Klarinet Archive - Posting 000134.txt from 1997/07

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: clarinet playing
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 21:31:54 -0400

On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Roger Garrett wrote:

> Perhaps taking up the trombone? Tuba parts are not as hard to read as
> clarinet parts...that might be better! That many teachers can't be
> screwed up....perhaps it is your ability to learn from them?

Frankly, I find the above comments derisive and condescending. Rather
than merely sit on a pedestal and throw tomatoes, however, I'll offer some
insight of my own.

Nick Yip indicated that he has experienced confusion over the course of
his training as a clarinetist, due to the disparate advice given by each
respective instructor. Depending on how far you hope to go as a
clarinetist and a musician, there are some basic ideas which begin to
reveal and clarify themselves over time. One of these ideas is that
there are many more ways than one to accomplish a goal. This applies to
pretty much any given field or discipline, and can be easily witnessed by
observing and comparing the top-flight practitioners in whichever subject
you're studying. There's little question that Stanley Drucker and Karl
Leister are representations of the pinnacle of orchestral clarinet
playing, yet their styles, their qualities of tone, their musicality
-- the fundamental elements which identify them as the musicians that
they are -- are strikingly different.

One of the wonderful things about achieving technical mastery over
an instrument is the ability to adapt one's playing to a given context.
If we were unemotional beings, there would be no need to alter our
performance styles. If the music we played were all of a particular
emotive quality, again there would be little need or use for the
ability to adapt and diversify our repertoire of musical nuances and
expressive gestures. Needless to say, there is enormous diversity
in the music that we play, and even greater diversity in the kinds of
feelings we experience when we hear and/or perform that music.

All of the above having been said, hopefully it is instructive to
cite the correlation between the expressive process and the learning
process which accompanies it. Since there is such diversity of
expression in the music that way play, and because this expressiveness
is also tied to a lineage of scholarship and tradition, we are beholden
as performers to develop adaptive abilities which will enable us to
realize these properties convincingly. This entails much more than
technical mastery of the instrument, but technique is vital to the
endeavor, so that's where teachers typically begin. I'll not say
whether this is good or bad, but that's how it's usually done.
Where there is lineage and tradition in the creation of music
(composition), there is a counterpart of lineage and tradition
in the way it is taught and performed, including on the clarinet.
The Bonade method. The Russianoff method. The Marcellus method.
The Mazzeo method. Ken Grant. Peter Hadcock. Fred Ormand. Larry Combs.
Kalman Opperman. These names and dozens more comprise the people of past
and present who have taught and/or are teaching students how to master
their instruments and realize their individual goals as clarinetists and
musicians. Most of these people would probably agree on certain
fundamental areas of technique and performance, but none of them plays
quite like any of the others, and their approach to teaching -- even in
those areas on which they agree -- was/is different for each.

To make all of this relevant to Nick, I'll say the following. Amidst
the confusion of disparate teaching and performing styles, the common
thread is the individual. The acknolwedged masters are not revered as
a result of their ability to emulate a past master, but for their
innovations and ability to make their music in a way completely unique
to them. This involves many different areas of approach, the sum of
which results in an individual musician's identity. When you take
lessons from any given teacher, you're learning not just from them,
but from all of their past teachers as well. Some teachers even like
to quote their mentors for inspiration or credibility during lessons.
YOUR goal is to take the lessons you learn from your various teachers
and synthesize that knowledge into an approach which makes sense to
Nick Yip. In cases of seemingly contradictory directions from two
different teachers, we come back to the individual: you. These are
the times when you make a decision to either accept the information and
try to incorporate it into your current understanding and knowledge, or
dismiss it until such time that somebody gives you a new way of looking
at the problem which makes sense to you. In all cases, your objective
is to absorb as many new techniques and concepts as you can, applying
those which fit your current level of development (as well as your
personality), until you arrive at a unified approach which reveals
the artistry of Nick Yip.

Somebody on the list has said at least a few times over the years
something to the effect of, "It's not how you hit the ball. Just get
it in the hole." It's a golfing analogy, but it's very instructive.
Ultimately, whatever teacher you're with will (hopefully) be more con-
cerned with the sound and musicality you produce, rather than fretting
endlessly over how you achieve it. Some teachers insist mercilessly
that you do it "their" way (how pompous, as if they invented the approach
they currently use and never took a lesson in their lives), while others
at the opposite extreme simply say, "Put the mouthpiece in your mouth and
blow," meaning you're on your own as far as figuring out how to achieve
the musical effect they're after. Over the course of multiple teachers,
it becomes a game of trying to please everybody, when everybody wants you
to do something differently than the others. My suggestion? Play the
game. You already know that you are free to switch teachers when a
particular one isn't working out, but until you switch, make it a game
between him/her and yourself to see if you can do it the way they ask
you to. If you don't already have any ideas of your own on a given
issue, following somebody else's lead should be easy. When you disagree
with a teacher's approach, suspend your disagreement initially, giving that
person's idea the benefit of the doubt. Even if you reject it in the
end, you will have learned that there exists a way of achieving the end
which is different from the one you currently use. Every teacher has
something to offer. You can pick and choose as you grow, but never
fully dismiss any approach out of hand.

Coming back to my initial point, your goal is develop diversity in your
own approach to performance. This comes about by learning how to adapt
your playing to the demands of different music, different conductors and,
in your present case, to different teachers. If you stick with it and
use your own individual judgement, your identity as a clarinetist and
musician will begin to emerge of its own spontaneous energy. First things
first, nonetheless. You need to fill a grab-bag of technical and musical
concepts, from which you can pull the ingredients which will result in
your own brand of performance and musicianship. Best of luck to you.

'Hope this helps.

Neil