Klarinet Archive - Posting 000430.txt from 1997/10

From: Ginstling/Ransom <ginsuransom@-----.net>
Subj: re: technique
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:51:28 -0400

Perhaps, then, Leslie, you can give me and the list some examples of
clarinet players who you consider to be fine musicians? In fact, let's
broaden it...how about examples of ANY musicians who you admire as
"musicians"?

I'm curious because you state "not to make a gross generalization about..."
and then you go ahead and make a gross generalization. So, I'm trying to
get a handle on what you mean by "musician". It seems like you are
basically saying that if someone wins an audition they must by definition
be a technician and therefore CANNOT be a good musician. Perhaps you
should consider that a refined technique can be a means of allowing one's
musicianship to come through. Thus, the winners of auditions, while having
the better techniques, might not ONLY have better techniques but more as
well.

As for the "atmosphere" at competitive music schools, I really believe you
cannot in any way generalize about this or about whether one particular
school or the entire group of "competitive music schools" emphasize one
quality over another. It really all boils down to the individual teacher
and what the player takes away from his lessons.

But please, do pass on some of the musicians who you admire!

-Gary G
ginsuransom@-----.net

>From: Leslie Andersen <LeslieA@-----.ORG>
>Subject: Further with Brahms and Dan
>
>Yes, I will go out on a limb here - I did mean that conservatories such as
>Juilliard do develop technique at the expense of musicianship (flame
>away!). I studied for a number of years with Russianoff, although not
>attending Juilliard and was aware of a number of his students there. Not
>to make a gross generalization about all of them or even any, but overall,
>they were not "musicians" as I interpret it. Unfortunately, this was not
>their fault or Russianoff's (by the way, Leon hated the fact that he was
>known primarily as a teacher of "technique"), nor is this comment limited
>to students from Juilliard or even other conservatories. I simply believe
>the atmosphere at highly competitive music schools almost requires an
>emphasis on technique over musicianship.
>
>Take two different students auditioning - they both play the same pieces
>but one student has more musicianship and less technique and the other
>just the opposite. In my experience, the student with the better technique
>wins the audition every time. This would imply that the attitude seems to
>be one that believes musicianship can be taught easier than technique;
>however I believe just the opposite. I say again, anyone can play the
>clarinet; very few can become musicians. Unfortunately, as we all well
>know, defining what and who is a musician is an impossible task,
>however we all know one when we "see" one.
>
>I suspect this "attitude" has much to do with the reality of the music
>business. The competition is so great that if one can't play the notes
>(every note!) than there is someone behind them that can (hence my
>comment about Daphnis). A professional orchestra cannot spend
>endless hours rehearsing until everyone can play the piece. Time is
>money. The economics involved come at the expense of musicianship,
>ensemble, etc; its simply a reality. Studio musicians must play it right the
>first time. If they're really lucky, they might get a second chance.
>
>Didn't mean to wax on so long. As to the second part of your question,
>yes, I believe many recordings are devoid of feeling (and not simply
>because of the playing of the musicians; but that's for another
>discussion) and I interpreted Dan implying the same but of course, I
>would never pretend to speak for him! :-)
>
>PS: Mark, I love your idea of contributing memories of former teachers.
>Just this little reminiscing about Leon has all kinds of remembrances
>going in my head. I'll contribute my humble thoughts about him soon -
>
>