 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-26 18:32
I am a former high school teacher and certified adjudicator for our local and state solo competitions.
This year, after again sitting through a number of flute, clarinet and alto sax high school solo competition performances, I am sad to report that the clarinetists were again by far the weakest of the group.
Unfortunately, this is not new. It is something I have noticed time and time again ... year after year.
The flutists dazzled with incredible virtuosity, range, technique and control throughout their instrument. They showed total command and solid fundamentals. The beauty of their playing was inspiring.
The alto saxophonists (non-jazz) also had very solid technique. Each had a beautiful, mature sound and prodgious technique - again, throughout the entire range of the saxophone. Rhythms and counting were accurate. Their performances were engaging and showed musical insight.
The clarinetists were much less impressive. Technique was inconsistant. Tone was often thin, pinched, unfocused. It was also obvious that fundamental finger patterns were not well established and learned. Often, fingering choices were peculiar, to say the least.
Was I being harder on, or looking for more from the clarinetists, since I teach it and play it professionally? No...
There was an obvious disparity in ability between the clarinetists and the flute and saxophone players of the same age.
This now begs the question: What are we doing wrong?
Or, is the clarinet just that much more difficult until the student has been playing a longer time?
My theory:
The one similarity that the flute and saxophone have in their teaching methods (and the clarinet does not have) is Baroque Music.
I think that a solid foundation using the literature of the Baroque period has given the flute and saxophone players a huge advantage. Their technique (and endurance) is superior. Their counting of intricate rhythms is better and their understanding and use of ornamentation, dynamics, and musical expressive techniques far surpasses their fellow clarinetists.
Now, I don't subscribe to that fact that Baroque music is the total answer, but there must be a reason why flutists and saxophonist have a greater command over their instrument. This certainly could be one important consideration.
BTW - I don't blame the teachers, as there are a number of excellent woodwind instructors in our area and surrounding towns I've adjudicated in.
Are we teaching the clarinet incorrectly? Or, is it really that much more difficult?
I never used to think so, but I am slowly changing my opinion ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iacuras
Date: 2004-09-26 18:37
GBK,
I don't know about the clarinet compared to the flute, but compared to the sax it is a much harder instrument to master. It has a harder ombeschore (sorry about the bad spelling) than the sax, and harder fingerings I believe. This doesn't mean I like the sax more than the clarinet. I like to play the clarinet much better.
Steve
"If a pretty poster and a cute saying are all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job. The kind robots will be doing soon."
"If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2004-09-26 19:02
I've been umming and ahhing about what to put in this answer.
I can add...that in the UK the problem is just as obvious.
My professor suggests a major reason for the clarinet 'being harder' is the fact that we overblow a twelth as opposed to an octave.
(Luckily, because she thinks this...clarinet players are excused from playing scales in 4ths in technical exams!)
I'm not sure if I'm 100% convinced by her thoughts...but it's worth adding to the melting pot.
Intonation must also be considered....why are clarinet players always sharp? Is it harder to play the clarinet in tune?
I know I find it easier to come back to the sax after a gap than I do the clarinet....
Now I'm just kind of rambling...this is such a vast topic.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-09-26 19:21
I think clarinet is easier to teach incorrectly...
When flutes are out of tune, it is bleedingly obvious. However, an enormous segment of the population doesn't even know what an in-tune clarinet section sounds like. (heck, until a few years ago, neither did I)
In my experience, playing flute to some degree forces you to become better at it, because its inconsistencies are much more in-your-face.
As for why clarinetists play sharp, I think it's largely because they want so badly to hear themselves play. Clarinetists are very reluctant to consider themselves the "string section of the band," since they are soloists in orchestra. String-functioning sections should blend, but whenever clarinetists actually DO blend, your sound disappears into the rest of the section and it feels like you're not playing loud enough. Playing the slightest bit sharp ensures that you'll hear yourself, but it also ensures that your section will be chronically out of tune, and your sense of intonation goes out the window. It also doesn't help that, unlike the vast majority of instruments, insufficient air makes the clarinet sharp as opposed to flat.
As for clarinetists with wonky technique, my theory, based on experience, observations and master classes: The clarinet is the only instrument that is a straight, lightweight cylinder in which the performer can significantly grip the instrument with the mouth. This allows the clarinetist to move up, down, around, and about, much more freely than any other instrument. Since he is able to do such things, he figures that they will make for a more passionate, energetic sound, and the whole body tries to "help" the sound. This "help" actually is a hindrance: Fingers are out of time because they have to move varying distances due to unnecessary player momentum; the player is more likely to tense up, ruining intonation; the "anchor position" of the performer is at the mouth instead of the fingers, causing tone to be stuffy and bland since the airstream rarely fills the tube; higher notes feel high to the performer, which causes the entire face and clarinet to move upward, which kills the sound. As far as many clarinetists know, this is just "the way things are" so they never try to fix it. After all, so many professionals (who actually do have the technique to back it up) move around on stage a whole lot, so why shouldn't we?
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-26 20:24
i believe that the clarinet is harder for a number of reasons
some of which are mentioned above (ex- overblowing 12ths not octaves) but one thing that stands out is to do with finger motions.
-The flute and sax do not have, in the middle of the compass, a situation where fingers have to do movements other than "up and down".
-The importance of the little finger keys, and the variety of movements needed from both little fingers is a disadvantage.... apart from anything else, it actually requires that there is more strength in the hand and wrist.
plus- the flute is actually held in a way that makes the correct hand position obvious and very essential. With the clarinet there is a lot of leeway for incorrect hand position, with younger students this is most often to compensate for lack of strength in arms/wrists/thumbs etc When those students get on to advanced/intermediate technique, they are having to UNlearn bad as well as learn good hand position.
meanwhile
Baroque music? funny that you brought this up, over the last couple of years i have been dabbling with playing this on Clarinet (and Chalemaux) and have found it to be VERY good for technique/articulation and of course stamina! I played to the Clarinet class at Victoria University (Wellington) a month or so back, and included an unacompanied suite by Telemann, played on the E flat clarinet! I've performed this to the public a couple of times as well, and only in the university setting did anyone say to me "oh, it should only be played on the flute". Even then, nobody really minded, if you choose carefully it can work very well.
Many clarinet players interupt phrasing/flow every time they articulate (this is most obvious in the "medium speed range") and playing Baroque music, esp slow mvts with very little legato, is great for eliminating this habit.
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-09-26 20:41
I'm not sure we can reasonably say that the clarinet is harder to play well. However, I do think we could say it is one of the easier instruments to play poorly. The instrument is so flexible that a lack of control manifests itself in some very unpleasant pitch, tone, articulation and other horrors. Same can be said for violin.
The other thing you missed that flute and sax have in common is... VIBRATO. Vibrato can mask a multitude of sins, including unsteady tone, pitch, and lack of musicality. It can create the illusion of a much more accomplished player. One of the first things I do when I get a new and "experienced" saxophone player in my studio is strip out the vibrato, usually to find the fundamentals are pretty weak. We rebuild tone, pitch and articulation and then reintroduce vibrato.
Last thing to consider, and difficult to determine without asking, is the motivation for playing clarinet. Flute seems to be popular with bright girls who would probably be proficient at whatever they touched, and saxophone is of course the "cool" instrument (yes, only with band geeks). I see so few students these days who are playing clarinet by choice. Usually it seems to be a "my parents/band teacher/authority figure told me to" situation. I would think attitude weighs very heavily on how hard they work and how well they ultimately play.
Well, my thoughts on a beautiful Fall Sunday.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mkybrain
Date: 2004-09-27 00:03
my teacher, for sight reading, sight reads baroque(or at least they sound baroque to me) duets with me. I mean its not all baroque, but we do play some duets from the baroque period. Of course they transcriptions
Post Edited (2004-09-27 00:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-27 01:22
The Clarinet is not harder than the Flute. But if the Clarinetists are getting blown away by the Flutists, than there just aren't as good Clarinet teachers where you live.
I use Baroque studies for my students anyway and always have.
I think that the Flutists attain a high level as the girls playing it usually are very highly competitive.
The Sax players get better as they are putting the extra efforts to be the best so as to get a better (or just make!) place in Jazz Band.
The Clarinets usually have no such motivation. I would however say that it is easier to get a very good sound on the Flute as well as the Sax compared to the Clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-09-27 03:20
David,
I'm going to have to disagree with your final statement.
I find it VERY difficult to get a "very good sound" on the flute...
I heard it described as something like having to make a reed every second you're playing. Your air column has to have so much more control for every single note and it has to hit the embouchure hole just so...
To get a "very good sound" on clarinet, all you have to do is think "eeee" and you've got it...IMHO...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-09-27 04:14
Baroque studies? written by whom?
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: claaaaaarinet!!!!
Date: 2004-09-27 04:57
"Classical Studies" by Voxman
"Quinze Etudes" by Delecluse (transcriptions of Bach)
Another good set is the 20 Grand Studies by Rode, adapted by Rose. Although they aren't from the Baroque period, the Rode studies have a lot of rapid wide intervals and are difficult in some of the same ways that Baroque music is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-09-27 08:00
The instrument's agricultural antecedents are never far away. There's no such thing as a flautist Acker Bilk. There is a fine line between delightful and deplorable. Many top professionals make an horrendous noise, at least for some peoples' tastes. The same is true of a violin (as mentioned). There is a good deal more scope to sound satisfactory on a flute. Ditto alto and baritone sax, though not, in my experience, soprano or tenor.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-27 09:16
I'm in agreement fully with msloss and partially with David.
My one point of disagreement: I teach beginners on clarinet, flute and sax--and my clarinets are generally the weakest of my students. Shouldn't I be getting the best results from my strongest instrument? And again, I share GBK's observation that clarinetists are among the weakest students everywhere I look.
Here are some factors that I see:
1 - Very little physical exertion is needed to start playing clarinet. Soft reeds often produce nice sounds, and this bubble will burst when upper range is demanded. It also means that differences in resistance between different notes (particularly at the first break) are more of an obstacle than they should be. Minimal exertion means minimal concentration and shorter attention span, and I'm convinced that it also sets a bad basis for ambition and work ethic down the road.
2 - Clarinets have a very easy time hiding out in large sections and not being heard as individuals. They easily conceal weaknesses that their double-reed compadres broadcast loud and clear.
3 - Priorities are often in the wrong order when teaching fingering technique at the middle school level. We need to put our necessities in order and KISS past that point in classroom instruction.
4 - The whole "clarinetism" thing from the thread on poor expression. Clarinetists who come along with that narrow perspective often return to the learning process as teachers who perpetuate it.
5 - The instrument's absence from pop culture isn't helping. (Zataran's Rice commercials notwithstanding)
6 - Recruitment/retention problems. When band instruments are tried out, some kids are put on clarinet because they don't show an aptitude for brass or flute. Because it's a great starter instrument, we also lose many of our best young players to the saxophone and double reeds.
That's just a few things, and hopefully some fodder for discussion. As a group, I think that we do need a new attitude.
Allen Cole
Post Edited (2004-09-27 09:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2004-09-27 12:22
Allen writes: "5 - The instrument's absence from pop culture isn't helping. (Zataran's Rice commercials notwithstanding)"
At my first reading of GBK's question, this factor had crossed my mind. I just couldn't figure out how to say it (thanks, Allen!).
On any given day, a young listener might hear an extended flute or saxophone passage in the pop music they stumble over on the airwaves. Seldom, if ever, will they hear the clarinet that way.
For some reason, the clarinet sound is not one that our culture at large appreciates these days. It has been this way since at least the late 1950's, I think, because I recall that I, as a young clarinetist, had the impression that playing flute or sax was cool, while playing clarinet was nerdly.
Howcome?
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-27 13:16
For my students (pre college) I Jazz Studies to help with their Rhythm and technique. It adds a completely different dimension than the standard Classical Studies and helps a lot in auditions (regional sightreading, etc).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-09-27 13:49
Blame:
Emphasis on marching band. Often the first introduction, and musicality is secondplace to drills.
and:
in NOT ALL situations....Teachers whose expertise is not in reeds, but have certification as educator.
and:
Lack of exposure to how it should be played
and:
Student lethargy. Perhaps numero uno
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2004-09-27 13:51
Having worked my way through several exams and now beginning to teach I've come to the conclusion that the exams have become the immediate goal, not necessarily good playing. In the rush to learn the material in time for the exam many other important things are cast aside such as tone production, proper embouchure, smoothness of the fingering, and so forth. I can't even enjoy playing with the community band since the 1st chair has a pretty awful tone. That says something about his background.
I see my student forming some very normal beginner habits and I realize that if these habits aren't addressed she'll be severely crippled when it comes to playing any kind of difficult music. The hand posiiton, the way the clarinet is supported, breath support, the attention to tone, a soft reed are all things that are being addressed early. This of course takes time away from the mechanics of playing the exercises from the book, right? But she'll be miles ahead of other players later on. I wish my early clarinet teachers had shown me how important all these other things were instead of just asking to hear the study that was assigned for that week.
GBK, thanks for bringing up your observations and your recommendations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-09-27 13:54
Good, interesting, responses to a pertinent question . When doing a minor repair for an obviously new student, I try to assess what she/he knows about a cl, and add to it, without an information "overload" tho, which might be more harmful than helpful. Many badly need a good private teacher, but may be unable to find/afford one, leading to poor initial acquaintance and bad-habit acquisition. Thots, not much help, tho. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-09-27 15:51
GBK, interesting theory about the Baroque Music for clarinets. I know in my personal life that my playing and intonation improved dramatically when I began playing some of that style.
I spent a couple of years coaching clarinets for solo competition and would have to agree that they haven't been taught very much about intonation, tonal quality, etc. Most of my time was spent in trying to get them to get a better sound out of their instrument by adjusting reeds (some were actually going to compete with broken, clipped off reeds) and mouthpieces. It was frustrating because the class period was over before I could do very much with them. I just finished it off with passing out new reeds to them and encouraging them to try to get a better sound out of their instruments.
I know band directors don't have much time to spend with their kids--but the clarinets are a weak link.
It is a hard instrument to master. If this weren't true, we would spend so much time trying to find the right mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dmitri
Date: 2004-09-27 16:50
CPW beat me to it!
As a music educator in an inner city school, I certainly see my colleagues focusing on marching band. Several schools I know of will play marching music all year round. One of the great music educators I know, Alfred Watkins of Georgia, said that a trumpet should sound like a trumpet whether outside or inside. He said that could apply to any instrument. For clarinet, it just isnt possible to take a concert horn outside to march with. It is just a shame that music has become the slave to athletics. Now does anyone still wonder why kids cannot play?
Yes, I have problems with the way clarinet is being taught, but I think that problem is with society as a whole, not necessarily just student clarinetists.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2004-09-27 18:17
My own shortcut to check if I'm in decent shape is to play the Vivaldi piccolo concerto C major on clarinet, bass clarinet or Eb clarinet. This usually show me a lot about my present habilities in respect of tonal control, technique, flow and style. If I can play all three movements from beginning to end with relative ease I'm usually able to play most anything that is put in front of me in the orchestra. I have a close relationship to this piece since I used to perform it on sopranino recorder back in the 70th.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johnsonfromwisconsin
Date: 2004-09-27 18:35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Watkins of Georgia, said that a trumpet should sound like a trumpet whether outside or inside. He said that could apply to any instrument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is that he'd have a hard time getting a string or double-reed instructor to agree with that notion.
I practice Baroque music a lot on Saxophone. This is mostly because I love Bach and Handel, and I do find that it proves to be quite good practice as it introduces odd intervals into fast runs and such
-JfW
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-27 18:55
The Saxophone doesn't have one bit more Baroque music in it's studies than the Clarinet does.
That would be because it wasn't invented till 1844.
Of course there are transcriptions - but there aren't more transcriptions for Sax than there for Clarinet.
Personally I think it's the Jazz that makes the difference in their playing level.
Post Edited (2004-09-27 21:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-27 19:14
BAROQUE MUSIC
I have not purposefully used Baroque music in my lessons, but now that it's been brought up, I find that many of things that I gravitate towards are indeed from that period. In fact, the pieces that I find least disposable are baroque.
A few years ago, I purchased those Voxman baroque studies--primarily to have something for the kids that doesn't need accompaniment. More recently purchased were the Bach solo cello pieces so that I could keep in shape reading bass clef on bass clarinet. (some of the most effective pieces in "Tunes for Clarinet Technic" come from this work)
Baroque seems to have three things that it's hard to find together elsewhere. Certainly it is very technical, and part of this is in how well the melodies imply their underlying harmony. This leads to attribute #2, the potential for good unaccompanied solos. But the greatest thing may be the logic of it. (a pre-Mozart effect?) My mother told me that when I was two years old in the playpen, she could play "For Unto Us a Child is Born" and I would yell "For!" when each section's entrance. I can't imagine a better instruction vehicle than music that can grab and hold the attention of a toddler. (who had an otherwise short attention span!)
MARCHING BAND
Amen to everything that's been said here--except that without it we might not even have school bands anymore. I am afraid that many would quit instruments in droves if they didn't have the big trips to go on, and the ability to fit in as a member of a drill team that happens to carry musical instruments.
I've seen many a private student throw away the promise of competent musicianship in favor of their responsibilities as a drum major. But again, I've seen from very savvy band directors come from this same place--and they were good players as well.
What the marching band problem may really reflect is a problem in music appreciation. How many band parents truly enjoy or appreciate the concert music that's being learned? This is another cycle that I think is snowballing these days.
MODERN BAND MUSIC
Grateful as we should be for the quality and quantity of postwar concert band music, I don't think that the kids are getting much in the way of classics, let along baroque. One tremendous problem is that bands have large numbers of percussionists which have to sit on their hands if you play 19th century music. So we have many kids whose classical listening dates back to---Alfred Reed.
Ironically, I'm seeing many talented wind players forsake those instruments for involvement in elite school percussion ensembles. Last year I had one student from a semi-rural high school who could not learn all her scales, or even practice every week. Yet, she spent 6 to 9 hours per week rehearsing on marimba with the school's nationally known percussion ensemble. Is this bass-ackwards or what?
BUT...I'm squawking about generalities. The issue remains as why clarinets are so much more affected.
One bottom line that I'm seeing again and again. Clarinets have more complex fingering, faster parts to play, and have the capability to do horrifying things to pitch in their upper register. I think that they have more of an all-or-nothing choice than some of their other counterparts...and many are taking the latter choice. Hide out, and work to simply avoid getting yelled at.
Another to consider, though not clarinet-specific. You practice a musical instrument all alone. You practice sports, marching, and percussion ensemble with your friends. I've tried to remedy this with chamber music, but its rewards come at the expense of other difficulties and only a few students take me up on this option.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-27 19:18
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> The Saxophone doesn't have one bit more Baroque music in it's
> studies than the Clarinet does.
Au contraire - The Marcel Mule transcriptions of the works of Bach and Handel for saxophone are considered as required a study for all serious saxophonists as the Mozart and Weber works are for clarinet. The Mule transcriptions are on all major performance lists for alto saxophone. I do not know of a single instance where a student has decided to continue (non-jazz) saxophone study in college where they have not already mastered a number of the Mule works while still in high school.
> That would be because it wasn't invented till 1844.
Close ... It was invented in 1840. The first public performance was in 1844 and the patent dated in 1846.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-09-27 19:19
The clarinet may be easier for a beginner to produce a sound initially, but tonal concept, consistency over all registers, and musicianship may be more of a challenge as clarinettists advance.
The physical or acoustic properties previously mentioned (overblowing in 12ths, dissimilar response in each register, throat register dexterity and tone quality, extended range, etc.) probably contribute to "clarinettism", but, as I have stated before, musical concepts are "caught" more than "taught".
As opposed to string instruments, flute or double-reeds, the clarinet has more difficulty in producing smooth, consistent tone quality across almost 4 octaves, a huge range. Exacerbating the acoustic challenges are the difficulties of producing coherent musical ideas that seem natural and effortless. To do that one must have the right models, right meaning those which are the most ideal for the individual.
For instance, I love John Mack's playing. When I hear him play the oboe solo in the Adagio from Brahms' Violin Concerto I imagine Brahms scoring the solo for clarinet. What would it sound like? Would it be as beautiful or not? Does his vibrato make it beautiful, his phrasing, or something else? How would I create the same effect on clarinet?
Whether it's Baroque music or Elliot Carter seems immaterial. Awareness of musical concepts in any genre, as opposed to technical considerations, may not be given enough emphasis by clarinet instructors.
Post Edited (2004-09-27 20:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Contra
Date: 2004-09-27 22:05
Dmitri wrote:
> Several schools I know of will play marching music all year round.
That is horrifying in so many ways. I can barely stand to play it for half a year. The whole year would be too much overkill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-09-27 22:16
GBK - to get back entirely to your original commentary ... maybe the standards are just low for no other reason with clarinetists because there's so many more of them, surely you heard one or two good players, or were they all dreadful?
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
Post Edited (2004-09-27 22:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-27 22:34
Diz... Sure there were some high school age clarinet players that I heard who played decently, but I still was able to find gaping holes in their fundamentals (again - not because I have higher standards for clarinetists).
As a whole, the flutists and saxophonists were by far much more advanced in the command of their instruments and music reading (rhythms, interpretation, sight reading, etc...).
One aspect of the clarinet playing I noticed which was absent was conviction and confidence. Almost every high school clarinet player I listened to played timidly and (almost) apologetically. It's as if they are afraid to take a chance or a risk when they play. Not so with the flutists and saxophonists. They seemed to set the bar high and shoot for it.
Again - I cannot put my finger on why clarinetists are not measuring up to the players on flute and saxophone. However, I think the training and study methods used for those instruments may be producing better results ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Camanda
Date: 2004-09-27 22:34
Ah! Marching music all year?! Horrors! I grant you, I adore marching band, but I definitely do not take kindly to playing September over and over when I could, and should, be spending time learning Overture to Candide. It's perfectly safe to say September for clarinet is nothing compared to that overture for clarinet. If we do play marching music after football season, it's those hideous Sousa marches, and we do it once the day's goals have been met for concert music.
(Disclaimer: I do not march clarinet and have not marched the soprano clarinet since tenth grade. I did bass for a year and now do tenor saxophone.) On the other hand: if anything, marching band helped me, personally, with volume and strength, two things we are sorely lacking at the moment. I definitely don't take the same approach to all of my music, so that might be a strong point where I'm concerned, but I can project well as a result of having to play the clarinet over an 86-person marching band for two years. It's not a blasting, blatty sound, either. I just learned how to support it.
Of course, I am an odd sort of high-school musician, so take the above for what you will.
I can definitely see where kids can't see how to approach different music in different ways, though, and they think it's all right to play their concert music like their marching music. I play in 4 bands on 3 horns and I do not practice all of that music the same way. Why would I? I still believe musicianship is important, indeed. Yet I wouldn't play staccato in jazz like I play staccato in Wind Ensemble. In fact, my band director asks for the pecky sound in jazz and abhors it in Wind Ensemble.
Mostly, I agree that kids do not know how to approach the clarinet. It would make my life if I had the time to go around to the elementary schools and help all of the band directors teach the kids what the clarinet is about (none of them play clarinet; I know they know how the horn is and have played it, but they don't PLAY it, you know?). I'm in the middle of a musical with some great clarinet parts in it. You won't see the fun in this horn until you go and look for it. I get handed great tenor sax music on a daily basis. Not clarinet.
Amanda Cournoyer
URI Clarinet Ensemble, Bass Clarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Contra
Date: 2004-09-27 22:45
Maybe there's a lack of band directors that play clarinet. Our primary band director from my sixth grade year to last year, my eleventh grade year, played saxaphone. The ever-changing assistant directors always played brass instruments. This year, both directors are brass players. They know a bit about clarinets, but a lot of nuances are lost. It occurs to me that we had very few lessons about musical technique. The music we played wasn't very hard. March of the Irish Guard comes to mind.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-27 23:14
I gave a lesson to a (new) Bass Clarinet student today from the local high school. I just moved to this area about a year ago so there aren't any players who would have ever studied with me here.
This guy told me that he was the ONLY Clarinetist taking private lessons!!! I couldn't believe it.
The Sax players take lessons there as I know one of their parents and it is quite competitive.
Are any of the other Clarinet players trying out for Regional Band?
Nope - but some Sax players are!
I find that really unfortunate. I'll try to do something about it but will be swimming upstream for a while.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vrat
Date: 2004-09-27 23:44
Although clarinet is surely more difficult to play than sax and I suspect than flute too, I think the main reason for the poorer performance of student clarinetists is that clarinet is currently not as popular as the other two, and therefore doesn't attract as many talented young musicians.
So in a way it is a fault of all of us. We clarinet lovers need to do more to show its beauty, expressiveness, and versatility.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-09-28 00:02
Marching.....How many moms or dads have rung your doorbell for donations for +concert+ band so they can purchase Schoenbergs piece for wind symphony?
OK, now...how many for new band +uniforms+ or a trip to the Hemlock Bowl?
Choice...Your kid wants to go to:
A. Sports oriented extravaganza with cheerleaders or football captains.
B. Interlochen.
Choice:
A. ESPN with Berman
B. WPBS with Birnboim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-28 01:10
Cheerleaders?
Hmm, that's a pretty hard sell ya got there
Interlochen Uniforms / Cheerleaders
Tough call!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dori
Date: 2004-09-28 03:36
Camanda wrote:
Ah! Marching music all year?! Horrors! I grant you, I adore marching band, but I definitely do not take kindly to playing September over and over when I could, and should, be spending time learning Overture to Candide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting choice of examples. I played a version of Overture to Candide in MARCHING Band.
As Camada said, the same approach cannot be used in all situations. If marching music is being played all year long it can't just be done the same way it sounded while marching. Even Sousa marches can be played in a "concert band style" IF the director can make the players aware of the diffrence. There are nuances that might not come across from the football field. Personally, I feel students should be exposed to as many different musical styles as possible. Of course, that assumes the band director understands them also.
I realize we have strayed off the original topic, but good discussions often branch off in other directions, especially when there is no definitive answer and we are all brainstorming.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-28 03:57
you do all realise that "marching band" is a concept almost totally unique to the United States (at least as far as school music/education is concerned)
it doesn't explain why clarinet players in other countries (who have never even heard a marching band) have the same symptoms described by GBK.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2004-09-28 04:19
GBK said:
Quote:
One aspect of the clarinet playing I heard which was absent was conviction and confidence. Almost every high school clarinet player I listened to played timidly and (almost) apologetically. It's as if they are afraid to take a chance or a risk when they play. Not so with the flutists and saxophonists. They seemed to set the bar high and shoot for it.
It's those damned squeaks, I tell you. I've never heard a Flute squeak, and have heard one Saxophone do so in the last 4 years. Saxes and Flutes can afford to play daringly without the risk that one huge honk ruins the whole thing.
But in perhaps a bit more seriousness, the Clarinet isn't really a daring instrument, is it? In comparison with other instruments, that is. With the exception of an occasional piece like Ticheli's Blue Shades, most literature we play in high school has the Clarinet as a blending instrument, who's best purpose is in chorales and such things.
A curiosity to note, however - I don't think that the weak Clarinet section is an entirely uniform thing. Having moved from Clovis, NM to Anchorage, AK my freshman year in high school, I've heard some very good Clarinetists, and some not so good ones, and indeed, hear them on a daily basis. In Anchorage, Clarinets, if not the weakest section in the band, could give the Bassoons a good run for their money. In Clovis, the Clarinet section is (and has been for the last 3 years) easily the strongest section in the band. This is likely due to a band director we had at the junior high level a few years back (he's now in jail for sexual contact with a minor, which is both fortunate and not so, I suppose) who, while primarily a French Horn player, was very interested in the Clarinet and in making it play well.
I had a recording of the band in New Mexico playing Ticheli's Blue Shades uploaded over the summer, but the server has since bit the dust. I may try to get it online again and offer it to anyone who's interested - perhaps it could offer some hope that not all areas have this lack of Clarinet talent that many of you have noticed.
Edit: Fixed a spelling error.
Post Edited (2004-09-28 04:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2004-09-28 04:50
GBK,
On the issue of timmidity in clarinet students:
I have also noticed this in the majority of young clarinetists. I think this mainly could be attributed to the fear of squeeks. As we all know to well, the clarinet is capable of some horrendous noises. The players on the sax and flute don't have the same potential for disaster. Of course the sax will squeek, but it isn't as delicate as the clarinet in this matter. Every student that I have encountered is deathly afraid of squeeking, and to avoid it they play timidly hoping if they do squeek, no one will hear.
I don't think it has anything to do with literature or style of music emphasised. The main reason clarinetists are behind is due to the overall difficulties of the instrument as stated in the above posts. While the clarinetist is trying to figure out reeds, tongueing, changes in resistance, emboucher, etc., the flutes and saxes are blazing through scale studies and etudes. It simply does not take as long to develop a nice, or at least a workable, tone on the flute or sax as it does the clarinet.
Another contributing factor is poor equipment and mouthpiece/reed combo. Around this area, most kids play reeds that are too hard as ignorantly directed by the band coach....er..."director". I only know of a few band directors who are actual musicians or have the slightest interest in music education.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-28 06:15
Wow! We've really let the cat out of the bag here, and I am sure enjoying these posts. Thanks to all who come forward with their students' deep, dark secrets.
I'm particularly fascinated with the observations of timidity. BINGO! As I've tried to tell so many panic-stricken youngsters, "You didn't squeak from blowing too much, you squaked from blowing too LITTLE."
Others slow down as they approach hard-looking passages, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as their fingers lose rhythm and the coordination that they could've easily had.
Sometimes I feel like my job is to take Woody Allen and turn him into Dr. Phil.
I agree that jazz is a strong factor in sax motivation, although my best sax technicians aren't interested in jazz. I have trained them, however, with techniques borrowed from jazz education. These same techniques, developed primarily to address the clarinet, are seldom taken on with any enthusiasm at all by clarinet players. I feel sure that I've lost several outstanding students because they didn't want to do the same work that gets my sax guys #1 regional seats.
A partial explanation for flutists, might be the availability of Suzuki instruction--although in my own teaching studio the flute beginners do better than many of the clarinet beginners.
I try to borrow some things from Suzuki, but do wonder why (other than for a lack of small instruments) we don't have Suzuki programs for clarinet.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johnsonfromwisconsin
Date: 2004-09-28 15:04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the clarinetist is trying to figure out reeds, tongueing, changes in resistance, emboucher, etc., the flutes and saxes are blazing through scale studies and etudes. It simply does not take as long to develop a nice, or at least a workable, tone on the flute or sax as it does the clarinet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not exactly. The saxophones are also squeaking, figuring out reeds, and the *vastly* different resistances to playing as they ascend/descend the range of thier conicaly shaped instrument. In my view saxophones are also not any quicker to develop a "good" strong tone on their instrument and can struggle with intonation as much as anyone. I think tonal observations are due to either regional or familiar considerations.
;)
-JfW
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rivers
Date: 2004-09-28 18:16
Gotta agree with David B. on this.....sax vs. clarinet.....clarinet is much more difficult to learn/ master.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Camanda
Date: 2004-09-28 19:31
Dori wrote: Interesting choice of examples. I played a version of Overture to Candide in MARCHING Band.
Really? I don't even want to begin to think about that. I have a hard enough time sitting on my butt and playing Overture to Candide.
Amanda Cournoyer
URI Clarinet Ensemble, Bass Clarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-09-28 19:31
Have to disagree -- saxophone is indeed an ill wind that nobody seems to blow well. It may be easier to play poorly and get a satisfactory result, but there are precious few out there that can actually play the beast at the highest level like a beautiful instrument (Rascher, Harle, Mule, etc.) rather than an out-of-tune Boehm system kazoo. To develop GBK's original point but in this regard, there are tragically few really exceptional saxophone players out there teaching the instrument correctly. Fortunately for the kids, unlike clarinet, saxophonists can have a reasonably successful school career with poor technique hiding in the jazz band, whereas with clarinet, if you suck you sit last chair in concert band.
All these instruments are hard in their own way. It may get more difficult in different spots along the learning curve, but the time and effort required to completely and truly master them seem roughly equivalent.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2004-09-28 21:26
to Dave:
As one of those band directors you mentioned, I take exception to being labeled as "having little interest in music education" or "not an actual musician". Believe me, nobody goes into public school band directing for the big bucks. As a clarinet player, I would agree that there are special quirks about the clarinet which make it difficult to teach. As there are with the flute (try to teach a 10 year old to go from third space c to fourth line d and remember it the next week!) Teach the brass players to hear their notes and to tongue correctly (we're not the only ones who have it tough). I won't even talk about how hard it is for a young drummer to look at the music, hold the sticks, watch me and count at the same time.
I feel musicianship is at the heart of what we do, and it is essential to have a love of children. I love to get them started and then hooked. And yes, I feel I have trained some good clarinet players. If band directors don't know what kind of reeds their students should use, they weren't paying attention in school.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-28 22:22
One more thing to add (re band directors) - virtually all Band Directors are practical.
They knew what they had to do to get a job and support their families.
Ya can't say that for the Performance Majors usually..... though they are almost always the superior musicians.
The Band Directors are the ones who will be making music and able to support themselves long after the performance majors give up and leave music altogether. (most do as that's the temperament of the performer - get it right or don't do it at all)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2004-09-28 22:34
I'm stunned by the amount of people who think that sax and flute are 'easy' when compoared to the clarinet.
Making a beautiful, consistent, in tune, interesting sounds from bottom B flat to the altissimo register on sax is so hard I don't even want to think about it!
We go back to fundamentals. Fundamentally, the sax may be easier...with an easier finger system and less technical difficulties. In the long run, mastering any of the woodwind instruments is damned hard...none more so than any other.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Camanda
Date: 2004-09-28 23:40
I play sax and clarinet daily. They both have their easy points and their hard points. I find it very easy to play window-shatteringly high on the clarinet, but I'm still finding nasty "low" altissimo G to give me trouble on my sax, with the understanding that altissimo G gives most tenor sax players a lot of trouble. In general, range is just plain easier on clarinet for me than it is on sax, especially low notes. The bore does not get wider *and* longer on clarinet when you get lower (yes, yes, I know, the clarinet bore is hourglass-shaped, but can you really make the comparison to a sax bore?).
Tuning, I find easier on sax. I marked a line on my cork. Every time I warm up and push in to the line, I'm in tune over the entire compass I use for jazz band (right now, C below the staff to D above). Octaves on clarinet don't even tune that well. I've gotten a nasty chalumeau C when my clarion C is right on. Usually it's better than that, but that one time, yuck.
It's hard to ignore the twelfths thing, and personally, I find the twelfths excruciatingly annoying. They really got to me when my bass was malfunctioning and would drop or jump the register when I didn't change my fingering, and I'd have this lovely little fourth sitting in the middle of the chord. Mostly, I just cannot read in octaves. The twelfth does not help me. But that's not so much the clarinet's fault, I don't think.
It's very hard, I think, to generate a truly authentic tone on either horn. I'll admit I'm closer on sax than I am on clarinet after five LESS years on sax, but I think the clarinet helped that, though the sax doesn't help my clarinet playing.
Is it easier to play the sax well? Well, I can safely say I know a lot more good sax players than I do good clarinet players. But I know a lot more good percussionists than I do good woodwind players.
Amanda Cournoyer
URI Clarinet Ensemble, Bass Clarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-29 01:04
Sax is easier as the Clarinet Students can almost always learn the Sax quite quickly whereas the Sax players usually struggle learning the Clarinet if they didn't start on it first.
It's just a much harder instrument to play!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-29 01:22
Although we have somewhat strayed from the original question by now trying to compare how easily a clarinetist can learn sax, and a saxophonist learn clarinet -
For every saxophone student that struggles with the new concept of having to cover the open holes of the clarinet -
There are an equal number of clarinetists who play the saxophone with a thin, pinched, overly bright, nasal sound. Thus, the saxophone low register is a constant problem for them.
Both instruments have their unique problems which must be solved...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-29 01:31
If the Clarinet players blow the air for Saxophone like they blow for Clarinet, than they would get those results.
But properly taught they don't - they are very different instruments. A Clarinet player who plays sax like the Clarinet will sound just like that
bad
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-29 01:36
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> If the Clarinet players blow the air for Saxophone like they
> blow for Clarinet, than they would get those results.
> But properly taught they don't - they are very different
> instruments. A Clarinet player who plays sax like the Clarinet
> will sound just like that
> bad
Exactly my point - most (if not all) clarinetists who attempt to learn to play the saxophone do it on their own because they (mistakenly) think the instruments are similar.
They see a mouthpiece, a reed, logical fingerings and then conclude it is a very easy switch.
Big mistake....GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-29 02:50
But now we are talking about students learning on their own. I thought the topic was the the Sax students were playing better as they were studying with their teachers the baroque music?
Most everyone who tries to learn an instrument without private instruction won't get great results.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-09-29 17:49
Generally speaking I have no respect for the entire marching band concept...it simply ruins embouchure and what iota of technique one is capable of...all these ensembles do is play LOUD!!!!!!!!!!
As to the clarinet...band directors generally don't have enough clarinets to match the wall of brass to properly balance these groups.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-09-29 17:58
While I don't claim that it's a significant positive influence on musicianship, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have ensembles, like marching band, that are just fun without significant artistic goals.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-09-29 19:22
Marching bands.....![[mad]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie9.gif) .
I am with prof Dow.
A lot of time seems to be spent on nonmusical drills.
They start at 5 AM and again after school.
They enter meaningless competition (ok MHO)
They worry about flag twirling, dance steps, uniforms, and the ubiquitous teenage obsession with who is dating whom...etc.
It is a drain on resources.
Unless of course it is a Grambling Univ. ![[hot]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/hot.gif) or similar.... which is a whole 'nother deal (fantastic brass, real showmanship, hot percussion etc....see the movie Drumline) and enters the realm of professional entertainment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2004-09-29 19:23
I agree that clarinet is often taught badly in school music classes. Even in schools that have a strong music program overall, one often finds the clarinet sections are the "weak link in the chain". I've conducted a number of clinics at various schools, and have found this to be consistently true.
Ideally, of course, it would be great to have kids take private lessons on whatever band or string instrument they learn. Actually, on Sunday night, there was a tribute concert to Abe Galper, which I was talking with Peter Stoll (one of the leading clarinet instructors in Canada), about how it is easy to get a sound on the clarinet, but one of the more difficult ones to develop a beautiful sound. We were also talking about how that if parents wait a year or two to begin private lessons on clarinet, one finds that students have to undo all kinds of bad habits, which may be, as someone else mentioned, due to the amount of leeway there is on the clarinet with how much can be done wrong. In the very least, why not use the private instructors to run clinics in schools, and why not schools encourage their best students, and those struggling, to study privately?
I am wondering too, if it is possible recorder instruction is causing problems with the air use situation, and even embouchure? I mean, the recorder uses very little air, and many students seems to transfer that to when they play another instruments. Now, I never learned the recorder, but it seems that my non-recorder players (those who study either class keyboard or choir) have few to no problems with air use or embouchure.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-09-29 19:29
Please don't bring marching bands into the thread anymore. Nothing good will come of it.
Really.
Mark C.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-09-29 20:43
Nothing good will come of marching band, or bringing it into the thread? ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
Seriously, tho', I haven't observed recorder being a hindrance. I started on recorder, and when I began clarinet was the best of the (admittedly bad) bunch. Beginners I have taken on as students that already had recorder are actually easier to start because they already get the basic concept of sequential fingering and blowing to get a sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sbbishop
Date: 2004-09-29 21:01
I would say that "yes, the clarinet is being taught incorrectly".
I feel that the basics of fundamental technique are being shorted in favour of getting to 'play the piece'. Anything of quality is built on a good foundation, out of good materials, etc.
A good tone is the first requirement, and that comes by....long notes....of high quality. Teach what is required for those first. Articulation next, one stone upon the next. There is no short cut. Etc., etc., etc.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-09-29 21:20
Kind of nice to see such a long thread for a change...it's good to hear ya talkin'!!!
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2004-09-30 03:19
I don't know if this happens outside of Australia but I find there are a lot of kids in high school playing works that are really far too difficult for them. I started playing Brahms Sonatas in year 10 and was playing Debussy Rhapsody in year 12. I knew of people playing the Nielsen, Francaix and Copland Concertos in year 11 and 12. Today I met an 11 year old who is playing the Weber First Concerto and Grand Duo Concertant. I understand that it is encouraging for a student to play this excellent repertoire but I really believe that teachers go overboard with the repertoire that they prescribe.
(I know there are students out there that can REALLY play the Nielsen Concerto before leaving high school. These people get jobs in orchestras but as far as I am concerned they are exceptional.)
I think teachers like to see their students progress quickly, and give them challenges to encourage this. I believe that progress often gets in the way of actual learning. And thats why I could play the Debussy Premiere Rhapsody in year 12 but couldn't tongue to save my life (not to mention all my other deficiencies). I would say I have spent the last 3 years unlearning everything that I learnt in my first 6. My clarinet teacher through high school was a terrific guy, an excellent teacher (I still use his beginner books today) and I believe he really fostered my musicality. But this way of learning seems terribly inefficient to me.
As a piano accompanist I have played for a number of students with Australian Music Examination Board Qualifications ranging from preliminary grade to diploma level and I am constantly struck by large technical deficiencies in their playing and sound production. It shouldn't be like this. I don't know if how this differs with flute and sax, but I am pretty sure that fundamentals are skipped over in the name of 'progress'.
I think that a very solid technical foundation needs to be laid down before the student should be genuinely challenged. This means that their breathing should be correct, they should understand the concept of tonguing (and be able to apply it), their fingers should be in a fairly natural hand position and relaxation should be constantly encouraged. I really think far too many things are left to chance and that their is very little understanding of how the instrument actually works.
I'll illustrate this with an anecdote. I recently heard of a student who had quite a squeezed tone and the teacher could not work out was wrong with his playing. His breathing was fine, his embouchure was fine, he wasn't too tense etc. One day the teacher found out that the student had been playing the clarinet with his tongue ALWAYS on the reed.
While I know that we can't always control what our students do, I think the least we can do is give them a good chance of doing the right thing.
Alex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: psychotic lil clarinet girl (don't as
Date: 2004-09-30 05:20
I'm still progressing, but I've been playing for about a year and a month now... Playing notes for anything is easy (unless it's majorly high where a lot of clarinetists can not get) but playing them with a focused tone, shaping the phrase, dynamics, accents, etc... The fine details are what's so hard. I think my clarinet teacher has been teaching me to play properly, I just have to apply the information he gives me... The weakest section in our concert band I would have to say would be the baritones (our band director calls them barely tones... sad). As far as woodwinds go though, the flutes are the strongest section and I suppose the weakest section varies between the alto saxes and us clarinet players (but there are 8-10 altos and only 5 clarinet players)... Most of the time it's the saxes my band director picks on though, so I would say they are a weaker section than us... anyways, as stated above, a lot of clarinet players don't even take lessons... This could possibly be why they are usually the weakest section (although pretty much all the clarinet players in my school, except for 1 that I know of, are taking lessons)... But going over one measure at a time slowly with a good focused tone is what is called real practice getting to the fine details... That is how students should learn to practice (hehe, I'm taking this from my teacher)...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-30 05:37
I can see a problem or two in the recorder thing. Light blowing, double-lipping, it's all there. However, I think that the benefits outweigh any consequences. And again, we run into the fact that the vast majority of ALL school band musicians come from the recorder--but clarinets are still a comparatively weak link.
As for playing Nielsen Concerto, Premiere Rhapsody, etc. in high school, I was certainly not among that number, but I see no sin in pushing a talented kid if they're into it. Even if the musicality of the performance is not is not as mature as we'd like, I think that it really does season young players. Given the fact that almost none of my students are interested in repertoire, my hat's off to teachers who get it going. Heck, I greatly enjoyed learning the Concertino and a couple movements of the Mozart when I was a teen.
School programs for clinicians and lessons can be helpful, but they're not as successful--at least in my area--as you might think. Most kids who take lessons via normal channels do much better than those in in-school programs. I believe that much of this is because in-school programs naturally diminish the authority of the private teacher on several levels.
A couple of things seem to work very well in the schools. One is starting band kids in the fourth grade--usually in classes of like instruments. In my area, they start in sixth grade, and that's awfully late.
Another thing that helps is duets and chamber music. I've seeb it done a couple of ways. In one school where I taught lessons, ALL kids in the program were required to participate in Solo & Ensemble festival. Some played easy music and some played hard music, but everyone had to play either in a small group or with a pianist. Didn't work miracles, but it was one of the better programs in the state.
In a school where I'm currently involved, there is some sort of musical club or fraternity where applicants have to give either a solo or small-group performance for the assembled club. One feature I reallly like is that fact that band, orchestra and vocal kids all share this club.
But I strongly disagree about long tones being the first and primary thing taught. That's going to weed out a lot of kids that might've gone on to be good students. While we do want good strong sounds, we are still teaching MUSIC first and foremost. I generally do my best to get even a rank beginner playing some sort of recognizable song in the first or second lesson. The world is full of musicians who are more versatile, adaptable and just plain more FUN than we are. I want to borrow as much from them as I'm able. Besides, tone development will be a lot easier after they've developed some muscles.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2004-09-30 06:02
I suppose we have to reconcile the need to keep the students motivated AND give them a really solid technical foundation. I think it is possible to teach good blowing/technique etc without resorting to long tones for eternity (and if you are blowing correctly, everything is essentially a long tone). I don't believe this type of training makes for a less versatile or 'fun' musician.
I agree that first and foremost we are teaching music. Honestly though, can a performance with weak and/or inconsistent sound, heavy/uneven tonguing and a constant shortness of breath really be termed musical?
Music is hard to make when the instrument seems so hard to play...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-30 09:39
ah, but can a performance with no players be termed musical either?
:)
Motivate first - teach the clarinet second.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-09-30 17:55
I think that David caught my point, Alexis. I don't object to long-tone training itself. But I do worry about tone development being put forth as a prerequisite to actual musical training.
If a student comes to you already playing music, knowing scales, etc., then long tones are probably the first order of business in cleaning up accumulated bad habits. And even then, tone development can take quite a while if you have a timid student.
But with a beginner, long tones and too much emphasis on refining tone production can be a tremendous turn-off. I think that task #1 is to get them pursuing their curiosity and trying to play songs. If you get a kid in their first year as a player, I think that you can backtrack and change bad habits once some friendship has been established with the instrument.
If I have a kid nailing a scale in his first lesson, and playing The First Noel by ear (a very practical and frequent occurrence), I'm going to let him work that musical puzzle and not stop him every two notes to tell him to tongue instead of puffing. He's going to practice more if he goes home playing a song, and every imperfection that he experiences is an opportunity to shore up his basic skills. Every day he leaves the horn in the case dreading his one-note chore, is a day closer to quitting.
The flute provides a similar example. Am I really going to ask a kid to spend a week or two blowing just a closed headjoint? Don't think so. If we have to work that much on tone, I think that we can simultaneously get used to some finger maneuvers like Bb-A, C-D, etc.
I do agree that sometimes we foist complexity on pretty fast in the name of progress. A formula that worked well for my mother (developed by her father) was to have one truly difficult piece per semester. Everything else was up to the private teacher. It made her stretch considerably, but not to the breaking point.
But sometimes, I think that our exercises are too purely that. Although I only use one of its books (Tunes for Clarinet Technic), I am impressed with the old Belwin Student Instrumental Course in terms of providing exercises with more music interest, and a variety of material to cover.
But generally, I see faster progess than those books or Rubank Elementary provide with their standard game plan.
I think that kids do well in these circumstances:
1 - Start off playing songs by ear. (thus avoiding visual roadblocks to playing what they can already sing) One scale, usually low-F, will facilitate this nicely.
2 - Learn at least a couple of scales ASAP, visually associated with key signatures and applied to both ear playing and sight reading. Learning to appreciate the feeling of each component note...a la the "Do-Re-Mi" song.
3 - Learn new rhythms from a separate workbook, rather than having the distraction of trying to apply them immediately to the instrument.
In other words, divide and conquer. Why restrict what a kid can play just because he can't read it yet? Why not introduce him to at least one scale, and let it become a familiar and helpful friend? Why not let him develop technical and rhythmic competence separately, and then combine them when he feels confident? This is an area in which I think unschooled musicians (who are focused on pleasing the listener rather than academic sequencing) have shown us a better way.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If a kid can just get going, a teacher can teach some pretty advanced stuff just by addressing the necessities that the kid encounters. And I think kids absorb new things better when those things are solving a problem, rather than just being presented for absorption.
I'm not saying that I can do this with every single aspect, but it does minimize how much stuff I have to shove down their throats. It also maximizes my opportunities to reinforce basics in the guise of real tools.
But again...and alas...my clarinet students are still generally slower with this than my flutes or saxes. Another problem lurking in the shadows is a lack of worthy companions, competitors and playing opportunities needed to make the program drive itself.
My biggest problems, I think, are this:
1 - Good young musicians need EACH OTHER in order to develop their music as something other than a school chore. It's hard to get them together, even in the summer.
2 - It's just too easy to be top dog in some areas, including mine. I've had many kids walk into high school and rise quickly to the top in their freshman year. That can really lopside an ego, and make you wonder what you're working for. Far fewer take it to the next level, and some are devastated when they get to All-State auditions and see what players the more competitive areas produce.
3 - There is so little appreciation for classical music--or even for jazz, sometimes--that many good students don't really know what to move towards. I have some terrific students who have no real interests outside of their band music. They need more, but are reluctant to reach out for it.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-09-30 18:17
Allen...
Some very worthwhile suggestions.
As I am teaching more older students these days than the younger ones it was nice to reread and refresh some of the techniques which seem to have beneficial results. Sometimes after teaching a steady stream of advanced students we forget how many of the early stages of clarinet instruction for beginners must be emphasized.
Thanks -
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryS
Date: 2004-09-30 19:22
From a clarinet playing parent: My 12 year old started clarinet at 8, picked up the alto at 10 to play in the jazz band(he made it easily), and subsequently quit clarinet. Why? Much more instant satisfaction playing alto, i.e. clarinet takes more work. Kids are so spread out these days in so many activities, that they look to music as a source of fun. We know it takes work to get a really good sound on the clarinet, but only the most musically motivated will put in that kind of effort. So I'll support his decision so he doesn't quit altogether.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill G
Date: 2004-09-30 21:47
IMHO a basic problem is that many teachers are so busy trying to teach notes that they don't let their students sense that they might learn to make music. The Suzuki system for violins seems to have a better focus for beginners. Another problem may be that some teachers are so busy trying to teach that they don't give their students a sufficient opportunity to LEARN! (You can tell that I'm a critic and not a teacher.) Bill G
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-09-30 22:15
I don't like Suzuki at all, but if anyone wants a suzuki version try the "jump right in" series.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2004-09-30 23:33
There have been some very interesting points raised on this thread. In fact it has spurred my interest to the point that I may do an honours dissertation on this topic next year...
I do stand by my beliefs but as Allen and David have rightly pointed out to me, the issue of motivation is a sticking point. My study would be aimed at creating a framework (while understanding that every student is different) to teach the clarinet in a more effective manner. The study would be a practical application of a researched method (combining various aspects of motivational psychology, 'inner game' type teaching, and other educational methods - e.g suzuki, Kodaly type training, solfege etc). In addition to this there would probably be a beginners' instructional book to be used in conjunction with the ideas presented in the thesis.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bellflare
Date: 2004-10-01 00:00
Alexis, it sounds good.....but remember that a lot of bad clarinet playing occurs in m ...ooops ....topic is forbidden. sorry
my bad.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-10-01 08:46
Actually, Alexis, I do have a suggestion. I'm going to start a thread on instruction of students with learning disabilities. This is something that I'm very curious about, and am not sure where to draw the line between success and failure.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-01 14:15
Things brings up a larger question.
Are learning disabilities more common now than say 30 years ago, or are we just recognizing them due to greater awareness?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-10-01 17:07
One thing which I feel very strongly is clarinetist's at a beginning level really need work on sound production and embouchure right away...on other instruments this is a problem but with clarinet it is fundamental to have good basic technique instruction.
For example..the matter of articulation and properly teaching and giving the knowledge of going about correct artiulation is simply not addressed in the band room!
Wheeew!!!
Glad I got that outta my system..
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2004-10-01 20:12
In response to the person who said their child switched from clarinet to saxophone because it was "easier", I have to add that kids of that age perceive the saxophone as "cool" because they see it on MTV. In fact it is not that easy to start sax as a child because it is awkward, requires decent sized hands and they keep hitting themselves in the face with the mouthpiece if they are really uncoordinated. It is also more expensive, so some parents won't let a child do sax. It's all in how you present the instruments to the kids, sometimes. We clarinet players need to make the clarinet have an appeal of its own, which we all like to think it does have!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-10-01 23:25
As far as correct teaching of articulation in the band room, I have a "wonderful" example...
There is a band director in this area who does not bother teaching his 5th grade clarinetists to tongue. At all. Well, maybe once they're in the clarion register he mentions it. One of the students said that he said he doesn't think it's necessary.
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
