Klarinet Archive - Posting 000810.txt from 1997/10

From: HardReed@-----.com
Subj: Re: Further with technique vs. music
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:19:50 -0400

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:16:40, Leslie Andersen wrote:

"Comment to Larry (who felt his reply was so important he had to post it
twice ;-) ) - I never stated that technique is not important to good music
making. However, prove to me otherwise that in professional situations,
technique is not paramount to music. Although in a perfect world, we would
all like to believe that "technique is simply a part of good musicianship"
which of course it is, the reality is if you can't play the
notes, ALL the notes, you don't get the gig. And so it should be.

Well, Leslie...first, let me say that my response to what you said was based
solely on your original comments about Daphnis (Are the individual notes
really that important in the texture and meaning of the tune -- to the MUSIC?
Yep, they sure are!) and it's use as a so-called eliminator at auditions
(which I maintain it is not -- certainly not anymore than the Mozart Concerto
or Beethoven 4th or Brahms 3rd, if one could honestly say such a thing
exists).

I also have no dispute with your original comment "Playing every note in that
excerpt does not a musician make," nor did I say anything to the contrary.
I said, as did you, that technical mastery is but one part of being a
complete musician.

However, I'm not quite sure I can buy "...prove to me otherwise that in
professional situations, technique is not paramount to music." I wish I knew
to whom or what you were listening, because I don't see -- or hear -- that
from where I sit. Maybe I'm just more easily moved by what I hear?

We're all out there to make music. If my career depended on my ability to
get every note every day...well, I'd probably be selling ties somewhere...
;)

As far as "the reality is if you can't play the notes, ALL the notes, you
don't get the gig,"...well, that's quite a generality which depends on who is
doing the listening. I sincerely believe that given the choice between a
"technician" (the one who plays note perfect, etc. but doesn't know a phrase
to save his/her life) and a "musician" (yep, even missing a couple of
notes!), a mature committee of musicians will select the latter. Although I
would never presume to speak for others, I know that has been the case on the
numerous committees on which I have served.

"But... where do we draw the line? I maintain that we err on the side of
technique too often and music suffers. In addition, we perpetuate the cycle
by teaching our students the same so they can "compete." Personally, I want
to hear music and in my experience, I hear too much "technique." It doesn't
impress me, never has, never will. Those musicians that I offered in my last
post all possess great technique but
they make music with it. Technique is not the end for them. Unfortunately,
for too many players, it is. If I hear a few wrong notes for the sake of
music, then hallelujah!"

If you're really doing justice to your students, you don't "err" on any side.
I don't know who "we" is in your assertion that technique is stressed at the
expense of phrasing or any other facet of playing (and please don't include
me in that group!). You have to have a balanced diet to grow correctly --
all candy will only get you so far!

I can't help it if you're hearing "technique" rather than music. Perhaps
you're just listening to poor playing alot of the time? Or maybe you're just
very hard to please?

Playing all -- or most -- of the notes is certainly not exclusive to making
great music -- and vice-versa, naturally. It all depends on the player,
doesn't it?

Larry Liberson