 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-10-03 00:11
McDonalds Eater's recent thread about "...big masters" (here) touched on a topic that I've contemplated posting about lately, so I'll use his thread as a jump-off to my own.
The question is (basically): How much of what we think we know about a performers "sound" in general (including the "big masters" or folks who we personally look up to) can be chalked up to the hall? The mic placement? The recording technology used at the time? The recording technicians in the studio, etc.?
How much of what we perceive, could be chalked up to our own minds filling in the blanks...completing the picture so to speak? Perhaps none, but much like the drawing of sequential dots might look like a line to us - or a series of such dots might look like a transparent cube to us (or circle, or sphere) - our minds are habitual at filling in the missing parts based on our previous experiences.
Part of the reasoning behind my questioning pertains to the threads relating experiences where an instructor/player is described as having a "small" sound when up close, but a glorious hall-filling sound when in the audience at the hall. When I read this, it makes me ponder, "Then, what is considered a good sound?" I'd hate to hear people describe my sound as "small."
Being a follower of early jazz (nearly a mouldy fig), I've listened to lots of the earliest recordings - operas, pop tunes, eventually jazz, etc. Truly terrible recording technology. Lots missing. My ears are used to imagining the full tone of Johnny Dodds, Irving Fazola, etc. on the old recordings. Jane Green's pure voice, etc. But how accurate is that sound image to the original? Truth is, I won't ever know because my brain is filling in too much detail from the "dots" it hears. I can hear the musicians doing technically astounding things. I can hear how much their specific sound differs from those surrounding them...but what did they really sound like?
I've heard many, many excellent musicians in live settings, yet even with today's technology, it is the exception (rather than the rule) that the performer sounds the same on their recordings as they did in person (sans microphone). Because of having heard the original sound live - I can still hear through that difference and appreciate the overall sound as being "that" performers sound on the recording...but how much is my mind automatically filling in to make this happen? To reconcile the recorded sound to the sound I heard while listening live?
To me, technical things generally carry through to the recordings...to the halls, and seem to cross medium or venue...but tone and overall "sound" are modified by so many variables! It leaves me wondering if we're talking past one another at times when we discuss certain performers/players - when it comes to their "sound." Perhaps our minds each fill in the blanks differently - based on our own experiences.
Which leads somewhat back to McDonald Eater's post: How can we know what "sound" some of the greats from the past actually had? How much of our ideal is made up of bits and pieces automatically added to the sound picture by our own minds?
Are we admiring technical abilities and phrasing, etc., instead of sound?
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-10-03 00:30
Hi Fuzzy,
I really have been wondering a lot about this and I'm really grateful to you for expressing it so well.
I feel as though there are so many complex elements to what we hear and experience in music.
I have listened to old masters' recordings and felt strongly that I am probably only perceiving 10% of the magic. I always wish I could be right there in the hall to know what it was like, and also now with today's professionals.
My son and I talk sometimes about how so much of the magic is when we feel the sound waves hitting our bodies, which is an experience that we only get with live music.
Then there are individual differences in perception - differences in acuteness of hearing, differences in the speed of processing in the two different ears, and lower or higher sensory sensitivity in different individuals. I also know that I hear my own playing through rose tinted spectacles, which is very nice for me, but hilarious for others.
I've been wishing recently that we could ask the older members of the forum if they could tell us what it was like to have these experiences of hearing great music maybe way back in the 40s or 50s. I especially wonder about the music halls in small towns, when they had live bands with clarinetists. I would love to hear more about that from people who were there.
I hope I am not derailing here and that I have understood right. Your question just really hits the spot with what I've been wondering. Please do ignore if I'm not getting it quite right.
Thanks for raising it!
Jen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-10-03 01:22
well the "easy answer is........all of the above
Sound is intrinsically tied to having great pitch and technique. I think much of what separates Leister from a good hunk of the crowd is his impeccable sense of pitch and subtle differences of shading from one fingering to another for the same note (based on master class statements and examples).
When I hear some of the vintage recordings referenced on the Board such as from Ralph McLane or early (or home done recordings) of Harold Wright there is something quite obvious about their projection and clarity (and yes this is the brain overcoming limitations of poor recording quality). However, if you take an obvious example of a diffuse, airy sound and ask yourself what that would sound like on a Deutsche Grammophon recording the answer is pretty simple.
There was a post some time ago regarding what the Italians call squillo. In essence there is some character one can impose in the sound, referred to as squillo, that allows it to carry over distance and other competing sounds (overtones one would certainly say). I have recently gone back to playing in large groups and noticed right away the difference in the sound I heard of someone playing right next to me at break vs. in context of the entire group. I was floored (a consequence of being away I gather) at how amazing the sound was in context vs. what was a good sound alone but not one you'd write home about.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-10-03 01:57
I was working on a reply to the other thread along these same lines. Having grown up in the '60s and matured as a player in the '70s, I have to say that the playing I heard in live concerts in a concert hall (usually the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, but occasionally other halls, especially when I was touring with the Army Field Band in the early '70s) was different both from the recordings of the period and from the close-up sound I was fortunate enough to experience with a couple of the "greats."
Just taking the sound concept alone, the players of the mid-20th century were trained before the advent or, at least, the blossoming of the recording era in the '50s and '60s. The emphasis for most of those players was projection of both sound and expressive musical gestures (dynamics, articulations, etc.) in large orchestras performing in large halls, not, for most, "a round, smooth, dark, covered sound, one that sounds good up-close or for recording..."
Having grown up with that idea, I still strongly prefer it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-10-03 02:05
Paul,
Thanks so much for bringing the "squillo" thread in! I had wanted to mention the thread, but couldn't remember the word to search for.
That thread is the one which initially spawned this thought/question in my mind (moreso than any before it.) I listened to all the examples, but left that thread with a feeling that technology and/or venue could explain away a good portion of what I thought I was hearing. Even closeness to the "mic" device alone might have. Not saying it does/did explain it all away - but that it could. To my ears, it most likely did explain away a great deal of the differing sounds I heard in the examples...but I haven't heard a lot of great singers in halls - so my experience is limited. My mind didn't have the material to plug the missing holes.
Which in some way refers us back to McDonald Eater's thread.
[EDIT: This part added in as an afterthought:]
A few of the current old-time jazz players have recorded using 1910s-1920s era equipment (straight to 78 or cylinder). A few of those albums were then digitized and sold. The difference is that studio techs back then probably had much more experience at the procedure than our current musicians, so I suspect these modern recordings are a bit rougher than the vintage ones.
Still, it is very interesting to be able to hear the tone/quality/sound of a player that you've heard live, heard recorded on modern equipment, and compare it to the 78 or cylinder recording. While stylistically, its easy to hear that its the same artist; and while one specific artist still contrasts with the artist sitting/standing next to them...the overall sound is foreign.
I enjoy these recordings, but I find that had I ONLY had these vintage-type of recordings to listen to, that I would be completely wrong about how these artists actually sounded.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
Post Edited (2023-10-03 02:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-10-03 02:42
Karl,
Thanks for bringing up the differences of sound concept based on timeline.
I've read a fair bit about how mics (and magnetic tape - Les Paul/Bing Crosby) impacted vocalist approach and multitracking, but hadn't really thought much about the following era and how it might have changed instrumental sound concepts - especially in classical.
I'm sure TV added another change - or a further embracing - of "intimate" sound rather than pre-mic era sound.
It's interesting, though - I think that trad jazz recordings generally embraced a "pre-mic" era a little longer - it seems to have only embraced "intimate" sounds more recently. Chris Tyle (who sometimes frequents this board) would definetly know better than I whether this is an accurate statement.
Folks like Acker Bilk and Pete Fountain delivered "intimate" sound in the 1960s, followed by Sandor Benko etc. in solo format, but I'm not certain the sound of the "trad jazz" musician changed much due to mics? Hmmm. Something I'll have to think more about.
Here's Evan Christopher utilizing that "intimate" sound (clarinet starts at about 40 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tmWdlz1PVk
Thanks,
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-10-03 09:56
Hi Fuzzy,
I wondered if there might have been other factors at play that are hard for us to figure out?
A relative of mine who is a singing teacher says that really old recordings of soprano singers sound very different because they all wore very tight corsets and couldn't breathe properly. I figure the clarinetists were probably all men, but they may have had other stuff going on that we don't know about.
I'm thinking, for example, during some periods the hall would have been full of people smoking cigarettes, and dense smoke outside making the buildings black and affecting breathing. At other periods there would have been respiratory diseases circulating that might have affected things - for example back in the 1910s there would have been diphtheria, TB, and the new strain of flu, and later on there would have been polio doing the rounds. Michael Flanders of Flanders and Swann blasted on through as a professional singer, despite having difficulty breathing because of having had polio.
When there was no recorded music, there would have been huge demand for performance in dance halls, so the players must have been really performing a lot, to large audiences, who might mostly have been dancing rather than sitting staring at the musicians.
I suppose that realistically some of the guys that we hear on old recordings would have had some or all of these things to deal with, and that's before we take into account two world wars and the depression.
Once I think about all that, I can totally get what Karl says about playing for projection and dynamics, and less about the covered sound for close recording equipment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2023-10-03 15:10
Back in 1976, trumpet player Maynard Ferguson held a clinic on the stage of the E.J. Thomas Hall at the University of Akron. The clinic was in the afternoon, while he performed that evening with his band. During the clinic, he played a few notes on his trumpet without a microphone. His sound really was as big as it appeared during a performance and on his albums.
As a member of the University of Akron symphonic band in 1975, I got to perform at E.J. Thomas Hall. I found it difficult to hear the rest of the band over my own instrument, alto saxophone. Years later, acoustic changes were made in the Hall. Turns out, I was not the only one with that complaint.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-10-03 22:27
SunnyDaze wrote:
> I'm thinking, for example, during some periods the hall would
> have been full of people smoking cigarettes, and dense smoke
> outside making the buildings black and affecting breathing. At
> other periods there would have been respiratory diseases
> circulating that might have affected things - for example back
> in the 1910s there would have been diphtheria, TB, and the new
> strain of flu, and later on there would have been polio doing
> the rounds. Michael Flanders of Flanders and Swann blasted on
> through as a professional singer, despite having difficulty
> breathing because of having had polio.
>
> I suppose that realistically some of the guys that we hear on
> old recordings would have had some or all of these things to
> deal with, and that's before we take into account two world
> wars and the depression.
>
This may be over-selling the principle. First, none of us spent time listening to clarinetists (or other wind instrument players) from 1910 or even from the WW I era - recording was in its infancy and only a very select few are available from that far back. We all understand how primitive the recording techniques were back then.
If we're talking, as the OP was, about the recognized master players of the late '40s, '50s and '60s (who are well represented in recordings), we would know in most cases about health issues. Their students and their colleagues would have told those stories, if not while they were playing, then after they had retired. - e.g. Marcellus was diabetic and Opperman (who played mostly Broadway and opera) was an inveterate smoker, from all I've read. I think by that time (at least in my experience) the concert halls and theaters were smoke-free, at least in the seating area (the hallways outside the auditorium and the rest rooms may have been a different story).
I think the biggest difference among renowned players then (late '40s through the '70s) and now is that we now have many more players who are primarily recording artists - soloists and chamber music players who play recitals, teach and do clinics and who don't play in large orchestras for their primary living. The playing demands are different.
Karl
Post Edited (2023-10-03 22:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: keywhether
Date: 2024-03-11 13:44
kdk wrote:
> SunnyDaze wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking, for example, during some periods the hall
> would
> > have been full of people smoking cigarettes, and dense smoke
> > outside making the buildings black and affecting breathing.
> At
> > other periods there would have been respiratory diseases
> > circulating that might have affected things - for example
> back
> > in the 1910s there would have been diphtheria, TB, and the
> new
> > strain of flu, and later on there would have been polio
> doing
> > the rounds. Michael Flanders of Flanders and Swann blasted
> on
> > through as a professional singer, despite having difficulty
> > breathing because of having had polio.
> >
> > I suppose that realistically some of the guys that we hear
> on
> > old recordings would have had some or all of these things to
> > deal with, and that's before we take into account two world
> > wars and the depression.
> >
> This may be over-selling the principle. First, none of us spent
> time listening to clarinetists (or other wind instrument
> players) from 1910 or even from the WW I era - recording was in
> its infancy and only a very select few are available from that
> far back. We all understand how primitive the recording
> techniques were back then.
>It's interesting, though - I think that trad jazz recordings generally embraced a "pre-mic" era a little longer - it seems to have only embraced "intimate" sounds more recently. Chris Tyle (who sometimes frequents this board) would definetly know better than I whether this is an accurate statement.
>Folks like Acker Bilk and Pete Fountain delivered "intimate" sound in the 1960s, followed by Sandor Benko etc. in solo format, but I'm not certain the sound of the "trad jazz" musician changed much due to mics? Hmmm. Something I'll have to think more about.
>Here's Evan Christopher utilizing that "intimate" sound (clarinet starts at about 40 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/doodle cricket/watch?v=1tmWdlz1PVk
To me this is a great recording.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2024-03-12 02:03
I heard Brymer live in orchestra a few times (in the same concert hall) live in a church doing the Mozart concerto, and live in a small hall doing the Weber Concertino and SaxoRhapsody (on alto sax) and live in a major London hall in Prelude Fugue and Riffs. A lot of what he did there comes over on his recordings, but I do think he could prioritise beauty of tone by holding back and allowing the engineers to compensate, so I think that aspect differed. Occasionally a recording more accurately reflects how he sometimes let it get out of control, such as in the last movement of his Kegelstatt recording.
I own, and often play on a mouthpiece which is known to have been used by Charles Draper and may have been used on his several recordings 1928-30. It is somewhat worn. The sound characteristics are very reminiscent of his recorded sound, though of course I can’t match his sound production abilities. But it’s clear enough that the recordings capture what he was doing.
I heard Acker Bill live in a small hall about 6 months before he died. Of course, all the players were miked as is now expected. I was astonished by how much better he sounded than his 60s/70s records, although there were similar characteristics, despite the great difference in quality. It made me wonder whether he had deliberately downgraded his sound in the recordings. He was also a very amusing compère.
graham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
