Klarinet Archive - Posting 000387.txt from 2003/08

From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tony=20Pay?= <tony_pay@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] The Lure of Certainty
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:25:45 -0400

--- Andy Raibeck <klari_1@-----.com> wrote:

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

> [snip]

> > Now, someone responding to this 'McDonald' here commented on his insistence
> > on double lip for all his students, regardless, by saying "I guess he was
> > serious."
> >
> > What that means is that this person was actually applauding McDonald's
> > behaviour.
>
> Are you referring to Russell Harlow's post? If so, then I would say your
> assumption that he was *applauding* McLane's (alleged) insistence on double-
> lip is quite a stretch. I interpreted the "I guess he was serious" remark as
a
> "throw-away" remark in reaction to this (alleged) insistence, and not an
> endorsement.

OK, I accept that 'applaud' is too strong. What I wanted to say was that he
didn't condemn the insistence, even if his own attitude was more moderate.

My own view is that that fact constitutes a significant statement about the
context in which 'a teacher's insistence' is considered -- even if Russell's
lack of condemnation was totally innocent.

Really, that's the nub of what I want to say. Reading Russell's post again, I
can't detect any hint that he wants to say that for McLane to have insisted on
double lip embouchure, regardless, would have been extraordinarily
presumptuous.

> > He believed that McDonald *really knew*, you see, what you SPOZED
> > to do to be a REAL clarinet player. What you spozed to do is what he said
> > you spozed to do, namely use double lip embouchure, and then EVERYTHING
ELSE
> > WILL JUST FALL INTO PLACE.
>
> No. He said that this is *perhaps* what double lip does for you. He also said
> that double lip isn't for everyone. Nowhere did I see anything that said you
> are "spozed" to play double lip.

Yes, I accept that too. Russell didn't say that, and I apologise to him for
the possible insinuation that he did.

Nevertheless, 'McDonald' still constitutes an 'accepted context', of someone
who we don't immediately shout down for ignorant arrogance. I was trying to
get at the *admiration* we have for these 'giants' as teachers, *whatever we
might think they actually said to their students*.

I encounter other such 'giants'. Vincenzo Mariozzi in Italy is an example,
though admittedly as far as I know he didn't insist on any particular technical
means of achieving results. Yet, for many years, he dominated the Italian
scene, not only by personal charisma, but by behind-the-scenes manipulation.
His personal criteria for being an acceptable player included that vibrato was
de rigeur -- "Il clarinetto deve VIBRA!" and it was difficult to work anywhere
in his sphere of influence, which was considerable, and impossible anyway to
have lessons with him, without conforming. That has damaged Italian clarinet
playing.

Still, on the other hand, he's almost universally condemned.

Alamiro Giampieri's editions are even worse examples of teacher/editor
arrogance. They have obscured students' understanding of classical music for
decades.

> > You do have to ignore all the people who for one reason or another can't
> > use double lip embouchure (I happen to be one of those myself) -- but
> > that's just tough on them. And anyone who is already a successful clarinet
> > player, but who doesn't use double lip embouchure, just doesn't cut the
> > mustard, really, because they ain't doing what you SPOZED TO DO.
>
> I didn't see any of this in what Russell wrote. Care to share the quote or
> link in archives where he actually said this? Or are you talking about a
> different post altogether?

Russell wasn't in my sights, really. I apologise again personally to him, for
creating the impression that he was. BUT -- on a list like this, where many
people have many varied problems, to overextol a particular technique as a
panacea is misplaced. As I indicated in a different post, it is perfectly
possible to understand what double lip embouchure helps to cure whilst
understanding how the same problem may be addressed otherwise.

Russell may have done that sufficiently to satisfy you.

Here's an analogy. Years ago, we used in England to call the blood blister
that you sometimes get by nipping your finger, a "black man's pinch". This
terminology was learnt and used in all innocence, and the notion that it might
be offensive was met initially with incredulity by almost everyone. Yet now,
we see the point.

I suggest that the idea that there are 'great' teachers who have the power to
insist on absolute criteria irrespective of people's physical attributes is
likewise an idea whose time has passed. (Just as the idea that it's acceptable
for those great teachers to be entitled to bed most of their female students is
an idea whose time has passed.)

> > So I'll have to continue to be prepared to say that I guess that McDonald,
> > if he exists or existed, is or was an arrogant prick.
>
> Maybe. But it is my observation that this "McDonald" doesn't have the market
> cornered in that regard.

You mean me, I suppose.

Notice, however, that I'm around and available to be called it. Unlike most of
the so-called 'greats' in our profession.

> For someone who says he's quit this group in the past over low
> signal-to-noise ratio, lately you seem to be contributing to the latter.

I didn't say that, actually. Much of what's thought of as noise here I
actually find more interesting than the 'on-topic' stuff. Still, I'm sorry
that you think that my concerns in this matter are noise. I continue to think
they're important.

> Sheesh.

The elegance of your post would have been improved by omitting this word, I
feel:-)

Tony

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

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