Klarinet Archive - Posting 001131.txt from 2003/04

From: "Anthony Wakefield" <tony-w@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Pronunciation/Spelling
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:47:47 -0400

Hi all, (with a special Hello To Annie - I would love to be playing second
'fiddle' in your duets concert) -

Long time; but I read most mails, and am still interested in most topics,
including off-topics (I will express a thought on language in a minute if I
may).

In here I learn a lot - I need to - I`m still teaching clarinet & sax.
I find that saxophone beginners (youngsters mainly) seem to encounter more
initial embouchure problems than with my clarinet embouchures. This may seem
to be untypical insofar as we all believe, somewhat falsely, that sax is
easier. What I find is that my sax beginners (they do not play clarinet BTW)
find it unable to form the correct O shape (as opposed to <> on clarinet)
sufficiently well enough, plus a certain inability to pitch *down* enough
(as opposed to up with clar.) to the note to realise and produce *good*
initial sound. It is comparitively easy for a beginning clarinettist to
produce a fairly good initial sound, but on sax, it is all to easy to
produce honks and grunts like no other instrument can.
It may be that the size of the mouthpiece (even with alto) has some bearing
on what should be inserted into small mouths, and of course the sax has far
greater ability than clarinet to distort sound anyway.
I have started to introduce more soprano sax - my ratio is now almost 50/50,
in order to let the control required become evident sooner than what it
might on alto. This enables through perseverence, a sustainable interest in
continuation.
Any other thoughts please.

My thoughts on language diversify (a little?). They are more of an overview
insofar as language and spelling is indeed changing constantly. Constantly
enough to warrant no *correct* or text book dogma? We have to lay some
ground rules for youngsters, but then as in music, especially with composing
music and improvising, we find our own voice, or it will not sustain
interest.
Spelling generally seems to procure less interest than what comprehension
and form does; this is why literature has become such an intense and
captivating art form. I suspect had Shakespeare used correct spelling, but
written his text as plain language, then he would have remained obscure.
But he must have surely used unusual spellings, which have not distracted
from the artistic flow of his magnificent verse.
It is *what* and *how* we make ourselves understood which makes the content
interesting - so spelling doesn`t matter one iota - does it?
Metre and pronunciation is of utmost importance in serious vocal music. Here
in UK we have had a professional premiere of an opera, written by quite an
eminent English composer, which was given a real *good shafting*. The main
reason (apart from it being long) being that the text, in English, could not
be seen to flow as opera text is normally recognisd to flow. It was as
though it had been *lifted* straight out of modern prose, and could not, in
the eyes/ears of many, be reconciled, or have any connection with the music.
It was considered to be a complete failure. I suppose to some degree it was
experimental.
So is what we have been discussing of secondary importance to what should
be, and is of more value? That is, how we speak, and what language, words,
textures, brevity or otherwise, verse and flow is used to make ourselves
understood and interesting. To me, all these components are of much more
worth than how we spell, and join together each syllable.

Sorry for the long post - I`m making up for my long absense.
Tony W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/