 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: teniralc
Date: 2008-03-13 15:38
I'd like to know, from any clarinetist who has been around a while (eg over 30) who do you think is or could be the "new Marcellus", or the new "it guy" to study with- or who will end up being a legend with regards to playing AND teaching. We know there can never be another ______, so no need to comment on that. But, who is really standing out to people?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2008-03-13 16:42
If you did some reading into the teaching of clarinet in this country, then the question really would be, who is the "new" Bonade?
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2008-03-13 16:53
Sabine Meyer (teacher of Julian Bliss, as well as Shirley Brill- winner of last years Geneva competition) Her playing speaks for itself, but her teaching is also starting to be noticeably successful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2008-03-13 16:57
Josh, Elsa is in her last year as Professor of Clarinet at MSU. I thinbk she's retiring after that. As of the current academic year., she was noit taking on new students. At least, that's what the folks at MSU's music school told me in the fall.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2008-03-13 17:20
I'm not sure that we've seen a consistent track record from Ricardo's students to place his teaching on that level.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-03-13 18:03
Let’s not discount Leon Russianoff, one of our countries greatest teachers. I believe what sets him above all the others, and that’s not to take anything away from Marcellus, was that he was a great teacher and produced many great players too. The thing that I believe sets Russianoff just a bit above the others is that he never tried to clone his students. He didn’t teach one style, he didn’t insist on one mouthpiece type, or reed or anything. What he did in his teaching was to find what worked best to the individual student no matter what. If you couldn’t tongue the traditional way he helped find a way around it, if you couldn’t play with a traditional embouchure he helped you get a good sound and control with what you could do, etc. He took average students and made fine players out of them. When you’re a great player like Marcellus was, he attracted great students, when you teach at a school like Curtis, you will attract great students. That’s not to discount what many teachers like Marcellus and many others did, but I believe it set Russianoff apart. I’m sure many will disagree with me, especially if they didn’t study with Russianoff, but I owe him big time.
I never studied with Stanly Hasty but we should not forget him either, he’s produced many fine players as well. Don’ forget, the famous players and teachers attract the finest students, and they become the next generation of great players. As far as the next great teacher, I’m not sure one will become apparent because there are so many fine teachers today. Only time will tell. ESP
www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-03-13 18:13
Regarding what Ed Palanker says, different teachers for different students. A repairman once said to me, "Finding the right teacher is like finding a wife".
I happened to have been very fortunate to have studied with both Russianoff and Marcellus. Russianoff certainly had his own style and approach to things. I learned certain things in my studies, as with any lessons that will always be of value, but for me, Marcellus was a much better teacher.
Post Edited (2008-03-14 20:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2008-03-13 18:13
Quietly churning out great students was (the late) Abe Galper in Toronto.
Also with a long list is Stanley Hasty at NECM
Neidich has produced a lot (I will reserve comment as to his sound)
Probably even more stellar is Montanaro's legacy. His recordings on Boston Records give a measure of his elegance as a player.
As far as present day players, if you are considering someone sitting in an orchestra and producing beautiful music with great sound and lyricism, what about Burt Hara (also said to be a good teacher), Michele Zuchovsky, Mike Rusinek, and that fellow in Cincinati.
Against the windmills of my mind
The jousting pole splinters
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-03-13 18:16
If we are talking US teachers:
Stanley Hasty is perhaps one of the most influential teacher of current professional orchestra musicians. He is retired, but his legacy is ever present (Tom Martin, Bob Crowley, Larry Comb, Sean Osborn, Peter Hadcock, Elsa Ludewig-Verdher, Eric Mandat, Diana Haskell, ...)
I think if I were to start college in music and had all the choices in the world I would seek Yehuda Gilad at USC for my undergrad and Tom Martin at New England Conservatory for grad school, with some coachings by Robert Spring to learn modern technique such as circular breathing and rapid tonguing and David Shifrin for chamber music.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-03-13 18:54
"Probably even more stellar is Montanaro's legacy. His recordings on Boston Records give a measure of his elegance as a player."
------------------------------
Go to Curtis and you will probably get a playing job. The audition alone is like getting a gig. Other schools will take your money, not Curtis....
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bcl1dso
Date: 2008-03-13 19:06
Curtis won't take your money....for school. They will make you pay $20000 a year to live near Curtis. Still it would be worth the money to live there just to be able to go to Curtis
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-03-13 19:28
I'm with Ed Palanker---I think the best teachers are the ones who can develop their students' individuality as artists.
If memory serves, though, my teacher's teacher (Richard Pickar) studied under Russianoff for a time...so maybe I'm just biased! :-)
Personally, I think Sean Osborn is poised to become one of the next "go to" teachers. He's a phenomenal player and from what I can tell, an excellent teacher as well.
If nothing else, developing clarinettists are going to emulate his playing (whether consciously or not) because they "grew up" listening to his recordings of the Rose 32 Etudes. Certainly if I could have bought Sean's Rose Etude album when I was a high school player trying out for All-State, I would have.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2008-03-13 20:14
I was fortunate in my days of study to work with two of the leading teacher/players including Mr. Marcellus (the other was Mr. Gigliotti). I was able to get something from both of them that is still in how I approach the clarinet.
There are many teachers such as Mr.Russianeoff who only taught but at the time I did not want to study with a non-performing teacher. I regret never having had any lessons with him as I agree his style and method were unique and had a great deal of influence on the American School.
I would like to point out some of the other things to consider when making a choice however:
1) Your fit with the teacher
2) Playing opportunities (esp orchestral)
3) Influence within the orchestral industry (Can he/she make a call and get you heard if your resume is not enough)
4)$$$ needed to go to the school (and avoid leaving school with huge amounts of debt)
5) Quality of students you will be surrounded by. Once you leave school, these contacts may be as valuable to your career as any teacher.
I truly believe that for many musicians in this day and age, a quality undergraduate education can be had at a state college for a fraction of the price it costs to go to a more prestigious school. If you are lucky to hail from certain states, the choice becomes even more obvious.
In closing, I agree with Mr. Palankar. Great players will attract great students. Therefore, their job is often easier that say a full time teacher such as Russianeoff.
And it takes several years for the students to make their way into the music world before you have a sample size large enough to say that that one teacher is the next Bonade, Marcellus, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-03-13 20:47
Dileep said:
"...it takes several years for the students to make their way into the music world before you have a sample size large enough to say that that one teacher is the next Bonade, Marcellus, etc."
-------------------------------
An excellent observation.
Presently playing and teaching at the level of Bonade or Marcellus with a preponderance of top players to claim as students (especially Bonade)? Far too early to tell.
Probably check back in at least a decade...if it ever happens. If it doesn't, it will probably be due to the fact that there is more than a singular strong influence.
And as others have commented here before, it's a larger and larger clarinet-playing globe out there. The original days of that kind of influence may be over. The modern screened audition process (at least here in the US) has, at least partially, taken care of that.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
new model, new barrel
Post Edited (2008-03-13 21:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2008-03-14 03:41
Marcellus' teacher was Earl Handlon of the Minneapolis Symphony. Bonade may also have been his teacher?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bcl1dso
Date: 2008-03-14 04:41
Marcellus studied at age 12 with Earl Handlon for 4 years before his family moved to Washington D.C. and began to study with Bonade. Studying with Bonade at age 16...what a dream! I guess that is why there never was anyone like him
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keith P
Date: 2008-03-14 05:25
I would agree with CPW. I'd like to study with Hawley in Cincinnati actually =).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2008-03-14 06:14
The one thing I'm consistently amazed at in the Clarinet World (and probably other worlds too) is how the measure of someone's achievement, either as a teacher or a player, is whether or not one (or one's students) wins an orchestral job. The last time I checked, there were many more fine musicians making a living outside of orchestras in the US and abroad than were making a living in them and I find this type of mentality to be a bit ridiculous.
Of course, if you're shooting for an orchestral career, by all means this should be a measure. However, in today's world, it doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to put all of your eggs in that basket.
Having worked with Hasty, Opperman and Wright (5 lessons only), I think the thing I enjoyed most about them all was their versatility. They simply taught me how to play the instrument well and how to make great music, regardless of the genre. I only played orchestral material for one of them, Hasty.
Truthfully, I never wanted to be an orchestral player. I've always enjoyed the changing nature of freelance/concerto/recital/chamber music work. I get to do different things all the time and for me, it's a lot more fulfilling. True, my paycheck is probably not on par with Greg's, by hey, we all make choices!
Cheers!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2008-03-14 07:00
A question I would like to pose to Ed Palanker (teacher of Morales) or Paul Harris (teacher of Bliss prior to Sabine Meyer)
How do you teach the super advanced students?
When a player plays like those guys what is left to say. I have some very advanced students, I often wonder how do you come up with somthing profound every lesson.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-03-14 07:20
Michael said:
"The last time I checked, there were many more fine musicians making a living outside of orchestras in the US and abroad than were making a living in them and I find this type of mentality to be a bit ridiculous."
-------------
What "type" of mentality is that Michael?
Perhaps this is necessarily true simply because there are far fewer slots to fill in US orchestras (than elsewhere freelancing outside of a full time orchestra), at least in an orchestra which can deliver a decent living wage.
For that very reason, putting one's eggs all in one basket is almost a prerequisite to success. It's perhaps a risk one has to take if they really want a full time orchestra job - if you don't assume that risk, someone else surely will.
And putting one's eggs all in one basket doesn't mean cloistering one's self in the practice room. Every potentially successful orchestral player knows that they are playing chamber music on a much larger scale - the good ones do anyway - and they balance their preparation for orchestral life with every style and setting of classical music that they can get their hands on and ears around.
That's not to say that orchestral musicians don't enjoy a full musical life of all kinds of music that you yourself play - heaven only knows the variety that us orchestral players enjoy on a steady and continuing basis as an adjunct to our "full time" professions. (Some of us even take time out to craft a business around the rich performing life that we already lead!
So I'm not sure exactly what your point is about ridiculous mentalities vis-a-vis the desire for an orchestral life but I assure you that an orchestral musician's life is as rich and complex and varied as any other clarinetist's in the "business", as much as we want it to be, all of which we seek and welcome as essential nourishment.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2008-03-14 07:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-03-14 12:03
Orchestral jobs are a lot more competitive than academic jobs. You don't get an orchestral job from being an academic, but players often get academic jobs from having the orchestral job.
adding: Not to take anything away from an academic job as those are very, very competitive too, just not AS much as an Orchestral job.
And there are many, many more academic jobs out there than full time Orchestral, and you can do an academic job for a lot longer than an Orchestral job. That's why Peter Hadcock retired from the BSO to teach at Eastman so that he could keep teaching long after he would have retired from the BSO (for his young son's college tuition - which if my math is correct would be about now).
Anybody making a full time living in music is surviving in a very competitive career, and the smart ones are the ones who have the ability to have the backup academic career when their Orchestral aspirations fall short.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2008-03-14 13:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2008-03-14 13:32
Gregory:
I don't see anything in Michael's post that refers to a ridiculous mentality as relating to one's choice to play in an orchestra, and he certainly didn't suggest a "cloistered" life. No matter how I read and interpret it, Michael's point, as I see it, is that whether a clarinet player becomes an orchestra principal or an electronics engineer is not the difinitive reflection upon the abilities of the individual clarinettist or the effectiveness of his teacher.
Where and how the player chooses to use his training and skills with his clarinet throughout his life is not the ultimate determinant of the abilities of either the player or teacher. I read Michael as panning the snobbish view that the sole indicator musical success is a musician's orchestral accomplishments . . . that logic, I would agree, is evidence of a "ridiculous mentality".
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2008-03-14 13:42
P.S.
There are many "cloistered" musicians, electronics engineers, accountants, ballet dancers, auto mechanics, etc., etc. There are most likely just as many that lead a full, active, and invigorating life outside of their chosen profession. The rest of the world falls in between those extremes.
I don't see any objective indicator anywhere in that continuum which would point to the accomplishments of the player or teacher.
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-03-14 16:18
Eu -
What I was responding to was the insertion of the sentiment that:
"...how the measure of someone's achievement, either as a teacher or a player, is whether or not one (or one's students) wins an orchestral job..."
and whether or not it was what this discussion was truly about. There have been no assertions here (implied or otherwise) about one's worth as a clarinetist vis-a-vis whether they have an orchestral job or not - at least that I can find .
I personally don't see anything wrong with taking subject matter in another direction to provide a different perspective as Michael did. What I was noting was that I did not see any "success-defined-by-an-orchestral-position-or-not" types of assertions being made.
Insofar as "cloistered" is concerned, I was simply stating that in order to be a well-rounded musician - especially a winning orchestral candidate - one can not isolate themselves from musical life altogether in order to be successful. Re-reading, perhaps you'll notice that I was commenting independently of anyone else's assertions.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-03-14 19:06
In answer to Phurster.
What you do with a talented student as good as Morales, if that’s even a good possibility, is that you work on finesse, phrasing, musicianship, reeds, alternative ways of performing something. Of course it depends on the age of the student and their maturity. Morales got the Met job when he was only about 20 or 21 years old so obviously he worked with me when he was young, from age 13-17, we did work on his tone, and all the above. Everything came so natural to him I never had to ask him to try anything more than once. I’ve had a few other students that were very advanced, you know, played anything you asked them to. Some needed to work on their articulation, not always to get it fasert but to get it clean and in different styles. Some need to work on their tone, fuller, richer, darker, or brighter depending on what you both are looking for. Intonation is always something you need to work on no matter how talented the student. It’s all a matter of how advanced the teacher is, their perceptions and ability to observe and how fine a musician the teacher and student are. That what makes a teacher different from a master teacher.
Once again, I think there are many very fine teachers out there today; so much depends on the connection you both make. I believe just about every conservatory has some very good teachers today; it’s so much a matter of connecting, teaching philosophy and personality. My major teachers, Russianoff, Simon and Adler were just right for me. The others I studied with on a more limited basis were just the cream on the dessert. ESP, www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
PS. Let's not forget, there are terrific players in the major service bands as well as orchestras. I have several very fine students performing in several of those bands as do many other fine teacahers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2008-03-14 20:23
srattle:
"I think this is a silly thread . . . "
Why is it silly to be intersested in who the up and comming stars might be, what it is like working with and teaching them, etc. True, this thread is a broad brush with digressions on various tangents, but it all involves our superstars (future & past) and their teachers.
Doesn't sound silly to me, but then I hardly qualify as a sophisticated judge, but rather feel I'm here to learn some things from the folks who do know very much about the subject.
Gregory:
Apparently I misunderstood what you were saying, and possibly even Michael's point as well . . . I'll print out and reread both posts a bit more slowly.
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2008-03-15 02:50
Greg,
Please be certain that I am not trying to say that it's ridiculous in any way to want an orchestral career. I believe everything you've said and certainly you speak from a place of greater experience than I with regard to living the orchestral musician's life.
My point about a certain mentality is that people tend to judge a teacher principally by how many of their students win solely orchestral jobs. In this post, we've heard about a great many players however most of them are or were orchestral players. That's perfectly fine, but for me, I find this mentality ridiculous and very limiting.
EuGeneSee said:
"I read Michael as panning the snobbish view that the sole indicator musical success is a musician's orchestral accomplishments . . . that logic, I would agree, is evidence of a "ridiculous mentality"."
CORRECT Eugene.
I think it's also very useful that Greg brings up the other aspects of his career that so many people might not be aware of, including chamber music and other things. It's all true and I think it's important for many to hear. Thanks Greg for this.
In reference to putting all of your eggs in one basket, I think we just disagree, which is fine. In my own teaching, I'm trying to prepare my students for versatility, not just auditions. I understand your point but will maintain mine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-03-15 03:55
Michael said:
"Please be certain that I am not trying to say that it's ridiculous in any way to want an orchestral career."
-------------------------------
Please be kind enough to let me know where I have said this either explicitly or implicitly. It never would have occurred to me to have said such a thing. That could truly be considered "ridiculous"
GS
-------------------------------
Michael said:
"In this post, we've heard about a great many players however most of them are or were orchestral players."
-------------------------------
With the title subject being Marcellus and the initial poster referring to a great player and teacher, I don't know how that could lead one down any other path. Marcellus' sole mission as he sat principal clarinet in the Cleveland Orchestra as well as for many years after his premature retirement, was to train his students to become orchestral musicians.
(He also mentioned to me many times that there was this student or that former student who taught at so and so university or was a member of a fine part time orchestra, chamber ensemble, etc doting with equivalent respect and pride. He mentored a few very fine student conductors as a result of his impressive conducting career nearer the end of his life.)
But again, it simply follows that a thread possessing the title that it does and an initial query as specific as it does would generate the discourse that follows. I simply don't understand how one can conclude that the results of that query are snobbish or exclusionary in any way considering the genesis of the question, that's all.
Perhaps what this is really about is that you have an issue with the initial poster. I don't know.
GS
------------------------------
Michael said:
"In reference to putting all of your eggs in one basket, I think we just disagree, which is fine. In my own teaching, I'm trying to prepare my students for versatility, not just auditions. I understand your point ..."
------------------------------
I don't think that we are in disagreement about the need to teach versatility. That's why I (and my teacher and his teacher before him) taught the solo and chamber alongside the orchestral repertoire...nothing in fact about *how* to win orchestral auditions.
In fact that kind of talk was discouraged in favor of the larger task at hand - how to play the music in front of you at the highest artistic level. How would a responsible teacher approach that mission any differently?
What they and I have always told students is that they need in their possession three basic ingredients to succeed. Talent, desire (or dedication or passion), and opportunity...no matter their chosen path.
If that path is that of an orchestral career, those three ingredients are needed in no less abundance than with any other pursuit. The key in deciding to pursue an orchestral career is that one has to jump in with both feet to succeed and that if you don't, as I said in an earlier post, someone else will.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-03-15 06:39
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me that one of the things that Greg Smith alluded to above but maybe didn't come out and say explicitly is that one of the things that made Bonade and teachers like him such major figures was that in that era conductors would often find musicians to put in their orchestras by calling somebody like Bonade up on the phone and asking them to give the names of their top students.
Obviously you had to be a pretty good teacher or player to obtain that sort of influence, and there's no question that Bonade produced some really top notch players.
HOWEVER, the flip side to this is that at least part of the reason some teachers like Bonade achieved legendary status while other teachers who were perhaps just as skilled or even more so did not was that guys like Bonade had connections that other teachers simply didn't have. As I see it, the upshot of this is basically what Michael suggested above, that the ability of a teacher to produce students who get orchestral jobs is not the ultimate indicator of a teacher's skill (although one must admit that it does have at least some merit). I think this was even more true in Bonade's day than today.
I think Greg's point was that screened auditions may have brought an end to the era of really influential teachers like Bonade in the orchestral world. Hence, you don't see just one or two teachers getting all the attention. It turns out that there are a lot more good teachers out there than everyone realized.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2008-03-15 08:48
Ed,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Good "common sense" advice that is important to be reminded about.
Chris.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
