 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Barbara
Date: 2000-05-20 18:07
I would like to know why most people don't consider clarinet a jazz instrument; most clarinet players switch to the sax. for jazzy stuff. Benny Goodman was considered a jazz player, right? and the most jazzy classical repetoire stuff (Rhapsody in Blue) starts off with the clarinet. So why do people feel compelled to switch to the sax? Is it the reinforcement of a stereotype? And are there any famous contemporary jazz clarinettists? After all, the clarinet does sound capable of blending in with other jazz instrments, unlike say the oboe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Laur
Date: 2000-05-20 18:27
Barbara,
I aggree with you 110%. I was cut last year from Jazz band because I played clarinet.. I don't understand it - Any one have an answer ?
Laur
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-20 18:35
Lots of reasons:
1) In general amateur bands are way too loud for a clarinet to be heard. It's hard for the professional bands to get soft enough.
2) Most amateur clarinetists can't play the clarinet as a lead instrument - it's fast, furious, and high.
3) Most arrangements for high school don't have a clarinet part written.
4) There aren't that many arrangements with clarinet (Benny didn't play lead in every song his band did, either!)
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't play clarinet in jazz band, only that you'll probably have to double to get a chance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris
Date: 2000-05-20 18:55
Mark... what do you mean by "furious"? just wondering
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 2000-05-20 18:58
Artie Shaw and Eric Dolphy seemed to think clarinet was a jazz instrument, too! One solution -- start your own band.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-20 19:14
Chris wrote:
-------------------------------
Mark... what do you mean by "furious"? just wondering
------
Fast & furious is a common alliteration. If I listen to Artie Shaw, Peanuts Hucko, Pete Fountain, Benny Goodman, et al. I hear them playing their lead lines at various tempos, but always at least one or two places they "let go" and show us what they can do. The audience expects this, especially since almost all the pieces that use clarinet and have charts are well-known. There's always the exceptions (some of the Dorsey & Goodman tunes are ballads only) but in general the clarinet is a lead instrument, like lead trumpet, and people have certain expectations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joey
Date: 2000-05-20 21:15
Hah, I gave up on our Jazz band last year, I was the only clarinet player in a section of about 40 to even try out, and I did really well. Some friends and even the two directors judging the tryouts said I sounded good. I got placed in the Jazz "Combo" group which, thanks to the Asst Director running the whole Jazz deal, was forgotten, so no one seemed to care. This year, people actually asked the teacher why there wasn't a clarinetist in the Jazz Band, and he just said "you know, i don't know"
Well, this year I did get to do some Jazz, but not for him, we made a Clarinet Jazz Choir and played the theme from New York, New York. I thought it was pretty good, and the solos could be heard fairly decently.
Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the part about solos not being heard as well on other instruments. At last night's concert, they had to mic the saxes for their solos, and that's cause the teacher playing on T. Sax was blowing his lungs out. I think that with a good group setup, anything can be done, all it takes is the flip of a switch and you can be heard very well.
Also, I think the clarinet could easily be part of a jazz group. Every instrument often tends to lead a lead/follow style in a group, sometimes they have a solo, sometimes they accompany the soloist. And the parts can be written based on many t. sax parts, and "jazzed up" a little to accomodate the demands of the instrument and audience. If the band leader is capable, then it is possible. And the solos that everyone has where they go wild on the horn are often written with empty measures to provide room for improve, anyone willing to gp nuts on a horn just has to fill it up sometimes and start hitting notes. I know it isn't a proper way to talk about the playing, because there is some preperation involved, but it doesn't mean a clarinet player can't figure something out.
Anways, if your teacher doesn't want a clarinet in the jazz band, then do what we did, make a little choir with about 6-8 Bb's, an Alto, a Bass or two, and even an Eb if you wanna do fun stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Koumas
Date: 2000-05-20 21:16
I'd just like to say, as far as i know the Clarinet is a Jazz instrument!
I play my Clarinet in a Jazz Band!
I agree it is hard to hear the Clarinet sometimes, but it helps to add character to the band!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Laur
Date: 2000-05-21 05:39
I don't aggree with the "not having a part " as a reason why clarinets aren't normally in Jazz ensembles. I played Flute this year, and only on 2 songs out of 20 did I have a part ( actually only one.. the other I played a vibe part ) I had to transpose. Normally Trumpet/ Alto. They are anti clarinet i tell ya !
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2000-05-21 09:30
Perhaps some of your band directors need a bit of educating. Tell them about players like Eddie Daniels, Don Byron, Jimmy Giuffre, Alvin Batiste, Kenny Daverne, Buddy de Franco, Perry Robinson,Eric Dolphy, Barney Bigard, Edmond Hall, Pee Wee Russell ... I could go on and on. Frankly, I cannot imagine jazz without them. There is, by the way, an excellent web site on jazz clarinet players since 1945 at http://msnyder.dragonfire.net/clarinet/clar1945.htm
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-21 13:50
Beejay - it doesn't matter. Those you listed are mostly soloists, and many (all?) could double as necessary. I really looked into this a few years back - letting Laur play flute is an anomaly at the HS level, even with transcriptions. The charts aren't set up for it (most HS charts are simplified as it is). Heck, if you think there's a problem with clarinets getting in, what of the jazz violinists (and there is such a thing)?
If you're good enough to play those solos & lead lines, you're good enough to be in a college-level jazz band already - and you'll have to double there, too. Clarinets won't be in every chart or featured every time as a soloist. If you like jazz you'll have to double until you can get your <b>own</b> band.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Gardner
Date: 2000-05-21 16:54
I'm a band of one.
I heard a jazz violin a couple of years ago. he was out of this world. I had never, ever concered the violin to be a jazz instrument.
i can't picture a jazz band without a clarinet. It would be un-New Orleans.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Justin
Date: 2000-05-21 23:42
I have a very shallow knowledge of Jazz, which I would like to expand. I only know of 3 jazz clarinetists: Benny Goodman, Eddie Daniels, and Pete Fountain. If you want to play in a jazz band without transposing, I am pretty sure that Tenor Sax is also in Bb.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b.
Date: 2000-05-22 00:00
Interesting discussion.
Seems to me like it boils down to three things:
1.) How good you are
2.) How good the band is
3.) Whether the director is in touch
There are lots of talented young people on all instruments (including violin and flute) who, with a little nudge in the right direction, would love to and could do wonderous things in a well balanced Jazz setting. They probably wouldn't mind doubling too, if you approached they nicely. To me, electronic amplification is the most detrimental thing to have happened to music. And I mean all kinds.
ron b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-22 01:22
ron b. wrote:
-------------------------------
To me, electronic amplification is the most detrimental thing to have happened to music. And I mean all kinds.
-------
Hey - I played electric bass for a number of years in jazz bands, C&W bands, and studios - made half my living at the time doing it. I resent that statement!
<grin>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Laur
Date: 2000-05-22 01:50
Hey !
Justin : .. Transposing is not a problem.. it's getting into the band that is ! hehe
Ron ... I liked your list. However, may I add one ? Determination.
Laur.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b.
Date: 2000-05-22 07:14
I didn't mean to offend anyone by my previous comment. It's just that I've heard so much stuff trying to pass for music these days that's... well, noise. To me it's offensive.
I know - many instruments are designed to be amplified and there are many fine musicians playing them. I have no argument with that. I've worked with amplified guitarists and bassists who had a great sense and feeling for the music being played and it was a good experience. It's when the volumne is cranked up full blast with no semblance of dynamics (contrast) and the decible level stays there that I, and this is admittedly subjective, lose interest very soon. To me that kind of stuff is very poor 'musicianship'. Unfortunately electronic amplification made that, or rather IMHO the abuse of it, possible.
Please don't take me to task too hard about this. I'm not suggesting by any means we start a movement to ban all amplifiers. Just ban the yaks who insist that blowing everyone's eardrums apart is 'music'.
ron b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-22 11:32
ron b. - The smiley got wiped in my response! (I meant to show a <grin>. I know what you mean. Bill Hausmann has the following on his .sig, and I agree:
"If you have to mic a sax the band is too loud".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Geoff
Date: 2000-05-22 14:28
Sounds like everyone's throwing in the towel too soon with having clarinets in jazz bands. Hey, you've got to give kids who want to play jazz clarinet a chance, not just make them double! At least, they can play the tenor sax parts and take some solos. Or find some jazz band scores with clarinet parts, e.g., some of the Thad Jones-Mel Lewis big band charts. Push the status quo a little...raise the profile of that funky wailing jazz clarinet I love.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2000-05-22 15:31
Well said, Posters, reasonable amplification is OK,I played old sweet-tunes in the chalemeaux [sp??] to a mike many times [before the guitar bands took over]!! Re: big band cl's, are there arrangements still in print for the Glenn Millers with cl lead doubled in the 1st tenor part? Ah ,Memories!! Memories. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Laur
Date: 2000-05-22 19:18
Geoff -
Thanks for writing.. All you need is to give people a chance.. I mean doubling is fine.. I had to learn flute to play jazz. Just last week, I played "Spain" ( Chick Corea ) on my clarinet, and it caused my diretor just to spin around, and in amazement say Wow. He just stood there, and just said I had no clue.. If you want to the clarinet can really be a jazz instrument. We did a few Thad Jones songs this year - "Three and One" and "Interloper".. They both sound AWESOME on clarinet. I guess, Whateva I play will sound better on clarinet opposed to my doubleler, because I know it the best.. and that makes the difference. I wish I could have played some of my jazz songs on clarinet - I love the song " New Rochelle" ( Bob Mintzer ) It's awesome. Like you said Raise the status quo. Be different..Can it hurt ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-05-22 20:10
One thing not mentioned here is the fact that jazz evolved away from the clarinet about 60 years ago. Yes, the Goodmans, Shaws and others still fronted bands for a while, but after the swing/bebop revolution, the clarinet basically died as a major instrument (WITH SOME NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS) in jazz. After Bird and Diz, the front line in jazz was dominated by saxophone and trumpet,and later mostly saxophone. Even the trombone has to struggle to hold its own, though much more successfully than the clarinet. You don't see many Tubas in the band these days, although it dominated before 1932,
This had an impact on jazz musicians (more saxes, fewer clarinetists) and composers/arrangers (after Ellington, very few knew how to write a clarinet part/parts - his clarinet trios are marvelous). If you want to play jazz clarinet, you really need to play in the formats in which the clarinet dominated: small New Orleans style ensembles and early swing. That's throwback music, but it's still great stuff. Or else dust off those old Ellington, Henderson, Lunceford charts (good luck, though, because they were never really written down).
Bottom line is: if you want a chance to play clarinet in a large jazz band, you have to double. No big band sideman clarinetists played clarinet alone. Even Bigard and Hamilton played Tenor Sax (Ray Nance, Ellington's great violinist, was first of all a trumpet player).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RWW
Date: 2000-05-22 21:07
Mark,
Too bad you played electric all that time. You and your band would have sounded better with a string base. No amplification needed. Electric base and (even worse) electric guitar or electric anything else ruins the jazz band (and Big Band) sound in my opinion. Now, for a more modern sound, the technology in synthesizers is getting scary. By that I mean matching and surpassing what the original instruments could do that are being imitated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Dean
Date: 2000-05-22 22:53
I think jazz clarinet will always survive in a small group whatever the style. I was lucky enough to hear Don Byron when he came to the UK recently and he was sensational by any standards of jazz. I now need to find Ken Peplowski in person to have heard the greatest contemporary jazz clarinettists!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-22 22:54
RWW wrote:
-------------------------------
Mark,
Too bad you played electric all that time. You and your band would have sounded better with a string base. No amplification needed.
-----
In your opinion, of course. You have no idea what my bands sounded like or anything even closely related. In other words - oh, forget it. It isn't worth arguing with a closed mind.
Unless you were in the Seattle area between 1978 and 1984, anyway, and chanced to hear the band(s) I played in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b.
Date: 2000-05-22 23:24
I need to clarify something I referred to earlier, RWW. I'm NOT anti-amplification. Some instruments are designed for amplification. We're not stupid. It's not the instruments I meant to take exception to, rather the yoyos who believe that 'my machinery is louder than yours - therefore, I'm better', kind of thinking. Somewhere along the way in the past few years the idea of musicianship diminished to near invisibility.
Good playing does not depend on the instrument or equipment. It depends on the musician. Some have it, some don't and no amount of gadgetry can make up for that. Just to tell someone an instrument is bad 'because of...' is, well, just not worth getting into. By that kind of comment I'm sure I'd rather attend a kindergarten recital than to listen to more of what you have to offer musically.
ron b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Willie
Date: 2000-05-23 06:33
I agree with Ron and Mark as to amplifying certain instruments. In our jazz ensemble the String bass and bass guitar is amplified just enough to be heard but without sacrificing tone and clarity. Keep in mind, they are competing with 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, and 5 saxes, plus the membranophones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RWW
Date: 2000-05-23 21:26
My Goodness, I obviously need to be more tackful. The string was dicussing the difficulty of hearing the clarinet in a loud jazz/dance band setting and I picked up on Ron b's comment that amplification was detrimental which pricked my pet pieve about using amplification unnecessarily in jazz/dance type bands. I, of course, have no idea what kind of music you were playing, Mark. I guess the tongue in cheekness of the remark was missed without the smiley face. Sorry. Bottom line, I have an opinion, and it is that there should be no difficulty playing clarinet with the jazz/dance band if they play the music properly. Our local "Big Band" uses 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, 5 saxes, piano, base, guitar, drums and vocalist. We play the original charts from the 20's,30's, 40's, 50's and all the saxes frequently need to switch off to clarinet. The only amplification is the vocalist uses a microphone. I only tell you all of this to point out that maybe the original musical style was more accomodating to the clarinet than what the student bands are playing now. I very much like to hear other peoples opinions even if they are contrary to mine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 2000-05-23 21:48
In a lot of film noir from the 1940s and 1950s, swing and jazz bands use a clarinet player as soloist with apparently only general miking, such as a pair of boom mics hanging over the band out toward the front of the bandstand. It's hard to tell what relationship those movie scenes have to what's on the soundtrack, since it's apparent much of the time that the soundtrack has been added later (finger motions don't quite match the tempo of the notes, etc.), even when it's clear that the musicians are real and not actors faking it. Maybe the taping was done with the clarinet far forward or something. Still, I seem to remember the live bands when I was a kid (I insist that this was *after* the fall of Rome) used clarinets *and* lots of trumpets with not much trouble. The trick seems to be to keep the trumpets under control when the solo clarinet takes a chorus! Much of the time, when they weren't supposed to sound forward, the trumpets used mutes or just *played quietly* (not a thought that occurs naturally to most trumpet players, I realize...). A good conductor, with musicians who pay attention, can control the balance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-05-23 22:37
RWW wrote:
-------------------------------
Our local "Big Band" uses 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, 5 saxes, piano, base, guitar, drums and vocalist. We play the original charts from the 20's,30's, 40's, 50's and all the saxes frequently need to switch off to clarinet. The only amplification is the vocalist uses a microphone. I only tell you all of this to point out that maybe the original musical style was more accomodating to the clarinet than what the student bands are playing now.
-------
I really think that young students, especially young brass players, have a hard time playing softly (and loudly while staying in tune, for that matter). That comes later, as they get more experience in controlling their instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: matt
Date: 2000-05-26 15:54
As a rank amateur, my only motivation to learn the clarinet recently (by myself) has come from jazz, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Anyone who really wants to play jazz clarinet has got to go back to the beginning - to guys like Sidney Bechet, Johnny Dodds, and Jimmie Noone, and see how the instrument held it's own. Louis Armstrong's Hot Five's & Seven's wouldn't be the same...you can even check out Buddy DeFranco.
I can't attest to high school and band preferences, since I'm a bit past that, but I can say that the music is out there, and you just might have to do it your self.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-05-26 16:13
Matt wrote:
"Louis Armstrong's Hot Five's & Seven's wouldn't be the same"
True - but it would have still been Louis. Don't even think about making a claim for the essentialness of Armstrong's sidemen to his genius. He would have made a jug band immortal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b.
Date: 2000-05-26 21:27
Right you are, larry -
Louis' sidekicks - Sidney, Johnny and Jimmy were excellent players, technically and intellectually, as were numerous others who worked with him. Louis Armstrong would have rivaled almost any trumpeter in his day and many today. His genius and the good management of his product put him and many of his 'sidemen' (let's not forget them) on their roads to fame. They deserved all the musical recognition they got (and are still getting, most of them posthumously).
I agree, Louis could have made any group sound good but he chose, when he could, those who would best complement his style. His inimitablility shined through even with mediocre players.
ron b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Allen Cole
Date: 2000-05-28 16:36
Here are a couple of things to consider:
1. As the 40's wore on, swing was more and more dominated by the tenor sax, and the many, many disciples of Lester Young. The horn had a speed, agility and versatility that made it THE horn to have in a small group with only one reed player.
2. The beboppers brought into the vernacular keys, tempos and melodic devices which--when combined--would chop the legs off of all but the best clarinetists. The saxophone is far more nimble in these keys, and offered a better offset to the trumpet in the progressively smaller and smaller bands that came into style.
3. Unless you were the bandleader, you never played JUST clarinet in a big band. Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw worked mostly as studio saxophonists (and often worked together) before establishing their own big bands. When Benny Goodman was offered the clarinet chair with Paul Whiteman (who premiered Rhapsody in Blue), it was with the understanding that he would be mostly playing saxophone.
4. Plenty of modern big-band saxophonists are actually clarinet players. Anyone with the chops to play jazz on clarinet can easily learn to double saxophone. (and will quickly find that the saxophone is much easier to play in the rock-and-roll keys like E, A and B)
5. Saxophone is the best choice for the big band woodwind section. The instrument was originally developed as a low pitch woodwind with greater projection, and has fulfilled its promise well. Clarinets project well in the highest registers, but saxes offer full substantial sound over a much wider range. Clarinets would be challenged to project in the same tessitura that most sax sections occupy.
6. On clarinetists running to sax to play jazz. First, the sax's fingering system is a LOT better for jamming. Second, most heavy doubling gigs are theatre-related, and demand more classical clarinet and flute sounds. Which leads to...
7. Good news! A really good clarinetist can probably double on sax more thoroughly than most sax players can double on clarinet. You already deal with fingering and embouchure issues that are foreign to most sax players. Plus, the need for 'legit' clarinet and flute sounds in pit orchestras provides an additional advantage.
Some startling facts on modern jazz clarinetists:
Eddie Daniels - Played tenor sax with Thad Jones/Mel Lewis. Thad really didn't care for clarinet solos (despite his affection for clarinet section passages), but Eddie slipped one in on a recording, got the 'Talent Deserving Wider Recognition' slot that year in Downbeat magazine, and the rest is history.
Don Byron - Tried to study classical but was constantly assaulted with suggestions that he should learn jazz because he's black. (he first came to fame playing Klezmer) Doubles extensively as a bari sax player, and I imagine that he pays most of his rent in NYC doing this. Jazz gigs pay very poorly even for the top players, but studio and society gigs can be quite lucrative.
An idea for frustrated clarinetists. There was a big band here in Richmond for years called the Saxtette. It had the regular sax section, two tenors and a bari covering trombone parts, and clarinets covering the trumpet parts. Any enterprising souls out there?
On the clarinet's superiority to the oboe as a jazz instrument. Two words: Yusef Lateef
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-05-30 15:32
Allen Cole wrote:
On the clarinet's superiority to the oboe as a jazz instrument. Two words: Yusef Lateef
to which I would add:
On the clarinet's superiority to the sarusaphone as a jazz instrument. Two words: Sidney Bechet (man, how he could swing that sarusaphone on "Mandy" with Clarence Williams/Louis Armstrong, 1924!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
