 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Amy
Date: 2002-03-18 23:33
I'm studying music at university and writing a project at the moment on the use of the clarinet in jazz (post-bebop). I am looking at the decline in the use of the instrument, especially during the bebop era, and wondered if anyone out there held any views as to why the saxophone became the superior instrument, and still is today?
I've found some good info on the internet about the technical demands, but wondered if there was more to it than this?
If anyone is a specialist jazz clarinet player, or just knows some of what is happening on the jazz scene at the moment concerning the clarinet, it would be GREAT to hear from you! (being a typical student, I have left this quite late, and so would appreciate any help).
Many thanks from a fellow clarinet player.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-03-18 23:52
"...I've found some good info on the internet about the technical demands, but wondered if there was more to it than this?..."
Doesn't ANYONE use a library any more.
There is, however, more to getting information and doing research than just using a search engine.
For starters, try: "The Book of Jazz" (Leonard Feather). This is one of the cornerstones in the history of jazz.
Read Chapter 9 ...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-03-18 23:53
typo: Chapter 9 (not Chaper 9)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Amy
Date: 2002-03-19 00:00
thanks........I have read extensively in the library (but in my university library, that's not much), especially through all the books on the history of jazz. But you must appreciate that these books do not always cover 'up to the minute' information, and so the internet is becoming a very valuable source of that information. The first section of my project is based on the history of jazz, and so yes, I have used books as a resource, but the rest of the project is far more topical and so I do feel that the internet will be useful here.
But yes, I do think some people rely on the internet as their only resource.....thanks for the tip about that book....I don't think I have come across that.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-03-19 00:15
Amy...I'm happy to have helped.
As a former high school teacher, I am very wary of just doing research and gathering information through search engines. I'm pleased to see you didn't take that route only.
As I (and others) have stated ad nauseum on this board, anyone can put up a web page and post "information." The validity and veracity of any scholarly research from strictly using the internet is frought with danger.
Use primary and established sources, cite your findings, and use your insight to draw conclusions. That method will always provide you with a document that others will find enlightening to read...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-03-19 00:21
GBK - couldn't agree more - search engines are totally useless UNLESS you can validate the information.
I always rely on my library for information - especially if it's got an historical bent. HC Robins Landon - for example when I'm writing about Haydn.
There is no replacement for scholarly research.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-03-19 00:49
Why did the clarinet get replaced by the saxophone as a jazz instrument? Here's a wild guess--the saxophone is a louder instrument (able to compete with the usual brass and rhythm instruments) and it is easier to initially play the entire range with an acceptable sound with its covered tone holes. It usually takes the average beginning clarinetist twelve pages of lessons to learn to play just the lower register without squeeking by keeping the tone holes covered. Then, they have to learn to use the register keep and C is no longer C, it is now G!!! Sax beginners learn the register key from the start and alsmost instantly are able to play twice the range--and louder. Also, the fact that the sax overblows an octave makes it easier for the jazz performer to keep track of his harmonies and relative fingerings. Please do not misunderstand me!! I am not saying that the saxophone is an "easy" instrument. It takes years of study and practice to be really good and versatile sax artist. What I am saying is, however, that one can play the full range of the instrument and produce listenable music much quicker on the sax than on the clarinet with its open tone holes, overblown fifths and reed/embouchure problems. And that is why I think that the sax became the instrument of choice for so many "unschooled" self-taught jazzers. It's easier and faster to be "good" on and you can be head when you play!!!! Hope this helps a bit. Good Luck on your research and your project. Let us know what conclusions you arrive at.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-03-19 02:59
Wel, here's my 5˘ worth (this will be more than a 2˘ blurb):
Pino comments that Pete fountain is the biggest-name Clarinet player still around. Pino also reminds us that Fountain did not develop any new style. He instead musically targeted himself on New Orleans jazz.
Those who were individually stylistic, such as Goodman, Shaw, and Herman, were BIG in the "Swing Era." Glenn Miller, although a trombonist, specialized in having a Clarinet (complete with vibrato) lead a saxophone chorus in his arrangements. And Jimmy Dorsey, although better known as a saxophone player, was a clarinetist with Red Nichols years before he bacame popular as a leader, and he had a rather distinctive playing style with the Clarinet throughout his career. Those who remember his million-selling "So Rare" might appreciate that his Clarinet style was not so different from that of his sax playing (he did think the recording was done in an extreme style of presentation).
But, as William says, the saxophone is a louder instrument. Easier to hear over the rest of todays LOUD music. But in the olden days, sixty years ago, the Clarinet worked well. Are the new ones not so loud? Not only that, here's a really controversial opinion, I betcha: a saxophone is more likely to be played more expressively from the standpoint of technical variations than is a clarinet, because most Clarinet players are rather deeply schooled in classical techniques. The saxophone, on the other hand, has never developed a generically "Orchestral" classic style of play, although orchestral saxophonists generally do play it rather "straight." As do most orchestral trumpeters, for that matter. This allows the average saxophone player much more freedom to express in the music anything that might be desired. This situation is, I think, supported by the numerous threads right here on whether or not a Clarinet should be played with vibrato. Good grief, isn't it obvious? If you're playing for an orchestra conductor, you do what the maestro wants. That's axiomatic. If the conductor doesn't say, "Hey, Clarinets, at letter C, give me lots of vibrato" (don't hold your breath for that one), then don't do it. It isn't expected. But if you are playing in your own style, and you expect people to throw money, you'd better play what they like. I don't care if it means sticking an appoggiatura on each and every note, or something equally as bizarre. If they want it, sell it to them.
Back in the days when Goodman was playing Copland and Hindemith, and Herman was playing Stravinski, the popular conception was, "Hey, how about that, they can play classical music, too." Nowadays, when Wynton Marsalis plays classical music, he's recognized as an amazing musician, not just because he can play something else "too." And that's even though Lincoln Center says he is "...the most accomplished and acclaimed jazz artist and composer of his generation."
This brings up my ultimate reason why Jazz of today has no Clarinet Comet in its sky: there simply is no Clarinet player today who has a distinctive "jazzy" style, chooses to use it as a primary source of income, and is as good as Goodman, Herman, or Shaw. Or Marsalis. If such a player turned up, there would be a place at the table, no doubt. We live in a time of mixed blessings: really good clarinetists can earn a decent living by playing symphonic music, doing teaching, recordings, the occasional tour, and maybe making a few endorsements on the side. Very nice. So why play jazz? Sixty years ago, a really top Clarinet player could do better economically by sacrificing himself to the rigors of the world of the Big Bands, and some did.
Within the last forty years, the only Clarinet player with a truly distinctive style who captured the fancy of the public at large, like it or not, was Mister Acker Bilk. Not very jazzy, eh? And I still say his vibrato sounded as if he had been strapped to a paint mixer. But the music SOLD. That is extremely important, especially if you care for food, clothing, shelter, 150 channels by satellite, and a new PT Cruiser. What, you say he sold out for the bucks? "Commercial" artists are bottom feeders? I would remind anyone that Michelangelo Buonarotti did NOT paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for free. He did it for a lot of money.
Regards,
John
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of anyone, including me.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: William Hughes
Date: 2002-03-19 04:03
My son enrolled in the jazz ensemble class at his high school this semester (as a guitarist). The course description includes the following statement: "Jazz Ensemble members must play saxophone, trombone, trumpet, piano, bass, guitar or drums to be in this group." Sad, isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Eileen
Date: 2002-03-19 04:15
I once read a magazine article on the Internet with a long interview with the jazz clarinetist Don Byron where he talked about the decline of clarinet in post-bebop jazz. That might be interesting if you can dig it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2002-03-19 08:20
There is little new development in the jazz field as far as I can see. There are new good players and new tunes and arrangements but it all seems a little static. The status of the clarinet may have risen a little, however.
The saxophone, especially the tenor, expresses human emotion better than the clarinet, which comes off as kind of anemic by comparison. The sax is also closer to a romantic human voice. In addition, the sax can generate a lot more raw animal excitement than the clarinet. At last night's St. Patrick's Day party, I brought my tenor sax but would hardly think of bringing and playing my clarinet. It would have been lost with the two guitars, bass, and loud drums.
The old time swing big bands still play the old arrangements that call for the sax and clarinet but no flute, alto flute, or soprano sax. Recent arrangements hardly call for the clarinet but frequently require the flute and soprano sax. In a band I play in that plays no older arrangements, I never find it necessary to bring a clarinet. A lot of the saxophonists who sit in with this band don't even seem to know how to play the clarinet. They don't appear to have an interest in the clarinet that we love so much. The sound simply must not move them. This may also come as a result of the partial demise of the school music system in the USA in recent years. Good luck in your research.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jamie Talbot
Date: 2002-03-19 12:34
I often wonder if the fact that pre-bop clarinet players,especially
Benny Goodman,openly condemned be-bop in the 40,s,alienated a lot
of potential clarinet bop players.The main heroes of day being Bird,Diz,Miles and Monk it may have seemed"uncool" to attempt be-bop
on the clarinet because of this.Very few clarinetists were part of the new scene-Buddy Defranco being the most prominent.These days things are different and I,m convinced that Eddie Daniels is largely
responsible for the rebirth of the clarinet in contempory jazz.
Just opinions of course.Good luck with the project!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-03-19 12:47
A very interesting question and group of replies. Maybe the saxophone is more feminine.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-03-19 13:35
The author Andre Hodeir ("Jazz - It's Evolution and Essence") has charted a nice timeline on the evolution of jazz from approximately 1900 onwards. I've always found this helpful for comparisons.
He has divided the 100 years into 5 major periods (with subsections in each). Very briefly:
1900 - 1917 Primitive
New Orleans (orig. New Orleans) Bolden/Johnson etc.
1917 - 1926 Oldtime
Chicago (advanced New Orleans) Oliver/Morton/Armstrong etc..
New York (big band, piano) Henderson/Johnson
1927 - 1934 Pre-Classical
New York (birth of swing) Armstrong/Hawkins/Hines/Bix
Kansas City (growth of big band) Henderson/Ellington/Moten
Chicago (traces of New Orleans) Morton/Noone
1935 - 1945 Classical
New York (swing) Hawkins/Young/Goodman/Webb/Hampton etc...
New York (big band peak) Basie/Lunceford/Ellington/Shaw/Herman etc.
New York (New Orleans revival) Armstrong/Bechet/Morton/Ory etc...
1945 - today
New York (bebop) Gillespie/Parker
New York (cool) Davis/Mulligan etc..
New York (holdovers) Armstrong/Bechet/Hampton/Tatum/Young etc...
West Coast (progressive) Brubeck/Kenton
From the above chart it is clear to see that from 1945, the clarinet was in serious decline.
Your mission, Amy, is to discover why. John, William, and others have given you some good starting points.
The lack of clarinet use, and it's recent attempted turnaround by Fountain, Tony Scott, DeFranco, Daniels, and other (even Stoltzman!) will make for a fascinating read when put in proper perspective.
Good Luck - let us know what conclusions you draw...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-03-19 16:25
A clarification: I said that among other things, a clarinetist could make it big in jazz today if the player is as good as Goodman, Shaw, Herman, or Marsalis. This may be misleading, without a caveat that the public determines what "good" really means. I think Buddy DeFranco is great, but the majority of the general public does not. If they did, he would be the heir to the Clarinet legacy in jazz. Instrumentalists may love his style, but unless it has mass appeal (Mr. Acker Bilk, remember?), it just doesn't make it big-time.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-03-19 16:51
"...but unless it has mass appeal..... it just doesn't make it big-time..."
John is correct. Witness the success of Kenny G...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: charlie c
Date: 2002-03-19 20:16
The clarinet is still prominent in jazz if you consider the trad jazz movement. (I hate the term dixieland). Although these bands have the standard 'dixie' line-up (trumpet, trombone, clarinet/sax and rhythm) they play much more than the obligatory war-horses (Saints, etc.)
One of our local bands (plug) the Toll House Jazz Band, plays everything from a Del Staigers rendition of Carnival of Venice, Rube Bloom's "Soliloquy", to Whiteman and Goldkette recreations. There are dozens of these bands around the country, playing festivals almost every week of the year. Sadly most of the musicians have day jobs. Maybe they should all get guitars and learn three chords and become rockers :-( Good clarineting, Charlie C.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Gerry
Date: 2002-03-19 20:16
Of all the clarinetists cited, nobody mentioned Henry Cuesta. Extremely fine instrumentalist, plays tremendous Dixieland but may not be heard of too much. He did play with Lawrence Welk for the last 10 years of his show, but I have seen him in concert many times and believe that he can out-perform most of the Jazz clarinetists I have heard. One problem maybe that he has not developed a distinctive style that would set him apart - al-la Acker Bilk, but technically there is no comparison.
Just my 2 Cents worth.
Gerry.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jim S.
Date: 2002-03-19 21:48
Listen to Ken Peplowski's "Duet" by Strayhorn/Hamilton on Concord for something contemporary that is beautifully done. (And reasonably interesting, as so much of comtemporary jazz is not.)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Gerry
Date: 2002-03-20 13:10
I attended a Ken Peplowski concert a couple of years ago at our local theatre during the Markham (Toronto) Jazz Festival. Exceptionally fine clarinetist. I bought his CD while there. His style is a little like Buddy DeFranco and Eddie Daniels. The "Duet" you mentioned sounds interesting. I will try to find it and give a listen.
Gerry.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: C@p
Date: 2002-03-20 13:15
Amy, when you have your paper written, perhaps you could share it with us. If you would be so inclined, you might want to privately e-mail Mark for input as to whether it should be posted as a thread or as an article on some other art of Sneezy.
C@p
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Amy
Date: 2002-03-20 23:17
thank you all so much for your contributions and suggestions.........I have got much inspiration from your posts in the last couple of days, and am well on the way now.............will let you all know how it turns out.
C@p - about posting my paper on the site - not altogether sure - watch this space!
Amy
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Don
Date: 2002-03-22 12:57
You've picked an interesting subject for an academic pursuit, one I've wondered about myself. I'm intrigued by the many responses you've received, and agree with most of the things players have said.
Still, Amy, with so many folks weighing in on this subject, I'm surprised no one has hit on the fundamental reason. Maybe it's too simple. All the words and research aside, the answer to your simple question is remarkably basic. Why did saxophones eclipse clarinets in jazz? Because chicks dig 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Swing Band Queen Katai Katai
Date: 2002-04-07 04:40
(sighs angrily)...In my humble opinion, clarinets should very well be in jazz bands, but they just aren't. What other people said about volume may very well be the case. A clarinet section of twenty is easily drownded out by a sax section of four. I had to quit clarinet and switch to tenor sax in order to get into the jazz band at my school, and I still miss my dear little clarinet and play it every day at home. But yes, saxophones are capable of greater volume and they are a good deal easier to play. Their sound can be altered for so many effects as well. I still don't think that the poor instrument should be completely outsted forever, though. Begin the clarinet jazz revival! (and thus the author quietly smiles to himself)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kfeder@hotmail.com
Date: 2005-05-07 18:00
The decline of the clarinet in American jazz reached its nadir around 1954
when Artie Shaw, disgusted with the music scene, left the biz for several years. He then returned under the pseudonym "Mickey Katz" and got the klezmer revival underway, recording hits such as "Kiss of Meyer" and "Where is My Pants?"
|
|
|
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2005-05-07 19:51
>>As a former high school teacher, I am very wary of just doing research and gathering information through search engines. I'm pleased to see you didn't take that route only.
As I (and others) have stated ad nauseum on this board, anyone can put up a web page and post "information." The validity and veracity of any scholarly research from strictly using the internet is frought with danger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not as much danger as that associated with libraries. I'm very wary of just doing research and gathering information through libraries. Editors choose those books that will sell and make them money. There is no feedback, no discussion. Added to that is the fear that because the information is 'in print', it will somehow be accepted as the truth.
>>anyone can put up a web page and post "information."
Change 'web page' for 'book'.
Gathering information takes time. You soon learn to look at the author/source of the web page, just as you should look at the author of the book.
But a big difference is that the author of the book has had to conform to a style that his editor accepts and will ensure a good profit.
Internet webpages and forums do not have these constraints. There is some rubbish out there and you have to learn to recognise it, but the same is true about books.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2005-05-07 20:23
I think the sax is much easier to play than the clarinet. You can bang out decent music on a sax in no time but on a clarinet it takes years to sound as good. Even mistakes and blurbs sound ok on sax. Mistakes and blurbs on a clarinet intensify the fact that you can't play. There is less need to master the instrument to play relatively well. There is so much more time and dedication that has to be put into playing the clarinet, that most people would rather "be in a band" quickly than practice and become masters at the clarinet. The clarinet has long been associated with classical music and the sax has not. That kind of makes the sax much more of a "jazz only" instrument than a clarinet. Most people are amazed at how wonderful the clarinet sounds in jazz. It's getting them to hear it that is difficult. Once they hear it, I think they also wonder why the sax has a stronger presence in jazz than the clarinet. On a personal note, playing both instruments as a pro, I think that the sax is what gets you the gig but the instrument, to me, is too limiting and almost dull in comparison to the clarinet. The sax is an instrument I would rather listen to than play. The clarinet is an instrument I would rather play than sit and listen to someone else play it. Just my humble two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-05-07 20:38
stevensfo wrote:
>>anyone can put up a web page and post "information."
As I previously wrote, there are numerous sites on the web designed and written (seemingly) by 12 year olds. Although they are blatantly obvious in the banality of the writing, many people doing research will (amazingly) still use these sources as trusted places for information.
> Editors choose those books that will sell
> and make them money.
> Change 'web page' for 'book'.
Few 12 year olds I know have editors publishing their writings.
Always use primary and trusted sources for research. Most are found on the shelves of your public or music library. Make use of the reference librarian. That is why they are there ...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2005-05-07 21:25
It has been said that "What goes around comes around" and I hope its true with the clarinet in both the Jazz and popular field. Maybe another Artie Shaw type will come along. Although Ive only heard one person say they didnt like the Sax who for what its worth played th piano. I think its cool and yes, Pretty Saxy. ![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-05-07 22:00
Sax is more popular because the herd (and I don’t mean Woody Herman’s) says it is the preferred jazz instrument. A whole generation thought the accordion was uncool because of Lawrence Welk, then we discovered Cajun, Klezmer, and other music that set the record straight.
McAuley said that, “among other things, a clarinetist could make it big in jazz today if the player is as good as Goodman, Shaw, Herman or Marsalis…[with] a caveat that the public determines what "good" really means.
There is a real irony here in using Artie Shaw as an example. He did manage to find a formula that hit pay dirt, and yet he was frustrated throughout his playing career by the fickle demands of the public.
Isn’t jazz is all about finding one’s own voice? Isn’t that what music in general is about? Ironically, those least concerned with fashion often end up as trend setters.
That being said, I realize that it would be too idealistic without also considering the practical needs of frustrated musicians. Not all of us can be innovators, but if jazz clarinet were more popular it would be easier to get gigs and create a little space in which to improve your chops.
Still—do you really want jazz clarinet to become as popular as the saxophone? The sax is a great instrument, but it has been served up so many ways. The clarinet sound comes across as something fresh.
For years I thought about getting an alto sax as another instrument to play. Then I heard a recording of Don Byron playing bass clarinet as a solo instrument. The thought began to dawn on me: The world does not need another sax player!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2005-05-07 22:17
>>As I previously wrote, there are numerous sites on the web designed and written (seemingly) by 12 year olds. Although they are blatantly obvious in the banality of the writing, many people doing research will (amazingly) still use these sources as trusted places for information.
Of course. Though this has been going on for hundreds of years. Except, you could possibly change '12 year old' for 'uneducated', ill-informed', self-opinionated', 'arrogant', ...etc.
>>Always use primary and trusted sources for research. Most are found on the shelves of your public or music library. Make use of the reference librarian. That is why they are there ...GBK
Well that depends on the type of research and the level of information being sought. For a 12 year old, pehaps a public library would be fine, but not for a more advanced scholar.
Which doctor would you trust more? "Take this drug. It's been reviewed on Medline and is being discussed on the St Barts medical forum" or "This may work. I read about it in a book in our library"?
Hmmm, I think I'll give the library a miss this week.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Merlin
Date: 2005-05-07 23:08
>"Of all the clarinetists cited, nobody mentioned Henry Cuesta. Extremely >fine instrumentalist, plays tremendous Dixieland but may not be heard of >too much. He did play with Lawrence Welk for the last 10 years of his >show, but I have seen him in concert many times and believe that he can >out-perform most of the Jazz clarinetists I have heard. One problem >maybe that he has not developed a distinctive style that would set him >apart - al-la Acker Bilk, but technically there is no comparison."
I got to perform and record with Henry on a number of occasions. He was underutilised on the Welk gig - his playing was very much in the mold of Benny Goodman. He was singled out by many respected musicians as being one of the few who played with the kind of fire and verve that Goodman did.
I did some big band gigs with him where we played mostly Goodman charts for the night, as well as doing the Stars of the Lawrence Welk show when it played in Toronto. There's a recording of him guesting with the Paul Grosney Orchestra with vocalist Lynn Roberts that was done here in Toronto; I'm on baritone and bass clarinet on that disc.
Henry passed away about two years ago, if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-08 12:22
-------------------------------------
This brings up my ultimate reason why Jazz of today has no Clarinet Comet in its sky: there simply is no Clarinet player today who has a distinctive "jazzy" style, chooses to use it as a primary source of income, and is as good as Goodman, Herman, or Shaw. Or Marsalis. If such a player turned up, there would be a place at the table, no doubt. We live in a time of mixed blessings: really good clarinetists can earn a decent living by playing symphonic music, doing teaching, recordings, the occasional tour, and maybe making a few endorsements on the side. Very nice. So why play jazz? Sixty years ago, a really top Clarinet player could do better economically by sacrificing himself to the rigors of the world of the Big Bands, and some did.
--------------------------------------
What about Eddie Daniels????
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BlockEyeDan
Date: 2005-05-08 19:38
-------------------------------------
This brings up my ultimate reason why Jazz of today has no Clarinet Comet in its sky: there simply is no Clarinet player today who has a distinctive "jazzy" style, chooses to use it as a primary source of income, and is as good as Goodman, Herman, or Shaw. Or Marsalis. If such a player turned up, there would be a place at the table, no doubt. We live in a time of mixed blessings: really good clarinetists can earn a decent living by playing symphonic music, doing teaching, recordings, the occasional tour, and maybe making a few endorsements on the side. Very nice. So why play jazz? Sixty years ago, a really top Clarinet player could do better economically by sacrificing himself to the rigors of the world of the Big Bands, and some did.
--------------------------------------
What about Eddie Daniels????
David Blumberg
http://www.mytempo.com
--------------------------------------
What about Chuck Hedges?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-05-08 20:02
BlockEyeDan wrote:
> -------------------------------------
> This brings up my ultimate reason why Jazz of today has no
> Clarinet Comet in its sky: there simply is no Clarinet player
> today who has a distinctive "jazzy" style, chooses to use it as
> a primary source of income, and is as good as Goodman, Herman,
> or Shaw.
>
> What about Eddie Daniels????
>
> David Blumberg
> http://www.mytempo.com
>
>
> What about Chuck Hedges?
>
Or (still with us) Buddy DeFranco?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2005-05-08 22:37
Saxophone?
All I hear are guitars! I go to concerts in town and seldom see any wind instrument. It makes me think that it is easy, easy to play a guitar/bass.
I've been playing along in rehearsals with a swing band --doubling the 2nd tenor parts in traditional charts. Occasionally, I get to pick up my clarinet, and it seems so feeble after the power of my tenor.
I've noticed two other things: Its really easy to play the tenor in tune (if you listen). Its so easy to get the sax section in tune --particularly compared to playing Mozart with a series of church pianos.
Also, the adlib solos in this stuff call for the horn player to folow a chord progression, and (sorry, guys) our locals just don't seem to be able to relate what they are doing to the musical themes provided by the composers. Sure, some neat rythms and riffs are pretty neat; but they need to relate to the tune that is played. (IMHO)
Bob Phillips
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2005-05-09 04:59
""This brings up my ultimate reason why Jazz of today has no Clarinet Comet in its sky: there simply is no Clarinet player today who has a distinctive "jazzy" style, chooses to use it as a primary source of income, and is as good as Goodman, Herman, or Shaw""........................................or (ahem).........Dodds, Bigard, Lewis, Humphrey, Noone, Nicholas, Simeon, Parenti, Fazola...... et al..........
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2005-05-09 11:40
In a couple of different threads this same subject came up in regards to school jazz ensembles and why clarinets are not to be found. On the klarinet list and here I've postulated that one reason might be the lack of music written that includes jazz clarinet making it too difficult and not worth the effort for music directors.
Dr. Ed. Lacy at the University of Evansville (IN) fired a shot at that theory that is well worth considering. During the period from 1945-today there has been a shift in listening preferences. Dr. Lacy pointed out that prior to 1950 most leading female singers were sopranos and the shift has gone to alto and this shift in preference corresponds to the decline of the clarinet for the sax. Dr. Lacy argued that people like to hear instrumentation in the same range as their preferences in singers.
Best
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-05-09 15:46
I think that Dr. Lacy's theory is perfectly viable. We have seen this happen.
Of course, we're also hearing plenty of rock guitar being played up into what would be extreme range for the clarinet. We're also see great popularity for Kenny G. who is playing 'pretty' stuff in our range on soprano sax.
I do think that the instrument's technique is a very big factor. A lot of bebop being played in those jams at Minton's was designed to be hard enough to oust mediocre sax players. The kind of stuff we saw coming from Bird & Diz often came in keys that could tie up even the most facile clarinetist. (all the more reason for us to revere the successes of Buddy and Eddie)
Benny Goodman also had a bop-friendly protege whose name I don't recall. I've heard it said that his premature death in a car accident was the death of the clarinet in mainstream jazz.
But even so, many of us survive as sax players and I don't know that there's anything wrong with that. I mourn for a pop culture icon for young clarinetists, but that's another thread. Jazz clarinet still works quite well in dixieland situations, Django-type situations that I'm seeing more of lately, and I'm doing my best in the area of western swing.
In reality, the biggest factor in this perceived demise might be inflexibility on the part of players and pedagogues. This is an area where recent years have brought a lot of improvement and maybe a little hope.
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-05-09 19:36
GBK: all I have to say, in my town, we have one public library with next to nothing in it! Sure, there are plenty of books, but even thinking that this book you speak of would be in my library (or high school library) is laughable. Sure, I could ask them to order it for me, pay a fee, wait 10 days (minimum), and then search through the book to find what i need, or I could run a search on the internet in the next 30 seconds after I write this response and search through those.
I am not saying the internet is better, simply more convinient. And I realize that the internet is fraught with inconsistencies, misinformation, etc, but so are plenty of books that I have read (though less likely and not as easily done, yes). I personally like books better, but when they are not available, where should one turn?!
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-05-09 19:45
music_is_life:
2 words -
Interlibrary loan.
Try it sometimes. It works...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2005-05-10 01:09
Well, jazz itself isn't exactly the most popular style anymore, is it? The decline in clarinet in jazz seems insignificant when set next to the decline in jazz itself. Sure, there are a few professional, reasonably popular jazz groups out there (Mingus Big Band and Big Phat Band come to mind immediately) but for the most part, jazz musicians are looking at a narrow group of listeners. At the high school level, the kids in jazz band seem to be the cool ones and the average student would rather listen to the jazz band than the wind ensemble, but the popularity is relative.
Recently, we had the Mingus Big Band up here in Anchorage, AK in concert, with tickets selling for $30. Including myself, we had 4 students from my high school of roughly 2500 attend (the band has about 70 members, the jazz band 15). The adult situation was pretty much the same - the city has a population of 250,000 and I'd guess we had no more than 1500 people at the concert, our concert hall certainly wasn't filled. Had the group been someone from the pop/rock or rap scene, undoubtedly the numbers would've been quite different.
And while we lament the fall of clarinet in favor of sax, let's not forget that the sax has seen the same thing in the last 10 years in popular music. Watch any sitcom from the early 90s, and it's hard to miss the rock group with alto sax in the lead at the beginning of each scene. Most rock music from the same period involved at least one sax as well, with sax solo on occasion. Now, tv shows frequently open with a whiny rock band of all guitars and a vocalist who can complain about anything and write a song about it. And of course, with all of the guitars, there's not much room for any saxes. So clarinetists aren't the only ones who have it rough, saxes and most other classical instruments, really, are in the same situation. Saxes seem to be finding a rebirth in the ska genre, but ska is nowhere near mainstream.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-05-10 01:38
Quote:
music_is_life:
2 words -
Interlibrary loan.
Try it sometimes. It works...GBK
GBK...I did mention that: (and I quote)
Quote:
Sure, I could ask them to order it for me, pay a fee, wait 10 days (minimum)...
that's what I was referring to...I meant "order" as in ask another library to borrow it so that I could borrow it, but I am almost positive that costs money, if I am not mistaken. And it takes a long time.
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-05-10 01:43
music_is_life wrote:
> but I
> am almost positive that costs money, if I am not mistaken. And
> it takes a long time.
I've gotten everything from out of print texts, specific reference books and hard to find doctoral dissertations through both our local library and college library.
I never had to pay anything and the longest wait was about 5 days...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: CK
Date: 2005-05-10 02:20
I am a clarinetist who plays classical as well as jazz and double on
flute, sax, double reeds. Check out "Eddie Daniels" Paquita D Rivera
Ken Pepolowski. Wiliam O Smith
In my humble opinion "Eddie Daniels" is probably the most incredible
Jazz Clarinetist Today
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-05-10 02:44
There are a lot of good points in this discussion, and each point seems to lead to another point.
Allen Cole made a good point about the technical difficulties of playing fast bebop phrases on clarinet, as opposed to sax. While that is true, it shouldn’t be enough to keep clarinets out of jazz.
J. J. Johnson learned to play bebop on trombone.
And—when Miles couldn’t play as fast as Diz he developed his own style that did not emphasize technique as much. Miles certainly became a big name in jazz!
Artie Shaw tried to incorporate bebop into his later work. Perhaps if he had not been such a big name before, with all the baggage and expectations that came with all that, he could have stuck it out until the public caught up with him.
John Kelly reminded everyone of the Black and Creole players. In early New Orleans jazz the group sound was more important than soloists. So it makes sense that the names Goodman and Shaw would come closer to being household names today because they fronted bands at a time when soloists had come into the spotlight.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-10 03:01
-------------------------
Allen Cole made a good point about the technical difficulties of playing fast bebop phrases on clarinet, as opposed to sax. While that is true, it shouldn’t be enough to keep clarinets out of jazz.
---------------------------
huh? Bebop isn't hard to play on Clarinet at all!!!
No matter how fast it is. A very good sight reader (professional player or that level) can just about sight read it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2005-05-10 03:18
OK, here's a theory:
the clarinet's decline in jazz started with the death of Dixieland/Chicago-style/trad-style (whatever you want to call it) and the rise of the big band in the late 20s/early-to-mid 30s. It never was really widely used in jazz after that, at least not as a prominent solo voice. (sure, all big bands depended on a few clarinets in the reed section for background tone color, e.g. played behind a vocalist, but I assume we're talking solo voice here).
For the sake of argument, I'm going to regard Goodman/Shaw/Woody Herman et al. as anomalies, simply because aside from their own distinctive solo voices (and to be sure, their success DID spawn a lot of less well-known clarinet soloists) they never really featured clarinet either, at least not as integrally as the older "trad" forms did.
OK, so my theory breaks down a little bit re. Glenn Miller, since arguably his use of clt. as a lead voice provided arrangers with incentive to do the same, spawning a number of clarinet-driven charts all through the what, fifties? I still don't think that qualifies as "use of clarinet in jazz," though.
As to WHY the clarinet isn't as common a solo voice in jazz as say the saxophone is?? Very simple:
The saxophone, played by itself, is sexy. The clarinet, played by itself, is not.
(and I love clarinet! ) but I'm sorry--I think it's because the sax is easier to play expressively on, and easier for the listener to HEAR the expression the player puts into it. Clarinet's a lot more subtle than that, and while I'm not saying nobody ever played a sexy clarinet, I AM saying it's easier for the listener/record buyer/dancer to hear the "heat" in a saxophone.
How's THAT for a back-of-the-envelope theory??!? Discuss!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Merlin
Date: 2005-05-10 04:26
>The saxophone, played by itself, is sexy. The clarinet, played by itself, is not.
I think I would dispute a blanket statement like this.
Define "sexy".
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-05-10 06:22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
huh? Bebop isn't hard to play on Clarinet at all!!!
No matter how fast it is. A very good sight reader (professional player or that level) can just about sight read it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READING bebop solos...this is a joke, right?
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have found that elusive cause.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting for those new ring tones from the Charlie Parker Omnibook...
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-10 12:41
Allen, I sight read that stuff. I don't find the Ominbook difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-05-11 06:57
David, you still miss the point by a mile but thanks for making mine for me in such a telling way.
I can just picture the parade of dejected clarinetists sauntering out of Minton's in the early 1940's--completely flabbergasted that no one brought music for them to read.
This is hopeless.
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-11 12:14
Allen, there isn't a thing you can do on Sax that can't be done on the Clarinet.
And if you doubt it, ask Buddy DeFranco
I know Jazz, I teach Jazz - I've played the Sax as long as I've played the Clarinet.
Your posting was about the "difficulty of Clarinet playing fast jazz bebop phrases"
I say it's bunck.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-05-11 22:47
wow, GBK, that book (history of jazz- leonard feather) is NO WHERE in my library, and I asked them if they could borrow it from another library (they also do out of state searches for 9 bucks) and it wasnt anywhere in any state libraries! I am intrested by this book, so... but anyway, the woman was very helpful and told me it's like 2 bucks on amazon, so I might as well buy it. I wonder why this book is so hard to come by??
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-05-11 22:54
p.s. is it "the book of jazz"? or "history of jazz"??
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2005-05-12 03:39
DavidBlumberg wrote: "there isn't a thing you can do on Sax that can't be done on the Clarinet."
--theoretically true but the reality is extremely FEW "sax first" doublers achieve comparable skill on the clarinet. An interesting study actually --- in the realm of jazz, why are "sax first" doublers more challenged mastering the clarinet compared to "clarinet first" players learning the sax? Answer: The clarinet is a flat out harder instrument to play and the 12th versus octaves technically harder in the creation and physical execution of improv.
And, "reading music" (transcribed Bird solos in this case) is not improvisation but reciting what others have written and played. At most, it's "simple creation", in the least it's "taking dictation". Even if you sight transpose the Omnibook in all 12 keys it would still be "transposition", not improvising. Regurgitating transcribed solos is not free-form composition --- the speaking of one's own "original ideas". Reading music is also arguably a totally separate skill, area and function of the brain.
Sometimes I wonder if it's best to accept what is instead of analyzing to death the 5 Ws of music evolution. One unintentional, yet contributing force to the decline of the clarinet as a lead jazz voice was the rise of the mother ship, contemporary big bands --- beginning in the 50s with the Stan Kenton band. As influential his legacy and music, some of Mr. Kenton's literal heroin-induced creations shoveled more dirt on the grave. Following his (arrangers' lead) was Maynard, Buddy Rich, Rob McConnell, Akiyoshi/Tabakin, even Doc got into the act. Ironically, there was a simultaneous under tow and loyal following with Basie, Ellington, and Dorsey/Miller Ghost bands keeping the clarinet in the mouth and off the peg. Also fighting against the clarinet in the 60s - 80s were the commercial/fusion horn line Top-40 pop sensations: Bill Chase, Don Ellis, Chicago, Blood, Sweat and Tears, Tower of Power, and Earth Wind and Fire, etc. I went through high school during this time and as hard as I tried to keep focused on Weber and Mozart, and the dial turned off they were still major musical influences.
Debatably, the greatest thanks for keeping the clarinet from going under permanently goes to Eddie Daniels. Even though Thad & Mel primarily featured lead Soprano Sax, it was Eddie who grabbed his clarinet instead of tenor at a 1970, Munich night club. One unpretentious but historic 16-bar solo in, “Little Pixie” did more to revitalized and re-legitimize today’s jazz clarinet then 20 years of Shaw and Goodman combined world tours. That solo alone catapulted him to fame. Today, and for me it's long live Mintzer, among many more! v/r Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Merlin
Date: 2005-05-12 04:17
"And, "reading music" (transcribed Bird solos in this case) is not improvisation but reciting what others have written and played. At most, it's "simple creation", in the least it's "taking dictation". Even if you sight transpose the Omnibook in all 12 keys it would still be "transposition", not improvising. Regurgitating transcribed solos is not free-form composition --- the speaking of one's own "original ideas". Reading music is also arguably a totally separate skill, area and function of the brain."
I don't think David is making the claim that it is improvisation. He seems to me to be stating that the lines like Bird's are readily playable on the clarinet.
I believe the ED clarinet solo you're referring to is much earlier and longer than stated. AFAIK, ED's solo on Little Pixie was done on the Monday Night At the Village Vanguard album. The band started playing in '66....
Also, Little Pixie is an Ab rhythm changes tune - his solo would be at least 32 bars long. On the version I've heard, each member of the sax section solos on a different axe - Jerome Richardson on sop, Jerry Dodgion on alto, Pepper Adams on baritione and Joe Farrell on tenor. (I may be mistaken about JF).
There are several clarinetists who've been glossed over who are still vital players. One is Canadian Phil Nimmons. The other, much more in the mainstream vein is Ken Peplowski. Allan Vache, cornetist Warren Vache's brother should also be acknowledged. Mintzer's bass clarinet work is good, though it bothers me that almost every recording I have of him has the bass run through effects.
Don Byron, to me, represents what is need in jazz clarinet right now. An active composer and improviser who has a distinctive original voice, with a great grasp of tradition and an open ear.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-05-12 09:32
Well, I'm glad to see at least a little sense being injected into the argument.
The fact that the saxophone is a more facile instrument than clarinet over the full range of keys is simply not disputable--and the proof of that doesn't even require us to consider sax players who double on clarinet. I'm willing to bet that among clarinet players who double on sax, and who are active in jazz improvisation, most will tell you that they practice the clarinet as their primary instrument, but still find greater facility on the sax in the more difficult keys. Further, I submit that this is still true using advanced technique on the clarinet and basic technique on the sax.
Reading does provide some relief because it adds a visual dimension for the player to process and can allow an extra instant for some strategy in applying the instrument's technique. This element is missing in improvisation, however, and I remain incredulous that reading would even be introduced into this argument. The sarcasm in my response to that is a reaction not only to David's attempt to argue on the oblique, but to what I see as a clarinet-skewed view (someone in a past thread coined the word 'clarinetism') of something that the rest of the music world seems to readily understand and accept. I was not kidding when I said that I could envision disappointed clarinetists walking out of a jam session because there is no sheet music to read.
Perhaps the clarinet can do anything that the sax can do, and perhaps bebop is perfectly easy. I am too weary, and possiblly too low on the food chain, to even get into that. Better players than I have a healthy respect for the task of playing bop and post-bop jazz, and better players than I would probably reach for their sax if someone called a fast rhythm tune in 5 sharps. I certainly know that I would--even at the cost of adding a 6th sharp to my list of challenges. It seems to me that most postwar clarinetists found themselves embracing the dixieland revival, where the instrument does feel more facile. Buddy DeFranco and Eric Dolphy seem to me the exception, rather than the rule. Ditto for Anthony Braxton a few years back, and Don Byron and Eddie Daniels today.
I'd like to know if Buddy DeFranco really thinks that all this stuff is easy. The size and scope of his book "Hand in Hand with Hanon" certainly seems like a stern warning to the rest of us.
But since we are in dispute on something that I thought was self-evident, let me cut myself off here by offering an experiment to try at home.
1 - WITHOUT written music, play scales-in-thirds in all major keys on sax, and then run them on clarinet. Do those pinkie keys feel a little more challenging without a method book in front of you? Luckily, they can be handled with a very simple formula. If you're bored and over this, go on and add fork fingerings to keep you awake.
2 - Also without written music, play the little triplet thing from Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring in all major keys on clarinet. See how much your ear and your pinkies compete for the attention of your conscious mind. (If too easy, add fork fingerings. If too boring and pedestrian, do Donna Lee instead.) Then try them on your sax and see if you experience an instant feeling of relief.
I regularly practice in this manner and have not ceased to find it challenging--particularly on those 'easy' bop tunes. Perhaps some of you already do this with Flight of the Bumblebee, and Giant Steps. If so, my hat's certainly off to you.
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-12 12:28
----------------------------
I don't think David is making the claim that it is improvisation. He seems
to me to be stating that the lines like Bird's are readily playable on the
clarinet.
---------------------------
Yes, that is correct.
As for the "facility" - Clarinet is the heck of a lot more facile than the Trumpet is, and most other instruments as well.
Comparing it to Saxophone, there may be a "slight" difference, but not much. And doing a jazz improv is not about speed, but substance.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-05-12 12:34
While the core of this discussion is the use of the clarinet in jazz, as opposed to sax, I think it is worthwhile to continue exploring the parallel topic of improvising versus reading. (I wonder if Amy is still with us?) Also, we should consider the whole thing in a much broader context of music.
Here are four anecdotes that almost seem contradictory because they highlight the paradoxes of music.
Scene one: Pianist Art Tatum was sitting at the bar during a break between sets. Someone brought in a young pianist who copied Tatum’s chops note for note. After demonstrating his ability, the upstart walked up to Tatum. Unimpressed, Tatum turned around and ordered another beer. “He knows what I did, but he doesn’t know why I did it.”
Scene two: Once in an interview Duke Ellington was talking about improvisation versus arrangements. He made the common sense observation that, when you play something the same way twice, it is an arrangement, whether it’s on the paper or not.
Scene three: Dexter Gordon was playing somewhere in England. Four cocky young guys came into the place; they were also playing, they had a following and they thought they were pretty good. They weren’t intimidated by Gordon’s musicianship.
The boys were the Beatles. You know that they didn’t have some of the skills of Dexter Gordon, but you also know that their work has stood the test of time. There have been some really good jazz treatments of Beatle tunes because the tunes themselves are good material.
Scene four: This is my very favorite segment of the Ken Burns jazz series. Charlie Parker rolled a coin into the jukebox and played Hank Williams tunes. None of the cats could figure out why Bird listened to that stuff.
The point of all this: All of us who are serious about music would like to play better. Secretly, most of us would like to be king of the hill and win every cutting session. David B, if you can sight read fast bebop lines my hat is off to you.
And—I’m willing to use different means to play better: reading. listening and copying, making it up.
But--wherever you are on the “food chain,” you have to respect where music comes from and find that core deep within yourself. There are people who have very little playing ability and yet have that indefinable spark. You have to find your own voice. If you are a clarinet player it may involve picking up a sax in order to get to play; it may not.
Either way, be who you are and be proud of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-12 13:05
I would think that sound projection, and timbre would maybe be a valid argument for sax and against the clarinet in jazz, but not technique.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarispark
Date: 2005-05-12 13:32
My high school's jazz band does not accept clarinets. When I asked why, our band director (still a bit green, has only been teaching for three years) told me he'd ask the former band director, who retired after over 30 years of teaching--and leading the jazz band. He sent back the answer that saxophone is a "jazzier" instrument than clarinet. He also pointed out that sax is naturally a louder instrument than clarinet.
I play louder than any of the saxes we have in the jazz band, and with a better tone too.
But in the end I did start playing sax in the jazz band. When we don't have a tenor sax player (and yes, that happens often) I play that part on my clarinet. Everyone likes it, but we haven't got any actual clarinet music in the jazz library.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-12 13:39
What I really dislike are Flutes in a School's Jazz Band. They make the ensemble sound "fluffy".
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Merlin
Date: 2005-05-12 14:33
I wish schools would make a distinction between jazz courses that are really "big band" classes and courses where anyone can learn to improvise jazz.
Anyone that says it has to be saxes, brass and rhythm section instruments is really just putting together a big band. And why not? It's easy to get material for this combination, and in many cases the teacher couldn't play a chorus of Bb blues to save their lives.
A really good jazz course, IMO, would embrace any and all standard band and orchestral instruments. Yes, it would require more of the teacher, but it would extend the opportunity to learn jazz improvisation to many instrumentalists who don't get a chance otherwise.
Nice thing about Jamey Aebersold - if you show up to a workshop of his, it doesn't matter what you play. He'll take you by the hand and teach you how to play in the jazz idiom. In his view, anyone can improvise, if you give them the info and methodology to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-05-12 16:36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think David is making the claim that it is improvisation. He seems
to me to be stating that the lines like Bird's are readily playable on the
clarinet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that he was making this claim. In fact, he seems very careful to walk all around this. My point is that his whole thing about reading bebop is completely beside the point of the discussion of why the clarinet has died out in jazz. The nature of the original question points to the fact that the clarinet had clearly departed from the cutting edge of jazz by the 1950's. And jazz as it has progressed after WWII has been primarily about improvisation at higher speeds, in more difficult keys, and over more complex chord structures. This was a trend which bothered even Miles Davis, and helped lead him towards his modal concept.
David is telling us that lines like Bird's are readily playable or readable, but even if you accept this at face value it still avoids the issue of improvising at this level of speed and complexity while avoiding our unique fingering obstacles--which as pointed out, David does not claim to do or try. If this is so easy, why do we have so few postwar jazz icons to point to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "facility" - Clarinet is the heck of a lot more facile than the Trumpet is, and most other instruments as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in its better keys, but overall it is far more key-flexible than clarinet. I would hate to have to race one through the Arban book. And again, the bebop and hard bop eras have scores of virtuoso players. Clarinets have only Buddy DeFranco at that time, and later Eddie Daniels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing it to Saxophone, there may be a "slight" difference, but not much. And doing a jazz improv is not about speed, but substance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed and complexity was an important factor among those developing bebop in after-hours jam sessions. It served not only their artistic purposes, but to make jamming in these sessions impractical for all but the most elite players. And it is this music that mainstream jazz descends from--the music from which the clarinet largely disappeared...some say with the death of Stan Hasselgaard. The clarinet remained as it always has in dixieland and big band applications. Jimmy Guiffre did some interesting substance-over-speed stuff, but it never really caught on and is more of a sidestreet to the main highway of jazz development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think that sound projection, and timbre would maybe be a valid argument for sax and against the clarinet in jazz, but not technique.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given mainstream jazz's shift in emphasis from big bands to combos, and given the increased use of amplification I see little merit in this argument. West Coast jazz would've been the perfect environment for it, but there were few takers.
This argument would be more appropriate for big bands, where clarinet use was always secondary, and still not essential. But that would not really be in line with the development of mainstream jazz.
I'm not saying that technique is the only obstacle that the clarinet has, but seems to me that if it were not an obstacle, we would have a lot more jazz icons today than we do. I know that even if I wanted to stop playing in concert bands, show pits or chamber music, I would still have to practice clarinet as my primary instrument to keep it reasonably usable in anything beyond dixieland.
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-12 18:24
I'll just end my viewpoint by stating that Clarinet Technique is not an obstacle whatsoever
Post Edited (2005-05-12 18:59)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2005-05-12 18:55
>>>My high school's jazz band does not accept clarinets. When I asked why, our band director (still a bit green, has only been teaching for three years) told me he'd ask the former band director, who retired after over 30 years of teaching--and leading the jazz band. He sent back the answer that saxophone is a "jazzier" instrument than clarinet. He also pointed out that sax is naturally a louder instrument than clarinet. <<<<
I am shocked!!
If you were talking about a professional band, then okay.
But a school? What is a school for? If a few clarinetists can be included in the band, then why not? My son plays trumpet in the school's 'Big Band' and they have 3 clarinetists and a flute player included. The truth is that you can never hear them; they're drowned out by the sax players, trumpets etc. But so what? They are 'learning'!! They love it! The parents love it!! The teachers love it!!
People may stick their noses in the air and critiscise it, but a school is there to educate.
At the last concert, there were 3 boys playing electric guitar. The amplification was over the top and the keyboards were too loud as well.
But they experience. They learn. That's what being a kid at school is all about.
If a teacher doesn't allow children to play in a band then that's very sad indeed!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Clarinetgirl06
Date: 2005-05-12 20:13
Author: Merlin (---.sympatico.ca)
Date: 2005-05-12 14:33
I wish schools would make a distinction between jazz courses that are really "big band" classes and courses where anyone can learn to improvise jazz.
Merlin, at my high school we have 2 seperate jazz bands. One is a "big band" and the other is a 5 person jazz ensemble that focuses on improvisation. I am in the jazz ensemble and I have learned a lot about jazz chord structure, rythme, and the whole structure of what a small ensemble is all about. We originally started off as a big band, but over half of the kids quit, so we became an ensemble. I personally find this ensemble to be helpful because it gets the basics taught and also, most of our "big band" players are TOO SCARED to improvise. In my jazz ensemble, we play through the head a couple times then WE ALL TAKE TURNS IMPROVISING, and then we play through the head again. My jazz ensemble has a clarinet (me), tenor sax, flute, sometimes a trumpet, a drum set, and a bass player. I can be heard in this small intimate setting. I have had a good time doing this type of jazz. I want to play in the "big band" next year to get a different experience-maybe even player tenor sax which I played 4 years ago in my junior high jazz band! Also, both groups peform, but our main jazz band is our "big band" because the ensemble is more of a learning type environment.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ken Mills
Date: 2005-05-12 22:25
Dear Amy; People don't like clarinet players as a group. But a sax section can blend and project power and hit notes hard with that accent. A single sax is good at the ensemble while the clarinet is appropriate for dixiland music. Since the clarinet's high notes are dark then they can fly over the other bright sounding brass instruments. Hearing the alto sax gives me trouble with treble on the other hand. I, contrawise, am the loudest clarinet player you have heard: I used to be a real shopper for the equipment to do this and still sound dark. Nobody can stand up to me outdoors unless they play the trumpet, but their sounds are limited in range. Now if only I knew more notes: write to me about them. Power to You, Ken Mills
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Erdinet
Date: 2005-05-13 01:47
In the immortal words of Buddy Rich...
"You know what I hear when you write for flutes? Noise...."
Then again, I never really liked his big band very much.
"There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
-Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2005-05-13 02:46
Quote:
But a school? What is a school for? If a few clarinetists can be included in the band, then why not? My son plays trumpet in the school's 'Big Band' and they have 3 clarinetists and a flute player included. The truth is that you can never hear them; they're drowned out by the sax players, trumpets etc. But so what? They are 'learning'!! They love it! The parents love it!! The teachers love it!!
A year ago, I was interested in joining my high school jazz band and asked my director if I could join on the bass clarinet. It seemed fair enough in my mind - I could easily outplay the band's entire tenor sax section (volume and technique), my instrument could cover the range of the tenor sax completely and thensome, and jazz is about "expression" regardless of instrumentation. He of course said no and handed me a school-owned tenor, which I picked up and joined jazz band with a month or so later. After playing for the last 6 months, I've realized how right he was to do so. The reality is that there's far more opportunity to play sax in a jazz environment than a clarinet, and had he not made me learn sax, I think he would've been doing me a disservice in the long run. Of course, I have the opportunity on occasion to pull out the bass and play some improv (we too play through the head twice with improv from everyone in the group wedged in between), but would not want to play it in jazz band all the time. Even with the fact that saxes are far more prominent in the jazz world put aside, it's really quite a bit easier to play most of this stuff on the sax. Less of an effort technically, and the superior accessibility of the upper range on sax in general (a lot of the tenor stuff I read is written in that unfortunate region that corresponds with the upper clarion on clarinet) makes things easier on me.
On an only slightly related note, this semester our group is playing:
Free Beer - David Metzger
Blue Miles - Chick Corea (Arr. Bob Washut)
El Gatote - Matt Harris
Anyone familiar with any of those 3?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-05-13 05:33
You learned a great lesson, Igloo Bob. By adapting to the band--rather than having it adapt to you--you have made a great preparation for adult life. Congrats!
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-05-13 10:07
Allen is right. Life is about adaptation.
But you also might want to borrow a page from Eddie Daniels. Play the sax; keep the clarinet handy. You never know...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BlockEyeDan
Date: 2005-05-13 14:07
David Blumberg wrote:
>Speaking of with us - Al Gallodoro is still booked up.
>
>AT 91
>
>
>http://www.algallodoro.com/index.mv?screen=home
>
>David Blumberg
>http://www.mytempo.com
>
>
------------------------------------------
I've never heard Al play, but some of the praise for him on his website seems *pretty high.* Justified?
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Clarinetgirl06
Date: 2005-05-13 18:52
I probably would've been playing tenor or alto sax, but our school ran out of loaners. Oh well, it's been cool to do the clarinet in jazz!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-05-13 20:04
[ This thread was started 3 years ago and has covered a lot of ground, but it is now starting to repeat many of the same thoughts. It is time to give it a rest - GBK ]
[ Along with the fact that Amy had clicked the "email me any posts" box and sent me a message yesterday asking why she was getting emails from something she had written years ago ... - Mark C ]
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
