 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2000-06-09 17:10
I have been beginning to wonder whether the idea that some instruments are better suited to classical music than to jazz. I mean, we as musicians might be able to hear the difference between a jazz horn and a classical one, but what about the person who likes jazz, but is not a musician? Could they really tell a jazz horn from a classical one.
I can also imagine that some jazz players have small-bore instruments, while some classical players have large-bore instruments.
Could the same go for mouthpieces?
If the concept of instruments and mouthpieces suited for jazz is a myth, then there may be quite a number of people who are wasting their money, not to mention the people who advertise as their instruments being suitable for jazz.
Thought I'd provide something interesting to discuss.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-06-09 18:01
As you imply, this probably has more to do with marketing than anything else. A great jazz musician can make almost anything sing. Look at Charlie Parker with his plastic alto sax, which he used a few times in the 1950s. In the early days of New Orleans jazz, many of the great clarinetists were also either trained classical musicians or absorbed many of the classical, operatic, marching band influences of the day. They tended to use "Albert" system clarinets, which were simply the popular instrument of the day. I think this whole "Pete Fountain" jazz clarinet thing is pure snake oil, not to mention the fact that he's one of the dimmer lights in the jazz reed constellation. (That should keep the discussion going)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steve Epstein
Date: 2000-06-09 18:13
I have observed that in many endeavors, people copy those who are more experienced or are deemed to be experts. So, if Kenny Davern plays a 5JB? Pomarico? (can't remember), then others will want to play this same "jazz" mp, whether it's right for them or not.
Also, I wonder if the idea that large bore = jazz and small bore = classical isn't just anthropomorphic. You know, large = loud = bold = masculine = jazz, and small = soft = pretty = effeminite = classical music:-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paul
Date: 2000-06-09 18:16
At least for clarinets, you could be partially right and partially wrong.
The most important part of the performance is the person, not the horn. In this point you can't help but be 100% on target. Anyone arguing for the counterpoint here? No? I didn't think so.
Now, for the discerning members of the audience, there is a difference between the sound emitted from the jazz and classical clarinet. The jazz clarinets tend to be (notice this is a tendency, not a set in stone law) a larger/straighter bore, using larger/wider mouthpieces, and straight cut tone holes. A 1940s to 1950s era big bore Selmer with a wide open mouthpiece fits this model pretty well. I've personally been to live jazz gigs where this exact set up was played. The sound was a bit brassy and brash, very loud (and amplified even louder), with a superb brass blending altissimo - just what the audience expects for jazz. The classical clarinet tends to be narrow bored, perhaps polycylindrically shaped inside the upper bore, with undercut tone holes and a medium to close mouthpiece. The chalemeau and clarion registers are deep and rich. The altissimo is a bit more flute-like but still a gorgeous sound. A good pro player with a classical style horn can be heard well across an entire packed auditorium without amplification as low as pp level. The solid sound just pierces right through. Been there, heard that, in live concert way up in the nosebleed section of the peanut gallery.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-06-09 18:48
Didn't most clarinetists play on larger bore instruments in the 1940s and 1950s? Regardless of whether they played jazz or not? Listen to Jimmy Giuffre on clarinet - hardly brassy or bold, eh? Perhaps, though, jazz clarinet preferences reflect nostalgia for the hey-day of the instrument, not any reality about the suitability of the instrument for any particular type of music. By the way, I really mean that about sheep.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim L
Date: 2000-06-09 19:11
So, you think that there is a "jazz" clarinet and "classical" clarinet. Please specify. To me a clarinet is a clarinet. Whether you are playing the jazz or classical style, you are still playing the clarinet. I have heard flautists playing jazz. Is the flute a jazz instrument?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-06-09 19:28
An instrument by itself is just a tool; it's in the hands of the user as to how to use that tool.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2000-06-09 19:53
Simple answer, YES!! I really cant throw any more gasoline on this brightly burning fire than the above have done. I do believe the bore dimensions and their configurations do influence the tonal accuracy of the 12ths, and the relative energies in the many harmonics [overtones] which produce "tone-color", but so does the mouthpiece and the player, and how he/she interprets a piece of classic or jazz music. I know that I strive for bright/brassy jazz, Dixie, Ger.Band sound versus a dark/mellow "classic sound", and hope to produce something acceptable. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Gardner
Date: 2000-06-09 19:54
My sheep resent your remarks. They said they are not people.
Just a little humor--nothing personal.
however i have to agree--tht a lot of us want to use what the big guys play. if pete Fountain play a lablanc that is good enough for me. If Steve Young (49er) said he play a lablanc that means nothing to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2000-06-09 20:12
It's not completely a myth and it's not completely the truth. Either style of clarinet music can be successfully played on either design of clarinet. It is up to the player to achieve the desired result. *BUT* certain design features make it easier to achieve the desired result. Everything is a tradeoff.
The straight, large bore, non-undercut tone holes make it easy to get the big, bold, bright, brassy jazz sound. Yet in the hands of a player who knows how, it can yield the rich mellow sounds appropriate for classical music but he is going to end up working a little harder to get there. Both the jazz player and classical player will have to pay special attention to their intonation since the horns themselves tend to be less in tune throughout their ranges.
The small bore, polycylindrical, undercut tone holes make it easy to get the rich mellow classical sound and minimizes intonation discrepancies. But you can get a jazz sound out of it. Again, the player has to work harder to get that sound, perhaps going with a different reed/mouthpiece combo to get the sound that he wants.
I have sometimes played a large bore instrument in concert bands when my regular one was in the shop and could blend with the section quite nicely after a few bars. However, I did notice that I had to adjust how I played and had to listen very attentively to achieve the blend with this horn.
Will the listeners know the difference? Not if the player knows what he's doing and delivers the jazz sound on jazz music and the classical sound on classical music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b.
Date: 2000-06-09 22:19
Is a jazz clarinet, the instrument, a myth? Yes.
It is, as it has been since I can remember (and has been expressed so well in the above posts), my humble opinion that it's not so much the instrument as the player who makes the music. I don't mean to offend any sheep but we do (I include myself) seem to follow current trends a lot. Some horns, like toasters or water softeners, are constructed better and cost more than others. Buy the best you can afford; it'll be a little easier to get the result you want.
ron b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd H.
Date: 2000-06-09 22:56
Lately I've been trying different clarinets, on a couple of them it seemed easier to get the sound/tone color that I like to hear. I kind of am thinking that the player's contribution to "the Sound" is the most important too. Isn't the "jazz clarinet" the one that you find easiest to make sound right in the context of the kind of tunes that are being played(whatever that means to you)?
Strangely enough I just today visited my neighbors who have some sheep; the white kind with black faces mostly. Afew of them are very dark though; I suppose that those ones are the clarinets of the barnyard. How Felliniesque!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MikeH
Date: 2000-06-10 03:31
First of all, what kind of jazz are we talking about? If it's chamber jazz ala Chico Hamilton or Jimmy Giuffre, then a clarinet typically used in classical settings will probably be all right. If the setting is a modern big band or a very intense modern small group then the typical clssical small bore close mpc set up is going to get buried. For most present day jazz settings a large bore instrument with a very open mpc is needed. I am a fairly serious amateur jazz clarinet and sax player and use a
Selmer large bore Centered tone clarinet built in 1958 with a Van Doren 5JB mpc. This is a LOUD set up if you need it. And you need power if you want to project a commanding presence when soloing in the context of a modern big band, even an amateur band. The concept of a "jazz" clarinet is not a myth and to anyone who says it is, I would ask: Have you ever stood out front soloing on the clarinet while a big band is roaring behind you? If the answer is yes, I suspect that you take the concept of a "jazz" clarinet seriously.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Small
Date: 2000-06-10 18:38
I agree with MikeH. I own two Leblanc clarinets--a small bore model (LX) with a 14.60 mm bore and a medium bore model (LL) with a 14.80 bore. The LL blows freer and is louder than the LX making it more suitable for jazz where you definetly need more power than for classical playing. One of these days I'd like to get a larger bore model like the Pete Fountain or Centered Tone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2000-06-10 21:47
Mouthpieces make a big difference too, no matter what clarinet you are playing. I can get a big sound on my Buffet Crampon RC with an Otto Link mouthpiece, using the same reeds as for my B45 lyre.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2000-06-10 22:17
i agree with R S's commentary, having a LeB L7 [14.85 mm?] which serves me well for both what classic and jazz playing I still do with a Wells mp and a Benny Goodman [BG] which is my present favorite! I have a P series '54 Selmer [15.0?] and have played some CT's and really dont find much diff. ?What did G Miller's cl lead-man play?? He could be heard over 4-5 saxes!! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 2000-06-12 12:22
Two days too late to join this debate, but surely no-one is suggesting that the larger bore allows more sound simply because it is bigger or less resistant. That does not sound right at all, given that the differences between narrow and wide bore are so small. Listen to the early jazz players and they sound very close to the classical players of the same period, give or take vibrato and glissando.
Is 15mm Fountain bore such a jumbo sized bore? No, not really, there are wider instruments than that which have never been favoured by the jazz fraternity. Was Benny Goodman's clarinet a non-undercut type? Don't know but I would be very surprised if that were so, listening to the way it sounds. It seems likely that the creation of a different class of jazz clarinet is a latter day thing which has little to do with how the clarinet got into jazz in the first place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lindy
Date: 2000-06-12 13:54
The mouthpiece makes the most difference. Definitely
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larry
Date: 2000-06-12 14:34
The greatest misconception that appears in these postings (mostly by the supporters of the jazz clarinet myth) is that big bands are so loud that they overwhelm the instrument. I would suggest that the band is the problem, not the clarinet. Bad big bands don't know how to swing softly or with any dynamic nuances!! The myth that loud equals hot does greater damage to jazz than a pea shooter clarinet. Listen to Ellington's unbearably intense quiet drive in the middle section of "Harlem Air Shaft" and the way Barney Bigard plays with it. Or Lester Young on Basie's "Blue and Sentimental:" Prez certainly played clarinet in a soft way. Come to think of it, most of the competition between Young and Herschal Evans over Tenor Sax sound concerned reed strength - not the instrument or mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Small
Date: 2000-06-13 04:24
I won't argue with any of the above posts but I will say that a larger bore barrel can reduce resistance and increase volume, at least to my ears. Also I am aware that some of the top jazz players use small bore horns, such as Eddie Daniels (Leblanc Concerto) but here in my area (metro D.C.) some of the serious clarinetists (as opposed to doublers, who all seem to use R13s) favor large bore horns, particularly the Selmer Centered Tone, which I believe has a 15.00 mm bore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SMC
Date: 2000-06-13 12:21
The idea of specific clarinets more suitable for jazz, has a lot to do with the "copying" of a jazz stile, which has nothing to do with the "playing" and "creation" of jazz music.
If you want to "reproduce" a certain "classical" or "jazz" sound, there are hundreds of combinations of clarinet-mouthpiece-ligature-reed that may help you "copying" that sound.
I have heard musicians, playing both classical pieces the classical way and jazz pieces the jazzy way on exactly the same clarinet and set-up.
The myth is not, that there are clarinets that make it easier for you to "copy" a certain sound: the misconseption is that you need to purchase a jazz clarinet to "make" jazz (and "how" you make jazz is a different story!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paul
Date: 2000-06-13 15:13
For what it's worth, occassionally I've played ragtime (precursor to jazz) by cold sight reading using only narrow bored intermediate and pro grade clarinets. No one in the (admittedly very friendly) audience could tell the difference. Not too bad for a novice, eh?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Allen Cole
Date: 2000-06-17 07:37
I think that the jazz clarinet situation is much like that of singing. Much of the specialized sounds and setups have been rendered obsolete by modern PA systems. You used to need a Kirsten Flagstad to belt out Wagner over a live pit orchestra. Now the same crowd can hear the more sultry sounds of a Nancy Wilson ballad, mixed electronically with her accompanists.
The old jazz players did much of what they did to function in groups with brass instruments and to maximize airflow. Even so, I think that they were too individual to really designate what are and aren't jazz setups. There are differences between the creole players, the schooled guys like Goodman & Shaw, and the generation from DeFranco on forward.
Personally, I like playing on my R13, partly because I still have a lot of legit stuff to play. I do find a more open tip and a softer reed (usually #4) to be helpful on two fronts. The first is that they respond better to the residual effects of the saxophone on my embouchure and breathing. Lower resistance and freer blowing are very attractive when you're playing most of the night on tenor sax.
The other thing is that this setup is more pliable in terms of sound. The instability of these setups make them very flexible to the player. (much in the way that unstable aircraft are more maneuverable) I find that it's easier to execute note bends, smears, vibrato and subtones. More stable setups can be resistant to these kinds of manipulations--at least this was my experience when I majored in clarinet and used close facings and hard reeds.
Note, though, that Don Byron uses open facings and HARD reeds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2000-08-16 17:28
Wish I'd found this sight earlier -- larry's got it VERY right again. I've often sent youngsters to Lester Young's few recorded clarinet solos for "how to play jazz clarinet" lessons. Try his exquisite 8 bars on Billie Holiday's "The Very Thought Of You", which distills the very essence of jazz clarinet - and, incidentally, he played a metal clarinet. And the band was playing VERY QUIETLY; --- a lost art in jazz! larry wrote:-------------------------------The greatest misconception that appears in these postings (mostly by the supporters of the jazz clarinet myth) is that big bands are so loud that they overwhelm the instrument. I would suggest that the band is the problem, not the clarinet. Bad big bands don't know how to swing softly or with any dynamic nuances!! The myth that loud equals hot does greater damage to jazz than a pea shooter clarinet. Listen to Ellington's unbearably intense quiet drive in the middle section of "Harlem Air Shaft" and the way Barney Bigard plays with it. Or Lester Young on Basie's "Blue and Sentimental:" Prez certainly played clarinet in a soft way. Come to think of it, most of the competition between Young and Herschal Evans over Tenor Sax sound concerned reed strength - not the instrument or mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
