Author: cjwright
Date: 2007-01-09 08:05
Wow, some very heated words, and I'd caution you of your generalizations.
I used to think that the American sound had changed a great deal, but now I am becoming less convinced the change is less drastic.
Let's first start with you're Tabuteau accusations. I think we need to remind ourselves of three things.
1. The recording equipment back then really reaLLY REALLY was terrible back then.
2. The concept of vibrato was quite different back then. If you listen to Isaac Stern's playing then, and his later stuff, it's like black and white. Similarly, his sound, overtone series, etc, is much more nasally, which makes me believe that since his hardware didn't change over the year, the recording equipment did.
3. Did I mention the recording equipment back then REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY was terrible?
I have the Tabuteau Mozart Divertimento, the Tabuteau Bach double, the Tabuteau orchestral excerpts, the Tabuteau Quartet, and the Tabuteau lessons. Obviously the lessons are the most recent, but it's incredible to hear how even that, taped on a crappy cassette recorder, sounds so much better than the other recordings.
Before I go further into my dissertation, keep in mind that was recorded from 5 feet away, where other recordings were made at different distances, which drastically change the color and tone of the recording.
I've studied with three direct Tabuteau students (Mack, Robinson, and Mr. Stolper), and they've all said the same thing; there is no recording which captures his true sound, and subtle nuances in his playing. I believe this to be true, as even the latest technology could faintly capture the deLancie/Caldwell "phrasing loop", a subtle yet very graceful phrasing structure that I have never heard in any non-North American oboist's playing (the reason is the absolute necessity of responsiveness in the reed with little or no embouchure support, but that's another topic.) With this in mind, I am stating that I don't think it's possible for us to judge Tabuteau's playing with any of the recordings available to a precise degree, but to admire the legacy he left, and take into consideration the first person testimonies of him. (Such players as Arnold Jacobs and other Curtis students and teachers, some of the finest in the world, took lessons from Tabuteau for his phrasing, and they didn't even play oboe.)
The deLancie "noise" is what others consider an extra "ring" around his tight, pure "core' of sound. Some hate it, other's like me love it. Whether it's great or not is beside the point, but it was part of his sound, and of all of Tabuteau's students, it was perhaps de Lancie who was considered the direct "Philadelphia purist" in the lineage of Tabuteau.
The final note I will make is that if you believe Mack to sound exactly the same, then I'm not sure what recordings you're listening to. Go out and get your hands on these recordings:
1. Casals Festival with Mack playing the Brandenburg 1 and 2, available on Sony.
2. The Crystal Recordings. There's 4 of them if I'm not mistaken. Even within these four you hear his sound changing.
3. The Mozart Concerto Recording available on London. This is probably closest to the sound that I heard him last (back in 2002), and was recorded in the 90s.
4. Other Cleveland Recordings. The Shosti 5/Rite of Spring with Maazel is good, as is the Mahler 9 recording put out in 1998?
If you sample all of these recordings, or even half of them, I think you'll hear a LARGE degree of change.
I could give you a list of recordings for Robinson as well, but I think this is enough to start you off.
I might edit this post later.
|
|
Keepers
