 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2020-05-15 22:06
In high school and college, I was taught to crescendo going up (scales/note patterns), and to decrescendo going down - unless notated otherwise.
The reasoning behind this technique was never explained to me, and I was too ignorant to know to ask.
As an adult, looking back, I figure that the idea behind the technique wasn't to actually get louder/softer going up/down...as the qualities of the notes themselves have the effect of becoming louder/softer as you go up/down the scale.
Was this lesson's goal to, instead, keep proper airflow/support? Or - was it really supposed to train us to get louder/softer as a general rule?
Every once in a while, I pull out my old classical music and try to brush up on technique. This question struck me today as I was looking through SunnyDaze's post about the Demnitz Study in D, and reading Karl's response to it. (http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=483580&t=483580)
Thanks,
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2020-05-15 23:07
First off, I don't think you should dignify this as a "technique." It's a style of playing scales and, in my experience as a student, scale-based passages in other music. In the worst instances, it becomes a substitute for authentic expression. Just mechanically get louder as you ascend and softer as you descend and the music comes to life. And if there are crescendo and diminuendo signs marked, exaggerate them.
I think there were traditionally two reasons: (1) that's the way I was taught, so that's the way I teach it, and (2) it supports a natural tendency to avoid sounding static, which is a tendency many - probably most - young students exhibit and their teachers try to inhibit.
I think, apart from musical considerations, there are a couple of problems with it. One is that, as the frequency rises and the player doesn't change anything in the air flow, the apparent loudness tends to increase even without making a conscious crescendo. Given equal power (I think it's power), a higher frequency sounds louder than a lower one. Another is that, on the descending side of the scale or passage, too many students, as they make a diminuendo, lose focus and presence in their sound, so the last few notes often lack energy. When my students play scales, I'm more inclined, whatever they do going up, to them deliberately maintain an even volume level going down, which means from a practical side that they need to think of increasing the air to compensate for the natural loss of volume.
When I listen to excellent players, I notice that many of them, depending of course on the musical context, tend actually to back off the volume slightly as they play ascending passages so that the the highest notes don't become strident. It's very easy to get out of control when you're conditioned routinely to get louder as you play higher. Of course the stylistic needs of the music should dictate what any player does in any specific situation.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2020-05-15 23:39
Thanks, Karl!
I, too normally back off from high notes (even in jazz) unless there's a reason not too, as I've always figured those notes already just pop out there and cut through the clutter without any additional volume being necessary.
Seeing that snippet (provided by SunnyDaze) reminded me of that "rule" I had been taught, and made me question what the purpose behind the idea was.
I appreciate your explanation.
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2020-05-16 00:18
In the Langenus method Bk. III, nearly all the "routine studies" in the early part of the book, which step patterns through every key, are marked with crescendos ascending and decrescendos descending. The only reason I can think of for it is Karl's (2) above.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-05-16 00:43
Of course there is a dissenting opinion........mine.
I recall Robert Marcellus use to say: "Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong," when referring to the use of dynamics in a phrase.
So then I would pose the question: If you have a phrase within a piece of music, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, etc. etc. that has no specific dynamic markings whatsoever, what do you do? And let's say we all know to emphasize suspensions (non harmonic notes that then resolve). So a few notes are higher, some are lower, maybe a fairly stepwise direction one way or the other. Do you crescendo going up? Crescendo going down? Mind you not all contexts are obvious.
For me, if one has to guess, I would go with "higher is louder, lower is softer."
And therein lies the justification for playing scales in that manner.
Of course if you like things all one volume, you could always take up the harpsichord
..........or the saxophone.
:-)
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2020-05-16 01:14
VERY good question. And some interesting detail in kdk's reply. Yes, I was taught also to cresc. going up dim. going down (not just for scale practice, but for phrasing in general). My private teacher in HS was the formost clarinetist in the area and Principal with the (fairly well-known) Phil. Symph. of Westchester.
His explanation was that at least you should always do something with a phrase-- always be "going somewhere". He was right of course, as technique was the primary concern of mine in H.S.
Later on I recalled his idea of doing that, and believe it was just his way to get me to be more expressive.
Since, and during my time as a soloist and Band Director (especially with my H.S. Jazz Band), I have taken the path of "play what's written-- follow all dynamics". If nothing is written, you have to consider the style of the composer and estimate what he/she wanted. If I'm playing in a group (such as the band where I am Principal), I play what's on the page. If it's "p" with no cresc. I stay "p". Of course you also must follow the conductor's motions and verbal instructions. The conductor is always right.
A good example of figuring things out is the Mozart Concerto, where I believe very little was written in if anything by Mozart regarding dynamics, articulations and phrasing.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
Post Edited (2020-05-16 01:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-05-16 02:27
That isn't to say one should disregard a composer's (or conductor's) wishes, only that "just sounding a note" usually doesn't constitute music.
I don't recall which principal clarinetist of the past said this, but he basically said:
"If an audition where only one note, any number of clarinetists could beat me for the position. If the audition was at least two notes, I'd win every time."
I will just leave it at..............so what makes the difference between the two auditions?
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2020-05-16 02:49
Tom H wrote:
> Later on I recalled his idea of doing that, and believe it was
> just his way to get me to be more expressive.
The question always, when you do things "to be expressive," is, expressive of what? What do you as a player want to express?
Simply superimposing dynamic changes that aren't driven by an expressive purpose doesn't really constitute expression.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2020-05-16 04:53
Actually, I agree with both kdk and Tony Pay. "Expressive" is an interesting word. Often non-vocalists say "I make music to tell a story". I'm never quite sure exactly what that means. Vocalists tell a story with lyrics. Maybe a better word for expressive is simply to make it interesting. I like a lot of the pop tunes from the '80s. I don't know most of the lyrics and don't think of any story they may be telling. I may think of some things I was into back then while enjoying listening to them. Simple.
Also, I do think at times the "phrase" doesn't have to go somewhere. An obvious example is if you're playing an accompaniment figure or part. Maybe the whole band plays soft the whole time to let the soloist or solo part do what he/she wants without interference. Or, maybe even as a soloist there are just some parts that are meant to be one level dynamic for a little while-- to set the stage for something upcoming.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2020-05-16 05:42
Quote:
I think there were traditionally two reasons: (1) that's the way I was taught, so that's the way I teach it, and (2) it supports a natural tendency to avoid sounding static, which is a tendency many - probably most - young students exhibit and their teachers try to inhibit.
And as Carl Schachter once told me, it's also the way Chopin apparently taught his own students. As a generalization, getting louder sort of works with a lot of music: rising melodic lines often coincide with an increase in tension and falling ones with a sense of relaxation (the word cadence, of course, comes from the Latin "cadere" or "to fall"). But obviously, a lot of music, such as the slow movement in Saint-Saens's sonata, gets softer as it ascends into higher registers (though in the Saint-Saens, the higher-register melodic line does increase in intensity as it ascends). Moreover, Chopin no doubt didn't intend for his students to increase their volume as though turning a dial on the stereo (if stereos had existed . But rather he must have wanted them to do something with the color or intensity in the sound.
Quote:
So then I would pose the question: If you have a phrase within a piece of music, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, etc. etc. that has no specific dynamic markings whatsoever, what do you do? And let's say we all know to emphasize suspensions (non harmonic notes that then resolve). So a few notes are higher, some are lower, maybe a fairly stepwise direction one way or the other. Do you crescendo going up? Crescendo going down? Mind you not all contexts are obvious.
There are numerous parameters to keep in mind when thinking about phrasing: phrase rhythm or hypermeter (is the music grouped into two-bar units or four-bar units?), harmony (is it leading toward or away from a cadence?), voice-leading or counterpoint (is it leading downward toward a cadential moment or ascending through an initial arpeggiating figure?), texture (am I playing with full orchestra or by myself?), historical style (read Tony's article above), and so on. These parameters often conflict with one another; a smart musician, or one with very fine instincts, will be able to come to terms with these things. Just getting louder when the melody goes higher, however, seems to be the stupidest version of coming to terms with these things that I can imagine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-05-16 05:47
Actually I agree with that idea of there not having to be "movement" all the time. An example of that is an "ostinato pattern."
I was thinking of that recently with regard to Herbert von Karajan as I listened to several old concerts off the Digital Concert Hall. I believe he made a point of expecting everyone to play a dynamically static, driving style for ostinato passages while rehearsing Schuman's 4th (available on Youtube). The two Bach examples on Digital Concert Hall are actually rather hard to listen to because Karajan seems to be unwavering on this point.
But in classical and romantic works where this device is sporadically used, it is quite effective.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2020-05-16 17:10
You're always going to find disagreement with anything pertaining to playing "musically". i've often told students to do that but emphasized that was simply a beginning and that they should use their musical imagination to "phrase" the passage. Sometimes you might want to get softer going up and louder going down. There is no one rule other than to follow the composers suggestions when there are some and play with emotion, feel the music, be expressive. I remember using the phrase at times, don't make the listener sea sick but don't play dull either. Each to their own.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2020-05-16 22:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
