 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-08-25 19:31
Yes, from the days when the big Clarinet Festivals were still recorded on tape, this is Wright at the top of his game: Depth, resonance, overtone complexity, color, shape, focus, lumenesence and musicianship all in one package. He does a grand spectacular performance of the Rossini without needing an extraneous extended cadenza, and his Bozza is deep and mysterious as it should be.
Sometimes I forget exactly why I think Wright is my personal favorite of all the clarinetists I've ever heard, but when I rehear tapes like these, then I remember why. Sadly he doesn't seem to have any real successors; there is no "Wrightian" school of clarinet playing to continue his line.
Post Edited (2016-08-25 21:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2016-08-25 21:59
The current principal of the BSO William Hudgins definitely has hints of Wright in his playing, but I agree with you Wright's sound sadly doesn't quite fit contemporary clarinet sound concepts.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2016-08-25 23:52
Wright had an amazing musicality and played with a remarkable sense of style, phrasing, nuance and color. His tone had an incredible flexibility and control and was very vocal in nature. Unfortunately, like any great musician, there was and is nobody who can approach his unique set of talents.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-08-27 10:54
I was introduced to him by an American friend and enjoy his playing immensely since.
Nevertheless, I didn't find the Rossini performance 100% convincing. Some high tones in the fast ending disappear and he makes some odd pauses (for breathing?) that disrupt the rhythm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-08-27 21:57
Johan, I noticed those blemishes too. The altissimo notes that don't speak are curious (3 E's and one G). It reminds me of an instrument problem, like water in a key, but I can't imagine that on those notes. I had to listen again to focus on the slight pauses in the intro that seemed to be breath related, but yes, they do slightly alter the rhythm. Further, to my taste, the slow section was fast.
However, for me those things pass essentially unheeded in the flow of so much that sounds incredibly good. I've not heard playing like this from anyone else. Wright's combination of strengths was unique.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-08-31 06:03
Hi Johan. I've long admired Sabine Meyer's version, which was included on her commercial release of operatic style works. She's one of my favorite players, and this is one of her really good recordings. Another very brilliant version of the Rossini is that by Charles Neidich (also on YouTube.) They are among the awesome technical clarinetists of today.
I admire Harold Wright for other reasons. He seemed at times to transcend the instrument. I've long enjoyed the recorded sounds of Leister, Sabine Meyer, Marcellus, Morales, and others, and Wright's is possibly the most unusual of those great sounds. His playing may not have been quite as brilliant technically as some others (though it is certainly at a very high standard), but his sound across registers and dynamic ranges was bewitching, and his expression seemed to go to the basic essentials of a piece - deceptively simply - so familiar music could sound magical and new.
It's great to have such excellent different versions to listen to and be inspired by.
Of Wright's other recordings, I especially admire the Mozart Quintet with the BSO chamber players (better than the one(s) with the Julliard quartet), the Brahms sonatas with Peter Serkin (better than the ones with Goldsmith), the Weber Quintet from Marlboro, and Schubert's Shepherd on the Rock with Serkin & Valente.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2016-08-31 19:55
Quote:
His playing may not have been quite as brilliant technically
I think that Wright perhaps did not seem as "flashy" as some other players. To me, his technique was never technique for technique's sake. It was always in service to the music. It never seemed flamboyant. You never hear Wright play something at a breakneck tempo just because he could.
At the same time, his technical command was second to none. It was always precise and clean and seemingly effortless. At the same time it always had a lot of shape, nuance and artistry. I think it was partially the effortless aspect that makes his playing so understated. His total mastery and musicality makes it all sound so easy.
Post Edited (2016-08-31 19:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-09-02 01:42
Phil,
Yes, we listen to different players for different reasons. What I like most with Harold Wright is his way of playing the instrument in a "human" way, allowing the tone to be brittle and sensitive. It gives his performances more of a personality. When you listen to Karl Leister or Sabine Meyer, they are so perfect, skillful and glossy that you get intimidated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-09-03 07:03
Johan, Neidich's version impressed me the same way: wow, he can really play. He is also musical, again at a very high level, but his technique obviously imbues much of what he does.
I think that's natural. If someone CAN play extraordinarily well technically, they will often be playing that very way. It isn't a matter of showing off or exhibitionism, it's how they feel and experience the potential in the music. It's who they are. This notion came to me after many years of being a pianophile, listening to classical pianists. Criticisms are often levied at musicians like Cziffra, Horowitz, or Argerich that they're "all technique", but that isn't true, they just like(d) their music hot. Not everyone does. Of course none of them play the same all the time. They're very capable of great poetry and beautiful expression. But if the music can take more heat, the one's who can deliver it just will.
Which comes back to Harold Wright. He never played that way (as far as I know). Even though some of his Rossini and Bozza and Weber certainly sounds virtuosic, it never has that blowtorch quality. His technique matched what he wanted to do, and the result is (for me) uniquely marvelous. Likewise, the technique of Meyer and Neidich and other top players matches their natural inclinations. It isn't really about what they can or can't do, it's who they are.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-09-03 15:46
Phil, I understand your point but I disagree slightly on Neidich in this case. I feel he destroys the piece with his staccato. Compare how fluid it sounds in Sabine Meyer's version. She could tongue every note if she wanted. It is all a matter of taste, of course.
You are perfectly right that the interpretation reflects the musician's personality. If I heard Karl Leister play a vibrato I would think he was drunk. Vibrato is only for Fräuleins. :-)
Post Edited (2016-09-03 15:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-09-04 00:21
I enjoy many different artists' performances of the Rossini, including those of Wright, Meyer, and Neidich, for both their musical and technical accompishments. No single clarinetist can ever do "everything" with this peice in a single performance or interpretation.
Italian clarinetist Fabio Maini's performance brings out a distinct clarity and eveness of texture in all registers that may be missing from from many other top-flight, rapid renditions, and it's fun being able to watch him pretty close up from the side in this video as he meets the challenges each new section brings and always succeeds in placing each altissimo note distinctly as a musicial tone in the phrase rather than sounding like an unintended squeak:
http://www.youtube.com/results?q=Introduzione+tema+variazioni+per+clarinetto+Fabio-Maini,
Post Edited (2016-09-04 00:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-09-04 01:22
I once read an essay (though I can't recall by or for whom) on what the author argues were three archetypal forms of the virtuoso: the showman/woman (perhaps like Yuja Wang), the genius (similar to Glenn Gould), and the humanitarian (Yo-Yo Ma). Of course, these types aren't rigid; one performer may exhibit traits of several or all of them at various times.
One of the essay's points was that it isn't only a matter of how the audience perceives a particular performer but how the performer views him/herself. Seems many here disparage the showman-type of virtuoso, as though it's somehow a less valid form of performance than the deep-thinking interpreter; I often see the criticism couched in the phrase "He has great technique, but...". I wonder how much (if at all) this sort of thing is based on one's own playing and preference rather than a fair listening.
The Rossini isn't deep. It's entirely a show-off piece, which is why it's weird to see complaints of performers playing cadenzas or exhibiting their articulation: the music demands showmanship. (Is there any doubt 19th-century audiences would have expected a cadenza on the 6/4 chord?) I'd argue that a "musical" performance of Rossini is the one that takes more risks, faster tempos, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-09-04 02:05
It's a showpiece, to be sure, but I've always felt that Rossini's own variations, played exactly as written, ring the changes on the tunes so well that, at the end, there is little left to do other than bring the piece to a quick, rousing conclusion.
Most cadenzas at that point are likely to diminish the luster of the piece rather than enhance it. I've sat through several performances in which my personal response to an attemped cadenza has been "but Rossini already said all that; why are you saying it again, blah, blah"? Both Wright and Meyer bring the thing to a rapid close at the end, most likely because they thought that all that was worth saying musically and technically had already been said.
But I will allow for the chance that some genuis could manage to be even more technically brilliant and thematically explorative at the end in a knock 'em dead cadenza, but for now, I'll go with either a very short cadenza (like Maini's, which dishes up the operatic theme nicely one more time) or the sans cadenza approach of Wright and Meyer. I wouldn't want to reduce Niedich's pay for his longer cadenza, but my personal response to it is "you already showed us you can do all that stuff, maybe a lot better, earlier on, so why still more of it?"
Post Edited (2016-09-04 02:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-09-04 02:47
Fair enough, I can't argue with preferences; just pointing out that this particular one is contrary to performance practice and ideologically favors the composer to the performer in an interesting way.
Though, I should say, the point of the cadenza isn't to be "more technically brilliant and thematically explorative" (as though it were somehow a competition between composer and performer) than the preceding material. It's more about the drama of live performance--where the virtuoso can dazzle an audience with something they've never heard--than the aesthetics of music composition.
There's a nice (and short) Robert Levin video on youtube about improvising in Mozart concertos; maybe check it out. Among Levin's more interesting points is that many professional performers, who hold similar views to you (not saying they're bad, by the way--just different), have flipped the amateur/professional dichotomy on its head. In other words, today's professionals would have been the 19th century's amateurs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-09-04 23:25
Brycon, telling which version one prefers and explaining why is not complaining, so there's no need for you to complain... ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
