 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: utaclarinetchick
Date: 2003-03-06 15:20
Hello all!
I was wondering what you all found to be a good warm up. My current warm up consitis of long tones and slow lower octave scales. However, I am tired when I have finished this. I don't like feeling like I just finished a practice session when I havent even practiced yet. Thanks!
-Annie
Truly fertile Music, the only kind that will move us, that we shall truly appreciate, will be a Music conducive to Dream, which banishes all reason and analysis. One must not wish first to understand and then to feel. Art does not tolerate Reason.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charlesmunden
Date: 2003-03-06 19:27
I go through all my major, harmonic/melodic scales especially since I am just leqrning my minors, I then go through about 30mins worth of Vade-mecum, then about 10 mins on the staccato excercise in the same book. Then I move onto Baermann an I do the first 4-5 keys of scales in 6ths. Then a little work on the "squeek study" so as to make sure I am keeping my tounge in check. Just my daily warmup.
Charles
Charles Munden
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-03-06 20:42
"Art does not tolerate reason"? While the rest of the signature seems lovely, the ultimate sentence (seen in different forms occasionally) is ill-founded.
For many centuries, the music which has made the strongest impressions has been based on a scale which is rational in its structure. And each of the various western temperaments are based on rational structure.
While I would hardly suggest that there could be no alternative system, the placements and durations of the notes played from that scale are structured around certain rules. Rules which may be frequently broken, but rules, nonetheless. The music which has lasted over the centuries has been this music, not some other which is completely free-form. A study of the Fugue, for example, will show the possibility of infinite variety within strict, formal, rational structure to an extent which may not be found in any other art form.
Western music is not unique in this regard, either. In music of other cultures, other scales may be used (most of which can be related to western chromatic concepts), melodic and harmonic structure may differ, the method of presentation may be unfamiliar to western ears, but they are themselves based on rules.
I suggest, alternatively, that Reason is the foundation of much -- if not all -- art, at least to some degree. In recent times it has been found that virtually all portraits which have been most popular for centuries have one eye of the subject within 5% of the vertical centerline of the painting. In most of these, an eye is *on* the centerline. Why? No one knows, but it might be an appeal to an unmeasured human characteristic rationality within our brains. And it is an appeal to the emotions functioning through those brains that makes art what it is.
Even artworks as divergent from customary artistic paths as Rothko's paintings can be shown to have some basis in rationality -- a *different* rationality from most, perhaps -- but rationality, nonetheless.
On the other hand, in response to your question, Charles offers good suggestions. Long notes are good for improving tonal quality (listen as you play), but scales and tonguing exercises are helpful, too. Some also like to warm up with the playing of a familiar selection. Listening while you play it may help you to understand some elements needing work during that session.
Regards,
Joh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2003-03-06 22:24
Joh --
Thanks for your thoughts on the Camus quote. They made me sit down and think about what he might have meant by his statement. Unfortunately, I'm not at all familiar with Camus' works and I don't know the context of the quote above, so I don't pretend to have the definitive answer. (Not to mention that a full-fledged discussion of art and rationality vs. emotion could take us far beyond clarinet-related subjects and use up a lot of bandwidth.) However, I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts in response.
It's true that we can rationally analyze, for example, musical compositions and usually find a form, or structure, and develop "rules" that can be used to create other similar pieces. However, I think Camus would argue that the true artist-composer (as opposed to the craftsman-composer) begins with a feeling/emotion and finds ways to express that feeling through music (in this case; it could also be painting, sculpture, etc.). The resulting work of art may or may not follow "rules" of composition and structure. We might even say the artist is just a channel for the expression of Art. In any case, Art is oblivious to rules--it "does not tolerate Reason."
It seems to me that this is consistent with (what I know of) Camus' world view--that the universe is not rational, that life is absurd, BUT that humans keep trying to make sense of it, to discern a structure and rules.
Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing. Beethoven's symphonies have wonderful "tunes" and motifs AND they are consumately crafted. They would undoubtedly not be as moving (emotionally) if they were poorly crafted, but I think they would not be moving at all with the "wrong" motifs. And those "right" (perfect) motifs, I believe, come from somewhere beyond "reason." Which means, for me, that feeling/emotion, non-rational inspiration/insight (it's difficult to describe something non-verbal with words, as we've seen with attempted descriptions of clarinet sound) is the foundation of works of art--of Art--and for the true artist ultimately dictate the forms and structures used.
Of course I could be wrong.
Thanks for the mental workout.
Todd W.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-03-07 07:10
I did not recognize the quote as having been by Camus, but I'm not surprised. I have read little Camus other than _The Stranger_, which hardly reveals the entire breadth of his philosophy as i understand it.
I can appreciate Camus, except for some of what I consider to be absolutist, such as the sentence I argued against above. Because even Camus, in his writing, conveyed information using the Roman alphabet, the French language, and his books were printed using available technology. This, in itself, is reason attached to art, without which the art would never materialize in anyone's head other than the artist's. But Camus's books are also written in chapters, paragraphs, and sentences that make sense using standard rules of syntax and grammar. Oops, there, again, are some pesky rules. Can we dispense with them?
Of course. William S. Burroughs didn't write like that at all. _Naked Lunch_, compared with most literary art, is a jumbled-up hodgepodge, but the author's emotional intent is conveyed to those who look for it. And even though it does not follow usual rules, it follows rules of its own, created by the author for his purpose. That is to say, its rules are not self-contradictory.
Yet I would insist that if one considers rationality and irrationality (and perhaps even para-rationality), art could hardly be deemed irrational. If it were, it would drown in itself, rather than conveying meaningful emotion to others. Absurdity, however, is a different characteristic entirely.
Absurdity and rationality are not mutually exclusive, much as Camus might have wanted them to be. Joseph Heller reminded us of that with his amazing _Catch 22_. Structure is found at all levels of the universe, from macro to micro. We may be unable to understand why it is there, but many have labored long and hard to show that it exists. Camus believed that this structure had no reason, that it is absurd. But why must we consider it to be absurd, or for that matter, why must we consider it to be anything at all? Perhaps the ultimate absurdity is the concept that we must (or even can) know the reason for everything, or even if a reason exists. Is it not rather evident that we would be better served by spending time in more rational (there's that word again!) pursuits? Such as practicing the Clarinet, of course..
It's certain that we'll never see
The purpose of even a tree
So why is it so,
We think we must know
Just why *we* are here? Beats me.
Enough philosophizing, perhaps. I would like to see more comments on the real question of this thread, as I'm sure utaclarinetchick would, as well.
Thank you for your kind comments and thoughts.
Regards,
Joh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stéphane
Date: 2003-03-07 09:07
Joh, Todd,
I am no expert in Camus' philosophy athough I have read some of his books. However, being French, I would like to mention that there is another acception of the word reason in French (maybe in English too?) as being "reasonnable" rather than synonym of "rationnal".
Joh, you described Camus as being sometimes "absolutist" and this is maybe what he was trying to express by his "art does not tolerate reason". Although art is to be exercised, defined, understood, etc. within rules (think about the golden number of the ancient Greeks in Architecture and then painting and sculpture), it shouldn't exclude immoderate passion in the way the artist is expressing himself. (Beethoven, Schumann, Tchaikovski to name but a few)
I do believe Camus was opposing "reason" to "passion" rather than as an acception of "rationnal, within rules"?
Stéphane.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2003-03-07 16:30
JM -- Thanks for your further thoughts. Perhaps you are correct that our guiding principle should be: Art is best served by daily (clarinet) practice (structured, of course!).
Stephane (please pardon my lack of accents) -- Your interpretation "feels" right: reason vs. passion. Nice insight, thanks.
utaclarinetchick -- There is a warm up regimen described by Robert Spring on this site. Here (I hope) is the link: http://www.ocr.woodwind.org/articles/Spring/spring1.html . However, this may be way too much "warmup." You might adapt it to your needs. Perhaps the questions are what is your purpose in warming up and where does warming up end and practicing begin? Many people like to warm up with long tones; David Hattner (HAT) prefers going right to scale work as being more practical/useful. Although, if I'm interpreting him correctly, he doesn't object to some long tone practice if the focus is on moving smoothly and evenly from one long tone to another.
Todd W.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-03-08 01:00
Stéphane: Thanks for your comments, which I appreciate. I regret that my command of French is inadequate to read Camus in the original, as I recognize that the translation process leaves a lot to be desired. Even the usual English translation of the title _The Stranger_ is far from the original _L'Etranger_, which -- in one word -- would be more "the Alien" or "The Foreigner," if I'm not mistaken. Better it should be something like "The one outside the culture," perhaps.
I suppose my rewrite of Camus would be more along the lines of, "Art does not tolerate mechanical representation," but even that won't quite do. My feeling is truly to avoid absolutism where anything emotional is concerned.
By the way, for some reason (Egad, reason again!), the last letter of my name (John) has been truncated away twice now. Maybe I can do it right this time:
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2003-03-09 21:02
If a literary man writes two words about music,one of them will be wrong-Aaron Copland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
