 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2012-06-04 14:09
I'm going to split off to a new thread to pose this question.
This has interested me for a long time.
What is it that make certain things on the clarinet inherently good or bad for many people?
Meaning, why is a round, dark, velvety sound something that is not only encouraged, but often clear cut as good, while something else is given the title bad, or inherently bad.
When I think of music as an art-form, rather than as a performance to make the audience happy, these terms become completely irrelevant in my mind, yet the musical world, especially within the clarinet circles, seems so dependent of a correct type of sound.
Why is it that we can't comment on visual arts the same way (this would be much better if it had more red, or was all blue, or that it is too eccentric)
One of the beauties of being a musician in my eyes is the hope to find people with different insights, different ideas and all desperately wanting to express them. Yet I feel often there are expectations that seem in comparison uninteresting.
If there is a holy grail of sound, and it shouldn't vary too much within a concert, and that it should be stable and unwavering, without a particular interest in self-expression, individuality, and new ideas, then why even think of it as an art form? Seems like then we can be much better served teaching talented students by wrote how to play 'perfectly' and leave it at that.
Hope this doesn't sound like a rant. . .I just get confused why so many people seem to talk about what one shouldn't, or can't do as a musician, rather than encouraging the glorious things we can and should do, and try, and experiment with!!
I'm really interested to hear your views on this
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-06-04 14:25
All in the ears and brain of the individual. Inherent beauty is your choice.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2012-06-04 14:44
I think a large nbumber of people have been conditioned, over the past generation or so, to embtrace the idea of a "dark" tone, even though most peole cannot even begin to describe what that means.
It probably began with some people raving about player X, and what a wonderful, dark tone he had. More and more people wanted to get those kind of comments, so teachers began conditioning students to produce what they believed matched that criterion.
Now, so many of us have been brainwashed that "dark" is the only way to sound, and that if we can't sound "dark," there is something lacking in our skill sets. There was a rather involved thread about just this recently, where the OP was worried about certain gear the OP was using, as it was not providing the much-desired "darkness."
Personally, I view this as drivel (for whatever value anyone places on *my* opinions). There are any number of ways to play the clarinet that sound different, but equally good. Life would be very boring if everyone had to paint using only one color.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Randall
Date: 2012-06-04 15:13
It may seem an over simplification, but I think which kind of music one plays has something to do with one's desired tone. And yes, beauty lies in the ear of the beholder. It's beyond me why one would fashion themselves after another player when the only best they can present is themselves. R
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-06-04 20:50
It's very simple Sacha. "Good Taste" and "Proper Tone" are simply whatever your teacher (or Legendary Orchestral Clarinetist X) says they are ("Bad taste" is usually what Soloist X does to offend your teacher--including pack concert halls and make money). After you consult your legendary teacher, you needn't even worry about the music.
You're asking the right questions: just don't ask them too loudly or to too many people. The Emperor prefers to be flattered for his fashion sense.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Randall
Date: 2012-06-04 22:44
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
As a drummer and clarinetist, I couldn't agree more, though playing clarinet with some drummers, the opposite is true. RC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bethmhil
Date: 2012-06-05 01:59
This phenomenon is something we all need to think about more often... I am quite guilty of this myself, but we are all obsessed with doing whatever can be done to achieve that ideal "dark, warm, resonant" sound... whatever it is or means. Everyone's definition of "inherent beauty" of clarinet tone is different... for a reason. Once we fix the fundamental issues in tone (like uncharacteristic brightness, buzz, etc.) in our studies, can't the ending result be a beautiful tone? Does it have to live up to one standard, the "dark" tone? Unfortunately, yes.
Lately, I am slowly coming to the realization that I am never going to create the "ideal", stereotypical clarinet sound... it would take a complete change in every physical aspect of my playing... This sounds like a dark, terrifying road to take, and to be honest, it's not worth it. For me, when my tone is at its best, it is definitely not dark like David Shifrin's or Ricardo Morales' tone... but, it is full of passion and is representative of my personality. Does that have to be considered bad?
Just as with anything from physical beauty to beauty of sound, I wish individuality could be embraced, rather than condemned. Thank you for posting this.
BMH
Illinois State University, BME and BM Performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-05 23:03
It appears to me that what Sacha is actually speaking of is not a generic tone quality at all; be it "dark", "bright", "colorful".... or whatever handful of incomplete superlatives we grasp for.
Rather it is the application of sound, or more accurately, the way a sequence of notes and sounds are connected, that truly encompasses what "tone quality" we impart to any composition.
(Does illuminating a recorded musician as possessing a "beautiful tone" often not over-look this aspect?
Is grouping Morales and Shifrin into a "dark" group, in lieu of the fact that they possess completely differing concepts of "generic" tone quality, out of sorts? Or an aside to the truth of matters at best?)
Viewed in that differing manner, "tone quality" is a highly variable, well neigh infinitely indefinable entity.
By divorcing "abstract tone quality" from a composition, thus giving it life from the mere act of terming it so, are we not embarking on a truly improper voyage into the world of performing music?
Does a generic, or abstract "tone quality" even exist? If so, should it?
I myself am also curious what others' reasoned views on this matter are....
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-06-06 00:12
A friend of mine commented recently on the stylistic opposition between vocalists and clarinetists, where a clarinetist tries to refine their sound toward one ideal, and a vocalist tries to expand their palate to include as many different sounds as possible.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-06 12:49
In any sufficiently rich communication system there's a fundamental tension between the need to pin things down and the urge towards having them be fluid.
In this context, it's worth reflecting that it's the fact that words, by and large, have agreed and fixed literal meanings that paradoxically allows them to be used poetically by contrast.
I spend quite a lot of my time teaching students the elements of the classical style, precisely so that they can use those elements in an expressive way when they play. Some of them find this an imposition; but many of them come to understand that resisting it in principle has something in common with being annoyed that the structure of sentences is different in French and German, and insisting on their right to choose to do it their way regardless of the norms of those languages.
"Every task involves constraint,
Solve it now without complaint.
There are magic links and chains
Forged to loose our rigid brains;
Structures, strictures, though they bind,
Strangely liberate the mind."
(James Falen, translator of 'Eugene Onegin'.)
I suppose that there is a similar tension operating in the world of instrumental colour. Both the blending of tones and the contrasting of tones are in evidence in the great compositions; you could even say that our work as instrumentalists is largely to develop our understanding, appreciation and delivery of those blendings and those contrasts. They occur not only between instruments but also in individual lines, where some notes share a sort of ordinariness whilst others are, by comparison, special.
Real musicians understand that 'their' tone, determined to some extent by their choice of equipment and reeds, needs to be flexible in order to meet the demands placed on them by these compositions, and they will work hard to achieve that flexibility. They may also then find that the expressiveness of other, less meaningful music is thereby enhanced. Or, of course, they may create their own, personal music -- as did the most talented composer/performers of the past, when they built on, or part-demolished, the results of their apprenticeships in the work of their forbears.
The keyword here isn't 'self-expression'. It's what we might call, 'workability-of-expression'. In order to find out what expression is required in any context -- what expression 'works' -- you look not to yourself, but to the demands of what you are creating, or recreating. In the case of the great musical literature, that may involve much work and inquiry.
You can't AVOID yourself, of course, because it's YOUR inquiry. But to start with your small self, and its current fancies, is often to sell yourself short. If you go the other way, you may find yourself grown larger by your efforts.
In this endeavour, it's clear that it's just as unacceptable to have an unremittingly 'dark' tone as it is to have an unremittingly 'bright' tone. To address the role of teachers in this: well, of course teachers vary in excellence, but I find it possible to imagine a teacher rightly telling a particular student the same thing over and over again in order to try to move them away from one or other of these two extremes.
Why? Because, in either case, IT DOESN'T WORK. If you have an unremittingly bright tone, you will be able to get away with playing some pieces; if you have an unremittingly dark tone, you will be able to get away with playing some others. But in no sense will you be a complete player, and in no sense will you be someone who would be welcomed (by the excellent players, at any rate) in any really good orchestra or chamber group.
It's even possible to say that a sound can be 'based around' too bright or too dark a timbre for a given piece, or for playing with the other instrument(s) involved. (A sensible clarinettist will change his or her reed/mouthpiece setup to put the matter right.) And our work with period instruments is also relevant: pieces may 'work better' in some sense on the instruments for which they were originally conceived, because the sound-world, in particular the relationships between the sounds of different instruments, is different from that of modern performances.
To sum up: what mostly needs to be expressive is 'the piece', rather than 'the individual performer'. Once you start to look beyond your purely instrumental likes and dislikes, and your attachment to just one ideal timbre, there is a richer world to be found.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-06-06 13:52
Bravo Tony. It couldn't be put any better. I would add only that listening to great musicians is a source of inspiration and a stimulus to the development of one's own ideas.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-07 21:12
I thought it might be worthwhile to give an example of what I was talking about.
I once had a conversation with a clarinettist who asked me to comment on a recording of a really excellent performance that he had given. After praising him -- and there was much to praise -- I said that the one thing that occurred to me when listening was that he should be careful when he used super-pianissimo in his playing.
I went on to try to explain that there is an inherent risk involved in using such extreme effects. That's because when you use them, you have to make sure that they occur in a context in which they really do 'work', in the sense I tried to make clear in my previous post.
That might mean that you have to play what comes before the special effect, and what comes after the special effect, differently from how you would have done if you had decided to play the passage more normally. But also, because other people are usually involved, you have to make THEM play differently too. Otherwise, the super-pianissimo seems not to be integral to the musical argument.
To make them play in such a way may well be a nontrivial task.
And if you don't, or can't organise to do this, but produce the effect anyway, there is a danger that the effect may be heard as being something to do, not with the music, but with the performer. As listeners, we can be thrown out of the magic of the musical world into the real, everyday world, and get the impression that what you are saying at that point is, "Listen to how quietly I can play!"
I hate it when that happens -- which is why I gave the advice.
Of course, some people's playing is ALL like that. They're lost souls, in my estimation, however popular they may be with audiences.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-07 21:31
I wrote:
>> That might mean that you have to play what comes before the special effect, and what comes after the special effect, differently from how you would have done if you had decided to play the passage more normally. But also, because other people are usually involved, you have to make THEM play differently too. Otherwise, the super-pianissimo seems not to be integral to the musical argument.>>
It struck me that this might be interpreted as saying that you have to PREPARE the special effect -- say, by doing a diminuendo.
Not necessarily. It might equally be a complete contrast -- in another musical dimension, as it were -- as long as that dimension is musical, and not worldly.
That would be integral to the musical argument, too -- but in another way.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2012-06-07 23:19
Hi Sacha, (I have gleaned your name from other posts)
If I were an artist, could I not want more red in another artist's work?
I think we need to have some norm from which to deviate, in a musically meaningful way. So even if someone has a 'bright' or 'harsh' norm, they can still play musically satisfying interpretations if they can sufficiently alter the tone to encompass the a full range present in the music. For me this is one of the joys of listening to period clarinet performances, which have a base timbre that I would not necessarily aspire to on regular clarinet, but then play with such range that I forget almost immediately. The best players to my ear, are, regardless of timbre, the one's who can manipulate the tension in the sound most convincingly.
I also believe there is danger in imitating singers or other instruments - often the closeness of the imitation magnifies the difference between the imitator and the model, and like Tony's example of the super-pianissimo, this can take the listener out of the music. And my ears, they sound like bad singers, or bad violinists. And, in the case of singers, it seems that instead of listening to what singers do with the music, they have imitated surface effects related often quite specifically to the text.
That is not to say its impossible, but it's incredibly risky, and not necessarily in a good way. I remember in Richard Stolzmann's Finzi recording, there is an amazing passage in the second movement where he actually sounds like a violin, and its incredibly exciting, musically as well as tone-wise. But then in the first movement, his vibrato so wide and off-putting that I have difficulty reconciling the two. He seems to want to play violin rather than clarinet! But maybe that's what his parent's bought him.
I think another limiting factor in the sounds we make, is a repertoire, which by in large runs on the interaction of musical lines, often from instruments with different sound production characteristics. Again Tony's example is relevant here - we need to find common ground with other instruments, so that our lines can be heard equally, or at least in some sort of hierarchy. But western art music is not alone in having these limits: often when classical players imitate klezmer or jazz it sounds like a free for all and not at all like good klezmer or jazz playing (to name just two examples). Our music is based around counterpoint and the resulting harmonic tension above other elements, and so requires a sound which can exploit this to the fullest advantage.
It's getting late, and I may be getting vague....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-07 23:36
Alexis wrote:
> It's getting late, and I may be getting vague....
Quite the opposite- on the supposed vagueness at least.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-06-09 06:18
I recently had the opportunity to hear some LP recordings of myself from the early 70s when I was still in high school and playing on a new R13. Both records contain solo passages from band and orchestra works that were performed at concerts. I enjoyed what I heard. One thing really stood out though: my sound, while nice, was on the bright side. Perhaps the recording equipment wasn't the best, and it's possible that my sound wasn't really that bright. Still, I'm not going to blame the equipment, and it was probably fairly close to how I actually sounded.
At the time, a bright sound wasn't necessarily bad. That's how many (or most) clarinet players sounded. When I started college about a year after the recordings were made, I accidentally stumbled across a written evaluation from my new professor--which I wasn't supposed to see! It praised my playing, but made the comment that my tone needed to be darker.
Looking back, I think it was one of those things that was more easily said than done. I played on one of the best clarinets available at the time. My mouthpiece, a Sumner, was selected by my professor, and I wasn't given a choice. I played 3 1/2 or 4 Vandoren reeds (only one style available back then, and they weren't always available). I had the model "tight and pulled back" single lip embouchure that was popular. From what I can remember, I supported my tone with good breath support. After doing all this, my tone, while pleasant, was still a bit bright. What was I to do in the quest for a darker sound? It was so frustrating!
A year or two later, a friend introduced me to Marcellus' recording of the Mozart concerto. I was blown away because he played it so well, but the thing that really jumped out at me was his tone. How did he get such a nice dark sound, a sound different from what my friends and I were producing? Was it his embouchure, his Morre reeds, his great talent, his mouthpiece, or his years of careful practice? It was probably a combination of everything. Here's one question to ponder: would Marcellus have sounded as he did using a tight single lip embouchure (the one I was told to use) and basic Vandoren or Mitchell Lurie reeds? An interesting question.
Morre reeds were around, but very difficult to obtain. In the days before the Internet, the two reed choices were basically Vandoren and Mitchell Lurie
(commonly used by professionals back then).
I'm thankful that there are so many more options available today. I get great results with Rico Reserves, and I wonder how I would have sounded in college if reeds of this type had been available. I also wonder if things would have been different if I had been allowed to try several mouthpieces and choose one that really worked for me.
To get back to the original question, I agree that there should not be a single "correct" clarinet tone quality. I enjoy and appreciate a variety of sounds. Tony has some interesting comments--none of my clarinet teachers in the past ever expressed things that way, but they do make a lot of sense.
Post Edited (2012-06-09 06:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2012-06-09 11:27
Thanks Tony for all your insight.
I do have a question regarding that.
Say you take your super pianissimo example, which I know I also have the tendency to indulge in from time to time
Now I completely understand your thoughts on allowing the music to be expressed rather than the musician. I think I agree with you on that point maybe more than you think I do.
Back to super pianissimo, now what if the instrumentalist feels that a specific passage should be a whisper? Or something very fragile (say, a dying breath/last words). Or a last I love you to a child right before falling asleep.
Now, could this not warrant a super pianissimo? Not just for the sake of playing quietly, which I agree is then a lost cause, or without a cause, but to express a loneliness or breathlessness that just cannot be expressed with a full sound?
Also, one thing I want to ask you Tony, can there not be an instance were you want to play quietly where others do not? In the same breath play loud when others are quiet, or play with a harsh sound while others are soft?
There are many times in life when someone becomes still, or silent while there is chaos around, which are often much more powerful than if the person tried to yell. Also, a person can be much more aggressive, or intense in a moment of otherwise calm, than if there is much going on.
I guess my original post had more to do with changing tone colors than a specific one of the musician. I find it strange to try to create a single tone color that is yours (whether dark or bright or whatever). This can only do a disservice to a composer (if you have ever heard someone with a too dark, static sound play french music, or a too flowery sound play german music, you'll understand)
My main question is not what sound we should look for, when, but rather why are we, as clarinetists, often put into walls of acceptability.
I guess I'm also asking why we all need to conform into an ideal (or are somehow expected to conform) regardless of who's ideal that is. Whether it's me wanting more color and expression, or Tony asking to give more over to the composer and less of self expression (very crude description from me, Tony. Don't give it too much thought) or the elusive dark, deep sounds promoted by so many people. All seem like a way to make other musicians sound, perform, think, and feel similar to each other.
I understand our desire to make others do what we would want them to do, but I don't understand the importance we put on it, sometimes to the point that a career cannot be made because of it.
Wow, rambling a bit here, very sorry. Maybe I'll try to gather my thoughts better next time
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-10 02:30
Sacha wrote, in part:
>> ...what if the instrumentalist feels that a specific passage should be a whisper? Or something very fragile (say, a dying breath/last words). Or a last I love you to a child right before falling asleep.
Now, could this not warrant a super pianissimo? Not just for the sake of playing quietly, which I agree is then a lost cause, or without a cause, but to express a loneliness or breathlessness that just cannot be expressed with a full sound?
Also, one thing I want to ask you Tony, can there not be an instance were you want to play quietly where others do not? In the same breath play loud when others are quiet, or play with a harsh sound while others are soft?
There are many times in life when someone becomes still, or silent while there is chaos around, which are often much more powerful than if the person tried to yell. Also, a person can be much more aggressive, or intense in a moment of otherwise calm, than if there is much going on. >>
All of that is possible.
All I said was that there is an inherent danger in using superpianissimo -- which is very different from saying that one should not use it.
(It's dangerous to ski, too. What that means is that one should be aware of the dangers involved, and guard against them -- while continuing to ski, if that's what you want to do.)
See, my advice was intended to draw attention to the danger, which I felt the student involved didn't fully appreciate. HE then went on, as you did, to produce arguments that attempted to justify his use of superpianissimo.
But those arguments, like yours, are beside the point.
You, and he, need to say: yes, I get it, there is that danger; I understand it, and I'll think about it in future.
So we don't need to JUSTIFY why we want to use superpianissimo. What we need to do is to guard against our being misunderstood when we decide we want to use it, by making sure that we are 'coming from the right place' with regard to it when we play.
>> All seem like a way to make other musicians sound, perform, think, and feel similar to each other. >>
You're similar because you're doing the same job. You're not similar to the extent that everyone is different, and so goes about the job to some extent in their own way.
The point is, we shouldn't have as our main purpose to REDEFINE the job. Our main purpose is rather to DO it.
Tony
Post Edited (2012-06-10 06:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2012-06-10 12:10
Hi Tony (and everyone else reading),
I think you have maybe misunderstood me. I am not a great writer, sadly, so I try to make myself understood in this medium as best that I can.
I in no way want to defend 'my' super pianissimo, or the other clarinetist you were talking about, or any musician's super pianissimo, or super harsh accent, or whatever might be the subject of discussion.
Rather, I wish to defend the right to choose how one interprets a piece, or a phrase. My feeling is that interpretation should always stem from a idea of what the composer would have intended (which is again an interpretation, unless one sits with the composer)
Any question I pose, is for me to be able to receive feedback and hopefully grow, as it should be for anyone, especially in this field. Why should I tell you that "I get it, there is that danger; I understand it, and I'll think about it in future." When it is obvious to me that I will think about it in the future (otherwise there would be no reason to discuss a point like this)
So, my questions further (and I am trying to get to a point here) are:
Why do we need to "guard against our being misunderstood"? Many great artists were misunderstood, and this didn't diminish their status (although often it did diminish their wallet size perhaps)
I am personally under the belief that one should try to convey something that is understandable to an audience, without an explanation. That music is best served when it is understood. But who am I to say I am right?
"We shouldn't have as our main purpose to REDEFINE the job. Our main purpose is rather to DO it."
I agree to some extent that one shouldn't make something like this a MAIN purpose. (and to be honest, the word job in this discussion irks me, as if I were talking about this as a job, I would approach it in a very different light)
But, again, why is this a statement that you choose to make? Redefine is maybe not the work I would choose, but rather attempt to push forward, or develop. This is maybe in the end what I am trying to get at. Why should we (like so many) be content with filling the shoes that we have been given? Why not be excited to see what boundaries can be opened, and then see whether it works or not (which again is subjective to each individual)
Please remember that I am not wanting to pertain this to myself. I ask these questions because I love thinking about them, and I ask them in a public forum because I hope others will love thinking about them as well. I'm happy to have a discussion here that is somehow not focused on equipment or teaching, but rather an open-ended discussion about music making. I can only hope a couple of other people share my happiness in this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jmsa
Date: 2012-06-10 14:22
There is a very simple answer to this question. a dark sound has a foundation in the medium and bass tones and a bright sound has a foundation in the high and treble tones.
jmsa
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2012-06-10 17:40
jmsa wrote,
>> There is a very simple answer to this question. a dark sound has a foundation in the medium and bass tones and a bright sound has a foundation in the high and treble tones.
>>
That is indeed the definition I learned as a child from my relatives who were professional musicians, including several who sing and my mother who played violin. It's also the definition my husband learned. He's played violin since he was five years old. He studied with some important teachers, including three concertmasters of major orchestras. Therefore I'd prefer to take his and my relatives' definition as dispositive, argue vigorously with anybody who disputed it and be done with it.
However, alas, among wind players, there is no such general agreement about what "dark tone" means. Go to this site's Archive and search for references to "dark tone" and you'll soon discover that some people with good clarinet credentials mean *exactly the opposite*! -- and some of those people have gone batsqueak nuts about defending their definition, too. Those on both sides of the argument can point with pride to important wind players who agree with them -- and who disagree with each other.
Bottom line: we simply haven't got a generally-agreed-upon definition and no attempt to come to an agreement has come close to succeeding during the time since I joined these forums in 1998. It's a lost cause.
So what do I do? I go right on using "dark" and "bright" the way my husband uses them and the way you've defined them above, but I avoid using those terms at all around here; and I usually try to ignore discussions of what "bright" and "dark" mean. In the long run it takes a lot fewer words to explain the quality of the tone in context, rather than to try to use the shortcuts "bright" and dark" and then get involved in explaining, then defending, what those words mean. Now ducking behind the flame barrier....
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2012-06-10 17:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-06-13 18:18
Sacha wrote:
Quote:
Why do we need to "guard against being misunderstood"? Many great artists were misunderstood, and this didn't diminish their status.
When I used the word 'misunderstood' in this context, I was talking only about a particular sort of response by a listener to a performer. As I thought I'd explained, that response is to find ourselves understanding what we hear as a feature, not of the demands of the music, but as a feature of the performer's desire to be original or clever. I hear a lot of that around, and I don't like it.
Actually, I suspect that mostly my reaction ISN'T a misunderstanding, by the way; the performer really IS trying to be original and clever.
Of course, players can do what they like. But when I find what they do is inappropriate to the music, they can expect criticism from me, especially if they've asked my opinion.
Quote:
"We shouldn't have as our main purpose to REDEFINE the job. Our main purpose is rather to DO it."
I agree to some extent that one shouldn't make something like this a MAIN purpose. (and to be honest, the word job in this discussion irks me, as if I were talking about this as a job, I would approach it in a very different light)
But, again, why is this a statement that you choose to make? Redefine is maybe not the work I would choose, but rather attempt to push forward, or develop. This is maybe in the end what I am trying to get at. Why should we (like so many) be content with filling the shoes that we have been given? Why not be excited to see what boundaries can be opened, and then see whether it works or not (which again is subjective to each individual).
A strange fact about our perception of music is that what we might call 'the best bits' never seem to lose their magic, however many times we hear them. Often, too, those 'best bits' involve some sort of surprise: an unexpected modulation, say, or a dramatic interruption of some sort, or a particularly delightful turn of phrase. Yet, though clearly they are NOT a surprise in one sense -- we know they are coming, after all -- it seems they ARE a surprise in another, musical, sense.
Take a moment or two to think about that.
The linguist (and clarinettist!) Ray Jackendoff, in his book 'Languages of the Mind', offers a theory of how this 'strange fact' may be explained. It's a good theory, and I'll go into it in another thread, probably. But here, I just want to point out that a simple acceptance of the strange fact has relevance for discussion of whether we should be committed always to be finding new ways of playing familiar music.
Because, if the great works of musical literature can always 'work' as they stand -- and can even sometimes work better for us when we know them better -- then perhaps we are best off leaving them alone in some sense when we perform them. I'd say the idea is to have them be alive in the best way we can imagine, whilst avoiding STOPPING them working -- as we may if we allow ourselves to be perceived as 'clever', when we may not in fact be being clever.
I've often argued here against the notion that being 'creative' in performance involves doing things DIFFERENTLY from how they are written. Another sense of the word 'creative' is that it is a description of what we do when we 'give birth' to something. So being creative with written music means taking the stance in performance that what we are bringing forth is ALIVE.
It is the 'real' object, or territory, that corresponds to the 'map' that is the score. Being alive, it responds to context -- one musical line responds to what the others are doing, and also to what it has just done itself. So it is always a bit unpredictable; but that isn't the important part. The important part is that it be alive. (It MIGHT turn out to be just the same as last time, whilst still being alive.)
So that's why I'm against Sacha's characterisation. In fact, I'm happy dancing 'in the same shoes', and even happy doing the same dance, because (a) actually I know it cannot avoid being my dance, and (b) we don't necessarily want a new dance anyway:-) The great dances can always be fresh if we have them live in the way they seem to want to live, moment by moment, 'this time around'.
In many ways, I don't even think of 'my playing' as a term that has any sense. I want to find myself playing differently in different circumstances. And as a listener, I respond to the whole PIECE, rather than to a collection of different PLAYERS and their idiosyncrasies. When people ask me to comment on 'their' playing, I always ask, "are you doing the job in whatever work you're playing?" and then interact with how they respond. It turns out that they often don't know what I'm talking about.
Fundamentally, I don't like the sound of people pushing -- or worse, ATTEMPTING to push -- for the new in the old. It doesn't have integrity, as I understand it. See:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2005/08/000484.txt
The great conductor Rudolf Kempe wrote:
"One must not search, one must find. Searching implies conscious manipulation. Finding is a result of devotion to a composer and his music".
Of course, sometimes one can be LED to the point where you have to do something radically different; but that happens relatively rarely. And I'd say it's a bad first move.
Tony
Post Edited (2012-06-13 18:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2012-06-13 19:36
I hesitate to add this to the discussion, especially given that the thread has veered off to what one might call "ethical" performance practice. I certainly will not pretend to add any insight into an already well developed discussion.
I will however go back to the original question:
"What is it that make certain things on the clarinet inherently good or bad for many people?"
and the rather generalized answer:
"All in the ears and brain of the individual. Inherent beauty is your choice."
Composers' demands asides, "Inherent" beauty is not your choice, or at least not entirely. There is enough neuropsychological evidence that harmonies played in tune (using just intonation) is perceived as more "pleasant" than harmonies out of tune by almost all cultures.
The harmonic makeup of the clarinet tone and its relationship with the surrounding harmonic context can support a musical idea (tension, release, etc.) in ways that can be perceived almost "universally" by any listener.
This "perception" of pleasing harmony is not much different than the ability to discriminate between 2 different pitches.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2012-06-13 19:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
