 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Culver City Art
Date: 2013-06-05 00:52
Hi, my name is Art in Culver City,Ca. I'm new here but have been looking at the BBoard for about 3 months.
I'm into New Orleans style jazz, Johnny Dodds, who was Louis Armstrong's clarinetist in the 20's, Omar Simeon, was Jelly Roll Morton"s clarinetist, and of course Benny Goodman. I have a lot of cassettes and CD's from these 3 men and they have been my influence and inspiration to play clarinet. I'm not a pro, just play for a hobby. I recently bought a 1951 Buffet "pre" R 13 from a person (technician) who has contributed to the BBoard in the past. Very nice clarinet! Very free blowing and smooth key action.
I have something that bothers me, maybe some of you can help me to understand this: Why do some classical and chamber music clarinetists look down on jazz and klezmer music? I happen to like classical and chamber music and watch a lot of concerts on YouTube. I don't put their style of music down, actually I like it! I just prefer to play ragtime and jazz. I don't judge them, why do they judge jazz musicians and give us a snobby attitude? This is based on a few I've talked with. I bet they would like to have a fine vintage 1951 Buffet as I have! I can rub salt in the wounds too!
Any opinions on my rant? Thanks, Art.
arthurgoldis@gmail.com
(310) 562-0644
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2013-06-05 01:04
same reason some jazz players look down on classical players ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-06-05 01:11
Life is too short to be bothered with such matters.
Just enjoy playing the Clarinet and the style of music you're into to.
About the opinions of others, consider or ignore.
It's a big world out there , lots of room for everyone.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-06-05 01:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-06-05 02:20
I think you're painting "classical" clarinetists with too broad a brush. You've asked about an attitude you've said yourself is held by "some classical and chamber music clarinetists" that's "based on a few I've talked with." That's not really fair to the rest of us.
And, fwiw, those snobs you've run into might well turn their noses up at a 1951 Buffet, too - blown out, they might call it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Culver City Art
Date: 2013-06-05 03:13
Hi Karl, I've noticed that and also been told that classical clarinetists don't like or want vintage instruments because they don't play in tune as well as newer ones, is that true? But the jazz and klezmer musicians I have met really like and prefer older clarinets if they have been taken care of. Even if a clarinet is "blown out" can it not be brought "back to life" so to speak with an immersion in sweet almond oil (Larry Naylor,Denver). I've read here that other technicians immerse "blown out" clarinets and oboe's, infact some technicians don't believe in an instrument as being blown out, just that the wood has changed dimensions (ovalized) and that the immersion technique can restore it back to it's "younger days".
I said some classical clarinetists have look down their nose at jazz and klezmer musicians. However, a couple of ones I've talked with think that Benny Goodman was great! They told me they don't listen to jazz much,if at all, but said that the guy (Goodman) was great!
What brand of clarinet do you play,Karl? Do you like vintage or newer ones? Art.
arthurgoldis@gmail.com
(310) 562-0644
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2013-06-05 04:39
Some would comment that clarinets and oboes do not get "blown out". However, they can certainly get dried on their interior. I've got a 1912 Buffet clarinet that plays well after many decades of use, with oiling, and could not be called "blown out". I've got a 2012 Buffet that also plays well. They are both fine.
After playing around Los angeles for decades, I have found little classical vs jazz attitudes. In some symphonies, I've gotten very positive and outgoing attitudes from the violinists about my saxophone playing. Good luck in Culver City!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Culver City Art
Date: 2013-06-05 05:12
Wow,1912! I guess it's not the age of an instrument- it's how it's been taken care of.
arthurgoldis@gmail.com
(310) 562-0644
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-06-05 05:48
I have two Bb clarinets - A 1972 Selmer 10G (which I play regularly) and an R13 from sometime pre-1964 when I bought it used (now my backup).
I don't believe much in "blowout."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-06-05 09:48
The issue gets clouded with the emotional context of your question. The fundamental difference in the two disciplines is merely "style," however it is always a good idea to have the correct foundation of the strict teaching of basic clarinetistry down pat before venturing off on your individual quest.
Benny Goodman (and many if not most others) started leaning traditional technique with classically trained teachers. Benny even went back to his concentration on classical style in later years which I believe kept his pop music fresh to the end.
When I have a beef with jazz, it is when it is used as an excuse to play literally just any ol' thing regardless whether it makes any sense to anyone. I once played a gig with a saxophonist who was going to solo on the standared "Take the A Train." He NEVER heard this chart before, but he said, "hey man, just give me the changes and I'll just blow the changes." Needless to say he sounded just horrible. When I hear jazz that I don't like it is inevitably someone who is just playing notes that are either random to the chords beneath it or random to the context of the piece at hand or both. Bad jazz is bad music, and I say the same for poorly written or executed "classical music" as well.
..................Paul Aviles
P.S. I do have a saxophone prejudice. Other than about three saxophonists through history, I cannot stand the sound of the instrument one whit.
Post Edited (2013-06-05 09:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2013-06-05 10:44
FWIW as it happens, I was at the Wigmore Lates @36 at the Wigmore Hall last Friday night (I heartily recommend them if you're in London - the late session in the bar starting at 11:15 most Fridays in free to get in) which was Julian Bliss and his septet doing a set of chiefly Benny Goodman numbers which was fabulous. Well, clarinet fans, at around 12.45 am I got the chance to have a brief chat with Julian and asked how he got into the Goodman repertoire. He said that it just developed from his general interest in the clarinet and he would always be a classical player but he loved doing the jazz. I also asked whether he changed his set-up for jazz and he said not really except for may be a slightly softer reed.
I'm sure there are plenty of other clarinettists out there who are happy to embrace a full range of styles or, at least, respect and enjoy listening to those who play different styles to the ones they play themselves.
After all "What do they know of classical clarinet who only classical clarinet know?"
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2013-06-05 11:59
I figure music is music, and I'll happily play whatever is in front of me. I like classics, I like jazz, I'll play either. Don't much care for some of the dissonant modern stuff though, sets my teeth on edge.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2013-06-05 12:07
Duke said "there are two kinds of music - good music and bad musc". Duke was right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-05 12:50
Perhaps, the classical prejudice against jazz is often based on the fact that classical musicians need to be able to live up to measurable standards and jazz musicians don't have to live up to these same standards, even though many can. I believe that opera singers often look down at pop singers for the same reason. Some jazz musicians can do just about anything in the classical repetoire and this is because for the last few decades jazz musicians tend to graduate from the same schools as successful classical musicians do. In that case the choice to pursue one field over the other is just that, a choice and not a necessity. Many pop singers do not read music, understand theory, have an exposure to classical music or jazz and have poor vocal skills. Some people say that opera singers lack some contemporary "feeling", but there have been so many opera singers who have shown that not to be true. In the ballet world, many aspiring dancers could not cut the technique required to join a ballet company in any capacity, so they went into musical theater, or acting or modern dance. The standards that a classical musician has to reach in order to even be considered for a symphony orchestra is high. The standards that one needs to meet in order to play electric keyboard for rock group are non existent. Michele Legrand was one hell of a pianist, but he wouldn't claim to be on a classical concert level, and maybe wouldn't even want to. Acker Bilk was an interesting clarinetist but I would run in the opposite direction if he had a scheduled performance of Mozart coming up, and I like Acker Bilk.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-06-05 13:12
The original post described the attitudes of music snobs, but I haven't seen evidence of too many of those around here. (In fact, if there's a group prejudice on this bboard, it's probably a prejudice against prejudice!) Quite a few people who post here love both classical music and jazz and quite a few play in different styles to suit different occasions, too. Duke Ellington again: "If it sounds good, it is good."
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: 2013-06-05 13:18
People bring who they are to the music. Some people are seeking approval, some want prestige, some want recognition, some want to hang out with other people, some like to wear the uniform (whether that's a tux, fatigues, or a beret), some are looking to sing love, others looking to shout anger, some dig Brahms, others dig Dodds, others dig it all, some don't dig deeply, others dig so deep they can't see the sunlight anymore. Some people start out looking for applause and end up finding something better. Others give up on something better and try to put music in their back pocket. They take it out every now and then and show people. "Hey, y'all: this is music. I own it. It's right next to my credit cards." Some people give it away and nobody cares (but the angels see).
Nobody is one thing, but a mix of things. Nobody brings one thing to the music, so it's never just one thing you're hearing, not always one reason for why a player will act a certain way. I've known good people and bad people--some of the people are better when they have the horn in their hands, other times they're worse. It often depends on why they picked it up, and less about what their playing on it.
If somebody else looks down on it, how you react to that says something about why you picked up the horn.
I say play your thing. Make it real, make it true. Be your best self, and pray for those who diss you.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katfish
Date: 2013-06-05 13:48
Eric; Thank you for your post. I could not have said it better or nearly as well. It was poetry.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-06-05 16:58
"Classical" music comprises many styles. Jazz comprises many styles as well. Even "rock" is separated into distinct styles. I think most people, both performers and those who are exclusively listeners, are more eclectic and at the same time more selective than those "classical snobs" Art describes, although those certainly exist (Art apparently has found and talked to a few of them himself). If anything, you could probably find more "rock" fans who avoid all "classical" music as "square" and most jazz as too dated, especially if it has no lyrics.
I am more excited by some classical styles than others, more by some jazz styles than others, more by some styles of musical theater than others. With all the music easily available today through digital sources people are more likely than perhaps in the past to judge music on its own terms.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-05 17:59
My music teacher in high school was always very careful to point out that the four major styles of orchestral music in chronological order are Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern. This way we could go out into the world and declare with snobbish certainty "I beg your pardon sir ... Beethoven belongs to the Romantic period not the Classical". Now, I hope I got that right so as not disappoint her.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-06-05 18:05
I can only speak for myself and a few close clarinet clasical friends, we don't look down on any good player, no matter what the style. The few of us respect talent and styles in any type of music. I play in the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra.
By the way. More clarinet players on my era took up the clarinet because of Benny Goodman, and listening to other clarinet players at that age. Swing and Jazz were the "popular" music in the 50s and before. Goodman was my hero, the reason I took up the clarinet, just couldn't play jazz.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-06-05 20:51
Edmund Hall and Irving Fazola, to name just two, equaled any symphonic player in beauty of tone and musicality. (And for me, the greatest performer of the 20th century was Louis Armstrong.)
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-06-06 00:05
Culver City Art wrote:
> I don't judge them, why do they judge jazz musicians and
> give us a snobby attitude?
I would say it's basically because some clarinetists are just jerks. Thankfully they tend to be only a very small minority of the clarinet playing community as a whole.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-06-06 00:13
Culver City Art wrote:
>
> Do you like vintage or newer ones?
You'll find a fair number of vintage clarinet aficionados here. I myself tend to rotate between a number of vintage clarinets ranging from ~50 to ~100 years old. My current primary clarinets are a P-series Selmer CT Bb clarinet (c.1952), an M-series Selmer A clarinet (c.1944), and a Harry Pedler bass clarinet (c.1950's).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2013-06-06 00:52
I think it is wrong to speak in generalizations and categorize players attitudes in any style. There are open minded musicians and closed minded ones.
I would not worry about the latter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Culver City Art
Date: 2013-06-06 15:55
Being a new guy out here I got a lot of responses, thanks. Art.
arthurgoldis@gmail.com
(310) 562-0644
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2013-06-06 22:37
Classical playing does tend to attract those with a disposition to 'Obsessive compulsive disorder' (OCD). This is an anxiety disorder characterized by thoughts that produce apprehension. The repetitive behaviors, which are are such a part of most practicing musicians' lives lend themselves to this disorder.
The 'ego' needed to confidently stand up and perform also (I those who are not self aware) can lend itself to some narcissistic delusions.
The expression obsessive–compulsive , in normal usage is used to describe someone who is excessively meticulous, perfectionistic, which is the mark of many fine classical musicians. A person who exhibits may instead have obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), which is an autism spectrum disorder.
I love classical music but i do know a fair few excellent musicians who have some of these characteristics (myself included!).
This view point (of the classical musician) tends to give a very clear idea about what is correct. 'Jazz' viewed this way is just sloppy playing. Obviously it takes an intellectual shift to view jazz from a different perspective.
Chris.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-06 23:33
A touch of autistic behavior is a blessing. It's only a disorder when it rules your life. So many wonderful successful and happy people show some of the symptoms on the autistic spectrum. Musicians with high standards need to be a little obsessive.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-06-07 00:21
By all reports, one very obsessive clarinetist was Benny Goodman. And not just when he played Weber and Mozart. I've read lots of stories about obsessive in some ways bullying behavior during rehearsals with his band that would rival some of the stories about Szell and Stokowski. Another obsessive and very egocentric jazz musician I've read about in interviews with other jazz musicians and writers of the '50s and '60s was Miles Davis. And I'm not sure Coltrane or Coleman were very laid-back, either. Players in the "progressive" jazz era were very prone to endless and meticulous practicing of modes and scales and their associated chordal material.
I don't thing egocentric attitudes and modes of behavior are in any way restricted to classical musicians. It may make more sense to look for it in any extraordinarily well accomplished practitioner in any performing art (or even visual arts). I've read that Danny Kaye, Fred Astaire and Frank Sinatra were demanding, exacting, ego-driven and not easy people to work with, never mind the major ballet stars, who are the dance equivalent of high performance classical musicians.
There are obsessive and narcissistic people in nearly any area of human endeavor.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-07 00:43
From what I've read, Art Pepper, who had one of the greatest jazz alto techniques, was not obsessive, at least during his greatest performing years. It always shocks me to see that a player that was so amazing on alto, was so mediocre on clarinet. He had a kind of loose sloppy and unfocused clarinet sound that seemed amateurish.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-06-07 02:25
Quote:
I've read lots of stories about obsessive in some ways bullying behavior during rehearsals with his band that would rival some of the stories about Szell and Stokowski. Another obsessive and very egocentric jazz musician I've read about in interviews with other jazz musicians and writers of the '50s and '60s was Miles Davis. And I'm not sure Coltrane or Coleman were very laid-back, either. Players in the "progressive" jazz era were very prone to endless and meticulous practicing of modes and scales and their associated chordal material.
Have you listened to the Buddy Rich tapes? Some of the most inspired, curse-laden rants in the English language (available on youtube).
Quote:
From what I've read, Art Pepper, who had one of the greatest jazz alto techniques, was not obsessive, at least during his greatest performing years. It always shocks me to see that a player that was so amazing on alto, was so mediocre on clarinet. He had a kind of loose sloppy and unfocused clarinet sound that seemed amateurish.
I believe that Art was primarily self-taught. In fact, at the time he joined Stan Kenton's band, he improvised entirely by ear and had a very limited knowledge of harmony. In my opinion, a certain quality of playing by ear was always present in Art's music: he was never a harmonically adventurous player, nor a searching artist in the mold of Coltrane, for instance.
With that said, I would not characterize Art's clarinet playing as mediocre- at least not in the sense that you do. Of course, his sound concept was "unfocused," but so was his saxophone sound- the same could be said of Miles Davis, Lee Konitz, et cetera. In short, why is an unfocused sound necessarily analogous to poor playing?
Art playing alto, tenor, bari, or clarinet (as he does on the Art Pepper Plus Eleven album) sounds rather the same. In my opinion, the tenor, bari, and clarinet were superfluous insofar as he did not posses a distinctive improvisational voice on them- in contrast to Sonny Stitt on the alto and tenor, Coltrane on the tenor and soprano, or even Eddie Daniels on the clarinet and tenor. If the charge of amateurishness is going to be made with regard to Art's clarinet playing, I would say that it is more apropos to his lack of a distinctive voice than his sound concept.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Clarinet
Date: 2013-06-07 07:58
You find snobbery in all fields, not just music. My other obsession is model railways. I am in indifferent model maker, but enjoy doing it. For me, with my limited abilities in the area 'if it looks about right, it's good enough', and I am pleased with the result. The other end of the spectum is what is known in the UK as the 'rivet counter' - someone who is SO meticulous that even the number of rivets has to be right. To be fair, some of these people are spectacular model makers, but generally a pain in the rear to everyone else. Their attitude is 'there are 2 ways of doing things - my way and the wrong way' I try to avoid them. Most people in the field are some where in the middle - 'this is how I do it, it works for me.' These people are generally open to discussing ideas and techniques, and are the people I try to learn from.
It's not just clarinetting that has its over-obsessives. (Not counting OCD's & related)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-07 15:04
I never thought of Art Peppers sax sound as unfocused. However, before I knew better, I used to classify certain clarinet tone qualities as "sounding like a plastic horn". Mr. Ridenour and others here have half convinced me that the special wood sound is not due to a horn being made of wood but geometry, embouchure and mouthpiece. On Anthropology, Pepper,s sound seems hollow, high schoolish, and simplistic without overtones and ping that make clarinet so special. I thought his sax sound was good, not as good Hodges, or Brubeck's sax player whose name escapes me at this moment (age related dementia no doubt), but quite respectable.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-06-07 15:18
Paul Desmond
Trouble is, recording techniques and equipment were so variable that it's hard from recordings to know what players actually sounded like. I heard Desmond live once and was surprised at how much more color I heard than on the recordings I knew. Shaw sounds hollow and foggy on some recordings and more lively and colorful on others. I think players like these were as popular as they were with audiences and colleagues because of how they sounded live, not because of how they sounded on recordings. To switch genres, Gigliotti and Wright both sounded entirely different to me in person from what I heard on many recordings. The same was true the one time I heard DePeyer in a live performance and for many other recording musicians whose live performances I've also had a chance to hear.
Digital recordings transferred directly to digital distribution media (downloadable audio files, CDs and DVDs, etc.) may have improved this situation in recent years, although the accuracy of what you eventually hear is still dependent on the fidelity of the microphones and the quality of the equipment used for playback.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-07 15:35
I wonder how much of what I remember people like Desmond sounding like is due to the medium and equipment I first heard it on or my own ears being so much younger. When I was growing up my parents had what was then considered top of the line audio equipment for the late 50's. They had a low watt mono tube amp and a Garrad turntable. The one speaker was built specially for them and it was a closed box about four feet high, two feet wide and two deep. It was a 15 inch woofer and a giant horn tweeter. The combination was so rich and warm and mellow. Nowadays, I have what is also considered to be fine equipment, hybrid tube amps, B&W speakers, tubed Cd player etc. My doctor assures me I have lost almost no hearing for a man of 60 or so with only an insignificant dip in one small area of the mid treble (similar to a person in his 20's he says), but still my recordings don't sound quite as good as I remembered them. Maybe I'm more critical now, but I also find that live performances have such greater depth and color and detail than anything I can create with my home system even when using great headphones.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-06-07 19:00
Garth Libre wrote:
> but I also find that live
> performances have such greater depth and color and detail than
> anything I can create with my home system even when using great
> headphones.
>
That's why going to hear live performances is still important and why young players shouldn't model their sound concepts on recordings. There's too much missing.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2013-06-07 19:50
Speaking as a "classical" clarinet player, Art, let me assure you that I don't "look down" on any musician, whatever his/her genre! Admittedly I'm not a fan of Woody Allen's clarinet playing (although I admire his comedic genius), nor do I hold Kenny G's "jazz" in high regard. Indeed I can't think of any of the symphony clarinetists I've worked with over many, many years who think any differently. I suspect that the attitude you paint has more to do with amateurs and music students than with professionals.
In recent times I've actually paid to go to concerts by Anat Cohen (jazz) and Giora Feidmann (klezmer). One of the high spots of my whole musical life was an afternoon I spent playing duets with jazz immortal Eric Dolphy!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C.Elizabeth07
Date: 2013-06-09 06:16
My roommate is a pop/bluegrass cellist. She feels the same way and she and I have gotten into some heated debates over this. I think that, in her case at least, she uses the stereotypical "stuck up classical musician" as a way to judge all people who dot agree with her. Because I do not believe lady gaga and Vivaldi are on the same level this some how makes me elitist. My opinion is that there is music for entertainment and music for art. They serve two different functions. I think the artwork done in old Disney films are stunning however I would not put it in the same category as the Sistine chapel. I don't think either form is greater than the other they just serve two different functions. And I have heard the whole "why are these group of musicians so stuck up?" Quite a bit. However, I feel like it rarely comes from classical musicians, at least the ones I have known. It usually comes from jazzers, fiddlers, and people in "non-classical" genres.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-09 07:11
". My opinion is that there is music for entertainment and music for art. They serve two different functions. I think the artwork done in old Disney films are stunning however I would not put it in the same category as the Sistine chapel."
I think that Michaelangelo would really enjoy a good Disney movie like Socerror's Apprentice or Bambi or 101 Dalmetians, but I sincerely doubt he'd have much good to say about Romero Brito's formulaic nonsense.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-06-09 08:05
C.Elizabeth07 wrote:
> I think that, in her case at least, she uses the stereotypical
> "stuck up classical musician" as a way to judge all people who
> dot agree with her. Because I do not believe lady gaga and
> Vivaldi are on the same level this some how makes me elitist.
I think we all should have the right to have our own standards for what we consider to be "good" but when it comes to popular music it is not uncommon for anyone who doesn't "follow the herd" to be labeled as an elitist which is unfortunate. Personally, while I am not the biggest fan of much of the current popular music I will freely admit that many of the artists are quite talented.
I will admit however that I am still suspicious of the artists who tend to lip synch at most or all of their live performances. I remember the Milli Vanilli scandal in the very early 90's when it was revealed that performers lip synched to vocals that were recorded by other artists and can't help but wonder if this kind of thing still goes on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C.Elizabeth07
Date: 2013-06-09 17:22
I am in no way saying that pop music is not good. I am saying you cannot compare the genres. They serve two different functions. Pop music is for entertainment. I don't listen to Mahler 2 to be entertained. I listen to it I be transported. Its not comparable. I'm not saying one is better than the other or one is superior.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C.Elizabeth07
Date: 2013-06-09 20:05
Yeah but listening to the Beatles or Chicago or Britney Spears is a different sort if entertainment then listening to Mahler, or Beethoven or what have you. I just think they are different forms, serve different functions, grow from different sources and there for are not comparable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-10 00:09
"I will admit however that I am still suspicious of the artists who tend to lip synch at most or all of their live performances. I remember the Milli Vanilli scandal in the very early 90's when it was revealed that performers lip synched to vocals that were recorded by other artists and can't help but wonder if this kind of thing still goes on."
Actually much worse things are going on to cover up the lack of talent of some popular performers. Some of the worst of these offenses are pitch correction, and synthisized harmony parts added in on separate tracks. There was a time when do-wop singers were expected to have near perfect harmonization and most of the time they did. Now we hire one singer and the harmony parts are actually the same singer with pitch changed harmony parts put in on separate tracks. Singers who can not sing anything in tune needn't worry either. We now have pitch correction to come to their aid. Difficult rhythms? No problem! Keyboard players can create any vocal or instrumental rhythm part. No talented keyboard player? No problem! Computer regulated drum machines take the place of talented musicians. Insufficient range? No problem! We can get you up an octave in a heartbeat! Can't make it across the country for a particular recording date? No problem! You can record in any city you happen to be in, and we'll send the files to the engineer. It's no wonder that kids nowadays have no standards. They have only perfectly compiled music to listen to. Soul, talent and musical ability are all now considered to optional skills. We need a marketable personality and a good song writer - that's it.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-06-10 00:57
I've read that Britney Spears can't sing at all. She only does a monotone. Every single note is Auto-Tuned, and she never does anything but lip-synch.
But she's a perfeshunul prformber. And she makes 100 times what the 100 best clarinetists in the world make combined.
Life sucks. Then you die.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-10 01:06
My good friend, John Lankston, was a soloist in the New York City Opera for three decades. He performed Funny girl with Barbara Streisand (volume turned down, so as to not outshine Ms. Streisand). He speaks four languages, highly cultured and recently retired with a mediocre pension. Britney Spears may have trouble singing but she's an absolute disaster as a dancer. Life wasn't meant to be fair - great talent is not universally admired or recognized - no one should enter the "classical arts" because they expect wealth - it's a labor of love or don't do it at all.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2013-06-10 01:20
"no one should enter the "classical arts" because they expect wealth - it's a labor of love or don't do it at all."
Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Culver City Art
Date: 2013-06-10 05:59
We live half a block south of Sony Studios, aka MGM, Lorimar Telepictures. Sony came in here in 1994. Musicians park on our street here on Madison Ave and walk up half a block to score movies and t.v. shows at Sony. Strings, brass, saxes, and of course clarinets. YES! they still use real musicians who play real instruments! And a couple of them who I've talked with in our front yard prefer vintage clarinets and saxes! Art.
arthurgoldis@gmail.com
(310) 562-0644
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-06-10 08:00
It's interesting that one of the few places that average people still are exposed to orchestral music is in movie scores. Somehow, Hollywood has realized the depth of emotion that can be conveyed through the orchestral instruments is far greater than through canned or electronic sounds. No matter how dumbed down peoples' taste in music has become, there is still that glimmer of hope when people sit in a movie theater and appreciate the sweet pathos of an oboe against the soft violin or the crash of the tympani introducing the french horns in a moment of struggle. Sadly, the sound level in modern American movie theaters is so high that I've taken to wearing ear plugs when I go. This brings the decibels down to a safe level without causing hearing loss. I can only imagine how deaf Americans have become in that no one else seems to complain.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Baz
Date: 2013-06-10 09:44
I went to see Jack Brymer some years ago, it was him with the English Saxophone Quartet, they played some jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
