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.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
