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)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
