 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-06-01 22:15
In another thread, the OP writes:
"As compared to others in my studio, I stick out ... because I play with much more color in my tone than everyone else... "
In a lesson today, my teacher suggested that I try varying my tone color in several places in the piece I was working on.
In a review I read recently, a critic praises a pianist for the variety of tone color he is able to call forth from his piano.
Now, I have to admit my ignorance here. Just what is "tone color"? In fact, is there even an accepted meaning or is this another of those undefined terms that musicians use (and presumably know what it means to them) but which no one can actually define, like "bright" and "dark."
The way the OP uses the term suggests that it is an inherent characteristic of tone. The way my teacher and the critic used it, it seems more like a variation in sound that one is able to select from a palette.
So what is it?
I decided to start a separate thread because I didn't want to hijack Beth's.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2012-06-02 22:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-06-01 23:11
Portnoy has entire article on the subject.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2012-06-02 01:44
The link to the Portnoy article referred to above:
http://www.clarinet.org/Anthology1.asp?Anthology=10
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-02 01:46
As the Bard might have said-- Here in lies the rub...
In any generic discussion of tone color(ation) we rely on abstract comparative terms, and indeed there is no problem with that practice. Quite the contrary in fact! This illuminates what tone color(ation) actually is-- the variation of sound quality; no more, no less. The terms used are quite self-limiting in scope as we can little describe sound, but that is merely a deficiency of a spoken or written language.
However, in lieu of this deficiency, we often then find ourselves migrating towards the comparison of clarinetists. That is where problems can arise: we illuminate a single musician (or is that singular?, along with a "cult of personality") as an abstract measuring stick for what is an acceptable, or even the best, demonstration of the whole lot.
> If I were to point to a player who had a real master of a
> variety of tone colors, it would be Harold Wright. He had
> terrific control and a vocal quality that enabled him a
> flexibility and expression that was unsurpassed.
Buddy Wright most certainly had terrific control and flexibility over his "clarinet sound", along with an ability to apply it to the music as he saw fit. Can we call his work unsurpassed? That does put us on shaky ground....
First and foremost, it would seem that that assumption lies greatly in the eye of the beholder. I might agree with Wright's abilities, but disagree with the application. Or another listener might have an entirely different notion of what they expect to hear and flat-out oppose what Wright did.
A second issue, and the far more difficult one to grapple with, is defining what elements comprise a vocal style of playing. Does any example of Wright come closer to a "vocal style" of performance than the posted Benny Goodman clip? One might argue the exact opposite if their ears grew up with New Orleans, or jazz, clarinet records strewn about their bedroom. Or perhaps klezmer.
So what is to be made of this?
What can be defined as a "vocal style" is far more dependent on what is expected, or acceptable, in the music at hand. If performing Mozart, the styling of Sidney Bechet or Faz' would be a bit out of sorts. Conversely, if playing a NOLA jazz tune, the style of Harold Wright or Leister would be far off the mark. This "disparity" does not denigrate the ability any of the mentioned musicians, but merely displays the differing needs of their chosen genre. The comparison of musicians is quite limiting.
However, there is a nice side-effect of this seeming polarization. We can emulate the abilities of a "jazzer" or a "classicist" and expand our own palette. Certainly no harm can come of that.
Of course, knowing where to use all these elements is paramount in importance. But if you do get off the tracks in orchestra, your colleagues will let you know, along with the glaring conductor.
Or if you find yourself in a smoky bar, the front row will let you know just how square you sound.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-02 01:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2012-06-02 02:42
Would love to know what Beth Hildenbrand's teacher thinks of her assessment. Gotta love the internet.
We can write as many thousands of words as we like about tone and color, but we will ultimately run afoul of the ultimate unsharability of human experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bethmhil
Date: 2012-06-02 03:26
Thanks for not hijacking, Jack.
Just to clarify... when I say tone color, I don't necessarily mean variations in sound quality, as Jason put it. I just mean that my tone has particularly vibrant (bright?) qualities to it... I'm not saying my tone is better than everyone else's in my studio, let alone better than my professor's (!)... it's just different.
BMH
Illinois State University, BME and BM Performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-02 03:27
JHowell wrote: (in part)
> We can write as many thousands of words as we like about tone
> and color, but we will ultimately run afoul of the ultimate
> unsharability of human experience.
Amen.
Our words are oft impotent, and the internet is a vile mistress.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CuriousClarinet
Date: 2012-06-02 04:51
So is tone color something that can be changed and controlled quickly or is it something that is just developed steadly overtime? How can one change their tone color? I'd assume the usual answers, equipment, embouchure, etc, etc...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-06-02 12:19
In The Art of Clarinet Playing http://www.amazon.com/The-Clarinet-Playing-Keith-Stein/dp/0874870232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338638334&sr=8-1, Keith Stein has about as good a description as can be done in words. Chapter 10 discusses tone color and gives exercises. You can read it at http://books.google.com/books?id=EdvJ3JleBy4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=keith+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vP7JT-qjAvC26QGK-bUu&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=keith%20stein&f=false.
"How to do it" instructions are nearly meaningless. Just learn to do it. Listen to as many classical and jazz players as you can. When you hear an interesting sound, put the player on Pause and find a way to make it yourself.
Take a familiar tune and play it in many ways -- classical, sweet, angry, contemplative, nasty, lullaby, New-Orleans-down-and-dirty, runaway-freight-train, to-get-someone-to-go-to-bed-with-you. What's important is the mental image. Avoid thinking "how." Think "what" and your body will find a way.
For more, Google Arnold Jacobs and Tuba. Everything he says is pure gold.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-02 14:52
The really fine players make their tone sound like a fine singer. The clarinet is their voice and they change the tone color by "voicing". The use of the tongue, throat, breath support and embouchure. The one danger which I hear in some players is that the tone gets distorted in an attempt to "change" the color. The tone always needs to sound focused and rich but can change to various degrees. I'd rather hear a player with a good solid tone sing into the clarinet but not change the color much instead of someone that's all over the place, bright, dark, focused, unfocused, dull, vibrant. You get my drift. Some is good, in good taste it's great, over done, it bad. At least that's my opinion, short and sweet. Sing! ESP eddiesclarinet.com.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk ★2017
Date: 2012-06-04 07:37
All these answers are very valuable, but rather at the emotional side. Jack just asks for a definition. As a more objective answer I would like to say that tone color is the frequency spectrum of the sound produced. One could argue that attack and decay envelopes should be included, thus describing the complete sound as created in an analytical way.
With this definition in mind, it should be clear that everything that changes the frequency spectrum of your sound is influencing tone color. Think more or less overtones, added frequencies not fitting in the harmonic row, hiss or noise etc.
This is influenced by almost everything you use or apply while playing: air support, embouchure, reed choice, mouthpiece, bore dimensions etc.
The relative importance of the items influencing tone color is subject to ongoing debate (ie: 'Which mouthpiece/reed/ligature is the best for playing [fill in musical style]?'). Also, keep in mind that tone color experienced by the player him- or herself is differing from that heard by the audience.
See also the actual thread 'Tonal quality', started by Garth Libre.
Regards,
Luuk
Philips Symphonic Band
The Netherlands
Post Edited (2012-06-04 07:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2012-06-04 13:58
Ed,
I'm interested to hear an elaboration from you.
I hear often people say that one should 'sound like a fine singer' but I find that is again pretty subjective.
To me, the best singers are those who sing with many colors, change their sound to match an emotion or context, and sound as though they are telling a story.
Those who "always needs to sound focused and rich" tend to bore me.
Same goes with most other instruments. When I heard really great musicians on other instruments (Sergio Azzolini, Janine Jansens, Albrecht Mayer etc.) I do not hear a concentration on a full, round sound, but rather an induction into the music, through use of different sounds, articulations and everything else.
For one reason or another, I regret to see clarinetists obsessing over the holy grail of sound, while often missing the more important points of music because of it.
So, I pose these 2 questions to you:
Why shouldn't a clarinetist be "bright, dark, focused, unfocused, dull, vibrant" to capture the emotional state of a piece?
Why is "over done" inherently bad? (and a sub-question to that, would you ever tell a visual artist like Picasso or Richter that he is over-doing it?)
I look forward to reading your response
(btw, this is not a jab at you, these are questions that I've been muddling over for years living in such a sound-centric world)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-04 17:20
arattle, I totally agee with you. When I tell a student to play like a singer I'm not talking about their tone quality, I'm talking about being expressive and dynamic and dramatic when the music calls for it, In other words be musicial, play with feeling and emotion, when the music calls for. I don't like dull or ugly unless the music calls for it, if the composer asks for it. With that said, I don't think a clarinet player should sound ugly becaus they're trying to change their color, I don't think they should become unfocused and play flat in pitch changing color. I just always think they should play in good taste within the bounds of what the composer is asking for. If you're playing Gershwin you can gliss, if you're playing Mozart you should not. It all depends of the style of the piece and the tradition of the composer in my opionin. One of my former teachers, Eric Simon, told me never to play the Brahms Sonata like a certian player, I don't have to mention a name,because he said, "He slurps to much on the big intervals and takes to many liberties with the rhythm " That's a loose qoute. I think it's OK to change your color as long as it's done in good taste, the same with vibato, and it's for musical reasons not "just to be different". Remember too, there's a difference when playing the "classics" that have so much tradition. It's so differrent when one's playing some contempory music that calls for a different type of interpretation which also includes tone qualities.
As far as being overdone, as you called it, this is how I feel. Good tones can never be overdone, a well focuced tone can never be over done, a nice warm rich tone, with, some variety, can never be over done but a poor tone, an unfocused tone, a dull tone can be overdone and ugly and that means unpleasant to the listener. I really don't feel you can compare visual art to music. The picture is the finished product, it's there, you interpret what you see, but in music the performer interprets it for you first and it's different with each performer, both tone wise and musicially. I hope I've answered your questions. It's also a matter of personnal taste of course. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2012-06-04 17:55
Ed,
Thanks for the response, I have a few more inquiries now.
You say no one should sound ugly because they are trying to change color.
1) Why not. Rather, let me phrase it another way, is there never a situation where someone should want to not sound beautiful?
2) How can we define 'ugly' anyway. What makes one sound more ugly than another. I find if I do certain things on the clarinet they make a less beautiful tone, this tone is however sometimes more like an Oboe, or Bassoon, both instruments I find incredibly beautiful.
Same goes for 'unfocused'. I remember a long time ago when I was studying with a wonderful violist. He told me at one point to play with a lot more air in the sound, with much less focus. I told him that I'm not allowed to, and he told me that it complete bullsh*t. Now, I hear string players putting a lot of air in their sound, and diminishing the focus all the time. This often makes the playing fragile and breakable, an incredibly beautiful quality in the right circumstances.
Why are we limited? Can we not be fragile?
You say:
"Remember too, there's a difference when playing the "classics" that have so much tradition."
Most of the classics that we play, as modern musicians we have very little idea what the tradition was. Actually, more often than not, when I heard great historical performers, it sounds much more like contemporary music than most modern players offer. The classics are probably not a good example, because of this point. Maybe then we can stick to classics like Strauss and Wagner, because I believe we even haven't a clue about how to play Brahms 'traditionally'
Ok, my point with visual arts would be better stated like this:
Someone is a portrait painter, and paints something along the lines of Picasso. Now wouldn't telling this person that he's using the wrong perspective, the wrong colors, and that it's not clear and simple enough be similar to telling a classical musician to keep a 'good' sound, a 'traditional' sense or rhythm and phrasing, and to stay within the acceptable boundaries?
Sometimes, as a classical musician, I feel like instead of making art, I am asked to paint those fluff paintings of trees or a beach that get hung up in hotel rooms. Things that are nice enough, and don't offend anyone. Why is it that we (most of us at least) hate those paintings, yet we're happy enough to perform the equivalent in concert halls?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-04 21:15
I apologize for to resorting to "cite the famous performer."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veUJxETj7-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU7Tk_EiZTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9G4CyCbDY&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLEB426F61FFB0F73B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsZbGK9xwA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLM5CFACTtA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XP5RP6OEJI
All are vocal works, from skilled singers. Highly "emotive and sung with feeling", each in their own way, appropriate to the music. They are all "musical" performances.... yet they seem to violate the rules of adhering to a very restrictive sound concept and narrow palette.
***Does this make them poor and unacceptable renditions?
If that is the case, then should we be promoting the act of "playing in a vocal style" to other clarinetists, or our students?
***Or if the above links Are appropriate renditions, and we are promoting the act of playing like a singer to someone else, how do we limit them to what lies in the realm of "acceptable clarinet playing."
Are our personal views perhaps limited themselves? Merely promoting the act of playing in "good taste" is highly subjective and perhaps an egotistical manner of addressing the entire situation.
If one wishes to respond, please take the time to listen to, and digest, the posted clips. Otherwise no hope of an actual discussion can arise.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-04 21:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-06-04 23:26
There was an interesting exchange between Rostropovich and Karajan cited in "Beauty As I See It," a video homage to Herbert von Karajan. In the initial rehearsal of Strauss' Don Quixote, Rostropovich goes into a passage in a full out tormented sound on his cello. Karajan stops immediately and asks, "What are you doing?" Rostropovich answers that he is emulating the tormented character of Don Quixote to which Karajan replies, "You can't do THAT!!! It's not beautiful."
Beauty will always be in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-05 00:46
To srattle, "I don't like dull or ugly unless the music calls for it, if the composer asks for it. With that said, I don't think a clarinet player should sound ugly becaus they're trying to change their color, I don't think they should become unfocused and play flat in pitch changing color. I just always think they should play in good taste within the bounds of what the composer is asking for. If you're playing Gershwin you can gliss, if you're playing Mozart you should not. It all depends of the style of the piece and the tradition of the composer in my opionin."
I thought that already answered your question. It's from my original answer above.
Each of us has there own idea of what makes a good performance, there is no one fits all of anything. As far as art vs music, it's like trying to compare baseball to football. I love them both but their to different to make a comparison.
As far as my personal taste, I don't like ugly in anything. Music, art, my gardens, my children (I've been lucky there), but especially when I play my clarinet, I just don't want to ever sound ugly. That doesn't mean I won't sound harsh when the music calls for that, or loud or bright or mellow but never ugly if I have control over it. That's not to say I've never played ugly music, I'm in an orchestra don't forget. I can be expressive without having to do that and in my own opinion, I don't think anyone else has to either. But you know what, that's just me. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-05 01:06
Ed,
When promoting "playing like a good singer", or in a "vocal style", or even with "feeling and emotion" to a student, how do you define these terms?
And how do you choose what elements you confine them to, ensuring that they never step outside of the realm of the appropriate? (As you hear it?)
I cannot describe my emotions, and how I may choose to express them in performance. At times, I must play in a manner that is in opposition to my emotions, or how I feel, in order to cogently convey a piece of music... Telling another how, or when, to do so on the emotion front is a difficult proposition for me at least.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-05 02:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-05 03:29
Jason, you're right. It's different for every student. It so much depends on what their strengths and weaknesses are. I've often not only mentioned singers but fine string players, pianist and yes, even some pop singers from time to time. Not to have them copy or imitate but to try to get the idea of playing with feeling, with emotion, with freedom, with rubato, color change,or for any other reason I feel they are lacking and might get the idea from listening to one or more of those musicians. There is no rule for everyone. As a matter of fact, it's different for everyone.
I've heard it said that some teachers have said that they can teach technique but playing musicially can only come from within. I agree that some of the great musicians have that musicial gift that can't be taught or copied but you can certianlly teach someone what to look for and what to listen for. Some will catch on and develope on their own, some won't advance much but isn't that the same with everything? I've even suggested that some students sing in the shower, loud and with all the emotion they can muster and then try to put some of that into their playing. I will also ask some to exaggerate everything if they play without emotion or freedom and then have them bring it back to more "normal" phrasing. As I said, you have to find something different for every student. Some times it helps to play for the student and ask them to copy you, some other times singing the phrase to them and asking them to sing it back to you. It's never the same for everone and everyone will not be successful. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-05 23:10
Ed,
Thank you for the reply.
Another question...
How do you define "more normal phrasing" for your students if you do have them purposely "over-emote" or "para-phrase" a passage?
Thanks in advance,
Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-07 21:19
Jason, as I stated someplace above, after they learn that they can play with rubato, freedom, emotion etc. then I coach them to use it sparingly, in good taste. I try to point out where it's appropriate and not. Some students need to be guided through the process, more than others. Some are just naturally more talented then others. Everyone is so different. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-07 21:21
Jason, if you have any other questions about this write me at my e-mail address, I won't be visiting this post again. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have. Take care, ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
