 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: McDonalds Eater
Date: 2023-10-02 09:07
I don't mean any negative connotation to this question; I'm simply looking for guidance for my ignorant self and wish to learn and appreciate more from the old masters.
I frequently see a great appreciation for the great players of the past: Harold Wright, Ralph McLane, Robert Marcellus, Louis Cahuzac, Yona Ettlinger, David Weber, etc. As someone who is young and grew up listening to exclusively modern clarinetists, I just simply don't get it. But I do want to know what made these players not just great, but legends.
For context: my favorite clarinet players growing up include Martin Frost, Ricardo Morales, Nicolas Baldeyrou, and Alessandro Carbonare, to name a few. My concept of sound up to this point had always been a round, smooth, dark, covered sound, one that sounds good up-close or for recording, almost Viennese-like. My interpretation of performing music had always been more on the entertainer side, extending the fortes and pianos to their absolute max, and making it obvious to the audience (perhaps forcefully showing?) how I was phrasing the music and trying to really make it super clear what I was doing with the music. I've never liked being a boring performer or playing "on the conservative side." Famous players today that represent this kind of playing and I try to emulate include Martin Frost, Kevin Spagnolo, and Giovanni Punzi.
It comes to no surprise that when I first heard Harold Wright, or any other name listed above, I did not like it. Again, I don't mean to trash-talk here, but to be frank, I simply thought it was boring, straightforward, and that the tone was narrow, thin, bright, or whatever other negative word you can think of. Yet, I constantly hear from my teachers and here about the beauty of their sounds and how it's some of the best clarinet playing they've ever heard.
I wish to change my way of listening in order to truly appreciate the masters. What about their playing made them great? Phrasing? Sound? As someone who's listened to only modern players, how can I change my listening habits to truly understand and appreciate Harold Wright for example?
My inspiration for this post came after a lesson with my teacher. He gave me a reed that felt as soft as paper and to me sounded like an electric beard trimmer or like bees buzzing inside my head while playing. It felt like I could not play louder than a mezzo forte and also felt very squared and edgy, contrary to the smoothness and velvetiness that I like. He said the sound was terrific and I still don't understand how or why. He then prompted me to listen to Wright and Marcellus, which brings me here.
I wish to understand. Any response is heavily appreciated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Marnix van den Berg
Date: 2023-10-02 14:29
In my opinion, paster masters are not better or worse than modern masters.
I grew up listening to a beat up CD of Walter Boeykens playing Weber concertos. Since then I can not help but associate his tone/playing style with those works.
Are there better recordings? Very likely.
To me it is the same as the adulation that some may have for past pianists (think Glenn Gould, Horowitz, etc..) and their gold standard recordings.
If you grew up listening to them (and they made a lot of great recordings, to be sure) you might enternally have that as the benchmark. And would always be comparing the new upstart modern recording to your prized, scratchy, mono vinyl recording...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2023-10-02 15:09
As Marnix said so well, by all means listen to players past and present. You will learn much, including what you like and don't like.
Importantly, don't denigrate players who have/had great reputations as this just makes you look naive - these players got there for a reason! Just learn to incorporate the best aspects and then be yourself, informed by the characteristics you have learnt from the players you admire.
Don't beat yourself up about what some players can do but you can't - find your own strengths! Many from my generation never learnt to double tongue or acquire circular breathing and for many of us it's too late!
One final piece of advice I would give is not to copy the setup or even the playing style of someone at the extremes - Steve Williamson with No. 5 reeds for example, the physical gestures of Martin Frost or the vibrato of Reginald Kell. It's sometimes best to look to players of other instruments or singers for example.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2023-10-02 17:32
Wright had an incredibly supple sound and was able to play with a great deal of nuance and varied color. There was a terrific amount of depth in his sound and he could really sing in any setting. While I greatly appreciate the color of his sound and mastery of the clarinet, perhaps his greatest attribute was that he was probably one of the greatest musicians to ever play the clarinet. I would put him on par with any of the finest most revered players on any instrument. The beautiful way that he could turn a phrase never fails to be breathtaking. His playing was never "in your face" or about being flashy. It was always in service to the music. He had a way of drawing the listener in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-10-02 18:26
Ed wrote:
> Wright had an incredibly supple sound and was able to play with
> a great deal of nuance and varied color. There was a terrific
> amount of depth in his sound and he could really sing in any
> setting. While I greatly appreciate the color of his sound and
> mastery of the clarinet, perhaps his greatest attribute was
> that he was probably one of the greatest musicians to ever play
> the clarinet. I would put him on par with any of the finest
> most revered players on any instrument. The beautiful way that
> he could turn a phrase never fails to be breathtaking. His
> playing was never "in your face" or about being flashy. It was
> always in service to the music. He had a way of drawing the
> listener in.
I'd like to support Ed's thoughts, rather than with verbiage, a link:
https://soundcloud.com/lucia-mcclarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-10-02 21:36
> My inspiration for this post came after a lesson with my
> teacher. He gave me a reed that felt as soft as paper and to me
> sounded like an electric beard trimmer or like bees buzzing
> inside my head while playing. It felt like I could not play
> louder than a mezzo forte and also felt very squared and edgy,
> contrary to the smoothness and velvetiness that I like. He said
> the sound was terrific and I still don't understand how or why.
> He then prompted me to listen to Wright and Marcellus, which
> brings me here.
>
> I wish to understand. Any response is heavily appreciated.
>
I can't speak with certainty for your teacher.
What I can say is that Weber, Wright, Cahuzac, and I believe McLane--perhaps more of the players you reference, were double lip players.
I've also read that Wright was fond of, at least when it came to Vandoren mouthpieces, the 5RV (maybe the Lyre version). Both are relatively closed tip mouthpieces used with a school of embouchure (French, i.e. double lip) known for the finesse with which one establishes the embouchure (perhaps with lighter reeds), not the brute force/biting by which stronger reeds on larger tip opening mouthpieces create sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-10-03 01:46
I have had similar experiences to the poster (most of us have I'd reckin'). After only playing about three years I heard my teacher Walter Wollwage (second clarinet of the Chicago Symphony at the time) play next to me in his studio. My first thought was, "Gosh at least my sound is better than that already!" Then there was a much more recent experience when a fine Dutch musician sent me a German mouthpiece and bunch of #2 1/2 Vandoren White Masters and asked me to just try it. My first thought was that is was like returning to being a rank beginner but I did play a bunch of excerpts and scale like exercises......then thought I put it down forever. The next day I realized in retrospect that I WAS getting the full dynamic range out of the mouthpiece and the sound was better than I had expected out of how it felt (like playing on a piece of paper).
I will suggest that listening MUCH MUCH more to live performances and being much much more aware of the sound others are producing when you are playing rehearsals and concerts will be profoundly educational. And like me, it may take many years to fully appreciate what is going on. You can shorten that time up though if you dedicate a good six months to what your teacher is showing you and THEN you may have a markedly different perspective. If not, carry on.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2023-10-03 19:56
What made players like Ralph McLane, Robert Marcellus, Louis Cahuzac, Yona Ettlinger, Harold Wright and David Weber "not just great, but legends?"
How about their ability to express themselves musically, in a highly personal way, on the instrument we all know and love? Isn't that enough for those who heard them perform, played with them, or studied with them to remember their artistry and create what you are calling a legend? Of the six named above, I heard four perform live and studied with one; the other two I heard only on recordings. I can name others from that bygone era (Reginald Kell, Gervase De Peyer, Jacques Lancelot, John McCaw), who were also, in my mind at least, superb instrumentalists and top-notch musicians deserving of the title "legend."
A partial answer to your question could be this: individuality. A unique approach. Distinct.
Paul Globus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2023-10-03 23:23
An excellent video on historical recordings and why they're enjoyable to listen to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFPW9ENtNKA&t=467s
A lot of older players recommend listening to Harold Wright, Robert Marcellus, David Weber, etc. because of their sounds. As you point out, though, things have changed. Moreover, I'm reminded of something Marcellus said in one of his masterclasses (available through Northwestern's website). A student asked about sound and Marcellus said (paraphrasing): "Any of you could sound like me on a single note. And if we had an audition on a single note, any of you could win. But if we had an audition on two notes, I would win." Because when we have more than one note, we have intonation, legato, expression, matching of tonal qualities through registers, etc. And what the goobers who recommend switching to double lip because Harold Wright played that way or spending tons of money on a Kaspar mouthpiece because Robert Marcellus played one don't seem to account for is that all of these aspects of their playing--expression, legato, and so on--are much more a part of their sound than how much of the 5th partial they have in their tone vs how much of the 7th partial they have as analyzed through a spectrogram.
The reason I enjoy older recordings was articulated much better than I could by the great pianist Alfred Brendel. In his essay, "Notes on a Complete Recording of Beethoven's Piano Works," Brendel writes:
Quote:
At first a convenient means of preserving the fleeting, unrepeatable impression of a performance, the record, and with it the recording artist, soon laid claim to greater things: all elements of improvisation must stand back in favour of an ideal peformance, a definitive recording divested of any fortuitous aspects. The taking of risks, for which one needs self-confidence, lost its attraction and relevance. The image of the machine in its impassive efficiency gained power over many minds; it became an obsession to strive for perfection. In mistrusting their own nature, artists denied themselves access to the nature of music.
When I hear a Furtwangler, Casals, or perhaps even a Cahuzac recording, I feel as though I'm listening to a performance, playing that's "saying something." As that Early Music Sources video I shared argues, modern recordings tend to aim for something different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-10-04 01:52
brycon,
Thanks for sharing the link and paraphrased quote. That's great stuff and helps clarify a few things for me! (The use of piano in the examples greatly simplifies things too.)
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2023-10-04 03:22
Quote:
A partial answer to your question could be this: individuality. A unique approach. Distinct.
Each of the great players mentioned in some of these posts were quite unique and often very easy to distinguish from one another.
One fantastic resource for anyone wanting to gain some knowledge of many great players of the past is https://rharl25.wixsite.com/clarinetcentral
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-10-04 18:39
In no way do I wish to diminish the contributions of the artists of memory discussed in this thread prior.
Personally, my first recording of classical clarinet was an album of the Mozart by Cahuzac that formed the basis of what, even to this day I consider a sound I wish to emulate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bTrFNwCO0.
But I also believe that there are other factors at play that elevate these past player's celebrity, the primary one these additional factors, above their remarkable play, being-well--that they're no longer with us. Their, upon death, now finite body of work plays into emotional factors that are better described, I think, by others than myself:
https://iask.ai/?mode=question&q=why+do+we+covet+dead+artists+over+ones+that+are+alive
Not that anyone here has sold today's top artists short, but I trust that in these current artist's ultimate passing, hopefully many years from now, that these modern players will too will take on a mystique that may elevate them above their living, no less able, virtuosic counterparts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2023-10-05 06:27
I'm certainly no expert, but I'll propose that one reason could be that there weren't like a million players that could play at their level way back then-- like there are today. I always knew in the '70s that there were tons of great players, but since I've been promoting my book to advanced players, you wouldn't believe the literally countless of incredible resumes I've read.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
Post Edited (2023-10-05 06:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-10-05 06:52
I would counter that past eras had far more accomplished players if only due to the larger number of ways to earn a living in music; dance bands, professional municipal concert bands, speakeasies, whorehouses and the like. Take a look at some of those old band transcriptions from the early 20th century. How many folks today can play all those violin parts?
But I did want to make a point about “older players” and their recordings. You can begin to HEAR what’s going on better if you compare one old recording to another. That is just take one phrase of the Mozart and compare Cahuzac to Reginald Kell, or Robert Marcellus to Harold Wright. After a little of that is under your belt, you can throw in some recent folks and start to hear some meaningful comparison and contrast.
…………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2023-10-06 08:42
You make a good point Paul, though I was thinking specifically of classical players since those were mentioned.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2023-10-07 14:48
I think part of the old masters (specifically of the generation you mentioned), is that it was the first opportunity to record and mass produce/distribute the classics. Prior to that, this music was still being played everywhere, but the ability to play it at will was not available. The ability for those EARLIER (pre-harold wright, pre-cahuzac and pre-marcellus) to have an influence in a wide scale was not there.
And then it happened. With the rises in technology was an ability to hear the CURRENT top clarinetists (Harold Wright, etc.) to be recorded, and heard. And analyzed. And, most importantly, have a wide-spread influence on young clarinetists world-wide. An "american" school of playing was born and recognized. A "european" school. People could hear and emulate, and know how the TOP players played phrases.
I think that's the big deal with those masters. They weren't necessarily better, or worse than, the people before or after. But they were the first to have such a large and widepsread influence.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2023-10-07 18:48
I believe those "great" players had tones that were accepted as "the" sounds of the time. They had a great sense of musicianship in phrasing, control and sensitivity in their playing. Each in some ways may have had slight differences but all were examples to be followed at the time, and many still are. With that said, we have many equal today, concepts may be slightly different as time goes on and equipment changes and improves. There will alway be "great" players to follow examples of in every generation.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2023-10-10 02:05
I'm probably not too much older than you, and I had a similar experience with my teacher. Perhaps it was the same teacher.
After studying with him, I would say the following:
1) The sort of sound that we attribute to the old masters is, in my opinion, best described as radiant, colorful and full of life. I also enjoy the warmer sounds that are popular today, but I really feel like I'm missing something without the wild radiance of old "French" sounds, especially in orchestral settings, and I don't think this is well captured on recordings. There's a presence lacking from many 21st century sounds in live orchestral settings.
2) There's a sense with Harold Wright in particular that every phrase is carefully considered in such a way that it literally moves you. It's like his playing is governed by a musical law of physics in the way phrases are built. Nothing is arbitrary, and the pacing of phrases is very natural and governed by the structure of the music itself. He was just a profoundly excellent musician.
In contrast, sometimes musical expression today is just vibes. It might be carefully considered, but it often feels arbitrary to me. Phrases are full of unnatural rubato or strange swells, and the harmonic structure of the music isn't plainly evident.
To be clear, I dont spend my time trying to sound like Harold Wright, but I think it's important to be able to appreciate their playing, because the knocks on their playing are usually quite superficial. I find that most students focus too much on sound, and far too little on everything else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2023-10-10 05:31
Quote:
I find that most students focus too much on sound, and far too little on everything else.
That is an interesting observation. There are times when I listen to players and it seems that the musicality is somewhat stifled because they are afraid to risk not having the "perfect" tone and control.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2023-10-10 06:43
I feel the same. I think this is huge in the high intermediate/advanced world. From personal experience playing in Army band for 19 years, almost EVERY woodwind quintet or brass quintet I've met in this world has severely hampered their dynamics for fear of losing their tone. So they play from mp - f and are afraid to push to fff or ppp. So I (if I have the opportunity) often will start our first rehearsal like this.
"Alright... let's play this section as loud as we can. I want to find our dynamic ceiling... [after playing through the section].... Ok. Now let's play it twice as loud as we just did. EVEN more. ALL your air!"
Works to show them they have more in the tank every time.
Ed wrote:
> Quote:
I find that most students focus too much on sound, and
> far too little on everything else.
>
> That is an interesting observation. There are times when I
> listen to players and it seems that the musicality is somewhat
> stifled because they are afraid to risk not having the
> "perfect" tone and control.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Floydinoz
Date: 2023-10-12 02:54
re Harold Wright’s tone, it’s interesting to know that his reeds started with Vandoren blue box no. 5. And he did say that the Vandoren 5RV came closest to his mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-10-12 06:44
Floydinoz wrote:
> re Harold Wright’s tone, it’s interesting to know that his
> reeds started with Vandoren blue box no. 5. And he did say that
> the Vandoren 5RV came closest to his mouthpiece.
But keep in your thoughts that VD Blue Box (Traditional) #5s of those days and of today are very different reeds. They were much more responsive and playable back then. Whether Vandoren has changed the profile of their reeds or the cane is just harder today, the modern #5 reeds are much stiffer.
Karl
Post Edited (2023-10-12 09:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: glenndickson
Date: 2023-10-12 18:12
I wonder if the actual recording techniques/ production methods are a barrier for some listening to older recordings. Modern recordings have infinite possibilities for editing, sprucing up sound, etc. I find it takes a certain adjustment to "get inside" old recordings to understand the sound and really hear what is going on.
Glenn Dickson
www.glenndicksonmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
