 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Micaela
Date: 2001-07-31 01:36
I'm in high school and I'm a fairly serious clarinetist (future music history major). I've learned some popular pieces- the Weber Concertino, the Mozart Concerto and the Weber Concerto No. 1. In the last year or so, my teacher has been steering me towards less common and more modern pieces. I like most of the things he's given me, some I really love. I think he forgets sometimes that I don't know a lot of the basic pieces. I'm probably the only clarinetist ever to have studied the Finzi and Copland (in progress) concertos and the Stravinsky 3 Pieces before anything by Brahms or the Weber No. 2 or the Grand Duo.
How important is it that I learn the more popular pieces? I'm considering starting something else now along with the Copland because I have a lot of time. My teacher has suggested Bozza, Hindemith and several composers whom I have never heard of (Babin? Harvey?). I might like these pieces, but is it important to learn some more warhorses first?
Thanks for reading,
Micaela
P.S. I know one composer I won’t touch in a hurry. A friend claims "Persichetti has destroyed my life!" 'Parable' doesn't look like much fun.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2001-07-31 03:52
Warhorses??! Is the "Light Cavalry Overture" included...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
A music history major is interesting and exciting in its own right. (Hope you can make a living teaching or something!) With that goal, I would suggest playing pieces from all of the various musical "periods." (With the relative newness of the clarinet, the earlier periods involve transcriptions of pieces written for other instruments.)
If you have any interest and ability in vocal music, that would also expose you to literature other than instrumental.
Try to get to performances of a variety of styles and types of music and include the keyboard instruments (organ/ piano/ harpsicord.) I'm both a clarinetist and a singer, and I feel that has broadened my perspective.
Best to you!
Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aaron
Date: 2001-07-31 16:13
There isn't any order in the way you might learn pieces that is set in stone. I would just make shure that you are learning the "Music" not just learning the notes on the page. You sound like a wounderful player to be playing the Copland at such a young age and other pieces in that difficulty range. However, just don't make play the notes on the page the most important thing. When I teach my advanced students any piece, I"m not going to let them play the concertino or Hindemith to just say"hey that sounds cool" or for them just to said "I have played that". They play the music, so in other words they play what ISN"T written on the page!!!
So my advice to you is learn the literature, but play the music. I would rather listen to someone who was playing the adagio to the mozart concerto all day, but with the most amazing musicallityy, then listening to someone who could play the Rosinni Intro, theme and Variations faster than even "Dragon Tounge" himself Robert Spring can play it. People listen for music. Well lets put it this way, people should listen to the "music" you play rather than, saying " Wow,. geeze look at how fast the young kid can play, wow i can't even do that!!!" So for your fuuture plans just make shure you can amaze them with your technique, as well as blow the away with your musicallity. It dosen't matter what pieces you learn, just learn them correctly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micaela
Date: 2001-07-31 16:46
Thanks for your advice. Jim- I have taken classical voice lessons for several years. I don't have a great voice, but learning the music and learning how to use what I have has been very valuable. I also play the violin and as a not terribly advanced student I have played a great deal of Baroque music- not something you see often for clarinet. I take piano lessons too; I'm a real beginner there.
Aaron- I think playing the music is very important. Last year, my teacher gave me the choice of learning the Messager Solo de Concours or the Finzi Concerto. I played through the Messager, but I didn't like it. It had a lot of notes, but I think I could have learned it. It just didn't have much other than a lot of notes. The Finzi is really beautiful. It's not flashy like the Messager (which may be why I didn't get into All State) but it has so much more to do with interpretation. Technique is only a tool to use for expressing the music. That's why the Rossini and Messager aren't on my list. I just returned from camp and I heard a pianist play a Chopin polonaise with such indifference to anything but getting the notes right that I felt I was hearing a computer play. He had no concept of phrase, line or even dynamics. I want to avoid that in my playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sheryl
Date: 2001-08-01 03:58
Perhaps you need to re-define "war horses." Stravinsky 3 Pieces, Copland Concerto, and Hindemith Sonata are all standard rep. As for disliking music that seems nothing more than a technique showcase, it's the player that makes a piece meaningless. Rossini and Messager both wrote music that is much more than a lot of fast notes if one chooses to play it musically. They are both operatic composers so perhaps you should try thinking of the pieces as opera arias and not lots of fast scales. Lots of people can play technique. The challenge is to get past the technique and make it into music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim
Date: 2001-08-01 04:10
Micaela,
I too don't have a great voice, though it is very adequate for chorus singing, I stay away from solos. That said, I've sung in choirs (including some excellent ones) since college 30 years ago. At the risk of comments on this board, I do find that I seem to be more involved in the music itself when singing as opposed to playing, I suspect it is due to being free of the "mechanics" of the instrument.
I suspect your experiences will do you much good in music history!
Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jerry McD.
Date: 2001-08-01 14:12
Micaela,
I agree with Aaron's advice about playing the music. Anyone (with a little practice) can play louder-faster-higher. But it is the true musician who can play softer and slower. This is where music is made, and the technique and discipline required to play softly and slowly transfer perfectly to playing louder and faster! Unfortunately this does not go the other way around. If you can play beautifully soft and slow, you can generally play loud and fast. But, if you play loud and fast well, that doesn't necessarily mean you can play soft and slow. Go figure. At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think the Adagio from the Mozart is one of the hardest pieces of music to play because of the slow and soft.......anybody play Pines of Rome?
Good Luck!
Jerry McD.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2001-08-03 00:02
Jerry's said it all....
The Mozart Concerto, on the whole, is the MOST difficult piece of music I've ever encountered. I first began it in 1983. It's only gotten harder since...
The Adagio is the hardest part of it, too!
K.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
