 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-01-17 02:23
Lately I've been listening to Stanley Drucker recordings. I first heard one years ago - his Nielsen concerto recording. I admired it for Drucker's great skill, but I never found myself liking it as a musical experience. For one thing, Drucker's sound on the recording seemed shrill compared to the recorded sound of other clarinetists. The whole thing seemed slightly harsh.
It's often said that recordings don't do musicians' sounds justice. I heard that many times in my decades as a pianophile. Not to debate that, but one can quickly recognize some performer's recorded sound; amongst pianists, Horowitz is one. Drucker is a clarinet example. So being recorded doesn't obscure everything.
The various Youtube recordings do little to make Drucker's tone more appealing. There's a late version of Weber's Concertino where he sometimes sounds like a power saw doing a heavy cut; and while his earlier recording of that piece with Mehta & the NYPO is less shrill, the characteristic sound is still in evidence.
Did Drucker sound that way live? Did he intend it, and if so, why? It certainly is opposite poles from the recorded sound of some more recent artists, for example, Ricardo Morales.
Now here's a funny thing: I'm liking these Drucker recordings. I like that Concertino with NYPO - it's musically fresh and quite operatic. I really like the Bartok Contrasts on Youtube with Mann & Hambro, (where the clarinet sound doesn't sound shrill at all) - that may be my favorite Contrasts. And I liked the badly recorded Music from Szék by László Gulyás, with Drucker playing with the Stony Brook Wind Ensemble. It's as though the sound quality matters less than I'm accustomed to think, provided the musical expression is interesting and clear, which with Drucker it usually is.
I may have to try listening to that Corigliano recording again . . . . the last time I quit halfway, quite annoyed if I recall.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-01-17 03:40
I've always thought of him, Drucker, as one one the very best players in the world and I think in 50 years or 100 years from now he will be remembered that way.
I don't think his sound was equal to some of the other greats such as Bob Marcellus, Iggie Gennusa, and Harold Wright, that have passed on. But there are now really wonderful living players that sound just fantastic, but not like Marcellus, Gennusa, and Wright. A tad different. I can't describe the wording, maybe less French sounding or something. I feel it's perhaps a new generation of sound. Everything has changed. Mouthpieces, the reeds, and the instruments are all made slightly differently now. We have new ligature designs, bells, barrels, and even different types of wood, plus plastic, and greenline rubber that Buffet uses. Well needless to say your sound has to change.
I didn't answer your comment very well, because I like Drucker's playing a lot. I agree that his sound wasn't perhaps at the level of Marcellus and the others, but it surely didn't bother me to the point that you've experienced.
An interesting story that doesn't really have anything to do with Drucker. Gennusa was principal with the National Symphony. Guess who was assistant first? Bob Marcellus! Marcellus went on to Cleveland and Gennusa went to Chicago for a signed, limited, 1 year contract replacing Mitchell Lurie who was also a dear friend of mine. Iggie then joined the Baltimore Sym for about 22 years. Iggie's wife was also a member of the Baltimore Sym. Played the violin. Interesting history of events. During this time it was hard to find year round work so players were often looking for that perfect year round symphony to join.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-01-17 03:46
I think tone preferences in America - I don't know anything about other places - have shifted over the last few decades. The kind of opaque, round, ringless sound that players like Ricardo Morales favor is a definite contrast to the ring-y, tightly focused, penetrating sound that was more the norm, at least in my experience, in the mid-20th century when I started listening to orchestral music.
Maybe the need for more power and clarity before the growth of the recording industry influenced the sound of those players of 60 years ago whose teachers developed their approaches before electrical recording was common or even possible.
I know that Gigliotti, whose playing I heard a great deal in live performance from the '60s until his retirement in 1996, sounded much more robust and full-bodied in person than he often did on recordings, where he could sometimes sound excruciatingly thin. I think the same was probably true of Stanley Drucker, whose recorded sound I heard as even thinner and edgier than Gigliotti's. But having heard Drucker play live (albeit much more recently than those recordings), I'd say that he, too, sounded much smoother and full-toned than he did in those recordings.
That's why I often rail against using recordings as models for tone quality. Listen to phrasing, listen to style, listen to technique, but there's so much between the player and my ears when a recording is involved that I have very little trust in the sound I hear and none in its value as a model to be imitated.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2016-01-17 04:53
I don't think his sound was equal to some of the other greats such as Bob Marcellus, Iggie Gennusa, and Harold Wright
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I studied with Leon Russianoff, who was also Drucker's teacher. He used to play a little game with his students: He would play for us a recording of Shepherd on the Rock and have us guess who was playing clarinet.
At first, we were sure it was Wright, then it sounded more like Marcellus. It turned out of course, to be Drucker. Whatever you think of his sound, he sounds that way because he wants to.
Russianoff was very proud of Drucker. I once heard him answer the phone:
"Hello , this is Leon Russianoff, teacher of Stanley Drucker, world's greatest clarinetist."
Gotta love it...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-01-17 07:22
I firmly believe there are clarinetists that have a quality in their sound that makes it impossible to record well. Stanley Drucker is one of them. In person his sound is full and round (having heard him for years only on recordings I was literally blown away by his live sound).
Others seem to represent well in either medium such as Larry Combs or Karl Leister. I have no idea why this is. I do know the clarinet is a very complex sound, but why some great players record well and other don't still doesn't make sense to me after 40 years of being confused by this phenomenon.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-01-18 00:46
Drucker's sound bears analogy to Brad Pitt's acting.
Brad Pitt was/is considered such a handsome man than concern has been expressed that it could interfere with the thespian nature of his craft..despite him having a brilliant resume of work, with much more hopefully to come, that spans every aspect of the cinema.
Drucker was/is such a brilliant artist/musician and technician that such attributes might run the risk of overshadowing his sound, which I believe no less brilliant.
There are some recordings of him, of all places on the Music Minus One albums of the 1970s where he plays with just piano accompaniment. It's easy there to get a good taste for his sound--which is wonderful.
http://musicminusone.com/woodwinds/mmo-clarinet-in-b-flat.html
(Bias noted.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-01-18 01:22
The Music Minus One series is an interesting case study in itself. I think my first one was the Raboud/Mozert done by Harold Wright. The sound was very dry and up close. I was completely unaccustomed to the type of sound that was represented and had a very distorted view of the folks involved in that series. I did have a Drucker recording (lost to history) but I don't even remember what that was (Hindemith Sonata? Brahms Quintet?). If I only had those to listen again with contemporary ears I'm sure my assessment would be completely different.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-01-18 02:21
Very interesting, thank you everyone. Dave, I visited the MMO site linked, and for each album there are several 1-minute clips available for listening. Drucker does sound extremely good in those. His sound remains characteristic of the better of his recordings - bright, beautifully expressive, controlled, in tune, and maybe with a bit of edge and less depth than some others: the comparison with Wright is fascinating. The recordings are, as Paul notes, dry, but not unsatisfying to hear. I had no idea these existed!
One oddity: on the MMO page for Vol. III of Advanced Solos with Drucker, the final clip is labelled "Clarinet Concerto No. 1 in F minor, Op. 73, J. 114: Rondo". This would indicate Weber, but the actual music in the clip is something else that sounds familiar, but I can't place it. Anyone know?
I'm gaining appreciation for Drucker's art, any reservations about sound notwithstanding. I'll likely never hear him live, sorry to say. In any case, it's much better if everyone doesn't sound the same.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2016-01-18 02:42
You also need to take into account where the recording was made. Avery Fisher Hall's acoustics tend to produce a harsh sound which may be why you don't like Drucker's concerto recordings
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2016-01-18 04:24
Having spoken to Stanley and hearing him play live numerous times, both up close and from the audience, his sound exemplifies his personality. It is "pure New York" - aggressive, dominant and in your face. Stanley makes EVERY note count, 100% of the time. Nothing shy or retiring, and every phrase has a well thought out direction.
In a way, it's an old school style of playing, but one that he has made purely American. A logical and important historical development from earlier French roots.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GLHopkins
Date: 2016-01-18 05:56
People can say what they wish about Drucker. He kept what I consider to be the best clarinet job in the world for a pretty long time. In my opinion he's the benchmark for American clarinetists.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2016-01-18 18:16
I have to agree with what Bob Bernardo and some others are saying about Stanley Drucker. He is, in my opinion, one of the greatest of the greats.
I heard Mr. Drucker perform live many times, including as a soloist with the orchestra. I heard him play the Nielsen live in his heyday -- when almost no one else on the planet would go near the piece. I even heard one of his very last performances of the Copland in New Jersey. It was out of this world.
Anyone who listens only to his "sound" is missing the point. The man is a fantastic musician, with an intelligent and refined sense of style and character supported by an incredible technique. He has personality to burn and it comes through in every note he plays. And he sounds like himself -- unique, authentic, forthright, compelling. If there's more to being a great clarinetist than that, I don't know what it might be.
Another thing: his enthusiasm for the music and for music-making. Listen to Mr. Drucker as a younger man and listen to him at the end of his career with the NY Phil and you'll hear the same vigor and joy in his clarinet "voice" -- the voice of a man truly in love with music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-01-18 18:57
Perhaps one of Drucker's greatest unsung legacies and lessons, especially for up and coming players, beyond his recordings and performances and longevity (as wonderful as they are) is this.
Drucker, although blessed with innate talent, and willingness to work his tail off to improve, benefited from the time in history when he honed his talent.
This was an era when not only the idea of playing clarinet was cool (to wit: Benny Goodman, big bands, etc.) but clarinet gizmos were few. What was in plenty were the same classic etude books we use today--of which it was joked that Drucker did "a book a week," when today, maybe 10 of 2000 of the book's etudes are assigned by an instructor for next week's lesson. Russianoff had to slow him down, not motivate him.
Drucker, as reported to me second hand, played anything he could get his hands on while at "LaGuardia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_H._LaGuardia_High_School
There was little time to spend on unevented toys like Reed Machines, and fancy ligatures. This is not to say that some of the advances in clarinet and clarinet accessory production haven't helped us players, but most haven't--and as a result of which, have been counterproductive while we waste precious time NOT pursuing what's always worked---hard, repetitious, metronome intensive etude study.
I would be very happy with Drucker's legacy being the receipe for what works in clarinet play: a world as receptive to orchestral play as it is to "techo," where incredibly gifted and motivated players connect with teachers who know what they are doing, focusing on what works to advance play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2016-01-18 23:43
For the few years I took clarinet lessons back around high school, my teacher was a huge Drucker fan and pointed him out to me as a role model (I was really only playing and interested in bass clarinet back then, so for me soprano clarinet was a 'reluctant double').
I didn't "get" Drucker's playing back then, his bright-ish tone and occasional vibrato turned me off. But many years later, I hear his playing entirely differently and I'm totally in awe of it. Times change, people change, but it seems to me that Drucker has always been a fantastic player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2016-01-19 00:57
The piece misidentified on the MMO website is the final variation in Norman Dello Joio's Concertante. Perhaps it is also on the MMO recording and the Weber was simply omitted from the excerpts posted on the website.
FWIW, according to Eric Nelson, who appears to have spent considerable time studying the Nielsen concerto and published an article on it in The Clarinet a number of years ago, the Danes regard Drucker's interpretation of the work as "completely ignorant of the Danish spirit. Too light, entirely devoid of passion." (I guess you can't win 'em all.)
To read Nelson's discussion of the concerto and Aage Oxenvad use the search fuction at the top of this page to search "The Klarinet Mailing List Archives" for "Eric Nelson Nielsen Concerto" (without the quotation marks). The first two hits contain the same information as the article in The Clarinet.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2016-01-19 01:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-01-19 04:50
Thanks again to all, it's very interesting. Jack, thank you for identifying the mislabeled MMO clip.
I'm going to relisten to Drucker's Nielsen recording after a number of years since the last time. About his interpretation not finding favor with Danes, many great musicians have been similarly critiqued from various points of view. The greatest interpreters are laws unto themselves, and not subject to ordinary comparisons.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2016-01-19 16:39
For so many years, I have listened to the various Drucker recordings with awe over the technique, etc. I always had a similar reaction as the OP, harsh tone, etc.
But then I heard him live. It was Ravinia and the NYPO was playing. I was really excited to hear Nuccio play and curious to hear Drucker. Nuccio was OK... Drucker was spellbinding. He played Hebrides. That little solo was gorgeous. Tone perfect, legato perfect, timing perfect. He completely owned everything I heard him play. Honestly, after hearing him on that concert, the other clarinetists just sounded boring and pedestrian.
I've read here on the BB that Gigliotti also sounded amazing in person but not so good on recordings. After hearing Drucker, I can see how this is possible.
FWIW, and maybe it's just urban legend, but supposedly Drucker did that Corligiano recording in just one take.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-01-19 17:52
I wouldn't doubt the "one take" myth. The thing about Drucker is that EVERYTHING was well within his technical abilities.
I have a Drucker story courtesy of Frank Wells from Chicago. He and the NY Phil clarinet section came into Frank's shop to try out mouthpieces. Drucker just noodled a bit, "doing two or three impossible things," and declaring he liked the mouthpiece. Drucker and crew each walked out of the shop with their own Wells that day. This shows he was always 'amazing,' and that he was not above trying out new stuff (he wasn't closed minded to new gear), just perhaps busy and conservative about it.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2016-01-19 18:04
Regarding the comment above about Gigliotti, I also heard him play live on several occasions, including a performance of the Mozart Concerto with the Philadelphia Orchestra when he was standing in at the last minute for an ill Benny Goodman.
I can tell you that he was another authentic and unique voice -- his own man in every way. I heard him on recordings too and nothing came even close to how clear and beautiful he sounded in person. The same goes for Marcellus, Wright, Cioffi, Goodman, de Peyer -- to my ears, in person each of these titans created a far greater impression on the listener then they ever did on recordings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-01-19 22:23
That's precisely one side of the problem. The great conductor Sergiu Celibidache refused (literally) to put out studio recordings because he KNEW that so much of the sound (upper harmonics - just ONE example) was not present in the recorded medium. That is an argument onto itself with Karajan (presumably) taking the other side. And that would be that recordings need to be treated (and respected) as its own art form.
Though I would agree that EVERYONE sounds different from live vs recorded medium, I would hasten to say that there are many examples of clarinet players that translated well. I had no problem with DePeyer's sound on record or Wright for that matter. Some sound amazing, like Brody, Combs Leister.....and the list goes on.
Though there are pronouncements all the time about the latest innovations of sound, it is still a completely different animal and should be thought of as such.
So all you aspiring young clarinet players out there need to get into a seat at a live venue and really listen!!!!
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-01-19 22:34
Paul Aviles wrote:
> So all you aspiring young clarinet players out there need to
> get into a seat at a live venue and really listen!!!!
>
Hear! Hear!
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-01-19 22:56
I just read (re-read actually, I forgot I had some years ago) Eric Nelson's posts - thank you Jack for reminding me. I understand all the written words, but almost nothing of what was said.
The (brief) criticisms of Drucker's recording say little except they aren't what Nielsen intended. There's discussion of Nielsen's life and work, as well as Oxenvad's and his interpretation of the concerto. There's numerous points made about how the piece should be played, but the connections to those from antecedents don't seem terribly solid. It's good material to keep in mind, but . . . .
Intentions don't carry very well into other people, and maybe they shouldn't. Compositions are like children: they receive preparation and care, but once they go out into the world they develop a life of their own, where original intentions are only one kind of influence amid many.
Nielsen was a great composer. His music does not all have solidly defined "right" and "wrong" interpretations. In Drucker's recording, much of how the music was performed had to do with Leonard Bernstein, who also conducted recordings of several (all?) of Nielsen's symphonies. The concerto recording is not dissimilar interpretatively from the recordings of the 4th or 5th symphonies. Do the Danes find those excellent and well-received performances "wrong" as well?
I just finished re-listening to Drucker's recording, and am now even more amazed at his technical mastery (I stumbled through the piece in practice yesterday myself). Drucker's sound in the recording is everything except lush - perfectly in tune, flexible, dynamic, expressive, controlled. His sound is not the problem; for some reason the performance seems emotionally flat, albeit very expressive (and seemingly in some of the very ways prescribed in Nelson's posts). Maybe the Danes have a point, but then again I've never gotten a great experience from the handful of different versions I've heard of this piece, unlike some other works by Nielsen. I have (or had) the recommended (lp) recording by Stevensson (with Blomstedt?); that's due for a re-listen if it can be located again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetRobt
Date: 2016-01-21 20:12
I know (somewhere) I have a recording of Drucker playing the Poulenc Sonata (seems like his wife plays on the same CD and wow she's amazing too). My first thought was, "why is he playing it so slow". After chatting with some clarinet buds, we concluded he played the sonata the actual tempos indicated. And/or he played slower because he's Drucker and can do what he wants. In American, players seem to blaze through it as fast as they can (I won't debate the merits if that's a good or bad thing).
At the end of the day, his musicality was stunning throughout the piece, perhaps his tempo choices maintained the integrity of the piece. Oddly for me, I found his sound lush, almost with a bass clarinet quality.
~Robt L Schwebel
Mthpc: Behn Vintage
Lig: Ishimori, Behn Delrin
Reed: Legere French Cut 3.75/4, Behn Brio 4
Horns: Uebel Superior (Bb,A), Ridenour Lyrique, Buffet R13 (Eb)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-01-22 03:15
ClarinetRobt wrote:
> we concluded he played the sonata the actual tempos indicated.
> And/or he played slower because he's Drucker and can do what he
> wants.
And no one was going to write a review questioning whether he played it that way because he couldn't play it faster.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
