 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Evan
Date: 1999-07-07 03:01
When the composers that we all love and respect so much were writing music for the clarinet, they were writing for a particular sound. That sound is not heard in todays symphony orchestra. The sound that has gone is that of a straight bored clarinet. By no means am I saying that the r-13, the opus or concerto are not wonderful sounding clarinets with their poly-cylinderical bores, but they are not what our composers were looking for. I am also not saying that symphonic players should play only straight bored clarinets, I just think is rather ironic to respect composers works so much, and then make the different as a practice. Because the sound of a straight bored clarinet is brighter, popier and more edgy than a modern clarinet(probably why jazz players like them so much). So anyway this id just food for thought, do not take it to seriously.
Evan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Daniel
Date: 1999-07-07 04:56
Actually, the long dead composers had completely different clarinets in mind when composing. Some were writing for 2 key clarinets. Others 3 key, 5 key, Müller system, Albert system, Õhler system, etc etc etc. So if you want to take the stance that players should perform on the type of clarinets the composers intended, you're really asking everyone to go out and learn how to play less sophisitcated systems and models of clarinets. Not simply straight bore clarinets. And actually the Õhler system clarinets had tapered bores like the R-13, et al, except in larger dimentions, long before the R-13 came out. Also, people would have to learn how to play with the reed on top, buy many different mouthpieces to accomodate different kinda of clarinets. etc etc etc
So, even if players had a set of straight bore clarinets as well as polycylindrical bore clarinets, they still wouldn't be able to produce the sound that most composers were writing for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 1999-07-07 06:39
As posted to Tim2(next posting),Charles Neidich seems to use straight bore clarinet.The difference is astonishing.But I like both of Neidich tones and Harold Wright's darker tones.Maybe,my small hand will not be able to handle Neidich's clarinet key work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 1999-07-07 18:55
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I was under the impression that the diameter of the bore affected the darkness or brightness of the tone more than whether or not it's a straight bore. I thought a wider bore meant a darker tone, while a narrow bore meant a bright tone with lots of audible upper partials that project more. My 1937 Buffet has a straight bore, but also a wider bore than a modern Buffet. Mine has a very dark, mellow tone that I like a lot. Most modern clarinets sound shrill to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: STuart
Date: 1999-07-07 21:05
This bore stuff is facinating. Where do you guys get all these cool old clarinets?
I wanted to ramble on composer intent with regards to sound. This information is very helpful when understanding a piece and the composers mind. I got a whole new insight hearing the Harnacourt recordings of Beethoven. But in my humble and definitely outside opinion, I don't see why clarinetists chase after history so much. When I play a piece, I want all of it to be in the PRESENT. Composed, semi-composed, or totaly improvised, the music must be in the moment. If the spirit moves you to be bright or dark, go ahead. I mean, between tempo markings, well-tempered pitch, dynamic markings, what kind of creative input are you getting? (This is only one argument, as a composer I would say close to the opposite, as an audience member I've also been thrilled by interpretations).
The sensation of being in the moment is powerful but all too rare. I believe this is fundamental to our place in society. What inspires you guys to play?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-07-07 21:14
STuart wrote:
-------------------------------
When I play a piece, I want all of it to be in the PRESENT.
--------
Stuart,
going back to the "more or less" original instruments brings the piece "back into the present", since you're going to hear it fresh and anew! Give a listen to Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music - it's fresh!
You're the one reminding us to keep our ears and minds open. Make sure that you do, too - and re-listen to how it might have sounded "way back when". It might lead you back to the future :^)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-07-09 07:10
Hmmm...going back several months to the discussion of Benny Goodman playing Mozart's clarinet concerto at Tanglewood, I recall some complained of his tone being "too bright." Perhaps Goodman was closer than we might like to believe to what Mozart actually intended. Food for thought.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
