Klarinet Archive - Posting 000868.txt from 2001/10

From: "Robert Moody" <LetsReason@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Clarifying and continuing...
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:35:18 -0400

I would like to just take a second to present a few things that have been
bothering me a little and hope that those still reading my posts would
oblige.

After having received a lecture on my maturity because of my choice of
presentation, I did contemplate one thing that I regret saying. I'm also
afraid that some other things have painted an incorrect picture of how I
picture myself in the grand scheme of things.

First and foremost, I apologize to the list for using the word
"backasswards". It was very inappropriate, no matter how much Roger may
stir up my persona. I also do not want to pretend to have a view that I do
not have. I do feel, from my personal experience, that teaching* the
altissimo is more effective for the student in the beginning and then
returning to it later than developing strong traits in the
embouchure/voicing through extensive clarion register work and heading
upwards from there for their first experience in the altissimo. I believe,
from personal experience, this works in an impedance to progress that kids
must learn to overcome later. I continue to feel that a more efficient way
to bring the student through the pitch range of the clarinet is to introduce
the altissimo notes by rote as soon after an understanding of good air,
finger placement and embouchure are established in the chalumeau.

*[I do not mean to imply that by teaching I am saying that the students
learn to read notes (music in general) in the altissimo. While the progress
in the chalumeau is with the combination of reading of actual music and by
rote, the altissimo is all by rote at this point. The literal teaching of
reading up there is acquired at the point that they are comfortable reading
music in ledger lines both above and below the staff.]

Secondly, I do not think that I am the only one to ever come up with the
idea of overblowing the g' to d''' in order to teach voicing. Eddie Knackal
introduced the idea to me and he, I believe, comes from a very traditional
and rooted background in Stanley Hasty and others. (The wonderful thing
about Eddie Knackal is his wonderful personality and patience, imagining new
ways to make you understand what he wants you to do.)

I doubt very seriously that I am the first person to catch on to that kids
naturally play altissimo in the beginning (or "can" play it rather
naturally), or realized the benefits of ingraining a sense of voicing as a
basic element of their development from the beginning. But there is no
doubt that when I first introduced "the" idea on this List that it was
quickly named as "your idea of...." or "your approach". I adapted that
label and responded with references to "my approach" or "my idea" of because
it appeared to be unique among the audience who was responding.

Third, I have repeated at least twice, if not more, that I DO respect that
persons such as Jack Brymer and others who advocate the chalumeau to clarion
to altissimo order of approach (which was labeled as "traditional") have
produced wonderful performers of the instrument. Their approach is
successful and I have never denied them their success (how could I?). My
belief from my experiences is that their work may have been "more efficient"
if these same wonderful teachers had taken this approach of introducing
voicing as a basic foundational issue, from the beginning.

Annie, I will use you as an example, if you don't mind. (Not that you are
getting a chance to say no, sorry.)

Annie has expressed that she feels that my approach to doing this really
needs to be seen and demonstrated rather than just talked about on a list in
order to convince. She has said plainly that she does not think it would
help her 10-year-olds. Though I do think that if she clearly understood
what I mean to show, it would help her 10-year-olds throughout their
development, I do NOT think Annie will be unsuccessful because she disagrees
with me. Obviously Annie knows that she is successful at teaching and that
is why she comfortable saying, "No thanks, Robert." My magically appearing
here and saying everyone should do things "my way" does not take away
ANYONE'S success prior to or anytime after my saying it. Success in
teaching the clarinet can be measured. It is not something someone can deny
and make it invalid. If someone is successful at teaching, offering a new
way to approach something is not detracting from measureable product.
Rather it is addressing whether there is another, if not more efficient way
of achieving that success.

Apparently my lecturer, and at least one or two other people, got the
impression that I hold the opposite view. I hope this clarifies...I do not
hold the opposite view.

I have presented the ideas to my professor, Dr. Stephen Johnston, and he, at
once, expresses intrigue and doubt at my claims of success and the benefits.
I hope that my degree program (I am the first clarinetist to pass through
the program here) will allow me to use this as a topic or focal point for my
paper. In any case, I will attempt to set-up a proper, recorded study of
this approach and present it for review.

Please keep in mind that while I can record how I teach this and it's
immediate success in various settings, I cannot present the evidence for
long term benefits for at least a year or two until the programs the
students are in reach playing in the altissimo range. So not only would the
study be protracted by surveying a larger profile, it would be lengthed by
the required follow-up and mapping of their progression over a year or two.

Thanks for listening,

Robert

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