Klarinet Archive - Posting 000006.txt from 2001/01
From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Sequence of posting. Was Technique and Musicality
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 06:36:50 -0500
I wrote this (see below) on 30th Dec. immediately after Tony Pay`s 30th Dec
mail, I notice that it has only <just> reached the list, i.e. 1st Jan. I`m
also reading other related posts, with which I am finding difficulty, re
placing in their logical posting order, i.e. receive and reply. Something
has gone slightly <upsidedown> in the last couple of days` postings.
Certainly on <my> `puter. I wonder has anyone else noticed this. I know each
post has it`s own time and date on, and I <have> checked my "view" - "sort
by" - then clicked on "Received". <That> is all working correctly. These
related postings have therefore lost their <impact> somewhat, which is a
shame. I was eagerly hoping to enjoy reading up this morning`s <delivery> as
part of <my> new start to 2001. And I stress, particularly after this post,
perfectly capable of walking in a straight line!!!
I wish a Happy New Year to U.S. U.K. Canada, Aussieland, New(?) Zealand, The
French!, Italy, Sardinia, Sicilia and all their families, The Netherlands,
especially Amsterdam, Germany, Wagner and Strauss, Scandinavia, and Santa
Claus, (have a good rest after comin` down every chimney - God, such
virility), Espana, and also not forgetting all those which I`ve forgotten.
And last but least, Bonny Scotland - me thinks I`ve just about got away with
that last remark aboot Scorrrrrrrtland, `cos they`ll all be lying sprawled
out in the gutter somewhere till next week.
Hi Ian - - - -
Best,
Tony W.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Technique and Musicality
> Hello America,
> I hope you all enjoyed your holiday.
>
> Re Tony Pay
> Look at <this> 30 Dec. mail carefully. Read it thoroughly. Note it`s <tone
&
> manner>. And do reply to it sensibly, calmly and intellectually. It <has>
> within it quite a lot of substance.
>
> Best,
> Tony W.
> P.S. I have only <just> come to think, (a bit late, but let that be) and
> believe that the <real> millennium was the beginning of <this> year. If
> Jesus was born in <say> year nought,(Christian calendar), i.e. on his 1st
> birthday, the year which would have elapsed would have been <one> 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"
> Sent: 30 December 2000 13:18
>
> > 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
