Klarinet Archive - Posting 001014.txt from 2000/12

From: Neil Leupold <leupold_1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Performance
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:48:14 -0500

Tony Pay employs a potentially indelicate example to illustrate one of his
initial points below. As a preface to my response, I wish to state up front
my recognition of the sensitive nature of discussing people with disabilities,
and all of my comments are made with this awareness in mind. Exploring some
of these issues is for the purpose of parsing out matters of logic related to
clarinet pedagogy, and not intended to make a statement (political, emotional,
or otherwise) about something of such greater social relevance (okay, that in
itself was a statement, so naturally I do have feelings on the matter). You
get the idea.

> The technical advice giver is rather like a remedial speech therapist.

<snip>

> What you're interested in is *what they say*, and the nuances of
> how they say it, in context, and the effect that has on what's around
> them. And, unsurprisingly, that's what they're interested in too.

That’s an interesting assumption. It’s also a piss-poor analogy. Much
like you point out, context is critical. You write:

> You might want to interact in a very detailed way with someone whose
> speech production mechanism isn't working, and who can't produce the
> words they want to produce.

I would take quite a different approach between a speech therapy patient with
a dysfunctional speech mechanism (whether congenital or the result of an ac-
cident) and a clarinet student who is functionally normal. The therapy pa-
tient (as you define above) must overcome and compensate for equipment that
does not work according to its intended design. It could be a physical de-
fect. It could be neurological. The vast majority of clarinet players, on
the other hand, are working only to adapt perfectly normal and functional
equipment (their various body parts) to work in specialized ways. The ther-
apy patient’s goal, alternatively, is to make their equipment function norm-
ally in the first place, or to at least simulate normal function if the for-
mer is not possible. The dynamics and goals between these two situations are
dramatically different, enough so to defy a reasonable analogy between them.
This doesn’t even begin to address the psychological differences, which are
perhaps of even greater impact than the physical.

> But you don't go on about the ease of production, the effortless mastery of
> the lips, tongue and vocal tract in a normal speaker

No, not with somebody whose first purpose is to learn how to make their equip-
ment (their mouth, their throat, etc.) function normally to begin. With a clar-
inet player who has no physical inhibitions, and who aspires to do things that
(s)he hears other clarinet players doing, I might indeed be inclined to discuss
the virtues of the “ease of production, mastery of the lips, tongue, and vocal
tract” of the clarinet players to whom they’re listening. The only person at-
taching a connotation or negative interpretation to this approach is you, while
I’ve had great success over time discussing technique precisely on this level
with students ranging from 9 to 49 years old. That you assume this approach is
taken to the exclusion of musical considerations is a reflection of your iron-
fisted grip on the ideology that the only proper and relevant sequence for ap-
proaching technique is from a musical standpoint. That’s dogmatic baloney,
and most open-minded people would agree with me. When all you have is a ham-
mer, all problems begin to resemble a nail. No two people learn in identical
fashion, and it’s the mark of a poor teacher who fails to recognize that being
able to come at their subject from a varied number of angles and perspectives
is to their students’ broadest possible benefit. Addressing technique by first
discussing its musical relevance is but one of dozens of useful and valid de-
vices that even the most junior of instructors packs in his toolbox. Depend-
ing on the student, all of these tools (not necessarily in combination) are
capable of effectively guiding that student to competently and expressively
address the music which motivates them to play clarinet in the first place.
And for some, starting with the music becomes a source of confusion and frus-
tration. It happens often enough to justify doing things differently to suit
the context.

> I post here at least as much technical stuff as musical stuff, because
> I too am interested in people not having to struggle to express themselves
> musically.

I share your interest.

> I'm very careful not to say things that aren't true, and very careful not to
> be prescriptive when someone's following the prescription might be counter-
> productive in a musical situation.

I share your sense of care and responsibility. And, to the benefit of Klarinet,
you don’t hold a monopoly on things that are true, nor on prescriptive statements
that are productive in a musical situation. Otherwise, we would only ever hear
Tony’s version of how things ought to go, and what a limited forum this would
then become. All of your knowledge and experience notwithstanding, you are but
one person, and not everyone who reads your words relates to or understands what
you have to say. This is not for a lack of intelligence or sophistication on
their part. It’s because you cannot possibly be all things to all people, not
that you assert such a gross level of pretension, naturally.

> There is quite enough thoughtless, so-called 'good' playing around for
> it to be worthwhile reminding ourselves that our job is not only to
> produce people who can blow and finger a clarinet, even effortlessly.

This is very much your opinion, again based on your unique set of experiences
and training. I don’t assert that it is anybody’s job to crank out clarinet
automatons, but what you may perceive as thoughtless playing might, for some-
body else, reach straight into their heart and make them weep for the express-
iveness to which they are individually relating. Which perception is correct
between the two of you?

> The fact is that in an orchestra, I would much sooner have someone
> sitting next to me playing second clarinet who understood and was
> concerned with whether what they were doing was appropriate to the
> music, than someone who was concerned with the ease and joy of playing
> the clarinet effortlessly -- and that might be true even if the second
> person were a better player technically. Some quite well-known people
> might fail this test.

Yes, your opinion is a fact – for you. In this case, I happen to agree with
your opinion, with one significant adjustment. I too would prefer to have
someone musically minded sitting in the second chair, but I would expect that
person as well to be in the continuous pursuit for how to realize that music-
ality with the greatest possible ease. This is rational, unless you’re some
kind of masochist who likes to suffer and struggle. I have yet to meet a single
player who, while musically expressive at the highest levels, was ever satisfied
to stop looking for ways to realize that expression with the least amount of tech-
nical interference – either from their instrumental equipment, or through refine-
ments in their own technical abilities. Of *course* the end goal is the music and
its expression – DUH indeed – and achieving it is anything BUT exclusive of tech-
nical considerations. Would you be able to express yourself that way if your
technical abilities were frozen at the level you played during your first year
of study? Did your expressive abilities not increase in part as a function of
your technical growth? Is it not logical to observe that one’s musical express-
iveness can only be enhanced (as opposed to damaged) by a parallel pursuit of
more effortless means to achieve it?

> Ultimately, of course, I enjoy myself, otherwise I wouldn't be doing the
> job. But interimly, it may not be so easy. Any good player will say
> the same.

Yes, but the reason they say it is not the one which you broadly imply.
I liken this to investment risk (sorry to digress into business talk, but
this is useful). When investing in the stock market, the most basic ad-
vice that any investor receives is, “Make sure to diversify your port-
folio in order to mitigate risk.” There is beta risk, i.e.; the risk
that is inherent in correlations between stock movements in the market,
and then there is risk that is simply a property of the entire market
as a mass entity. The first kind can, through calculated diversifica-
tion, be almost entirely eliminated. The second, however, is here to
stay and there’s nothing that anybody can do about it. That’s market
risk. You don’t really need to understand the fine points for the
analogy to work. The connection follows.

When good players say that making music is not always easy to do, their
subsequent expression of fulfillment is not being attributed to their tech-
nical difficulties. A person who revels in technical difficulty is either
irrational or incredibly stupid. Technical challenges are to be solved and
dismissed – this is the risk that can be almost completely eliminated from
the activity (referring to my example above). The risk that will always re-
main for good players is the challenge of the music itself, where no matter
how effectively they master their instrument on a technical level (i.e.; elim-
inate manageable risk), the musical challenge will never go away (i.e.; market
risk). The difference, of course, is that in the stock market, we wish market
risk *could* be eliminated, whereas in music, the challenge of being musically
expressive is a vital element of its fulfilling properties.

It stands to reason, on a rational basis, that if risk/difficulty can be elimi-
nated, it *should* be, to whatever extent is possible, otherwise you are not
maximizing your potential for gain/musical expression. Those who focus only
on gain, without tending to risk, are always dismayed to discover that the
others — who take a balanced approach – always eventually come out ahead.
This is not to imply a linear relationship between technique and musical
expression, rather to illustrate that a relationship indisputably exists.
I don’t believe it is quantifiable, but believe that it exists to a matter
of degree for each individual player.

>> It's possible to get there *and* serve all of the musical considerations
>> involved.

> Unless it isn't.

Which it is.

-- Neil

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org