Klarinet Archive - Posting 000328.txt from 1995/06

From: CLARK FOBES <reedman@-----.COM>
Subj: Precise nomenclature and art
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:25:09 -0400

Neil Leupold and Dan Leeson are two of the most articulate persons
I know. In addition I have had several long conversations with Neil
about the problems of teaching clarinet, of analysis and of OVER
analytical thinking. MY FRUSTRATION with the type of dialogue that has
been presented by Michelle Crocker, Neil Leupold and Dan Leeson is that
it minimizes the intuitive side of playing the clarinet and of
learning.

I taught for 10 years as a young man and was primarily focused on
young students. It is important to own a precise vocabulary and an
ability to present concepts clearly. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to imprint a
physical sensation like tounguing or proper finger technique by words
alone. (Intellectual analysis). I believe that along with the
presentation of ideas anyone who is trying to learn a physical task
like playing the clarinet needs a physical model. In fact, I will argue
one step further. I believe it is the INTUITIVE absorption and shaping
of information into physical impulses that governs most musical
learning. In order to play Mozart properly one has to have an
intellectual construct. That is, if I study classical music, understand
the forms and the performance practice I can play Mozart in the proper
context. But, how do I know how to properly phrase, shape a sound or
articulate with subtlety? That requires a physical model and the
INTUITIVE adaptation of physical skills that produce a suitable
reproduction of the model.

I don't want to get too far off on this tangent, but try to
remember how you learned to ride a bike. Did someone give you a lecture
and detailed analysis on the "theory" of riding a bike. Was there
extensive discourse on proper pedal technique? In fact, when you think
about it, the amazing number of skills and physical adjustment required
ti ride a bike it's amazing that we can do it at all. But ride we do.

I am certain from my experience as a teacher and performer that the
bulk of learning we do as musicians is by example and imitation.
Informed, clear and precise terminology is very important, but in the
end we only learn by doing. I think that frustration with teachers not
being able to articulate technical aspects of the clarinet in complete
analytical detail says more about the student's unrealistic
expectations than the teacher.

Music is not a precise "science". It is art. To expect that music
can be completely analysed and compartmentalized denies it's
spiritual/metaphysical aspect. It is the wonderful interplay of
intellect and intuition that infuses music with "spirit" and meaning.

Clark W Fobes