 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-15 13:17
I am beginning to think that clarinetting is no longer about musicality, but about how fast one can tongue 16th notes and how fast their fingers move. I was at the all New England music festival, proud of my 92/100, and in wonderment at the kids who sat ahead of me! I could not imagine how any of them got 100s (or 99s), because as a whole, or playing alone during break, their tone quality was horrendous. And I just sat there wondering how they could have gotten so far with such horrible tone, but then I remembered the way they played the runs in the music. But is it worth listening to such awesome technique if the tone is like that of a dying cat?!
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-03-15 14:02
You've run up against the great accountability crazy, and you've noticed one of its biggest problems, a problem so big that many cannot see their way clear to comprehending it.
'Twas a time, some time ago, when people "in charge" made decisions based upon their considerable body of experience. They might not have been able to tell you why a decision was made, but the decision was usually a sound one.
Not so any more. Now, the quest for accountability has permeated everywhere in the world, particularly in education. Now, there are those in the "running" of every craft that have been tasked with ways to make "workers" of all stripes "accountable" in some measurable form. And, when this happens, unpleasant results like (in education) teaching to the test and (in industry as a whole) "making the numbers line up" suddenly become more important than intangibles like "musicality" or tone (in the field under discussion) or general efficiency (in the workaday world).
Number of tongue strokes per measure is (to some extent) quantifiable; general "musical performance" is not. Now, don't get me wrong on this: being able to run the scales upon demand in every key, plus thirds and the like, is an indication of musical talent. But it's not the only one (as you are aware), and the other factors are just as important.
In other fields, similar benchmarks apply. With youth hockey, we always knew how fast our kids could make a circuit around the face-off dots (timed skating in both directions), and their sprint time goal line to goal line and back again. Both of these factors were good general indications of how "fast" a player _might_ be in a game situation, as well as with maneuverability, stopping and starting abilities, "skating to the wrong side", and so forth.
However, there were players in that mix who weren't as fast or maneuverable (as measured by the speed benchmarks) but were always "on the puck" in a game situation that would often leave the speed demons a quarter sheet of ice out of position. The Gretzky family calls this "knowing where the puck is going", and it's a great technique to know...and it only comes from long term practice in game situations. And, it can't be seen from simple, raw data, such as that from the overall speed tests.
I've played with an alto and clarinet player whose technique (measured in number of notes per second and the like) was nothing short of spectacular. She got that way through hours upon hours of practice (and ended up pretty stunted socially in the bargain). While her pitch was always dead on, and she could flawlessly perform any passage (following enough practice; she appears to be a "rote" player rather than a reader), her "overall musicality" score was well down the list in my book. For the want of another word, her playing had no "soul". Other, less capable in the technical department, musicians would play a passage and you'd call it a performance; the young lady in question would go through the motions and you'd think "Wow, she hit every note perfectly, the timing was great, but oh my God, was that boring or what?"
She gets placed highly in most musical groups based upon her technical skills, but the groups as a whole suffer because their lead alto player is literally "going through the motions." Listening to her perform a jazz style solo is a huge quandary, since the notes are all there and "on the metrics", but the performance is still strangely lacking.
I don't have any problems with this issue with my folks, as I am the final authority on what's good for the situation. In an education situation (or the sports team scenario described above), those adjudicators who judged your performance and placed you at 92/100 are responsible not only to their peers, but also to the higher controlling authorities over them, and (ultimately) to the parents. And, having been through a situation where a parent refused to see the holes in his son's resume, I can testify that it's not pleasant. Having a good, solid "metric" like speed down the ice (in that case) or proficiency in running a chromatic scale (in music) goes a long way towards meeting those arguments.
In music, I look for the ability to "sing" the part (play it with feeling, even if it is an interior harmony line without a hint of melody) over flashy proficiency in running scales (jazz or otherwise). But, I don't have music moms breathing down my neck...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-03-15 14:16
Well discussed, Terry, your observation re: [what I might call] "quantification" sure is pervasive in our daily lives in many forms, and seems to eliminate many "subjective" considerations, unhappily. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
|
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2005-03-15 14:25
The combination of great sound and awesome (musical) technique will always best for any clarinetist. However, it is important to remember that the best sound in the world will be of little consequence if you can't play the notes. Dazziling, impeccable technique (in tune, of course) will always win over uneven, sloppy technique missing many notes along the way, even if played with a good, in tune sound.
Bottom line: It is better to play the "Flight of the Bumble Bee" with an average sound than the "Blight of the Fumble Bee" with the best sound in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-03-15 14:55
I will never forget a remark made in one of our classes some years ago: "If you encounter a situation where you cannot quantify the variables.....quantify them anyway." Yogi Berra couldn't have said it any better.
Bob Draznik
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John O'Janpa
Date: 2005-03-15 15:30
In most clarinetting circumstances it is better to play fast than half fast, but some people have made their fortunes ignoring that. Acker Bilk comes to mind.
Not enough thirty second notes in "Stranger on the Shore".
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-15 15:44
Quote:
So develop your technique.
THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-03-15 18:42
Hi Lindsie, Firstly it is a competition and that itself is a big problem. Opinions vary and egos are everywhere. If I read between the lines a bit I see your question as two fold. One is bemoaning the fact that perhaps people these days value technique more than tone. Two is that you felt slighted in this situation. Your ego was hurt. So your first question is an intellectual one and the second an emotional one. The first reply to your question/questions was interesting . In one sense it was blunt and insensitive but that's only one way to interpret it. The other way is to interpret it is a very honest, realistic and succinct answer to your question that was not intended to be insulting. It is a bit of reality therapy. I myself know musicians who are disgruntled. They believe they are so musical with such great tone. Somehow these people have been slighted all their career. People somehow prefer mechanical players with mediocre tone. What is going on here? When it comes down to it the so called musical player is not always a great ensemble player. He/she is listening to herself/himself(admiring tone) and not listening to how they fit into the ensemble. Your response to the first response is emotional and in capital letters. I concur with his advice...and..you should try to find good things in other peoples playing....even if it is different than yours. Be very honest with yourself and modest. Respectfully, JP.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Liam
Date: 2005-03-15 18:42
I definitely value good tone over good technique. The speed of notes is something that can be worked on over time and can become better with a lot of standard practicing. A good tone, however, is not as easily achieved as good technique. In a symphony audition, everyone is going to be able to pull of the notes, but the thing that will really determine whether you make it is good musicality through an amazing tone quality. I think the problem of judges favoring good technicality over tone quality only occurs in highschool festivals where not all of the kids know the notes. The ones that do nail all the notes, the judges just assume that they had a bad reed and that's why their tone was off.
In my opinion, those festivals never consist of the same quality players as you would find in your own orchesta anyway. I enjoy rehearsals with my friends in orchestras that I have been in for years now much more than competing for a high seat in a festival ensemble. Don't let it bother you that the people in front of you sound terrible, as they probably have no experience in such a group, and instead sit at home all day trying to improve their technique.
Liam
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2005-03-15 18:54
I have listened to so many clarinetists and even more saxaphonists that can out finger and out scale me that it used to drive me crazy. Then I was told by someone I consider a great clarinetist, that I had the best tone or sound that he had ever heard and that if I played a simple tune, it would sound better than the complicatingly fingered and fast playing that most of these younger clarinetist play. Saxaphonist Dexter Gordon had a way of playing beautifuly without much speed or complications. I started to listen more carefully and realized that making your clarinet "sing" like a clarinet and achieve that great fluid clarinet sound is more important to me than over adapting to difficult techniques. I quit thinking that incredible playing rests on speed or difficult pieces and more on expression through emboucher and lungs. I think that I am a better player for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mystery science dieter
Date: 2005-03-15 19:02
>>>>So develop your technique.
THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!<<<<
It isn't? Oh, I think it is, actually. It just isn't what you wanted to hear.
These other people out worked you and have better command of the instrument than you do. Or at least an independent panel of judges thought so.
You feel you are a superior 'artist' to at least some of these people.
But your artistry is trapped by your inablilty to execute the notes. It isn't obvious to the listner, apparently.
You say : "But is it worth listening to such awesome technique if the tone is like that of a dying cat?!" One can turn your statement around and say "is it worth listening to a beautiful sound if all the intervals are unclean and the runs are uneven?" My answer is 'NO."
Technique is very simple, if not easy. It requires hours of meticulous work over time. It isn't a deep intellectual challenge. It is a question of whether you find it worthwhile to do.
If you work as hard as everyone else and are more gifted, you will do just fine. If you are less gifted, you must work harder than everyone else.
>>>In a symphony audition, everyone is going to be able to pull of the notes, but the thing that will really determine whether you make it is good musicality through an amazing tone quality.<<<
This simply isn't true, although it is true that most will be able to play all the notes.
What really makes the difference in an audition are rhythm and intonation.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-15 19:34
Well has anyone thought of, say, Saint-Saens, or the 2nd movement of mozart's clarinet concerto or the Brahms sonata no. 2? beautiful tonal pieces which do not have much technical aspects to it (finger-wise). I'd like to see all the technical-fiends have a go at these pieces with their undeveloped tone!
Yes, I work very hard on my technique, notice I only fell 8 points behind the top players. Yes, that is a lot, but I wasn't last chair. I am not the best when it comes to technique OR tone, or nor do I think so! Please do not imply that I have said this. I have merely stated that it seems that the only way to get far in the performance world (or at least in highschool) is to have good technique, and tone seems to be a moot concept.
and MSD: I would rather listen to a player flub a few technical parts in a piece with beautiful tone than play a piece with flawless technique and horrible tone. But that's just me.
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-03-15 20:12
You are in denial.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mystery science dieter
Date: 2005-03-15 20:16
>>>>and MSD: I would rather listen to a player flub a few technical parts in a piece with beautiful tone than play a piece with flawless technique and horrible tone. But that's just me.<<<
How about having it all? Would that be ok?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2005-03-15 20:27
NO! having it all would be a disaster - perfection is ugly - flaws create character and real beauty - WE are not robots
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-15 20:32
music_is_life said:
> Well has anyone thought of, say, Saint-Saens,
> or the 2nd movement of mozart's clarinet concerto
> or the Brahms sonata no. 2? beautiful tonal pieces
> which do not have much technical aspects to it
What?
The Saint-Saens Sonate has a number of technical passages.
Besides the scale passages in the 4th movement (which very few students ever play cleanly, without rushing), students frequently flub the technical challenges in both the 1st and 2nd movements due to poorly practiced clarinet basics.
A seasoned teacher can spot poor technique and shoddy preparation a mile away...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-03-15 20:46
larryb wrote:
> NO! having it all would be a disaster - perfection is ugly -
> flaws create character and real beauty - WE are not robots
"having it all" allows one to do exactly as one wants ... there is no general "perfection" ... just ask anyone here
|
|
|
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2005-03-15 20:58
having all to me would be being able to play the Saint Saens sonata well - it's always given me trouble - deceptively easy looking, but not really
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-15 21:19
GBK: sorry, I didn't specify the movement... I don't have it with me, but I played the slow passage which I think starts on a first line E or something. There are a few technical passages in there, but it's not quite Weber Concerto in F minor (3rd movement) or anything
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-03-15 21:44
I've changed my mind I'm going with Larry on this. Perfection would be disaster. Let's go with lowered expectations. With this is in mind I think Lindsie being 8 points off is just about right.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2005-03-15 23:27
One of my teachers in high school had a saying.
"If you can play the notes, but you can't play them musically, you are a technician, not a musician."
I agree completely, and one of the first things I tell my students is that every sound they play should be beautiful, even if it just one note.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mystery science dieter
Date: 2005-03-15 23:41
>>>>One of my teachers in high school had a saying.
"If you can play the notes, but you can't play them musically, you are a technician, not a musician."<<<<
So what did he say you were if you COULDN'T play them? How can you fail to play the notes and still be musical? You certainly aren't a musician.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-16 01:10
Quote:
I've changed my mind I'm going with Larry on this. Perfection would be disaster. Let's go with lowered expectations. With this is in mind I think Lindsie being 8 points off is just about right.
that was harsh. thank you. I am both proud of my exceptional score and annoyed at my imperfections. So I practice. but I wouldn't call a 92 "lowered expectations"
but really, I don't think playing notes technically perfectly and tonally perfectly is "perfection" and thus I don't think that is undesirable. I think if that's ALL you have, then yes, it is undesirable. music has soul and NEEDS soul. and if anyone disagrees with me, just stop playing right now.
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-16 01:17
-Lindsie
Post Edited (2005-03-16 01:18)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-03-16 01:17
Lindsie,
I'm not sure I follow the logic of "music has soul and NEEDS soul. and if anyone disagrees with me, just stop playing right now." IMHO, you seem to have two errors.
1. If music has soul already, why does it need it?
2. I don't believe you have the right to tell anyone that if they don't agree with you that he or she should stop playing.
If you don't agree with me, that's fine; it is your right. Please allow me to have my own opinions as well.
HRL
Post Edited (2005-03-16 01:22)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-16 01:22
Hank Lehrer wrote:
> Lindsie,
>
> I'm not sure I follow the logic of "music has soul and NEEDS
> soul. and if anyone disagrees with me, just stop playing right
> now." IMHO, you seem to have two errors.
>
> 1. If music has soul already, why does it need it?
> 2. I don't believe you have the right to tell someone that if
> they don't agree with you that they should stop playing.
>
> If you don't agree with me, that's fine and your right; please
> allow me to also have my opinions.
>
> HRL
I mean to say that it HAS soul (as in, it's not just notes on a page and pitches being played) and needs to continue having soul. It NEEDS to have soul. If you play without soul, it is no longer music. it isn't art if it's all just technical. even if you have perfect tone. if you dont put your heart into it, then what is it?? sorry, badly worded.
okay... I mean that if someone doesnt believe that music is something beyond what's written on the page, then they shouldn't be playing. what's the point?! another hobby? another way to show off? I just cant understand how someone could play without FEELING it.
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: john gibson
Date: 2005-03-16 01:26
A lot of blah blah blah, here.......sorry to be so blunt.....I remember Artie Shaw talking about clarinet playing.....and this is a paraphrase....
".....there are a lot of people playing clarinet nowadays.....and a lot of notes....none musical......no one plays music anymore"......
OR something to that effect.
Fast is good if it's accurate....played well....but most importantly.......
PLAYED WITH FEELING. Listen to Artie....
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-16 01:31
music_is_life said;
> I was at the all New England music festival,
> proud of my 92/100,
> but I wouldn't call a 92 "lowered expectations"
Sorry to have to break the bad news to you, but a 92 wouldn't even get you considered for any of the more competitive county or regional festivals in New York.
I distinctly remember one festival where the ENTIRE clarinet (and flute) section all had scores between the high 90's to 100, and the band sounded THAT good ...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-16 01:42
GBK wrote:
> music_is_life said;
>
> > I was at the all New England music festival,
> > proud of my 92/100,
>
> > but I wouldn't call a 92 "lowered expectations"
>
>
> Sorry to have to break the bad news to you, but a 92 wouldn't
> even get you considered for any of the more competitive county
> or regional festivals in New York.
>
> I distinctly remember one festival where the ENTIRE clarinet
> (and flute) section all had scores between the high 90's to
> 100, and the band sounded THAT good ...GBK
note that I also said: Quote:
I am ... annoyed at my imperfections. So I practice.
My music teachers have been proud of all the scores I bring home- 251/270, wrangling 4th in the region, 218/270 getting me about 8th in the state :( , a 205/220 getting me 4th and honarable mention in a scholarship competiton, etc. etc.
yet I beat myself up over them and keep them in my folder to remind me of my imperfections. I am not saying a 92 is GREAT! but it certainly isn't bad either! I am no where NEAR perfect and practice a MINIMUM of an hour a day. maybe I am a hopeless case, seeing freshman who have been playing like 4-5 years place higher than I do. And they laugh about NEVER practicing.
and that still just makes me laugh becuase the scores are based on technique. sure, important, but I think they should at least find a happy medium...
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2005-03-16 01:49
>>>So what did he say you were if you COULDN'T play them? How can you fail to play the notes and still be musical? You certainly aren't a musician.
She said that you hadn't practiced enough.
I think that you can play a few wrong notes, and if they are played convincingly (clear tone, good expression, good sense of rhythmic drive), the performance will be a "musical" one.
I believe that technique and musicality are equally important. That is why I make my students play scales, and why I practice them myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-16 02:14
music_is_life said:
> 218/270 getting me about 8th in the state
That translates to about a score of 81.
That gets you 8th in the state??
At the last NYSSMA All-State Festival, the entire row of 3rd clarinets all had scores of 95 or above.
BTW - It wasn't grade inflation either. I heard a number of them play...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-03-16 03:39
>>So what did he say you were if you COULDN'T play them? How can you fail to play the notes and still be musical? You certainly aren't a musician.<<
Failing to play all the notes while still sounding musical? I've heard it done plenty of times! I can sound very musical subbing in a group in which I've only had five minutes to look at the music and will obviously miss a great deal of the notes.
Personally, I think competitions where you are given a numerical score are a horrid sham, a cheapening of everything music is.
On another topic, opinions as to what defines "playing with feeling" differ greatly. One person's "feeling" is another person's "flailing about foolishly on stage."
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-16 11:29
Quote:
> 218/270 getting me about 8th in the state
That translates to about a score of 81.
That gets you 8th in the state??
...call it lowered expectations... or maybe CT just doesn't have good musicians. The principal in orchestra got a 158 I believe. Maybe all the prodogies went off to Texas and NYC. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2005-03-16 13:49
Speaking as someone who has never come across interstate this and regional that, I'm a touch confused.
I know that we clarinet players at college constantly complain regarding the marking across the orchestral families, it seems a right that string players all get marked in the 90s (technically considered 'phenomenal') and yet the highest you will ever see a clarinet player walking away with is 70 odd (considered 'excellent') I have to say, I think the woodwind marks are much more realistic.
The idea of 92/100 being not good enough to make the shortlist for a New York orchestra seems a tad rediculous. Does nobody get 40, 50, or 60? Is it that everyone receives 80+ and then you're effectively being marked out of the remaining 20??
I think the point about how 'making a beuatiful sound is paramount' stands up well. I would rather hear a beautiful sound with a couple of wrong notes any day.
I must also add, that trying to understand why somebody 'beats' you in a competition is a fruitless task. There is no way you possibly know what an audition planel is looking for, and it could be that whatever it is you don't have it. That doesn't make you a bad clarinet player, it makes you different, a common trait amoungst human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-03-16 13:56
RAMman wrote:
> The idea of 92/100 being not good enough to make the shortlist
> for a New York orchestra seems a tad rediculous. Does nobody
> get 40, 50, or 60? Is it that everyone receives 80+ and then
> you're effectively being marked out of the remaining 20??
Little fish in big pond ... when the number of players available is significantly larger than the number of positions available, the requirements to make the cut go up proportionally. (10 positions / pool of 1000 vs 10 positions, pool of 100, 000)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-03-16 13:59
My response about lowered expectations wasn't harsh!!!!!! It was tongue in cheek. Your initial question must have been rhetorical. It is also a somewhat leading question.. you somehow have to choose between two aspects of playing.....totally separating them. It leads to black and white thinking on the whole matter. That being said I would offer this...... I agree with you that more people are impressed by technique than tone. Technical virtuosity has been a crowd pleaser forever. Encore numbers cater to this. Get used to it.....technique gets higher ratings! It might not be right or just but that's the way things are. People seem to prefer excitement to beauty ......thus more people go to football, baseball, basketball games than museums.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2005-03-16 14:15)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2005-03-16 14:42
It's simple--if you can't play the notes and rhythmns that your choice of music demands, then your tone quality will be of little consequence. As for the New England music festival--or any other competative situation, it's kind of like being a race horse in the Kentuck Derby--if you want to win, place or even just show, you must first learn how to run. Just looking good in the starting gate is of little good if you haven't learned how to gallop. Even if your aspiration is only a home town festival parade, to get into the street--and be seen looking good--you have to know how to strute and prance a little. Ok, 'nuff "hors'n around, folks.......
Mystery Science Dieter has already said it all: "So develop your technique". If you do that, then your good sound will beat the others at the auditions "photo finish". But first, ya gotta know how t' run!!!
A more fundamental question might be, what is a good sound? And, who decides?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-03-16 17:19
I concur....."so develop your technique" was the first and best answer to your question.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2005-03-16 23:12
Could the states possibly have different grading systems? What about the french judge, and the korean gymnast?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2005-03-17 01:40
We all can always work more on our artistry. In terms of technique, either you can play the notes or you can't. If you can't, go home and practice like hell. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-17 01:44
rod- I think they have the same score sheets- not positive...
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-17 02:42
"...I think they have the same score sheets- not positive..."
The NYSSMA All State Band and All State Orchestra is made up primarily of students who qualified by scoring highly after playing a Level VI solo for an All State NYSSMA adjudicator at a regional competition.
Their scores are ranked against others throughout the entire state.
Scores of 100 are NOT uncommon (especially for flutists).
Most years, without a score of at least 95 or above on a Level VI solo, being selected for All State is an impossibility.
I remember one year where there was a VERY talented flutist who scored 100 in two consecutive years and was not chosen in either year...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2005-03-17 06:05
If there are so many people getting 100% in ny all state, then it seems to me that the judging there is too easy. If they are awarding people 100% and then they don't qualify for all-state, then they need to alter their scoring system.
If the scoring system was working properly, the person who is the principal of the all state orchestra should have a score of 99 maximum, and the rest of the players shoudld follow with slightly lower scores. If you award 6 different musicians 100%s, how do you explain to someone how a audition performance , worthy of 100%, doesn't make them first chair?
On the other hand, if that very same person was awarded a more realistic score, say 98, they would know "oh, this other person got a 99, thats why im not first chair."
Lastly, i haven't heard too many performances at any level that were perfect, and isn't giving a 100% like saying "thats perfect?"
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-17 06:43
RodRubber wrote:
> Lastly, I haven't heard too many performances at any level that
> were perfect, and isn't giving a 100% like saying "thats
> perfect?"
A score of 100 breaks down to 85 points awarded for the solo, 10 points for sight reading and 5 points for scales.
For a student to get all 85 points on the solo (broken down into 5 different sub-sections: Tone, Intonation, Technique, Accuracy and Interpretation) the student must get the maximum score in each sub-category.
Is it possible that the student might have missed a note or two in his/her overall performance? Absolutely.
Musicality is always the paramount consideration.
BTW - Once a student does make All State, auditions are held for individual seating...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: starlight
Date: 2005-03-17 08:15
bitter resentment?
learn from this experience i guess, the best advice was given in the second post... develop your techique
then combined with your musicality, what's going to stop you?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2005-03-17 12:24
It definitely sounds to me like the marks need to be reclassified. If you've got 100, you should be the best...by a country mile.
If you have 10,000 applicants, then 9500 of them should get below 60, rather than all the good ones getting in the 90s.
Just my opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-03-17 12:40
RAMman wrote:
> It definitely sounds to me like the marks need to be
> reclassified. If you've got 100, you should be the best...by a
> country mile.
It has never worked that way. Go to any top-end orchestra audition at the finals. All of them would score 100 in my book.
Only one will win.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2005-03-17 12:48
I can see how most of the scores in such a situation could be on the high side, say above 80. It tends to be people who play at a certain level who take district, regional, etc. auditions. I would think that many who would score lower weed themselves out by not going.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-17 12:55
RAMman wrote:
> It definitely sounds to me like the marks need to be
> reclassified. If you've got 100, you should be the best...by a
> country mile.
If you haven't been in the public (or private) schools for a while, there are some students whose ability on their instruments is truly frightening.
Close your eyes and listen to some of the talented high school flutists in our (or your) state. You would have a difficult time telling if it was a student or a pro.
Of course, these students are the upper 1% of all students performing.
As is the All State Band and Orchestra...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-03-17 13:40
"I would rather hear a beautiful sound with a couple of wrong notes any day."
But wouldn't you rather hear someone who has both? Unless someone with bad technique has a better sound than anyone else I'd just rather hear a player with good technique and good sound.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2005-03-17 13:41
As someone who studies alongside Julian Bliss, I know the terrifying standards of some very young players.
I would however be able to tell the difference between a top end 4th year London music college soon-to-be-graduate and a seasoned professional player....it's marked. I am surprised to hear the same is not the case in the US, especially as what I have heard fom American players whom I also study alongside suggests the standards are certainly level par accross the Atlantic.
My mind does still boggle at how 6 (say) different people can all get the same mark of 100 and yet there are 6 different levels within those 6 players.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate percentages and how they work, it just seems that are perhaps inappropriate. I'm having trouble vocalising my point here, and notice I've gone off on a major tangent!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2005-03-17 13:57
Clarinbass...
Of course I'd rather hear both, but give me a player who can do everything perfectly....
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-03-17 15:13
I didn't say perfect. I said good. If you look at the best players, or maybe even your favorite players, I am guessing they have great technique and great sound. I doubt you could find someone with better sound that has less than great technique.
Maybe I'm wrong, but when I look at the clarinetists that imho has the best sound, by "coincidence" they also have the best technique. The ones that practice the most probably have the best of both.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-20 00:03
ok- a few things..
I must say that all-state (CTMEA- connecticut music ed. association, if I remember correctly...and based off the NYSSMA manual) is much more structured than the all new englands (NEMF). All state (ASMF) (and regionals) is scored based off of solo performance- but EVERYONE plays the SAME piece. Then sight reading (same piece for all clarinetists) and scales (switches between 2- usually something like Eb, E, A, or D... though a bassonist friend of mine got Gb). Whereas the New Englands is based solely of one solo piece of the musician's choice (grade 5 or 6 from the NYSSMA manual). In NEMF you have to play the entire piece, whereas ASMF is selcetions within the piece (but same for everyone).
anyway...
to embellish my original point- this is sort of off topic, but...I usually detest the soprano sax, jazz, concert band or otherwise. However, in the CT all-state band there was this exceptional sop. sax player! He had great technique AND tone- I could actually listen to him play with the ensemble and get those shivers (the ones you get when you hear something truely beautiful) and sometimes even tears to the eyes! Now why am I bringing him up? because there was something I didn't like about him- he had NO emotion when he played. sure, it was awesome to listen to, but when I had a long rest, sometimes I would turn around and watch him play and he just sat there with his back to the chair, sax in his mouth, between his legs, staring down at the music with absolutely no emotion. I can't really explain it... I am not saying he doesn't deasearve his solos or his princiapal chair or that his emotionless playing wasn't worth listening to, but it just left something to be desired...
Quote:
"...I think they have the same score sheets- not positive..."
The NYSSMA All State Band and All State Orchestra is made up primarily of students who qualified by scoring highly after playing a Level VI solo for an All State NYSSMA adjudicator at a regional competition.
I was talking about All New England, but all the states DO have the same score sheets.
I agree with the above posters who stated that if so many people are getting 100s, they should change something...but then again, all state is more efficient in that it is out of 270 and based off the same solo piece. In fact, the top score was a 252/270. Because NO ONE can play 270/270. Sorry, not even a pro can do it. because even a pro can flub a solo (especially if not playing it straight through...and especially in the Weber Concertino, which changes tempo quite a few times...). and perfection is really in the eye of the beholder- what one person percieves as good is not necessarilly good in someone else's eyes. which is a lesson my clarinet teacher taught me in regards to tone... (and original subject matter). I still have my thoughts on people regarding technique as being more impressive and in some cases more important than tone quality and musicality, but she also made me realize that what I think is right is not necessarilly right. Some people might think those kids have good tone. And my perception of tone has been based off of what I have heard in my 18 years (good and bad), but there are other perceptions too. I keep that in mind.
though, is it bad to think that the boy sitting next to you constantly leaking air should get points off for that? sometimes my ears would stop hearing his notes- technically or tonally- and just go to that leaking-air sound.
and I also must say, on another note- it was nice to be with such a great band and hang out with such great people who dont talk constantly of scores and trash other players... and it also made me realize how amazing some people can be... I commend any freshman who makes all-state... the 6th chair this year was principal in band last year as a freshman and a friend of mine made it and played effer (she got a 206) - I was amazed, I wasn't even elegible as a sophomore!
I am starting to respect other musicians instead of concentrating on scores and etc. but maybe because they weren't either...
-Lindsie
|
|
|
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-03-20 02:44
Indeed, Lindsie... if not for this board, I'd be completely unaware that numeric scoring of musicians even existed.
In most of my ensembles, the emphasis is on playing as a part of the group in the best way you can. Solo parts are a matter of who has the chops to best do the piece justice, rather than who is a superior player. If anything, players often don't want to play the traditionally "good" parts because of the responsibility they entail.
I find this especially true of "new" music ensembles. When the repertoire isn't ingrained into the psyche, people are more willing to try to make it sound better, rather than try to make themselves play it well and stand out.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-20 03:14
Numeric scoring to determine placement, whether for boxing, gynastics, figure skating or musical auditions is the current system being used and is not likely to change in the near future.
I have adjudicated NYSSMA solo competitions for many years and have also watched other judges in action.
IMO the judging has always been fair and impartial, given the absolute limitations of judging something which is subjective in nature.
Let's stop the griping and work on your own individual performance to make it the best it can be.
This thread is now closed ...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
