2006-01-28 11:25
I just found a ton of works played by Reginald Kell which were released just this past year by DG Records on ITUNES (just search his name, it doesn't come up under a clarinet search). They were his old Decca releases on LP.
I know that he was a highly respected player, but I'm having a hard time liking his stuff at all. I'm only hearing a single style of playing for all works, even baroque (romantic, almost jazz like) with almost no regard for the style of the composition, a terrible tone and just average technique.
What am I missing here??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2006-01-28 11:41
btw - I'm comparing what I'm hearing with the CD "the artistry of Ralph McLane"which would have roughly been recorded a the same time/era. I like his sound, technique, and phrasing a lot - an amazing player.
I haven't heard Kells Debussy Rhapsody which has been said to be really great as that isn't available as a single download.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crnichols
Date: 2006-01-28 13:26
I remember a masterclass I participated in with Tom Martin of the Boston Symphony. He mentioned Kell as playing Brahms in a beautiful, expressive, rhapsodic manner with a rich vibrato... and that he played Mozart in the exact same manner. Now, I have the recording of Kell playing the Mozart and Brahms quintets with the Fine Arts Quartet, and it's quite good, but there isn't really a big difference in the way it's interpreted, other than Brahms sounding like Brahms and Mozart sounding like Mozart. Martin also said that the first time he heard the Kell recording of Debussy, it changed his entire perception of the piece. I haven't heard this recording yet, and I plan on acquiring that set of CD's to satisfy my curiosity. From my collection of historic recordings of not only clarinetists, I have come to the conclusion that scholarship and music just hadn't really connected yet in those days. For example, people were playing Bach Brandenburg Concerti on the piano with the attitude that if Bach had this instrument, he would have preferred it. Also, I have to point this out, the recordings on the McLane CD are much less diverse in terms of the repertoire than Kell's collection of recordings, if there was something Baroque on McLane's collection of recordings, we might think the same thing about it. Also, regarding context, Kell's recordings are largely of solo repertoire, i.e. no conductor influence, McLane's are largely orchestral, which is a very different type of playing, and also, conductors were often tyrannical in those days. It had to be played the way they wanted it, or it was wrong, and you may or may not still have a job if you were wrong. Aren't unions a great thing? Furthermore, English playing of this era had a very distinct nationalistic style, that we Americans often find frankly, kind of ugly. They also used a clarinet with a much different bore, and I must admit, I've heard some old English clarinet playing that sounded like nails across a blackboard. I've also heard some that was really quite beautiful (Jack Thurston for example)
I attended a class with Alan Hacker, and he said that players of that day, Kell and Cahuzac among others, needed to be caught on a good day, maybe a day that they hadn't had too much to drink the night before. An example of some recordings that I've acquired that could be demonstrating this...I have Wendelin Gaertner performing the Mozart Quintet on one LP and the clarinet and piano works of Weber on another disc. The Weber recording sounds absolutely frightening. He sounds like a 6th grader. The Mozart recording is actually quite beautiful. I'd have to chalk that up to good day vs. bad day. Also, in regards to the terrible tone comment...recording technology was not nearly as good in those days, and it seems it was also very inconsistent as well. It also seems that the clarinet didn't record so well on that equipment, it usually sounds rather unstable. Anyway, this is getting a little long... but I hope to have pointed out a few factors to consider, hopefully being fairly impartial. There's one other factor, everyone has different tastes, and Kell's playing may just not appeal to you. And considering that you live in the Philadelphia area, McLane's is probably right up your alley.
Christopher Nichols
1st Infantry Division Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-01-28 17:21
The compilation set is very good.
Once you get over "that sound" and hear what he has to "say" you might enjoy it.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bennett ★2017
Date: 2006-01-28 18:02
There's a lengthy review (pages 18-20) of the 6 CD Deutsche Gramophon set of Kell's work in the most recent (12/05) "The Clarinet" by William Nichols. In sum: some of the playing is great, some bizarre.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2006-01-28 20:13
Fifty five years ago I bought a 10 inch LP of Mr. Kell playing the Mozart Concerto. At the time, I thought his vibrato and rubato did not enhance the piece. Otherwise, he seemed to be a fine player. One of these days, I'll listen to it again to see if the passing years have changed my feelings about it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2006-01-28 20:57
When someone asked the late Marcel Tabuteau what he thought of Reginald, he responded, with his usual candor, "He plays like Kell!" Pun intended, I'm sure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2006-01-28 22:07
I feel your pain! Every time I listen to something played by Karl Leister, I think "What am I missing?" And a lot of as-recorded Harold Wright fails to inspire. Talk about homogeneity!
This subject reminds me of discussions about double lip, or vibrato, or religion or politics. It's a big world. A really, really big world.
For me, Kell is one of a handful of the greatest artists I have ever experienced. Reading your remarks was almost physically painful for me.
Bill Fogle
Washington, DC
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
Post Edited (2006-01-28 22:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill G
Date: 2006-01-29 01:25
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have the Kell reissue set and have not heard him before. He certainly was a stylist and his renditions are certaily outside the mainstream, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad--just different. His vibrato doesn't offend me, although it might not in all instances fit my preference. Isn't art about exploration? Maybe some of today's overly-dry technicians might learn something about making music instead of just making notes. Bill G
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2006-01-29 01:59
But it's the making music part that I had the issue with! If I play a Schumann, Bartok, Brahms, Mozart and Stravinsky piece with the same style, is that musical?
Heck no
I got past the sound as that wasn't what I was looking for - many different tones out there and his was just one of them.
Back then it could be said that there weren't very many Clarinet recordings out there and they were the pioneers of the recorded literature. It wasn't like they could go on Itunes and listen and compare Drucker to Combs to Meyer, etc and contrast the styles that way.
I was expecting to hear amazing playing (aside from the tone) and what I heard didn't do it for me.
It's easy to say that today's players are so technically great, but not musical, however I don't share that thought. I think that the standards have risen a great deal and along with being great technicans, they are also quite musical too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-01-29 18:26
Ah, David, perhaps someday they'll reissue your stuff.......
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2006-01-29 22:19
I wonder how many headliners played clarinet in Kell's day?
It's like Heinz Holliger on oboe - he's the defacto standard of today, as he gets the bulk of recording work.
Kell was the player booking agents sought in the 1940's, although there were certainly other concert players working at the time.
I suppose the recorded set indicates the stylistic "stamp" he put on all works?
Personally, I don't think the clarinet is terribly well suited to recordings of dynamic pieces... most of the high volume, faster paced works tend to sound shrill to most recording techniques.
Recording methods of Kell's day would be undeniably compressed and require the featured player to be VERY close mic'd. That would make the sound more than a little "hard" and dry.
I prize Sabine Meyers recordings of Crusell and Stamitz - stuff that doesn't require extremes in dynamic shading. These also benefit from the best accoustic settings and sensitive microphones at some distance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ghuba
Date: 2006-01-30 02:34
I've always wondered if Benny Goodman would have been better accepted as a classical performer, or maintained a pre-eminent position in jazz, if he had not studied with Kell and confused himself at times about whether he was playing single or double lip or Kell-like as compared to Goodman-like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2006-01-30 08:19
If they were his old Decca recordings originally on LP then I suspect they do not include the 30s and 40s 78s. I only have one disc of Kell in the LP era, namely the famous Fine Arts collaboration on Brahms and Mozart. It is difficult to say exactly what is wrong with them, but they are certainly wrong by comparison to Kell's earlier work. That said, his earlier Mozart Quintet also leaves very much to be desired. But the Busch Brahms Quintet and either Shepherd on the Rock recording show what he was capable of. He also did a very nice Ravel Intro.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JessKateDD
Date: 2006-01-30 08:23
Definitely in the GOOD column. You may not like his playing, and I must admit it isn't my cup of tea, but he was extremely important in Britain, influenced the way the Brits play to this day, and helped popularize the instrument. In other word - he was important, though perhaps not great by today's standards.
The same is true with all of the Benny bashers. I love it when someone says to me "I heard his Mozart concerto recording, and I'm better than that!" My reply is "So am I, but I didn't have many of the important composers of my day writing concertos for me, so I'll gladly defer and proclaim Mr. Goodman a greater clarinetist than I".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HautboisJJ
Date: 2006-01-30 17:04
Interesting the oboe examples came up, Marcel Tabuteau, Heinz Holliger etc....
Being an oboist myself i have always been surrounded by topics on musicality and its relation to tone more often than most people i know (even in the oboe board it had been a thread which spanned to 40+ replies). It is perhaps the most abstract and subjective topic that a wind instrumentalist confronts everytime and choses to think optimistically.
2 other players not to be missed when discussing this is Leon Goosens (oboe) and Dennis Brain (horn), who was in the same English school of playing era, and friends of Reginald Kell. They all played in a style which is considered very unique if compared to the 'international' players of today, the obvious being Goosens, who had a wide vibrato and bright tone that did not appeal to many today but was much desired back then. Often the sort of musicianship and quality that players back then show is often down-graded by vast amounts of bad recordings. The first time i heard Goosens on cd, it was the exact same reaction, total dissapointment. But after searching extensively for his other better recordings, i found some which were amazing, and has proven my views before wrong, dead wrong. His phrasing and tone is beautiful and intonation is spot on.
So i guess players like them don't become famous for nothing, it's very sad that the sort of unique quality that last generation players possess has diminished throughout the years, and now many top woodwind sections in orchestras around the world sound much the same.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
