This recording is SO good! Best Mozart Quintet I’ve heard to date. It almost sounds like an old phone ringing in a good way. I guess that’s a bad description but that’s what came to mind 😭😂🎵🎶
I am so thrilled that this has been uploaded. Thanks so much. Other movements?? Ralph was my great grand teacher....my teacher's teacher's teacher. :-) Please share everything you have of his. Thank you so much
i remember Harold Wright telling me to Play the trill from Ab to Bb very soft so people can't tell how bad it sounds. Now I know where he learned that. Bearutiful performance. Win Swarr
I'd love to talk with you sometime about your time with Harold Wright!! If you'd ever like, email me at dalemfedele@gmail.com or call me at (707) 968-7420?
From what I heard, McClane's sound projected more than Wrights so that gives him an edge--no pun intended...I never heard wright live..much to my regret , but a friend of mine did and said Wright was fantastic But...he played everything mezzo piano
The eternal question!!!! My vote goes to McLane in the orchestra, Wright in chamber music/as a soloist. I always think about how much more dead Philly's hall is than Boston's.
I also admire the consistency of McLane's sound, from when he started in the orch to his untimely passing. Wright had the longer career, so naturally there was more change, but I find McLane the more consistent concept ...so to speak. Wright always had the most subtleties, though...
I'll say one last thing...in a modern orch, I find my sound gravitating more and more to be like McLane's. Part of it is the orchs I play with are very loud, and I can't be as sensitive as I'd always like. This is why the earliest recordings of Harold, before he went to Boston, are some of my favorite, too.
as opposed to most players from the period outside Vienna, a model of unmannered, exact and sombre playing with beautiful tone, just as Mozart requires. somewhat overpowered by the strings.
I think that last part is the most interesting for me. I think it's interesting comparing McLane to the other principals in Philadelphia. Bonade had an extremely large sound, that he purposefully would not make sound good up close...for projection in the extremely dead hall. Same with McGinnis, Portnoy, and, controversially, Gigliotti later. McLane however had a way of projecting in that same hall, while clearly having a "weaker" tone up close. I think it's very curious.
@@DaleFedele indeed, very interesting. I mean we are all using a different reed in a large hall than for chamber work, but the effect you are describing must be beyond that. I have encountered American clarinettists (purportedly from the Bonade school) who produced what I found an irritatingly loud hissing sound almost covering pianissimo notes. Maybe that would have been fine in Royal Albert Hall, but shouldn‘t they have a more intimate set-up or technique as well? To some extend McLane might have projected better with ‘weaker‘ sound because the orchestra was not quite as loud at the time? In Vienna, p.ex. even today, the strings are not as noisy as, say, in Berlin. Hence you can hear the Brahms quintet played with the most gorgeous clarinet sound whilst in Berlin the clarinet struggles all the time.
I will be honest, I'm ashamed to admit that my first thought when I heard this, circa 2009, was that it was very straightforward. In the last decade, I've educated myself on the equipment used (have you ever played a 1930's Buffet?), on the type of phrasing conductors were after (and the control they had over their musicians), and, mostly, on the limits of recording music (of ANY time). Everyone who heard Ralph McLane live said it was a spiritual experience; people say the same thing about Harold Wright. I know that one of the greatest players today doesn't listen to Harold's recordings, so as to not tarnish the memory of hearing him live. Listen to his recordings on rharl25.wixsite.com/clarinetcentral and, then, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
@@DaleFedele I know Harold Wright's playing - He is (was) a God! I don't dispute McLane's mastery, wizardry even. I just think that this recording is technically brilliant but musically dull. (What a terrible thing to say about a player whose levelI will never reach!) Thanks for replying.
I'm listening now to K297 (one of my favourite pieces by Mozart, as it happens...) The playing by McLane here seems to be of a much more interesting nature, in terms of phrase-shaping, articulation, than in the 5tet.
This recording is SO good! Best Mozart Quintet I’ve heard to date. It almost sounds like an old phone ringing in a good way. I guess that’s a bad description but that’s what came to mind 😭😂🎵🎶
I am so thrilled that this has been uploaded. Thanks so much. Other movements?? Ralph was my great grand teacher....my teacher's teacher's teacher. :-) Please share everything you have of his. Thank you so much
Very beautiful sound.
Truly a legendary player.
i remember Harold Wright telling me to Play the trill from Ab to Bb very soft so people can't tell how bad it sounds. Now I know where he learned that. Bearutiful performance. Win Swarr
I'd love to talk with you sometime about your time with Harold Wright!! If you'd ever like, email me at dalemfedele@gmail.com or call me at (707) 968-7420?
Can you provide the name of the recording? I assume its an old LP? I'd love to pick up a copy on ebay. Thanks!
Fabulous. Bill. UK
Perhaps you could list the string players on this recording, Dale?
an wonderful sound
The best ever
Verry good team with the string quartet, nice sound. I wont just a litle more staccato. Verry stunning mozart style!
No, it's Mozart NOT Weber. Articulation is very appropriate for the time period
From what I heard, McClane's sound projected more than Wrights so that gives him an edge--no pun intended...I never heard wright live..much to my regret , but a friend of mine did and said Wright was fantastic But...he played everything mezzo piano
I heard Harold Wright play in the Boston Symphony Orchestra at Tanglewood-he projected beautifully.
so who has the better tone....mclane or wright????
The eternal question!!!! My vote goes to McLane in the orchestra, Wright in chamber music/as a soloist. I always think about how much more dead Philly's hall is than Boston's.
I also admire the consistency of McLane's sound, from when he started in the orch to his untimely passing. Wright had the longer career, so naturally there was more change, but I find McLane the more consistent concept ...so to speak. Wright always had the most subtleties, though...
I'll say one last thing...in a modern orch, I find my sound gravitating more and more to be like McLane's. Part of it is the orchs I play with are very loud, and I can't be as sensitive as I'd always like. This is why the earliest recordings of Harold, before he went to Boston, are some of my favorite, too.
Artie Shaw
@@ronaldreuben3278 yes!!!!
as opposed to most players from the period outside Vienna, a model of unmannered, exact and sombre playing with beautiful tone, just as Mozart requires. somewhat overpowered by the strings.
I think that last part is the most interesting for me. I think it's interesting comparing McLane to the other principals in Philadelphia. Bonade had an extremely large sound, that he purposefully would not make sound good up close...for projection in the extremely dead hall. Same with McGinnis, Portnoy, and, controversially, Gigliotti later. McLane however had a way of projecting in that same hall, while clearly having a "weaker" tone up close. I think it's very curious.
@@DaleFedele indeed, very interesting. I mean we are all using a different reed in a large hall than for chamber work, but the effect you are describing must be beyond that. I have encountered American clarinettists (purportedly from the Bonade school) who produced what I found an irritatingly loud hissing sound almost covering pianissimo notes. Maybe that would have been fine in Royal Albert Hall, but shouldn‘t they have a more intimate set-up or technique as well? To some extend McLane might have projected better with ‘weaker‘ sound because the orchestra was not quite as loud at the time? In Vienna, p.ex. even today, the strings are not as noisy as, say, in Berlin. Hence you can hear the Brahms quintet played with the most gorgeous clarinet sound whilst in Berlin the clarinet struggles all the time.
I didn't like this performance at all. I found it bland.
I will be honest, I'm ashamed to admit that my first thought when I heard this, circa 2009, was that it was very straightforward. In the last decade, I've educated myself on the equipment used (have you ever played a 1930's Buffet?), on the type of phrasing conductors were after (and the control they had over their musicians), and, mostly, on the limits of recording music (of ANY time). Everyone who heard Ralph McLane live said it was a spiritual experience; people say the same thing about Harold Wright. I know that one of the greatest players today doesn't listen to Harold's recordings, so as to not tarnish the memory of hearing him live.
Listen to his recordings on rharl25.wixsite.com/clarinetcentral and, then, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
@@DaleFedele I know Harold Wright's playing - He is (was) a God! I don't dispute McLane's mastery, wizardry even. I just think that this recording is technically brilliant but musically dull. (What a terrible thing to say about a player whose levelI will never reach!) Thanks for replying.
I'm listening now to K297 (one of my favourite pieces by Mozart, as it happens...) The playing by McLane here seems to be of a much more interesting nature, in terms of phrase-shaping, articulation, than in the 5tet.