Klarinet Archive - Posting 000818.txt from 2001/10

From: rgarrett@-----.edu
Subj: Re: [kl] Teaching Overblown Harmonics Isn't New
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:12:19 -0400

When I began teaching a teaching career a long time ago, I, and several
others, were teaching the overblown G and the other fundamental pitches -
along with the next overblown overtone (a 6th above the 12th) and the next
overtone (a 4th above the 6th) - as a means to understand aspects of
playing the clarinet in all registers without undue stress to the
embouchure. This was utilized with a fairly aggressive approach to
teaching students at the 7th grade level. Our students began in 6th grade.

These were not new concepts in the '70s and '80s - they had been around a
long time before that; the techniques are well documented in several books,
including Stubbins' book, "The Art of Clarinetistry." The issue I have
seen discussed the past several days does not represent
a "new" approach. Rather, it appears to be about the timetable involved
with standard teaching tools that have been considered standard for nearly
a half a century (or longer). Are these "traditional" approaches? I guess
that depends on what someone thinks of as "traditional." The limited
attempt at defining a "traditional teacher" I have seen has not really done
a very good job of explaining what a "traditional" teacher is. Teachers
make use of standard teaching tools in many different timetables, but such
schedules are really only a variation of teaching agendas that have been
around for a long, long time. To say that a person who teaches the "smile"
method of embouchure is a "traditional" teacher, and that the person who
teaches the non-smile embouchure is a "new" approach would be a difficult
claim to support, even though the latter is more widely taught now than it
was in the '40s and '50s. There is no perfect timetable that works for
every student, and there is no guarantee what a class of students in a
beginning band will or will not do. What we do know is that there is much
greater proof and hundreds (thousands?) of living examples existing as I
write this that it is less helpful to the student's development if the
student is moved away from the Clarion too soon. This is why so many
teachers react negatively to the idea of moving students to the altissimo
in such a serious way as to learn and memorize fingerings up there within
the first three months of playing. I haven't ever seen a case personally
or heard from a colleague about a case in which students suffered from not
being moved up soon enough.

I suppose the reason I am writing this is to dispel the notion that there
are no teachers out there or on this list using concepts associated with
learning the altissimo, and that we are, somehow, unsuccessful teaching
voicing by delaying a move to the altissimo. I teach the concepts
associated with playing in the altissimo - and I teach it earlier than
most. But - I don't teach it within the first eight months of playing, and
I don't expect students to spend time learning and momorizing fingerings
for notes up there even when I do introduce it. Why? For me, I see no
advantage to playing an altissimo G when they can learn more important
skills that will help them develop quickly - including, but not limited to
good articulation skills and good reading skills. The only students I have
ever observed who suffer with remedial problems in sound production,
sub-tones in the clarion, and biting and squeezing problems are those who
didn't receive steady, good teaching and, perhaps most importantly,
consistent reinforcement of that teaching during the first two
years. Either they didn't get the instruction to begin with, or the
teacher didn't stick with it and nurture good habits.

It is not a "new" or "specialized" approach to take students who have been
playing between three and five years and see improvement immediately when
they are introduced to a concept such as overblowing a fundamental pitch
and realizing how to achieve success in several registers. Ask any student
who has attended IWU during the past 14 years - and they will say they
started it immediately upon entering college. Sure - they were amazed at
their rate of improvement. But I don't call this "my" approach, nor was it
uniquely Dr. Mohler's approach when he reinforced these already learned
concepts during my freshman year at U. Michigan.

The conversation remains interesting for me only when I can see something
new that I feel I can apply and will work better than what I, or the guy
down the street, is currently doing.

Finally - a few words about the Suzuki Method and teaching by wrote. The
Suzuki Method was not originally designed for students above the age of
10. The true Suzuki Method is used with children who begin string
instruments at an extremely young age - such as 3 or 4. The method was
based on the theory that students can learn musical expression with an
instrument as easily as they can learn speech - if they are introduced to
it soon enough and can imitate, with good correction, someone else's
playing. It is based on imitation - although there have been written
methods based on it for many years, as well as the expansion of the method
to include piano.

There are examples of the Suzuki Method being used successfully with older
students (ages 8-10), but every one of those examples represents an unusual
program in which students meet as a class for their respective instrument
each day. This is not at all similar to the standard public school
beginning band class, and it would be impossible to implement as a model in
most school districts.

The biggest drawback of applying a Suzuki-type approach to beginning band -
at the 5th grade level - is that students don't spend time in band the way
the Suzuki Method was designed. Further, by the time Suzuki-trained string
players are even in 4th grade, they are reading music. Teaching by wrote
is a very important tool in the overall scheme of teaching and learning to
play a musical instrument - but by age 10 or 11, students should be doing a
lot of work in the area of reading music. New concepts taught by wrote are
important. It is just as important to reinforce those new concepts with
written notations and rhythms, and I would hope that any approach to
teaching beginning band would keep all students, clarinetists or otherwise,
actively involved to that end.

Best,
Roger Garrett

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