Klarinet Archive - Posting 000686.txt from 1997/10

From: HardReed@-----.com
Subj: Technique vs. Music?
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:51:29 -0400

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:47:42, Leslie Andersen said:

"My comments about technique can be summed up as follows: A clarinetist once
told me that he spent 8 years at least an hour a day trying to perfect
Daphnis (my favorite example this week!) for orchestra auditions. How
ridiculous! Correct me if I'm wrong (especially Dan) but the intention of
that excerpt in my mind is to present a "wave" of continuous sound without
regard to individual notes. Indeed, one does not want to hear the individual
notes because it destroys the effect. Thus, why is that used as an
"eliminator" in orchestra auditions? Because its convenient. Playing every
note in that excerpt does not a musician make."

A parallel to this would be the famous Georges Seurat mural "A Sunday
Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte," a prime (if not the best)
postimpressionist example of pointillism. This work may seem to appear
'hazy' and 'indistinct' to some, but you know quite well that every single
little dot on the huge canvas serves a purpose and is there for a reason --
to create a particular effect, not to mention a work of art.

It is no different with Ravel. Each note serves a purpose, as it does with
any other piece of music. Impressionistic music, like the simillar genre of
art, may appear to be a big "blur" at times, but it is only the clarity and
the attention to details which makes it that way. Your comment that the
playing of the exact notes destroys the effect is not only grossly incorrect,
but shows a lack of respect for the composer's integrity.

An "eliminator?" Really, now....there is no such thing as a eliminator on an
orchestral audition. For the most part, most audition repertoire is taken
from major standard works, of which Daphnis qualifies (and, BTW, I have yet
to sit on an audition committee who axed a candidate purely on a couple
missed notes). Most , if not all, audition committees sincerely want
candidates for a position to play well. It is always in their best interest
to have several well qualified candidates from which to choose.
Unfortunately, this is not the case as close to 90% of those auditioning are
not qualified as they suffer from basic fundamental problems such as poor
rhythm, intonation, etc...all necessary attributes of competent and
acceptable ensemble playing, not to mention being a 'musician.' I maintain
that it is not Daphnis which is the eliminator (if they even get that far!)
but it is the player that eliminates him/herself!

I also might tactfully suggest that if your friend has needed eight years to
learn a piece well...uhhh...let's just say that there are more difficult
pieces out there on the job -- and I can guarantee that he won't have eight
years notice!

Also, a few short comments on a couple of your list of musicians:

Leon Russianoff -- It was Russianoff himself who has written "We must discard
the mistaken notion that finger accuracy and dexterity are secondary and
unrelated to those nontechnical qualities we call "style," "feeling,"
"musicality," and so on."

Itzhak Perlman -- Do you honestly think that Galamian never had Perlman work
on scales? We could go back and forth discussing the 'musical' merits of one
violinist to the next, but the one thing you don't hear very often is Perlman
dropping notes.

Eddie Daniels -- A man who loves, by his own admission, to "noodle." Eddie
spends a LOT of time with scales, technical studies, etc. You don't really
think he pulls out all that improvisation out of a hat, do you?

And on and on...an accomplished musician is the sum of many parts. Control
of the instrument -- tonally, rhythmically, technically and musically (have I
forgotten anything?) -- is vital to that sum. After all, to perform the
music you gotta play the notes!

Larry Liberson