Klarinet Archive - Posting 000111.txt from 1994/11

From: Ken Maltz <Klezmer@-----.COM>
Subj: National Schools
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 08:31:05 -0500

I have been watching the exchange of ideas on National Schools with some
interest over the past weeks. I would like to add the following:

first of all, I would point out that it should be noted that this debate
appears to pertain strictly to symphonic (i.e. classical, chamber music,
etc.) players. For some reason, no one has stated this important limitation.
If one would look at the ethnic clarinetists, distinctions according to
nationality are readily apparent to anyone familiar with the music.

Klezmer players, for example, have a "fingerprint" that is quite clearly
identifyable. The same holds true for performers of other "ethnic" styles. I
think that it is a mistake to hold a discussion on this subject without
drawing a distinction between these two genres of performers.

Secondly, it would, IMHO, be safe to say that one must also draw a
distinction between the generations of players when this issue is being
discussed. A player such as Cahuzac, for example, can be referred to as a
"first generation player" , for want of a better term. Having spent most of
his formative years studying with local masters and steeped in the local
tradition. Second/third generation players have more than likely done quite a
bit of traveling and absorbed a more cosmopolitan exposure via electronic
means, which would be reflected in their performance style.

A look at immigration to this country would provide an illustration of this
line of thought. The immigrant is likely to keep the traditions, language,
dress styles, diet and so on of the country of origin; while his/her
offspring will become more or less assimilated, losing to a varying degree,
many of the distinctions of ethnicity. I think that this model hold true for
instrumentalists as well, except for those that make a conscious effort to
maintain the traditional practices of their respective "schools."

Ken Maltz