Klarinet Archive - Posting 001382.txt from 2000/12

From: "Michael Lawrence" <belgarath10@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Technique and Musicality
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:51:17 -0500

One of those weird random facts that I know (or think I know, at any
rate;-)) is that Jesus was actually born on the 4th or so year AD. I could
quite easily be wrong, but that's one thing that keeps me from drawing the
same conclusions as you. Besides, the actual BC/AD thing wasn't made until
sometime in the 18th century, I believe (that would ne 1701-1800;-)), by a
monk. (Hehe, and if they did have the same system around 0 AD, there would
have been no 0 AD, because most of the world back then didn't even have a
symbol for nothing... the first year would have indeed been 1, and Jesus'
first birthday would have been celebrated on 2 AD:)). Worst of all (to keep
this semi-on topic) is of course the fact that there was no clarinet back
then!

-Michael L.

Hello America,
I hope you all enjoyed your holiday.
Re Tony Pay
Look at 30 Dec. mail carefully. Read it thoroughly. Note it`s manner>. And
do reply to it sensibly, calmly and intellectually. It
within it quite a lot of substance.
Best,
Tony W.
P.S. I have only come to think, (a bit late, but let that be) and
believe that the millennium was the beginning of year. If
Jesus was born in year nought,(Christian calendar), i.e. on his 1st
birthday, the year which would have elapsed would have been year.
Therefore the following has some logic - year 0 to 1. Year 1000 to 1001.
Year 2000 to 2001. Therefore year 2001 is a celebration of his 1st birthday.
2000 years hence. Yes? No? It seems so to me.
From: "Tony Pay"
>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 .
>
>Tony
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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