Klarinet Archive - Posting 000331.txt from 1995/06

From: niethamer@-----.BITNET
Subj: Re: Precise nomenclature and art
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 00:16:29 -0400

On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, CLARK FOBES wrote:

> 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.

Bravo to Clark for saying what I tried (unsuccessfully) to say several
messages back. This IS an emotional and intuitive ART, and all that
verbalization and over-analysis (not analysis, but *over*-analysis) only
gets in the way when it's show-time.

I teach lots of students (at least
by the measure of one who has a full time orchestra job), and especially
for the younger kids (I enjoy the near beginners a lot) a precise
vocabulary and a logical order of steps is necessary, because at age 10
all those conceptualizing skills aren't there. If one can't tell them
what to do (practice) in a clear, simple, direct way, they can't improve.
But eventually the idea of all this is to *play music*, regardless of
your instrument, and all the technique is just the first step. I fear
that those who insist on accuracy, precision, truth, justice, and the
"American Way" are missing the next step - making music. We can analyze
how Mozart (to use but one example) wrote his music. But can we say from
that analysis why it is "great" music, or why it appeals so deeply to so
many people regardless of their musical sophistication?

> 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.

Thanks too for the analogy of bike riding. The only analogy that came to
mind for me was making love with the anatomy manual on the pillow. Clark
wins the family content award for his discretion!

> 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.

This says it all for me, and I thank Clark for his lucid remarks on the
subject.

=========================
David Niethamer
niethamer@-----.edu
dbnclar1@-----.com
=========================