Klarinet Archive - Posting 000002.txt from 2001/01

From: Neil Leupold <leupold_1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Being an Actor
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 04:23:07 -0500

--- Tony Pay <Tony@-----.uk> wrote:

> Yes, this is true, for him. But of course, some people don't need that
> prior period of time, because they get it right at the beginning; and,
> sadly, for some people, no period of time is enough, because they never
> make it.

For those who "get it" right at the beginning, I assume you're referring
to a context where they receive *guidance* from the beginning -- and through-
out -- the process. The point of making this distinction may not be immedi-
ately apparent. I bring it up to address the issue of whether or not people
in general are naturally disposed to the type of mental relaxation and relinq-
uishment of control (which ultimately characterized Callow's epiphany) if left
to their own devices (i.e.; without somebody's guidance). I sense that what
you're leading up to is not so much an issue of capability or innate artistic
talent, rather an issue of whether or not a person can be taught from the very
beginning (of a learning process) to trust their body to "know what to do" if
fed only the signals of spontaneity associated with the art form in question.
That is essentially what occurs when Callow's type of breakthrough occurs for
musicians, i.e.; we stop thinking consciously about the notes on the page,
about the dynamics and the rests and the rhythms, and allow the sensation of
expression to guide all of the mechanical and technical devices necessary
to make that expression a reality. The eyes are still in motion across the
page, but incremental details are absorbed unconsciously and applied solely
in the context of the creation of art.

Beyond the question of whether a person can be taught to accept and apply
this type of subjugation of mechanics to the music, is it possible for them
to realize this "flow" sensation -- the sort of rendering of technique to
the unconscious -- without still first facing it head on in a very con-
scious fashion, mastering it first consciously, and *then* letting the
expressive end of the art take over from there? How can there be flow
without an intellectual underpinning to inform the muscles?

The above are two very different questions.

> My purpose here at the moment is to make more real the ways in which,
> as teachers, we may help players 'make it' in that sense, even though
> they may presently be struggling. This post was a beginning in that
> enterprise -- to set a context in which it was more plausible here
> that, as Callow puts it, what is required is not 'more of the same',
> but rather 'being in another way'.

Are you referring to those who find themselves unable to break away from
the need for conscious control of the physical in order to realize the ex-
pressive (musical) portion of their art form? In simplistic terms, does
this pertain to a sort of psychological rut, where a player is expressively
paralyzed by their need to be technically proficient?

> Musicians get away with going through the motions rather more easily,
> unfortunately.

Yes, but I don't know if I would judge it, certainly not using the term
"unfortunate." For many, being able to reproduce somebody else's artistry
is enough, without needing to experience the "other way"-ness that the orig-
inal artist may have experienced when rendering their interpretation of the
music. It might be helpful if you define more specifically the context in
which you feel it is unfortunate that musicians go through the motions. I
would agree that it is unfortunate if they've already achieved the type of
unconscious flow of "technique following expression", as opposed to a re-
versal of this sequence, i.e.; expression arising from technique. Like
you mentioned earlier, some people will never experience this ideal state
of freedom (the former).

> In music, we can hear what a musician does. All we have to do is do
> what they do, seemingly. But my point is that that doesn't always work,
> however good we get at just reproducing it. What I'm interested in
> here, at the moment, is how we can approach that 'not-working' so that
> we can generate it, on the contrary, 'working'. And I maintain, that
> isn't a technique, because it needs to be approached in a different
> world from the world of technique. And the shift between the two worlds
> can occur at any time.

More to your point, I suspect, is that the concept of this shift can be
understood by a student from the outset, regardless of when the shift ac-
tually happens for them. Such a student would be primed to "let go" and
develop their art in what you perceive to be the proper sequence, i.e.;
expression guiding mechanics, much sooner than a student who is inhibit-
ed from conceiving of the shift in the first place. To this I'll express
my suspicion that most people are not naturally inclined to think in the
spontaneous terms which guide the principle you're aiming for, especially
not at the beginning of a learning process. Do you think the opposite?
You've already conceded that some people will never get it at all.

> I am not your enemy, Neil.

This is where you are ever so much like most minds I've encountered in
cyberspace. It astonishes me how seriously people take internet contact,
as if it actually represented the type of personal intimacy that charac-
terizes even the very first in-person meeting between two people, much
less any sort of extended acquaintancy based in the physical world. Well,
it doesn't, and those who believe otherwise are operating on a great deal
of faith, imagination, and the filling of details that are completely ab-
sent from this text-based environment. No Tony, you are not my enemy.
You're not my enemy, my friend, my associate, my acquaintance, or anything
other than words on a screen, joined with a projection that I place upon
them based on my own identity and concept of the world. I know you exist,
but I won't know your identity until we meet. It is by virtue of the fact
that I value people so much that I give you the benefit of the doubt when I
find your attitude or manner of expression objectionable. And with those
who I find myself more naturally relating to, it is an expression of my faith
and hope that my projection of their attractiveness as people online would
continue if an acqaintance were made in the physical world. While I am as
susceptible as anybody to the fantasy that internet contact represents real-
world dynamics, it remains a fantasy. I'll never take things in the email
world overly seriously, much less truly personally, but find myself getting
*very* personal whenever I meet "internet" people in person -- in a very
positive and humanistic way. To date, I think that's only happened once
on Klarinet, with Mark Charette himself, and Mark's as interesting and in-
cisive in real life as the projection of interest and incisiveness that I
projected onto his Klarinet persona prior to our meeting. Clark Fobes I've
known personally for ten years, so I don't need to project anything onto his
words when he posts. Everybody else remains a source of stimulation and en-
tertainment, and I'm hopeful that the passage of time and the eddies of life's
indeterminacy will thrust more opportunities upon me where I'll get to meet
these people who have provided so much enrichment from afar. Maybe even you
someday, Tony. I know I need to visit England someday before I die.

> But if I have to argue against your current ideas, I will.

You don't "have" to do a thing, Tony. You don't have to post a single
word. It's all a matter of conscious choice in this case.

> What I am in fact doing is making a stand for the validity of the viewpoint
> that musical expression and creativity are overwhelmingly important, and
> worth discussing.

Worth discussing, of course. "Overwhelmingly" important? That's very much
up for debate, depending on who you talk to. Such verbiage strongly implies
that musical expression and creativity are important to the point of invalid-
ating the discussion of related issues without beginning each such discussion
with the preface, "All of the following is stated with the understanding that
it is meaningless without expression and creativity as the guiding principle."
I reject that notion. I find it dogmatic and closed-minded, reflective of a
failure to account for the diversity of perspectives, desires, and contexts
in which these related issues occur.

> It should be noted that Sherman tanks, if you consider me to be one of
> those, are much more importantly characterised by what they are used
> for, than by what they are.

The subtle reiteration of your ongoing musical point is taken from the above.
With regard to the generalized labels, i.e.; Sherman tank, etc., I've never
commented. "Not my bag, baby."

-- Neil

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.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