 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-11-29 19:19
I have a large library of clarinet recordings which I've accumulated over many decades.
However, I find myself only listening to recordings by artists whose tone pleases me.
Granted, many of the players who I bypass are great musicians, with fine technique and often have valid interpretive ideas. But, if their tone does not appeal to me, the CD sits unplayed.
Can you bypass a clarinet tone that does not appeal to you, in favor of interpretation and technical skill?
For me it is very difficult ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan K
Date: 2007-11-29 19:21
In my opinion, tone is one of the most important part of playing clarinet, and if you don't like someone's tone, or it happens to be subpar, its ok to pass them up, as you're not liking the beter part of all their playing to begin with.
Ryan Karr
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2007-11-29 20:02
For me there is a difference between "bad tone" and tone that I don't personally like.
Without mentioning names, some of my favourite musicians on our instrument have tones I would never want to have myself. Many of our greatest musicians probably have "different" tones for the same reasons that their interpretations are so "different" and interesting. I actually prefer to listen to someone with a tone that's greatly different from my own concept of sound usually. If they do great musical things with it, I find that it sheds light on some golden moments in the music my own analysis as a listener might have missed previously. I don't know why this happens, but is does.
What "bad tone" for me is underdeveloped voice. If someone has a tone I don't like and they don't know how to use it, the entire thing seems like an amplified version of 'unmusicality'.
I won't bother to name anyone in the clarinet world, but examples of wonderful VOICES (that without the musical person behind them, are a bit different from my ideal tone for each instrument) are:
Maria Callas
Shirley Verrett
Jacqueline duPre
David McGill
Heinz Holliger
Ted Baskin
Those above are for me some of the most remarkable musicians I've ever listened to, and I didn't like their tones at first hearing. In the case of duPre and the oboists, I've come to prefer tones more in line with their own, infact.
GBK- I'm sure you've disliked someone's tone a bit at some point, but have been won over by their artistry. Perhaps you (like I have) now consider their tones desirable, without realising your initial reaction?
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2007-11-29 20:11
I've always felt artistry to be a much more important element than mere tone. I can only speak for myself, but I would much rather hear someone play the music, than to hear someone just play the clarinet.
Post Edited (2007-11-29 20:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-29 21:18
btw - In my years of playing I have gotten more and more tollerant of differing sounds. So a recording I may have dismissed 20 years ago as not having a good sound I may like just fine now.
But if it's really bright I'm not going to like it period.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2007-11-29 21:31
Interesting question, GBK. I'm willing to listen to a great musician even if their tone is not within the range of my ideal sound. For instance, Stanley Drucker's sound in the Corigliano is not my favorite, but what a musician! (and how many others can really play that technical monster?). Franklin Cohen's sound on his Brahms' Sonatas is not as fine as in his orchestral playing (maybe the mikes are too close?) his Debussy Rhapsody and his Soldier's Tale with Boulez and the marvelous Cleveland players, but - once again - what a musician! Kirri Kriku's (forgive my abominable spelling) sound in his recordings of contemporary concertos is perhaps too fluid/mercurial/chameleon-like, but (I'm becoming rather predictable, no doubt), what a musician!(He should wear a leotard and cape and leap tall buildings in a single bound!) On the other hand, I still haven't learned to appreciate Acker Bill's rubato in his 1939 recording of the Brahms' Quintet with the Jack Benny Quartet.
Cass Tech (aka leatherlip)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2007-11-29 21:38
Bradley:
I played in the Cass Tech Band with Ted Baskin and, since then, have heard some of his fine recordings. Is he still playing with the orchestra?
Cass Tech (aka leatherlip)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-29 22:08
I find that consistancy of sound is more important than the sound itself. There are many famous musicians on all instruments that have very harsh and unpleasent tones but they are very consistant and most people don't notice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-11-30 00:18
It's a great question. I'd love to answer that yes, I can overlook it. But the reality is that, no, I find it difficult to listen to a recording with a poor sound.
I have forced myself to before, strictly for educational purposes and giving it a chance. But after that initial hearing, it's very unlikely that I'll give it another chance until much later.
Interesting to see some comments, though. I, too, have become more accepting of different sounds over the years. Without question, though, it is the most important thing I end up judging by, including with other instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-11-30 02:56
Myself, I too only listen primarily to music whose tone I enjoy. I like to hear what I a sound that is pleasing to the ears. However I do sometimes find a recording or piece that I find myself thinking not about the sound but rather about the technique. And there are other recordings where I like the tone, but don't like the interpretations.
Ex 1: I have a recording of Weber's Grand Duo and Rossini's Theme and Variations all by Joze Kotar. I got these recordings from mp3.com about 5 or 6 years ago (when you could download an artist's samples that they posted). They're not great recordings. The tone is allright. But the technique is phenominal. That guy is spot on and I am always amazed at how easily he seems to make it sound. I constantly listen to it and it always amazes me.
Ex 2: I borrowed a CD from the library of David Shifrin playing some pieces. He's got a great sound, and very good technique, but something seemed to be lacking on those CDs. I didn't really feel the music and there was no real communication between his playing and my ears. It was almost like listening to elevator music. It was there, it was nice, but nothing I couldn't walk away from. Now he's a phenominal player and his resume MORE than justifies that. But something about how he interprets and presents the pieces (despite a very good sound) just doesn't agree with me so I have no pieces by him. And honestly, I probably wouldn't go to a concert of him. A masterclass, yes, as I'm sure he has TONS of knowledge I don't know. But just hearing him play I just couldn't do.
Alexi - who hopes you understand that people's opinions on players are just that. Opinions.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2007-11-30 03:05
Leatherlip-
Yes, he definitely is! He and his wife are still with the orchestra, and he is on the oboe faculty at my school. I was just rediscovering his RIDICULOUSLY GOOD Tombeau de Couperin with Dutoit with a couple of his current students. I believe there are two versions out or something, but one of them told me I have "the better one". I think you can either get in touch with him on sites (www.osm.ca or www.mcgill.ca/music). He does a good amount of chamber music work around the city that I've fortunately caught a few times.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2007-11-30 03:13
Given that my personal musical concepts were formed at the piano for four years before I started playing clarinet, I find it interesting to hear tone and interpretation discussed separately. The touch sensitivity of the piano means that technique and tone are deeply intertwined, and I think stylistically the same is so with the clarinet, even if tone and technique can be separated a bit more when discussing clarinet playing. Can one really enjoy the interpretation of a performance when the overall sound coming out of the instrument is somehow at odds with that interpretation? Is that the source of the problem you encounter with certain recordings, GBK?
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-11-30 03:59
Just an interesting side note:
One of my teachers told me about an experiment in which long tones were played and recorded by various professional musicians. The people running the experiment then cropped off the beginning and ending of each tone so that only the middle remained. After listening back you could not tell which instruments you were hearing; oboe, clarinet, voice, etc. all sounded like computer generated sounds.
I think the point is, "tone" is actually a very complicated thing. When we listen to and evaluate someone's tone we are actually perceiving many different things simultaneously.
Personally, if someone plays with bad intonation, bad legato, unmatched, lack of color, etc. I wouldn't pay money to listen to it. If someone can do all of those things and makes music, tone does not matter so much. Unfortunately it seems that many clarinetists have inherited their teachers biasness towards what is good or bad with tone, and therefore miss out on hearing some wonderful artists.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-11-30 04:44
Further clarification:
I think that everyone has their idea of a perfect clarinet sound (or the sound that they try to emulate) in their aural memory.
Since not all clarinet tones are identical (different shades of brightness, different shades of focus, more or less overtones present, etc...) one often "accepts" or still finds pleasing a clarinet tone which does not deviate too far from what one perceives as "their ideal."
However, when a professional clarinet tone is at the far end of the spectrum, different from my ideal sound, I have great difficulty getting past the sound to enjoy the artistry of the player.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2007-11-30 05:13
I can accept many different colors of sound. I am very impressed with control of the tone. I am really turned off of a recording, when the tone is wild and out of control. I hear this sometimes from certain "soloists."
One particular recording that is an interesting example is Mr. Franklin Cohen Brahms sonatas recording with Ashkenazy. It can be argued that Mr. Cohen's tone on that recording is "far end of the spectrum." I still find it very listenable.
Can anybody tell me what Cohen is doing on that recorinding? He sounds a lot of different on everything else ive heard.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-11-30 05:33
I definitely can overlook a good tone no matter how different it is from my idea of a "perfect" tone (whic his not one tone actually, but depends on many things like the context, etc). Actually very different tones is one of the things I'm interested in hearing. Another way to look at tone (or listen to it) is how it specifically fits in connection with the music you are listening to, and think why to choose one tone and not another, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-11-30 11:47
>>Can you bypass a clarinet tone that does not appeal to you, in favor of interpretation and technical skill?
>>
I think tone is *part of* interpretation and technical skill. If the performer interprets the music with a screechy tone quality, it turns me off, no doubt about it, and I'm likely to turn *it* off unless there's something else particularly exciting about it. To some extent, I agree with Shadow Cat about "screech-sticks." But, yes, I'll listen to something brilliantly played even if I don't particularly like the sound. I'll also make big allowances for old recordings, especially if they're remastered from wax cylinders or '78s. I want to hear what clarinet players of the past did, even if the early recording technology wasn't kind to them.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2007-11-30 13:47
When I played Giora Feidman's splendid bass clarinet recording of Bruch's Kol Nidre for a few professional musician friends a couple of years ago, one -- a flutist -- couldn't get past the "funky" tone. Another -- a major symphony bass clarinetist -- said: "He's not playing clarinet, he's playing MUSIC!"
My view, too!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-30 14:07
In the opposite line of thinking of the original question...
Can you overlook lack of expression/interpretation/technique if the performer has a beautiful tone?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2007-11-30 14:37
Bradley:
Thanks for the update on Ted Baskin. He was always an inspiring musician to play with, and on one occasion in particular, he did me a kindness for which I'll always be grateful. The year after I graduated from high school I attended a rather disapointing college (I was a lazy high school student and got mediocre grades), and decided to spend my spare time preparing a recital. The faculty had a pianist who had played at Carnegie Hall, so I had a accompanist who could do the job (although we had insufficient rehearsals to do justice to the music). Although the college was a considerable drive from Detroit, Ted and my good clarinet buddy Phil Bashor made the trip to attend. It was an act of friendship that I'll never forget.
Cass Tech
(aka leatherlip)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-11-30 15:03
For me, it's simply: 1) Technique--if the right notes and rhythmns are not being performed, forget it; 2) Interpretation--interesting musical nuance makes my ear want to listen; 3) Intonation--makes the performance pleasing to my ear; 4) Tone--any notes sound quality will do if it is the rhythmicaly correct pitch, musically expressive and in tune.
Clarinet playing aside, nobody sings, "What A Wonderful World" like the great, gravel voiced, Louis Armstrong.
Of course, for someone considering clarinetting as a profession, quality of sound is important. But of more importance is being able to play correctly, with good musical expression and impeccably in tune within the ensemble or solo. Sound is the most controversial [what is "good"?] and least important consideration of any audition.
Post Edited (2007-11-30 15:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Firebird
Date: 2007-11-30 22:14
It may not be wrong to dismiss a recording because the tone may not be something that you are looking for. After all, the tone is the 1st impression the clarinettist makes, and it's the 1st impression that matters.
However, tone is a very subjective concept. For instance, I don't really like the sound of British clarinettists on say Mozart, but I'm sure they will sound highly appropriate when they play Finzi or Stanford.
From my high school maths tutor:
'With acceptance comes peace.'
Chan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-12-01 00:01
I think that tone (i.e tonal control) are inextricably linked to the music making.
For me, tone isn't an isolated thing - its how the sound is shaped in time.
I believe someones interpretation is affected by the tone that they have. There are quite a number of clarinettists whose interpretation I just don't really understand, because of their particularly brand of tonal manipulation.
I have a vague idea of what they're doing...but I can't really live on good intentions!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-12-01 02:52
Since I mainly play bass clarinet (and am always listening for the instrument) my perspective is a bit different --- orchestral bass clarinet is mainly a 'color' instrument, rarely getting extended passages to play, and generally not technically difficult passages either -- so for this instrument I'd say that tone is just about everything! The bass clarinetist is paid for producing the most wonderful sound (granted, this depends on the music and the desired effect) and other aspects such as technique, phrasing, and interpretation are nearly irrelevant.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-12-01 06:47
Yes....but a bass instrument needs to carry the harmony..and that means having a sound that can be manipulated to give direction to the music.
I have no doubt that you are fine player in orchestra! But I disagree about phrasing/interpretation being irrelevant. Even single notes have a shape...and beautiful tone has a lot to do with the shapes you can make.
I agree that Finger technique probably isn't all that necessary...
unless its Daphnis Suite 2
where everything needs to be working
I guess for me, good interpretation doesn't exist without good tone.
And good tone doesn't exist without good interpretation.
Post Edited (2007-12-01 11:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2007-12-01 19:03
I think I'm in agreement with GBK. If I don't like the tone quality I won't listen to it.
Additionally, if I don't like the interpretation but do like the tone quality I also won't listen to it.
Case in point: Yesterday I was going to buy 2 newly released recordings of the Nielsen concerto. I greatly enjoy both players' work in general and when I scanned them to sample them at the store I found that the one I expected to prefer I indeed did NOT, despite generally liking that player's sound. The interpretation and the recording both did not meet my standards.
FYI, I bought the Martin Frost and NOT the Sabine Meyer. And of course I already have at least 3 other performances of the piece...lol!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-12-01 23:11
Rod Rubber wrote: "One particular recording that is an interesting example is Mr. Franklin Cohen Brahms sonatas recording with Ashkenazy. It can be argued that Mr. Cohen's tone on that recording is "far end of the spectrum." I still find it very listenable. Can anybody tell me what Cohen is doing on that recorinding?"
One thing that he is doing on that recording is playing out of tune a lot of the time! I find it unbelievable that a record label would actually release a recording with such bad intonation. And that such a famous pianist would be prepared to have his name released on that record.
Regarding the original question, I think it is a shame when instrumentalists are so locked in to what they believe the be the ideal tone that they can't appreciate great musicianship because it doesn't fit into that ideal. Have you noticed how this only happens with the very instrument that those people play? We tend to be far more open minded regarding the tone of instruments that we ourselves don't play.
How sad if cellists can't appreciate the artistry of Jaqueline Du Pre's Elgar concerto because they don't like her tone!
A few recordings of clarinet players whose tone I don't favour, but have moved me by their interpretations include:
-Alan Hacker: Finzi Concerto
-Michel Portal: Brahms sonatas
-Gervase De Peyer: Horowitz Sonatina (2nd movement)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-12-01 23:34
I don't think I separate these things
Otherwise I'd never like anything
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-12-01 23:46
Liquorice wrote:
> Have you noticed how this only happens with the
> very instrument that those people play?
> We tend to be far more open minded regarding the tone
> of instruments that we ourselves don't play
An excellent observation...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-12-02 00:07
What about great tone and boring interpretation (on any instrument)?
I think we have all heard performances with great beautiful tone but little variation of it and expression that makes us think a peformer is board. This is not a clarinet only question.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bahamutofskycon
Date: 2007-12-02 00:31
I agree with GBK - if I don't like the tone, I won't listen to it much.
I've bought CD's for the express purpose of listening for the performer's interpretation, but after the first listen or two I put it aside and don't often return to it. They may have wonderful things to say about the music through their interpretation, but if I don't like the way they sound I'm not going to listen to it for pleasure.
It operates in reverse also - if the tone in wonderful (to me) but the interpretation is boring (also, to me) I won't listen to it very much.
My favorite recordings are ones that combine my favorite sound with my favorite interpretation.
In general I listen for tone first - if I consider the tone to be lacking then I'm generally turned off.
Here's a good example - death metal bands or rap artists may have amazing things to say with their music, but I don't listen to it because I don't like the way they sound (and I don't want to like the way they sound).
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2007-12-03 07:17
DS: I think as usual the point you make contains a great truth, but you have over-cooked the point. The best bass playing goes beyond mere beauty of tone, but it is relatively rare to hear players even in top orchestras going beyond it because they subscribe to your theory. This often gives us technically perfect sound but a curiously detatched quality to the musicianship. In particular, bass players all too readily select their favoured dynamic range for the best possible tone and pump the solo out at that level irrespective of what the composer really wants. How many bass players do justice to the dynamic markings in, say, the big solo in the last movement of Shos 8th, or that in the first movement of Mahler 6th? Too few, because it might play havoc with their precious tone conception.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Carol Dutcher
Date: 2007-12-04 21:36
I recently told a high school senior who had the most amazingly wonderful tone, "you can play a million notes, but if you don't have a good tone, it's not worth much." A strong statement, but it is exactly the way I feel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-12-04 22:38
I note that at least one respondent has replaced "tone" with "sound" and I would do the same. I do not necessarily equate the two terms. I know a number of clarinet sounds that I like but the clarinetist's "tone" does not meet the usual concept of good tone. Woody Allen's playing of Rock of Ages is one example.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-12-04 22:39
I note that at least one respondent has replaced "tone" with "sound" and I would do the same. I do not necessarily equate the two terms. I know a number of clarinet sounds that I like but the clarinetist's "tone" does not meet the usual concept of good tone. Woody Allen's playing of Rock of Ages is one example.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-12-05 02:09
Hi,
Very interesting ideas but let me add another dimension. I know that tone is much more important to me that interpretation but how do we produce such a tone?
My guess is by having listened to what one conceives as being one of many acceptable tonal offerings (I could not think of a better word, sorry) we then try to mimic that sound. However, we never really knows if any tonal matches occur (the experimental testing would be quite challenging).
HRL
PS A pretty interesting doctoral dissertation could be had here.
Post Edited (2007-12-05 17:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
