 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-04-25 13:08
This is going to sound a little pointless and maybe futile, but I want to discuss it nonetheless.
Lately I've experienced a little frustration with the clarinet. I used to play to 'express myself' but now that I have grown up a little and have the intention of expressing the music and the composer's intention, I find very little meaning.
Operas have meaning. Sacred church music has meaning. To me, the clarinet just has a few little diddies written for it. What's so significant about the clarinet and any of it's repertoire? To my knowledge, nothing. The only thing I can think of is the Mozart concerto. Other than that, where do we fit in? Is being a part of the orchestra and chamber groups IT?
Thanks for any replies, I'd love to expand my knowledge on this and hopefully find something worthwhile!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-04-25 14:56
That's why so many of us take up other reed instruments.
Don't forget that the clarinet can be used with transcriptions of nearly any violin score that you like. (You did study your Solfege, dincha?)
You're still studying the reed instrument with the greatest range and flexibility - it's just not the current fashion. (Research the chart topping bands of the 30's and 40's - LOADS of clarinet players up front, then.)
Pointing toward an orchestral carrier is still a viable pursuit, although the odds don't favor clarinet players. It could be worse - how many kids do you know playing the flute? How many of them have a shot?
If you want your music to have personal relevance, better start writing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2004-04-26 04:16
Bob, You'll need to explain Peggy Lee's problem to the younger readers. Sadly, I'm old enough to know what you're talking about! Peggy's song, actually a translation of a pre WWII German song, was titled, "Is That All There Is?"
Your examples of music with meaning are both forms of VOCAL music, that is text set to music. I'll suggest that instrumental music can be just as meaningful (or even more so,) but requires more work on the part of the composer, players and the listener. A visual example might be found in the difference between a Norman Rockwell illustration as compared to an abstract painting. The Rockwell is appealing, and quite clear in meaning, but the abstraction which requires more involvement from the viewer might take one to a higher level. (And I'm a Rockwell fan!)
The Peggy Lee song hit the air the summer I graduated from high school and started college, 1968 which from any perspective was a heck of a year. The song is hauntingly beautiful, but what a downer! No, that's NOT all there is!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Snowy
Date: 2004-04-26 05:25
Lewhite,
In addition to the jazz just take some time out to listen to the Finzi and the Copland (with at least one of which I know from earler posts you are familiar).
I would guess that everyone gets that "played out" feeling but the other day I heard a recording of Gervaise de Peyer playing the Arnold Sonatina ( a work I love to hate) and was completely bowled over.
A "few little diddles" it might be some of the time but- soundwise- there is no other instrument to compare.
Just my 2c worth
Snowy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-04-26 08:44
Thanks guys.
I forgot to mention the Brahm sonatas - which I personally find meaningful to the clarinet, I'm not sure why exactly...
Despite the music, there's something very soulful about the clarinet's sound. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place for meaning?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-04-26 13:54
LeWhite is quite correct. If we try to make a list of "the twenty greatest classical works for soloist and orchestra" then under most reasonable criteria, whether artistic or commercial, nearly all of them will be for voice, piano, violin or maybe cello. The clarinet will score one, for the Mozart concerto. The other wind instruments will probably score nothing at all. (On commercial if maybe not on artistic criteria, we'd have to allow the Mozart horn concerti too.)
So if you want to be a soloist playing great (classical) music, don't take up the clarinet.
If, on the other hand, you want to play great music without worrying too much whether you're the soloist, the clarinet is not such a bad choice.
----
Please don't flame me for implying that such a list is a worthwhile or even meaningful exercise. Of course we shouldn't try to put great music into some sort of hit parade; at the same time, I think most of us can admit - to take just a random example - that the Beethoven piano concerti are greater works than the Weber clarinet concerti.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FredR
Date: 2004-04-26 14:43
There is a contingent in the Art World that believes in order for art to be “art “ it should exist for its own sake. If a scene, an event, or even ethereal thoughts or ideas inspire a composition, one should question if it is actually art or just a facsimile or metaphor for the subject.
I have a duality on the subject. I hear and try to convey; the passion of von Weber’s opening intro in the Concertino and in second movement of the Grand Duo; The wonton longing in the Finzi and Ireland Sonatas; the certain melancholia that pervades the Brahms works. It’s a little more difficult but there is also joy and jubilation in the ending movement of Crusell’s Fifth and Gouvy’s Sonate, just to name a few.
I once was listening to Siskel and Ebert reviewing “Swing Kids” which they panned because it downplayed brutality of the Nazis and of the war. I had to wonder how they would review The Sound of Music, and if Showboat would get the same rebuke for not giving a more realistic depiction of slavery. Which brings me to part two of my duality.
One of the major components of Art is to entertain. It is meant to take us out of ourselves and give us a blissful reprieve from the lives we live. I liked Swing Kids; I liked the music, the dancing and the overall thought that individual expression would prevail. If I truly want to be enlightened I will take a class. On that note if you find yourself performing Rossini’s’ Introduction Theme and Variation, IMHO the most inane and mindless piece in the repertoire, and you feel you got the audience to forget about the mortgage, the job or Iraq for 9 minutes or so, I would say you’ve not only found the point but hit it squarely on the head.
FredR
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-04-26 15:08
WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT??? The clarinet has an outstanding repertoire!!!
Asking what is the meaning of something is pretty pointless. I believe that nothing is inherently meaningful. You have to ascribe your own meaning to something. You (apparently) ascribe meaning to opera and sacred music. I personally don't find either of these genres to be more meaningful than any other music... It's just what you look for.
For me, the meaning in clarinet music is the beauty, excitement, pain, or other emotion that I feel when I personally experience when listening to different pieces of clarinet music. Or, with an incredible piece like the Brahms Sonatas, I get endless satisfaction just from listening to and admiring their flawless structure.
I believe that the clarinet should be an extension of your own expressive capabilities. You give music meaning by express yourself through it. Notes on a piece of paper are meaningless, and a blah, uninspired player isn't much better.
DH - theclarinetist@yahoo.com
PS - I used to feel this way about somethings in music, that they were useless. You have to enjoy every small detail, because that's were you find the special stuff. People can spend hours staring at clouds or at birds and recognize endless beauty and wonder. You have to learn to recognize that same beauty in music, no matter what instrument is playing it. Sorry, if I sound sappy....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-04-26 15:26
Quote:
WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT??? The clarinet has an outstanding repertoire!!! Not compared to pretty much any string instrument or the piano. And often, while a clarinet might be a part of an orchestra, the main theme rarely is carried in the clarinet and it is often just an accompany instrument.
What I can't understand is why you think Operas have more meaning than anything else. Yes it tells a story, but so can anything else. Often when we're playing in the orchestra, our orchestra will give us visual examples of how to play. For instance (one of my favorite), "You guys are playing it too heavily. I want to see a little girl skipping. Right now I see an elephant falling down the stairs."
Try to put visuals to the music. If you can't seem to figure out the right representation, think of what this part would be put to if it were in a movie. For instance, the beginning piece of Weber's Concertino, what would that be? It's a minor key so you wouldn't think "clowns juggling at a circus". Maybe come up with your idea of what it would be put to in a movie and then see if that helps you express it. What could the composer have been thinking of when he wrote that piece?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-04-26 16:33
Nothing to do with music (on any instrument) has inherent meaning. If you do not feel something (although I do not refer to a something that is "meaningful") just through the physical and aural impact of playing a clarinet, then the point is possibly passing you by. But it must have had relevance at some time, so it is best to seek to recapture that. And there need not be absolute self negation when serving the purposes of a composer. Quite the opposite. There needs to be a fusion or reaction between that composer and you (using the exact notes he wrote, of course).
Anyhow, I would not put the Mozart Concerto on a pedestal. You can name at least ten clarinet quintets that are truly wonderful works, all showing just what glorious sound and feeling can be created from that combination of instruments. Sink yourself into one of those on a detailed basis and then come back and say if it all seems pointless to you then. Try the Krehl Quintet (to mention a rare one). That is your challenge for the year.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-04-26 18:12
Meaning? Nothing has intrinsic meaning. Meanings of any human creations can be found somewhere in the semiotics. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica has no meaning to anyone who does not know how to read. Unless one knows what the symbols represent, it's just a meaningless bunch of ink and paper.
And it takes a lot longer to understand music than to understand written language. A person who has no appreciation of the form and execution of a fugue may hear one and say, "Gee, that's pretty." But if you ask why, perhaps no clues will be offered. That is why music requires study, and each performer or other appreciator must develop personal ways of appreciation. I like the Copland, you may prefer something else. We've gone over this a hundred times: no one is more "correct" about personal preferences than anyone else.
You must develop your own meaning, as with the reading of Haiku. The writer intends to convey emotion in the words within the form, but people do not share the same emotional responses to the same stimuli. Neither will everyone have the same response to a musical selection. Learning more about it can help, but no more than continued association may work wonders. The first performance of "Sacre du Printemps" was worse than a flop, it was almost a riot. Yet today, it has become a "warhorse." It is no better nor worse than it ever was, but listeners show it greater favor. They have found more meaning. It takes time.
I enjoy listening to "serious" music -- but playing it does not interest me. My personal level of expression in playing jazz and such is more to my liking. If you prefer playing orchestral music as a Clarinetist, soloist or otherwise, then do that as much as you can. If you do not, then don't bother with it -- unless it happens to be for you an easy way to earn a good living..
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-04-26 18:21
LeWhite reveals :
"Operas have meaning. Sacred church music has meaning. To me, the clarinet just has a few little diddies written for it."
This is a statement I would expect from a college music history professor who doesn't really play an instrument, or plays badly, and who is adept only at reading papers where musicologists swarm.
A true artist can be inspired by the smallest detail; it's the reason why visual artists are looked to for new ways of seeing the obvious, and why musical interpreters are expected to provide new ways of hearing the familiar. My teacher told me (which I did not understand at the time because of immaturity) that until you can marvel at a C major scale as a "string of matched pearls" you're lacking in sensitivity for artistic expression.
As the clarinettist says, "The clarinet has an outstanding repertoire!!!". There are hundreds works that are inspiring to study and perform: Mozart's Quintet, Beethoven Septet, Schumann's Three Romances, Schubert's Octet, Brahms' Quintet, Trio, Sonatas, Spohr's Concerti, Weber's Quintet, etc.
These are some of the more familiar "standard" clarinet repertoire. Many were not well received when first performed, in fact many of them were detested. The lens of time and the attention of great artists have transformed works like the Mozart Clarinet Concerto, Brahms Violin Concerto, or even the St. Matthew Passion into "meaningful" masterpieces. Any intrinsic meaning in "great" music is there largely because a great intrepreter recognized it and presented it to us.
sfalexi writes clarinet repertoire is not outstanding:
"... compared to pretty much any string instrument or the piano"
String, keyboard or even double-reed instruments have a longer history than the clarinet (probably the last instrument to enter the orchestra); they have a more mature repertoire with an established performance practice.
Clarinet repertiore, however, is certainly not without gems, many of which, IMHO, have yet to receive definitive intrepretations, namely Nielsen's Concerto (which was totally panned in it's premiere), Hindemith's Concerto, Bax's Sonata (a true masterpiece), Tomasi's Concerto, Messaien's QFTEOT, Bartok's Contrasts, Dahl's Concerto a Tre, to name a few.
Even a piece of fluff like Rossini’s’ Introduction Theme and Variations could sound more meaningful in the right hands.
Post Edited (2004-04-26 18:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-04-26 18:56
Tom J wrote: "String, keyboard or even double-reed instruments have a longer history than the clarinet (probably the last instrument to enter the orchestra); they have a more mature repertoire with an established performance practice."
The clarinet is not the last instrument to enter the orchestra. The trombone and tuba arrived later. The trombone/sackbut is older than the clarinet, but it did not become part of the standard symphony orchestra till the early nineteenth century. The tuba was invented well into the nineteenth century.
Although it is true that keyboard instruments have been around longer than the clarinet, it is as well to remember that the piano was invented in 1709, the same decade as the clarinet. Like the clarinet, the piano took roughly fifty years to achieve widespread acceptance by composers; Bach wrote for neither, Haydn and Mozart for both. As it is now the exception rather than the rule to perform harpsichord music on the piano, it would be a little misleading to imply piano repertoire is more mature than that of the clarinet. (I realise that Tom J's words refer only to keyboard instruments in general, not specifically to the piano. But I think my point is worth making even so.)
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-04-26 19:36
Yes, Mr. Peacham, I stand corrected re the tuba. It was introduced later, notably in the Romantic period to extend the brass choir. The trombone, and most brass instruments, date back to antiquity and were in general use centuries before the clarinet. Praetorious describes a whole consort of them. While the clarinet became common in orchestras after 1800, the trombone was a regular member in the 18th century.
Ckeck out this site:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~backstrom/trombone.html
Post Edited (2004-04-26 20:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-04-26 19:40
How about those sax players? That instrument is pretty new if you ask me, but people can enjoy playing classical sax, can they not?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-04-26 20:13
sfalexi wrote:
> How about those sax players? That instrument is pretty new if
> you ask me, but people can enjoy playing classical sax, can
> they not?
Enjoy playing? Yes.
Audiences clamoring to hear classical saxophone playing? No.
Outside of college or university settings, when was the last time you heard (or attended) a classical saxophone performance? ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-04-27 02:40
David Peacham...
You said that since the piano was invented in 1709, that it was the same decade as the clarinet...
I always thought the clarinet was "officially" invented by Denner in the 1690's...am I wrong??
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2004-04-27 03:25
The point is all of the repertoire mentioned above...plus a whole lot more that I can't think of (I don't know a lot of repertoire)... as well as the fact that the clarinet is a beautiful instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-04-27 04:50
I think some have missed my point, and I think that I failed to articulate myself correctly.
Indeed, I'm only 20 years old and a college student, so I've got a lot of musical (and personal) growth ahead of me - obviously if I play Brahms it won't be as good as if I play it in 10 or 20 years time.
There have been all kinds of points made so far, and I like all of them generally! I'm pretty torn on this subject because there are as many opinions here as there are clarinetists! How about 'the world is what you make it' as a point of departure? How about I wait 10 years and get back to you?
Like I said in my original post, I've basically only recently started to play music for THE MUSIC, the COMPOSER, and not MYSELF. That is to say, I don't disregard everything and say "I'm playing this MY way" anymore - I look deeper and think more about things before I do them on the clarinet. But it is upon looking deeper I realise there isn't much there beyond what's on the page for the majority of what I've been playing up until now.
That doesn't make much sense I know... But... I'm sure someone understands!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: theclarinetist
Date: 2004-04-28 02:30
I understand. Obsessing over what the composer might have wanted and trying to be all "by the books" constantly is boring and meaningless to me as well. I will admit that if I was trying to be a professional clarinet player I'd probably fail miserably (although I am a professional clarinet teacher...) because I like to play stuff in a way that I see appropriate. This doesn't mean i butcher everything or make odd changes all the time just to be "different", but I realize that since I'm not pursuing "perfect clarinetting" as a means to career success, I can pretty much do whatever I feel is tasteful on a piece and not worry about it.
This isn't good advice for a person trying to win auditions or pass juries (unless you have very open-minded professors!), but I know that I love playing clarinet a lot more now that I do it for fun than when I was a music major and doing it because I had to. I'm assuming you're a music major, so being so cavalier may not be an option for you...
If you have a talent for composition, you might try writing some pieces to perform (solo or some other instrument combinations). Then you'll have COMPLETE creative control over every detail!! MWAHAHAHA! Sorry, but it's true. Nothing feels better than playing (or coaching) a piece you've written and realize that you ARE the composer so you don't have to worry about that other stuff.
DH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-04-28 03:53
Music is not on the page, LeWhite...
It is in our ears. We cannot help but inject even a small amount of ourselves into what we play. We can play it for itself or for its composer, but part of each of us is there too. It is a transaction between the page, the performer, the composer, and the audience. Each of these elements has its own bias, its own perspective, and its own reaction to the transaction.
It's a lot more complex than you might think, if you go even deeper.
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-04-28 05:56
But Katrina, I feel that the point is to take music straight from the composer and deliver it to the audience, cutting out the middle man - the performer. I personally feel that when I go to see a soloist who is so into the music and it's all about how they play, how good they are and the sound that they make, I just think "What a wanker. Good player, but a wanker. Where was Composer X? Was s/he thinking about that?"
Of course, there are many situations where you have to be the solist, where the performance is about you, but, not all the time, and even then, tastefully. This isn't about notes on a page or the fact that music is 'in our ears' - it's about trying to figure out what this sound in our ears is, where it comes from, why does it sound good? Why do we like it? Why does it provoke emotion? Why do we react to it the way we do? Who wrote it and why? How does this piece exist along with the rest?
I'm sure somene out there has written a thesis on it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-04-28 11:49
Cadenza
Obligato
Riffs
Improv
Write something down...
my favorite local organist considers a well balanced choir his instrument,
and pearls don't fall from EVERY page. You must use the bulk of any chart to set up the phrase that rings for you.
Getting it across to an audience requires, well, an audience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt Locker
Date: 2004-04-28 12:33
LeWhite wrote:
>
>
> Getting it across to an audience requires, well, an audience.
But Katrina, I feel that the point is to take music straight from the composer and deliver it to the audience, cutting out the middle man - the performer. I personally feel that when I go to see a soloist who is so into the music and it's all about how they play, how good they are and the sound that they make, I just think "What a wanker. Good player, but a wanker. Where was Composer X? Was s/he thinking about that?"
LeWhite:
I think you have it wrong. A performance isn't about cutting out the middle man. If that was true then you certainly wouldn't need live music. I believe the performers job is to present to the audience a personal interpretation of the composers desires. That's opposed to what you say about the "wanker" whos only thought is about themselves & how great they are. The "wanker" gives you his interpretation of how he would have written the piece. The true great performers are (I believe) self-less with their presentations, and we achieve a better understanding of the music through listening to that presentation.
As usual - MOO,
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-04-28 13:55
IMO composers are generally rather possessive about their work;The few I know don't take too kindly to attempts to re-interpret it. One supposes that they take great care to try to indicate their intentions with the written work. But, of course, as someone said....the music is not on the page. What is written doesn't always convey the full extent of the composer's intentions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-04-28 16:37
I don't know if I'm a rarity here, but as a composer, I think of myself as someone who facilitates communication between performers and audience. In fact, in my comp lessons my teacher often gets on my case for not being specific enough on how a passage should be played. While being more specific has actually done some good for me, I often think that being too specific will cause the performer to not "do something cool" that he may have otherwise.
I think it is important to remember that music on the page is merely a standardized set of instructions on how to move air and fingers.
While I may absolutely abhor what a performer has done in openly interpreting my piece, personally I greatly appreciate that they spent the time and attention to try to do something different with it.
If music is well written (I'm finding this as I play the Copland), there will often be an incredible variety of ways to interpret the music, even conservatively to the composer's notation.
There is also a difference between "interpreting the music differently" and "interpreting the music differently to show off as a soloist." I think the latter draws more criticism (rightly so, in some cases), but it shouldn't preclude the former.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2004-04-28 16:57
BobD...Yes...that is what I meant. If not everything is written down on the page, the performer MUST use what _he_ knows about the composer in order to come up with the most "accurate" interpretation. This cannot help but be personal...
I did not mean that each performer should "re-interpret" the music.
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-04-28 18:20
Actually, caught in the act, I´m writing my doctorate thesis about this. And yes, there´s an immense amount of idleness amongst artists, but the 'real McCoy' of wanking is the composer, LeWhite, or, more accurately, the position the composer holds sway over, aka total and priviledged access to the identity-core of a work of art. This is a fatal misconception, logocentrically and metaphysically inforced. 9 out of 10 people here on this board are formatted along such a position, 18th/19th century being the most powerful stratum, if the 20ieth century provides any foothold for the vast majority it is for a kind of retro-ism, "if anything goes, I can go backwards as well"...and romantic style is so comforting...Indeed it is the performance (n o t the performer, mind) which rules everything concerning a musical arte factum; I can very well live with idle performers, if their performance is brilliant, but composers bragging about their intentions sets my haemorrhoidal zone afire, really. A composition is nothing, literally, than another scribbeled sheet of paper if it not performed, and it is the performance which invents the score as its own legitimation.Meaning is neither a pure projection nor an attribute of a substance - meaning is the productive formation of the relation of signifier and signified in itself. The product, the sound-Ereignis (viz Heidegger), anihilates its own production. If it doesn´t result in sound, it is not in the score, and what the score doesn´t yield, is not there at all, appellative authoritative declarations of intention of the author or not. A performer does it all, not just the crumbs the mastermind-composer didn´t specify.
Read M. Feldman.
Read J. Cage.
Arrive in the 20ieth century.
It is not about evoking emotions or whatever (a piece of music, of any art, nearly always does in one way or another, but this is for psychology and sociology, not about art), a work of art isn´t just another kind of beer which alters my internal state. Its justification lies in itself, or isn´t there at all. We play clarinet, because it is there; it could very well be any other thing, but isn´t, it´s just a tool for producing sounds. Meaning isn´t either in the performer´s or the audience´s heads, hearts or souls (A point I really want to make come across: It´s not in the words of sacred music, either. The prayer´s words are not the prayer, God isn´t polyglott, the Deity is Speaking itself, doesn´t matter whether one brambles or stares at a wall or wails or speaks a Pater Noster; praying isn´t speaking to God, it is speaking itself, the ipse-ity of speaking). It´s not in the sound,something the sound transports as a medium, it´s the sound itself.
Oh, some Derrida and Heidegger helps enourmously.
markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-04-28 18:26
Markus Wenninger wrote:
> Actually, caught in the act, I´m writing my doctorate thesis
> about this.
After reading many of your posts, it comes as no surprise.
I've acted as advisor to doctoral students in a different field, and a common aphorism applied to them as it may to you: "If all you have is a hammer, everything appears as a nail."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Anders
Date: 2004-04-28 20:32
I doubt you'd find Goodman or Marcellus or Kell or Drucker or Leister reading much Derrida or Heidegger (not to impugn those players' intellects -- and, heck, maybe they did) in order to get to the vital heart of music making on the clarinet.
I keep coming back to a Saturday afternoon in my car listening to a Met broadcast of Madama Butterfly. Suddenly, in one of the orchestra bits, the flute (Michael Parloff or Trudy Kane) played a simple two octave major scale: it was perfect, simple and glorious, just what Puccini heard when he penned it, I'd wager. it made me grin. Clarinet licks that have done the same for me: de Peyer's staccato in the Copland Concerto, Paulo Moura playing Pixinguina, Brymer in Rachmaninoff 2nd, de Wilde in En Saga, yards of Bechet...
Getting back back to the original questioner, are you playing with any ensembles? In my experience, that makes all the difference. The Mozart Quintet will take on incredible meaning when you're trying to play it with a quartet, and perhaps succeeding to some extent....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-04-28 22:02
LeWhite said:
Operas have meaning
I agree, afterall where else could you be told "Wotan, I bid your warning" then ignore the warning and have 12 daughters by her (Erda). Be born by a union bewteen twins and end up marrying one of your aunts!! Not to mentioned, the whole ring cycle eventually turns back on itself and dissapears up its own proverbial.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-04-28 22:10
We're not supposed to expose our proverbs on this BBS.
So what you're intimating is that Soap Operas also have meaning?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-04-29 00:58
Anders - yes I'm doing the Beethoven quintet at the moment! What a difficult work! Especially since our pianist will only play at her tempo, which varies from beat to beat. She's from the Phillippines and doesn't speak too much English.
My next point is that, in many ways, I envy her. She still feels like she has license to have blatant disregard for whom the composer is and what he did. I doubt she'd even know who the composer is if I asked her "Who wrote this piece we're playing?" (Although, she could probably rocket through the Pathetique from memory).
Myself, after studying a lot of music and art through various classes at school, have found myself dumbfounded and even scared of approaching some music, as I wonder if I could ever do it justice. I guess blindly clutching at notes can sometimes work?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jo.clarinet
Date: 2004-04-29 10:22
Sounds like you need to get yourself a different pianist, LeWhite - this one must be an absolute nightmare for all the rest of you! 
Joanna Brown
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-04-29 11:38
Le White: Your pianist's disregard is more for you and the other three players than for the composer. You certainly won't find "meaning" in a piece of ensemble music if there is no sense of ensemble.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-04-29 12:12
Well we can't get rid of her, the ensemble is allocated players at the director's discression. Basically it's non-negotiable. Luckily, we are assessed individually on how we input into the group, our skills. So, if I do everything right despite her bad rhythm, I'll still get an OK mark.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-04-29 12:17
Such a useful advice, M. Charette - I´m afraid there´s just no such thing as a simple answer, nor is any question simple. There´s a German fable, in which a fox isn´t able to reach up and pluck himself some grapes, so he resumes to "They´re still green anyways." There´s some more in my toolbox than just a hammer, believe me.
M.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-04-29 16:32
What may be really happening here is an orgy of over-analysis that is common when pursuing your education. If you keep looking for 'significance', you can easily get to the point of asking why we ever thought to amuse ourselves by sequencing audio frequencies in various tonal and temporal frameworks.
One thing that may be a big problem for LeWhite (who has gone through discouragment-related states before) is that college training necessarily involves learning a lot of solo stuff for the instrument. This is misleading because real life generally involves more involvement in ensemble activities rather than solo recitals.
Clarinet literature is perfect fine, and I love it. But if I were to put on a recital, I would get far less audience than even the most mediocre acoustic guitar act. (Not that I would be a particularly good recitalist) As for composer's intent, I think that that's more a matter of style than expression. The style is the composer's, but the expression is always yours, IMHO.
To me, much of the pleasure of playing clarinet is the fact that it's a BLENDING instrument. The moments to relish are often those of harmonizing with a flute or an oboe--or providing a counterpoint to some other solo. Would orchestral players agree or disagree?
Even in jazz and pop settings this is true. I don't really live to solo all night long, and would very frankly run dry if I had to. It may be this very creative burden that drove so many early jazzers to drink and drugs. It had to be a lot of pressure inventing the licks that we so easily imitate today.
But consider the joys of ensemble in a dixieland band. Having a musical conversation with other participants rather than trying to make up an entire story yourself. Being surprised and delighted by what your cohorts come up with. This week I began working with a Western band on Monday and a Dixieland band on Tuesday. I found myself completely rejuvenated and inspired by a steel guitarist on the first night, and by a trumpet player on the second night. Frankly, my solos seemed anticlimactic against the experience of sharing sound waves with these other players.
Consider the joys of a pop band horn section. I'll bet that most pop horn players (probably jazz players by inclination) only like about a third of the songs they play. What they truly like is blending with the other players, and they like being a part of the section's (and the band's) energy and power. Taking an 8 or 16 measure solo here and there is merely the icing on a far more substantial cake. I solo little if at all, playing bari sax in a big band--yet it's the seat that I continuously request. Try it once, and you'll know why.
LeWhite, if you are getting bored or burned out on recital literature, I can't really blame you. Maybe it's just the fact that its technical difficulty dominates most collegiate study. Perhaps you need some musical interests that require some research or something unusual, or perhaps some private students. Trying to keep kids encouraged can really help train you to look for the best in things.
Most of my pleasure--and opportunites--have stemmed from pursuing something unusual and interesting. I've had a great time exploring Bob
Wills, Ernest Tubb, Gene Autry and Roy Rogers for the western band. Ditto with Johnny Dodds for a dixieland band leaning more traditional than my old post-war idols. I always wanted to play in a woodwind quintet, but never could work it out. In an emergency, I subbed for a bassoon player on bass clarinet and went on to get pretty good at reading bassoon/cello/trombone parts. I recently worked up two hours worth of music with this group. The transposing was an invigorating experience (after getting through the initial difficulty) and the role of a bass instrument turned out to be more fun than that of the normal clarinet.
As a collegiate musician, try to take things in stride. You have to play literature, and you will have your ups and downs. Look for relief elsewhere in other outlets. You are in a school full of musicians. What sorts of groups might you form to express yourself in your own way? Who else has abilities that you would like to join forces with?
But understand this. Most of the things that invigorate me now, are things that I didn't pick up overnight. Everybody goes through these frustrations. I certainly have, and I'm sure that players superior to me have gone through them with greater intensity. I see it in my students as well. The most natural ones often burn out when the work hits. Ones who struggled more in the beginning are often more tempered for study and can come out on top in the long run.
Good luck, and don't sweat the small stuff.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2004-05-01 04:37
LeWhite
Don't expect instant revelation. It will take years to begin to understand musical phrasing. In my understanding, I've seen relatively little evidence that very many clarinet teachers know much about it. This is perhaps impractical, but if a clarinet student could study with a fine violinist, vocalist, or oboist, they would develop a feeling for music that would open a whole world of music to them. Mozart will shine through regardless of the capability of the clarinetist, however. I studied the clarinet for a long time, but four years of oboe study made me love music much more. You might try buying and listening to the oboe lesson CD by Marcel Tabuteau, the alltime greatest oboe player of the 20th century. One has to listen to it for many times to begin to figure it out and some people say they don't understand or agree with it. Good luck!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
