 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-08-04 00:24
I loved hearing him in the elevator. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2009-08-04 01:24
Personally, I think Tom's reference to Acker Bilk in the video was an unnecessary, unwarranted, gratuitous, and unfair cheap shot. It added nothing to his presentation (which, IMO, wasn't much to begin with). If he was trying to be cute, he missed the mark as far as I'm concerned. To make an ugly sound and then claim it was characteristic of another musician without presenting any actual examples of the other musician's playing is dishonest. What he did was sort of like making an ugly sound on an R13 and then claiming it to be the "Lyrique Sound." I'm disappointed in him. I've lost some respect for him today.
What one thinks of Acker Bilk's playing is irrelevant here. This was all Tom Ridenour. Next video, I hope he has the good sense to stick to teaching (and maybe put a little more effort and preparation into it, rather than mumbling and fumbling and stumbling along). Leave the impressions to Robin Williams. MOO.
jnk
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2009-08-04 01:44
Yeah it was unfair because even though he sounded bad in the first example it was still more pleasant for the ear than Mr Bilk's playing. Every student should get to hear Mr Bilk's so they have an Idea of none characteristic clarinet tone.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-08-04 01:48
Iceland clarinet wrote:
>
Let's not have another round of BS about Bilk.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2009-08-04 03:47
Iceland wrote: ''Every student should get to hear Mr Bilk's so they have an Idea of none characteristic clarinet tone.''
Indeed they should and if they then prefer jazz to classical, then Acker Bilk could be a starting point for sure! I can only deduce that Iceland has obviously no interest in, or knowledge of jazz, if his/her comments are to be taken seriously.
What this is all about actually is tone/voice/colour (per se) and not necessarily Acker Bilk in particular, as he is just one of many players who apparently do not employ a ''good clarinet tone'' as suggested by Tom Ridenour. I would be interested in his, and Iceland's view of the tone of (say) a Klezemer player, for example.
This concept of ''inferior voicing'' to which TR subscribes smacks of musical elitism. Perhaps it may appropriate for the classical fraternity. It seems to me that TR and Iceland are suggesting that all genres of music conform to their standard, or otherwise suffer the barb of having an inferior voice.
I don't think either of these folk would particularly like MY playing and I don't really give a toss about that in all truth, but I DO care about people expounding and pontificating their views as being seemingly, the only acceptable way to go about this business of clarinet playing.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-04 05:45
I have to agree with Jack about it being a cheap shot.
The broader point Tom was trying to make is essentially good and one that has been stated on the BBoard a number of times by various people, namely that you have to have in your mind what you want to sound like before you can work on sounding that way and that it's really not enough just to tell someone to put their tongue here or do this or that with their throat, etc.
But the jab at Bilk detracts from the message--not just because it's a cheap shot at the guy, but because Tom's imitation of Acker Bilk (assuming that's what it is) is pretty lousy--nothing more than a flatter, fuzzier Tom Ridenour.
Acker Bilk often plays with a raucous jazz sound, but he doesn't play with bad intonation like that. Tom emphasizes the importance of developing a good ear in this and his immediately preceding video, but part of that is knowing the difference between timbre and intonation, a distinction Tom doesn't make with regard to Acker Bilk. It's not fair to Mr. Bilk to mischaracterize his playing like that, but it's also not fair to the viewer of the video. Surely there is more to acquiring a good ear for tone quality than assigning "good" and "bad" labels to isolated sounds.
Ideally, I think any well-rounded clarinetist ought to strive to have a level of control over the instrument and an intuitive understanding of clarinet tone production that permits him/her to play with whatever kind of tone is called for by the music at hand, including everything from raucous Acker Bilk-like sounds when those are appropriate to sweet Jon Manasse-like sounds when those are appropriate (and everything in-between).
Honestly, would you want to hear South Rampart Street Parade played with the same kind of tone as the Mozart Clarinet Concerto? I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't even want to hear the Nielsen Concerto played that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW9ZF3jMx8s
Post Edited (2009-08-04 09:06)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2009-08-04 06:03
Although Acker Bilk doesn't need me to defend him, before people condemn him with sweeping statements, try listening to some of his other recordings, besides "Stranger of the Shore"
His Dixieland playing is perfectly appropriate and at times quite good.
There are a host of videos of him on YouTube with his Dixieland band - they are well worth hearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHwdQaoe1Og
...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2009-08-04 09:38
I have always enjoyed Acker Bilk playing but for my taste I much prefer Pete Fountain. One of the impressions that I get when I hear Acker Bilk is that I'm really hearing Acker Bilk, not the Clarinet. He really does project his own personality into the instrument. I suppose one could say that about most 'popular' Clarinetist including Fountain. When you listen to a 'classical' clarinetist play you are (hopefully) hearing the pure sound of the instrument. And that is what I think Tom was on about. An entirely different approach to the Clarinet. But the popular players would most likely have/or are earning more money with the clarinet than your average symphony orchestral player. But I guess that's the way of it.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2009-08-04 09:42)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2009-08-04 12:36
Well guys for good characteristic tone in jazz I would pick out Benny Goodman,Artie Shaw,Eddie Daniels,Ben Redwine among others and for Klezmer/jazz I would pick out Giora Feidman so no need here to say that I don't like jazz clarinet playing but I do like beautiful well refined clarinet tone.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-08-04 12:57
I heard a recording of the famous Tosca aria with the big clarinet solo yesterday and I must say it was the most ugly, thin clarinet tone I've ever heard come out of an orchestra. I'm not going to mention the orchestra, no need. At least Acker Bilk was not playing the Mozart Clarinet Concerto as some have done. I used to love hearing him play even though I didn't think his tone was very good for what I consider a good clarinet tone but I thought it fit his style. I've heard many old time jazz and Dixie land players that I thought had real ugly tones but thought it fit the style of what they were playing and still enjoyed listening to them. I wish I had the royalties A.B. made from some of his recordings. ESP
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-08-04 18:22
Well, perhaps the very early Benny Goodman could be termed representative of Jazz aka jass his later playing is not. Artie Shaw never played Jazz. Check out some of the BG shellac selections on YouTube for enlightenment.
Bob Draznik
|
|
|
|
|
Author: LonDear
Date: 2009-08-04 20:50
Please explain why you think that Artie Shaw never played jazz. I know that his music was very popular at the time, but that doesn't necessarily classify him as only a pop musician. He can't be ignored as required listening while developing a jazz clarinet style.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-04 21:27
Yes, I don't exactly understand that. If nothing else, I would think that Artie Shaw's Gramercy Five group would count as a jazz combo (as contrasted with Artie's big band with its heavily arranged dance music).
How about post-big-band era musicians like Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Dave Brubeck, and Chick Corea? Are they not jazz musicians?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-08-04 23:04
If I was a young student, or teacher asking my student to watch this video I think I would be so bored in two minutes that I'd turn it off. Tom may be very knowledge about all things clarinet but his presentations, at least this one and a few others I've seen, are less than inspiring or interesting. ESP
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-08-05 00:25
I want to say that I have become a fan of this video.
First off, notice that Tom does not say any such comments about ANYONE'S playing. Someone (it may have been Tom, it may not) added the script over the audio which is (obviously) firmly tongue-in-cheek throughout the presentation.
Secondly, my take is that Tom is presenting a method to allow students the abilty to self analyze themselves ("auto didactic" I believe he says) which is a good thing since we don't sit with them 24/7.
Finally, the idea that you can create a mental picture of sound to add another dimension to what is happening, is a good thing. This allows the student to make changes observing for himself the changes that he is making to this picture.
Is this a BAD THING? Does any of this have anything to do with Artie Shaw, or even Acker Bilk?
What are YOU guys teaching your students pray tell?
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2009-08-05 04:11
Paul Aviles writes: ''First off, notice that Tom does not say any such comments about ANYONE'S playing. Someone (it may have been Tom, it may not) added the script over the audio which is (obviously) firmly tongue-in-cheek throughout the presentation.''
No matter who added the comments, it's hardly likely Tom Ridenour has not seen them and thereby implicitly endorsing them.
It's not, as you say, ''obviously tongue in cheek'' or if somehow it actually IS, then it's missed my radar completely - and I've been treading the earth for many years now. I therefore assume that a mere youth may well fail to grasp the ''subtle'' humor and take the comments as serious.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2009-08-05 05:05
Tom put the video on YouTube. He's responsible for its content ... all of it. (Or was it really his evil twin, BillyBoy?) I think you're confusing tongue-in-cheek with (graphical) foot-in-mouth.
If he had prepared what he had to say instead of winging it, he could have made his point (which, BTW, I think was a good one) thoroughly and more convincingly in ... oh, about a minute 20.
It seems to me his target audience must be mediocre teachers of young students. He's talking down to good teachers, isn't he? In any case, suggesting that teachers give their students a target sound and then show them how to achieve it makes sense. In the words of Yogi Berra, "If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else." And, to respond to an earlier comment, his point is not that everyone should always try to produce the "good" sound he illustrates. He is simply suggesting that such a sound is a good starting point for beginners. Further, if students understand the variables that go into sound production, they will understand what they need to do to alter their sound to fit other contexts later.
But good teachers already know all this. And let me comment that I think one has to be a little careful not to overemphasize tone with beginners. To some extent they need time to let their embouchure and air support develop. An auto-didactic student trying to achieve a sound that his/her embouchure isn't ready for yet (and that he is hearing through his/her sinuses) may adopt some hard to break bad habits that give short-term gratification but create problems in other areas (e.g., articulation) down the road. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt.
But I teach my students that debits are on the left and credits are on the right so what do I know?
jnk
|
|
|
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2009-08-05 07:14
It seems that Acker started off with a more "classical" trad jazz sound but found that the tone that emerged as being popular was the broader huskier diffused sound. Seeing that that was his signature, he matuired into that sound, and away from the sort of sound that most of us would agree is better. Meanwhile, he was lambasted by the trad jazz establishment for playing pappy balads.
As to whether Artie Shaw was a jazz clarinetist, everything depends on how you define jazz. I have never heard him play Jass, whereas the BG 1920s recordings with Venuti, Beiderbecke etc. are in a Jass style (though more classical than Dodds or Shields I would say). But if Jazz also includes Swing, then Shaw played jazz. If not, then he is a Swing clarinetist. It's all down to semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2009-08-05 08:43
graham says: ''......he matuired into that sound, and away from the sort of sound that most of us would agree is better''
This is a broad generalisation and probably not backed up by any statistics I suspect. You can count me out of your group of ''most of us'' (presumably classical) players as, I DON'T agree with you.
Iceland writes: ''I don't like jazz clarinet playing but I do like beautiful well refined clarinet tone.''
Just as I suspected............and, in which case you cannot presume to comment on the merits of a jazz clarinet tone any more than I would presume to know a good classical tone from an ''inferior'' one.
This whole issue of tone is purely subjective and is fairly irrelevant in terms of clarinet playing, generally speaking. What is acceptable for one genre is probably unacceptable for another, so let's leave it there I suggest.
If someone has intimate knowledge and experience in one field I take their advice on board and consider carefully, if not I regard any such pronouncements from these non-experts as spurious.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2009-08-05 10:15
I said "so no need here to say that I don't like jazz clarinet playing but I do like beautiful well refined clarinet tone". Read my whole post and don't take it out of context.
I commented on Tom's video "LOL Tom Mr. Bilk is the best example for a student how one should not sound like."
Then he responded "That's how you sound when you spend most of your life playing saxophone."
|
|
|
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2009-08-05 10:17
Ned; it isn't down to "statistics" but rather listening to what he did over the years. The tone he is most associated with is not what most trad musicians would favour, because it suits the balads which is where he made his fame and fortune. The jazz community took the view that Bilk did not represent jazz clarinet sound. But his earlier trad recordings sound closer to what they would have expected. If you can reduce any of this to "statistics" then good luck to you.
"Most of us" excludes you. That's obvious. Thanks for the heads up on that one!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2009-08-05 11:48
graham, I was referring to your statement (in part) ''.....the sort of sound that most of us would agree is better.''
Of course there would be no statistics regarding AB's tone, this is not what I was querying, and I may have not made myself clear here. As I said in an earlier post, this thread is not really about Acker Bilk, but it is more or less, about this postulation of the so-called ''inferior tone'' idea.
I was asking you not to include me in the group you have defined as ''most of us'' (I see you have excluded me) and therefore was asking if you had any statistics to support your statement ''.....the sort of sound that most of us would agree is better.''
Have you polled correspondents to this BB to ascertain what sort of sound they ''would agree is better''?
There is no real answer to the vexed question of tone is there?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2009-08-05 12:23
First I ever heard of an Acker Bilk school of clarinet playing, I think he's definitely one of a kind.....I guess I could make a video of me playing an old horn with a bad reed and slack embouchure and add some text about the Ridenour school of clarinet playing and it would be just as valid. Given that Tom's essential point is good, I'd say it shouldn't have taken 8:47 to make it. And isn't he preaching to the choir? Isn't this why we have all the excruciating discussions about mouthpieces, reeds, barrels, bores, fingerings etc etc. Isn't the search for the perfect sound part of what drives our obsessive G.A.Syndrome? Now can we please leave poor old Acker alone and get down to some serious slagging of Woody Allen?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2009-08-05 13:41
Ned
Sorry I misunderstood you. No, I have not polled all BB users as to whether they believe Acker's early career tone is better than his late career tone. I am guessing that at least 51% would think that, but it is a guess. I could have qualified it, so it was clear that I was guessing.
In order to carry out a survey I would need to put up examples of early Acker and late Acker and ask people to say which they preferred. I am not going to go to that effort. It would remind me too much of news reports of expensive research projects to establish propositions that were widely known to be true. People are rarely grateful for it. They usually think it a waste of time and money.
And, yes, Woody Allen is very bad....
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-08-05 14:38
The Woody Allen School of Matrimony: Now that would be an interesting thread.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
