Klarinet Archive - Posting 000441.txt from 2004/10

From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Anticipation
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:53:17 -0400

At 07:01 PM 10/15/2004 +0100, Tony Pay wrote:
>But I find that whatever isolated technical things particular great exponents
>of the instrument can do, those things can be done equally well, sometimes
>even better, by other, quite run-of-the-mill players. Bonade, if he was a
>great player, wasn't great because he was the only one who could play
>staccato.

Bonade's biggest weakness as a teacher was that he really had no clue about
how *why* (physically) he did what he did (or, at least, no interest in
discussing it). Well, that and his "mouthpieces". But he was a master at
teaching music.

>In my view, we make what are actually quite trivial things much too
>intimidating. The more you tell someone exactly how they should do staccato,
>the more you limit the variety of what they can produce *in the name of
>staccato*. And I'd say that *that* variety, plus an appreciation of how it
>may be used, is the most important thing.

It is a fascinating dichotomy. Does proper instruction really inhibit the
variety a student can achieve? I would say no, proper instruction actually
allows the student more options to sound they want to sound because they
choose to, rather than *have* to, sound a certain way.

To be clear, proper instruction is explaining how the system works. Not in
being dogmatic and saying "you must do it my way". The latter isn't
instruction, it is indoctrination. Something Bonade just might be guilty
of, but I think that is going a little too far.

This is where the greatness of Joe Allard steps in. He wasn't dogmatic
about *anything*, he would just explain how things worked and let you
decided how to use the information. This explains how you can have Eddie
Daniels, Harry Carney, and Eric Dolphy all play they way they do/did, all
studying with the same person. Forgive me for the high NDQ (Name Dropping
Quotient) of this paragraph!

Joe's weakness, although I don't think weakness is the right word, was he
really didn't give you a musical conception if you didn't already have one.
His most successful students walked into him studio with a sound in mind
which Joe helped them achieve through explaining the physical process. Then
again, maybe this is the way it should be, I don't really know.

As an aside, I refer to him as Joe because everyone refers to him as Joe.
He really was a most humble man, known for eating in the cafeteria with the
Juilliard students and being just a wonderful human being. I don't want
anyone to think I am being disrespectful.

>I apologise. What it was directed against was the notion that 'someone knows
>something that we aren't up to finding out ourselves'. It's like my
>objection to the Etheridge book, which has the effect of making out that
>players who have made recordings somehow know something about Mozart that we
>don't know. In America, it seems that most of those 'someones' are
>Americans, and aren't, and haven't been, particularly shy about promoting
>themselves as unique repositories of that knowledge.

No need to apologize, we Americans have a deserved reputation of NIH (Not
Invented Here) Syndrome. For those of you not in the business world, NIH
syndrome is the disease a company gets when it refuses to acknowledge that
someone outside the company may just be able to do something better than
the company can do internally. It is often followed by a much more terminal
disease, bankruptcy.

> > As for Bonade, he was French.
>
>Even worse!-)

Yeah, well, I can't argue with you there.

>Well, in this case, I already know what he had to say about the relationship
>between finger movement and sound stopping. What I resent is the idea that
>what he had to say was 'his'.
>
>(Did I steal it, perhaps;-)

Well, I have no idea if you stole it from him, but he was born before you,
so I'm guessing he didn't steal it from you. =)

Of course, in all seriousness, I know Bonade did not invent it. I don't
want to go around telling people to do it because Bonade said so. I do,
however, want to know where he learned it. This may just be pure curiosity.
I actually have a suspicion (fueled by Mr. Abato) it may be related to
string technique.

Furthermore, I've learned that even if saying "do this because Bonade said
so" works, it only works in the short term. People have to really
understand for any real long term change to happen. And if they aren't
understanding, either I'm wrong or terribly bad at explaining myself. Both
very possible scenarios!

>Well, I think I already have. More about them, than their 'origins', I'd
>say.

Ah, but by learning about their origins we can often deduce how better to
understand them and how better to teach them. For example, someday I may
just be able to use the analogy of a string player to explain anticipation
(a rose [no pun intended!] by any other name...) to a clarinet student.

-Adam

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org