Klarinet Archive - Posting 001355.txt from 2000/12

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] Technique and Musicality
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:50:50 -0500

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 07:38:31 +1100, redcedar@-----.au said:

> To Messrs Garrett, Leupold and Pay (rendered in alpha-order),
>
> I am trying to make sense of the mountain of words on this topic in
> recent weeks.
>
> I understand what has been said to be as follows:
>
> 1. Technique and musicality are inter-dependent.
>
> 2. The acquisition of technique typically precedes musicality
> (interpreted here as musical expression).
>
> 3. An emphasis on technique typically gives way to an emphasis on
> musicality as one proceeds in the learning/performance process.
>
> [This third point may be understood as much in terms of the raw
> beginner, as in the case of the skilled professional coming to grips
> with a new work.]
>
> And:
>
> 4. The disagreement between the parties is one of degree, rather than
> a conceptual gulf.

My own view is that the disagreement is a conceptual gulf, because
musicality is a way of being with the music, whereas the word
'technique' applies to what performers actually do. Embodying that
distinction, as Anne Lenoir says, seems to be a very simple thing for a
good performer. It's not often talked about usefully, because that's
difficult.

But surely many things we find simple are difficult to talk about.
Think of the training eye-surgeons have to go through in order to
understand how they may help our sight, which must be the most simple
and immediate 'given' in our world -- when it's working.

With regard to the discussion so far, I'd say the others have either not
fully understood what I was saying, or have deliberately misrepresented
what I said in order to ridicule it. This last might seem more
plausible in the light of Roger Garrett's most recent post in reply to
you, where he makes his own personal agenda embarrassingly explicit.
(Just a little more on that later.)

Actually, I was quite surprised to find, on my return (from *work*-),
that the thread had gone in the way it had. My last post was admittedly
quite outspoken on the subject of performers who demonstrate hollow
technical mastery whilst seeming to leave the music itself strangely
unrepresented: I said it was for me, "the worst thing". And I do think
it is, as do many other musicians I talk to.

Though it's a world-wide problem, it's a problem to which the US and
Russia, whilst producing more than their fair share of wonderful
musicians, make a notable contribution, partly because they have
particularly well-developed 'schools' of instruction. I find it
particularly noticeable in string playing. And it's something that I
think is a concern for all teachers.

With regard to the other side of the matter, it is of course our job to
make technical problems go away in one way or another. That's best done
by isolating the problems and working on them. As has been said, all
good teachers do that, and it is a nonsense to suggest that I think the
contrary, or do the contrary.

It's important to see that isolating a *problem* is different from
isolating a whole part of technique -- staccato, say -- and having that
part be hardwired in, to be done in a fixed way. If you say: of course,
that's just the beginning, and different staccatos will come later, then
in one way you're right, because that's the way it most often happens.

But what *also* can happen is that some students fail to understand at
the beginning that using staccato is an element in a much larger
enterprise; so that even when presented with examples of different sorts
of staccato at a later stage, they not only are unable to produce those
different sorts of staccato, but are *unable to see how and why they
might be desirable*.

A problem always arises in a musical context; so that, choosing another
example, what is a problem in one context, not making a resonant, bel
canto sound, is not a problem in another musical context, where the
ability to produce wispy yet clear passagework may be exactly what is
required. Of course, at the beginning of a player's acquaintance with
the instrument, such a distinction is much too subtle. But there are
other ways of making the music real, as something we may always be aware
of as we develop our technique to express it.

Just recently, Neil, off playing toy tanks in the snow with 'chum' Roger
Garrett and his bottle of Cabernet, shouted across to me (together with
other affectionate boyish taunts) that he is no longer interested in
reading what I'd been preparing to say about the question of how
musicality may be involved in the process of teaching technical matters.
But others have expressed an interest privately, so I shall probably
post it in the end.

With regard to Roger Garrett himself -- well, what can I say?

> I wouldn't call it a disagreement; I would call it an obsession on
> that person's part! Obsession to be the king, the big cheese, the
> head honcho, the number one guy, the all important, the uno numero,
> the big guy, the top gun, the omnipotent..........!!! LOL I actually
> find the time spent vehemently arguing against technique as
> redundantly stupid - almost like arguing against gasoline when you own
> a Jaguar, or arguing for recycling paper and then buying
> Pampers..........
>
> 1 dimensional thinking.....perhaps 2 dimensional. Now I have no
> problem with 1 or 2 dimensional thinking - we have to deal with these
> kinds of jokers all the time - but give one a gun and watch out!

I could obviously take several lines in replying to this; but perhaps
I'll just say that, although Roger may think that I want to be all those
things, I notice that I detect no signs of that, internal or external,
when someone like David Niethamer makes a post.

That's because what David has to say always makes sense in the context
of the job of playing music, and he very often has the exactly pertinent
observation available (or more accurately, the exactly pertinent
*collection* of observations available) to give to the person who is
experiencing a problem.

There are others like David here; though, unfortunately, not enough of
them.

But doubtless Roger will have something to say about my saying that too
<sigh>.

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

..... Don't worry, I'm fluent in weirdo...

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