 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Exiawolf
Date: 2016-07-14 11:10
Greetings!
I have an interesting question that popped into my mind recently. Obviously Drucker is a legend, and an amazing player, however compared to other clarinetists of TODAY his sound is very different. I wouldn't say in a bad way (at all), but it got me thinking, are there professionals players winning jobs at this time with such a vibrant style of sound? I also realized that my Greg Smith mouthpiece (a Chedville 1) seems to play with this style of sound. I almost never use it nowadays because almost all of my colleagues and teachers have described the sound as too bright. Is Drucker's style of sound still followed these days?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-07-14 14:16
I would say that it is not the flavor of the day. Gigliotti, of the Philadelphia Orchestra, also had a very bright, reedy sound, though very different from Drucker's. Likewise, nobody sounds like Brymer any more, nor like Jacques Lancelot, etc.. It is only natural that taste should change. My only regret is to see a "globalized" tone; a world in which everybody sounds the same. Two or three notes of Menuhin or Milstein and you knew who the violinist was. I don't think this is the case any longer.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-07-14 15:32
It's nearly impossible to evaluate clarinet tone from a recording or broadcast. In particular (and based on my hearing these players live), those with bright tones (e.g., Gigliotti, Lancelot, Hacker) do not record well, but are amazing in person.
Drucker had (and has) enormous energy in his tone, but I don't think of it as bright. It's simply unstoppable. I think that's the reason he never plays in master classes. His first note would blow the student away.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2016-07-14 16:59
Yeah, the one time I heard Drucker in person I thought his sound was phenomenal, and I'm not a fan of what people describe as a "bright" sound. It just didn't come through the same in recordings. There are benefits to "globalized" sound, though. At one time, Jost Michaels was doing nearly as many recordings as Leister, who probably comes close to the "globalized" version of a German sound. Listen to both and figure out which one you'd rather hear playing the repertoire. That kind of thing doesn't fly so much anymore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-07-14 17:27
I am fascinated by the HUGE disparity between the live sound and recorded sound of some players. This is NOT true of all players, just some that contain certain energy in the sound that does not translate well to recordings.
Stanley Drucker was definitely in the "poor translation" category. I had my opinions of Drucker's sound (as a mid-westerner) based on years of listening to recordings. This was blown apart when I heard him live for the first and only time many years later at Klar-Fest in Washington D.C. (circa 1982). His sound live is big, full round, wonderful. I'm sure he didn't change up his whole technique just for the three performances I heard there.
So what is it? I haven't the faintest idea. Of course I am currently studying recorded sound from the inside out now. Hopefully in another 20 years I'll have a better understanding of this and get back to you.
Maybe someone out there is a master recording engineer, accomplished acoustician and a clarinetist who can better explain this phenomenon.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-07-14 20:31
I'm not sure if I'd call Drucker's sound bright. It could be a hard sound with a harder reed maybe, but bright isn't really the correct word to me. I think he was pretty amazing. No he didn't sound like Harold Wright or Bob Marcellus, but he studied with totally different teachers. He deserved to be in the orchestra for all of those years. Same with the recently Michele Zukovski. She was with the LA Philharmonic full-time since the age of 18 maybe. They all surely had different styles of playing and different sounds.
I surely agree with all of the posts, with the exception of the Greg Smith mouthpieces, because I haven't played on his. I do know that Greg was a Marcellus student and more than just a student, he was friends with Marcellus for many years, so I would strongly suggest sending your mouthpiece back to Greg and see if something has changed, such as the facing, heat may have warped it things like that. He's a great man. Chedeville's are not known to be bright except for the Ann Arbor models. You can copy this and paste this, then send it to him, because he would care about his product not being played by you. The facing alone, plus the type of reeds you are playing on could surely effect the bright sound you are feeling. It could be a warped barrel, the horn, lots of other things. For example Harold Wright changed horns every 5 to 10 years. Back to Greg, since he studied with Marcellus, he does not have that Drucker sound. He also uses Zinner mouthpieces which I think are made just for him and Zinner mouthpieces are dark sounding, perhaps the darkest sounding mouthpieces on the market.
I'll be happy to send a sample or 2 of mine. Since 1984 only one student returned one asking for his money back. My concern is Greg's mouthpieces usually aren't known to be bright. I'd start with sending your mouthpiece back to Greg and see whats wrong with it. Sometimes mouthpieces have to be readjusted every few years or less.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2016-07-14 20:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-07-14 20:43
Ken: I suppose "bright" is too reductive a word that we tend to use all too often. Lancelot in France, Drucker in the US, and Geuser in Germany, all had a different "brightness" to their playing; a totally different texture. We should take a lesson from wine-tasting and increase our vocabulary when it comes to describing clarinet tone. But then again, it is only possible to talk about wine in French! Try doing it in Lithuanian.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2016-07-14 23:37
ruben -
I read the Wine Spectator for a few years but got bored with the unvarying vocabulary of meaningless praise (e.g., "taste that just won't quit"). I'd rather have straight descriptions.
Also, there are very few clarinetists I can't listen to with pleasure. I was offended by Jost Michaels, with his quacking attacks, but I got past that quickly. The only exception is the old Czech player Jiri Stingl, whom I just couldn't stomach.
Drucker sounded like Drucker. Nobody else did. And Wright sounded like Wright, and Marcellus sounded like Marcellus. I leave it at that. Any attempt to say more is like dancing about architecture.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-07-14 23:37
This discussion is developing in an interesting direction, if only because it revisits some very old discussions from a slightly different perspective. One thing that comes back immediately is the difference in meaning among users of terms like "bright" (and it's ostensible opposite, "dark"). The other is the unreliability of recordings, especially older ones, in evaluating players' "sound."
I always find it interesting that whenever the topic of "bright" sound comes up Gigliotti is near or at the top of the list of players people include. Gigliotti described his own sound as "dark." His standard response to anyone who asked about some other player's dark(er) sound was, "Don't confuse dark with dull." Drucker is often another, though I think more people may, like Paul, have had a chance to experience Drucker's playing live and perhaps change their opinions because the Philharmonic, I think, traveled more than Philadelphia and New York may be more of a travel destination for Americans than Philadelphia.
I have always suspected that the use of microphones has had an influence on players' sound concepts. Musicians in the first half of the 20th century had limited or no experience with artificial amplification. They had to be heard with no help. Their students in the U.S., who included the likes of Gigliotti, Drucker, Wright, etc. became part of the recording age, which began gradually from the late 1930s through the 1940s and blossomed in the 1950s, with tonal approaches they had learned from their pre-electronic age teachers. One of the characteristics of the playing of Gigliotti, Drucker, Wright and others like them may have been (IMO was) often a thinness of the sound in their recordings. But another was that heard live in a hall, their sounds were fuller and very, very powerful, and they could be heard clearly in any location within the hall and in any reasonable orchestral context. That isn't always the case for many of today's players, even some of the most highly respected ones.
The old Chedevilles and to an extent the modern blanks modeled on them were developed for that earlier style of play that I personally mourn but which seems to have gone out of fashion.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2016-07-14 23:56
I don't think professional players (in the big orchestras) are playing that way. His style of playing is like having linoleum floors and faux wood panel walls in a house. It was preferred in the 70's but not at all now. When I saw the NYP recording in North Korea, he seemed like a fish out of water in contrast with the rest of the wind section.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-07-15 00:19
ruben wrote:
> We should take a lesson
> from wine-tasting and increase our vocabulary when it comes to
> describing clarinet tone.
But, then, I've never understood how a liquid made from fermented grapes can have hints of apricot, pear, (name the fruit) or earth. When I taste wine, it tastes like wine. Heavier or lighter, more or less acidic, (that's only four words).
Unless they're mixing other fruits into the grape mash. The rest of the descriptions I read mean little or nothing to me when I read them ![[huh]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie11.gif) .
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2016-07-15 01:18
I agree about the "globalized" sound we hear today as contrasted with the highly individualized approach of players from the past.
I was fortunate to have heard Drucker, Gigliotti, Wright, Marcellus and almost all of the other clarinetists mentioned in this post in concert, and can confirm that they not only played in a distinct fashion, they rose above the ensemble in ways that are unforgettable. As to whether one would classify their sounds as "bright" or "reedy" or "dark," who cares? It was just beautiful.
Drucker's playing was (and is) indescribable. I heard him numerous times with the NY Phil, in the orchestra and as a soloist. I even attended one of his very last performances of the Copland in New Jersey just before he officially retired from the orchestra. He was over 80 at the time yet he bounded out onto the stage like a man in his 20's. As for his performance? Let's just say that if you closed your eyes, you would have thought you were listening to one of his earliest performances of the piece under the baton of Leonard Bernstein or Aaron Copland himself. He was completely undiminished from his peak, it seemed to me. It was, to use that much over-used word these days, awesome.
I should add that Drucker, for all his prowess as a virtuoso and a powerhouse player, is also one of the most sensitive and intelligent clarinet players you'll ever hear. The guy has it all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-07-15 05:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWyQvSBduTg
A clarinet group playing, Drucker doesn't have a bright sound here. At least to me it isn't.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-07-15 06:23
Great link Bob, thanks. I liked the piece, as well as Drucker's sound - and his rhythmic incisiveness.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-07-15 09:11
Thanks Phillip! I also enjoyed all of the players. Drucker as usual performed so well. That piece is not easy and Drucker is moving around the chair like a 16 year old. I thought John Yeh at the beginning of the 3rd movement was having a bad reed day when he started banging his feet on the floor! It was a fun piece. All of the players performed so well. Beautiful bass clarinet playing, such a massive full sound.
Did anyone know that this is John Yeh's 40th year with the Chicago Symphony? He only looks 40 years old! Maybe Chicago hired him when he was 2 years old or something!
He was hired in 1977 during his second year at Juilliard as a bass clarinetist. Then he studied with Marcellus and took other classes at Northwestern, while playing with Chicago, then Juilliard granted him his well deserved degree. A cool guy for sure.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Exiawolf
Date: 2016-07-15 11:33
Firstly, it's interesting to see all of this conversation. Especially about the VERY large difference between a recorded sound and what's heard in person. It both makes me sad because for the most part I'll have very little opportunity to hear the world class players that I look up to in person. But on the bright side, I know that I sound better than what I hear from myself on my phone!
Lastly, Mr. Bernardo, would you mind if I emailed you a few quick questions?
Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-07-15 19:31
"Are there professionals players winning jobs at this time with such a vibrant style of sound?"
I'll say perhaps less so today than a couple of decades ago.
"I also realized that my Greg Smith mouthpiece (a Chedville 1) seems to play with this style of sound. "
Quinton, while I certainly would agree that we may sound differently on different mouthpieces, I also believe that different players might sound differently on those mouthpieces as well--so its' a combination of player and mouthpiece that makes the sound people hear. I'm sure you agree.
As for Mr. Drucker---first my biases. Stanley deserved every accolade he got IMHO. He also faced critics (many of us arm chair warriors like me who could never come close to even matching him) regarding his sound and intonation.
That said, I personally prefer the sound Jon Manasse makes, or even that of Stanley's wife Naomi (and she plays a Bernie Vandoren hand gifted from the "special drawer" Vandoren B45). But to paraphrase Mr. Drucker, it was his interpretation of music that had him stand out.
'Many players can handle the technique, but not all are musicians.'
I might take this sentiment with a grain of salt if Mr. Druckers technique wasn't his strong suit, but I think most of us agree that his technique was one of his strengths.
If the ultimate goal here (it may not be) is to get hired, try to know who the reviewing panel is and the things they like. For example. I might interpret a piece differently sitting in front of Hawley than I would McGill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-07-15 20:32
Exiawolf wrote:
> for the most part I'll have very little opportunity to hear the
> world class players that I look up to in person.
You need, though, to make opportunities for yourself to hear at least good playing in person. It's not the "world-class" players on whom you model your basic concept. Good players' sound is good sound. You can't build a realistic sound concept by listening to recordings, even of "world class" players. I don't know what orchestral players there are to hear in the Tucson area (your location in the header of your message), but Phoenix isn't so long a drive and you can hear not only the Phoenix Symphony but orchestras that visit there on national tours. Maybe U of A in Tucson hosts visiting orchestras as well.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-07-15 20:45
"WhitePlainsDave,"
VERY good point about targeting to your audience. I am a fan of a story from Leon Russianoff who told of his days listening to auditions at Eastman. He could always count on one particular string playing adjudicator to be most praiseful of the clarinet candidate that sounded most like a train going over a trestle. Point being, you may have had a bad review from one judge but another may think you walk on water.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-07-15 21:21
Exiawolf - sure, email me anytime, savagesax@aol.com
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dennis Joseph
Date: 2016-07-15 23:05
This is a really interesting thread and made me join this board - so hello to everyone.
I am a former student of both Naomi and Stanley and a friend of Jon Manasse. I studied with Naomi in high school and Stanley when I went for my DMA. I've heard Stanley play up close in dressing rooms, concert halls, recording sessions, etc. since I was 13 (I'm now 51).
I've heard all the criticisms about his sound, his tone, intonation, etc. I love Stanley's tone. It's big, it's warm...and has gotten warmer in the last decade or two . . . it is bright, no question, and also resonates like crazy. And yes, I do think it doesn't record as well as he actually sounds.
Also, while his technique and his articulation are beyond what humans should be capable of (not to mention his rhythmic intensity and precision), it's his phrasing, his musicality, that completely blows my mind.
I've heard him perform the Copland, the Mozart and the Brahms Sonatas numerous times live. It's NEVER the same piece twice. It's not even the same piece from rehearsal to rehearsal.
I was with Stanley in the dressing room when the principal players of the NYP were recording the New York Legends series. Joe Robinson (oboe) was onstage recording (I think it was the Schumann Romances, and not sure that made it to his album). Stanley was warming up on his Bb and A, changing reeds. Each time he put the horn (Bb or A) in his mouth, he played right along with Joe wherever he was in the piece, and played around the melody like a jazz player. I also play jazz (got my Master's in jazz sax) and was blown away by what I was hearing.
I said to him, "Stanley - you would have made a great jazz player." He gave out his short laugh and said, "maybe in the next lifetime."
I recently heard him perform the Mozart Concerto - at age 86. Still sounds great.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-07-15 23:06
Dear KDK, In Tucson, there was the fine English clarinetist John Denman: a complete original with fabulous technique. I suppose he had been influenced in terms of sound by Jack Brymer. He left us about 15 years ago and I have fond memories of him.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Exiawolf
Date: 2016-07-16 01:51
In regards to hearing good playing, I very much make every effort I can when possible. I go to listen to the Tucson Symphony, I go to quite a few U of A performances (Orchestra, Wind Endemble, Student and Faculty recitals), as well as seeing some other EXCEPTIONAL orchestras when on your with my local youth orchestra (LA Phil and San Diego). I just realize now that some of my favorite recorded players (all of completely different sounds and styles) I won't be able to hear until I'm able to go out and study in an area of musical culture. I do what I can here in the dessert, and practice as much as possible, however I really look forward to going elsewhere to study (either for undergrad or graduate school)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-07-16 09:55
Dear Exiawolf, Your enthusiasm warms the heart. Tucson, as you mentioned, is no cultural or musical backwater. It has always had many artists: musicians, writers, painters, etc.., and even a "counter-culture" scene. Nevertheless, when you're young, it is always good to go elsewhere: nobody is a prophet in his own country. In this "thread" people almost exclusively mention American clarinetists. There are fine clarinetists in other parts of the world as well. Personally, I've been very impressed by the Italians. Even some very small provincial opera houses and conservatories have some fabulous clarinetists. Good luck and keep in touch! -Ruben (originally from...Tucson)
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-07-16 13:45
Dear Dennis Joseph,
You would be the person to ask. So when you are up close to Mr. Drucker, does that sound have any unusual characteristics to it such as, lots of air, or some sort of pulsing? I have heard players in the category of "hard to record" describe their sound as "spinning out."
The other issue with the live vs recording is the one of vibrato. I know that Mr. Drucker had said in some context (forgot if it was a recorded interview or print) that he does not use vibrato. And yet in many recordings it sure sounds like it.
To add to the mystery (for me), when I saw his performances of the Brahms Quintet, Berio Domains and the Mendelssohn duet, he did not move around a lot (of course typical of most US players) such as bobbing or weaving so that cannot be a factor.
I really do want to understand the phenomenon better.
One thing is for sure, NO clarinet records the way it sound in person. The clarinet is more of a "boundary" than it is a point source like trumpet. Microphones cannot do it justice.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-07-16 18:27
I don't believe that "no clarinet records the way it sounds in person." I've heard the same thing said about piano, string, and voice. However, opinions among music lovers diverge on this. Results depend on various things. Modern technology, widely applied over the last decade or more, records and plays back levels of detail that are inaudible to the human ear.
My own experience is not large, but my ears are fine, and as far as I can tell, Charles Neidich in person sounds like Charles Neidich on recordings, and so does pianist Garrick Ohlsson, and so do a good number of other musicians in various genres. And the BSO, sounds BETTER in recordings than it does live, to name one orchestral example.
I suspect people get caught up in the concert hall experience, which is a phenomenal thing and not subject to recording, but I seriously can't hear anything from a live performer that I can't hear from a good recording played back on decent equipment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-07-16 18:57
Well I say this as an aspiring recording engineer.
Funny you should mention piano. Though you "get the idea" in recordings, the "presence" and "personality" are missing. A live piano recital by a fine pianist can be almost mind blowing. That never happened to me listening to a recording.
Here is the thing about microphones. They pick up what is happening at one point in space. Your ears can let you know WHERE something is in space. And this is not just a binaural experience (stereo). They also are pretty good about letting you know whether something is up or down. Microphones and "stereo" set ups don't do that.
Getting back to a point source: We then amplify back to you what the mic heard through amplification and a set of speakers. It's easy to see already how much information is missing and distorted in this picture. This is part of MANY reasons why Sergiu Celibidache refused to "officially" commit most of his conducting career to recordings.
And a point I didn't make (above, in this thread) that adds to the confusing sonic picture of clarinets over other woodwinds is the wave form. It generates a sound that is about a foot and a half LONGER than the length of the clarinet. It is a stopped cylinder (like an organ pipe) with the wave form actually folded over upon itself. So even though other woodwinds can't be said to have a certain note just pop out of a certain tone hole, the clarinet is even more dependent on a large area beyond the instrument to create it's effect.
Recordings of clarinets is analogous to a courtroom sketch. At least until recording takes a much more significant leap than it has (which is still based on technology from the 1930s).
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarii2
Date: 2016-07-17 06:19
could i add my unscientific 2 cents worth. i'm 73 and everyone in nz just loves my big "american" sound on my 59' r-13. now clarinetists sound "globalized" to what i call new age sensitive. i can just hear stubbins say "hell paul just blow the damn thing!"
i believe the electronic tuner that arrived around 1965 has had a great influence to do with the new sound. to match the tuner one must relax the embouchure. in my day and before, tone came first and tuning came second. remember the tuning ring? just watching the old pros play you see how firm their embouchures were. and they often played sharp on upper clarion notes!
about 1975 i played in a week festival in Seattle tutored by david shiflin. i wasn't that impressed by his sound but was super impressed by his perfect intonation. the new generation sound.
perhaps those of you who studied and played pre-tuner would like to comment. paul king
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2016-07-17 11:15
I played the Mozart Requiem with Paul about 10 years ago... he let me play his R13 (mentioned above) and despite worn keys etc, the sound was so vibrant and "ringy" that I offered to buy the clarinet off him right there and then.... it was NOT for sale. The only other player in NZ that I've heard match his sound was the former Principal of APO- who studied with Marcellus and had such a ring at PP you could hear him from the back of the hall....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dennis Joseph
Date: 2016-07-17 23:12
Hi Paul:
There's no air escaping from Stanley's embouchure, if that is what you meant and I've never noticed a pulsing. He does use vibrato - I've heard it too regardless of what he says. He doesn't move much, but he does move some - mostly and up and down motion, not so much bobbing and weaving (which I am forever guilty of as much as I try not too).
I also agree with the later comments about pianists. Yefim Bronfman is a close family friend and no recording captures the unbelievable touch and sound that he has - particularly in lyrical, sensitive passages.
Dennis
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2016-07-18 18:30
I've been thinking about Paul King's comments:
>I believe the electronic tuner that arrived around 1965 has had a great influence to do with the new sound. To match the tuner one must relax the embouchure. In my day and before, tone came first and tuning came second.
Paul raises a good point.
I remember my school days on the clarinet in the 60s and early 70s, and there was definitely a focus on intonation-up to a point. Those were the days when teachers preached the tight pulled back embouchure (almost a smile), something I've moved far from. Playing sharp on upper clarion notes (as viewed from a Stroboconn) was almost a badge of honor, and playing flat was an embarrassing disgrace!
Back then, and during my college and grad school days in the 70s and early 80s, I studied with a number of highly regarded teachers. I never heard a single one discuss the flat tendencies of the low E and F. That's just how the clarinet was, we got used to it, seldom thought about it, and never questioned it. It's only in recent years with the development of the correction key that clarinet players began to think about the intonation on these notes.
Going back 40 years and more, the only tuners that were in common use were the Conn Stroboconn (I just read that they came out in 1936) and others like it such as the Peterson. It was very common to see them in band rooms, but they were not items the average person owned. In many ways, these old tuners were far superior to the small inexpensive ones commonly used today-and more accurate too. With the strobe tuners, you could actually see the tuning for the different partials within a note.
I still remember my days as a young band director in the late 70s and early 80s, and was excited to purchase a Korg electronic tuner from Leon Russianoff's business in New York for the super low discounted price of $125!
For those interested in reading more about tuners, Wikipedia has a great article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner
A YouTube trip down Conn Stroboconn memory lane:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_sdNdnaHzs
Post Edited (2016-07-18 18:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2016-07-18 18:47
Stroboconn . . . that sure takes you back! Even in the misty '70s, though, they had the black T-shirts that read "Tune it or die," and the people you played with were not very supportive if you were out of tune. And there are still plenty of players with great intonation and big, round, powerful, ringing sounds. If there's a change, it might be in the number of conductors who want to be the ones to decide whether the clarinet stands out or not, and aren't shy about making their preference known.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2016-07-20 02:11
I've just listened to the background music for the entire first season of Daniel Boone (Fess Parker, mid 1960s) and there was some great woodwind playing with excellent intonation (including lots of unison amongst the woodwind, and a little spot with Bass clarinet duo- sounded like the 2nd bass cl had to pick up the instrument for just a handful of notes, while the first player had an exposed solo). Over the years I've read in various interviews that these old soundtracks were sightread in the recording sessions, which would explain the (very very infrequent) untidy moments.
I love the sound, the musicianship is incredibly impressive, but sadly I would not be welcome in the various orchestra I perform with if I played with that tone quality. Darn it.
Post Edited (2016-07-20 03:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
