Don`t tell me you`re doing it again, Bradley. I know they are attacking you to some extent but you ask for it. You continually back up your arguments with arrogance that you know more than anyone else here and makes you looks so bad.

Just accept that you may not know as much as some others on the jazz clarinet topic and move on.

Ooooh, it got really heated here, I see. I`m not gonna take sides - this should be a helpful forum, not a debating platform. Just thought I`d say that the clarinets used in jazz can take on many many forms and not all sound like saxophones. The Ken Peplowski (is that how you spell it) Quartet (or is it Quintet) is a good example of a clarinet played with a really smooth tone completely unlike a saxophone.

The biggest mistake some clarinet players can make is learning HOW to play jazz - you can`t `study` jazz. Most legend of jazz in history (on all instruments) were self-taught musicians. Even though they may have learned how to play the instrument by someone, it was often in marching bands and classical repertoire that the technique came. Jazz comes from experimentation, improvisation, learning off others and an imbuilt sense of freedom. The reason a lot of clarinetists sound like saxophonists is because they were never exposed to anyone who knew particular embouchure, breath support, reed choice etc from a classically trained perspective. They were self taught or if not, learnt from someone who was self taught or learnt from someone else and so on and so on. Jazz is like old folk tales, passed down in generations etc. One person learns a particular technique and he teaches his `followers` the same thing. Its not necessarily wrong or bad, just different. You don`t have to like it. That`s the beauty of jazz.

Oh, and Eddie, Acker Bilk was self-taught, which demonstrates my point. Not only that but he never claimed to be jazz. He was a popular music artist. The vibrato he used, which is imfamous, didn`t come from a need to be a jazz musician. A lot of `old-school` band musicians do the same thing. It may have been the time, the place and the style of popular clarinet. He wasn`t a good example to use.

i`ve heard a jazz clarinet it really wasn`t that bad i mean i`ve heard better but it was up to par for me but i play oboe so don`t take opinion to deeply

Perhaps the clarinet is not the ideal instrument for jazz. As some one else had stated, Jazz has a distinct groove sound that is appealing to many audiences. However, the clarinet was the ideal instrument for Big Band and swing in the time of such clarintists such as Benny Goodman, the king of swing.

alot of clarinets are used in dixie for example...
there are so many forms of jazz that it is nearly impossible to say thats "a clarinett sounds bad in jazz" cause with so many different forms of jazz comes different sounds. and the clarinett suits some of the jazzstyles better that even a saxophon.....

hmm...sorry...dont know the language so well...hope i made myself understood...im swedish...=Pcant help it...

I`ve read that the very first Jazz recordings (1917) were made in New Orleans and featured clarinet. Interestingly, some people have theorized that those early "Jass" musicians were influenced by clarinetists/sailors who hailed from Northern Greece/the Balkans! Having been to Northern Greece (Epirus) and heard their clarinet styles myself, I have to say that their style is the most amazing and unique I`ve ever heard. The ULTIMATE. Epirotic clarinet..check it out!

When I started reading this, it was because I wanted a break from homework, and I figured that I wouldn`t respond. Now, I`m in tears. Not because people`s opinions are different, but because there`s so much negative energy that everyone is getting defensive. I don`t know what you all think that you`ve achieved, but I can tell you that you made an innocent person cry. This is worse than the girl vs. boy arguements on the Flute board, and I doubt I`ll ever come back to this message board again.

Goodbye. Yes GOODbye, because I`m glad to be going,
Gumdrop

you don`t have to get so emotional about it
a forum is just where you post your opinions, a little heat won`t hurt

as i see it, you`re the one that MAY seem a little defensive. no offense

I read an above post that says jazz cannot be studied, and that most jazz musicians were self taught. I would have to disagree with these statements. Why would most universities and conservatories have jazz programs if jazz cannot be studied? Jazz can be studied in a very disiplined manner just as classical. Jazz musicians must practice their scales, chords, etc. just as legit players do. In fact most jazzers practice technique more than legit players because of the exotic chords and scales used in jazz and because players are expected to improvise on these scales and chords at sight. However, technique isn`t everything; in fact, "jazz study" really takes form in listening.

No jazz musician in the history of jazz was ever self taught. Everyone studies the improvising and playing of others through either recordings or live concerts. Even though players may not have been trained classically, they have had training and practice none the less.

Furthermore, classically acceptable technique and sound isn`t important in jazz. A jazz clarinet played in a classical manner would sound ridiculous. No jazz clarinetist plays with a completely classical approach to sound and timbre, and the reason why is because it just isn`t important. It`s not that jazz musicians aren`t capable of playing with classical sound and technique, they simply choose a different approach when playing jazz. Miles Davis went to Juilliard, and he certainly didn`t play with a classical sound or technique.

Anyways hope that sheds some light

Bryan, I get the impression that you`ve missed my point entirely since you pretty much just confirmed what I was saying.
What I mean by `you can`t study jazz` is that whilst there is a theoretical and practical basis for jazz, there is also a kind of `it factor` involved which distinguishes the really accomplished (including the legendary performers of 20th century ie. Davis, John Coltrane, Ellington, Basie, cutting contest afficionados, Bird, the list goes on) and exceptional jazz musicians from some aspiring jazz musicians. We can all `learn` elements of jazz in time - from its history, the techniques, scales and modes, harmony, improvisation (which is what is taught in the most prestigious of schools all around the world and this is important, of course). However, no-one can STUDY that one factor that comes from the imbuilt sense of freedom, independence and continual motion that jazz embodies. You either have it or you don`t. This is what distinguishes a TRUE jazz musician from someone who merely loves jazz and has been told `this is how you play this particular piece`. Of course it takes some place in listening - I didn`t say it wasn`t theoretically based nor did I say that you need to be classically trained. (Merely that someone who doesn`t like jazz clarinet is probably listening to it with classically trained ears and it just doesn`t sound right to them that some musicians sound like a saxophone - you don`t HAVE to have any classical background to learn to play most instruments) On the contrary, a classically trained jazz musician could sound ridiculous!!

I also didn`t say that ALL musicians were self taught (not to mention that I said HISTORY - way back before recordings were that readily available to the average wannabe musician) and by self taught, I actually meant that they learned by imitation and listening rather than having 1:1 lessons with a teacher at a conservatory. Of course its about listening and imitation. I said that in my last post. I was referring to people like Louis Armstrong, Biederbecke, Trumbauer and `tailgate` trombonists etc from turn of the century who began playing in and copying and seeking help from people in military marching bands and small groups with homemade instruments and hanging around clubs, following bands in the street etc.

Miles Davis is relatively recent in the grand scheme of jazz history - he wasn`t who I was referring to when I spoke of self-tuition. Although, he does serve to emphasise my point actually, because, YES, he was a graduate of a very prestigious, long standing school. Yet he maintained a sound and individual musical identity that is instantly recognisable unlike anyone else who is a teacher or graduate of that school. Why? Because Davis had that IT FACTOR that can`t be taught - he embodied it in his passion for creating his own style and his collaboration with other people who had this factor. This is what distinguishes him from other performers that may not have made it on the global or even national scale.

Just confirming my point.
Alyssa

Alyssa,

Right on. Good points. However, just for the sake of keeping the discussion going. I would like to talk about the unknown "x" factor you spoke of. The point I was trying to make was that jazz CAN be approached from a very rudimental standpoint, and even this unknown factor that you speak of can be taught.

I feel like a lot of classical players stay away from jazz, and improvisation in particular, because they think, like you, that there is an "x" factor involved. I think that this unknown factor is creativity.

The hard thing with jazz is that you have to learn how to open up your creative side. Its not that some musicians don`t possess creativity, its that they can`t transfer their creative ideas into their instrument. The transfering of ideas to technique on the instrument is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome in improvisation. How does one do it? I`d say to play what you hear. As an exercise try singing a solo then playing it back on your horn.

With regards to players naturally being able to do this, I think your right in saying that the greats have an innate ability to transfer ideas from their head to their horn incredibly fast. However, there is hope for the rest of us, and I think that everyone is capable of studying and learning jazz if they are creative.

Remember, even the greats were horrible at one time. John Coltrane was once awful, but not because he wasn`t creative. It was because he didn`t have the technique or skills to transfer his ideas onto the saxophone. So even though there is something of an "x" factor involved in jazz, I think that it is something all musicians have, but have yet to truly practice and explore.

From marching bands the technique came? Good heavens. Never having seen a marching band that didn`t destroy technique, a band that teaches you technique would be interesting to see. We`re not talking about DCI though?

I have to laugh at the above post that made the person cry. Better get out of music while you can. Ever had someone at an audition play something quicker and cleaner than you? That would make any musician cry!

Bryan, you`re probably right on the legends being able to translate their ideas into technique quicker than others. Yeah, I think that creativity itself can be taught to the extent that a teacher (i.e. jazz professor at a conservatory, a private teacher etc) can explore ways that the student, one who has the enthusiasm, love and ability to express themselves musically, open their minds and create their own sound. Its like any type of composition. A teacher of composition can guide a student to create their own ideas by helping them to broaden their mind - ie. introducing them to different procedures, compositional techniques. But the development of this thought process into a project/piece is entirely the student`s responsibility. The actual application of this creativity depends on the extent to which the student will tackle this concept. It is far easier to learn technique if this factor is involved - I think the brain is more receptive if that creativity is there from the start. I think that some people are naturally more creative and open minded, musically, than others. Its the left-side-of-the-brain concept. Not everyone has that.

The classical musician issue is an interesting point actually. There is this same factor involved in classical music but I think in terms of, particularly, pre-20th century composition, there is a lot less room for creativity. It tends to be much restricted in terms of creative interpretation. Whilst a musician can put his own distinct interpretation and `flavour` into a piece (particularly baroque and early classical in which dynamics, articulations, phrasing were omitted by the composers) and this can be the mark of an exceptional musician (just like jazz musicians), there still remains this silent respect for the composer and their work by trying to maintain a sense of historical integrity. There just isn`t as much creative freedom in classical music (BTW, I don`t like that generic term, `classical`). If a well-known musician was to channel all their creative ideas and interpret, for instance, a Bach prelude in an unrecognisable way, they are likely to be vilified by the media and by connoisseurs of the composer. There`s much more of a professional risk with artistic licence in the classical idiom.

Alyssa.