 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-02-09 17:46
She was great. Her tenor playing was warm-toned, in the Lester Young/Stan Getz style. I wish the interviewer had asked her about Coltrane.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-10 13:07
Weird: she thinks Benny Goodman is "dated", but playing Louis Armstrong transcriptions and applying Ben Webster's tone to the clarinet is "hip". This is certainly a product of our currently truncated, ideology-driven understanding of jazz history, but not particularly clear headed, IMO.
[Impertinent paragraph removed, 'cuz I learned more of Anat's ideas and found them really sensible.]
There was a time, not long ago, when Louis Armstrong was routinely denigrated by modern jazzers as an "Uncle Tom" figure. Fortunately, that has been corrected as a slander against a great musician. One day Benny and Artie will be better respected too--though it will take a more open minded intelligensia.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-02-20 13:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-02-10 19:11
I credit Wynton Marsalis for awakening me to the wonders of Armstrong's later work. His embouchure had deteriorated so much that he only played short phrases in the low register, often just a couple of notes, but those phrases were absolutely perfect, and his singing still had the perfection of phrasing that his early trumpet playing had. It was in his timing. Every note was dead-center perfect, like an electric shock that brought the music to life.
I listen often to Armstrong's historical Hot-5 and Hot-7 reissue. All the other players are improvising and decorating madly, but his playing is straight from the mother-lode and blows everyone else away. As I've said before, I think he was the greatest musician of the 20th century.
I wasn't bothered by Cohen's lack of breadth in outlook. She's chosen to play what she likes and does it really well.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2013-02-10 20:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-10 20:01
Ken,
(This is not so much of a rebuttle of your post, as it is a clarification in light of it--I hope it's received in that manner).
Wynton did indeed consciously revive Louis Armstrong's status, beginning in the late 1980s--before then, a younger, brasher, Wynton Marsalis had been one of the many dismissive voices (he's more than made up for those youthful comments, IMO). In the late '80s, Wynton seemed to realize there was a limit to bop--perhaps just physically for his chops' sake!--he's even said his "Live at Blues Alley" was the end of that sort of thing for him. As he developed his own lyrical side, he returned to his New Orleans roots...and came to more fully appreciate Pops--and then to promote him as the most important jazz musician in the history of the world, via Ken Burns's documentary. Of course this could probably have happened on Armstrong's merits, without Wynton, but the fact is that Wynton (and Stanley Crouch) played a crucial role in creating the current mythic status of Armstrong.
I tend to think that, while Armstrong is indeed very important, this pendulum swing from the slanderous "Uncle Tom" criticism to exaggerated "All Time Greatest Heavyweight Champion of the World Forever" is a bit extreme. And while the latter is closer to the mark, it still distorts reality. Duke Ellington, for instance, said that Sidney Bechet was more important to jazz than Armstrong. We don't have to agree, but to keep an open mind is helpful--it enables us to see more of jazz history and find a richer texture of places for the likes of Bix Biederbecke, Leon Roppolo, Jelly Roll Morton, Coleman Hawkins, and others. Meanwhile, other great jazz musicians have been more than overlooked--they've been denigrated in similar ways to the earlier denigration of Armstrong. I think Benny and Artie are currently in that category, unfortunately.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-02-20 13:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Orlando Natty
Date: 2013-02-12 14:13
I hadn't heard of Anat Cohen until recently rediscovering this message board. I think her inclusion of clarinet in jazz recordings is great. People like Cohen have to reintroduce jazz clarinet to modern audiences because their only reference points to it are through older or traditional forms of music (New Orleans jazz, big band, Klezmer, etc.) rather than popular music, even popular jazz.
By the way, I don't think Cohen is saying she personally thinks Benny Goodman is dated (or unworthy), rather that most people associate the genre of music he played as being "old", which it is. In other interviews she credits Goodman as one of her influences, especially his tone quality.
I'm glad there are people out there making an effort to ensure the clarinet is considered a legitimate jazz instrument, as I was discouraged from playing jazz clarinet when I was younger. In the early 90s I wanted to play in my high school's jazz band but was told the clarinet was not a jazz instrument and I'd have to learn sax. As a poor kid with no means to buy another instrument, learning sax just to play jazz was an impossible proposition.
I even mentioned Pete Fountain and others as an example, but was poo-pooed about how that kind of jazz wasn't popular any more. I really think my director was too lazy to write out parts for clarinet and just went with the standard modern jazz arrangements he could purchase. It was a shame because I really could have learned a lot from the theoretical foundations (minor scales, improvising, etc.) the kids in jazz band were learning.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-12 15:51
"I even mentioned Pete Fountain and others as an example, but was poo-pooed about how that kind of jazz wasn't popular any more."
Take heart, Orlando. This is exactly what people used to say about Louis Armstrong...until a mature Wynton Marsalis said "all jazz is modern."
I agree with Wynton's dictum. And I'd include on that "modern" list the names of Leon Roppolo, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, Pete Fountain....
I don't think clarinet needs to be legitimized at all as a jazz instrument: the players mentioned above, along with Buddy DeFranco, Bill Smith, Eddie Daniels, and many, many others have continuously done this.
To me it's kind of a gag that happens once every generation: a new jazz clarinetist appears and says "I'm trying to make clarinet relevant to jazz for the first time since the swing era." If you read enough back issues of DownBeat, you'll hear this shtick over and over.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, the way forward is not to graft saxophone techniques onto the clarinet. This leads to bad sounding clarinet, IMO--and who wouldn't listen to a good sax instead? To me, the key is to revisit the great clarinetists and learn their language. But a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-12 16:15
Additional note: one of my first points was how strange it seemed to be "updating" jazz clarinet with Louis Armstrong transcriptions and Ben Webster's subtone sound. There is more to it than I mentioned.
Tony Scott was basing his chalumeau sound off of Ben Webster's subtone as far back as the late 1940s. He too felt the clarinet approach needed to be 'updated' for modern jazz. So this method of 'updating' the clarinet for jazz--with the exact same model--has been going on for almost 70 years. Seriously folks...Artie Shaw was still recording when this exact method of updating was occuring.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-02-20 13:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-12 16:46
Clarification: Anat's opinion of religious and folkloric traditions are nuanced. Here is something she mentioned relating to the influence of cantors on her playing:
"Cantors have an influence on anybody that listens, that is there. Because here is someone that is speaking out of their hearts and using one single melody, and all they do is express it in the most heartfelt way. And as a jazz musician — or as any musician — of course it would have an influence. I mean, that's what I try to do when I play music, when I play any music: When I play a cadence at the end of a song, you want to take one note and make it meaningful. And if you hear a cantor and they're doing it right, you're going to be so moved."
Ultimately, I think I agree with her on a whole lot about jazz clarinet.
(This is part of the reason I refrain from critiquing current players very often--we're all still in motion, and it's hard to get a read on a moving target. Ideas and opinions develop, and ought to be allowed to develop before pinning them down too much.)
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-02-13 15:29
I think Anat, more than any other active jazz player, represents the future trajectory of jazz clarinet. I enjoy listening to all the current players (who are recording) but, in my opinion, Anat's blazing the trail and pushing the envelope.
She's been the overwhelming Downbeat clarinet poll winner (critics and readers) for the last couple of years and, I think it was in 2011, she took more votes than any other single musician, for any instrument. That's great news for an instrument that, in the jazz world, has become increasingly obscure. (I'm not sure she's the reason but, Downbeat actually had a page in the current issue dedicated to clarinet!)
I love all the greats that came before her and the history they encompass but, jazz is a genre that thrives on change and forward motion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-02-13 16:54
I don't subscribe to Downbeat any more, but I see it occasionally. For me, their reader popularity polls are totally unreliable - an embarrassment, really. The voters are novices, voting for the names they know. Pete Fountain always won for clarinet, along with Herb Alpert for trumpet and the Tijuana Brass for big band, with Lawrence Welk right behind. (Of course LW hired top talent, but the LW Orchestra was hardly where you looked for great jazz.)
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-13 17:16
I agree with Ken that DB polls aren't always a good indicator of who is the best out there. There are so many innovative sax players, for instance, who rarely ever get near the top, while some old favorites would get the top spot even if they didn't perform anymore. (This aside, I think Pete Fountain belongs in the DB Hall of Fame on the strength of his four albums from 1959 alone--"New Orleans", "The Blues", "Live at the Bateau Lounge" and "Pete Fountain Day"-- which are better jazz than most people ever give him credit for.)
I agree with Keith (Joe Bloke) that Anat deserves the accolades she's getting. In retrospect, my posts above are cluttered with many issues only tangentially related to the NPR interview--and unfortunately only tangentially related to Anat's actual opinions as well--but for some reason this site won't let me edit the posts right now.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-02-13 17:26
@ Ken Shaw: "For me, their reader popularity polls are totally unreliable - an embarrassment, really."
Agreed. The Downbeat readers poll can be (and usually is) dubious. But, the critics poll provided essentially the same results for Anat.
Eric said: "it's hard to get a read on a moving target...." I also agree with that, especially in the jazz genre. I do think we're seeing a clarinet "great" in the making in Anat and, a directional change in jazz clarinet that is long overdue. (I don't find her sax playing that different from a host of others).
I'm hoping she'll lead a clarinetist revival in jazz. The over population of sax players (much as I love the sound), IMHO, has lead to an almost indistinguishable stagnation.
By the way, that clarinet page (I mentioned in my prior) in the current Downbeat, started with Gianluigi Trovesi. Terrific player with a unique voice!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-02-14 17:48
Quote:
I don't think clarinet needs to be legitimized at all as a jazz instrument: the players mentioned above, along with Buddy DeFranco, Bill Smith, Eddie Daniels, and many, many others have continuously done this.
To me it's kind of a gag that happens once every generation: a new jazz clarinetist appears and says "I'm trying to make clarinet relevant to jazz for the first time since the swing era." If you read enough back issues of DownBeat, you'll hear this shtick over and over.
Eric,
I agree with you. Seems to me- and this is just an opinion- that a lot of young jazz musicians market themselves this way as a means to attract the sort of listeners who are seeking something "new." Who knows- it may be effective- as long as the quality of the music is such that people still want to listen after the newness fades.
Quote:
Now, as far as I'm concerned, the way forward is not to graft saxophone techniques onto the clarinet. This leads to bad sounding clarinet, IMO--and who wouldn't listen to a good sax instead? To me, the key is to revisit the great clarinetists and learn their language. But a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.
I have a few issues with this (we may have had this discussion before, in fact).
Firstly, I find the analogy of grafting to be problematic. Although the language of bebop stems from the playing of an alto saxophonist, it nevertheless experienced a hegemonic spread amongst jazz musicians. Dizzy, Clifford Brown, J.J. Johnson, Curtis Fuller, Bud Powell, Oscar Peterson, etc all arose from the influence of Bird, and yet I cannot imagine anyone who, upon hearing their music, would prefer to "listen to a good sax instead."
I do not see bebop as an inherently saxophonistic mode of expression that has been artificially applied to the trumpet, trombone, piano, et cetera. Nor do I think it has been artificially applied to the clarinet.
Secondly, and perhaps of more fundamental importance, one ought not ignore the compositional aspect of jazz. Personally, when listening to a player, I am more focused on the material than the instrument, and in this respect, my satisfaction/dissatisfaction with a player arises from their abilities to express themselves via improvisation.
Maybe some other listeners can chime in and support/refute this point?
My favorite players are those that have absorbed a number of influences but emerged with a unique compositional voice. I think that neither the mode- N.O., swing, bop- nor the instrument with which a player chooses to express him/herself should matter, but rather we should be focused on the quality of composition/improvisation and to that end, expression.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-14 18:56
brycon,
I pretty much agree with you. I wasn't really trying to address bop when I was talking about grafting saxophone technique onto clarinet, but thinking of the Ben Webster subtone influence. I've never found it convincing--in any players from Tony Scott onward. But to a certain extent, I regret going into this--I think it was Stravinsky who once said that his only comment about other composers would amount to "I would do it differently." No duh. That's kind of what my comments boil down to as well. Can't tell you the number of times I've thought "shut up and play" when reading peoples' criticisms of another player. This time I'm saying it to myself.
As for bop on clarinet...yeah, I think we've gone over this before on this board. For what it's worth, I think bop language is the lingua franca of jazz, and has been for over half a century. I have no problem with it on any instrument. I think some of my earlier comments about bop have been misunderstood here (or maybe not explained clearly enough).
I do differ with you on instrumentation. To me, both the instrument and the symbolism of the instrument matters. It also matters to me, a whole heck of a lot, as to whether you can really play your instrument at an extremely high level--not for showing off, but for expressive depth. When I hear someone like Harry James play, I'm deep into it. Musical depth is more than a succession of pitches and rhythyms--first and foremost it's what the older players used to call "having a sound"--that level of playing a horn where it seems like an extension of the soul. The old veteran Big Band players I used to know in NY when I was kid still knew this..they talked about it all the time.
Call me an old "sound" guy like them--the way Artie used to talk about Bix. Take Dave Sanborn for example: the man has a sound, a voice. He can play a whole note and you know who it is. He couldn't do it on a tenor, or a clarinet, or a flute. His soul is intimitely related to what instrument he's playing. The same was true of Artie, Benny, Rapp, Faz, Pete. I'd even say that all my favorite musicians exhibit this principle: Ornette, Sonny, Mike Brecker, Pat Metheny, Wynton. Classical players too...
So for me, the instrument is inseperable from the player or the music being played.
Now don't get me wrong: it's ALL important. But that sound...that horn...it's irreplacable to me. Maybe this is a big generational difference, and I'm a throwback. In any event, I'm thinking "shut up and play" to myself...so that's what I'm gonna do.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-02-16 04:18
Eric,
I do remember having this conversation about bebop, but I always enjoy having it.
If you ever find yourself in NYC, send me a message. We can play some tunes or just get a beer and talk about jazz.
Interestingly, I read a post on Alex Ross' blog, "The Rest is Noise," a couple of months ago that broadly details the shift in classical music from popular to elitist art-form. Ross notes that following the high-modernism of Boulez, et al, there was a sort of reconsideration of tonality, by which composers sought to resurrect some of what was lost in serial music.
Moreover, Ross thinks that these general trends are also evident in the history of jazz, only compressed into the span of a century. I wonder if we are due for a "neo-" movement in the jazz world?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-02-16 16:14
"If you ever find yourself in NYC, send me a message. We can play some tunes or just get a beer and talk about jazz."
Sounds good to me, man. Send me an email (mine is in my profile--there isn't one listed in yours, or I'd have sent you one by now) and we can keep in touch. Let me know if you make it to Cleveland for the same.
"I wonder if we are due for a "neo-" movement in the jazz world?"
Lot to talk about here. I think there have been a number of neo-movements already (the young lions of the 80s being the most famous). They can be okay, but if hardened into an ideology (which is usually the result), they start to strangle the artform--it becomes about power, influence, ego flattery and turf-guarding, rather than sharing a gift--repressive rather than expansive. Once a music becomes dominated by fundamentalism, it slowly starves to death. But your point has several angles to it, and several different possible discussions.
As hard as it is, I think the most important thing is to stay real, and keep your playing real. Sounds easy, but it isn't: there are always ideologues trying to push you into a corner in this world. The artists I've always admired are the ones who have sung their song anyhow--guys like Bechet, Ornette, Pat Metheny (who has plotted a course and stuck to it, ignoring the political consequences). Some actually make a living at it, others don't. But to stay honest: that's a lifelong task.
Anyhow, there's a lot more to talk about as always. Keep swinging, man.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-02-20 13:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
