Klarinet Archive - Posting 001057.txt from 1998/11

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] Absolutes
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 14:28:09 -0500

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 18:49:14 -0600 (CST), rgarrett@-----.edu said:

> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Tony Pay wrote:

> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, Roger. Perhaps
> > you'd like to explain further.
>
> I meant that you were not clear about which level of instruction you
> were referring to in your former posts. Then I related that to the
> issue of stating absolute opinions in a specific way, which alluded to
> your first post on the subject.

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

Two ways to be dogmatic:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(A) To tell someone what they 'should' do to achieve something on the
instrument.

(B) To tell somebody how they 'should' play something musically.

Two circumstance in which this dogmatism *may* be counterproductive:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) On this mailing list.

(2) In a one to one teaching situation.

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

If we look at (A)(1), which is the situation I was primarily talking
about throughout, we have what I've said several times in different
ways:

> > Anyhow, my post about 'communication and how we communicate on this
> > listserv' was just pointing out that *here* we have no way to use
> > the feedback from listening to the student's efforts [in order] to
> > backtrack and try something else. Therefore, to present an
> > instruction *even if it is in some ways the right instruction* in a
> > dogmatic way may do damage.

You then say:

> I understand what you are saying, but it contradicts the issue
> regarding flexibility doesn't it? Doesn't it also invalidate the
> issue of a student trying to arrive at a conclusion on their
> own.....with minimal information?

So this bit perhaps doesn't belong here.

> I seriously doubt that anything said on this listserv could damage
> anybody's playing.

How I think it could damage somebody's playing is by giving the
impression that something as complex as playing the instrument is even
remotely expressible as the sum of 'things that you should do'. This is
particularly true if the 'things' have to be such that they can be
communicated by email.

I think that expert players, unless they are experienced teachers,
underestimate to a considerable degree the extent to which inexpert
players think of themselves as doing some such something, 'wrong'. To
have them dig themselves even deeper into their difficulties by
presenting them with isolated bits of advice that they are supposed to
concentrate on doing, particularly if there are several contradictory
opinions from different people, may indeed be damaging.

The situation is helped slightly if the way in which the bit of advice
is presented keeps the student in touch with his or her technical
intentions, or even better, musical intentions. Then there is some
chance of the student's playing moving in the direction of the results
that other, better players produce -- on recordings, say. Again, those
of us who listen to such recordings with expert ears considerably
underestimate the degree to which a beginner doesn't hear what's going
on, and precisely how what they do differs.

When I first started teaching, I fondly imagined that a master class
would be the ideal way for students to learn. After all, the less good
students would learn from the better ones, no? What I failed to realise
was that those less good students had the problem that they couldn't
hear in detail *how the better students were better*. Had they been
able to, they would have been better themselves anyway.

As I said before, it's concentrating on the 'thing you should be doing'
that does the most damage. Therefore, we should try to minimise the
extent to which that happens.

In (A)(2), I prefer rather to approach the student by telling them to do
something in a more metaphorical way, and include direct instruction
within the metaphor. I posted one such metaphor here, about leaps, a
couple of months ago, if you want an example of what I'm talking about.

And for example, you say,

> Telling a young player where to place their tongue on the reed is
> extremely important!

...but I think you'd agree that it can be done in a number of ways. The
tongue doesn't respond well to direct instruction (try sticking it out
at yourself in the mirror, and then tell it to stay still!), but it can
learn to perform the most precise actions imaginable. We learn to do
this when we speak, just by imitating the results that other people
produce.

What the tongue does on the clarinet is to *interrupt* the vibration of
the reed. Experimenting with interrupting a steady, well-sustained
sound in various registers, and noticing where your tongue is doing the
interrupting, can lead to your 'tip to tip' result, but 'held' by the
student in a very different way from how it's held under direct
instruction.

On the other hand, in different registers, with different reeds, I
sometimes find that I get better results when my tongue does other
things than tip to tip.

I also use various metaphors, some of which would be applicable to
younger players. Look at my chapter in the Cambridge Companion to the
Clarinet for a small subset of those metaphors, if you're interested.

In (B)(1), I said that when we say how something 'should' be, musically,
we ignore that that something will always be in a context. We're better
off pointing the student at that context, and then saying how the
musical idea we have is related to that context, because then what they
produce will have some unity.

In (B)(2), as well as pointing to the context, and asking how what they
play is related to the orchestral or piano accompaniment, or what the
historical evidence is, I sometimes have students play things in ways
that they really don't want, and have difficulty with, in order that
they see a way of making it work other than the one they're naturally
disposed to. The idea is to expand their range of choice. So that's
very intrusive. But I always make it clear that I'm doing that, and
tell them why at the beginning.

Obviously I wouldn't be intrusive with younger students, but we could
just say what musical context or atmosphere might work, and then play it
that way ourselves, perhaps in the duet we were discussing. Then, how
about some other way? Could we play this duet like a march, or like a
little song, or sadly.....? I'm sure you do this sort of thing anyway,
and I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm against it.

I hope this answers your:

> I understand what you are saying, but it contradicts the issue
> regarding flexibility doesn't it? Doesn't it also invalidate the
> issue of a student trying to arrive at a conclusion on their
> own.....with minimal information?

Best wishes,

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)

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