 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2003-06-13 20:55
I recently purchased RCA LSC-2920, Benny Goodman playing the Nielson concerto with the Chicago Symphony. I bought this recording as a curiosity. I had read terrible things about it--I wanted to hear how awful it was for myself (don't misunderstand: I am a Goodman fan). A (nonclarinetist) friend was with me when I put the record on, and I introduced it as "the worst classical recording Benny Goodman ever made." We listened, and then I put on Ib Erikson's performance (with the Danish State Radio Symphony Orchestra) for comparison.
I tried to explain to my friend that at least one of the differences in the two readings was that Ib Erikson was "more in touch with the music." To my surprise, my nonplayer friend wasn't having any of it. To him, Goodman's earnest struggle on his Series 9 had more feeling, especially (according to him) in the slow movement. "That other guy's just going through his paces" my friend said. What I heard as a better intuitive understanding of the music and a better technical offering were, to my friend, just slick playing. For him, the music was best expressed by Benny Goodman.
I thought it was a story worth telling.
Bill Fogle
Washington, DC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ted
Date: 2003-06-13 23:29
Goodman used a Buffet when he played "classical" music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2003-06-14 00:34
If so, then he quickly switched to a Series 9 for the jacket photo shoots for both the Weber and the Nielsen recordings. "Quick, let me HIDE this Buffet."
The man played his Selmers for most of his work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ted
Date: 2003-06-14 14:42
BG most likely had a Selmer endorcement contract, so I guess "officially" he played Selmers. But we both studied with the same teacher , Augustin Duques (not concurrently), and Gus made it clear he used Buffets. - TD
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-06-14 14:52
Maybe it could be said that while others play the clarinet (most, with far more technical perfection), Benny played the music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2003-06-16 20:34
Bill,
What other recordings of this work have you listened to?
Have you ever heard it performed live?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vic
Date: 2003-06-16 21:38
William, I was interested in your comment about Benny playing the music, not the clarinet. Artie Shaw once said that about Goodman, that Goodman considered himself playing the clarinet, while Shaw played the music. Of course Shaw has always been somewhat of a curmudgeon. In any case it was interesting hearing Bill's story about the non-player's opinion of the concerto. I've mentioned before how my wife confused my playing of K622 with that of David Shifrin. Believe me, that reflects more on my wife's lack of musical taste more than it does my feeble attempts at wrestling Mozart to the ground
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2003-06-17 00:21
Right--Artie Shaw said that BG treated the clarinet like a surgeon who was in love with the scalpel. I think it's great that BG loved the clarinet and that he owned and played so many different ones (while being careful to be photographed with his Selmers!).
I've not heard many verisons of the Nielsen--and none live.
Bill
Washington, DC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-06-17 01:55
As a famous Swedish (?) clarinetist once remarked: He (Nielsen) found every awkward note on the clarinet and used them all ... I do like the concerto very much, having said that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Carmen
Date: 2003-06-17 02:44
I STRONGLY you check out John Bruce Yeh's version of this. The one that i have is done with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra on their Soloists Vol. 2 CD. Amazing musicianship and brilliant technique! Plus, the CD features Larry Combs playing the Debussy First Rhapsody and Clark Brody in the Sinfonia Concertante. Great Clarineting all around.
***...so do all who seen such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you can do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you.***
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-06-17 12:15
I also think the Berstein/Drucker on CBS/SONY is a nice recording with some of the smoothest clarinet playing ever.
Ole Schill and Kjell Inge Stevenssen really are part of the great recordings of this work too...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda ★2017
Date: 2009-05-05 01:52
We just found out that I also have the RCA Victor recording, LSC-2920 of this piece. Actually, since we're moving after being so long in one house we're finding lots of things that we'd forgotten about.
Now that we don't have a functioning LP player I have no way of listening to it. Would anyone be interested in this record? Benny Goodman is playing with Morton Gould and the Chicago Symphony. Also included on the recording is Nielsen's Symphony #2.
This was the first clarinet recording that I ever bought, way back in the 70's when I had no clue of who Nielsen was or his concerto, only of Benny Goodman.
Post Edited (2009-05-05 01:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2009-05-05 02:48
Bill I guess your friend could change his mind if he heard John McCaw's version of the concerto. I've still yet to hear better version of it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2009-05-05 08:41
I agree re Mr McCaw- and not out of patriotic duty (McCaw is a fellow NZer and was my childhood "clarinet-hero")
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2009-05-05 09:33
How does anyone rate the Frost recording recently issued?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2009-05-05 12:02
Graham it's good but too technically played. It needs more lyric to it like from McCaw and I'm not talking of much slower tempo. It's not too difficult to play it well but to play it well and make it sound lyrical is much more difficult.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-05-05 14:10
"It's not too difficult to play it well but to play it well and make it sound lyrical is much more difficult"
And this may bring everyone right back to Benny Goodman.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joarkh
Date: 2009-05-05 15:54
Ole Schill is my favorite, as Iceland clarinet said, Fröst plays it a little to "perfect". It sounds silly, but I don't know how else to put it.
Joar
Clarinet and saxophone teacher, clarinet freelancer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joarkh
Date: 2009-05-05 15:54
Diz: Wasn't it Aage Oxenvad, the Danish clarinetist for whom the concerto was written, who said that?
Joar
Clarinet and saxophone teacher, clarinet freelancer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2009-05-05 16:58
Joarkh I didn't say that Fröst's version was little too perfect. I said it was played a little bit like a technical study. In my opinion McCaw's version is jus as perfect as Fröst's it's just that McCaw's plays it a little bit more lyrical.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joarkh
Date: 2009-05-05 19:56
Sorry Iceland clarinet, I did not quote you correctly. I did not mean perfect in that way, but of course that it is technincally perfect in that way that it seems like that's all there is to it.
Joar
Clarinet and saxophone teacher, clarinet freelancer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-05-05 22:28
LOL--my "inner clarinet" admires anyone who can play the Nielsen good enough for performance or recording.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joarkh
Date: 2009-05-06 09:59
Then I would like to ask you: Even if a performance of Nielsen is admirable because of the technical difficulties of the concerto, shouldn't we still be able to distinguish the different performances from one another, to look at them with a critical eye, to look for what we think is important in a performance of it, and not just like everything that is presented to us simply because it doesn't contain any obvious "errors"?
Joar
Clarinet and saxophone teacher, clarinet freelancer
Post Edited (2009-05-06 10:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-05-07 15:14
And the problem in deciding which performance is best is that everyone's "inner clarinet" is tuned differently. That is why Duke Ellington said simply--but nonetheless, eloquently--"If it sounds good, it is good".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jamietalbot
Date: 2009-05-07 17:06
John McCaw's is my favourite recording of the Nielsen.
I heard Michael Collins play it live, in London with the Philharmonia and that was also wonderful!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-05-07 17:30
William wrote:
> And the problem in deciding which performance is best is that
> everyone's "inner clarinet" is tuned differently. That is why
> Duke Ellington said simply--but nonetheless, eloquently--"If it
> sounds good, it is good".
I don't think the goal is (or ought to be) so much determining which performance is best, but, rather, determining what is it about each performance that is good or not good and why. Isn't that what studying the arts is all about?
For instance, if we're talking about Copland (more familiar territory for me since I've never played Nielsen), it makes very little difference which recording (e.g., Goodman or Stoltzman) one prefers. What is more useful is to argue the relative strengths of each over the other. For instance, I think Goodman's interpretation is closer to what Copland had in mind, but Stoltzman's performance is more skillfully executed (especially the first half). (And of course, I could get more detailed about this, but I won't because this is a Nielsen thread, not a Copland one, but you see what I mean.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joarkh
Date: 2009-05-07 21:15
I do agree with you, mrn, but I don't think what you're saying doesn't mean that we also can look upon one performance as better than another as a whole. (Which you, if I understood you correctly, not meant either; I take it your point is determining which is best not is very important, or even not necessary.)
As for you, William, I have taken your point. I see that you find my "inner clarinet" rather amusing. Now you know, let's please stick to the subject.
Joar
Clarinet and saxophone teacher, clarinet freelancer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2009-05-08 20:49
I think it is impossible for anything to be played too perfectly. Perfect is perfect. If I don't like something about the performance, the aspect I don't like is, at least for me, imperfect. Too technical perhaps. too cold, too unemotional, but by definition, not to perfect.
Also, it would never be wrong to say which performance or recording we prefer, especially if you can articulate why. What we prefer doesn't necessarily determine what is better. However, in some situations, and with good reasoning, we might say which is better. Just be sure you have plenty of evidence to support the claim.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-05-08 22:43
Bubalooy wrote:
> Also, it would never be wrong to say which performance or
> recording we prefer, especially if you can articulate why.
> What we prefer doesn't necessarily determine what is better.
> However, in some situations, and with good reasoning, we might
> say which is better. Just be sure you have plenty of evidence
> to support the claim.
That's essentially what I was trying to say.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-05-08 23:30
mrn wrote:
> Bubalooy wrote:
>
> > Also, it would never be wrong to say which performance or
> > recording we prefer, especially if you can articulate why.
> > What we prefer doesn't necessarily determine what is better.
> > However, in some situations, and with good reasoning, we
> > might say which is better. Just be sure you have plenty of
> > evidence to support the claim.
>
> That's essentially what I was trying to say.
I once had a similar correspondence with Dan Leeson on the Klarinet list, and I was quite pleased with the way it ended:
> > It's simply another version of the statement "I don't like asparagus."
> > Now he can give 500 good reasons why he doesn't like asparagus but, in
> > the final analysis, it still remains opinion.
> If he says "I don't like asparagus", we just learn something about him;
> whereas if he gives the 500 good reasons, we stand a good chance of
> learning something about asparagus too.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gobboboy
Date: 2009-05-11 00:52
Getting back to the original post....
I am Wrong in thinking that this is a classic example of the Emporers new clothes??
Benny Goodman is a hero to all of us. Including me. But He should never have recorded the Neilsen.
I'll be that peasant guy in the crowd......it was awful!!!!
The King of swing he remains though!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2009-05-11 03:18
Re: The original message.
Bill,
Thanks for your story. A similar story came up in a discussion of Benny Goodman's recording of the Nielsen on the Klarinet list many years ago. The two links below summarize a lot of the discussion at that time and provide some historical background for the recording.
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1996/12/000373.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1995/02/000027.txt
Also, in his article, "The Nielsen Concerto and Aage Oxenvad," (http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Study/Nielsen.html), Eric Nelson writes:
"Oxenvad indeed never recorded the Concerto. According to some of his pupils, ... Oxenvad professed an accuracy rate of approximately 80 percent in the concerto. Again, probably dry Danish wit and exaggeration, but most certainly he never felt confident enough technically to record it. Yet the intense emotional outpouring was apparently overwhelming. Any performance lacking this honest and earthy commitment, without "mud on the boots," is merely a cursory technical display, without meaning. "
Nelson also points out that "The Danes regard Cahuzac's interpretation [and that of Stanley Drucker, by the way] as completely ignorant of the Danish spirit. Too light, entirely devoid of passion."
So maybe Benny didn't do so badly after all.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-05-11 14:44
Reading again what Bill Fogle wrote, in part:
>>I tried to explain to my friend that at least one of the differences in the two readings was that Ib Erikson was "more in touch with the music." To my surprise, my nonplayer friend wasn't having any of it. To him, Goodman's earnest struggle on his Series 9 had more feeling, especially (according to him) in the slow movement.>>
..it strikes me that listeners may be more helpfully divided, not into players and nonplayers, but into 'people who know the music well' and 'people who don't know the music well'.
Someone in the first category is in a position to judge whether a particular performer succeeds in producing a sufficiently convincing and complete version of the text. Someone in the second category may 'like' the piece, or 'like' the performer, but they have no way of putting those two 'likes' into relationship with each other.
A talented young player in the UK a few years ago failed to win in the final of a TV competition playing the Copland concerto. She played it with great panache and technique, but unfortunately turned it into an rip-roaring jazz-style vehicle for her own promotion. Subtlety went by the board.
Many in the audience were completely captivated. However, they didn't know the Copland concerto -- unlike the more sophisticated jury, who were having none of it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
