 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-10 00:39
A question for discussion:
Before answering please listen to the following link as it is important to this discussion.
Please do not join this discussion unless you have listened to the historic 1924 recording that was the first recording of the work and then have compared it to a modern rendition of the work.
The question I put forth for discussion is the following:
Has the typical symphonic approach to the opening solo in Rhapsody in Blue become "more politically correct" than what Gershwin himself wanted? If so why?
If you think that it has been refined over the years, discuss why you believe that to be so.
Here is the link to a recording of the first recording which features the Whiteman Band with Ross Gorman playing the solo. Please see the footnote below regarding Mr. Gorman.
http://www.redhotjazz.com/pwo.html
Scroll down and you will find the clip.
FOOTNOTE (Courtesy of Wikepedia):
The opening of Rhapsody in Blue is written as a clarinet trill followed by a legato 17-note rising diatonic scale. During a rehearsal, Whiteman's virtuoso clarinetist, Ross Gorman, rendered the upper portion of the scale as a captivating (and fully trombone-like) glissando: Gershwin heard it and insisted that it be repeated in the performance. An American Heritage columnist called it the "famous opening clarinet glissando... that has become as familiar as the start of Beethoven’s Fifth."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-04-10 03:33
Thanks for that link, that performance of Rhapsody is a delight.
I dunno if I'd say "politically correct," but I do think a lot of performances are quite a bit more straight and conservative (i.e. square) than the piece seems to ask for. But then I'd say that about a huge swath of repertoire. Performers these days, especially in symphony orchestras, seem very reluctant to invest a significant amount of playfulness, perspective, and adventure into their performances. They play it how they've heard it played, collect a paycheck, and move on. This isn't the case everywhere, of course, but I feel like a lot of orchestras are trying to replicate music rather than make it.
Once a passage converges on an "accepted" way of being played, you tend to hear it played that way, give or take, just about all the time. Perhaps the performer takes a few minor liberties to distinguish himself, but everything is within one standard deviation of the norm. Very little literature is approached from the "here are notes on a page, let's see what really cool things we can do with them!" angle. A forced clean slate is one of the reasons I so enjoy performing new music that nobody's heard or played before.
There's also a significant "classical player attempts jazz" syndrome that comes into play when non-jazzers take on Gershwin.
This 1924 recording in particular, I really enjoy how the opening solo plays with the downbeats. He pulls off a very smooth give-and-take without giving the "HEY LOOK AT THE SOLOIST" vibe that a lot of newer recordings do... it feels like a dialogue with the rest of the orchestra, rather than first-comes-the-solo-now-the-filler-now-more-solo. Like perhaps the soloist and orchestra are actually listening to each other!! And swung... in a jazzy piece... oh, the madness!
Juicy and delightful... I wish more people would play it like this.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-04-10 03:41
Ugh... just listened to the 1956 on the same page. Ghastly. I do give them props for taking a completely different perspective on the piece, but man!
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KhalidahTiaret
Date: 2009-04-10 04:37
This is definitely the most distinguishable rendition of Rhapsody in Blue I've ever heard. The opening really sounds like a few friends wandering around on a hot day causing mayhem... and the rest of the piece just continues their adventure. Thank you, for posting this... I probably would have never hear it, otherwise!
I don't know that I'd say it has become more "politically correct" over the years, but it has definitely become a little less interesting (not to say that it's become boring, it's just not as animated). I agree with Alex, that people seem to just be replicating music, not making it.
I think recordings of this piece over the years have kind of followed the trends of society. Things have become a lot faster paced, a lot more automated, more materialistic and commercial since then... and I think people are more detached from one another. There isn't as great a sense of community in the world (at least not where I am) and I think that plays a big part of how people perform. Music is a form of expression, and if people don't even take the time to stop and say "hey, how are ya?" to one another because they're too busying cursing about their plummeting stocks, or how their air conditioner died, how can we expect them to breathe any personality into their music?
I guess that's something else my generation, and those to come, need to work on!
~Heather
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-04-10 04:54
The '20's prior to the Depression were unique times musically as well as socially and economically and I doubt that anyone or any group can re-create what either Gershwin or Whiteman imagined. The situation is similar to comparing the original version of "Of Mice and Men" with the latest one. I too have avoided Real Player.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oliver sudden
Date: 2009-04-10 11:34
The orchestral and band versions are a little different anyway, no? I don't mean that there are different notes written, just that there are things you can do with a smaller number of people that you can't do with an orchestra however hard you try - and that does affect what it's feasible for the clarinettist to do unless you want the piece to fall to bits, musically. (If it sounds as though a clarinettist has been parachuted in from Planet Jazz for the opening then things are going to lack coherence, I suggest - besides which the vocal things Gorman did aren't going to carry across an orchestra...) Which doesn't mean people should play safe of course.
What's worse is the practice of dragging out the Big Tune. No excuse for that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-04-10 11:54
I've been under the impression that the original opening clarinet part was not written into the arrangement. I doubt that anyone has the ability to duplicate Ross' s result in writing. Further, most clarinetists today are either too "up tight" to make those sounds and if they did would be exorcised from the orchestra.
Consider that a pop clarinetist in that era was judged by his ability to imitate the neighing of a horse.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2009-04-10 13:40
The rental clarinet part is marked in several places "con licenza", which can cover a lot of ground. Some recordings have omitted the flute from the second trill/scale and turned this also into a gliss, even though it is not so marked. Is this politically correct?
I am not sure just what constitutes "politically correct" here. The piece was commissioned for a "jazz concert", so a certain amount of license is to be expected. It might be safe to assume that by "politically correct" you mean keeping the playing very close to the printed notes, even in those "con licenza" sections.
My biggest gripe is that 100-piece orchestras play "Rhapsody in Blue" much slower than it was originally conceived. Some more modern recordings are truer to the original performance. The piano-roll re-enactment that Carmen Dragon conducted, or the one with Willem Breuker Kollektief and a string quartet, both have drive, that larger ensembles seem to lose.
Paul Whiteman wanted to break through classical music snobbery, and he was somewhat successful. But Leonard Bernstein's vague liner comment about the piece's "compositional deficiencies" may indicate that Mr. Whiteman was not completely successful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oliver sudden
Date: 2009-04-10 13:55
Ralph Katz:
> Some recordings
> have omitted the flute from the second trill/scale and turned
> this also into a gliss, even though it is not so marked. Is
> this politically correct?
Is it in fact like this in the jazz band version, I wonder? It's ringing faint bells.
> Paul Whiteman wanted to break through classical music snobbery,
> and he was somewhat successful. But Leonard Bernstein's vague
> liner comment about the piece's "compositional deficiencies"
> may indicate that Mr. Whiteman was not completely successful.
I think there's a difference between snobbery and simply pointing out that the piece doesn't really in itself cohere all that well. Do we necessarily gain from hearing the piece in full as opposed to in the various abridged versions we know? I'm not sure. I don't think Bernstein of all people would be snobbish on the jazz/classical front. (There is an article where Bernstein examines the piece in rather more detail - maybe it's the conversion of that to a liner note that made his comment 'vague'.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2009-04-10 15:31
Here is a piece that was written and orchestrated in two weeks, with the composer on one side of town, and the orchestrator on the other side, carrying sketches home on the subway every day. It is performed with or without a number of cuts, by large and small ensembles, and even by unaccompanied piano. The piano part was not notated until some time after the premier. There will always be some argument as to just what the composer intended. Do the recordings of the composer performing aggree with the annotation? I would sure like to read that Bernstein article.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-04-10 17:07
Very interesting discussion!
It sounds to me like Gorman starts the glissando on a lower pitch than most clarinetists do today. I know that there have been many disscussions about how to do it, and I think it's easier to start it at the G or higher (when you only have to slide fingers off with one hand). I can do it, but I can honestly say that many do it much better than I do. I marvel at those who can gliss like Gorman did.
When one reads of the great clarinet players of the early 20th century, Ross Gorman is not mentioned. I don't know much about him, but I'm assuming that he was mostly associated with jazz (the reason why some probably didn't take him seriously). He was wonderful at what he did. Still, I think it's difficult for a jazz player to cross over into classical and vice versa. Yes, there are a few people who can do it, but most have trouble. For most clarinet players today, trained to play with perfect intonation, a dark sound, no vibrato, and perfect adherence to rhythms written on the page, it can be hard to make the switch to jazz. Some "serious" clarinetists can pull it off better than others.
If today's clarinetists sound too "square," I think part of the reason is that the clarinet is no longer a regular member of the jazz ensemble.
Most clarinet players don't usually take jazz improvisation courses or play in high school or college jazz bands unless they play sax (please correct me if I'm wrong). Aside from those who take the time to learn jazz clarinet on their own, I'm guessing that there aren't many teachers who teach it.
Regarding the Rhapsody's "compositional deficiencies": Yes, they are there. Still, this piece has become one of Gershwin's most popular and frequently-performed works. Gershwin was always sensitive to the fact that his training had gaps, and he studied with others to improve his compositional technique. After a lot of study, he came out with more polished works in the 1930s like his Second Rhapsody. Even though this probably has less "compositional deficiencies," it never came close to achieving the popularity of the first rhapsody.
Post Edited (2009-04-10 20:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-04-10 20:02
The "laughing sax" was pretty common in the 20's. Ralph incorporates this laughing in his solo. I'm not sure why clarinetists don't usually include this in the solo as well as the gliss. In later years there are several examples in big band where the solos were played note for note after the original improvised solo became popular.
I understand Ralph Gorman owned a music store in NewYork city. I guess there were some virtuosi back then as Rudy Weidoeft and Al Golladoro were of that vintage. Ralph played many instruments as evident in the Paul Whiteman photos.
I think I would go with a rougher approach but not just the clarinet opening....the gliss is only the beginning. It should be contagious opening developing ...roughness, tonal variety and playful throughout. Trumpets go nuts with the wa wa. etc. Spontaneous.....
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-04-10 23:38
... and the pianist to swing some sections rather than playing them precisely.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2009-04-11 01:06
Sounds more like Klezmer...I would say it reflects more a Yiddish style of vocalization.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-11 03:40
David,
That was my first thought. The opening gesture is much more the statement of a Klezmer band than that of a American "hot jazz" ensemble that would have been the prevalent style of the time (such as Armstrong).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-11 06:54
We've been talking about this on the Klarinet list lately. I presented the viewpoint that I felt that the intro to Rhapsody in Blue, as performed by Gorman was intended to suggest Klezmer. According to some stories, Gorman originally played the gliss as a sort of joke. I suggested the joke was to make the intro sound more like Klezmer (since Gershwin and at least some of the musicians in Paul Whiteman's group were familiar with that style).
Having given the matter a little more thought and some reading, I still think there is a Klezmer origin to the sound, but that it is (perhaps) a little more indirect than that. Paul Whiteman's band was the #1 jazz/dance band of the time (1920s). The position of #2 was held by a clarinetist/bandleader by the name of Ted Lewis. Lewis, whose act was really more shtick than licquorice, had a peculiar Klezmer-infused clarinet-playing style he referred to as "gaspipe." This is, in fact, the type of sound that Gorman produces in the 1924 Rhapsody recording. You can hear a couple of Lewis's recordings on this website (you have to scroll down a bit to find them, though)
I think it's likely that Gorman's joke was really to imitate Lewis's gaspipe style, which was the butt of many jokes to begin with (even Lewis's own record company used the "badness" of his sound to promote recordings--click the first link above to read about it). Whiteman, who was a classically-trained musician (he had been a violist in both the Denver and San Francisco Symphonies), preferred a more "refined," classically-inspired sound to that of Lewis, and so it would have been a really funny gag to imitate Lewis's gaspipe playing style during a rehearsal. Some versions of the story I have read report that Whiteman told Gorman to cut it out when he played the gliss, but that Gershwin told him to leave it in.
Incidentally, one prominent alumnus of the Lewis band (there were several) was Benny Goodman. Ironically, Goodman made his first "break" into showbiz by putting on an impersonation of Lewis at a talent show at the age of 12. Later, of course, he'd play with Lewis's band and eventually start his own...the rest, as they say, is history.
Of course, there is another part of Rhapsody in Blue that is in a 3-3-2 rhythm, as you often see in Klezmer, and the clarinet plays an number of quick glisses over this theme. I think this part may have actually been Klezmer-inspired to begin with.
Post Edited (2009-04-14 03:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2009-04-11 18:03
Pardon me for reponding without listening to your audio link first. So what was meant by "politically correct" is now very clear.
Starting in the 1950's, more modern hifi recordings replaced *all* of the early acousting recordings. The late Detroit area conductor Arthur Stephan had a hifi demo disk, with both the original Whiteman recording and a more current one made with hifi equipment. The later recording, with a 100-piece orchestra, sure had a much better audio quality, but the performance practice used was very similar to what we hear now.
Paul Whiteman was no stranger to Klezmer players. Shloimke "Sam" Beckerman, another Klezmer clarinet player, also played with the Whiteman band in the 1920's. It is probably safe to assume that George Gershwin was no stranger to this style of playing when "Rhapsody in Blue" was premiered. But, this style of performance practice is not used in modern orchestras, and every performer has to deal with the desires of their leader, with all of the attendant limitations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grenadilla428
Date: 2009-12-14 15:30
Re-read this thread as I started working on Gershwin again. Related question that might bring more opinions on the original question: How do you play this excerpt in an audition? I find this to be a hugely difficult excerpt because you want to set yourself apart and because people have such differing opinions on how it should be played. Thoughts?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-12-14 19:22
grenadilla428 wrote:
> How do you play this excerpt in an audition? I find
> this to be a hugely difficult excerpt because you want to set
> yourself apart and because people have such differing opinions
> on how it should be played. Thoughts?
I've (successfully) played this as an audition excerpt before. I'm not sure exactly how to answer your question other than to explain essentially what I did/do.
I try to start the piece with a more-or-less "classical" or "legit" style on the opening trill and the first half of the 17-tuplet figure. Then once I hit the D in the 17-tuplet, I switch over to a jazzier style/sound and smear/gliss the rest of the 17-tuplet up to the C. I think this "morphing" from one style to another is very effective here.
I don't generally play with vibrato, but when I reach the C, I do vibrate or "quaver" on that note a little. I play the triplets with a little rubato, accenting the first set more than the second one. The following measure of 8th notes I play more-or-less "straight," except that I do a little smear between the F# and the G at the end of the bar. I don't "swing" any of the 8th notes in this solo.
In the next bar, I replace the C acciaccatura with a C-D-C triplet grace-note figure and play the bar "mostly straight," but make the last G in the bar a smear from F# to G by sliding my index finger off the top tone-hole (sounds like "WAH"). I very sharply and heavily accent the 8th-note trills (which are very rapidly trilled) and step-wise progress to higher dynamics over the next 4 bars or so.
At the altissimo F, I slowly bend/smear the note down to the immediately-following D, which makes for a sort of "sigh" or "woe-is-me" bluesy feel. I also smear from the A to C. I don't worry about trying to make these sound like triplets--just trying to sound as bluesy as possible.
My thinking about this solo is that it should sound like you're listening to someone who's essentially there to play a "legit" solo, but if you turn your back on him for a split-second, he starts getting bluesy/jazzy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-12-15 15:01
FWIW:
In the first posting, if you scroll down far enough, you will find a recording by pianist Earl Wild on which Al Golladoro is the clarinetist. The gliss is smooth from G3 to C6. He once said that he played it over 10,000 times and you "really have to be in shape" to do it smoothly. [This reported to me by his publicist before his death]
At a clarinet clinic in the old IMS store, I asked Larry Combs about the R & B gliss and he proceeded to play a pretty much "quick" diatonic scale from G3 up to B4 with a gliss from there up to the C6, concluding, "that's all it is".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-12-15 19:43
William wrote:
> The gliss is smooth from G3 to C6.
You're right--that is smooth. Almost too smooth, in fact.
I like my R in B a little more on the raunchy side. 
That's one of the great things about this solo, though--you can interpret it validly in lots of different ways. You can play it in a lighthearted gaspipe style like in the original recordings, or in a bluesier style, or whatever else you can think of that makes musical sense.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2009-12-15 19:54
William -
If the Earl Wild Rhapsody in Blue is the recording with Toscanini and the NBC Symphony, I'm positive that the clarinet soloist at the beginning was Benny Goodman.
The Gallodoro performance used to be on YouTube, but apparently the Gershwin copyright owners send take-down notices for every video of RiB, so the Gallodoro version is long gone. That's too bad -- it's amazing.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2009-12-16 00:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-12-15 21:58
Ken: You may be right, however, my information came from Al's publicist on his official website. I asked her if that recording was Al, and she said "he said" it was. That's all I know.
I also heard a story about Benny's R&B gliss attempt turning into an embarrasing squeak event. You??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
