 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2018-11-01 21:31
In another thread, the following assertion was made.
"today's young clarinetists, on the whole, are more technically advanced than any other generation."
Note the qualifier, "on the whole." I've gotten a similar impression of other instrumentalists. Many performers now, even in lower-tier positions, have techniques that would blow away some of the famous names from the earlier days of recording. That's not universally so; there have always been truly spectacular techniques here and there, as people with extreme talent were sometimes compulsive practicers in every era. But generally speaking, my ears agree with the assertion.
The same kind of thing is said in sports, though there the issue is clouded by today's widespread use of performance enhancing drugs.
Do you agree? Is the current generation of symphony and solo clarinetists better technically than were those of Wright, Gigliotti, Drucker, Bonade, McLane, Marcellus, etc? We are blessed to have recordings to make some comparisons, but some posters here worked or studied side-by-side with high-level people from several generations.
Why would technique get better? The basic human physics are the same, no? - and I see little evidence that people in general are getting smarter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetRobt
Date: 2018-11-01 21:42
On a whole: I disagree. I'll concede some individuals have taken the instrument to new technical levels. But as a whole, the entire community, the technical proficiency is lacking from what it was 30 years ago. (Looking at you HS music programs).
Even within my clarinet section from a small Texas town, our 3rd chair could out play the upper 10% in the region currently. I've been noticing this trend for the better part of 20 years.
So yes, perhaps the best of the best, is better. But the mean has fallen below previous generations.
~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: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-01 21:47
Since I will probably be in the minority, I'll just get this over with.
NO.
There were always (once the technical limitations of the instruments themselves became a moot point) fantastic musicians of the highest calibre. Paginini wasn't just good for his day, and Drucker IS not just one of the best of an older less technical generation.
I would say though that base line requirements for technique have gone up, where now double tonguing (or lightning single tongue) and circular breathing are becoming pretty standard parts of the repertoire.
But just like I am waiting for the next Karajan, there are few if any players today who can achieve the smooth singing qualities of Leister in his prime or the technical ability (and I mean the effortless bravado) of Drucker in his prime.
No offense intended to the millennial clarinetists out there. Sometimes truly great is just once every couple of generations.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2018-11-02 02:52
Hard to say anything about "on the whole," but I heard Dave Shifrin when he was in grad school and no, the hot young players these days don't have anything on him back then. Paul's right about the harder pieces demanding more now, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DaphnisetChloe
Date: 2018-11-02 15:23
As a younger player I'd have to vouch for clarinetists such as Frost, Morales and Kari Krikku pushing the limits of accuracy and virtuosity. However there are recordings of Drucker, e.g. his Corigliano Concerto, that clearly show a similar level of limitless virtuosity. And listening back to old recordings, definitely musicality and legato haven't improved. Leister's legato is better in his recordings (e.g. Spohr Concertos, Brahms Sonatas) than anything since!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2018-11-02 18:37
Philip Caron wrote:
> "today's young clarinetists, on the whole, are more technically
> advanced than any other generation."
>
> Do you agree? Is the current generation of symphony and solo
> clarinetists better technically than were those of Wright,
> Gigliotti, Drucker, Bonade, McLane, Marcellus, etc? We are
> blessed to have recordings to make some comparisons, but some
> posters here worked or studied side-by-side with high-level
> people from several generations.
The history of clarinet playing goes back much farther than the five you name, beyond the reach of recordings. We can't compare the technique of Aage Oxenvad, for whom Nielsen composed his clarinet concerto except that he must have been capable of meeting Nielsen's technical demands. We don't know much about how anyone played whose performing heyday was before the age of recording. Certainly, the technical demands of the repertoire have increased through the late 20th and 21st centuries, so clarinetists (and other instrumentalists) have more opportunities to display technical virtuosity than their predecessors.
I think a more meaningful comparison, which I'm in no way prepared to make, is between players who are not in the top tier today and earlier. Those who sit on audition committees of both major and regional orchestras might have a better basis for that kind of comparison, but those anecdote-based opinions still would not go back more than a couple of decades.
"High-level" players of any generation have been able to navigate the musical demands placed on them with clarity and control and to use that ability to produce meaningful music.
Head-to-head comparisons between specific players are pointless and take the discussion out of the historical realm into the world of opinion.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-11-02 19:27
I'm not sure. Sound wise the newer players in my opinion are behind. There are a lot more recordings now to expose talented players thanks to the internet. There are some great players now such as Bliss, Sabine Meyer, Frost, and several others. But the instruments and mouthpieces are holding them back from getting those great sounds of Marcellus, Gennusa, and Wright.
As some of you know I've openly complained about this. I truly believe a few players have this sound but are hidden in the orchestras and not being exposed. A lot of mouthpiece makers caused this.
As far as technique I think the newer players are indeed better than the older players in general. There are surely exceptions. Even here with the public schools dropping music programs we are seeing talented kids coming up. Are they as fast as players such as Drucker? Yes! Each decade someone new pops up and performs something unbelievable.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2018-11-02 19:56
Quote:
Why would technique get better? The basic human physics are the same, no? - and I see little evidence that people in general are getting smarter.
I think I'm the one who raised the premise that younger players are more technically advanced. So I'll answer.
Paul brings up Paganini, who's virtuosity was unmatched in the 19th century. Now, Paganini's caprices are required audition repertoire for an undergraduate degree in violin (they're even required rep for some clarinet auditions). I think it's enough of a sample size to show the trend in technique: the 19th century's greatest technical feats are the 21st century's commonplace.
One of the reasons for technique improving, then, is new and challenging works entering the canon. Paganini caprices, Rachmaninoff concerti, Francaix clarinet works, etc. get placed on audition, competition, graduation-recital repertoire lists, with the result that serious students simply have to confront them. Compare, for instance, the concours pieces from the Paris conservatory. In 1901 it was Rabaud's Solo de concours; in 2001 it was Donatoni's Clair.
Music, however, can't get much more technically difficult than Fernyhough. So who knows what will happen now that contemporary composition has backed away from high modernism's complexity.
Some other big trends:
(1.) Orchestral auditions moving to a blind or quasi-blind process. Rather than a private audition being set up based on Bonade's recommendation, we have a process that rewards (especially so in the early rounds) accuracy in pitch, rhythm, and technique. Serious students practice accordingly.
(2.) The use of technology in practicing. Students have access to thousands of recordings, metronomes, tuners, recording devices all on their phones.
(3.) Knowledge of more effective practice techniques. Sites like the bulletproof musician have increased awareness of smart practicing habits.
This, however, doesn't mean younger players are better than their older counterparts. Cahuzac was a great artist. For good or for bad, though, his Nielsen probably wouldn't advance out of the first round of a solo competition.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kalashnikirby
Date: 2018-11-02 20:49
Given that in nearly any other part of today's society, we see boundaries being pushed further and further I'd be surprised if that were not the case with musicians. Sure, the old masters can't be surpassed and all, but how come that for example with sports, yesterday's records are today's standard? And how is professional music any different from that, when auditions seem so extremely competitive (but I cannot comment on that's being an amateur, I only know what other pros tell me ..)
When already mentioning Leister, what exactly is better about his legato than Wenzel Fuch's? I listened to both their Reger Quintet recordings quite a few times and eventually liked Fuch's interpretation more, in particular the 2nd movement has a nicer flow and livelyness to it, IMHO (not that I didn't love Leister), as well as a brilliant legato. Maybe I'm still too young and don't have such a profound insight as pros, but to me it seems like romanticising the good old days if you seriously think that there are no players today that compare to those one or two generations ago.
From an economical point of view, there's indeed more competition than ever, and the same applies to clarinet making. It's near impossible to judge whether this means that virtuosity has improved or not. I suppose the average player might've gotten worse, with all the social media and internet stuff keeping them from practising. In fact, if I wasn't sitting in a train right now, there'd be no excuse for writing this trivial post instead of practising :D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2018-11-02 22:45
Hi Kalishnikirby. Is there really more competition today? I was under the impression that the market for classical music has declined and continues to. Does that not translate to fewer positions and performance opportunities, and that in turn into fewer practitioners? Perhaps the percentage of practitioners to positions sort of self-corrects to a stable ratio over time, but a smaller total number of practitioners would tend to lower the height of the curve, no?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2018-11-02 23:03
Philip Caron wrote:
> Hi Kalishnikirby. Is there really more competition today? I
> was under the impression that the market for classical music
> has declined and continues to. Does that not translate to
> fewer positions and performance opportunities, and that in turn
> into fewer practitioners?
I don't think the university music departments have reduced the number of graduates they produce. Back in the 1940s and mid-'50s there weren't nearly so many degree-granting colleges training instrumental musicians. Most of the major players in the U.S. back then were the products of Curtis Institute, Julliard and perhaps a handful of other conservatories. It's my impression that European players most often came from their national conservatories. So there were far fewer trained players then than now. Meanwhile, at least in the U.S., orchestras have folded, even paid regional and local part-time orchestras that supported the "free-lance" market. So, I very much doubt that there are any fewer players looking for work than there were in the 1970s and '80s.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kalashnikirby
Date: 2018-11-03 11:14
Phillip,
At least here in Germany, there is a slightly growing attendance to classical concerts. Whether it is a "boom", I'd doubt that, but at least things aren't going as terribly as they could.
State funding on the other hand has declined slightly. But in reality, few other branches are subsidized like that.
Try to Google translate that: https://www.zeit.de/kultur/musik/2015-01/klassik-branche-publikum-zukunft
This trend continues, so from a purely economical point of view, there's enough demand for professional music, I might even say "more than ever". But being a supply-demand mechanism, this is completely distorted by a crazy big supply of professional musicians, thus any orchestral position has more than enough
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: shmuelyosef
Date: 2018-11-04 05:35
I have the same impression, but I believe that there is just better exposure. I'm more familiar with jazz and folk clarinetists than symphonic, but there seem to be a lot more clarinetists and flautists who get recognition in symphonic settings than back in the mid-late 20th century. I think that it is media-based. It used to be only the string players that were celebrities, although wind players have long been the stars in jazz and several other genres. There are some awesome clarinet players well under 50 these days in this setting, e.g. Anat Cohen, Julian Bliss, Grace Kelly (who switched to sax)
Have you listened to Althea Rene on flute?...amazing
Post Edited (2018-11-04 05:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
