 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: MartyMagnini
Date: 2014-12-10 22:10
I know this tune, but I can't place it - can someone tell me what the name of the tune is that starts around 4:20?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGV0DjYXBLk
The others are (I think)
You Brought a New Kind of Love to Me
Stranger on the Shore
Dont' Be That Way
??
Way Down Yonder in New Orleans
Georgia on My Mind and an encore
Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2014-12-11 07:46
''...that was driving me crazy!''
Heh...''You're Driving Me Crazy'', is another pretty good number for improvisation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2014-12-11 13:08
''His sound is extremely nasal.''
Compared to whom? Acker Bilk perhaps?
Do you have a jazz record collection? Are you a jazz player yourself? Quite a number of jazz players sound like PF.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-12-11 17:02
Compared to Bill Smith for example. Check out the session called Brubeck Ala Mode and you can hear it for yourself.
Post Edited (2014-12-11 17:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-12-11 17:08
Making comments on a Pete Fountain thread about his sound being nasal is like saying "Well...he's a bit too aggressive" on a Beethoven thread. The sort of comments I usually ignore, but c'mon. Listen to some jazz players--the whole history...and listen to several eras of Pete's career. His sound is darn near perfect, much of the time, for what he needed to accomplish musically. The guy is a major figure, whose sound has been emulated by many for generations.
I dig Bill Smith (a lot) but pitting or comparing one against the other is absurd, IMO.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-12-11 17:48
All I commented on was his sound and you took it somewhere else. Strikes me as being extremely funny.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-12-11 19:28
Clarineteer wrote:
"Why don't you just let my original comment die a natural death."
Usually I ignore the comments I disagree with on this board. But I was a part of this thread before yours and noticed, and it happened to concern someone who, as a musician and as an encouraging person, has been very important to me.
I thought your comment was uninformed and didn't think it should go unanswered. Frankly, it just struck me as trolling, and though it's rarely a good idea to respond to such things, Pete's sound is widely misunderstood by many in the American classical world (though I have no idea what sort of clarinetist you are--or even if you're at the level to understand these differences). Pete's whole approach was brilliant, and opened new doors for many of us. it would take too long to detail them, but those of us who have benefitted are, I think, obliged to respond when someone writes what seems a flippant and uninformed comment.
In short: Pete's playing is important enough to warrant a rebuttal, or an expansion of the discussion. I don't think this is unreasonable on a Clarinet BBoard, where presumably we all care about these things with some depth.
Now I've answered your question. You answer mine:
Do you have anything of value to add to a discussion of Pete's sound, or a serious question to ask, or were you just trolling?
Eric
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-12-11 22:47
All of Bill Smith's collaborations with Brubeck are essential listening. I did a write-up on "The Riddle" a couple of years back, which can be read here:
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/2013/05/bill-smith-with-dave-brubeck-quartet.html
My personal favorite is the album "Near Myth/ Brubeck-Smith"
But it's ridiculous, IMO, to compare Smith's goals with Pete's. Pete was coming out of a well established New Orleans tradition--Smith was not--he was coming at things from the perspective of a modern jazz, Third Stream type composer--and to my mind he is the best of them. But the use Smith as a foil to Pete is an injustice to both artists.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-12-11 23:34
To Clarineteer:
I may fail but I'll try to add something useful to your response.
There could be many reasons why Pete's sound had a nasal quality to you.
1) The quality of the microphone. Some mics have a propensity to emphasize the higher frequencies.
2) The amplifiers in the TV control room. Were they set for a "flat" response or could they possibly have been set, again, to reinforce or emphasize the higher harmonics.
3) The sound amplifiers used by the internet company that's delivering the sound to your computer.
4) The personal speakers on your computer. I have a desk top computer with dual 3" speakers. A lot of music can sound "tinny" through those little speakers.
There is a very good chance that the sound you hear from your computer speakers may not even come close to the sound emanating from his clarinet had you stood next to him.
All of the above are simply my opinions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2014-12-12 01:20
Agree with the last post on what might change or account for Pete's sound.
However, IMHO his sound changed as he aged. I've bought a bunch of his albums and noticed a change from round and dark to brighter with more edge ... I think most of his timbre change started in the early 1970's. Might be just a change in his setup.
Listen to the album "Plenty of Pete" (about 1962?) to hear Pete at his most impressive best. Awesome and one of my favorite jazz recordings!
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-12-12 01:32
To Clarineteer:
I think I found the reason for your perceived nasal tone quality:
Microphone placement.
In the second song, Stranger on the Shore, I noticed a very dramatic change in tonal quality at 2:21 to 2:23. During this time, Pete moved his clarinet bell away from the mic that was right in front of it and placed the side of his clarinet next to the mic during those 3 seconds. During those short few seconds, his sound quality became extremely mellow even on my 3" computer speakers.
I have read various sources state that the high frequency harmonics that are not filtered out at the tone holes simply travel along the clarinet and are exited at the bell.
So, it appears to me that if Pete had played all 6 songs with the side of his clarinet next to the mic, I believe we all would have heard a very mellow rendition of all of his songs.
Just my opinions.
I was right.
From: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan99/articles/brass778.htm
Under "Recording Reeds":
"The key to recording reed instruments is to be aware that most of the sound doesn't radiate from the bell, but from the body of the instrument. In the case of the clarinet and similar instruments the higher frequencies beam from the bell and rely on being reflected back from the floor to become properly balanced with the lower harmonics (see Figure 3 above). This means that to record both the direct and reflected sound, the best mic position is somewhere between one and two metres away, approximately level with the top half of the instrument and aiming at the holes towards the lower half of the body from the front. There is no point in miking near the bell as this will only capture a very weak, thin and nasty sound!"
Post Edited (2014-12-12 02:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-12-12 07:10
During Fountain's long career, his tone did indeed change. Early on, he was very determined to produce the warm, wide, "fat" sound of Irving Fazola. Fountain's version of this was quite mellow and rather sudued. If you pull up his recording of Tin Roof Blues with the Basin Street Six on Youtube, you get a sample of this sound, with predates his use of Leblanc clarinets. He has still another version of Tin Roof Blues with Al Hirt from the 50s (not yet on Youtube so far as I can see) in which he really sounds wide and mellow like Fazola.
If you pull up a later version of the same tune that he did with Marty Corb, and Jack Sperling (also on youtube) you find Fountain on a Leblanc with a more centered sound and a little edge. but very liquid and soft toned. This is the way he sounded on most of his appearances with Welk (though you can find a few videos of him with Welk before he got rid of the glasses and donned a toupee where he still sounds more like Fazola on his old O'Brien clarinet). He did add more of the Benny Goodman swing drive as he went on. When asked about his style, he used to remark that he wanted to combine the lyrical mellowness of Fazola with the drive and swing of Goodman.
Later in life, he started to play louder and more into the microphone. Occassionally he would go back a little to the liquidity of old, but he tone was more aggressive. Living in New Orleans, I got to hear him play many times and noticed this gradual transformation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-12-12 17:38
Great info about the microphones guys. I've always felt the mic was essential to Pete's playing--and how he used it was very deliberate.
Seabreeze--man, you have the best thumbnails of clarinet players' sounds. Many thanks. Everything you mentioned about the history of Pete's sound development makes perfect sense to my ears...really helpful to see it laid out chronologically.
Quick question for you: over the decades, did you notice any distinct/methodical change in Pete's microphone equipment or interaction/technique?
If you're up for it, I'd be interested to know your take on some of the older players as well--how they sounded live as opposed to on record. I'm think of Raymond Burke, Willie Humphrey, George Lewis, et al. Maybe we need a new thread, but you must have heard these guys in settings the rest of us didn't get to...your thoughts are appreciated.
[Edit P.S: Did you ever get to hear Faz live, or was that before your time? If so...I'd like to know how loud that sound of his was live...or whether he depended upon a mic to project...]
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2014-12-12 17:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-12-12 18:00
Mr. Shusta, thanks for clearing that up however his sound is extremely nasal just like I originally said. Notice I never gave a cause because I did not know. Just an honest observation.
Post Edited (2014-12-12 18:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MartyMagnini
Date: 2014-12-12 20:35
Even though my original post had nothing to do with soliciting opinions on Pete Fountains tone, I am always "amused" at the intolerance of some people to the wide range of sounds available and appropriate for different musical genres. If I were teaching a young Mr. Pete Fountain clarinet, and he were pursuing a serious "legitimate" clarinet career, no doubt I would want to work on his sound. However, it obviously is a great (some would argue it's the ideal) sound for the genre. I use the word "obviously" because of the millions of records he sold and millions of fans worldwide his "nasal sound" has gained him. In fact most people would argue that Pete Fountain is the "ultimate" dixieland clarinet player - certainly he's the most celebrated and famous.
And to Clarineteer, I honestly don't mean this to sound condescending or snide - it's what I tell my students all the time: If millions of people enjoy something that you don't (whether it's country music, hip-hop, Acker Bilk, whatever), perhaps the best question to ask ones self is "what are they getting enjoyment from that I am missing?" rather than just dismiss it out of hand. It strikes me the same as when you order a pizza and someone pipes up "Ugh - I HATE pizza!" I'm not sure what that serves, except to show that you're in the minority, and just can't grasp what most of us get - pizza (and Pete Fountain) and worth savoring. Do I want to hear Pete Fountain play the Mozart? No, thank you. Do I want to hear one of the great masters of the genre - "nasal" tone and all, performing at his peak? yes, please.
p.s. - for what it's worth, I completely agree with the comments about the mic placement as well. Everyone sounds bad if you mic them at the bell. Everyone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-12-12 20:43
Wow I never said that his nasal sound was bad. It is amazing what people read into a simple observation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RichA
Date: 2014-12-12 22:32
I have been enjoying the comments about one of my clarinet heroes, Pete Fountain. Perhaps someone can help me with a question I have had for years. In October, 1959, Pete made a live recording titled "Pete Fountain Day". Personally, I believe it displays his many talents at their peak. I have the LP and it is fantastic but it has never been issued as a CD. Can anyone tell me why?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-12-12 23:14
Marty, with all due respect, if you or anyone else "worked" on Pete Fountain's sound you would ruin it. Thousands of music lovers now recognize Fountain on his recordings after just just hearing him play a few notes. That's because those notes bear his tonal signature. If Fountain had studied with Bonade or today with Gilad, he would just have had more hurdles to overcome in developing his own style. He would not have developed swing plus Dixie style that he did. On a Buffet with a Vandoren M13, an inverse Bonade ligature, and and a harder reed, he would have had more trouble sounding the way he wanted to. Fountain is not ignorant of how the clarinet can sound. At Warren Easton high school in New Orleans Joe Valentino taught him. New Orleans long had an Opera House and a Symphony (both Don Montanaro and Larry Combs began their professional careers here) and classical players such as Paquet from Belgium (who produced a splendid sound on an HS *no star) mouthpiece were well-known. New Orleans is after all a cosmopolitan town; Fountain was not raised in the trees by apes--he was exposed to a rich musical culture, both jazz and classical. A hint of all this appears in historian
Al Kennedy's well-researched book Chord Changes on the Chalkboard.. Fountain certainly listened to everthing by Goodman, Shaw, and Fazola and a virtually endless number of New Orleans style clarinetists.
Would those of you who don't like Pete Fountain's "sound" (actually he had many different sounds at different periods in his career) presume to similarly "correct" the sounds of Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw. Would you tell Goodman that he could have done much better had he studied with you rather than Reginald Kell? And what of Eddie Daniels? Some commenters have dismissed him on YouTube for using a "breathy" sound. But he studied with the big names in New York, including Abato, Allard, and Portnoy.
Could it be that when Daniels wants to sound breathy he does, rather than trying to sound like Bonade? Maybe it fits the jazz mood he is developing better than what you would tell him to do? Could it be that the jazz style requires rejection of some classical concepts; and the converse is also true? I have heard maybe 36 different classical clarinetists perform the Artie Shaw Concerto, and maybe two or three do it right. They don't swing like Shaw, they don't diamond ace the high notes, they don't have the flexability to gliss, and their tone is too hard and scrapy to sound like him. So should Shaw take lessons from them (if he were alive and young today)? What, exactly would he learn that he could apply to the jazz idiom?
If Fountain had wanted to also include classical music in his performaces, then, yes, he could have learned something, perhaps, from you. But he didn't--and since he is clearly one of the major jazz/pop clarinetists, you may have something to learn from him! Even something about tone producion for jazz.
Fountain was honest enough to draw the line. He respected Tony Scott, Buddy DeFranco, Al Batiste, and Eddie Daniels but had no interest in playing modern jazz. Nor did he want to be a "trad" revivalist. New Orleans culture had a lively strain of music going that did not need a revival. As as boy, Fountain used to stand outside the bars where Irving Fazola was playing and hum through the choruses Faz took. He actually was more "progressive" than the trad players (certainly than the revivalists). He wanted to add the more sophisticated harmonies and tech work of Goodman and Shaw to the developing New Orleans jazz tradition. And his great acheivement is that he did. But he drew the line at incorporating any be-bop, cool jazz, or avant guarde into his music. He didn't disdain these styles; they just weren't for him, just as the career of a classical performer was not for him.
Let's get this straight: Pete Fountain became the best updated New Orleans Jazz, swing, and pop clarinetist on the planet--bar none. That is his place in jazz history and he didn't need extensive lessons in classical tone production to do it. The best clarinetists, Louis Cahuzac, Harold Wright, Robert Marcellus, Ricardo Morales, Sabine Meyer, Karl Leister, Martin Frost--you name them--could not have improved the way Pete played jazz (and that includes his sound). Yes, they could have taught him many other things--mostly that he did not need, considerning the tragectory of his chosen career. And he could have taught all of them how to play jazz.
I heard Fountain a few times discuss other New Orleans clarinetists he liked. These included Art Ryder and Tom Laughin. He always referred to their "workmanship," as if they were carpenters or house builders. Fountain was, in his own way, a technical perfectionist. I heard him live over 50 years in hundreds of performances, and I can hardly recall any serious flubs, squeeks, or mechanical difficulty. In his own realm, he was a perfectionist. During the 50s and 60s, he played rather quietly with a very liquid, flowing sound. To those of you who actually believe you know his ability from listening to a few videos from Johnny Carson appearances rather late in his career, I can only be so bold as to give you a homework assignment. Fountain made at leat 56 LP recordings, going back to the 50s. Listen to them all or at least to 20 or 30 of them, and then come back and we can discuss whether his sound was "nasal" or not.
Fountain in the 50s and 60s had a very soft-edged sound. I attended an appearance he made at Werlein's Music store when he was promoting the Leblanc LL clarinet. He was playing "La Vie En Rose" when the clarinet repair tech in the next room started to try out a clarinet. The tech's sound was ten times louder, with a harsh edge that obliterated the cooing of Fountain's horn. When the guy stopped, we all felt a storm had passed and we could again heart some sonorous music from the clarinet. So, back then, he was a very gentle, beguiling player. He passed out some reeds that were very soft. He was using the crystal O'Brien mouthpiece that Leblanc later copied with his name on it.
Fountain became a household name appearing on the Welk TV show each week. Early on, he was still using this O'Brien clarinet (and the O'Brien mouthpiece) and playing wide with a covered sound like Fazola. YouTube has some of these performances--one is Round and Round. The classic Fountain sound emerged when LeBlanc America decided to see if they could get Fountain to switch to the clarinet designs of Leon Leblanc--the LL and the larger bore Dynamic. These were designed to allow players to blow the instrument with a relaxed throat and mininal lip and jaw pressure. Fountain liked both the LL and the Dynamic models. In fact, he became the poster child for both. His sound WAS the relaxed throat, light embouchere that Leon LeBlanc had dreamed of. When other players like Jerome Stowell, Gus Bivona, and Don Bonnee played the LeBlanc Dynamic models they sounded good but did not acheive the iconic, relaxed sound LeBlanc was looking for. They found that sound in Peter Fountain. To this day the Fountain sound is THE DYNAMIC Leblanc sound. Warm big bore with some resonance and center. Nothing nasal about it!! Later Fountain began to play louder and more aggessively on the same equpiment (the Dynamic was outfitted with gold keys and renaned the Big Easy.) I prefer the way he sounded from the early 60s through the 70s.
As for loud players, it would be hard to beat Sydney Bechet. He tried to match his clarinet sound to the strength of his soprano sax sound and had a vibrato that could virtually attack trumpet players and swallow them whole. Louis Armstrong was wary of playing with him because "there's room for only one lead player" and with Bechet, that would probably have been Mr. B!!
Post Edited (2017-03-11 06:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2014-12-13 01:37
That post by seabreeze is perhaps the finest post I've ever read here, detailing the importance and mastery of Pete Fountain. At the very least, it is the most gratifying I've read here. Many, many thanks.
To humbly add my perspective on all that he has just shared with us, I'd say that if I was forced to name an era of Pete's playing that I loved most, it would be the late '50s through early '60s. I love the early Coral records, and his sound was just...well, if there is such a thing as perfection he came really close to it for me then.
But on a deeper level, it's what Pete taught me by his playing that I'm so grateful for. His command, his complete control of musical materials in the manner he wanted to (and seabreeze is absolutely correct about his fusion of jazz styles--it was revolutionary.) I'm grateful for each of the eras of his sound development--even the ones I'm not as drawn to--because each time Pete's sound changed, it proved something new about the horn, like mapping new territory for the rest of us. Very few players ever have that depth of meaning, and very few map that much territory.
And all of this is really dealing with Pete the clarinetist--as a musician he's more than his contribution to the horn. There is a depth of joy to Pete's playing, and an inimitable warmth an character that is rarely reached. Sonny Rollins comes closest to my mind, and I think they share something of the same humanity as artists, despite all of the cultural barriers and stylistic differences.
But wow...what a post, seabreeze. Thanks again.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Orlando Natty
Date: 2014-12-16 06:27
I think his sound is a bit reedy in that recording and not indicative of what he normally sounds like. I have always loved his tone. It is usually so warm and effortless sounding.
My favorite recording is the following of "My Inspiration" which I think was also one of Fazola's favorites.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=c9vkwP5kj7M
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
