 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-06-30 17:16
I am speaking of the difficulty of trying to play Artie Shaw's, "Concerto for Clarinet" as well as Coplands, "Concerto" and Bernsteins, "Prelude, Jazz & Riffs". I have noticed that classically trained clarinet's just can't play swing style properly and swing players play with great style but lack the technique necessary to play accurately (as in, get all the right notes). A couple of examples: Benny Goodman playing the Nielson "Concerto" and John Bruce-Yeh, Artie Shaw's, "Concerto". Neither performance seems to be "just right". Why can't more clarinetists simply "do it all"??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-06-30 18:54
I would NOT put this on clarinet players per se. If you look at the two disciplines on the whole, the only player I can think of who CAN do both well is Winton Marsalis. PERIOD.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2010-06-30 19:12
That's a fair question, William. I'm sure you'll find many classical players saying that classical players can play jazz and many jazz players saying that jazz musicians can play classical. They usually say that because they just aren't familiar enough with the other style to hear the deficiencies of the performers they're referring to.
Here's my take. It's really hard to get to the top professional level on just one style of playing on one instrument. Very few ever do. Playing a completely different style is almost as hard as learning a whole other instrument. Plus, it almost takes a certain distinctive and very different personality type to perform each style convincingly. The only reason anyone has ever heard of Goodman was because he was a great jazz player. The same can be said of Bruce-Yeh on the classical side.
The musicians I hear that can do both styles really well tend to be studio musicians and pit players. These are the people that are amazing technicians but whose playing is often accused of lacking passion.
BTW, I know many jazz musicians that say that Wynton's jazz playing is cliched and lacks originality (I don't agree, although his style is a bit retro, for sure). I also know some professional trumpeters that think Marsalis is decent but should stick to jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-06-30 20:46
It's a matter of what most players have the talent to play well. Some can do one or the other depending on their upbringing, experience and interests as they grew up. An example, I can't play jazz but I can play classical, Benny Goodman was great at swing but his classical fell very short, Larry Combs can play both Jazz and Classical very well. I think there probably are players that can do both very well at the top of the profession but they probably are far and few between. Remember too, it's all a matter of opinion and personal taste as to how anyone plays anything. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-06-30 20:57
I think you are operating under old stereotypes that were at one point true but are not really true any longer. It certainly can be done - Tom Martin and Larry Combs are two that come to mind.
Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw's best work was 50+ years ago when clarinet technique was not what it was now. The best jazz clarinetists today have chops and chops and chops.
Not many people have the desire and work ethic to achieve one or the other, let alone both, but it is do-able.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Merlin_Williams
Date: 2010-07-01 03:55
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Eddie Daniels...
Jupiter Canada Artist/Clinician
Stratford Shakespeare Festival musician
Woodwind Doubling Channel Creator on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/WoodwindDoubling
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2010-07-01 04:33
"Why can't more clarinetists simply "do it all"??"
I do it every week, as do many NYC "doublers".
JJM
Légère Artist
Clark W. Fobes Artist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: heather_roche
Date: 2010-07-01 12:55
Well, there are plenty of clarinettists (and other musicians) who daily cross the lines between contemporary classical music and improvisation.
The improvising of Ernesto Molinari for example, who used to be the clarinettist with Klangforum Wien.
Or Carl Rosman, who played with ELISION (Australia) and is now with musikFabrik (Cologne).
Master improvisers and clarinettists both.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-07-02 12:12
Composers cross over quite a bit now, too. The Sibelius site composers who write in the classical music tradition often mix "classical classical" with jazz, rock, funk, you name it. We're writing for musicians who've grown up with easy access to all sorts of listening media, who enjoy and then learn a lot of different styles of music. The idea that musicians must choose between jazz and classical playing styles seems increasingly arbitrary, sort of like telling people they can put either pepper or lemon juice on their salmon fillets, but not both.
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: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2010-07-02 14:07
I think you have to grow up listening to and playing both. Some who did:
Gary Gray
Bill Blount
Bill [William O.] Smith
Al Gallodoro
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2010-07-02 17:38
I know a lot of great players that are killer at classical and can read jazz amazingly well in style. However, when they do an improv solo, it's typically stiff, contrived, and fomulaic, essentially just a bunch of licks they've learned and thrown together.
Jazz musicians are all about the improv. While there are classical musicians that can improvise well enough to get through a solo or two convincingly, I don't know of any that would be comfortable sitting down with a rhythm section and playing a 4 hour gig at a jazz club. On the other hand, I don't know of any jazz greats that wouldn't thrive in that environment. It's what they live for.
The fact is, there is no artist on any instrument that both classical and jazz musicians acknowledge as one of the greats of their particular discipline. Perhaps it's unfair to say it's impossible to be great at both since there aren't very many who have dedicated their life to this end, but I think we can at least say it's pretty doggone hard and probably not something even the average pro should aspire to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-02 17:47
Ken Shaw wrote:
> I think you have to grow up listening to and playing both.
> Some who did:
>
> Gary Gray
> Bill Blount
> Bill [William O.] Smith
> Al Gallodoro
I think that's it, too. It's like your accent (i.e., your speech, that is). There are a few people out there, like Hugh Laurie and Peter Sellers, who can pick up others' accents easily and switch back and forth between accents, but most people have trouble with it. What you grew up with is always the most comfortable.
I have often suspected there may be some kind of a mental/biological connection between one's ability to reproduce foreign sounds (that is, sounds of foreign languages or accents) or learn new languages and certain musical abilities. The skill of "voicing," as it pertains to clarinet playing, seems very analogous to pronunciation. Likewise, the ability to understand a particular musical style would seem to have some relation to having a natural prosody in a particular language.
Post Edited (2010-07-07 15:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-07-05 16:37
From an Aaron Copland letter: ""But with the Clarinet Concerto, after a somewhat inauspicious send-off, it has become one of my most frequently performed works and a standard for clarinetists. Gervase de Peyer has performed and recorded it, as well as other outstanding soloists, among them Harold Wright, Stanley Drucker, Richard Stoltzman, and David Glazer. I always thought that it would help if a player had some feeling and knowledge of jazz, yet when jazz clarinetist Johnny Dankworth attempted the Clarinet Concerto in concert, he ran into difficulty."
This expresses exactly what I was originally posting about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-07-05 21:36
Hi,
Great topic.
I'm a doubler and works pits. I also play very legit alto as well as clarinet but have been a jazz player for a very long time. Technique issues aside, IMHO there are really two important keys to play jazz as well as being classically correct:
1. A good set of ears
2. Wanting to play the different styles and working at it
HRL
PS On clarinet, I use exactly the same equipment but do some mouthpiece changing on alto and tenor sax (soprano and bari are the same).
Post Edited (2010-07-06 00:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WoodyBb
Date: 2010-07-06 00:25
(Lelia Loban) "Composers cross over quite a bit now, too. The Sibelius site composers who write in the classical music tradition often mix "classical classical" with jazz, rock, funk, you name it. We're writing for musicians who've grown up with easy access to all sorts of listening media, who enjoy and then learn a lot of different styles of music. The idea that musicians must choose between jazz and classical playing styles seems increasingly arbitrary, sort of like telling people they can put either pepper or lemon juice on their salmon fillets, but not both."
At the same time, though, technical progress within each style of music has grown to the point where you have to specialize to meet standards. What's a serious player to do?
Post Edited (2010-07-06 00:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-07 15:46
WoodyBb wrote:
Quote:
At the same time, though, technical progress within each style of music has grown to the point where you have to specialize to meet standards.
Is that really true, though? It has always seemed to me that the biggest differences in the requisite skills for the different styles in music were stylistic/interpretational in nature, not technical. I've always been under the impression that, in general, the same set of *technical* skills would serve a player equally well in both styles.
Are there certain *technical* skills needed to play jazz these days that you wouldn't have an adequate opportunity to develop as a classical player?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: haberc
Date: 2010-07-08 00:08
To echo an earlier entry:
Paquito!
haberc@earthlink.net
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-07-08 20:13
mrn wrote:
"Are there certain *technical* skills needed to play jazz these days that you wouldn't have an adequate opportunity to develop as a classical player?"
I think that there are some "technical" skills which a jazz musician might posses and which a classical player might not acquire through normal avenues of study.
There is a compositional aspect to jazz that is not found in classical music- in its current practice at least. At one point it was common for classically trained instrumentalists to improvise ornamentation, cadenzas, and even large-scale forms. I would say that it is now quite rare for a classical instrumentalist to improvise. Being able to fluently improvise, with an understanding of past practitioners, is a technical skill that most classical players never develop.
I would also say that having progressed so much, jazz does require a certain degree of specialization. Being able to absorb and understand Armstrong, Ellington, Basie, Parker, Stitt, Rollins, Coltrane, et cetera takes a good deal of time, but the ability to emerge from one's influences with a unique improvisational voice is a life-long pursuit. I think this is also one of the reasons why players like Wynton are not accepted in a lot of jazz circles: they are perceived as being reactionary, purposefully avoiding originality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-07-08 20:18
Many players who consider themselves "jazz" musicians, I'm thinking specifically of the majority of players in so-called "jazz big bands" or "jazz orchestras", can barely improvise or not at all. I don't consider them jazz musicians. I can't say it as elegantly as brycon did above, but to me, jazz IS improvisation.
Post Edited (2010-07-08 20:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-07-08 20:40
There are probably more people listening to (and enjoying) the playing of Hamiett Bluett, than listen to the playing of all classical clarinetists combined. Sorry, DavidB --- reality sucks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-07-08 20:45
And there's 10,000 times more listening to Rap - so not a good point.
It's still easy.
btw - I'm partly kidding. Hard Jazz is a lot easier than Hard Classical. Improv and the theory behind it is of course a whole other dimension though.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2010-07-08 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-07-08 21:03
I don't think that jazz or classical music is any easier to perform than the other. They both present a unique set of challenges that the instrumentalist must cope with.
If you think jazz is easy, go read Charlie Parker's interview with Paul Desmond to get an idea of the amount of rigorous practice required to perform at his level.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-07-09 01:58
DS,
Right on about improvising. The disc you played for me one time with you on bari with the big band was great! You've got it, man.
HRL
Post Edited (2010-07-09 11:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2010-07-09 02:13
''Benny Goodman was great at swing but his classical fell very short,''
Benny played for Donna Reed at a chamber music soiree given by the future girlfriend's folks. I recall he was given a standing ovation in that scene of the BG Story.
Ohh.....hang on a bit............that wasn't real was it!
''Specialize in Classics - Jazz is still easy.....''
You can't be serious?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Merlin_Williams
Date: 2010-07-15 17:43
William wrote:
> Here is another example of the artist gap that exists between
> classical and jazz clarinetist's...........
>
> David Shifrin playing Benny Goodman:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRN_KC6NONE&feature=player_embedded
When you say "artist gap", do you mean the lack of good swing feel that is evident in this clip?
I have a great amount of respect for Shifrin's playing. He's a far better clarinetist than I am.
I applaud his decision to incorporate repertoire outside of the standard clarinet canon. I have a feeling that in the context of this recital - it looks like its for a summer clarinet camp - that he is doing the right thing in exposing students to jazz clarinet...as long as the students are getting pointed in the direction of going back to the original recordings, or to live performances by players that really do play with a good swing feel.
Jupiter Canada Artist/Clinician
Stratford Shakespeare Festival musician
Woodwind Doubling Channel Creator on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/WoodwindDoubling
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-07-15 18:28
You ask--"When you say "artist gap", do you mean the lack of good swing feel that is evident in this clip?"
And my reply, *exactly*. And my original question, why can't good clarinetists--in this case, David Shifrin--"do it all", classical & jazz?? I do applaud his attempt to present the jazz idiom to the campers and I do not mean to imply any disrespect for him as a classical clarinetist, but still, he just doesn't swing like Benny. And Benny, for that matter, with his considerable technique, wasn't really that good when it came to playing classical music, most notably his recording of the Nielson Concerto. It just seem curious that if you have all the technical skills necessary, why can't you deliver?? The answer is obivous for those of us who do not play well enough, but for those that can, what holds them back?? Experiance and personal interest aside, if you can play the notes, why can't you play the music??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-07-15 18:51
I think you answered your own question, William, with your words "......if you can play the notes, why can't you play the music??"
Because music is more than just notes ---- especially in jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Merlin_Williams
Date: 2010-07-15 19:26
David Spiegelthal wrote:
>
>
> Because music is more than just notes ---- especially in jazz.
I wish I had expressed it that succinctly.
Jupiter Canada Artist/Clinician
Stratford Shakespeare Festival musician
Woodwind Doubling Channel Creator on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/WoodwindDoubling
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-15 20:49
I think the reason we tend to see what William is talking about is that there is another skill at work that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm not sure what you'd call it, but it's something along the lines of an ability to analyze and adapt to unfamiliar musical ideas and styles. In other words, I think that the ability to analyze and adapt to different and unfamiliar styles of music independently is itself a separate skill.
Educational psychologists use a somewhat elitist, almost Darwinist-sounding term to describe this sort of thing--they call these sorts of abilities "higher-order thinking skills." But what they're really referring to is an individual ability to impose order or meaning on unfamiliar ideas and experiences in a useful or constructive way.
Many skilled people (including, but by no means limited to, many musicians) can develop significant knowledge and skills *in* their particular fields without necessarily cultivating the sorts of analytical, perceptive, and autodidactic skills necessary to step out of one's usual comfort zone competently.
The ability to understand or to apply something that you have been taught is different from the ability to teach yourself to do or understand something new and unfamiliar. I think the latter ability is far less prevalent than the former, even among those whose level of accomplishment in the former is very high.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-17 12:15
William wrote:
>> You ask--"When you say "artist gap", do you mean the lack of good swing feel that is evident in this clip?"
And my reply, *exactly*.>>
And I ask: can you unpack that 'exactly', so that you then say 'even more exactly' what is different between what Goodman does and what Shifrin does with that number?
'Good', 'swing' and 'feel' are probably not the best you can do, I suspect.
Start with the first bar, and go on from there.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-07-17 14:34
Tony, nice to hear from you. I am not attempting to define the essence of grace and eloquence that the master muscian brings to their performance, but rather ask the question, simply, why can't all technically and musically prepared clarinetists play classical and jazz styles with credability. My original posting was with regards to the Artie Shaw, CONCERTO FOR CLARINET and the Copland, CONCERTO, both of which so many "good" clarinetists have difficulty with. In another example I posted, the wonderful clarinetist, David Shifrin, can play immaculant Mozart (I've heard him *live*) but fall quite short when trying to perform a simple Goodman tune. And then there is the technically talented Goodman's attempt at playing Mozart, Copland & Nielson........ So I will throw this question back to you for your always introspective expertise--if one can play all the notes (perfectly), why can one play *all* the music (stylistically)?? Why this "artistic gap"??
And a related obervation--if a musician is talented in both idioms (such as our gifted trumpet cross-over artist, Wynton Marcellus), why do they tend to be criticized by both classic and jazz camps?? Back to you, TP.
Post Edited (2010-07-17 17:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-17 17:02
William wrote:
Quote:
I am not attempting to define the essence of grace and eloquence that the master muscian brings to their performance, but rather ask the question, simply, why can't all technically and musically prepared clarinetists play classical and jazz styles with credability.
But you couldn't have asked the second question (yours) without having at least given some thought to the first (Tony's), even if you haven't yet tried to verbalize your thoughts. That is, you wouldn't have asked why certain skilled musicians had trouble switching genres if you hadn't noticed that something about their performances was a bit off.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that the answer to your question lies in the difficulty most people have in trying to answer questions like what Tony asked, where you have to analyze what makes a musical performance "tick."
In any case, though, for the purpose of being better musicians, those of us who play the instrument probably stand to learn more from what you have to say about what makes one performance better than the other than we do theorizing about why some people have different abilities than others. At the very least, we can have a more meaningful discussion by referring to some more concrete examples rather than sticking to generalities.
As for what I think about the Shifrin video (which I will confess that I hadn't watched until now)....I think Shifrin's biggest problems in the video have nothing to do with how comfortable he is in the style--they're more fundamental than that.
His biggest problem is that his rhythm is bad. And by that, I don't mean swing vs. straight--I mean he's just plain off, like he can't hear the piano or something. The two of them are not together--Shifrin keeps rushing and they don't get back together until he drops out and comes back in. That would be equally as bad in Mozart as it is here.
The other problem is that his playing in this piece is generally sloppy and lacking in confidence. It's like he just picked up the score 5 minutes before and was reading it for the first time. Benny Goodman was a tireless perfectionist who practiced for hours a day. Benny would have played it much better, but not simply because he was a jazz guy. He would have played it better because he wouldn't have allowed himself to give a performance that wasn't up to his high standards.
Of course, both of these problems make the performance sound out of character--this "smooth" swing number isn't supposed to sound frantic or sloppy. But the problems themselves are not stylistic (at least these aren't)--they're technical.
Post Edited (2010-07-17 17:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-18 18:15
I think I want to say three things.
The first is that I want William to try to make explicit what it was that he thought lacking in the Shifrin performance. Clearly, as Mike pointed out, he thought SOMETHING was lacking, and comparison with a Goodman rendering of the number would make that more clear.
So then,
(1) Goodman does X,
(2) Shifrin does something different, Y,
(3) ...and William's question then becomes, why is it difficult for classical performers to recognise the difference between X and Y? And why is it difficult to see that the difference between X and Y is important?
We might make better headway if we know what X and Y are, you see.
The second thing I want to say is that, to my ear, the major (not the only) difference between the Goodman performance (which I just downloaded) and the Shifrin performance lies, not in the clarinet playing, but in the accompaniment.
Yes, Shifrin is unrhythmic. Yes, he hurries. But his pianist has no notion of the insistent pulse that lies, crucially, behind the Goodman version; and so she is unrhythmic in her own way.
Against a background of the sort he was provided, Shifrin had no chance.
Of course he might have done better; and arguably it was HIS job to insist on having such a background.
The third thing is that, as Mike pointed out earlier in the thread, we are expert in the things we grew up with -- our accents are NATURAL to us.
Musical styles are like accents; we need to practise them in order to begin to inhabit them. And in order to practise them, we need to be able to hear the difference between what they ARE and what we produce in attempting them.
Hence my question to William, which still stands:
What, aside from the accompaniment, and the lack of rhythm (not all his fault) is the most significant lack in the clarinet playing in the Shifrin version?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2010-07-18 19:40
Perhaps the pianist could have been more solid in her accompaniment. Perhaps. But I think, if we are going to level blame, then the person who wrote this transcription -- almost certainly not Benny Goodman, who originally wrote the work for his "Sextet" and possibly not even someone reasonably well versed in jazz, let alone Goodman's idiom -- needs to come in for a fair share of it. On the Sextet recording, there is a steady rhythm provided by a guitar, bass and drums. The bass, in particular is rock solid. The piano noodles around almost inaudibly behind the melody (as does Benny Goodman for the most part, BTW). It seems to me that the person creating the transcription has turned the piece into salon music. Listening to it, I was reminded of one of the Templeton Pocket Sized Sonatas -- though a poor man's version, IMO. I don't think the pianist was given the same kind of background Goodman put into his version. Perhaps she could have done better with her part (been more assertive) but I think she was playing the hand she was dealt (and, I suspect was playing what was written on the page without having listened to the Goodman recording). I also have the impression that, in creating the clarinet part (which Goodman did not write for the original version), the transcriber tried to be fancy and to throw in some Goodmanesque licks, rather than following the rather straightforward solos played by the trumpet and sax in the sextet recording, and, in the process, introduced some serious (a)rhythmical problems into the clarinet part.
In any case, to infer from this one performance that David Shifrin can't play in the jazz idiom is a major stretch (and, I think, refuted by his recording of Lalo Schifrin's music). And to conclude further that clarinetists who perform primarily in a classical idiom can't play convincing jazz is ... well, let's just say an even bigger stretch.
Of course, I will have to eat my words if someone demonstrates definitely that Benny Goodman did the transcription, himself.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-18 20:47
Jack Kissinger wrote:
>> Perhaps the pianist could have been more solid in her accompaniment. Perhaps. But I think, if we are going to level blame, then the person who wrote this transcription -- almost certainly not Benny Goodman, who originally wrote the work for his "Sextet" and possibly not even someone reasonably well versed in jazz, let alone Goodman's idiom -- needs to come in for a fair share of it.>>
It's not a question of levelling blame.
What such music requires is, as you later say:
>> a steady rhythm provided by a guitar, bass and drums. The bass, in particular is rock solid.>>
The left hand part of the piano needed to do the same thing.
Anyone listening to a rehearsal of that performance who had a stylistic understanding would have said to the pianist, as I would have said: listen, the bass needs to be much stronger. Play it FORTE, insistently.
Then, the solo line has much less responsibility to represent the beat, and could tolerate a degree of freedom -- as indeed evinced by some of the solos on Goodman's version.
But, my question remains:
"What did Shifrin need to do more or less of, in order more to capture the style?"
You can see that that's far from the statement:
"Shifrin can't play jazz."
The QUESTION might be useful. The STATEMENT is just more of the sort of foolish, superficial crap that we're so, so, so used to reading here.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-18 23:57
And lest you think that there is no answer to my question:
"What did Shifrin need to do more or less of, in order the more to capture the style?"
...then let me tell you that there is.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Art Marshall
Date: 2010-07-19 01:30
Well folks, an interesting subject.
I must say that Benny Goodman gave a good rendering when playing the Copeland Concerto and to a lesser extent :Mozart and the Weber pieces as the tone was very different fom what we expect in classical music. I had the privilege to meet Benny Goodman in St Maarten, Dutch West Indies, where he owned a summer house. You can read that story on my website www.artmarshal.org. He was polite and told me that he liked my swing playing. I wrote a book on improvising from chord symbols in the dixie and swing idiom and dedicated it to Benny (Take up Jazz. Art Marshall Chester Music. London)
I myself played swing and jazz from childhood and when I started to study the clarinet seriously I had to change a couple of things which I really did .
I never lost this faculty to improvise although I went through all the formal training.
This Davis S discussion is an obvious thing. One thing for sure :BG played classical music better than David plays Benny's music. What a pitiful misunderstanding that you can't even play such a tune without sheet music. The pianist was not familiar with this type of music. I bet when Dick Hyman had comped, David would have come out better!
To play swing jazz is an art itself and it should not be underestimated. To play classical music well requires studying your instrument and the musical structure.
I played classical music professionally, bass clarinettist (mind the transpositions!! ) clarinet and bassethorn, in Holland, but when jobs became scarce I was glad that I could improvise from chord symbols. I gave me an advantage over those who could not. As understood arranging I could continue to make a good living.
I even play German system Wurlitzer and Dietz clarinets and tie my reed with a string.
Once we played with our orchestra in Saterday Night is Music Night (Robin Boyle) and the BBC light orchestra played also; wonderful players and at home in more that one style.
Have you ever listened to Walter Boeykens playing the BG repertoire. Fantastic!!!!
Thank you for bearing with my thoughts on this matter.
Concusion: It is possible to do both, but one will always feel more at home
in one particular style.
Art Marshall
005999 517 7145
maarschalk@scarlet.an
Post Edited (2010-07-20 02:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2010-07-19 01:53
'''........exactly', so that you then say 'even more exactly..........'''
Exactly is an absolute, as I recall being taught in school years ago. I don't think something can therefore, be described as being ''more exact''.
'' 'Good', 'swing' and 'feel' are probably not the best you can do, I suspect......''
In the context of jazz, I'd say that 'good', 'swing' and 'feel' are adequate descriptors.
''......Start with the first bar, and go on from there.''
Why? Unless of course, one is attempting to write a paper on the subject, for peer review.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-19 17:38
ed wrote:
>> "'Good', 'swing' and 'feel' are probably not the best you can do, I suspect......"
In the context of jazz, I'd say that 'good', 'swing' and 'feel' are adequate descriptors. >>
I suppose my point is that what's needed here is a DESCRIPTION of that very thing; namely, a description of 'the context of jazz' -- in this case, 'swing'. You can't describe a context without talking outside that context.
What I'm after -- for example -- is a realisation of how Goodman typically goes about beginning and then shaping the long notes, compared with how Shifrin does. That's a more precise and style-neutral description of the difference between them.
By listening more closely to what's typical of Goodman, but not Shifrin, you start to see what the elements of the swing style are.
>>"......Start with the first bar, and go on from there."
Why? Unless of course, one is attempting to write a paper on the subject, for peer review.>>
Well, so that we as a group become more aware of what you need to do to play 'in the style'.
Notice that the fact that you're playing in the style doesn't guarantee that you'll play WELL in the style. What was good about Goodman's playing isn't to be captured by describing the style.
The same applies to playing in the style of Mozart's time. It's possible for a player to use the elements of THAT style perfectly correctly, too, and nevertheless produce a boring and ineffective performance.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-19 19:57
Tony wrote:
Quote:
What I'm after -- for example -- is a realisation of how Goodman typically goes about beginning and then shaping the long notes, compared with how Shifrin does. That's a more precise and style-neutral description of the difference between them.
Well, now that I've heard the Benny Goodman sextet play it, the first thing that jumps out at me--which is related to the shape of the long notes--is their intonation.
Shifrin plays that first little interval as a simple descending tritone, but it's not really supposed to be an equal-tempered tritone, if you listen to Benny Goodman's version. It's really a "blue" flatted fifth, a bit wider than a tritone.
But it's more complicated than that, really, because the pitch of the note changes over its "lifetime." It starts out closer to a garden variety tritone and then flattens as it decays. (Kind of like the blues version of an appoggiatura.)
And, of course, the other thing it does is that it starts starts out strong and then decays as it resolves (which is also like an appoggiatura).
It's the most interesting thing about the theme, yet Shifrin misses it. He's playing the written without recognizing that in this context that the written note is just a stand-in for the real one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-07-19 21:32
I hate it when people "analyze" jazz. Jazz is 'gut' music, not intellectual music. Just my opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-19 21:45
Mike wrote:
>> And, of course, the other thing it does is that it starts starts out strong and then decays as it resolves (which is also like an appoggiatura).>>
I'd say that this is the most important characteristic of Goodman's style. Another way of putting that is to say that his style is more SPOKEN than anything Shifrin produces. Indeed, that quality belongs to almost everything Goodman does.
I appreciate what you say about the intonation; but personally I'd want to say that that's more like a nuance, or an embellishment, than a stylistic element. So it's very important for the character of this particular number, but not for the style.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-19 21:59
A further remark about Shifrin:
It's because he doesn't ever BEGIN long notes definitely that, as the piece goes on, he feels he has to sustain, rather than come away. That, in combination with the naff piano playing, compromises the rhythm.
If you 'begin' well, and varyingly, then varieties of 'coming away' are an expressive possibility.
How many of you understand that? (And if you don't understand it, how simple does something have to be before you understand it?-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-19 23:13
Tony wrote:
Quote:
So it's very important for the character of this particular number, but not for the style.
I think you're right--it really is more a part of the tune itself, rather than the style, per se.
It was the first thing that jumped out at me (in almost a right note vs. wrong note sort of way), and because it also follows the shape of the note, I thought I'd mention it.
But you're right; if we're talking about "Let's Dance" or "Stompin' at the Savoy," the same note-shaping is there, but not necessarily the bluesy intonation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-07-19 23:51
David Spiegelthal wrote:
Quote:
I hate it when people "analyze" jazz. Jazz is 'gut' music, not intellectual music. Just my opinion.
All music is "gut" music, even the intellectual kind.
And Coltrane didn't call it "Giant Steps" because he had big feet, either...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-07-20 04:32
David Shrifin sounds great. He takes a slinky, loose approach to time throughout and plays with style and great conviction. The time issues could have been mollified if not fixed with a more spacious, freer piano part. ....more rests even. I get the impression his approach here was not to play in a relaxed swing feel throughout. He was after more drama. Shifrin was a racehorse ready to go from the start. No holding him back. push push push then relax at the end. It's all good.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2010-07-20 05:21
''How many of you understand that? (And if you don't understand it, how simple does something have to be before you understand it?-)''
I'm not sure what exactly needs to be understood? A didactic approach to jazz is, simply, unnecessary. That certainly needs to be understood.
----------------------
''I hate it when people "analyze" jazz. Jazz is 'gut' music, not intellectual music. Just my opinion.''
I agree, more or less with this statement, although I would not use the word 'hate', I'd rather query the necessity for analysing in the first instance.
-----------------------
It is quite obvious that Goodman and Shifrin interpret the piece differently. Some of those differences are greater, or lesser, depending on one's subjective point of view.
It is most definitely 'opinion' which rules for jazz, as opposed to classical music which seems to depend upon the written note and an arranger's notes for a proper interpretation.
Again - and it's just my opinion - I suspect Goodman would not have cared which way his piece would have been played, as long as [1] it was in tune and [2] it had swing.
It is impossible to equate a classical approach to music with a jazz approach. I therefore query the need for 'schools' of jazz. There are plenty of them in universities and colleges, and what really do they teach? They teach mainly the history of jazz and music theory. That is, CLASSICAL theory, which is then somehow transmogrified in to some semblance of JAZZ theory.
I am a jazz player myself and feel qualified to offer my 'opinion' of jazz. I cannot play the classical style and therefore offer none. I feel that one thing is certain though - the classical and jazz schools will never meet. This is no sad thing either - I relish the differences and listen to both
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-20 17:12
ned wrote:
>> "How many of you understand that? (And if you don't understand it, how simple does something have to be before you understand it?-)"
I'm not sure what exactly needs to be understood? A didactic approach to jazz is, simply, unnecessary. That certainly needs to be understood.>>
I don't see why. 'Didactic' means 'to do with teaching'.
People take lessons in playing jazz, as well as teaching themselves. And clearly a part of that process might well involve a player COPYING the sorts of things other players do, as a beginning to developing their own language.
In order to copy something, you need to know 'what it is' -- what it's made up of.
That there is a word for a style called 'swing' means that it's possible to characterise it, and therefore copy it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Art Marshall
Date: 2010-07-20 19:45
To Tony Pay
Hi Tony, Could it be I heard you around 1989 in Holland (Concertgebouw) with a beautiful rendering
of the Schubert Octet or Beethoven Septet. What struck me was how an English clarinettist played
with an almost Germanlike Wurlitzer sound. Was that you? I had some discs of Thea King and Georgina
Dobree and the reedy sound of the ladies struck me as being British. I also used to listen to JAck
Brymer''s recording of the Beethoven Septet with the Melos ensemble. That was with a nice and very
light vibrato.
Back to the Swingers
Anyway it is possible to identify and describe the phenomina of swing playing. Just like you can
learn a foreign language by imitation with a little bit of grammar , you can learn to some extent
to play swing. In the beginning you must take an example that you copy and later on you develop
your own style.
There are lot of good big band players who cannot improvise; but one or 2 guys / girls in a section
can. The readers do play in the right style, however.
In the beginning we had a real straight guy in our pit orchestra on trumpet, classically trained
and not all too familiar with swing playing. Once he had to do a written out swing solo; he came
and asked how to do it. He took the trouble of bending down and took the artistic approach and
practised it until he could. He did extremely well; it was his artistic pride to play any music he
had to play well, as long is was written down. On playig ad lib: In work shops I noticed that an
instrumentalist who is already an achieved player finds it difficult to begin from scratch and most
players also lack an immediate command of the chords and harmonic changes of a certain tune. The
right sound comes from imitation and that sometimes clashes with the formal concept of tone.
I hope to have contributed to the discussion. There is so much to it! Art Marshall
Author of take up JAzz Chester Music
www.artmarshal.org
------- Original Message -------
From : Tony Pay[ mailto:TheBBoard@woodwind.org]
Sent : 7/20/2010 1:12:37 PM
To :
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Swingers vs Classics [1:330867:331908]
This message was sent from: The Clarinet BBoard.
< http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=331908&t=330867>
----------------------------------------------------------------
ned wrote:
>> "How many of you understand that? (And if you don't understand it, how
simple does something have to be before you understand it?-)"
I'm not sure what exactly needs to be understood? A didactic approach to
jazz is, simply, unnecessary. That certainly needs to be understood.>>
I don't see why. 'Didactic' means 'to do with teaching'.
People take lessons in playing jazz, as well as teaching themselves. And
clearly a part of that process might well involve a player COPYING the
sorts of things other players do, as a beginning to developing their own
language.
In order to copy something, you need to know 'what it is' -- what it's
made up of.
That there is a word for a style called 'swing' means that it's possible
to characterise it, and therefore copy it.
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sent using Phorum software version 3.4.2 < http://phorum.org>
005999 517 7145
maarschalk@scarlet.an
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2010-07-20 21:01
I've been reading this thread for awhile, and wondering if anyone would really give some sort of intelligible answer to Tony's questions. Some have scratched, but just for kicks, here are some very simple basics:
1. 'Swing' is indeed a difficult concept to verbalize, in a similar way that the Viennese Waltz performance practice can be difficult to verbalize (Bernstein once said that he was confused by contradictory advice given by the Vienna Phil as to how to execute one). Having said that, there are some real basic principles that are easily articulated, among them being:
a) In swing, the metric gravity is, in 4/4 time, towards beats 2 and 4, rather than the 'standard' European 1 & 3. [Note that this is a general rule and not to be taken as puritanical law applicable in all cases.] There are musical/historical reasons for this, but let's not get too long on an internet post.
b) Beyond this very basic aspect of background pulse, there is what Gunther Schuller has described (I think in his analysis of Louis Armstrong's solo style) as the "Democratization of the Beat". By this Schuller meant the rather subtle concept that, because jazz is based upon a polyrhythmic concept (inherited from African music--once again, a long ethnomusicological story), a soloist might legitimately emphasize any part of any beat equally in a solo, so long as the solo itself meets the overall context of shape and logic demanded rhytmically, harmonically, and melodically (though this is a complicated subject and demands much more than a rudimentary discussion of 'swing'). Still, if you'll follow this reasoning, you can understand that what might sound 'good' and 'appropriate' in a jazz solo would sound chaotic or 'wrong' rythmically in the context of, say, a bell canto aria.
2. To perform the style properly, then, one needs to feel both the meter and the approach to rhythm properly--knowing where the metric gravity is in the measure--and where the accents and attacks of each note truly fit to gain the greatest polyrhthmic variety and interest. Performing a transcribed solo of Sonny Rollins, Sidney Bechet, or Benny Goodman without understanding these very basic rhythmic aspects results in a 'bad' performance, because there is a lack of understanding for the musical dialect at hand. In other words--how Benny or Sonny plays rhythmically 'with' or 'off' the basic metric impulse provides a substantial portion of the musical interest and enjoyment possible in the piece. If that is ignored, the sails lose wind and the ship stops, so to speak.
These are very basic principles, and are regularly talked about by jazz players (though usually when laughing at audiences who clap on 1 & 3). There need be nothing anti-intellectual about jazz (as Wynton Marsalis's often intriguing writings on the subject prove). As for teaching jazz, there have been many great players to come out of Berklee, Hartt (where Jackie McClean taught for several decades), and many other places.
I would doubt if this fullfills all aspects of Tony's worthwhile questions, but it's a start.
Peace, all.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-22 11:54
Art wrote:
>> Hi Tony, Could it be I heard you around 1989 in Holland (Concertgebouw) with a beautiful rendering of the Schubert Octet or Beethoven Septet? What struck me was how an English clarinettist played with an almost Germanlike Wurlitzer sound. Was that you?>>
No, in 1989 not. I did once play the Schubert in the Concertgebouw with the Academy of Saint-Martin-in-the-Fields chamber ensemble, and we then recorded it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001GAS50
...but that would have been in 1977.
Thank you for your clarifications about swing -- and thanks also to Eric for his post. I have no doubt -- in fact, I KNOW:-) -- that you and others are correct in saying that it's not hard to learn how to play swing style, if you have a good ear and can play the instrument. The much greater task is to become a proper improviser, as has also been pointed out.
I don't myself now do much playing with jazz players; but I remember on one session in my youth pointing to the page and asking the experienced sax player beside me, "How does that bit go?" He played it for me, and I did it like that.
So the purpose of my posts was not primarily to obtain information, but to look BEHIND William's original post. He asked, "Why can't more clarinetists simply "do it all"??". And I'm afraid the answer is: because very many clarinet players aren't much good. Either they aren't able to HEAR what constitutes the style, or they don't have the technique or the inclination to reproduce it.
(Notice, again, that we're not talking about the ablity to improvise -- though arguably, even classical players are improvising in a sense when they play written music WELL; see Daryl Runswick's "The Improvisation Continuum":
http://www.btinternet.com/~daryl.runswick/ImproCont.pdf
)
But that answer -- that they're not much good -- isn't much use to us, is it? And neither is what else has been written here about the different players who do it well or badly of much use -- UNLESS it's accompanied by pointers as to what to look for if you're trying to play swing yourself.
That's where listening carefully to Goodman and Shifrin may be helpful, and where simply dismissing 'analysis' isn't. The magic of any truly great performance, jazz or classical, may be beyond analysis. But jazz and classical STYLE can profitably be examined.
I've said this sort of thing before -- for example, when discussing Kell, when all most people could come up with was their likes and dislikes -- as though that's interesting. What we want to know is, what does he do? And what does he gain, and lose, by doing that?
So I welcome here people like you, Art; and Eric, and Mike, and others. You take the trouble to say something worth reading.
Tony
Post Edited (2010-07-22 13:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-07-22 12:40
For me, Benny Goodman gets swing right because he swings *from* something, *to* something. You can hear where he's been and where he's going because at some point in the note, he centers the needle bang on the pitch. At the climax of a phrase, that centered pitch comes either bang on the beat or bang on the off-beat. He'll slide into a note and out of a note, and up to a point, he'll slide a phrase while the drummer keeps steady, but at the turning point or the climax of the phrase, Goodman doesn't let his intonation go slippery-sliding back and forth past the beat. That's true of Artie Shaw as well.
When the musician holds the listener's focus on both pitch and rhythm, we can feel the music make progress. We can think ahead of what we hear. We're literally (not metaphorically) going along with it. We're involved.
When we play from a score, do any of us read one note at a time? Of course we don't. We see a whole phrase. We think ahead. We anticipate. We build our own anticipation into what comes out of the clarinet so that the listener can share it. If I can't *hear* where we're going when I'm listening, then the music annoys me. I don't mind if I'm wrong about where we're going (kudos to the composer or improvisor for creativity when that happens) but along the way, I need to feel as if we're going somewhere.
When Benny Goodman or Artie Shaw plays swing, the music feels right, feels satsfying, because to a large extent, we can predict where it's going. Then it goes one of those places where we might expect it to go. It may not go to the most obvious place -- it may surprise us, and that's fun -- but it goes someplace where we can find it on one of those "know your changes" charts.
The swing and jazz playing that sounds worst to me is never the music that doesn't swing enough. True, I'd rather not hear a lame attempt at jazz that's hup, two, three, four on the beat with no pitch bending -- music that sounds too much like classical music -- but that's not the music that drives me nuts. It's the weebly-wobbly swing that doesn't sound nearly *enough* like classical music that gives me the heebie-jeebies ("Pick a key, dude -- any key") badly enough for me to turn it off.
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: Art Marshall
Date: 2010-07-22 13:01
To Tony:
Thank you for your posting:
Tony I think it must have been 1977 then, I lived around the corner of the Concertgebouw by the way and was a student of Bram de Wilde. It was the Schubert octet and it really impressed me to hear you play. It was beautiful! I also know the recording.
Swingers vs Improvising (ad libbing) is something different from being able to play big band charts in a convincing way. If you listen to the side men in some of the big bands of the 40 ties; they play their parts but not all of them can improvise. To play swing you must have an imitative faculty in order to imitate some of the masters. Later it becomes necessary to develop a style of your own. Ever heard of Andy Miles in Germany; he has a chair in a german symphony orcherstra, but he also plays very good swing in my opinion. When you are classically trained and sit in with the amateur dixie guys and some of the swingers they will tell you; it is too smooth ; you know the chord changes too well; you do not use vibrato etc.
Anyway : East is east and west is west; never the twain shall meet.
I tried to write down Gershwin tunes for clarinét quartet in Benny's style and did it in such a way that classical players can get some of the basic ideas from the notation. But when you have never listened to the originals you won't get the swing. Alls the examples are on youtube now. Especially Oh lady be Good seems to enjoy some popularity .Try Youtube Oh lady be good for clarinet (sax quartet ) and you will see what people do with the arrangement. (Ebona quartet Cuba ; Paul Harvey quartet Italy; Sax Timoty Sun quartet UK)
I love the attitude among musicians where there is respect for each other's playing. I happened in Holland once, when Eddie Daniels played a Brahms sonata at the conservatory that a classical guy got up and walked out. Such a bad thing to do! When I heard Eddy Daniels for the first time in my life I wanted to give up playing. There seems to be no limit to his dexterity. He masters the legato style and one can differ of opinion about the brightness of his tone in classical music.
Kind regards Art Marshall
005999 517 7145
maarschalk@scarlet.an
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2010-07-22 15:55
Thanks for your kind remarks, Tony.
As for this puzzling issue of swing....one more aspect to consider, which is sometimes more easily understood from dance than music (because the problem can be seen--why that helps, I don't know, but for most people it does).
Anyone who has seen a hip hop dancer trying to do a Viennese Waltz or a European style ballroom dancer trying to dance hip-hop for the first time has seen what can happen. The hip-hop dancer has a lower center of gravity, the Waltzer a higher one. If one spends most of their lives dancing in a particular way, muscular habits are created, etc.
BUT MORE THAN THIS, there are expressive reasons for dancing in a certain way--and there can be considerable cultural embarrassment in trying to do the other style. A Waltzer being told to "get down" might blush--but SO might a hip hopper being told to "carry himself better". Differnt things like this can FEEL SILLY or embarrassing--and there can be consdierable psychological resistence to doing what is cosidered inappopriate in one's own cultural background--even if it wouldn't be in another! On the other hand, if one has no idea of what is really being expressed, the whole thing can just be confusing and therefore impossible.
As mentioned earlier, swing has a different center of gravity from European concert music. It requires that one "get down" in a different way.
Classical folks tend to approach jazz (even on this thread, in the best of the comments) from the "top down"--discussing articulation, etc. And I won't belittle this: articulation is very important--the differences really are there--and they are related to vocal styles, language, dialect, etc. We could talk quite a bit about the influence of the great Klezmer players on jazz--Ziggy Elman and others (Shaw and Goodman brought much of this to their attacks, etc).
But jazzers will often snort and think "we're not talking about articulation in a Brahms sonata here: you won't 'get it' that way." You can pull out every "trick" in the articulation book and not really 'get it', unless you address the problem from the ground up--the fundamental difference in "gravity" and rhythmic background of the artform.
So, to answer the basic question: it is very difficult to be a master at both jazz and European 'classical' music (though what a bad set of terms those are), largely because the 'muscles' developed (sometimes literally in embouchure, etc) are very different; there is a different center of gravity, there are different criteria for expressive goals. It can be done, though.
And as many have mentioned, this only refers to convincingly playing "in the style", as one would for a show pit or a pops concert. To really immerse oneself in the expressive demands of true jazz performance...well, that's a lifetimes' journey, and demands an aweful lot more.
[I don't know David Shifrin, but I've listened to his recordings for decades, and figure I owe him more gratitude than disrespect. And I feel that way about all the players whose lives have made mine so much better by how they chose to develop their talents and share them--some of whom post here. My comments, therefore, have nothing to do with his video and are not addressed to it.]
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: A Brady
Date: 2010-07-22 16:49
An interesting aspect of this question is the individuality of jazz musicians. Players who came up in the early days of the music (c. 1920 - 1945, approximately) tended to be self taught or have less formal musical instruction, and learned either in person from established elders/mentors, or would listen extensively to recordings to learn jazz style (legend has it that Charlie Parker basically created his entire style in one summer while working in the Ozarks, wearing out a large stack of Lester Young recordings.)
This assimilative approach led to a generation of players who could almost instantly be identified by their distinctive sound and approach to playing, such as Bechet, Armstrong, Bird, Coleman Hawkins, Benny Goodman (even with more classical training than most), and certainly extending to Miles, Coltrane, Monk, Rollins, and many other legendary players.
With the ascendancy of jazz education, we now have a very large number of players who have enormous technical resources, are marvelous sight readers, and can even be described as virtuosos on their respective instruments, playing many styles with equal finesse (working in the NYC area will quickly demonstrate this) but cannot as readily be identified from one to the other in their playing. Certainly, anyone hearing Reginald Kell, Robert Marcellus, and Stanley Drucker would have no difficulty hearing the contrast in sound and style, even if not a clarinetist. I'm not convinced that is so easily done these days.
Obviously, classical players can and do develop highly individual sounds and approaches after years of formal study, but I often wonder what we may be losing in terms of truly creative voices in terms of improvised music. Also, as many posts on this board will attest, and personal experience confirms, classical players seem to be becoming more homogenized rather than individualized across national borders.
This is not to denigrate the many truly unique and wonderful jazz artists that are currently on the scene, but simply an observation as to the overall direction of musician training.
AB
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-22 17:15
Eric wrote:
>> But jazzers will often snort and think "we're not talking about articulation in a Brahms sonata here: you won't 'get it' that way." You can pull out every "trick" in the articulation book and not really 'get it', unless you address the problem from the ground up--the fundamental difference in "gravity" and rhythmic background of the artform.>>
What I'd say about that is that it shows that SOME jazzers know that SOME wannabes talking about it in terms of articulation IN THE WAY THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, won't lead to their 'getting it'. (Sorry if that looks like shouting; I find that italics doesn't look very clear in this font.)
But a very large number of people who talk about Brahms sonatas and other classical music in terms of what is often a highly limited palette of articulation -- THEIR 'articulation book' -- aren't going to succeed in capturing THAT style either.
'Articulation' -- the way elements of a musical structure are separated, joined, and joined in separation -- is a much deeper concept than that of 'attack', which is what many people think you mean when you use the word. The fact is that we usually need to resort to metaphors -- for example, your 'dance' metaphor; and I have others, see later -- in order to say anything useful in this regard about ANY sort of music. That's because the way sound changes in playing needs a very rich mode of description.
Actually, a very common mistake made on this BBoard is to talk about a player's sound as though that consists of an unmodulated tonal spectrum. There are even people who deny here that micromodulation of sound has any significance at all in clarinet playing. Of course, though they don't know it, those people have a very small chance of ever being able to approach what's really required in Brahms -- that's MY point; OR, 'swing' -- which is the jazzer's point;-)
I think we should call attention to the fact that we're in the same boat, rather than letting people relegate jazz to a mystical other world, where it can be pretended that the jazzer is somehow miraculously in tune with the beat of the universe:-) unlike the rest of us.
The final thing I want to say is that, like the notation of written-down jazz, the notation of written-down music of the Baroque and early Classical style is 'thin' -- it presumes the context of a stylistic understanding. (Both notes and phrases have an implicit structure.) And you can't really 'thicken' that notation without destroying what is important about the style -- otherwise Mozart, for example, would himself have written in all the extra dynamics and 'articulations' that the misguided performer-editors of his concerto favour (and favor) us with.
So 'beginnings' -- being part of a more general concept than 'attacks' -- are both subtle and important.
You might find:
http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Study/Phrasing.html
...interesting.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2010-07-22 18:02
A Brady: I agree with your post, and the content scares me.
Tony, you wrote:
>>But a very large number of people who talk about Brahms sonatas and other classical music in terms of what is often a highly limited palette of articulation -- THEIR 'articulation book' -- aren't going to succeed in capturing THAT style either.
'Articulation' -- the way elements of a musical structure are separated, joined, and joined in separation -- is a much deeper concept than that of 'attack', which is what many people think you mean when you use the word.>>
Touche. The ramifications of this are indeed profound, to all styles of music. I will certainly read your article on phrasing and think it through.
Like A Brady's discussion of the loss of individuality in much performance (jazz and classical) these days, your frustration with a lack of players engaging in necessary tonal modulation (or even admitting to it) both resonates with me and is downright frightening. There seems to have been a tendency, especially over the last several decades, to reduce performance practice to a highly proficient lowest common denominator. By that I mean that perfect Korg intonation, mere fleetness of fingers, and non-threatening, generic "sound" have become the prerequisites at the expense of all other qualities--or without proper context as to why those qualities might even be properly important.
But when I get too glum about that, I remember that there ARE those like you out there investigating period instruments with the goal of reinvigorating other values, and there are ARE those out there in the other walks of performance with deeper goals than our current standard of robot-like proficiency.
I nodded and smiled at your point about classic era manuscripts and jazz manuscripts. Exactly.
Now as to THIS:
>>I think we should call attention to the fact that we're in the same boat, rather than letting people relegate jazz to a mystical other world, where it can be pretended that the jazzer is somehow miraculously in tune with the beat of the universe:-) unlike the rest of us.>>
I categorically deny the implication that jazzers are not miraculously in tune with the beat of the universe! THEY ARE (and no, those aren't italics: I'm really shouting...but with a smile). It's just that to play classical music properly you must be too, though maybe some classical folks have forgotten. We're all in the same boat alright--but it's sailing through the mystical REAL world (as your brilliant composer, RVW, so ably set my brilliant poet Whitman's words in A Sea Symphony--a piece which is also proof that one great 'nationalist's' style can interpret anothers perhaps even better than a native could have).
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Art Marshall
Date: 2010-07-22 18:50
------- Original Message -------
From : Tony Pay[ mailto:TheBBoard@woodwind.org]
Sent : 7/22/2010 1:15:49 PM
to Tony and the Marlborough Man
Articulation:
Interesting indeed. Especially the part about articulation in the Brahms
Sonatas, Quintet an Trio. I had the pleasure of getting woodwind quintet
lessons from Brian Pollard, bassoonist of the Concertgebouw Orchestra and
he showed us his different staccatos and ways ot tonguing notes; he even
had a selection of reeds attached to his bassoon that he chose to use for
special "effects". only then I began to understand the wealth of expressing
oneself through carefully chosen ways of articulation.
Art Marshall
To : Tony Pay
Cc : The Marlborough Man
Subject : RE: Re: Swingers vs Classics [1:330867:332011]
This message was sent from: The Clarinet BBoard.
< http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?
f=1&i=332011&t=330867>
----------------------------------------------------------------
005999 517 7145
maarschalk@scarlet.an
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-07-25 11:12
Eric wrote:
>>"I think we should call attention to the fact that we're in the same boat, rather than letting people relegate jazz to a mystical other world, where it can be pretended that the jazzer is somehow miraculously in tune with the beat of the universe:-) unlike the rest of us."
I categorically deny the implication that jazzers are not miraculously in tune with the beat of the universe! THEY ARE (and no, those aren't italics: I'm really shouting...but with a smile). It's just that to play classical music properly you must be too, though maybe some classical folks have forgotten. We're all in the same boat alright--but it's sailing through the mystical REAL world...>>
Well,
"The mystical is not how the world is, but THAT it is." :-)
I suppose my point is that 'how music is' is not mystical, any more than how the world is -- it just requires a different language, the language of relationship, to describe it. So I agree with you; but I wouldn't want to let the anti-investigation-jazz-cultists get away with misreading what you write.
Actually, the language of relationship, and difference, is easily seen to be quite mystical-SOUNDING; consider:
"The music is not in the notes, but between the notes."
That sounds a little weird, but Nielsen claimed that it was self-evident, and that the appreciation of the power of INTERVALS had declined in musical culture. (It's worthwhile making that view central when playing his clarinet concerto.) And of course, noticing an interval is a fundamental way of beginning to notice the relationship 'between' notes.
My claim was that the 'relationship between' the beginnings of notes (or phrases) and their continuation is a fundamental relationship in the characterisation of swing style -- and, of course, classical style, if you read my article.
An aside on 'analysis'; for some people it's a dirty word, but ever since I read Pirsig's wonderful 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' I've seen it in a new light.
In its simplest form, analysis (ana-lysis, throughout-loosening) is dividing a situation into two (and often more) parts and then describing the situation in terms of the relationship between them. So, a short passage played on the clarinet might be divided into (a) one of the notes, and (b) the rest of them, and then an 'analysis' of why, say, the passage was uneven would consist of describing the relationship between (a) and (b); perhaps (a) was louder and/or brighter in tone colour than (b), for example.
My 'analysis' of one part of swing and classical style makes the same, but this time more abstract move; it divides each note or phrase into (a) its beginning, and (b) its continuation, and then talks about the relationship between THAT (a) and (b). Of course, what complicates the issue is the fact that this relationship is more subtle, involving type of attack, nature and speed of change of tone colour, etc; perhaps, as you suggest, it can only be usefully approached by metaphor.
The important thing to see, in my view, is that the initial division -- what Pirsig calls the cut of the analytical knife -- is not REAL. It is an act of imagination. Moreover, some cuts lead to useful insights, others to nothing particularly worthwhile.
(By the way, if you want to read the relevant passage in ZATAOMM, go to:
< http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zen-motorcycle.pdf>
...and search on 'analytic craftsmanship', backing up as much as you want for context.)
Still, what most people hate about analysis is the 'splitting up' bit. Whereas, what I love about analysis is, firstly, that its central feature is the reliance on relationship; and secondly, that it is ARBITRARY, and therefore not exhaustive, so many analyses are possible.
How you use the knife is up to you, and the only justification of its use is what you get out of it. I think that instruction in and experience of the use of their own analytic knife is perhaps the greatest gift we can give to our students.
My favourite piece of my own analysis can be found in:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2007/02/000249.txt
...which sums up my own view of what we're doing as performers, and why what we're doing is crucial to music.
Tony
Post Edited (2020-07-29 03:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2010-07-25 16:31
Tony,
Fascinating points and arguments.
First, many thanks for the link to your discussion of the maplike qualities of a score and the implications of this regarding performance, especially as it relates to music created in more distant eras. I think your observations here are particularly important because they attempt to spell out an actual approach by which musicians might put into practice what has hitherto been a merely a nebulous problem (what as a student I described as the difficulty of "getting the music 'off the page' ").
I have only briefly skimmed the article you linked to regarding articulation and therefore must take more time before commenting, but what I've read has already impressed me as having not only the quality of being insightful, but useful. If you haven't already done so, or considered it, (and you must forgive my ignorance if you already HAVE), I would encourage you to put together a method book dealing with these aspects in a stepwise manner for students, integrating all of them in a complete approach. As we progress through history, performance challenges become different, due to our changing chronological perspective and many other factors. Suffice it to say that your observations would be helpful, to a large audience of musicians, considering current challenges.
These aside, where are we in the discussion at hand?
Your defense of 'analysis' is perfectly sound: the reminder that all such analysis is imagined is an excellent tonic to an impulse to dissect (and kill the subject of study). There are many ways to go about things, and while some means of study is deliberately (sometimes perversely) destructive, there are other paths. Good to see that you advocate such an approach.
So where does this leave us regarding jazz? We seem to be standing on the brink of a discussion about jazz pedagogy, which I would be foolish to enter too far, as I am not particularly qualified to opine.
The things I can say:
1. Jazz can indeed be analyzed.
2. Jazz can be taught (insofar as any art can be taught, which of course they can to talented and receptive people).
3. Jazz pedagogy exists, and has already multi-generational track record, with actual results.
4. Analysis of these things is good and important, because jazz music is good and important.
Your clarification on mysticism is well taken, if I'm reading you correctly. No, there is no easy "out" there, claiming that because music is mysterious, it cannot or should not be analyzed. Quite the contrary: like the old scholastic theologians knew, it is because the subject matter is so ultimately and profoundly mysterious that it yields such fruitful analysis (in other words: that which is so shallow as to be explainable need not be analyzed much: that which is fathomless is also endlessly fascinating, and yields not less interesting knowledge, but more.)
(Your quote from Nielsen was great, and immediately comparable to others by Schnabel, Cage, and in terms of performance practice, Miles Davis and Thelonius Monk, among countless others I'm sure. But that's another interesting conversation altogether).
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2010-07-25 17:22
"Analysis of these things is good and important, because jazz music is good and important."
I think analysis of jazz performances (and other performances) is good and important for a better reason. After listening over the years to performances by many different performers and levels of performer, I conclude that the difference between an outstanding performance and one that is simply competent (or sometimes less than competent) is often an accumulation of many small details. Sometimes these details are obvious (at least to someone who knows to listen for them). Listen to a community orchestra perform a work within its grasp and then listen to a major professional symphony orchestra perform the same work and one difference that usually jumps out immediately is the ensemble in the professional orchestra -- the way attacks begin absolutely together, e.g. Other times the details aren't as easy to identify. It seems to me that, to the extent, we can identify and articulate the small details that make the difference between an outstanding performance and a competent one in any genre, we can potentially improve both the level of performance and the level of composition. That should be just as true for jazz as it is for classical music as it is for klezmer music as it is for any other genre.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2010-07-25 17:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2010-07-26 07:24
''No, there is no easy "out" there, claiming that because music is mysterious, it cannot or should not be analyzed.''
I don't think jazz is mysterious, not if you have played it, that is. Confounding perhaps, but not mysterious.
I see the major difference between a classical performance and a jazz performance being - the former is played to an almost strict regime with little variation from one group of players (of equal ability) and with the conductor and/or arranger's concept of the piece being the priority.
A jazz performance is very much an individual effort. There seems to be an almost unlimited way of expressing oneself within a jazz performance and it really depends on the whim/skill/prediliction/artistry/inventiveness (pick one or more as is necessary) of the player as to the end result. A jazz player will, if he/she desires, change the interpretation of a piece from performance to performance - it's not really mysterious it's just inventive skill being utilised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''Jazz can indeed be analyzed.''
I think I replied to a similar comment earlier - however, I repeat - certainly it can but why would you want to?
Unlike (say) the ''Lazurus Modern Method for Clarinet'' there is no ''bible'' for jazz players, it's experiential music, if it's to be played properly.
It's basically an unwritten music, scored and arranged in the head, and therefore it is somewhat quite intangible from an academic point of view. One can discuss it anecdotally and of course we do, but in that sense, it becomes largely opinion driven, which seems to be frowned upon by some of our correspondents.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2010-07-26 12:44
I'll just add one more thing, for clarification:
If you don't want to analyze jazz, or don't see any value in doing so, then the answer is simple: don't. Nobody is forcing you.
But I say let others who are interested do so. No sense in shooting down other peoples' balloons just cuz you don't see the point in them...
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-07-26 16:57
"There seems to be an almost unlimited way of expressing oneself within a jazz performance and it really depends on the whim/skill/prediliction/artistry/inventiveness (pick one or more as is necessary) of the player as to the end result."
I would say that there are elements of comportment in a jazz tune or improvised solo. While you may be categorically free to "express yourself" in any number of ways, you may also have difficulty finding people to play with or an audience to listen to your music.
A jazz musician's solo is a product of specific chord changes, a tune's history, the other musicians performing, as well as one's past experiences and influences. Try playing Giant Steps in a dixieland style, or substituting chord changes with a poor rhythm section and the result will be quite awful. Likewise, you are free to perform Mozart in any number of ways depending on your "whim, skill, et cetera" but that does not mean the result will be something other than garbage.
"Unlike (say) the ''Lazurus Modern Method for Clarinet'' there is no ''bible'' for jazz players, it's experiential music, if it's to be played properly."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. There exists a large body of jazz repertoire- tunes and solos- that musicians study. Almost all serious saxophonists have extensively studied the solos of Bird, Sonny Rollins, Coltrane, et cetera, to the extent that they have become a jazz Organon (which brings me back to my first point: to play a bebop solo without any notion of the context or of Bird's contributions would inevitably fail).
Furthermore, while some argue that the "spirit of jazz" is that of constant exploration, the fact there exists such a large number of players contrary to this notion cannot be ignored. Sonny Stitt, Phil Woods, and (more recently) Wynton Marsalis are all examples of players that were/are in no way experimental yet were/are influential jazz musicians.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2010-07-26 23:30
''Wynton Marsalis are all examples of players that were/are in no way experimental yet were/are influential jazz musicians.''
I used the word 'experiential' not 'experimental' actually, and what I was suggesting was that jazz players learn by 'experience' - that is they learn on the job.
Obviously a good player will learn to operate his instrument, prior to getting up on the bandstand. Learning another's solos by rote, by book or by listening is a standard way of learning to understand jazz, no doubt, but reading a book will not teach the player how to play it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-07-27 04:50
"I used the word 'experiential' not 'experimental' actually."
Oops! Right you are.
I'm sure most jazz musicians do learn via experience as you suggest, and I'm sure most classical musicians do the same. In fact, some thinkers would argue that everything learned is done so via experience.
I also think that "learning by experience" does not necessarily exclude analysis. For instance, I imagine that you, or any jazz musician for that matter, wouldn't choose to transcribe a recording unless you had been drawn to a particular aspect of that particular performance: the way a player swings, plays over particular changes, interacts with the rhythm section, et cetera. You have made some important decisions about that recording simply by choosing to study it. I think that part of what Tony was urging- apologies if I'm wrong- is for us to contemplate these decisions and discuss them articulately, without the meaningless critiques and jazz memes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
