The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: Neidich's Copland vs. Goodman's Copland?

Author: allencole
Date: 2006-02-20 17:16

Jazz stying ability obviously varies from player to player, as does the ability to play by ear. This is particulary true on the classical side of things because they have often been frowned upon or considered unnecessary by generation after generation of lesser pedagogues.

It is obviously a low priority for players on the orchestral career track, and I feel sure that those with a strong feel develop it either as an early influence, a healthy dose of curiosity, or through commercial demands such as pit gigs.

Unfortunately there is a plethora of capable 'legit' clarinetists who have a blind spot in this area, and who try to produce jazz feel by some self-contrived formula. I cannot tell you some of the horrors that I have heard from college classmates who were "practicing jazz." Then comes the inevitable embarrassment of playing a "jazz piece" at the recital--along with inept program notes.

Some folks can do it and some can't. It may be this issue that Tony is addressing, rather than the evils of 'jazz style' per se. A lot of players will try to give you their 'impression' of jazz style, but it usually works about as well as an opera singer trying to do a pop song. John Moses has worked both sides of the fence for quite a while, and I would expect his jazz styling on the Copeland to be far more authentic and nuanced than the average orchestral player.

Perhaps Benny Goodman restricted his own jazz styling for the same reason that he wanted to dodge the C#--he was not completely comfortable in both contexts, and wanted to play it a little safe. In addition, he was actively studying on the classical side during his post big band years, and may have felt the influence of this pedagogy when making these kinds of decisions. This may be some of the taste and discretion that Tony pointed to.

As for Charles Neidich's performance, it appears to have been an exciting one, even with some additional variations. We have talked before about 'clarinetism' and the heavy orthodoxy that we try to put on everything clarinet-related. A lot of lesser pedagogues are deeply trapped in this, but perhaps Neidich transcends these kinds of limitations.

Bottom line, I agree with John Moses that there isn't a problem with stretching the limits, as long as you know where yours are. And I agree with Tony (if I'm getting him right) that the problem with much 'jazz' performance on the classical side is that many players don't know their limits, and end up producing phrases that no jazzer would be caught dead playing. [perhaps it would help if all M.M. candidates actually had to develop some competence in mimicing phrases and playing by ear]

On working with composers and arrangers, I agree with Tony that you have to be careful just how much you take them at their word. I had a chance a few years ago to work with Danny Holgate (of "Three Mo' Tenors" fame) and was encouraged to take a lot of liberties with what was already some very well-written jazz styling. I generally kept it pretty conservative (mostly to avoid upstaging performers) and later had kudos from Mr. Holgate passed on to me from my MD. I feel sure that these kudos cam because the arranger found his writing to be still-recognizable when I played it. A number of liberties where taken both musically and dramatically in that show and some of them made me absolutely cringe. It was a graphic lesson to me that it's important to be conservative when expanding on anything that already works.

Even as a local-yokel musician like me, you're always one clam away from your 15 minutes of fame!

Allen Cole

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics