 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-30 14:28
This is a short biography of Mr Kell who has been the subject of a long thread. I think his dates and some of his accomplaishments should be shared.
[ As stated on the rules section, please provide only links where the information is available. Body of this post deleted (a copy of link contents), link remains. Mark C. ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Kell
Post Edited (2007-05-30 14:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-05-30 15:56
Kell was a true original..so many elements about his playing cannot be copied..tone and phrasing etc. are all such big things about the Kell artist...his admirers included Goodman..Furtwangler etc. Not to many players have had such a varied group of followers as Reginald Kell.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-05-30 16:13
Sherman -
Any idea who wrote the Wikipedia bio? It's rather skimpy. There was a very fine multi-part bio of Kell in The Clarinet in 2001.
I've never seen the quote about his being the first to play in tune from top to bottom. Has anyone else heard of it?
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-30 16:23
Ken,
That's the problem with Wikepdia, items written by multiple, anonymous posters. Not always a credible source.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-30 17:11
As far as the biography is concerned, yes, it is skimpy, but I know it is accurate insofar as it goes. His posts as Principal Clarinet and more importantly that he wasone of the the first clarinetists to emulate the human voice in a personal manner. His source for playing with vibrato and his phrasing in such a way set the world of clarinet somewhat on its ear. We try to "sing"and we attempt to get our students to sing as well, and to emulate the voice, to become one with the instrument . Some do, and some don't and others are interested only in high notes or moving the toungue faster than their stand partner. Often one wonders what purpose there is in playing an instrument. Reginald Kell knew and he set the stage for the whole English School. I knew Goosens by his playing and certainly was always moved by the playing of Jack Brymer. I remember that Sir John Barbirolli was married to the principal oboist of the orchestra he conducted, perhaps it was the Halle Orchestra and I think her name was Evylyn Rothwell. She phrased in the same manner as Reginald Kell and was I felt supremely musical.
One might impune Kells "cutesy" phrasing, which I read as envy, pure and simple.
Reginald Kell is one of the heros of the clarinet heritage.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-30 17:39
Ken Shaw wrote:
> Any idea who wrote the Wikipedia bio? It's rather skimpy.
> There was a very fine multi-part bio of Kell in The Clarinet in
> 2001.
>
> I've never seen the quote about his being the first to play in
> tune from top to bottom. Has anyone else heard of it?
Tim Riley, a librarian at The Crown Estate in London, wrote the first bio there, with a couple of of other people editing after that. The statement "first to play in tune from top to bottom" existed in the 1st edition of the Wikipedia bio, so Tim Riley wrote it.
Looking a little further, it appears the entire bio was cribbed from the cover notes of "Reginald Kell - The Complete American Decca Recordings".
http://www.buywell.com/cgi-bin/buywellic2/03595.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-30 17:48
Mark:
Thank you for the information. I looked up the Decca recording and frankly I do not know of another clarinetist who has recorded that much of the entire basic clarinet repertoire. Stolzman is certainly the first name of which one thinks, but he has not covered that much of the basic repertoire, and with such legendary players!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelR
Date: 2007-05-30 17:48
Previously in this thread people have wondered about the authorship of the Wikipedia article on Kell, described it as skimpy, and derided it as the work of anonymous posters.
So fix it!
Certainly there are many people who know more about Kell, who can cite references and write cohearently. It is dead simple to modify Wikipedia material - go do it.
I would but I really don't know beans about him other than an ancedote (http://www.jazzprofessional.com/interviews/Benny%20Goodman_1.htm ) about when he took Benny Goodman on as a pupil.
And heck, I just updated the Wikipedia article with:
In 1948 Benny Goodman approached Kell asking to be his pupil. Kell initially refused. He realized that any needed changes would have an initial, temporary backwards effect on Goodman's playing. He did not want the American public to view him as "the man who ruined our Benny Goodman." Goodman persisted and Kell accepted him as a student in 1952. (From Les Evans 1962 article reproduced at Jazz Professional. Evans had attended a lecture by Kell and heard the story from Kell.)
--
Michael of Portland, OR
Be Appropriate and Follow Your Curiosity
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-30 17:51
This is analagous to the story of when George Gershwin went to study with Maurice Ravel. Ravel asked him how much money he made. When Gershwin replied, Ravel said, "Sir, it is I who should study with you."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-30 18:11
MichaelR wrote:
> Previously in this thread people have wondered about the
> authorship of the Wikipedia article on Kell, described it as
> skimpy, and derided it as the work of anonymous posters.
>
> So fix it!
That's my main problem with Wikipedia - the ease at which information - accurate and not - can be added with no attribution. In some areas there's significant discussion, in others, not.
In this case it was a wholesale copy of liner notes ... accuracy indeterminate.
Mistakes are often made by scholars even with peer review; I shudder to think how many mistakes are made when there's essentially no review at all. I use Wikipedia for cursory reference, but unfortunately in schools it is being cited as primary reference - which it most certainly is not except in very special cases.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2007-05-30 20:06
I still have books 1 & 2 of the "Kell Method for Clatinet". Im not sure what year I purchased them but I used them at one time and payed $2.50 a piece for the books. Talk about inflation! A volume 3 exists that I do not have.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-05-30 20:48
Sherman wrote: "and more importantly that he wasone of the the first clarinetists to emulate the human voice in a personal manner"
The following was written about Anton Stadler in 1785:
"Never could I have thought that a clarinet could be capable of imitating a human voice so deceptively as it was imitated by you"
I hardly think that Kell was a pioneer when it came to this??!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jane84
Date: 2007-05-30 21:12
actually none of them were... The first one to imitate the human voice on (a raher early type of) clarinet, was an anonymous german shepherd on the 7th of June, 1736 in the western outskirts of Schwarzwald. His source of inspiration, sadly, remains unknown...
-jane
Post Edited (2007-05-31 18:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2007-05-31 00:35
There's what I would a genuine debate about Wikipedia. Detractors make good points.
My attitude is that I'd rather have it than not. And good sources can contribuite information. I was able to correct an article about my brother.
It's one of my favorite spots on the Internet - but sometimes taken with a grain of salt.
Bill.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2007-05-31 02:07
jane,
Probably the moon.
Sherman,
Actually of the "basic" works on Kell's collection, the only ones Richard Stoltzman hasn't recorded (yet) are the Debussy, Hindemith and Vaughan-Williams. On the other hand, he has recorded the Poulenc and Bernstein Sonatas, the first Weber Concerto (but Kell recorded the Concertino), the Rossini Introduction, Theme and Variations, the Berg 4 Pieces, the Messiaen Quartet for the End of Time, the Nielsen and Copland Concertos, and the Lutoslawski Dance Preludes. And folks like Goode, Ax, Ma, Peter Serkin, Sherry, Kavafian, the Cleveland Quartet and the Tokyo Quartet aren't exactly chopped liver. Also, of course, he's still going strong. Without actually looking carefully, I suspect that Leister, DePeyer, and Shifrin have also recorded huge chunks of the same basic repertoire and Martin Frost probably will too, before he's done.
That's not to say Kell did not leave an impressive recorded legacy, particularly considering the time period when he made his recordings. But let's not get too carried away.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-05-31 04:21
I attended an evening lecture by Kell in about 1961 at Sacramento (California) State College. I was a jr college kid; and it was awesome.
Only Kell played. He convinced me that it was necessary to play cleanly at ppp --a breakthrough for my hard reed machismo.
Near the end, he emphasized the need for a really, really good technician. Then, he broke down his Boozey-Hawks and dumped the sections into his briefcase and left the lecturn.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philcoman
Date: 2007-05-31 20:33
HA! Something people (mostly younger people, I notice) should keep in mind before they blindly disparage Kell's style or technique.
"If you want to do something, you do it, and handle the obstacles as they come." --Benny Goodman
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-31 20:43
Yes, and Mozart said, upon hearing the clarinet , "how beautiful and feminine is the sound of the clarinet!"
Things like that are really all over the place, however you fail to understand the incredible mass market that was gathered by Reginald Kell, at the time unheard of, the first clarinetist who attracted that kind of attention.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-31 20:47
sherman wrote:
> Yes, and Mozart said, upon hearing the clarinet , "how
> beautiful and feminine is the sound of the clarinet!"
> Things like that are really all over the place, however you
> fail to understand the incredible mass market that was gathered
> by Reginald Kell, at the time unheard of, the first clarinetist
> who attracted that kind of attention.
This post seems as if it's a non-sequitur, since Liquorice was responding to your statement
"and more importantly that he wasone (sic) of the the first clarinetists to emulate the human voice in a personal manner"
when he most certainly wasn't one of the first clarinetists to "emulate the human voice in a personal matter", no matter how popular he was or is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joeyscl
Date: 2007-06-01 06:41
Benny Goodman asked to be and became Kell's student? wow... that's interesting... What even more interesting is that this was well after Goodman had become an successful and well-established musician (perhaps more commercially successful than Kell was?)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-06-01 11:07
I tend to regard Kell as the first truly international clarinetist who travelled to the four corners of the globe...to have been the first clarinetist to have had a international solo career is quite a feat! There certainly must be somethng Kell expressed in his playing that touched audiences world over or he would never would have made such a big splash.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-06-01 22:35
A German Shepherd played the clarinet......now that's hard to believe.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-06-03 21:39
No, that is not be true, Mark. I say that he was one of the first to emulate the human voice, just as much an opinion as your statement. You also ought to carefully research "non-sequitor" as you drop it in every now and again. I do not accept your utilization.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-06-03 21:56
Sherman, you may not accept Mark's usage, but should we accept your spelling? ;-)
In any case, I don't follow your argument. How can you claim that Kell was one of the first to emulate the human voice when other clarinetists were doing it over a century before Kell sucked on his first reed?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bulldoggy1
Date: 2007-06-10 23:45
What difference does it make whether Mr. Kell was the first to "emulate" the human voice? He was a truly great musician/clarinetist who aspired to a distinctive style of playing. There are so many wonderful clarinetists now, both famous and not famous. I personally find Mr. Kell's recordings more friendly to my ears than those of any other classical clarinetist. But, I respect the opinions of others, and I will not argue the case with anyone since each of us have our own inate feel for what ignites the inner spark.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-11 22:59
What difference does it make that people say that Mr. Kell was the first to "emulate" the human voice?
Clearly he WASN'T the first, as reports of both Stadler and Baermann demonstrate.
But apart from that vocal aspect -- which I have to say I myself admire -- he was just another one of those performers who 'aspire to a distinctive style of playing'.
The centrality of that aspiration for him characterises both his playing and the limits of his musicianship -- though of course it guarantees him a following 'of the usual sort'.
That he thereby 'raised the profile of the clarinet' cuts very little ice with me. After all, what's so special about the clarinet -- particularly when it's represented like THAT?
Go listen to, say, Fournier on the 'cello.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2007-06-13 12:31
People love Kell, or they hate him. Not many are neutral. He might have wanted that.
He was the Glenn Gould of the clarinet, though I should add that a good deal of what Kell did was pretty irritating, whereas Glenn Gould can do almost no wrong for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-06-13 13:44
Hi,
I have a personal Reginald Kell story to tell from about 1953-54.
In my hometown of Sandusky, OH there is a Community Music Society that brought in small performing groups or soloists for a 4 or 5 concert series during the year. One series featured Kell and I believe a cello and piano player. One of the musical pillars of the Society was also one of my music teachers and she knew of my interest in woodwinds; she asked me if I would like to put on a suit (not such a big deal in the 1950s) and deal with the chair and stand issues during the performance. It was wonderful meeting Kell and the others; they were very kind.
I always think back to that evening so long ago and say to myself "I couldn't carry Kell's lunch but I could carry his stand!"
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-06-13 13:50
We tend to get so hung-up about the variation in the sound of "western" clarinet players. Try the YouTube Greek and Turkish clarinets for some real variation.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-13 22:49
graham wrote
>> People love Kell, or they hate him. Not many are neutral. He might have wanted that.>>
I doubt it. But anyway, what HE wanted or didn't want is rather beside the point.
What is reprehensible, even immoral, about what has been posted here about Kell is the insistence that we should not be able to criticise aspects of his playing -- that we should not be able to criticise some aspects of his playing even if we say at the same time that we endorse others.
After all, what is this forum for, other than to give people the opportunity to learn to emulate what is good and to avoid what is bad in a particular player? And how can we do that while discussion is limited to paying attention to people's OPINIONS about WHO IS GOOD and WHO IS BAD, unsupported by any argument whatever?
What the Friedlands and the Dows of this world insist is that Kell AS A PLAYER has to be GREAT, and therefore above criticism. This means that I have to be motivated by 'jealousy', according to the thing in the corner, if I quote chapter and verse about how he falls short in any regard.
That's just rubbish.
As I've written elsewhere, Kell was one of my great boyhood heroes. I now see him in a different light, and want to say why his influence was positive in some ways and negative in others.
Why should I have to put up with the crap that these two PRESUME to level at me for saying so?
Who are they anyway, this Pooh-Bah and his pal? Well, they are first of all inarticulate -- just read some of their posts with an eye to early-grade composition. And then if you ignore the bad English, and look beyond the personal insults, you find that they are intellectually puny and presumptuously judgemental. I could go on -- but enough for the moment.
I had wanted to go on from talking about Kell's Stravinsky to talking about his Hindemith, Saint-Saens and so on. But I couldn't get off the ground because even his manifest deficiences in the Stravinsky were loudly disputed.
Well, now perhaps I can.
>> He was the Glenn Gould of the clarinet>>
No, he wasn't. Glenn Gould was an infinitely superior musical intellect.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-06-13 23:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2007-06-14 07:16
Amen to the notion that Gould was an infinitely superior musical intellect, though I think the analogy works on the level concerning polarising of opinion. For instance, should Tony P happen to be planning some recitals with Alfred Brendel, he may find himself in some stormy break time conversations with the great man over the musical intellectual attributes of Glenn Gould.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-06-14 11:10
Tony -
I'd be interested in your thoughts on Kell's Hindemith and Saint-Saens.
I like his Hindemith recording. For me, his musicality is what counts, and I don't mind his characteristic mannerisms. They're just the way he played.
I think Kell's Saint-Saens misses the point. It needs a dry wit and virtuosic flash that weren't part of Kell's playing. I learned the piece from Delecluse's old LP. The dreadful sound quality makes him sound like a bandsaw cutting through sheet metal, but his technical finish and musical panache carry the day.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-06-14 11:19
I think Tony is ramblin on again..
Kell simply trod a path that led to the popularization of the clarinet as a solo instrument..something Pay nor I have done in the degree Reginald Kell has.
I also think to criticize is great...to debase is wrong!!! There is a great deal of destructive logic...Kell was to the first to popularize the clarinet in mass culture!
.... Maybe Tony in his confounded logic could see the reality
Kell did a service to bringing the clarinet into public limelight..as much as Goodman or Artie Shaw brought the clarinet into view at the time.
in spite of their flaws great artists communicate on a level academics fail to understand....they speak to an audience through the way they play. I also have reservations about Kell...but I also see the great things he does as well.
His Weber Concertino is unbelievable in its sheer virtuosity...it would pose a challenge to any clarinet great player to replicate such a command of the instrument.
So typical of Tony to hit out at others so obviously ...
Daniel Barenboim spoke to in conversation after an orchestral rehearsal years ago
.."A truly fine artist must also respect what any other artist gives...no matter how we dislike or disagree..for oneself we must find our own way." This is why Barenboim has become so famous...he is very much attuned to his fellow musicians..
As to Kell I am not a huge fan of his playing...however there are some truly great Kell performances on record...recordings do notentirely represent his playing as well.
I do however respect his career and the fact he made something of himself...he also had tons of technique and stellar command of the clarinet.
David Dow
Post Edited (2007-06-14 11:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-06-15 12:10
Its nice sometimes to go and listen to a performer and judge for oneself...there are plenty of recordings of Kell..here are some for you Lelia
[ Please use the URL= syntax for loong URLs. Mark C. ]
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2007-06-15 12:27
Tony,
I agree with Lelia. I don't know a better clarinetist and musician in this forum, or in any other forum.
YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE CLARINET WORLD IS MUCH GREATER THAN ANY OTHER CLARINETIST THAT I KNOW .
And that includes Kell - David.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-15 18:49
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> I'd be interested in your thoughts on Kell's Hindemith and Saint-Saens.
>> I like his Hindemith recording. For me, his musicality is what counts, and I don't mind his characteristic mannerisms. They're just the way he played.>>
For me, his musicality is intimately bound up with his mannerisms, for example in the following way. (I'll just describe quickly the one I think is the most important.)
Kell's way of going about music can be characterised by saying that what he does, by and large, is to 'cherry-pick' NOTES. There is a lot more, of course, but that's the fundamental structure.
Looking at his playing in that way immediately makes clear one aspect of what there is in it to emulate. Because he is concerned to pick out notes, his sound is very REAL, and has a presence that many students lack. Indeed, if you play a Kell-style low register note, complete with vibrato, then slow down the vibrato so that you can hear the transition from pale to ugly in detail, you may find that you can stabilise the sound 'just the acceptable side of ugly' -- effectively, you 'stop' the already slowed vibrato at that point. Then, that's very often a good sound for the BEGINNING of a low register note played without vibrato, shading into a rounder sound for the sustained part of the note.
Back to the music. I said in another thread that it's very easy to imitate Kell's musical style. What you do is, you decide which notes in a phrase you're going to pick out. (They usually occur a couple of seconds or so apart with him.) So in the opening of the Hindemith he decides to go first for the G, and then the C; followed by the same G and then a heightened D in the second phrase. That's logical, musically, and generates audience satisfaction, because he makes an eloquent sound on them. We also get a satisfactory sense of upward progression, appreciable even to a naive listener.
I could spell out how he goes on from there -- but I think that anyone who appreciates this sort of thing will be able to see the pattern. Occasionally he picks out an 'unexpected' note, like the E# 4 bars after 3. And by and large the music survives the simplification 'HEIGHTENED NOTES plus OTHER STUFF', and sounds 'musical'.
But now, if you look at how the piece is actually constructed, you see another possibility -- one that Nielsen, for example, rightly insisted was fundamental to almost all music. It is this: as well as seeing the importance of notes, we need to see the importance of the relationships between notes -- which in its simplest form means the importance of INTERVALS.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Kell shows absolutely no evidence that he has recognised one of the central characters of this movement -- namely, the one called 'falling minor third' -- the very first thing that the clarinet plays, and which he skates over. He's so concerned about having an expressive vocabulary for his important notes, you see, that he overlooks the need for an expressive vocabulary to deal with all the varieties of falling minor third -- and later, sometimes major third -- that Hindemith gives us.
What's another central character? Well, we don't have to look far -- it's the rising sequence of perfect fourths so characteristic of Hindemith, the second and third intervals that the clarinet first plays. When the tune goes up, it goes up in fourths, when it comes down, it comes down in thirds -- to begin with at any rate.
Well, I suppose Kell recognises the ascending fourths. But notice, HE CAN'T LEAVE THEM ALONE. When they occur in diminution at figure 9, he can't resist cherry-picking the first note -- so it goes, DAA-da-da-da Daa. It's not a great exaggeration to say that almost all of his mannerisms, rhythmic and otherwise, can be traced back to the fact that he seems to think that a phrase, however complex, is adequately represented by one note -- plus other stuff.
Of course, why Kell sounds musical is that he IS musical. But why he is a bad example for us in some respects is that he doesn't take his musicality far enough in the pieces that demand it. He produces instead a Reader's Digest version, which people fall in love with because they can easily understand it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
