 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: eduardo94
Date: 2013-01-13 21:56
What are your 3 favorite clarinet players?
In my opinion, "the most complet clarinetists" are Sabine Meyer, Karl Leister (i like his Romantic works) and Martin Frost.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Carmelo
Date: 2013-01-13 22:10
For me as far as the present in no particular order
Paul Green
Alessandro Carbonare
Mark Nuccio
Karl Leister
All time favorites without a doubt would have to be, Robert Marcellus and Ralph Mclane.
Post Edited (2013-01-13 22:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-01-13 22:17
Anton Stadler
Richard Mühlfeld
Ernesto Cavallini
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rafi
Date: 2013-01-14 09:22
For me:
Louis cahuzac
Yona Ettlinger
Rafi Bracha
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-01-14 11:41
>> Oh for ***'* sake.
>>
Best answer yet! ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
I've got several favorite clarinetists (Tony's one of them) but listing them leads to ranking them or watching other people assume we're ranking them and ... nope. Won't.
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: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-14 12:03
Oops! Forgot to rank mine:
1. Artie Shaw and Benny Goodman deadlocked for the Greatest Ever since 1938.
2. Just about everybody else tied for third (or last, depending on whether you're a "glass half empty" or "glass half full" kinda guy).
;)
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2013-01-14 16:13
Anthony Pay (plays well and is a great teacher).
I'm glad that folks are including the mystical "fathers" of our repertoire --even though we can only guess what they sounded like.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2013-01-14 17:33
The replies listing 4 people as their top 3 provoke a variation on the old joke:
Q: What are the three different kinds of clarinettists?
A: Those who can count, and those who can't.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-01-14 19:09
Jason, are you trying to say that "The only good clarinetist is a dead clarinetist."
:)
I know some brass players who would agree.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-01-14 21:19
Well this list made me search out Naftule Brandwein!! Here my list of non classical great players...... Kenny Davern, Ken Peplowski and Evan Christopher. All worth checking out if you haven't heard them before.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-01-15 01:03
Among active players:
Anat Cohen (most artistic and creative).
Eddie Daniels (best technician).
Gabriele Mirabassi (love his tone and expression).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2013-01-15 01:30
In no order
Paul Meyer - My favorite recording of the Weber pieces ever. period - even if it is a touch fast.
Martin Frost - I know he can be controversial but his dexterity is second to none. And frankly, I love watching him play.
Benny.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: eduardo94
Date: 2013-01-15 13:00
Well, i'm not asking what is the best clarinetist in the world, i just wanna know what are your favorite players, you can like of alot clarinetists, but i am sure you have someone (3, 5 or 10) that you like more.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-15 15:01
"Well, i'm not asking what is the best clarinetist in the world, i just wanna know what are your favorite players, you can like of alot clarinetists, but i am sure you have someone (3, 5 or 10) that you like more."
Point well made, Eduardo! This is one of the ways young players learn best. And it can lead to some good new listening for everyone.
Here are some more from among my favorites:
New Orleans Jazz:
Omer Simeon
Albert Nicholas
Irving Fazola
European Classical:
George Pieterson
Reginald Kell
Bebop:
Bill Smith
Eddie Daniels
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-01-15 15:24
MarlboroughMan wrote:
>> This is one of the ways young players learn best.>>
You think?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-01-15 17:32
Well, I don't know what Eduardo is like, or what he had in mind with his question. Perhaps he was just having fun. I do know that there have been many examples of threads like this, none of which in my view have contributed much to anyone's learning. Just go back and look at some of them.
Let me just say that I'm reminded of the notion that we get useful information by asking simply WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
I'm against that notion.
If I have to find out about something that really interests me, I try to find someone who knows something about that something. (I don't, for example, ask, 'down the pub', what we should do about the economy.) And in order to find out who that someone is, I ask more detailed questions, in order to identify them, and be sure that their opinion is worthy of consideration.
I suppose that there are those 'someones' here whose opinions might be worthy of consideration, in terms of the learning for young clarinettists you suggest is so readily available.
They number around 10, I suggest. And most of those don't respond to threads like this.
This list is SO LIKE a pub. Many people are just here for the drinks -- no thought or ability is required.
And, the world nowadays is full of available clarinet performances, that you can access for yourself.
WHO CARES WHAT CLARINETTISTS 'PEOPLE' LIKE?
We can do better than that. What goes on on this BBoard, compared to its possibilities, frustrates me enormously.
By the way, I'm disappointed that you, of all people, post on your blog that Kell's performance of the Stravinsky Three Pieces is 'an essential recording' (was it?) You excuse all his extravagances by saying that he was perhaps playing from a defective edition, an explanation so unlikely that it beggars belief.
I'm happy that he made you think again about the pieces; but your inclusion here of him as an exemplar to young players is a disgrace in that regard.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-15 17:56
Fair enough, Tony. I can't (and won't) argue with your points--they seem reasonable to me.
My only reasoning is this:
1. Such questions can lead a young player to a listening list that might very well have unexpected treasures (if Eduardo hadn't asked the question, at least a few names might not have come up here for a very long time). For me, listening lists gained as a young man, come by any means necessary, far outweighed most of my other education.
2. In a more shrewd way, one can learn a lot about about a person by how they answer such a question. In my opinion, it's wise for a young person to ask.
This aside, I'm sorry to have disappointed you on Kell's Stravinsky Pieces. I'll have to revisit my prose, but I don't THINK I brushed away all of his "interpretive" issues with a defective edition. At least I didn't intend to--it would be hard to find an edition that wrong (the opening of the second piece, for example.)
The goal of that post was really only one thing: to scratch at why his version, so laden with seemingly willful errors, still moves me so deeply.
A little background: I mention Charles Russo in the post (may he rest in peace--he passed away just last November). When he heard me perform them as a young man, Russo encouraged me to record them, saying my interpretation was so good I should capture it while it was fresh. This was a very rare compliment from him (ask anyone who knew him). This rare compliment also meant a great deal because he had discussed them with Stravinsky--as he had discussed Appalachian Spring with Copland (and anyone who took that to a lesson would know not to expect much praise until a lot of work had been done). Yet I didn't record it then, becuase I felt my interpretation "wasn't there yet." I was looking for something else in them--and actually quite dissatisfied. For years I listened, and practiced, and learned, studied Stravinsky and his writings, did what I could.
Then I heard Kell. And it blew me away. As you know, much of what he did was and is wrong...not just "wrong" but actually wrong. But it seemed to have revealed something deeper about the piece itself--at least to me. That's my only justification for having called it essential. I believe it is. That I've failed to convey convincingly why is perhaps unfortunate...but I remain strangely convinced. As such, with these caveats, I hope that the post points towards something good and useful. I don't think it's a disgrace, and I hope you won't either--but I certainly respect your right to consider it "rubbish." It wouldn't be the first time an intelligent person had thought that of my opnions--though I hope you see the value in what I was scratching at.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-01-15 18:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2013-01-15 19:09
"Rubbish" is up to everone's own interpretation--mine might be your "treasure". That's the beauty of garage sales. For me, if something sounds good, it is good--regardless of if it is "right". Sorry, TP, but I always enjoyed Kells interpretation of the 3 Pieces because his musical phrasings flowed nicely and made sense. But I do agree with you that this topic of this thread is rather useless. Every clarinetist can be "best" to someone's ear, but I know who I like--end of story.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-15 19:41
fwiw, William, I have appreciated Tony's critiques and take them quite seriously. I do think some things really are rubbish, and unworthy of our attention--in other words, more than a matter of opinion. Having said that, my blog post about Kell's Stravinsky was in response to many, many arguments , performances, and investigations over the years--and I'd read his concerns regarding Kell, too, before posting it.
My guess is that Tony is familiar enough with my mind, by this point, to know what I meant by 'rubbish' in that context--that I respect his opinion, yet feel secure enough in my own experience and knowledge of the subject at hand that I would still be comfortable with my conclusions on this particular matter. It's perhaps a subtle point, put unsubtly.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-01-15 19:43
More than three but, the DownBeat 2012 critics poll with # of votes received:
Anat Cohen - 375
Don Byron - 189
Paquito D’Rivera - 133
Ken Peplowski - 112
Eddie Daniels - 111
Chris Speed - 63
Ben Goldberg - 60
Marty Ehrlich - 59
Evan Christopher - 51
Buddy DeFranco - 49
Ab Baars - 33
Gianluigi Trovesi - 33
Louis Sclavis - 32
Michael White - 30
Victor Goines - 29 (personal fav, his recording of "Love Dance")
Ken Vandermark - 29
James Falzone - 25
Michael Moore- 25
Oscar Noriega - 23
Ned Rothenberg 21
François Houle 20
Perry Robinson 20
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-01-15 20:05
Tried to find Reginald Kell's 3 pieces on You Tube but not there. I have always loved playing them.
Strangely enough I have fought against that bright but mellow tone for a long time because my own natural tone heads in that direction. When I hear it, it draws me back towards it.
I can see why Benny Goodman wanted Kell to teach him.
I found this absolute gem on You Tube. This is just a breath of fresh air in this world of the ever darkening tone .......... glorious and uplifting :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx3RlxTl8Io
Post Edited (2013-01-15 20:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: eduardo94
Date: 2013-01-15 20:10
Tony, my objective in this question is just know what the other clarinetists like and listen, to I know them too.
I saw a story in a website that Stravinsky watched a Louis Cahuzac recital and dont liked his version of the three pieces, he said that it was so romantic ... is that true?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-15 20:23
Paula wrote:
"I can see why Benny Goodman wanted Kell to teach him."
...and yet, despite my enthusiasm for many of Kell's recordings, I find it impossible to understand why Benny would change his approach at all. The tonal depth of his playing from the mid-30s through the mid-40s remains a breathtaking artistic acheivment to me. I can understand getting excited about Kell...but Benny's depth, color, and flexibility on tunes like Body & Soul (and a hundred others--including a very good recording of the Debussy Rhapsody in 1940) are, for me, virtually unmatched.
Why Benny changed his embouchure and approach is, to me, as great an enigma as why Artie Shaw stopped playing.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-01-15 20:32
Eric, I think I mean't to say that I can hear Benny in Kell. That is why I think they must have complimented each other so well. Both have that ability to make you just melt into their music :-) Both fabulous in their own right ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-15 20:36
No worries, Paula: I didn't take your meaning badly...just had to give voice to my sorrow once more that Benny abandoned one of the greatest instrumental approaches ever developed.
But the man had a right to do what he wanted. And I'm pretty sure, from reading interviews, that he felt he could better play Brahms by changing his approach. And he, at least, felt that change was worth it.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-01-15 20:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-01-15 21:04
I found this fascinating paper by Colin Lawson on the British Clarinet School. Reginald Kell obviously features and Benny Goodman is mentioned too! :-)
http://www.legacyweb.rcm.ac.uk/cache/fl0026812.pdf
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-15 22:01
My favorite clarinetist is usually (these days) the last great find that I make.
Today it is Shirley Brill. And hopefully a surprise find for many of you as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q82KQSCq47w
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: improvedradio
Date: 2013-01-15 23:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dKmfLGLmxk
this version puts this guy in a league of its own.
and for classical playing maybe this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9O6CfswqXQ
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-16 02:49
Interesting pairing above "Improvedradio,"
The live recording of Fuchs is unfortunately not the best representation of what he can do. He actually "riffs" a few passages not unlike Artie on the other cut. I think those Germans may not grow up playing Debussy the way we do and Fuchs was not quite ready to do this without music. Ya have to admit though he "sold it."
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2013-01-16 03:11
Jose Franch-Ballester
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Andrez444
Date: 2013-01-16 10:34
This is an interesting thread as it widens the scope on everyone who is out there, the different styles, and the multi media accessibility to all of the players these days.
In terms of favourites, I have many though my stand out choices would include,
The late Jack Brymer
Andrew Marriner
Tony Pay
For a number of very different reasons, and in no particular order.
Andrew
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-01-16 20:53
Eric wrote:
>> My guess is that Tony is familiar enough with my mind, by this point, to know what I meant by 'rubbish' in that context -- that I respect his opinion, yet feel secure enough in my own experience and knowledge of the subject at hand that I would still be comfortable with my conclusions on this particular matter.>>
I have one more thing to say about this.
It's that I'm NOT familiar with your mind, in this regard, because I find I cannot now put myself in your position.
I don't know whether the following analysis is accurate, but it's what I want to say.
When I was a young player, I 'fell in love' with what various players did. I remember falling in love with Kell's way with Mozart; I remember falling in love with Gervase de Peyer's strange attacks and vibrato; I remember falling in love with Jim Galway's scoops up to sustained vibrato notes from flat beginnings.
But when I became a more able practitioner, and could do these things for myself, my attitude changed. I began to see performer quirks as DECISIONS, and the question arose: Do I want to do these things? What might I get out of doing them? What are they FOR?
That meant I fell out of love with 'what players did'. Those things came to seem merely 'fashionable' -- like bell-bottom jeans in the 60s -- unless they interacted with what I took to be the substance of the music.
I had a conversation recently with a great friend of mine, Elgar Howarth, the conductor, composer, ex-trumpeter and ex-chairman of the RPO, who gave me my first job. At one point he said, the problem with you, Tony, is that you always start off playing music by looking at the score, and imagining what there is there, and then trying to make that happen when you and others play. You deal with people on the assumption that they do that too.
BUT, most people don't. They play music because: they like the sound of it, they can do it, they've heard someone else do it that impressed them, and want to do the same, they can get in the band, people think they're good...and so on.
BUT, I said, surely they SHOULD be doing what you described me as doing.
And he said, yes.....BUT THEY DON'T!!!
Working against that, which I think I should, I often say to students of mine that I want them to be THOUGHTFUL musicians. That doesn't mean that I don't want them to be FEELING musicians. But it's just as wrong to be totally emotional as it is wrong to be totally intellectual. (As Werner Erhard once remarked, "you're still half-assed no matter which cheek you have left.") Music is this wonderful blend of what we are as humans, both thinking AND feeling. Instinctual animals lack the 'thinking' bit, and so cannot attain what we can attain.
So, now, can I understand what you find appealing in Kell's Stravinsky?
No, because whatever it is must belong to a different world from the world I inhabit with regard to the Three Pieces. He simply doesn't sound to me, from the second movement onward, as though he's even playing THE WORK. Therefore, when people claim that what he does 'makes sense', or that they 'like' it, all I can do is to try to imagine what I might have felt BEFORE I GREW UP. And, I can't.
If you're a clarinet aficionado, you might be able to. But I take you to be a proper performer; so I can't see how you can take what I imagine to be your superficial 'loves' so seriously.
I myself know the Stravinsky pieces backwards and inside out. I've performed them hundreds of times; I think I know where they can be stretched without losing their identity; I know the times they've worked and the times they haven't worked. I rarely play them as well as they should be played, but sometimes I'm half-pleased with myself.
When I play them well, by my lights, of course some of what is good about the performance has been drawn from the example of people like Kell. BITS of what people do are often admirable: Kell's immediacy, Leister's sound, Ettlinger's elegance...they all contribute.
But I cannot accept Kell's intellectual betrayal of Stravinsky, and I'm still surprised you can.
The pieces need, as Stravinsky said, to sound like snapshots of improvisations, and that's a hard job to do effectively, one that I take myself to be constantly working towards. Nobody ever said to ME that I should record them while I was still master of them, and with all due respect to you and your teacher, I'd probably laugh if they did.
Actually, I DID once record them in half an hour, at half a day's notice, but I'm not proud of the result. (It was then used as part of the soundtrack of the winner of the Palme d'Or film 'The Legend of the Holy Drinker'; but the other Stravinsky ensemble pieces from the disc that were played without acknowledgement on the soundtrack are far superior.)
Tony
Post Edited (2013-01-17 00:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2013-01-16 22:12
I can't believe no one cited Ricardo Morales -- IMO in a class by himself among current orchestral (and chamber and solo) clarinetists. From a historical standpoint Harold Wright ought to be on someone's list also!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-17 13:23
Tony,
Your respose could garner a list of eye-rolling reactions on my part, which could easily devolve into the usual sort of flame war/chest thumping that is unfortunately the lingua franca not only of this BBoard, but the internet in general. But a careful reading of your prose suggests genuine bewilderment at my high opinion of Kell's Stravinsky--not summary dismissal. In short, I believe you've answered in good faith. So, for what it's worth, I'm going to try to answer it carefully, but as clearly as possible.
1. My reaction to Kell has nothing to do with a youthful "falling under the spell" of a certain players "special effects", such as the ones you mentioned. Instead, it has to do with how he uses the whole of his approach (including those effects) to reveal a structural interpretation of the whole, forming not merely a willful interpretation, but a performance of consistancy, outlining what I call an Aural Poetic. If you are bewildered that I can accept Kell's obviously wrong reading of Stravinsky's score, rest assured I am equally bewildered that a player of your calibre can't hear beyond the DETAILS of Kell's style (which you seem hyper-focused on) to the profound architecture of his musical thought. In your critique of my blog post, you cherry-picked certain phrases, extrapolated more from them than they warranted, and ignored the entire architectural and aural poetic argument I was actually making. I find this exasperating and bewildering, as I take you not only as a proper performer (I'm grateful you take me that way, too, by the way), but a proper thinker as well.
2. I do not start primarily with the score (a discussion of what I do "start" with would be too long a diversion here). If this is heresy to classical performers, so be it. While I've studied classical music, and performed it for pay, I have never described myself as primarily a classical musician, nor has that ever been my basic orientation towards music.
There is a marked difference in the way European classical musicians generally approach music and the way a Jazz musician generally does. Players like myself, who learned the instrument as part of an aural/oral tradition, replete with constant aural poetic refrerences, tend to both hear and approach music differently--or at least that is my experience. To go into useful depth here would also take a great deal of space, but I'm not going to walk down that detour.
3. I have to take issue with what you wrote here, on a couple of points:
"Nobody ever said to ME that I should record them while I was still master of them, and with all due respect to you and your teacher, I'd probably laugh if they did."
First, I want to make clear that while I took lessons from Russo while an undergrad, he was not my "teacher" the way that is generally understood. Most of what he tried to teach me didn't work for me: I revised and ultimately rejected his approach, and he pretty much knew this. I doubt he would have listed me as "his student". My later professional jobs were gained without his aid, and by playing in a manner he would probably not have respected or endorsed. You couldn't have known this, of course, but I want it clear for the record (and anyone else reading--many of whom knew Russo, and were familiar with his approach). He was an excellent player; some called him a profound positive influence on their playing. My playing and my musical thought, however, has nothing really to do with his--at least not so far as either he or I could tell.
Second, in regards to this particular quote, I hope you recognize that I did, essentially, the same thing you would have! I didn't laugh, but instead quietly went about my business of trying to "get at" what I felt to be the "real thing" behind the Stravinsky pieces. [Notice I say "behind the Stravinsky Pieces"...not "expressing the score as well as possible". I do not approach music that way.]
4. As to your approach "from the score up", your lamentation that others do not share this approach as rigorously or as thoughtfully as you do, and that others should: I can't tell you how many fine classical performers have said the same thing to me. I sometimes wonder why you all think you are each so rare--a world full of lone crusaders who truly care about the music as the composer wrote it. I eventually became so fed up with these testimonials that I basically stopped talking to players who feel this way--or they stopped talking to me. Russo described himself in similar terms. I don't pretend to be that type of musician, and perhaps many of the controversies I've engaged in on this BBoard stem from my lack of falling in line with this type of approach.
Finally, there is a part of me that shares your earlier expressed frustrations with the BBoard. That's why I started the blog--I wanted a different way of opening discussion about music and the clarinet--something more civil and respectful, where depth could be probed and serious arguments developed well. Once I'd started "The Jazz Clarinet" I was able to accept this forum for what it is, rather than what I wanted it to be--and be grateful for the good things that come from this BBoard. In many ways, I wish you'd posted your response to my Kell post on the blog itself. In general, I won't respond to critiques of my posts here.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-02-20 13:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-01-17 14:12
Ralph Mclane and George Silfies; George and I played first clarinet in highschool.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-02-14 20:47
Eric wrote:
>> In your critique of my blog post, you cherry-picked certain phrases, extrapolated more from them than they warranted, and ignored the entire architectural and aural poetic argument I was actually making. I find this exasperating and bewildering, as I take you not only as a proper performer (I'm grateful you take me that way, too, by the way), but a proper thinker as well.>>
I've not replied to your accusation; I made a couple of attempts to write something, but gave up.
But now, a few weeks down the line, I find I still feel the lack of closure. So I'll just say a couple of things.
What you wrote in your blog, about how FOR YOU Kell went beyond and improved on what Stravinsky wrote, was so wafty as to be not an argument at all. There was just nothing to engage with.
For example, why should we think that a three-piece structure, written to be an increase in tension, p/mf/f, is BEST REPRESENTED otherwise?
Here's your reason:
>> The three pieces as a whole, as performed by Kell, tend to buck the interpretation that runs in plateau form (slow/soft; medium/medium; loud/fast). Instead he presents them as a triptych with the central piece being most important. I had never thought of them that way, but I believe this reading yields a powerful symbolism bordering on existential utterance.>>
Yeah?
Or how about:
>> Kell's greatest accomplishment in this second piece, for me, are his High G's at the end, which are so strong and sudden that they call to mind Ravel's orchestration for Mussorgsky's Pictures. This is vivid music, and it is somewhat startling that so prodigal a representation of the score could result in such powerful expression.>>
Nothing could be easier for me than to have those high G's stick out. To explain to you why I DON'T -- in fact, why I avoid it -- would involve me in giving an analysis of how octave leaps are functionally important in II. That's part of why Stravinsky gave no indication of the notion that the top note should be 'strong and sudden'.
But, why should I bother? I don't think I should have to defend Stravinsky against the likes of Kell -- or you. That Kell subverts Stravinsky time after time is sufficient.
But, from your post, I choose to extract:
>> I do not start primarily with the score (a discussion of what I do "start" with would be too long a diversion here). If this is heresy to classical performers, so be it. While I've studied classical music, and performed it for pay, I have never described myself as primarily a classical musician, nor has that ever been my basic orientation towards music.>>
THEN, DON'T TALK ABOUT 'CLASSICAL' MUSIC.
The Stravinsky pieces can START with nothing other than the score. Otherwise, they're not the Stravinsky Three Pieces.
If you want to discuss free improvisations based on the notes (or some of the notes) of the Stravinsky, that's fine. But don't pretend that you're REVEALING SOMETHING ABOUT THE STRAVINSKY.
You also write:
>> As to your approach "from the score up", your lamentaion that others do not share this approach as rigorously or as thoughtfully as you do, and that others should: I can't tell you how many fine classical performers have said the same thing to me.>>
About time you started to think that they had a point, in my view.
>> I sometimes wonder why you all think you are each so rare -- a world full of lone crusaders who truly care about the music as the composer wrote it.>>
We have an aesthetic that allows us to reach into our OWN depths, by taking seriously the constraints of great scores. That enables us to get beyond our superficial responses and find what our REAL wants for music are.
Jazz players do it differently.
Good luck in your own enterprises -- but GET OFF OUR TURF.
>> I eventually became so fed up with these testimonials that I basically stopped talking to players who feel this way -- or they stopped talking to me.>>
So, BYE. I clearly had you wrong, before.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-14 21:58
Well, Tony, if it's any consolation, I was wrong about you too.
Good luck guarding your turf, if that's what music is to you.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna try to take my own favorite advice so far as 'discussions' like these are concerned: "shut up and play" that is. You see, I figure that if I keep a clarinet in my hands and mouth long enough, it crowds out time for Tar Baby fights like this. I'll let Stravinsky and Kell take care of themselves (they've done a good job so far).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-07 00:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vubble3
Date: 2013-02-15 09:53
Martin Frost Hands down, all time.
Favorite american player is Ricardo Morales
Buffet Bb R13 A RC Prestige
buffet chadash and moennig barrels
Lomax classic lig
b40 lyre
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2013-02-15 23:02
Lorenzo Coppola (clarinet) and Alf Hörberg (basset horn) playing on this gorgeous live recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4gXCsdFlbU&sns=fb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Orlando Natty
Date: 2013-02-17 01:23
Some people really need to lighten up. This board would have a lot more activity if there weren't so many sticks in the mud who overanalyze and question everything posted here. Hmm, maybe that's their strategy; keep everyone else away to have this place to themselves. I know it's kept me away.
I enjoy these threads because they expose me to players and topics I may not know about otherwise. I can research and then determine on my own whether I like something or not. I could not care less if someone's opinion is valid or not; I know what I like when I hear it.
Stepping down from the soapbox now; here's my slightly-educated (25+ years of playing) list of favorite clarinetists:
Pete Fountain
Tommy Sancton
Victor Goines
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: alanporter
Date: 2013-02-17 02:52
Is all this what the clarinet bboard is for ? I haven't learned a thing from it.
tiaroa@shaw.ca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
