 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2008-01-09 15:29
Having returned to the clarinet recently - after a twenty-year hiatus, I'm once again working on the Nielsen (after having last studied it forty years ago). I'm having my b-flat serviced and the repairman, having trouble obtaining 60's Buffet screws, is taking almost two months longer than he promised to fix the instrument. As a consequence, my A clarinet (not having been repaired for ten years) has become a clickety-clack monster to practice on. It's like I'm conducting a war against the Nielsen Concerto, like I have weights tied to each of my ten fingers. I could kill that lousy repairman! Nevertheless, it started me thinking about virtuosity, so I purchased two recordings of legendary virtuosi playing virtuoso compositions by even more legendary virtuosi: Michael Rabin's recording of Paganini's Caprices and George Ciffra's recording of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes. Wow! I heartily recomend them. Paganini and Liszt were perhaps the greatest of virtuosi who stretched the technique of their instruments to the limits. Whether Rabin or Ciffra were as good as Paganini and Liszt we will never know, but they're pretty damn good. As humbling an experience as it is to hear these great musicians, it made me wonder about our own limits. It's of particular interest to me because - being middle-aged and working a full-time non-musical job - time is of the essence. I've been back to the clarinet now for about five months, and am driving myself hard and enjoying it. I remember as a teenager hearing a 13-year-old Lorin Levee play the Nielsen one summer at the National Music Camp at Interlocken. A clarinet-playing friend of mine told me that a teacher of his once remarked that in another ten years the difference between the prodigy and a hard-working non-prodigy would diminish substantially. He told me about another clarinet fellow student of his that, at one time was not as good a player as himself, but, because he wanted it badly enough, later became a principal in a major orchestra. It made me wonder if the non-prodigy can ever catch up with the wunderkind (remember the fable of the Hare and the Tortoise?)
Cass Tech (aka leatherlip)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-01-09 15:37
IMO, at least 95% of successes found by musicians are due solely to hard work. I have talent, but without the hard work of practicing 7-8 hours at a time (which I'm not willing to do) I will never play in a major orchestra.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2008-01-09 16:56
<<It's of particular interest to me because - being middle-aged and working a full-time non-musical job - time is of the essence. >>
Yeah, time is of the essence. I read that in legal documents all the time.
And it's true that those of us tortoises who get serious about an instrument long after the bunny-rabbits have hopped into the jobs we fantasize we COULD have had, have got some catch-up work to do.
But one caveat here, and that is, nix the anxiety and the sense that you've got to HURRY. I know from experience that one certainly can become as good a player as, or more likely a better player than, one ever was as a youngster. But you CANNOT hurry it. It is a developmental process now, just like it was then. But now, you have a leg up, because you are older and wiser.
It will probably not take you as long now to get to where you want to be as it would have taken you when you were 16 or 21 or 26. But it will take time and process. It won't just happen. You have to work at it diligently. And patiently.
Beyond that, I don't know, really, whether it is realistic to expect that you will ever be competitive in major auditions, no matter how good you get.
I do know, from experience, that you CAN find plenty of places to employ your recovered expertise. Not full-time jobs, not positions that are going to awe your friends and neighbors or make you comfortable for life. But satisfying regional outlets for your talent that can even build you a following and a good reputation among "those who know" (not to mention those who hire!).
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-01-09 17:22
Having started clarinet in my mid 40s and guitar/bass in my pre-pubescent years:
I am a middling clarinet player 10 years later
I was a pretty good guitar/bass player and played studio and public gigs on bass from late teens to early 30s
I will never play studio gigs on clarinet no matter how hard I practice.
I might have the possibility of playing paying gigs (though hardly studio ones) on bass or guitar if I worked hard for maybe six months. What I picked up a guitar a few weeks ago pain got in my way more than the left & right fingering
I think what you learn at an early age in technique translates into what you can do at a later age. You can add all the experience & musicality due to age all you want, but if the notes are missing or won't come out the way you need them to, it just doesn't work right.
Still fun, though.
And a bit off the original topic. I was far from a virtuoso on guitar/bass but I:
Didn't drink before a job (and seldom during or afterward - I did work in bars & clubs often, so a beer or two during a break is de rigeur for those jobs)
Didn't smell bad or strong (smelly aftershave is just as bad as BO and people _do_ remember when you smell. Forever. Unforgivable as a studio musician when you're packed with other people, equipment generating heat, and all the other stuff in a small studio)
Always showed up before a gig with enough time to set up & get things tuned.
Always brought spares for breakables and tools to fix things that _might_ break
Always shared spares and fixed other peoples things, even when I knew I wouldn't be paid back
Always showed up for rehearsals
Always practiced new & old material after a rehearsal
Always smiled & said "sure, I can do that". Even when I couldn't - but I practiced like mad to be able to next time things rolled around
Had a lot of luck
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2008-01-09 18:17
Mark --
Excellent advice for young musicians (and older ones too).
Always nice to see good advice being given from a background of actual experience.
Please put that one in the keepers section of the archives for future reference.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-01-09 18:50
I firmly believe in talent for specific instruments. I know quite well that I have zero talent for Brass instruments, none whatsoever. Was a prodigy at Clarinet/Sax, somewhat on Piano (Great-Grandstudent of Liszt).
Hard work is the major key along with good training, and talent makes that hard work more efficient. A bad work ethic will always stop a talent dead in it's tracks at some point whereas a lesser talent with a really good work ethic may surpass the other.
Players develop at different rates too.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2008-01-09 18:59
My own belief, based on observation of students and colleagues over the years, is that innate abilities (including talent) set an upper bound on attainable achievement. The extent to which an individual approaches that individualized upper bound is the product of talent and effort. Hard work can compensate to an extent for lack of talent but not entirely. Talent can compensate (overcome) lack of effort to some extent but not entirely. But that's just my unscientific conclusion.
I'm not sure the tortoise and the hare is an entirely apt analogy. The question (and I don't know whether it has ever been resolved through research) is whether the (child) prodigy has more innate talent than a talented non-prodigy or whether the (child) prodigy's talent simply manifests itself at a younger age. If the former (and the prodigy works as hard as the non-prodigy), I don't think the non-prodigy can ever reach the same level, though s/he may come close. If the latter, the non-prodigy has a chance.
In any case, if the hare had worked up to his capacity, the tortoise couldn't have beaten him (without cheating) no matter how hard the tortoise worked. The upper bounds are simply too far apart.
FWIW, Ferree's tools lists the old Buffet pivot screws in the catalog I have (part number C4OC1). I can't tell if they are still available, however, because Ferree's no longer includes the prices of clarinet screws in its price list. You might give Ferree's a call and, if the screws are still available, let your repair person know.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2008-01-09 19:47
Katrina, EEBaum,Susan, Mark,John,David and Jack -- thanks for the imput. Fortunately, my ambitions are limited to enjoying myself and doing my best. I have no plans of ever being paid for playing and am a compulsive practicer. (I would have to be hit by lightning to miss a day.) I do suspect there is a genetic component(s) involved, however. And, by the way, the damn screws finally arrived, but he still hasn't finished it!
Cass Tech (aka leatherlip)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2008-01-10 01:24
I like to think of the whole "inherent ability" versus "diligent practice" in terms of two people.
Julian Bliss - Amazing player. No doubt he has some sort of innate musical ability in him. I mean, from the bio that I read on him, he started around the age of 4? and learned quickly. And yes he's doing very well and plays well, however he too took lessons from top clarinetists and practiced everyday.
Robert Spring - Great player. AMAZING tonguing ability. But if you saw the video that was featured on a slightly previous post, he practices around four hours a day. EVERY day. So while yes he has musical talent, he definitely worked for it and works to maintain it.
So I'm starting to be inclined that it's not so much how MUCH talent you have, just that you have some talent (enough to have a drive to play) and it's the work you sow and eventually reap later. Actually, my new year's resolution is to get back to practicing (honest to goodness, me in a room alone practicing) 15 - 20 hours a week. I figure 2 - 3 hours a day broken up throughout the day will get me that goal. And I'll see how much I can improve throughout the year. I HIGHLY doubt I'll be in the same ranks as those who I mentioned, but MY goals are different. I'm shooting for premiere military band around the age of 30 (five years from now). I figure a few years of diligent practice will at least get me to the point where I'll be invited for an audition from a tape. And then, after a few times being turned away I'll get the hint and finish out my career traveling the world on the Army's dime! Already saw Iraq, so I'm ready for a less war-torn destination.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2008-01-10 01:40
<<Already saw Iraq, so I'm ready for a less war-torn destination.>>
Yeah, Alexi, you really hit the jackpot on your first try, I guess.
But as far as your main premise goes, I dunno.
It seems pretty darned clear to me (as someone who DOESN'T have it) that there are folks out there who are just plain born with a degree of talent that no amount of practice, or lack of it, can gainsay. It's just the way they are wired. (Mozart comes to mind.)
Now, without nurture, that innate talent isn't going to go very far. With nurture, it may. And I daresay there are people who are born with enormous gifts who choose not to, or who cannot because of circumstances, use them.
Among the rest of us more-or-less normal folk, I believe that there is a spectrum of innate ability which is likewise subject to nurture (or lack of it). So, what is it that creates the DRIVE to take what you've got and do the most with it (whatever that "most" may actually be)?
My first teacher in my most recent foray into musicianhood said that, had I made the decision to seriously pursue music forty years ago, I would have been a contender for major positions -- not because of my innate talent (which is there, but not overwhelming), but because of my DRIVE to do it.
This seems to affirm your point, Alexi. Given a sufficient level of ability, it is the DRIVE to do it that makes the difference.
So, what's that about?
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-01-10 03:53
A lot of it can also depend on quality of practice, quality of instruction, and musical awareness.
In the right frame of mind, I get things done (work pieces up to speed, etc.) about 10 times faster/better than if I'm not paying attention, and than I did before I was taught certain perspectives and techniques. Dozens of hours of uninformed/uninspired practice will get you nowhere compared to a few hours of properly directed study. I've seen people improve more in 10 minutes at a master class than in the entire week of woodshedding. (woodshedding WITH the proper study, that's where things start coming together and staying that way)
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-01-10 04:17
I wonder about this topic a lot, too. IMO, it has more to do with practice than any kind of "gift". Just from going to music school- I saw that the people that practiced every day for hours always did unquestionably better than those that did not. My personal belief is that anyone at any age can learn to play an instrument well IF (and only if) they have enough hours to practice.
There is a "story" of a violinist that played a great concerto and an audience member came backstage to talk to the performer after the performance. The audience member said, "I would give my life to play violin like that." and the Violinist answered, "I did."
Post Edited (2008-01-10 10:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
