 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-08-12 01:17
In the Keepers section, there is a thread about the "American Sound" of oboe. http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=924&t=924
In the OP, it talks basically about how much certain European "national sounds" have changed a lot over time and that the American sound is similar to the past (in the opinion of the OP). It is quite a long and interesting thread.
Asking the same questions about clarinet- How do you think that one "school of sound" compares to another? What about the comparisons over time? Has the playing styles of some countries changed a lot over time where others have remained very similar?
Post Edited (2008-08-12 01:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-08-12 07:55
Brymer's section on national schools of playing in his book "Clarinet" are interesting, both for what he tells us and for how outdated his comments seem now.
He mentions that many English players were experimenting with the Reform Boehm because of the tone colours it could produce - not many of those to be found now, I don't think. But he was writing thirty years ago, before England was invaded by the alien horde of R13s. One senses that he found the R13 rather boring.....
He writes at some length about the heavy reeds used by German players and the problems of articulation and intonation these can produce - but we learn on this BBoard that Leister, surely the archetype of the modern German player, uses very soft reeds.
The refreshing thing about Brymer is that he discusses these various instruments in terms of their musical potential, not in terms of ease of fingering.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-08-12 17:20
"but we learn on this BBoard that Leister, surely the archetype of the modern German player, uses very soft reeds."
Where is your documentation for this?? What I noticed, during his master class here last year (he would not discuss his equipement, only "the music") is that he used a covering over his lower teeth and that he never seemed to remoisten his reed after initial assembly. It would lie dormate for very long times while the demostrative students were performing and then, Leister would pick it up to demostrate what he was saying and play effortlessly, without any moistening of the reed. His reeds were like Legeres--always ready, but obviously, they were cane. Soft-hard?? He never said anything about his set-up--but whatever, it--reed/mouthpiece--allowed him to play with seemingly ease. I have never heard anyone live make the clarinet sound so musical and "easy" as Leister did that Saturday morning here in Madison.
BTW, I thought his "sound" was rather "American", not the heavy & thick German quality that I expected--nor certainly French. Simply very expressive and beautiful, yet rich and full. And he treated the student demostrators very well while making his musical observations regarding their performances. Very gracious for a musician of his stature.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-08-12 17:34
William asked me:
"but we learn on this BBoard that Leister, surely the archetype of the modern German player, uses very soft reeds."
Where is your documentation for this??
Here, in a post by Liquorice (who usually knows what he is talking about, though it's always possible he's wrong in this case)
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=244490&t=244419
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-08-12 17:34
The schools of playing have been so diluted that there are hardly "schools of playing" anymore.
There are many stereotypes of regional playing that just don't apply anymore.
Would be kinda fun to list them, but not going there ........ 
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-12 18:23
Well, i'm trying to keep the English school alive alongside a handful of others that play 1010 bore clarinets.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Claire Annette
Date: 2008-08-13 12:19
"There are many stereotypes of regional playing that just don't apply anymore."
**Chuckling to myself, wondering what a "Tennessee clarinet sound" might imply!**
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2008-08-13 21:21
Whatever the director wants, or else.......
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2008-08-13 22:12
For me the best proove that the different schools of clarinet playing is faiding out is Sabine Meyer and Wolfgang Meyer. I've heard Wolfgang Meyer play with vibrato that was a compleat taboo in Germany for around 20 years ago. Also Sabine Meyer has much softer tone than Leister,Prinz and thoose figures of German/Austrian style of playing the clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2008-08-13 22:49
Schools of sound don't exist anymore. Any attempt to prove they do is always a failure. It's usually something people say to sound like they have real information when they really don't.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-08-13 22:55
> Schools of sound don't exist anymore.
The VPO claims to be one exception, but IMO they use it to disguise their questionable hiring practices.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-13 23:10
Like I say, I, along with a handful of other respected British clarinetist is trying to keep the English school alive by playing on wide bore instruments and we the freedom of expression like the wonderful Brymer et al.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2008-08-13 23:12
Yes. That is a perfect example. Typically those who claim to be part of a particular school of sound are doing so to set themselves as part of a cause in a disingenuous way. Unfortunately, they are actually selling themselves short by not asserting their uniqueness.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-13 23:23
Really J. J. ? You think i'm selling myself short? I can tell you now that I am my own person and player that so happens to want to and be a part of the British tradition. I ca say this because of the people that have influenced me of the last 10 years including Brymer himself who I did play to on several occasions. Some of us here are musicians with a unique voice rather that the robots that are being produced, especially in your land and I know from first hand experience. Listen to my slow movt of the Mozart concerto on my Morgensterns profile if you think I have no uniqueness.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-08-13 23:57
"Some of us here are musicians with a unique voice rather that the robots that are being produced, especially in your land and I know from first hand experience."
If the only thing that makes you unique as a musician is the instrument you play on, then how does that make you anything more than a product of your hardware.....such as a robot or computer?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-14 00:27
Ryan25 wrote:
> "Some of us here are musicians with a unique voice rather that
> the robots that are being produced, especially in your land and
> I know from first hand experience."
>
> If the only thing that makes you unique as a musician is the
> instrument you play on, then how does that make you anything
> more than a product of your hardware.....such as a robot or
> computer?
Not at all, I decided to play that way because of the earliest influences. I am a unique musician compared to you and anyone else because of my own free will, experiences and influences. My basset clarinet is a Selmer as is my bassett horn. My classical clarinets are Grenser copies. This doesn't make me product of hardware. I made my statement due to some of the players that I have heard, not only from the US but Europe also and I find them all very similar in sound. This is due to there hardware is it not? Buffet reign supreme.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-08-14 00:58
"Not at all, I decided to play that way because of the earliest influences. I am a unique musician compared to you and anyone else because of my own free will, experiences and influences."
This makes no sense to me at all. If you are a unique muisician because of your experiences and own free will, then all musicians are unique because of their own free will and experiences. Right? And what does any of this have to do with clarinet sound?
The only thing I have seen you say with regards to clarinet sound has to do with instruments. In my book, what instrument you play does not make you a unique musician. Brymer would have probably sounded like brymer if he played an R13. It's his music making ability that made him unique.
If sound is all you care about, sound that is "unique" because of what type of instrument you play, then I think I would rather just listen to Brymer since it does not seem that you have anything new to say as a clarinetist.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-14 01:12
Ryan25, have you ever played a wide bore instrument?? It doesn't matter who made it. You will notice that a wide bore instrument allows the player to be more personal, that is to say the sound becomes the voice and expression the player is trying to produce. That was my point and that was/is the characteristics of the English school. I also have to say that in playing the way I do I am saying something new as a clarinetist, my resume says so. Just because you may not have heard me or whatever doesn't really allow you to say say such things. I am contributing in London more than you'd ever know.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-08-14 01:23
"Ryan25, have you ever played a wide bore instrument?? It doesn't matter who made it. You will notice that a wide bore instrument allows the player to be more personal, that is to say the sound becomes the voice and expression the player is trying to produce."
That is personal opinion and nothing more. I'm sure you are a very well known player in England and successful in your endevors and hopefully did not offend you in some way. I'm simply saying that clarinet tone as generaly described based on the instrument brand is not "unique" or sepecial to me.
A perfect example is the american clarinetist Harold Wright. HE was a unique musician and played an R13. Many people in this country play R13's and his type of mouthpiece and sound nothing like him. It was not his mouthpiece and instrument that made him and his playing unique. IT was him.
You keep talking about your instruments and that does not qualify as unique to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2008-08-15 01:05
Peter Cigleris --
Thanks for keeping a certain British playing tradition alive. I am old enough to remember when Jack Brymer was a young lion among British clarinetists.
Please understand that while many of us American players have read about the 1010 and have heard recordings of Brymer and other 1010 players, very few of us have actually played on a B&H 1010. We know that it must have been a very special clarinet because it was the predominant choice of at least two generations of great British players.
The closest I have come to experiencing a 1010 is that at various times I have played on several other respected "big bore" clarinets including the Conn 444, Selmer BT, Selmer CT and Selmer 9.
My readings suggest that the 1010 had an even larger bore than those clarinets, somewhat different tone hole placements, and required a different mouthpiece/reed combination for optimum results. If your schedule permits, I know that many of us would appreciate it if you would share some of your experiences in playing the 1010 on a professional level.
IMHO, your basset clarinet playing of the Mozart K622 Adagio on morgensterns.com is a refreshing blend of the traditional with your own unique stamp. Masterfully done. (I feel that Brymer would agree with me.)
Bravo, Peter Cigleris.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-08-15 07:16
Peter C - it'd be interesting to hear you play 1010 on your profile; the only recording there at present is your basset clarinet.
(BTW your profile spells Nielsen incorrectly - looks bad!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-15 12:21
John Scorgie
Thank you for your kind words. Well, I played Boosey 1010s right through my college career untill I moved on to the Peter Eaton Eliltes which are pretty much the same instrument in terms of keywork and bore size as Peter bought all the stock from Boosey and Hawkes when they finished making 1010s in the mid 80s.
I had to change really as the instruments were older than me and I felt that they would last with all the playing they were getting. I've used my Eatons professionally since 2001 when I got them. The Bb had a baptism of fire as the first proper thing I did on it was Weber's 2nd concerto. But overall when I go into orchestras I allways get really nice comment on my sound. I like to try and have a centre to the sound compared to the sometimes openness you can get with the 1010 sound. Every now and again it's nice to be able to do that. This helps me blend with the other woodwinds. The best thing about the Eatons is that he has addressed intonation and I find his instruments are very uniform in this respect compared to my old Boosey 1010s, I had to work hard with them on that. Obviously having a mouthpiece that has the correct bore dimensions is the only way to go, you simpy could not play a french bore mouthpiece on these instruments. I play a Hite which i've had for nearly 8 years but people like Richard Hosford play on Portnoys.
Playing 1010 bore clarinets in an orchestral situation is great because the instrument allows to match and blend with the other principle winds and match the idiosyncrasy of the instrument. As a second player I find that I can blend with any other clarinet. I ocasionally play 3rd and basset horn in a quartet and the other three players play Buffets, 2 R13s and one Prestige. I listen to a recording we did in November last year and couldn't hear myself in the texture.
I find that playing wide bore clarinets helps me acheive the sound concept in my head. Also listen to the great players that play them now such as Bob Hill, principle LPO, Richard Hosford, principle BBC Sym, Tony Lamb, principle ENO and John Payne, principle of the Royal Opera House. These people along with Colin Parr, retired principle CBSO, really inspired me as did Jack Brymer when a had a couple of lessons with him in the late 90s.
There are just my thoughts, at the end of the day i'm just a humble clarinetist trying to make great music.
Norbet, thanks for pointing that out, i hadn't noticed. I'll email them to correct it. Also I will be putting more mp3s on there, I recently did the Messiaen Quartet and will put the 3rd movt on when I get it.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2008-08-28 22:25
I've always enjoyed the English sound, even though I've never played that way. Back in high school, one of my favorite recordings of the Weber 1st was the one with Gervase de Peyer. I also enjoyed listening to Reginald Kell, and I like Emma Johnson's playing (even though some don't care at all for her playing).
Today, in the U.S. at least, the quest seems to be for that thick, dark, sound. It wasn't always this way, and I remember back in the 60s and 70s when a brighter sound was considered perfectly acceptable. Back then, there were some important symphony clarinetists who used Mitchell Lurie reeds, and I'm guessing that they didn't get thick dark sounds on them. In case you're wondering where I got this information (about Mitchell Lurie reeds), it was told to me in the mid 70s by my clarinet professor who once was the member of a clarinet section of a major U.S. symphony orchestra.
I'm guessing that a major clarinetist today who announced that he/she used these reeds would be an instant pariah.
I listened to some Mitchell Lurie (the man, not the reed!) sound clips the other day. I had never heard him before. I really like his playing, but his tone is a bit bright, not the kind of sound that clarinetists strive for today.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-28 22:39
I agree with the thick, dark, sound. That is the type of sound I have in my head and playing a wide bore instrument helps me achieve that to a certain degree.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Allegremente
Date: 2008-08-28 22:48
Woah, Peter. I respect and enjoy your playing, but you seem to be touting your own uniqueness at the expense of everyone else's. This is not mathematics, and despite whatever preferences you may have, there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to the individuality of clarinet playing. You say that big bore clarinets allow the player to be more "personal" or to get the expression and voice that he or she wants, and that is the hallmark of the "English school." I play small bore clarinets - they help me in getting the sound I want, and to discount my choices in instrument because they are not yours - in effect to call the rest of us wrong because we have different ideas on what is comfortable or pleasing when playing - borders on bigotry. My set up and my style don't work for you, and that's a great thing! If we all played the same way, there'd be no point. Likewise, I have no desire to sound like Peter, I want to sound like Rob. The "English school" is not unique because the players want to be expressive. All good players want to be expressive, and whether their expression differs from yours or is in agreement, to lord the "English school" over the rest of the "schools" is simply rooting for your home team, regardless of the skill of your players.
You say that at the end of the day you're just a humble clarinetist (aren't we all?) but if we're going to play that game that where we cite our resumes, tell people that you contribute more than they "will ever know" in our home towns, we're not talking about music. We're not talking about expression, we're not talking about opinion. We're talking about how important we are, and while few players would be able to get away with diminishing your contributions to music, I would hope that we can leave this ego game at the door of our rehearsal spaces and our communications.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-08-28 23:06
I've never ever heard a thing from DePeyer that I liked, same for Kell.
----------------------------------
"Today, in the U.S. at least, the quest seems to be for that thick, dark, sound. It wasn't always this way, and I remember back in the 60s and 70s when a brighter sound was considered perfectly acceptable."
----------------------------------
I had that thick dark sound in my head back in the early 80's, but couldn't achieve it. Playing with Michele Zukovsky and Ricardo helped a lot.
It's both the equipment, and even moreso the tonal concept. It's much different hearing somebody next to you than in a concert hall.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-28 23:45
Allegremente
I do think your over reacting. I have a lot of respect for the players that I have met and worked with around the world. I was just mearly trying to add to the post as we Brits get a slightly rough deal by the majority of the US players on this board, I was just trying to point out that there are other schools out there and that not everyone plays Buffet. I play wide bore because of my own personal sound in my head and I also like to to think that I am in some way part of the 'English School'.
I agree with David, sitting next to Colin Parr in the CBSO whilst still a student clinched it for me.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2008-08-29 17:13
As an English player perhaps I could add that there is some confusion between the English school and the 1010 school - they are not the same thing. There have been many English players of previous generation who did not play 1010 including arguably the finest Bernard Walton.
The 1010 gained prominence in UK largely for 2 reasons
1. most of the college professors played it - so follow my leader
2. after the war in UK it was almost impossible to buy any new clarinet except a B&H (and even they were very scarce).
Some very fine players played 1010 and produced fine results but partly because they could overpower some of the 1010s characteristic tone and its weaknesses.
Many more 1010 players are overwhelmed by their 1010 and produce a rather tubby / stuffy sound and a very particular hollowness in the lower register.
A large contributor to the so called English sound, especially on the 1010 is use of very open lays that 50 years ago would have been classified as Jazz lays.
Listen to Jack Thurston and you hear a very different sound, firm and focussed compared to most of his followers, Thurston played a a very close lay some say well under 1mm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-08-30 00:20
I don’t think there is a county sound on clarinet any more. The American sound has evolved from many concepts of Russian, French and German sounds through the years. I truly believe that the American sound has influenced all the other county sounds over the years. I used to be able to pick out a player from England, France and Germany with ease, but not today. There are dark, bright, full, thin, big, full, small sounds etc. everywhere. Over all though the clarinet player today gets a bigger, fuller, richer tone quality then in the past. Here in America alone, you can hear every possible type of clarinet sound. We are truly the “melting pot” of clarinet sound and we’ve influenced the world just like the world has first influenced the American sound.
Leon Russianoff used to get upset, if that was even possible, when someone tried to describe the “NY” sound because there were so many diversified sounds at the time. NY had Portney, Weber, Glazer, Williams, Russo, Ducker; McGinnis just to name a few. He would ask, which is the NY clarinet sound. It was more like a universal sound, a sound for everyone and everywhere. Just listen today to the great orchestra’s around the county, not to mention the world. There is no longer a “country” sound but more like a universal sound, and many types of those. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
Listen to a little Mozart, with a Baltimore-NY-American but maybe elsewhere sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: benward
Date: 2008-08-30 02:18
Maybe this is just me, but I still think the British have a distinct sound. Outside of that, I will agree fully with you Ed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2008-08-30 13:29
>As an English player perhaps I could add that there is some confusion >between the English school and the 1010 school - they are not the same >thing. There have been many English players of previous generation who >did not play 1010 including arguably the finest Bernard Walton.
I have a few questions for Norman or Peter. I really don't that much about the topic, so that's why I'm asking.
1. Do the current Peter Eaton clarinets have a similar tone to the old 1010s?
2. For those clarinetists of the past who did not use the 1010, were their sounds quite different from the 1010, and if so, how?
3. For those who didn't use the 1010, what did they use? Buffet?
4. I read once that British clarinetists use (or once tended to use) very open mouthpieces with very soft reeds. Is that still true?
Thank you, Norman and Peter for your comments. Quite interesting!
When I was in college, I remember John McCaw being a guest faculty member for a semester. I remember him being a very nice man, and I remember him playing an excellent recital, but I really don't remember much about his sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-08-30 13:43
Everytime I hear an English orchestra in a more recent recording, say the last 15 years or so, I can not longer tell if it's an English tone. Yes, there are players that have very distinct tone qualities, not always to my favor, but many of the newer generation sound different. That's the same in the USA, there is no one clarinet sound. One just has to listen to Morales, Cohen, Drucker, Coombs just to name a few, their all different. I could have easliy added ten more known players to that list and none of them sound alike. Yes, there may be an English sound but many of the newer generation of players don't sound like that anymore. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-30 15:54
Clarinetguy, i'll try and answer your questions
1. Do the current Peter Eaton clarinets have a similar tone to the old 1010s?
No, Eaton clarinets are more woodier and are qute heavy, they use thicker wood whereas the Boosey 1010 was a much lighter instrument.
2. For those clarinetists of the past who did not use the 1010, were their sounds quite different from the 1010, and if so, how?
Difficult one to answer, find some old recordings of Kell and Draper and then compare with Thurston, Brymer
3. For those who didn't use the 1010, what did they use? Buffet?
Not that i'm aware of but i'd be interested in this if some one has more knowledge. Martels and Louis were popular also. Not sure about Buffet.
4. I read once that British clarinetists use (or once tended to use) very open mouthpieces with very soft reeds. Is that still true?
Don't know enough about that i'm afarid.
Ed your very right in what you say regarding the uniformity of sound here but if you listen to, for example, the BBC Symphony it is quite obvious that Richard is playing where as in the LSO, which had an amazing sound which was quite individual under Previn, has now become a little more mainstream, for want of a better word.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2008-08-31 22:29
Clarinetguy, further to Peter's info I believe that just post war quite a few players were using the B&H Imperial 926, certainly know that in the Halle there were 2 players using them ( I bought one pair fron the widow of one player in late 50's and used them for some years). The Halle principal at that time didn't even play boehm system but used Clinton-Boehm, a hybrid.
926s were played by Thurston's co-principal in the BBC SO and in Bournemouth, Welsh and Scottish orchestras. Walton used Reform Boehm and McCaw I think Buffet and Buffet certainly used in BBC Midland at one time (a colleague later bought them). Leblanc and Selmer weren't very common in classic field and Yamaha even less so although I knew a few players who did use each of these makes.
Many 1010s used in this period were Pre-War models, considered at time to be much superior to post war models. Thea King used prewar 1010s for many years but later switched to Buffet. IMO she did sound better on her 1010s.
Brymer used pre-war B&H London/Paris instruments until early 70's when he bought new 1010s. His famous recoding of Mozart with Beecham was done on those pre-war instruments.
So there was a pretty wide mix of instruments used at that time including those mentioned by Peter. Its only in more recent time that Buffet has become a significant force here.
Many wide-bore players have switched to Eatons but there are still some faithful to their actual 1010s (e.g. Tony Lamb at ENO).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-01 12:18
I had the experience of switching away from B&H 1010 instruments a couple of years into my professional career, having played on them exclusively from the age of 13. Pretty clearly I didn't do that in order to be LESS expressive, so perhaps there is more to this subject than meets the eye.
I want to point out that there is a tendency on this BB to equate 'expressive' with 'individual', perhaps because of the rather unusual nature of the people who populate it. Of course, if you view music through the eyes of a clarinet aficionado, then you may well notice when a particular player is present in an orchestra; but it is a step further to say that your ability to do this easily constitutes a positive quality IN THAT PLAYER. A colleague of mine once proudly showed me a review in which it was said of him, "Whether it's Bach, Telemann or Mozart, you always know it's -------!" He was pleased, but it's not the sort of review that I'd want myself.
When I got my 1010s at 13, I was incredibly disappointed after the B&H 926 that I'd been playing for the previous year. 1010s had been touted to me by my teacher as the answer to everything, and buying them was a major outlay for my parents at that time. So I was quite unprepared for the discovery that I needed to play them in a quite different way. But, I settled down, years passed, and I was principal clarinet in the London Sinfonietta and in the RPO under Kempe before I found myself looking elsewhere for an instrument at the age of 24.
What I was looking for was the ability to vary tonal colour precisely, independently of pitch. As is well known, a narrower bore instrument is more stable pitchwise, so embouchure/address is less tied up with maintaining intonation. Another way is to go for a more German mouthpiece/reed setup on a wider bore (E. J. Albert), and over the years I tried both of these options on my long-suffering colleagues in the orchestra.
I was initially kicked into the Buffet camp soon after joining the RPO in a rather traumatic experience (the results of which you can still check out on the Verdi Forza del Destino recording with Gardelli, Carlo Bergonzi and the RPO). I had been experimenting with Buffet BC20s and a crystal mouthpiece in an afternoon orchestral readthrough prior to the beginning of the recording sessions proper in the evening, and was intending to switch back to my 1010s in the break, when the conductor said, "...so now, in the last half hour, we'll record the clarinet solo."
We had just played this solo in the course of our readthrough, and, not knowing the piece, I had been amazed at how extensive the solo is, and made a mental note to practise it thoroughly. But now, it seemed, I had to do without, and on a practically untried instrument.
Well, we got through it, though my colleagues had to practically carry me to the Indian restaurant afterwards. And then it seemed silly to try to switch, so I stayed with the Buffets for the whole opera, and then for some time after that, using various mouthpieces.
I have often thought that the differences between different styles of instrumental setup are more noticeable in indifferent playing than in excellent playing. That's because you FAIL in different ways on different setups; whereas when you succeed, what you're using is less evident. And since for me, playing expressively has more to do being true to my idea of the requirements of the music than with being 'different' from other players, then I'm happy -- if I play well -- to be relatively unidentifiable.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2008-09-01 13:35
Compared to some (?many) of the posters here, I am a perhaps realatively uninitiated in the aspects of national schools and set ups - I'm a serious amateur/advanced student with a music degree and I've played for over 30 years but my memory of when I first got into clarinet in the UK is very much that in the late 70's - early 80's just about anyone who was anyone here played 1010s.
My first pair of clarinets were B&H Emperors (an intermediate model, horrendously wild intonation) but I was soon desperate to join the ranks of the 1010 fraternity so I bought my present pair second hand in '88 (from Tony Lamb, mentioned above, who I think had bought two pairs to try for a while and decided that he preferred the other).
I still play on these instruments but they are now getting fairly elderly and, when finances permit, I do plan to upgrade. When I do, I will be trying a range of models, certainly various Buffets, Leblancs (if they are still around given recent developments), Selmers and, possibly, Yamahas and Peter Eatons. However, I think that what I will be looking for is whether I can make a sound that I think is beautiful and has a variety of colour to it with ease and what the feel of the keywork etc is like and not whether I get something that matches a pre-conceived idea in my head.
Concerning the issue of a distinctive sound, i.e. being able to identify a player by sound, surely in an ensemble situation blend of various kinds is vital but, on the other hand, this does not necessarily mean that one has to dictate the set up right down to the strength of the reed.
On a lighter note, though, there is one British player whom I'm sure we can all identify by the quirky sound, especially the use of vibrato, just as much as by the gyrating shoulder!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2008-09-02 02:14
Nessiel, Norman Smale, and Tony Pay, thank you for sharing your stories and information. Quite interesting!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-09-03 15:49
Nessie1 wrote; "there is one British player whom I'm sure we can all identify by the quirky sound, especially the use of vibrato, just as much as by the gyrating shoulder!"
Does Nessie1 mean Emma J? My nerves are straining trying to think who Nessie1 means...if Nessie1 won't tell, please somedbody give me a clue! It's not right to torture an old man like this!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2008-09-05 15:23
Does Nessie1 mean Emma J? My nerves are straining trying to think who Nessie1 means...if Nessie1 won't tell, please somedbody give me a clue! It's not right to torture an old man like this!
Clarinet Redux
Acker Bilk.
Best regards,
jnk
Perish the thought that I should confirm or deny!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-09-08 11:54
This is interesting, because, when I was a kid studying clarinet in the 1970s in England, the general view put about was that Buffets were very inflexible compared either to 1010s or 926s, and that 1010s were only "better" than 926s because they offered the greatest flexibility of all. They were certainly notorious for allowing the player sufficient flexibility to hang himself, and it was thought that players who were not blessed with good natural tone production would be better off on a Buffet because the instrument "did it all for you". It is now quite difficult to understand where these notions came from. I remember trying an R13 briefly in around 1978 and deciding that the above analysis was about right, (particularly following attending a concert at around that time and hearing Robert Hill "prove" this thesis in an orchestral setting), and that set me on path to buying a pair of 1010s. But the penalty was that they sounded as rough as hell in orchestral settings, and I might have been better off trying to make a go of RCs with a suitable mouthpiece. But in 1978 that would have been bucking the trend in my area. Within five short years the landscape had changed for good.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-09-08 15:40
I tried a few Acker Bilk youtube videos. His clarinet tone doesn't belong to a school...more like an institution. a mental institution, a lunatic institution. It seemed to me his clarinet was talking, saying; please dont't do this to me, please don't do this to me!
But of course, there's no arguing over matters of taste. Some members of this board actually don't admire Emma Johnson's playing!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-09-09 08:24
> But of course, there's no arguing over matters of taste. Some members of
> this board actually don't admire Emma Johnson's playing!
Funny you should mention her - just yesterday I was browsing YouTube for renditions of some of our winter concert pieces, and stumbled over EJ playing Idunnowhat.
I was then reading the comments, and was amazed at the sheer number of experts out there (and was mildly shocked at their choice of words which were so not in line with their (self-proclaimed) musical classiness).
Talk about controversial musicians!
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
