Klarinet Archive - Posting 000893.txt from 1998/11

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] Questions and Answers
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 05:30:06 -0500

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 01:14:10 -0600 (CST), nleupold@-----.edu said:

[snip]

> People in general make judgments of relative merit about the
> information they receive over the course of their daily lives. That
> capacity for judgment does not shut down when somebody logs onto email
> and reads contributions by members of the Klarinet community. Do I
> understand correctly that you are somewhat apprehensive about the
> quality of that judgment across the population of Klarinet sub-
> scribers?

It's not quite that. It's rather that the task of playing music well,
and even the simpler task of playing an instrument expertly, is such a
complex thing that it can't be captured by words, either descriptively
or prescriptively. It's a fragile, partly unconscious thing, and can be
crushed in a student -- though, fortunately, not when it occurs full
strength in a natural talent. When we are forced to use words, I think
we should make a big effort to use them wisely, and in such a way as to
leave "the vast mystery of the subject unobscured".

You made a comment, a while back, about Charles Neidich playing staccato
sextuplets in Weber 2. Now, I don't know this recording, so I can
comment myself in the abstract.

I imagine that it wasn't the *fact* that he played them staccato, but
*how* he played them staccato, and even how he played them staccato *in
that context*, the context of how he played the rest of the piece, that
bothered you. (It might even have bothered him when he came to listen
to it. I know the feeling.)

Yet, over and over again, people ask, should I play this or that passage
legato or staccato? And over and over again, people *answer*.

Part of what I was trying to say is that questions that require definite
answers seldom lead to useful insights, and, contrariwise, 'answers'
that lead to further questions are the most productive.

The ultimate answers are in playing.

[snip]

> In the final argument, I think we're both right. I think you're
> right that Klarinet members would all benefit to some degree if it
> were always made clear that the information they're sending is not a
> form of clarinet gospel. And I think I'm right as well for suggesting
> that, from a recipient's standpoint, what you recommend goes without
> saying. For any who did not previously observe such a fundamental
> caveat, I imagine they will heed it henceforth given the exposure that
> this thread has afforded the issue.

Well, as I've explained above, I want to extend the meaning of my caveat
a little beyond what is 'obviously' or 'without saying' fundamental. It
seems to me it's *really* fundamental in the sense that even people who
embody it, with the best will in the world may not notice it when it
comes to writing and reading about music.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339

"...his playing soars so freely, one is aware of witchcraft without
noticing a single magical gesture."
(C.D.F.Schubart on the harpsichord playing of C.P.E.Bach)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------