 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2001-11-24 17:46
In the thread on the young prodigy at IU, Mario raised some interesting points regarding our need to pay more attention to the development of our beginners.
This seems like a good subject on which to collect ideas, and a number of issues come to mind:
1. I am not aware of any Suzuki programs for clarinet. Does anyone know of any, or have comments on applying the concept to this instrument?
2. Covering holes and reaching levers is certainly an issue when you're talking about younger students. Given the lack of user-friendliness in the Eb and Ab clarinets, what are our alternatives? Is the Lyons C Clarinet our answer, or should even that be preceeded by the recorder?
3. The only venue available to take clarinets in numbers is the wind band. But many beginning band programs start in 6th grade--a bit late for the kinds of students that we associate with Suzuki programs. How much is available in terms of trios and quartets to keep these students occupied until old enough for band--and to keep them fresh while their bandmates go through that slow first 2-3 years?
4. Good band programs and good clarinetists are dependent on each other, but our school bands are full of students who don't study privately on an instrument with many potential fingering snags. Since we can't expect all band directors to minor in clarinet, what advice can we give them to keep things going smoothly?
I work quite a bit with beginners, and agree with Mario that we need more (or at least better organized) resources. I'm finding more and more need to arrange music myself for younger students because of the poor quality of music available.
Let's hear your thoughts on these issues and your favorite resources for learning materials!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2001-11-24 19:01
There is a wealth of Suzuki material available, although much of the early instruction is done one-on-one and by rote. The whole idea is to start children playing with music much as they learn to speak "baby talk" by imitation and totally by ear so it is really up to the resourcefullness of the instructor to provide the right musical incentives. Like training a dog, learning is encouraged by repetition and lots of praise for participation, effort and results, wheither "good" or "not so good." Criticism for non-musical results is not appropriate at the beginning Suzuki level, only positive reward and encouragement--"Good, but lets try it again this way" example. I see nothing wrong with starting young children expeimenting with the Eb or C clarinet, even the Ab if one is available--just remember to be patitient and positive. Good Clarineting!!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2001-11-24 20:02
Mario did raise some valid points about the lack of prodigy talent on clarinet. Whether it be from poor instruction, poor methodology, or mere physical limitations it does seem to be a problem.
However let us not forget the lack of prodigy talent also extends to other instruments as well. When was the last time we've seen very young (and publicized) talent on trumpet, oboe, french horn, etc...?
Are these instruments inherently more difficult, or harder to progress rapidly at a very young age, than the violin or piano? I don't think so.
The crux of the problem is two fold. Firstly, the lack of VERY FINE teachers who specialize in instructing the young, and secondly, the shortage (or absolute lack) of organized programs which specialize in these instruments.
Until these problems are addressed, young clarinetists like Julian will be a "once in our lifetime" rarity...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Emms
Date: 2001-11-25 11:08
I think here that one of the major problems is the PARENTS. Young children start an instrument usually beacause their parents wish them to start. Parents hear very good violinists and pianists, but not other instruments so much. If a child starts early, it usually has huge support from the parents, but parents choose the instrument. Until we have more players like Julian (who I don't think even plays in the UK anymore) the clarinet will just be an instrument handed out from schools to pupils who are more apathetic, with parents who aren't really interested.(IMO)
The suzuki method only really works with interested parents, and again, if the clarinet doesn't seem so attractive to parents it may not work so well. I do have my doubts about this method though as I am a firm believer in pupils learning to READ music. I often wonder how the children taught this way feel when they can play brilliantly, but when faced with simple music, go to pieces. I often feel this is analogous to children being taught to recite wonderful poetry, yet not being able to read a single word.
The lyons C clarinet is used in the UK by some teachers, but exams can only be taken on it to our grade 3. Lots of parents are put off having their child play clarinet, as the child may be too small. Small hands can play piano, and small violins can be taught on and used in exams.
I think the recorder is a good instrument to learn basic music on. I mean, to read notes, learn time values, and dynamics etc, but I remember when I was younger, the transition from recorder to clarinet was enormous. The clarinet was much heavier, harder to blow, different fingerings etc. [We also shouldn't lose the fact that the recorder is an instrument in its own right and there is some lovely baroque music (and some very modern) written for the whole recorder family.]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2001-11-25 18:45
I am a former guitar teacher.
I certainly agree with much Emms has to say about Suzuki method, with the provision that it really does work on the vast majority of kids. They seem to crank out fairly good players, regardless. Small instruments are really needed, and parents who are involved.
I used a modified Kolday method, that is starting with lots of little tunes based on the minor third. They hear, they read, they sight sing, their ears get trained. Rain, Rain go away was around the fifth tune and introduced the fourth into the group of tunes. I included lots of eurhythmics, jumping on giant xylophones to get interval ideas, stomping on giant treble clefs, marching new rhythms... Kolday hand signs for pitch...It was pretty physical. I had made a tape of all my first year songs...sung in solfege as well as to the words. You get the idea, we're talking really little kids where you need 5-10 activities that change.
Twinkle, twinkle little star is too hard (I think this is the first Suzuki piece) for little kids on guitar and I don't care for rote learning. I had and created stuff based on American folksongs, in a very nice order...that is very well graded for guitar specific difficulties...Suzuki is graded for violin difficulties and there are big differences on what works for guitar! The clarinet might be better for it.
I had pretty good sucess with any kid using this method, which is more than I could say for Alfred's or any adult classical method.
It was great for my own kids, who played guitar before age three! They each have a great ear ("No mom, I didn't memorise my Chopin, I'd heard it enough to just play it..." said the thirteen year old) and they sightread well. One is doing clarinet/piano now, the other bass/trombone. My view is that I wanted music as a first language, taught vocally and instrumentally as speech was learned, very nearly at birth or before for my youngest. Both Suzuki and Kolday have mom as the first music teacher.
I have never been a great fan of trying to create child prodigies and I actually am discouraging my sons from being pro musicians. Another story.
Ginny
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rene
Date: 2001-11-26 06:11
Having two children in young age, I want to add my experiences. Beware, it might become a long posting.
Both children went into the Musiaklische Früherzieung (early musical education) that is offerend here in Germany for chlidren in the age of 4-5. It was not really a success, measured by the time they spend with music after they went through the procedure.
Though the teacher was ethusiastic, the major problem was that they used a metallic xylophone (Glockenspiel) which is complete inappropriate for children. They simply cannot manage to hit the right plates, and hit them in rythm. Also the playing was combined with note reading, which does not make it easier. The usual method of removing keys was not offered, and finally all of the children in the class were lost. They also did some other fun stuff, which saved the day a bit.
Then came the primary school (age 6-7 to 9-10) and the recorder. Again, I find that this instrument is only appropriate for older children. Almost all of them had huge problems with covering the tone holes and, as a consequence, playing in rythm. To my son, it was simply a frustrating experience, and he gave up.
My daugther (aged 10) is learning the piano since one year. I thank the lord that her teacher is patient with her. For she does not like to practice. I think she continues the instrument only because we push her, and because the teacher is patient. Despite of that, she is making progress.
So are my children lazy, clumsy or don't they have musical spirit? For my son (now 8), I dare say no to latter two, yes to the first. He is beautifully singing and can reproduce tunes easily.
Why did the school efforts fail? I claim that it is due to inappropriate method. Any method that works only for highly talented, hard practising children looses the majority. And even for children with some talent and enthusiasm, the setup must be chosen wisely.
Would it have been so bad to remove some keys from the xylophone, leaving only a pentatonic scale, let the children find their own ways on this scale, maybe give them some tunes (there are great pentatonic tunes) to replay, and see what comes out? How about giving them a set of bongos, and let them drum to a CD with a pop recording? Another idea is the presentation of classical instruments, live or video taped, and education in the way these instruments work. Maybe let them try to produce sounds on these instruments.
Some will answer that only hard work leads to musical success. True! But you can only work hard if the instrument inspires you, any you can feel your success. For the less talented children, this means that technical difficult instruments cannot be used. I am afraid that the clarinet is in that class of instruments, as well as the recorder. For very young children, they are no good. By the way, the violine is no better, and a pain for the parents.
Following Orff, I would recommend rythm instruments, along with xylophones with removed keys. Also those plastic toots might be an idea. But first of all I recommend the human voice, which is far the best instrument the children own.
Rene
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Emms
Date: 2001-11-26 20:48
Maybe you should have started your own group, Rene. What you would have found, probably is that the more able children would become bored if you work with the majority. Some pupils will always leave these groups, but which would you want to lose?
I don't think teaching recorder in large groups is a good idea. To learn to play recorder properly you need small groups of similarly abled pupils, who can all learn at the same pace - a difficult thing to do when children learn in leaps and bounds and never at the same time! I have experience of children as young as six being able to play recorder really well, so it can work given the correct circumstances.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-26 21:23
In every field, there are 3 groups:
1 Those with amazing talents.
2 Those with average talents.
3 Those with no talent at all.
In any given field, advancement and progresses are initiated by group 1. Things are consolidated with group 2 (the largest group by the way), and group 3 struggles, falls behind, and quickly becomes aleniated (with potential disastrous results for these individuals and those in contact with them).
Specifically with respect to music, the recent post put a question: "which one would we want to loose?" Group 1 is necessary in order to push the envelop of performance forward. Group 2 is necessary to spread this performance across society at large. Group 3 needs special care should the subject matter be judged critical (say, reading and writing skills for instance).
Therefore, no group should really be dropped!
In music, we do trade 1 and 2 all the time. And we forget 3. So, a given community is either elite-driven or mass-driven with very few communities actually taking care of the musically-challenged. But recent social work indicate that music can be used "to soothe the savage beast" and can also be used with youth of apparant little talent in order to instill pride and discipline. In order to balance things properly, 1 2 and 3 must be taken care of in music as in everything else. That means structure, teachers, environment - briefly support.
At any rate, there are really very few people who, with a minimum of training, cannot develop to a level high enough to give themselves pleasure (if to nobody else). Music after all is as natural and wired in the brain as language. There are several posts on this subject a few months back. Considering how important music is nowaday as a transmitter of societal values, music is as important as the other 3 "Rs".
Seminal research by the Canadian Insitute of Advanced Research indicates that the Return on Investment of putting programs in place to support people increase exponentially the younger the clientele of these programs is (i.e.: help the infants and you will get it paid back a million fold - help the adults and you will get essentially nothing back). The game is completely played by the time a cohort of human beings reach 6 years old, with their future essentially determined at least at the top level (level of education, kind of professions, average income, average societal success, etc.).
This research points to public policies supporting the youths and expecting adults to fend for themselves, with a decrease of societal support as an individual ages.
For instance, this leads to public money flowing first (and in vast quantities) to kindergardens and primary schools, tapering down during high-school, and disappearing for young adult educations - very far to the left for the very young, very fast to the right for the adults. The absolute best teachers should be in kindergarden. Anyway...
There is no telling what we could get should we start exposing very young children to music, properly and appropriately.
But maybe we should make sure first that all children have anough to eat even in our so-called rich societies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-26 21:55
Another post refers to the existence of this thing called "parents" with seamingly all-mighty power over other human beings that have the misforture of being young.
Parents do fall in 3 groups: the amazing ones, the average ones, and the struggling ones. Children do not belong to parents. They are entrusted to them with the mandate (the duty?) of creating productive, self-reliant, happy adults. The amazing ones (group 1) must be left alone with their kids. Group 2 should be helped with complementary support from amazing teachers found in the school system. As for group 3, it is simply criminal to leave young humans in the hands of unfit parents. Society is still struggling with this one yet there are reasons to believe that kids will soon be legally protected against group 3 parents.
The bottom line, we need much more resources in the holistic environment in which the youths of the human species (say, from conception to the time their reach majority) develop and grow. This is true for everything including music. I want the youths fed, clothed, housed properly; I want them brought up by competent parents. I want them coached by superb pedagogs. I want them exposed to counteless experiences; I want their body, their mind and their characters developped systematically. I am not taking of making them little princes and princesses here, quite the opposite. I want them to become superb adults and that might mean some tough love every now and then.
Our infants are the seed from which everything flow in our world. Everything in our power must be marshalled in order to get them off to the best start available. Equal opportunity starts right in the womb.
In the many forum where I had the chance to comment on public policies, I have systematically advocated dropping any programs targetted at adults, institutions, businesses, etc. I want my tax money to go to the youths and to nobody else... This is by far the biggest bang for the buck! With this as guiding principle, there would be no shortage of resources for junior education. It is simply a question of priorities.
One of the most terrifying demographic data shaping up these days is the sucking of a growing amount of resources to help older folks survive longer and longer. There is less and less for the youngs. This could destroy us. A balance must be found.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Emms
Date: 2001-11-27 08:50
I didn't say that the less able should be 'dropped'. (I don't think I explained myself properly- I meant that in this situation, where there is one recorder / percussion class of mixed ability, some children always leave, but which ones are better to lose from a teaching aspect. Or which ones are better to try to keep?) Of course in an ideal world, there should be classes for all standards, but then we have the Parents, who have a HUGE say over what their children do, unfortunately, and many times, if they feel they are paying for lessons, but their child 'isn't achieving anything', they will pull their child out of a class.
Mario - how do you propose to ensure only 'competent' parents have children. You want music lessons for all, but what if the child doesn't want to learn music? They can listen to it even if they don't want to play it. They can sing. Are you saying that parents are incompetent if they don't have enough money to provide superb private teachers and expensive houses? Get real.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-27 13:48
If you read my post carefully, you will see that I am refering to public money, not private one, exactly because all cannot afford to give to their children what children need. I am also implying something else that we can call "community support", a loose concept depicting the overall encouragement and atmosphere that a community (i.e.: a bunch of neighbours) create around something it likes to see going on around the place.
But first, let's dispose of the issue of parental competency.
The word competency refers to competency as a parent, not a as professional. Indeed, some of the very best parents are people with humble means. Providing a proper environment for a child is based much more on soft skills than on money. Yet you do need a bit of cash in order to get to first base (a safe place to live, nutricious food on the table, clean and warm clothes, the rest is TLC). In Canada, this requires about 30K CDN per year for a couple with 2 kids. Not lavish but sufficient to get the kid's basic material needs fulfilled.
We can never emphazize enough how critical it is that kids be brought up by "competent parents", how criminal it is to leave defenseless kids in the hands of unfit fathers and mothers, how important it is for our institutions to jump in when such situations occurs. Gosh: we require a driving permit for instance to obtain the priviledge of getting behind the wheel (society assumes that driving is a priviledge that needs to be earned), but just about anybody can bring to the world a new life without committing to a minimum standard of care, love and support. It is hard to raise a child and not everybody can do it well. Many parents need help. Some of them simply cannot.
Some recent law suits in the US (the land where novel reasons to sue are invented everyday): kids sued their parents for "negligence": i.e.: for having failed to provide the minimum support expected from parents. In my province (Quebec the beautiful), evolving child protection jurisprudence is giving more and more power to the State to jump in when there is an indication that the interest of the child are not being met. It used to be that kid's upbrigning was the responsibility of the community (the extended family, the neighbouhrs, the local institutions, Church and School). It is still the case in many other culture (say, the Japanese). It is a recent thing in the Western World that the core family is the sole structure accountable for the up-bringing of children. Considering the state of the family in the Western World, it should not be a surprise that kids are running into development problem nowadays.
Back to community support to music, and to clarinetting.
In my community at least, if you are good at sport, the community will support you one way or the other and develop you to your full potential. The community will pitch in should the parents not be able to provide materially or skill-wise for the development of the young athlete. Think of the number of football, soccer, hockey coaches out there who volunteer to get young kids started on the right foot.
Should you be a brainy kid (say, a science genious), community support is already much less existent and tends to be restricted to the formal confine of the school system. Should you be an artistic kid (say, a dance prodigee), community support is essentially nil and all is left to the parents
A good example: small league hockey is attended by many who do not have one of their own kid on the ice because they enjoy the game and watching the youths developping as athletes; the school band concert is attended mostly by relatives and friends; even top-level venues such as CMC as attended mainly by "parents". It is even worse for visual arts. How many amongst us have bought the painting of an-unknown 12-year old kid lately?
Question: How many of us on this board volunteered last year to help a newcomer to the world of the clarinet get a good start?
Question: How many amongst those with strong science abilities helped a budding genious getting a good start in maths recently.
Question: How many on this board coached a sport team made out of local kids recently?
However we look at it, society at large has decreed that sport is more important than academic pursuits, and that those pursuits are themselves more important than artistic ones. In music, the big 3 at least have profile and get tons of private parental support. The clarinet gets very little such support, and we wonder why the Julian Bliss of the world are so rare. IT IS THE FAULT OF US CLARINETTISTS WHO DO NOT WORK HARD ENOUGH TO PUT OUR INSTRUMENT ON THE MAP.
Work with the youths. That's where the biggest bang for the buck is. And let's evangilize them to the clarinet; only us can do it, nobody else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2001-11-27 15:57
Actually I started my own eurthymics classes and tiny kid guitar classes...at taught my kids at it too.
Mario you sound very idealistic, I hope you get that kinder class going. Where I am one can make up a course and convince "park and rec" to let you teach it. They take a little money and provide space. Perhaps you can devote energy to that, as a beginning to the community you would like to see.
I have long held the view that most kids (my experience too) can learn music, just as most can learn to read. They will not all grow up to be famous authors or anything, but they can for the most part play a tune nicely.
Ginny
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-27 17:51
Here is what I am actually doing about this. A neighour of mine is a primary school teacher. He also plays the guitar (folk music) reasonably well, and he likes composing/arranging simple children's songs. He already got me in his class a couple of times in the last 12 months (to introduce my instrument to his class), and is working on a couple of simple tunes for both of us. "A thousand miles journey starts with a first step". Actually, kids like the shiny keywork and enjoy when I play funny things. The clarinet can be played with lot of humour (think of the cat walk in Prokofiev's "Pierre et le loup").
Using my Company as a conduit, we have donated enough money to equip our local kindergarden with enough plastic recorders to provide all 4/5 years old with their very own little flute (300 bucks!). Most of them merely make noise. But you can see that a few of them are "natural." We have them in sight and we might "donate" a couple of C clarinet next (1000 bucks!), again through my Company. I wish I could find a proper coach (somebody who is interested in coaching kindergarden kids) in my community whose lecture we could sponsor at least in part. We figure that should we get a couple of kids properly started, their parents might be willing to sponsor their development over the long term (since they would get to hear something worth supporting). Should we run into another Julian Bliss-lie prodigee, then we might want to do much more, especially to ensure that parents would not kill this budding talent at the root: "We will pay for his/her development until majority - we are not suggesting that he/she becomes a musician, but we see amazing talent that we are willing, as a community, to encourage. Parents: can we count on your understanding here?" This is about 10K of lessons over a period of 10 years.
Hence the idea of creating a fundation by the way. Maybe we should approach one rich clarinetist and have him/her donate, in his/her will, enough money to seed the fundation. Do we know anybody who would fit the profile?
Recently, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra (through one Board Member who knows one member of my own Board) try to get 10K from my Company. I showed him the door (politely of course). There is no reason why a symphony should need hands-out of any kind and the return on this are essentially nil (do not waste resources on adult things - stay focused on the kids). If the MSO goes under, so be it.
When we musicians support our own muse, we also get trapped supporting the glitzy and fashionable. If more musicians took care of the very young kid instead, maybe professional organizations would be able to make a living without begging for support.
Working with kids is everything...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2001-11-27 22:21
Suzuki approaches to clarinet: there are no methods specifically available for clarinet. However, the concept of learning pieces by ear is one that I use with the two beginners I have been teaching for about a month now. Christmas music and folk songs are often good for this. At the same time, I enforce correct embouchure, air speed, and hand position--one of them, at the third lesson was ablet to get the 'nice' clarinet sound about 80% of the time at the third lesson. They do learn to associate note names with the notes I teach them, and similarly they learn to associate the rhythms they sing with printed rhythms. (I seperate music reading from learning the instrument as much as possible) The results have been good.
As for improving the quality of playing, why not use high school and college students who study privately to give group lessons? I gave a clarinet group lesson at the school I worked at last year, what a difference in the sound! Most of them seemed to have retained the lesson through to the end of the year; even the school music teacher was amazed at the improvment in sound! Most beginners, too, have no idea what a clarinet is supposed to sound like; they need to have a sound concept.
Covering the holes: I teach my students down to low G at the second lesson. I like to use the concept of "balls on the holes" to encourage proper finger placement. Other aspects of hand position, I had them learn it by looking at my hand position and imitating it. Adjustable thumb rests on both student's instruments is also helping them cover the right-hand holes fully, as well as a pad over the thumb rest so they do not get "friction burn." Making the instrument as easy to play as possible helps too.
There is unfortunately very little that is available in terms of duos, trios, and quartets for beginners that is available to the general public. The solution to that seems to me is to create your own.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Emms
Date: 2001-11-27 22:51
Mario, it's one thing finding the money to teach these young kids, its another to get them to practise. Most kids at this age don't have the concentration. They need PARENTAL support. One problem you could face is that pushing them too early can have negative effects and put them off entirely. I know if someone offered to pay for my kids tuition, I'd say thanks, but probably wouldn't encourage them to practise as much. If the money comes out of my pocket, I want my children to get their money's worth and i worry about their practise more.
There is a scheme in the next borough to me. The education authority pays for the lessons in junior schools. I hear the mums saying - she doesn't practise, but she might as well have the lessons- they're free.
Anther proble, with teaching younger kids is that the process is often slow. Older children taking up clarinet seem to pick it up faster. The problem then occurs that the late starter can overtake the early starter, and the child gets disillusioned and parent wants to know whats gone wrong.
i think your basic ideas are good, but I do think you are being too idealistic and not looking carefully into everything.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2001-11-27 23:15
About practicing: because few teachers (even private ones) give guidelines on how to practice, as opposed to just the what and how much?
With both my students, at the first lesson, and to their parents as well, I talked about when they are to do their practicing (negotiating the times they are to do it), how often to do it, how to practice, ways of practicing without the instrument, and how much time they should spend practicing. So far, no problems. So the reason many students aren't able to progress is because they don't know how to practice?
Not only that, many school music programs teach too many things at once, which accounts for much of the slow progress. And some of them assume that students need to learn music slowly, which bores many students.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-28 03:20
I agree with you Emms. I am certainly not talking about force feeding kids you are not into music in a major way. Actually, kindergarden must expose kids to many things with the hope that some of these activities will stick and will become life-long pursuit. I firmly believe that all human beings have a couple of super strengths in them. It is a matter of identifying them and unlocking the potential. True, I am quite idealistic, yet imagine how different the world would be if all humans would have one or two things for which they truly excel, find pride, and share with their community. We feel our best when we do our best.
With respect to music proper, I am simply suggesting that we clarinettists take charge of the missionary work of our instrument and ensure that some young kids with lot of musical talent get to the clarinet instead of the standard big 3, should they fall in love with it of course (no force feeding here again). It is the early "falling in love" that is missing; it is up to us to fix this.
Emms, your e-mail indicates that you are from the UK. From the many countries that I visited, I find that the UK is the one where music is the best organized. People from the British Isles learn to play (and support) serious music the most in all western country (including Germany, surprisingly). In contrast, North-Americans tend to consume music but are much less inclined to learn it. They relate to it only superficially. To quote Artie Shaw, the American public is "essentially illiterate musically." In the UK, most people with a minimum of education know what a clarinet is, and have heard it often. There is a respect and an appreciation for our instrument that I have found only in Germany.
But again, in Europe, people get "education" from the school system, while we North-Americans (including Canadians) get "training." North-Americans are the most productive "workers" (yeap! nobody works as hard and as well as a North-American), but I have often wondered whether Europeans are not better balanced "individuals." Subject for a whole different thread on a different Board I am afraid.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
