 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: MaDxClArInAtOr
Date: 2008-07-25 23:29
I happened to stumble upon yet another excellent masterclass hosted by Steve Cohen of Northwestern University while I was on the Buffet-Crampon website.
Cuper conducted a masterclass on May 6th, 2008, where students performed the following repertoire:
- Saint-Saens: Sonata
- Francaix: Concerto
- Debussy: Premiere Rhapsodie
- Cahuzac: Cantilene
- Poulenc: Sonata
- Nielsen: Concerto
I found Cuper to be a very charming fellow, and I loved the character of his playing. Unfortunately, there was far too much repertoire with very little time, so things felt a bit too rushed, but Cuper definitely took time with each player, understanding their nuances and sharing his insights along with some very interesting and amusing stories. It's a wonderful masterclass packed into 2:08:00 of great playing.
http://www.buffet-crampon.com/en/news.php?mode=printNews&nid=269
*Scroll to bottom of page
Post Edited (2008-07-25 23:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Danny Boy
Date: 2008-07-26 00:21
What a great thing to have access to. Great playing from Cuper himself and some nice things from the students as well.
<goes off to hunt for info on the low E correction key for the Tosca - I never can get that low E at the start of the Nielsen in tune!>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2008-07-26 14:55
Man, that was a great class! I watched the whole thing and really enjoyed it. I really loved the things Cuper had to say and I was really impressed by the lack of basics in the students. Their shortcomings reminded me of the things in my own playing that need work. Congrats to the performers! Playing for someone like that is not easy and to have it broadcast on the internet only adds to the pressure.
I liked the sound qualities of the players mostly, but the guy with the Backun stuff really stood out in my opinion...in a bad way. Cuper also noticed it and made some comments. Now I need to go practice!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2008-07-27 18:30
Thanks so much for pointing this out, it was awesome! Small world too - someone I know was in it, and would you believe we met in Australia now I'm in London and he is, clearly, in Chicago. Very cool.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-07-30 15:38
Thanks for the great link...but I had quite a time trying to understand everthing Cuper said, his accent at times was too much for me. But when he demonstated with his clarinet it was clear enougn. The students weren't that great and Cuper didn't coddle them pointing things out relentlessly...all in all an excellent master lesson.
It's really a must see for clarinetists....
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-07-30 18:03
>> The students weren't that great and Cuper didn't coddle them pointing things out relentlessly...>
I'd rather say that he was more critic than coach for them -- which made him come out of it well, of course. He too often picked up trivialities that he didn't like for rather arbitrary reasons, which unbalanced them, and then they stopped playing well. I don't know that any of them were particularly encouraged by the experience.
>> ...all in all an excellent master lesson.>>
No, I think they deserved better from him.
Still, he gave some interesting information.
Some was not so interesting, indeed plain wrong -- why do these Frenchmen continue to bang on about that Poulenc Sonata stuff?
See:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=229159&t=229159
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=90061&t=89715
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2008-07-30 22:58
Perhaps critic is what they needed and not a coach. Their coach is the private teacher. Cuper, as a first-time listener, really is not in a position to be a coach. IIRC, he mostly focused on the lack of precision in tone, dynamics, and technique. Can you be more clear with your meaning of "arbitrary reasons"?
"Some was not so interesting, indeed plain wrong -- why do these Frenchmen
continue to bang on about that Poulenc Sonata stuff?"
Regardless of whether he is right or wrong about the Poulenc, this statement seems derogatory and unnecessary. "These Frenchmen", come on!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-07-31 07:42
Dave wrote:
>> "Some was not so interesting, indeed plain wrong -- why do these Frenchmen continue to bang on about that Poulenc Sonata stuff?"
Regardless of whether he is right or wrong about the Poulenc, this statement seems derogatory and unnecessary. "These Frenchmen", come on!>>
Well, it wasn't intended to be VERY derogatory;-)
If you read the second of the URLs I posted, you'll see why the world naturally divides over the 'Poulenc Sonata Controversy' into France v. the rest of the world, justifying the 'Frenchmen' reference.
See, the point is, all the versions were written by Poulenc at one time or another, so in a sense you can't be wrong. What is confusing for students is precisely the authoritarian attitude towards the situation that Cuper demonstrated, writing his 'corrections' into the student's part. He, and the other Frenchmen should educate themselves in the matter, as Alessandro Carbonare finally did (Carbonare behaved as an 'honorary Frenchman' for a time, given his contact with Cuper and others through his job in Paris).
You wrote:
>> Perhaps critic is what they needed and not a coach. Their coach is the private teacher. Cuper, as a first-time listener, really is not in a position to be a coach.>>
I'd be rather inclined to put it the other way round. The detailed management of a student's playing -- the criticism -- occurs on a more regular basis; whereas the job of a masterclass is to communicate memorable musical or technical insights to a public of students, so that each of them may hopefully take away at least one insight that they can develop in their own playing. You're trying to take advantage of the hopefully more elevated view of the expert performer as compared to the teacher.
So by 'arbitrary', I meant something that could easily be a musical feature of a performance slightly differently inclined, but still valid. I thought Cuper too often took the easy option of criticising something solely because he found it didn't belong to his own personal musical world.
Had he waited a little for it to become apparent how it didn't work in the STUDENT'S musical world, if it didn't -- or even for it to become apparent how it didn't work in ANY musical world -- and then shown us and the student why, that would have qualified as a genuine insight.
As it was, too often all we got was just a collection of things Cuper likes, which -- if we're interested -- we can get from listening to his performances.
I know that Cuper was very limited in scope by the time/student ratio. (I myself would probably have refused Internet dissemination of a masterclass of mine that was so hamstrung.) And I wouldn't normally comment on a colleague, but finally felt I had to contribute to the thread because so many others thought it so satisfactory. I'm afraid I found it rather tedious, in contrast to my opinion of Leister's class a few months ago.
I did think he showed himself to be a good player, by the way.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-07-31 07:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-07-31 15:52
Tony Pay wrote;
"I did think he showed himself (Cuper) to be a good player, by the way."
So kind of him to say so, Tony is full of the milk of human kindness...gone sour!
Hey Tony, Phillipe Cuper is a great clarinetist, one of the leading artists of our time!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2008-07-31 15:56
Tony,
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point. Thanks also for clearing up the Poulenc situation. I briefly scanned the links, but did not gather what you have just written.
As to his brief playing examples: WOW! You don't see people every day just picking up a cold horn a demonstrating the Francaix from memory! Good stuff for me to hear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-07-31 18:03
Old Geezer wrote:
>> Tony Pay wrote;
"I did think he showed himself (Cuper) to be a good player, by the way."
So kind of him to say so, Tony is full of the milk of human kindness...gone sour! Hey Tony, Phillipe Cuper is a great clarinetist, one of the leading artists of our time! >>
The first reply that springs to mind is, "WHO told YOU?"
That's a very natural question, because what you post here is so very often completely ridiculous. Plus, you're short on sympathy and long on fawning, so it's YOUR attitude that's sour. (Look at the dismissive way you talk about students, and compare it with the way you talk about 'famous' people.)
I have no reason to regard Philippe Cuper as a great clarinettist, because I've never heard him play in any significant circumstances; but I do have reason to regard him as a good -- even very good -- player from what he produces on this videoclip.
But apart from that, what you don't see is that for me, he's just a colleague.
Now, if somebody I respected told me that Cuper was actually a GREAT clarinettist, I might take them seriously, and go out of my way to listen to some of his work.
But a highly presumptuous and ignorant old geezer like you...well.....
Tony
Post Edited (2008-07-31 18:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-07-31 20:51
I've got several of Cuper's recordings and he is very good. My opinion and take for what it's worth, but he is an established player and he tied with Neicich in the Naumberg Competition both beating Yeh.
Now of course there's personal preference which a very good player may not like another very good player's playing for whatever stylistic reason.
But Cuper absolutely is an established player.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-07-31 22:11
David Blumberg wrote:
>> Now of course there's personal preference which a very good player may not like another very good player's playing for whatever stylistic reason.
But Cuper absolutely is an established player.>>
Of course, I wasn't suggesting that he wasn't 'established'. (Whatever that means.)
>> ...he tied with Neicich in the Naumberg Competition both beating Yeh.>>
Excuse me, who they? What the Naumberg Competition? Why it say anything about anything?-)
You'll forgive me, but lots of you guys live in a different, bullshit world.
I was rather talking about whether or not I think players are musically interesting.
Any of these people MIGHT be interesting, but I've plenty of evidence that quite a few of them aren't.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-08-01 01:06
Aw Tony, try to be nice to old people.
It's easy to see why no one likes you!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2008-08-01 02:43
Tony didn't say anything even remotely out of line or inaccurate. He is 100% right, and I think this thread is a great microcosm of the vast difference between the various posters on this forum.
Geezer, nothing you say is ever taken seriously on here. That you don't realize that is even worse than your inaccurate assertion that nobody likes Tony. In reality, nobody cares about you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2008-08-01 02:50
Come on peeps! Just watch the masterclass and learn what you can and move on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-08-01 03:19
btw, I've heard Cuper live at 2 different ClarFests and both times he was a hit. Nobody that I heard had a negative thing to say about his playing. It was fantastic. His recording of the Bacri Concerto is quite good. I wouldn't consider him legendary status (as I would Tony), but I would place him as one of the better Soloists in the business.
But ah, it doesn't mean what anybody thinks these days....
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crnichols
Date: 2008-08-01 04:04
I enjoy having Tony Pay on the board. He always has something thoughtful and meaningful to say about the subject at hand.
I wish people would nicer to each other on here.
Christopher Nichols, D.M.A.
Assistant Professor of Clarinet
University of Delaware
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-08-01 06:53
I only watched about 20 minutes total of this video, skipping at times to different parts. I gathered that it was a classic case of teaching someone an interpretation and a style. Leaving aside some technical errors in the student playing (understandable), the most obvious difference between them and Cuper was that their playing was less overt in its interpretational signposts. But when you are being told that your own view of the piece simply has to be jettisoned in order that you will play a facsimile of someone else's, I think that is bound to happen. I also felt that students were having to work hard to suppress frustration. Their playing then conveyed the anxiety of the situation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2008-08-01 17:31
Why is this such a big deal? Maybe reading these thorough diagnoses (which are all 100% and insightful, right?) tick me off because I'm deep down fighting against making my own.
The thing is, Cuper is fantastic. Why? Because he offered a lot. Maybe he could have helped more, but if anyone thinks that was a terrible masterclass, I want you to go and see more...the bottom is far more deep than that.
As someone almost as old as the students in the video, I learned a lot. Mission accomplished, as far as I'm concerned. Was he asking for a "That'll do, pig." ??? To sit and criticize might be human, but why drag that out on a forum as if we all don't know it's not getting us anywhere?
As for the students, I'm a little annoyed that someone would say they weren't that good. Aside from wondering if you can even play that well, does it matter if they play well? A masterclass is not "look at perfect students play even more perfectly with perfect instruction", is it? It's about learning, and it's important that the students don't play perfectly sometimes even for the sake of the audience to learn as well. Why even mention playing level unless it hinders the entire masterclass?
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-01 18:27
crnichols wrote:
> I enjoy having Tony Pay on the board. He always has something
> thoughtful and meaningful to say about the subject at hand.
I enjoy reading Tony's posts as well and have learned a great deal from reading them. One of the refreshing things about Tony's posts is that he is willing to share his insights and observations with us without getting hung up about impressing everyone.
All too often I see posts from other people exalting the famous and putting down the familiar or not-so-famous (*especially* students). It's a kind of puffery. And I completely understand why Tony gets annoyed by that kind of thing--I do, too.
The sad thing is that when a great artist like Tony becomes "familiar" to some people through the medium of this board, some people--perhaps fueled by their own insecurities--feel inclined to make him a target simply because he had something original to contribute to the discussion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-08-01 18:57
Bradley wrote:
>> ....if anyone thinks that was a terrible masterclass, I want you to go and see more...the bottom is far more deep than that.>>
Yes, that's absolutely true.
But, I'd like you to consider that NOBODY said it was a terrible masterclass. The worst thing I said about it was that I found it rather tedious compared to Leister's; and I said one or two positive things too.
What I did do was say what I thought was not so good about it in a way that was designed to illuminate the following fact: namely, that it's easy for students to get the impression that there's a right and wrong way of playing music, and that what you need to do is find the right one, and then employ it. I thought Cuper's stance supported that notion.
Whereas, they rather need to see that there are a number of ways in which the musical score can map to a performance, and become more able and fluent in generating performances that both (1) represent the score, and (2)are alive. Hence my criticism of Cuper's stopping them too often in mid-flow.
Another thing: this Board is full of 'FANTASTIC's and 'TERRIBLE's, unqualified and unanalysed, from which nobody learns. When I said here that I abhorred Kell's Stravinsky, and why, and that I also thought that many aspects of his playing were wonderful, and why, I was accused of disrespect to the memory of a great genius, who WAS a genius 'because he put the clarinet on the popular map'.
But I think that picking things apart, so that as players we can learn both from what was good and what was bad about Kell, is a better way of going about things than getting hot and bothered over a questionable definition of what makes someone great.
You said, >> The thing is, Cuper is fantastic. Why? Because he offered a lot...as someone almost as old as the students in the video, I learned a lot. Mission accomplished, as far as I'm concerned.>>
Well, good. That bit of the mission was accomplished, and by your definition, that means he is fantastic. I'm glad. Does that mean we can't discuss other bits of the mission?
>> Was he asking for a "That'll do, pig." ??? To sit and criticize might be human, but why drag that out on a forum as if we all don't know it's not getting us anywhere?>>
I don't get the bit about the pig -- you'll have to explain -- but I don't see it's not getting us anywhere. (This interchange might provoke some thought, for example.) I was perhaps a bit intemperate with David Blumberg (sorry, David) when he half-suggested that some silly competition rating actually MEANT anything:-) but even what I wrote intemperately actually embodies a serious point worth making.
>> As for the students, I'm a little annoyed that someone would say they weren't that good. Aside from wondering if you can even play that well, does it matter if they play well? A masterclass is not "look at perfect students play even more perfectly with perfect instruction", is it? It's about learning, and it's important that the students don't play perfectly sometimes even for the sake of the audience to learn as well. Why even mention playing level unless it hinders the entire masterclass?>>
In this, I entirely agree with you. In fact, one way of putting my point would be to say that I thought that they were better than Cuper thought they were.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lj
Date: 2008-08-01 22:49
"I enjoy having Tony Pay on the board. He always has something thoughtful and meaningful to say about the subject at hand.
I wish people would nicer to each other on here."
Well said, Christopher. I am always impressed with Tony Pay's ability to express himself so well not only with music but also with words--it's a rare and valuable combination. I always come away from reading his posts having learned something new, and I nearly always come away from them having been thoroughly entertained by his terrific sense of humor. I am grateful that he, along with many others, takes the time to share his point of view on this board. So many people offer constructive, informative, supportive, entertaining, and thoughtful posts on this board; it's much appreciated by those of us who have less expertise, and it's more than enough to diminish the impact of the negative, bitter, and petty few to that of a mere annoyance (more gnat than mosquito).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-08-01 23:23
Here's an interesting Tony Pay blast from the past post;
http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=186301&t=186301
The whole thread is somewhat amusing, puzzleing, revealing....
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2008-08-02 01:17
I forget the percentage, but we know that most of our reaction to events are based on prior experiences. I thought this was going to descend into another "Sabine Meyer can't play clarinet" region (I've been guilty, myself). I think that's the case with my defense of Cuper- I apologise.
The part about the pig was a reference to the movie "Babe". I just meant a faint sign of approval.
Geezer...Old Instigator?
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-08-02 16:32
The entire thread leaves one with the impression of walking into a "bar fight" and is quite unattractive. I thought profanity was not permitted; evidently not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryder
Date: 2008-08-02 16:56
S. Friedland wrote
"The entire thread leaves one with the impression of walking into a "bar fight" and is quite unattractive. I thought profanity was not permitted; evidently not."
I totally agree. How did we get so far off the original topic and end up with what we have now?
Let me remind you what this thread was started for; The Philippe Cuper masterclass.
After watching the entire thing, I can say that I have been enlightened greatly with new ideas for the pieces played there, but I can also apply alot that was learned here to other pieces.
This is an amazing resource and I thank you MaDxClArInAtOr for giving us the link. I never would have found it.
As for Mr. Cuper telling the student with the Backun barrel and bell to find a better one for his instrument and asking if he had the original one all i have to say is he's "stickin' it to the man!" All that expensive equipment doesn't do you any good if it can't play in tune!
Mr. Cuper is a good teacher and great player with that "french" sound.
I'm watching/listening to it for a second time as i type.
____________________
Ryder Naymik
San Antonio, Texas
"We pracice the way we want to perform, that way when we perform it's just like we practiced"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-08-02 17:26
OK, I finally got around to watching it. 16mn into it, I won't comment on Cuper's artistry, but I will say that he spent 10mn talking about the second beat needing to be less than the first. I thought the message came across after 2mn
Anyway, there are some goodies too, just a lot of noise around it. What most impressed me was his knowledge of all pieces including knowing all the notes from memory!
BTW, anyone playing the francaix concerto at a masterclass deserves a medal!
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2008-08-02 18:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-03 05:11
Tony Pay wrote:
> What I did do was say what I thought was not so good about it in a way
> that was designed to illuminate the following fact: namely, that it's easy
> for students to get the impression that there's a right and wrong way of
> playing music, and that what you need to do is find the right one, and
> then employ it. I thought Cuper's stance supported that notion.
> Whereas, they rather need to see that there are a number of ways in
> which the musical score can map to a performance, and become more
> able and fluent in generating performances that both (1) represent the
> score, and (2)are alive. Hence my criticism of Cuper's stopping them too
> often in mid-flow.
I agree with that. One of the things that occurred to me is that by focusing on stylistic preferences, Cuper may have actually been "nullifying" interpretational choices made, not by the students themselves, but by their teacher(s), the students being "caught in the middle," so to speak. I would certainly be frustrated if I had gone to the trouble of playing in a masterclass only to be given comments that I would simply have to throw out the next day in my lesson.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2008-08-03 05:27
mrn wrote:
I would
> certainly be frustrated if I had gone to the trouble of playing
> in a masterclass only to be given comments that I would simply
> have to throw out the next day in my lesson.
Well, the students had very basic problems: intonation, accuracy of rhytm and other details in the text. If they throw out the information that Cuper gave them it will be a mistake.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-03 19:48
Sarah Elbaz wrote:
> mrn wrote:
> I would
> > certainly be frustrated if I had gone to the trouble of
> playing
> > in a masterclass only to be given comments that I would
> simply
> > have to throw out the next day in my lesson.
>
> Well, the students had very basic problems: intonation,
> accuracy of rhytm and other details in the text. If they throw
> out the information that Cuper gave them it will be a mistake.
>
> Sarah
That's obviously true, but I never suggested they would have to throw out *everything* they were told--just those things that would conflict with their teachers' expectations (assuming there are any). I can't imagine the students' teachers having any objection to playing in tune with correct rhythms.
The big question is what should one expect to get out of a master class with a world-class artist, both as a player/participant and as an audience member. Obviously, the artist giving the class has to work with who he/she has to work with, but the more the class focuses on very fundamental things or on matters of purely personal preference, the less benefit there is in having a high-caliber player like Cuper teach the class.
The way I see it, the point of going to a master class (whether as an audience member or a participant) is to come away with some knowledge or insight that you couldn't easily obtain from another source. For example, I think pretty much everybody on this board who is familiar with the piece could have told the guy playing Premiere Rhapsodie that he was coming in early--it didn't take Philippe Cuper to do that. And he may have been coming in early due to nerves, for all we know.
But my point is that if most of the time is spent on either things so fundamental that any good teacher could address or on simply taking a side on a well-defined issue where well-known differences of opinion exist (which anybody can do--have you ever been summoned for jury duty before?), that doesn't leave much time for what it is that everyone came there for in the first place, which is the unique insight of the guest artist--the sort of thing that only a Philippe Cuper could provide.
Post Edited (2008-08-03 19:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-08-04 03:33
>> have you ever been summoned for jury duty before?
There is no jury duty in Israel... because there is no jury
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-04 15:35
clarnibass wrote:
> >> have you ever been summoned for jury duty before?
>
> There is no jury duty in Israel... because there is no jury
True. I should have looked more carefully at her post. :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Niethamer
Date: 2008-08-09 02:34
mrn wrote:
> One of the things that occurred to me is that by focusing on stylistic
> preferences, Cuper may have actually been "nullifying" interpretational choices > made, not by the students themselves, but by their teacher(s), the students
> being "caught in the middle," so to speak. I would certainly be frustrated if I had > gone to the trouble of playing in a masterclass only to be given comments that I > would simply have to throw out the next day in my lesson.
I'd like to say that it's a valuable experience for a young would-be professional to adapt to a different interpretational point of view from a Master Class teacher, whoever s/he may be. In an orchestra job, conductors are always asking players to modify this or that approach to phrasing, dynamics, etc. The same is true among colleagues in chamber music. The same is true of working with a composer on a new piece of music. Flexibility of approach is a valuable professional skill. No one teacher has all the answers, and students in this circumstance may well discover points of view that are useful to them in the long run. Their current teacher may not approve, so they may have to alter their approach tomorrow, but in the coming years they may find these other musical outlooks to be valuable. No such experience is "wasted", nor does it "nullify" any interpretational choices for the student, in the longer term.
In the days before PETA became so vociferous, we'd say "there's more than one way to skin a cat." I suppose that's politically incorrect now. (Shadow Cat will not be amused!)
David
David
niethamer@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/dbnclar1/index.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-09 03:05
David Niethamer wrote:
> Flexibility of approach is a valuable professional skill.
> No such experience is "wasted", nor does it "nullify" any interpretational
> choices for the student, in the longer term.
That's a very good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-08-09 13:43
David Niethamer wrote:
>> I'd like to say that it's a valuable experience for a young would-be professional to adapt to a different interpretational point of view from a Master Class teacher, whoever s/he may be....flexibility of approach is a valuable professional skill.>>
I agree with this; even to the point that -- time constraints permitting -- I'll sometimes ask someone to play in a way that I can HEAR that they will find DIFFICULT. (And I'll explain why I'm doing that, too.)
This move wasn't perhaps available to Cuper in the framework in which he found himself. But showing a student that they have a choice of interpretation, and that one interpretation has different benefits from another, both equally valid, is a lesson in itself.
That's not always true, of course. Some things definitely don't work.
But quite often it's a mistake to give the impression that one choice out of many is the RIGHT one. So, that someone is too stuck in a particular way of looking at the matter can be obvious to an experienced player; then, WITH ALL CARDS ON THE TABLE, clearing the way for an alternative can be productive, as David points out.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-08-09 13:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
