Author: salzo
Date: 2010-12-29 12:53
Licorice wrote:
" ned- my definition of best would run something like this:
"Alessandro Carbonare, Ricardo Morales, Karl Leister, Sabine Meyer, Martin Fröst, Pasquale Moragues, Michel Arrignon, Mark Nuccio, Antony Pay, William Hudgins, Kari Kriiku, etc. etc. etc"
-All top players who have wonderful, but different, tone qualities.
-None of whom play double lip."
You mention all players who are active today. DL embouchure has become an archaic way of playing the instrument, but not because there is something deficient with it, but because very few teachers today play double lip.
Yesterday, there many more double lip players- Cahuzac, McLane, D. Weber, Harold Wright, Perier, Veraney, Hamelin, Brymer, Gennusa, Cioffi, and on and on and on.
Why no more double lip players? Because of Daniel Bonade, at least that is why double lipping became archaic in the states. Bonade did not teach double lip embouchure. Bonade was the most influential clarinetist in the USA. During his days, he taught everyone. And his single lip students went out and taught, and their students went out and taught. And today, because of Bonades nfluence, there aren't many double lippers.
If I was forced to pick my favorite players, most of them would be from those I mentioned above. There are some single lippers that I think were fine clarinetists, with great tones, ie SIlfies, Gigliotti, Marcellus- And there were certainly clarinetist who played double lip with horrid tones, ie Kell.
A lot of what someone thinks is "wondefrul,but different tone qualities" is subjective I suppose. What some might say is wonderful and different, others might say it is generic, straight, and uninteresting.
Bottom line, the indvidual clarinetist has to have an idea and concept of what THEY want to sound like, and do what is required to get that sound. For me, in order to get the sound and control that I want, I need to play double lip.
|
|