 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2009-09-07 16:16
I am an amateur clarinetist, one who returned to the study of the instrument after a 35+ year hiatus away from it. And I personally appreciate (for example) David Hite's editing of the Rose etudes, adding abundant articulation and dynamic markings. I see it as having a teacher with me as I practice.
I appreciate Lazarus' and Bellison's editing, even down to the suggested breath points.
I note those who studied with Stanley Hasty or Daniel Bonade have commented how marked up their charts would be with the suggestions. What is the difference between (A) an educated and talented musician annotating a work for publication and (B) a teacher stipulating verbally how a passage ought to be interpreted? (This is especially true if you take the printed suggestions with a grain of salt.)
I personally like the work good editors do, and would assert their efforts have had a beneficial effect on musical interpretation.
Best wishes,
vJoe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-09-07 16:42
Perhaps the important point is when you specify "good" editors. Some are better than others, some are good but make the occasional debateable decision and some seem crazy!. Thinking of the Hite study books, I used them quite a lot and, in a few cases, I changed some breathing because it seemed to make better sense musically to me. Sometimes this would be at my teacher's suggestion, sometimes I might make a decision myself. Ultimately, though, editors are editors and not composers.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2009-09-07 16:49
RE: David Hite's editing -
I generally like the editing done by David Hite in his exercise books, with one exception.
His over use of Italian terminology in the Rose 32 clutters the page and is not only unnecessary, but at times laughable.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-09-07 18:40
vJoe wrote:
>> What is the difference between (A) an educated and talented musician annotating a work for publication and (B) a teacher stipulating verbally how a passage ought to be interpreted? (This is especially true if you take the printed suggestions with a grain of salt.)>>
I'm a bit surprised that you ask this question. The difference is, of course, that however dogmatic the teacher may be -- and in passing, I don't think that it is the job of a teacher to be dogmatic in that way -- after his stipulation, you are free to make your own decisions.
A 'famous-player-type' edition, on the other hand, replaces what the composer wrote with something else. It presents us, not with the problem of realising the composer's text, but with the often quite different problem of realising the famous player's text -- and, very often, without any clarification of the difference between the two.
>> I am an amateur clarinetist, one who returned to the study of the instrument after a 35+ year hiatus away from it. And I personally appreciate (for example) David Hite's editing of the Rose etudes, adding abundant articulation and dynamic markings. I see it as having a teacher with me as I practice.>>
So, with respect, it is a travesty of the function of an editor to consider his work as being directed as someone like yourself.
What it should rather be directed towards is a clarification of the composer's text, and of what an excellent player may aspire to recreate.
So, your teacher may be a help to you personally; but it is surely unreasonable to commend an editor for 'being helpful to you personally'.
He has another, more important job to do.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2009-09-07 19:34
Tony,
You wrote: "The difference is... after [the teacher's] stipulation, you are free to make your own decisions." Yes, I am.
But I'm also free to discard or alter any printed notation as well. As Leon Russianoff wrote in his method (vol II, p 75):
"Your judgment must always be applied to the interpretation of articulation signs, since strict adherence to notation is not always recommended....As useful as "urtext" (original, unedited) editions may be, matters of articulation must always be determined by the mature artist's taste, instinct, and sensitivity to the musical context."
I realize I'm an amateur (farily advanced, playing on the performance major level), and am always learning. I realize you're a pro, and I realize I'll never play at your level. But what I don't understand is why you take umbrage that those less learned than you can find useful instruction in the thoughtful annotation by editors.
Mr Pay wrote: "but it is surely unreasonable to commend an editor for 'being helpful to you personally'." How so? How is it unreasonable to appreciate their efforts? Your words don't show how it was unreasonable.
Mr Pay wrote: "it is a travesty of the function of an editor to consider his work as being directed as [sic, "to"] someone like yourself" I don't think music publishers would agree. They are directed to the music buying public, including amateurs, like me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-09-07 20:22
vjoet wrote:
>> You wrote: "The difference is... after [the teacher's] stipulation, you are free to make your own decisions."
Yes, I am.
But I'm also free to discard or alter any printed notation as well.>>
I shouldn't really bother to respond. But:
Clearly, an edition purports to represent a work. And equally clearly, any aspiringly excellent player must start with what the composer wrote, not with an editor's version of the text.
>> ...what I don't understand is why you take umbrage that those less learned than you can find useful instruction in the thoughtful annotation by editors.>>
Clearly, an edition purports to represent a work. And equally clearly, any aspiringly excellent player must start with what the composer wrote, not with an editor's version of the text.
>> Mr Pay wrote: "but it is surely unreasonable to commend an editor for 'being helpful to you personally'." How so? How is it unreasonable to appreciate their efforts? Your words don't show how it was unreasonable.>>
Clearly, an edition purports to represent a work. And equally clearly, any aspiringly excellent player must start with what the composer wrote, not with an editor's version of the text.
>> Mr Pay wrote: "it is a travesty of the function of an editor to consider his work as being directed as [sic, "to"] someone like yourself" I don't think music publishers would agree. They are directed to the music buying public, including amateurs, like me.>>
Clearly, an edition purports to represent a work. And equally clearly, any aspiringly excellent player must start with what the composer wrote, not with an editor's version of the text.
An editor's job is to best represent what the composer wrote.
If you want lessons, take them, of course.
But the fact that YOU lack judgement doesn't mean that the information available to excellent players has to be corrupted by pretentious and mercenary editors, who very often don't understand either the problems involved in bringing a piece to life, or how their own puny attempts, especially how they notate those attempts, fall short.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2009-09-07 20:44
How sad:
"But the fact that YOU lack judgement doesn't mean that the information available to excellent players has to be corrupted by pretentious and mercenary editors, who very often don't understand either the problems involved in bringing a piece to life, or how their own puny attempts, especially how they notate those attempts, fall short."
That's all I'll say to you, Tony. How sad.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-09-07 21:19
>> That's all I'll say to you, Tony. How sad.>>
Well, sad that you don't understand.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2009-09-07 22:44
When editing a book, a novel or a poem nobody expect or is in need for editor’s markings in the text. To add punctuations or commas in a writer’s text would be an editorial crime. When you read a novel you make it a part of yourself. You own the experience that is coming out of the book and you interpret what you read from the level you are. Some books you will not understand because your knowledge, education or life experience is not corresponding with what you read. It would be impossible if an editor would write notes between the lines to explain certain aspects of the text to fill up the gaps for some readers.
It’s the same with published music. Most classical music needs a musical mind, music education and a lot of musical experience to be performed. An editor’s markings in a score are completely useless if you don’t understand them before you even read them. The supposed idea behind a marking should come from yourself only or not at all. Anything else is just simulations of another person’s interpretation and becomes kind of fake and immature.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-09-07 23:06
> The supposed idea behind a marking should come from yourself only or not
> at all.
...or from the director who wants that passage to be played this way and not the other. I guess that's why ten recordings of any given piece sound in eleven different ways.
> Anything else is just simulations of another person’s interpretation and
> becomes kind of fake and immature.
Which doesn't mean the two interpretations cannot coincide. I think it is the responsability of the interpreter to make a(n informed) guess (if the gut feeling isn't strong enough, listen to recordings of other people) how a piece might be possibly played. It's still up to the player to render the piece...
I maintain my stance that an editor has no right to "embellish" or "enrich" the original score without the consent of the composer (or arranger, in the situation of a concert band). This simply creates a derivative work, and I wonder how those people deal with the Keepers Of The Copyright Grail. Or is it just a cheap way of obtaining copyright protection for their own edition?
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2009-09-08 14:14
I am a student, not a professional, and will never perform K622.
I also understand the point of immersion into the genre, and based on intimate understanding and appreciation of the conventions interpreting the work myself. I understand all that.
But let's see if we can reach a common understanding of both sides:
1. I recently heard on a local radio station Sabine Meyer perform K622. It was a stellar performance, among the finest I've heard. Her 2 eingangs in Mvt 1 were magical, and I espescialy enjoyed the ornamentation she supplied in that movement. I personally wished has had added more ornamentation.
2. I just reread this morning "Comparing Published Editions of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, K.622 - Keith Koons," an excellent article.
3. Mr. Koons says this of the Universal Edition, edited by Pamela Weston: "Because of the extensive ornamentation included, insight is also gained into the amount and type of ornamentation which was done at that time." (That time refers to 1799 - 1805 when the Schwencke arrangement for piano and string quartet was published.)
4. So, AS A STUDENT out of the many choices for another edition of K622, I'd select the Weston's Universal Edition, that I might learn more about melodic ornamentation used in the classical period.
So, with the different purposes of different musicians (and yes, amateurs are also musicians) I guess there is room in the musical world for editors. And I continue to applaud their efforts.
VJoe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-09-08 14:38
We'd better stop to clarify what we mean by "edit."
Editing can mean *changing* the original text to something the editor thinks is better -- something the editor thinks the composer should have written instead. That's the type of editing I'd agree is unwarranted and arrogant.
At the opposite extreme, editing can mean reconciling conflicting early editions, as when there's a difference between the manuscript and the first edition, but there's also some surviving correspondence that indicates the composer discovered an error in the manuscript, or decided to change something after submitting the manuscript, and *wanted* the first edition to reflect the change. That type of scholarly editing seems entirely worthwhile to me, as long as the editor *explains it.* Without the clear explanation (a footnote, a preface, etc.), musicians comparing a manuscript or facsimile with several editions can easily mistake this type of editing for the intrusive, arrogant kind and get into fights about it.
Somewhere in the middle, we've got the editorial additions of dynamic marks, written-out ornaments and so forth. They don't change the composer's notes to the extent that, say, changing a B to a B-flat changes the notes, but they do presume an understanding of the composer's intent. It's here that I think we have to ask, "Who's the buyer?" and maybe fight with each other a bit.
If the buyer is an advanced musician who already knows how to play an eingang, thank you very much, then the markings may well provide nothing but clutter and nuisance. If the buyer is a student, then markings that aren't labelled as editorial may seriously mislead, because the student, with no way of knowing the marks are the editor's and not the composer's, may get into a habit of playing a work in a way that modern scholars (and contest judges...) don't agree with. If I were a teacher (If I were a good teacher...), then I wouldn't want to catch any student of mine studying one of those execrable old Cundy-Bettoney scores all scribbled over with accent marks and crescendos and grace notes and whatnot, for instance. But, if the buyer is a student or amateur without a teacher, and if the editorial additions are clearly marked as such, then the student can use them as learning tools, do further research and make informed decisions.
I've found clearly identified editing that adds performance recommendations, without deleting or changing anything the composer wrote, can be quite useful when I'm learning clarinet music. Sometimes I go to the Library of Congress to compare editions and to compare editions with facsimiles, as well. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks -- or even for the same folks under different circumstances, because, if we're talking not about clarinet music but about Scarlatti's harpsichord sonatas, about which I think I understand a bit more, then a pox on all editorial excrescences! Take those acciaccaturas and take a running jump! But I think that what sometimes comes across here as a blanket condemnation of editing is too extreme.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2009-09-08 19:27
When I read the adult, well thought out pieces like those from Lelia, Vjoet and Tictactux, my belief in this forum is reinforced. Polite, respectful, easy to understand and to the point.
GBK's comment about the over use of italian terminology was spot on! Some people over do it.
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-08 19:36
Ben wrote:
<<I maintain my stance that an editor has no right to "embellish" or "enrich" the original score without the consent of the composer (or arranger, in the situation of a concert band). This simply creates a derivative work, and I wonder how those people deal with the Keepers Of The Copyright Grail. Or is it just a cheap way of obtaining copyright protection for their own edition?>>
Most of the time when you see an "edition" of a work where the editor is someone other than the composer, it's a work that's already in the public domain. Otherwise, they need the permission of the copyright owner. In either case, to the extent that the editor adds (a modicum of) original creative expression to the edition he/she makes of the work, that expression is protected by copyright.
To answer the original poster's question, the difference between "A" and "B" is that with "B" you can tell the difference between what is integral to the work as composed and what is the teacher's editorial/interpretative suggestion, whereas with "A" you can't.
As Lelia pointed out, with a situation like "B," where you can clearly distinguish between the composer's writing and third-party interpretation, it is possible to learn a thing or two about the interpretative process as demonstrated by what the editor did (assuming you want to learn from that editor--not all editors are that good). Editions of works published in edited form where it is not possible to make this distinction, though, are less instructive as to matters of interpretation--they don't teach you how to interpret the music, but do much of the interpretation for you.
Incidentally, much ado has been made on here about professionals vs. amateurs with regard to musical interpretation, the suggestion being that professionals are qualified to interpret and/or edit scores themselves, while amateurs must/should rely on professional editors to do it for them. I don't subscribe to this view. While I realize that it takes training and experience to do so (as does anything else relating to playing a musical instrument), I don't consider the skill of musical interpretation from source materials to be so arcane as to be beyond the reach of amateur musicians. Nor do I think it makes sense to distinguish between professional and amateur musicians on purely musical matters such as this--we all play the same music and we all strive to play it well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2009-09-08 20:48
mrn wrote:
Nor do
> I think it makes sense to distinguish between professional and
> amateur musicians on purely musical matters such as this--we
> all play the same music and we all strive to play it well.
So the next time I try high jump I'll put the bar on 2.40 meters. With some good editing I know I'll make it.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-08 22:41
Alphie wrote:
> So the next time I try high jump I'll put the bar on 2.40
> meters. With some good editing I know I'll make it.
That's not what I meant. I'm not saying we will all reach the same ultimate level of accomplishment, nor do I think everyone can or will succeed at every challenge.
The point I was trying to make was that it makes little sense to me to act as if amateurs are incapable of developing or exercising musical judgment, as some posts on this subject have suggested. I look at the interpretation of musical scores as a skill one develops over time and as a skill that is valuable to have whether or not you are getting paid to play.
In particular, I am puzzled by posts that suggest that one has to have a certain level of "authority" or "recognition" granted to them before one can start to learn to apply their own musical judgment. Sure, as an amateur, I might make a lot of bad artistic choices that people more experienced and musically educated than me might disagree with, but at least I'm learning to make them for myself.
Relying too heavily on editors' markings seems to me to be a bit like paint-by-numbers. You might paint a decent copy of a painting that way, but if you want to be a really good artist, you have to learn how to lay out your own brushstrokes and mix your own colors (which also means you will probably produce some crummy paintings to start, but it's the only way to really learn). Sure, you may not succeed as an artist, but if you truly aspire to be the very best you can be, you must necessarily strive for the same artistic goals professionals do, even if you will never fully achieve them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-09-09 00:58
I, personally, find editor's marks to be useful- especially if they are performers from past eras or well established ones from this.
I think this even though I went through undergrad and grad school in music. I agree that it can be thought of like getting a lesson from the person themself- some editors for piano works go to great length and include several sentences of detailed advice on each page.
The big problem with edited music is that one often does not know what belongs to the editor and what belongs to the composer. Sometimes it's made clear but often not.
Post Edited (2009-09-09 01:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2009-09-09 13:41
MRN has made a very valid point, that I demarcated too strongly the amateur / professional difference. He / She is absolutely correct that both strive for fine performance and both are capable of interpretation.
Probably the biggest avenue of learning hasn't been mentioned here: our listening to performances. There is probably an unbroken line of learning from Stadler on down to the present day.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-09 15:51
vjoet wrote:
> MRN has made a very valid point, that I demarcated too strongly
> the amateur / professional difference. He / She is absolutely
> correct that both strive for fine performance and both are
> capable of interpretation.
Thanks. I'm a "he," by the way. 
Mike Nichols
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2009-09-09 18:40
Let's assume for a moment that producing an edited edition of something is not a crime. Misguided, probably. Uninformed, perhaps. But not illegal.
How is someone supposed to know which of many editions of a particular work to buy, or to avoid? Who gets to decide which edition(s) is/are "best", and on what basis are those decisions made?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2009-09-09 18:47
It's significant that the posters who are in favor of editorial graffiti supposedly are amateurs and the rest are professionals. Why is that? Professionals know the importance of learning the long way, through countless hours of practicing, studying, listening and contemplating over music. They have invested the time it takes to achieve a deep understanding and learned how to shape music through a personal conviction. As a pro you are inspired and in a creative process when performing or studying a piece of music. Amateurs should do the same on their level instead of copying chicken scratch from overly pretentious editors.
davyd wrote:
"How is someone supposed to know which of many editions of a particular work to buy, or to avoid? Who gets to decide which edition(s) is/are "best", and on what basis are those decisions made?"
Look for an "Urtext"-edition. It's the closest to the manuscript you can get. Henle is always Urtext
Alphie
Post Edited (2009-09-09 18:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-09 19:43
Alphie wrote:
> It's significant that the posters who are in favor of editorial
> graffiti supposedly are amateurs and the rest are
> professionals. Why is that? Professionals know the importance
> of learning the long way, through countless hours of
> practicing, studying, listening and contemplating over music.
> They have invested the time it takes to achieve a deep
> understanding and learned how to shape music through a personal
> conviction. As a pro you are inspired and in a creative process
> when performing or studying a piece of music. Amateurs should
> do the same on their level instead of copying chicken scratch
> from overly pretentious editors.
That's basically what I was saying when I said that relying on editorial marks is like paint-by-numbers. So at least one amateur agrees with you about the value and importance of learning the long way--me.
But professional musicians are not immune to copying other musicians and disregarding the composer's intent, either. In my own personal study of the Copland Concerto, I found a number of places where professionals typically deviate from the score in imitation of Benny Goodman's recording of the piece, for instance (I posted about this a while back). Plenty of professionals have recorded or performed Debussy's Premiere Rhapsodie with a D natural and Eb 6 bars from the end even though the score says D# and E natural, just because other people play it that way, too. And there are still professionals who insist on playing certain notes in the Poulenc Sonata that Poulenc himself whited out and replaced.
So there are plenty of professionals who are guilty of following other musicians' editorializing, too. Presumably they should know better, but they don't.
Not to mention that all those pretentious editors who produce editorial grafitti are professionals.....
Post Edited (2009-09-09 19:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2009-09-09 20:05
> It's significant that the posters who are in favor of editorial
> graffiti supposedly are amateurs and the rest are
> professionals. Why is that? Professionals know the importance
> of learning the long way, through countless hours of
> practicing, studying, listening and contemplating over music.
> They have invested the time it takes to achieve a deep
> understanding and learned how to shape music through a personal
> conviction. As a pro you are inspired and in a creative process
> when performing or studying a piece of music. Amateurs should
> do the same on their level instead of copying chicken scratch
> from overly pretentious editors.
I disagree with this. On the contrary, it's the amateurs who often have the luxury of being able to explore and experiment. The professionals have the onerous task of playing..as they are instructed..to pay the bills.
--Amateurs should
> do the same on their level instead of copying chicken scratch
> from overly pretentious editors. --
In my experience, it's the exact opposite!
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2009-09-09 20:11
mrn wrote:
> So there are plenty of professionals who are guilty of
> following other musicians' editorializing, too. Presumably
> they should know better, but they don't.
>
> Not to mention that all those pretentious editors who produce
> editorial grafitti are professionals.....
I couldn't agree more. So why not agree on that editorial "improvements" are bad whoever uses it. Period!?
You have to be able to motivate every crescendo you play at a certain moment, if not with words it has to come across as a message when you play. Personally I never perform a solo or chamber music work unless I'm so prepared that I can take a radio interview about the piece or about the composer or about the way I play it on the spot.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-09-09 21:58
I find this thread quite interesting. I was asked by a living composer to edit one of his clarinet works which will be published by an American company in the near future.
I'm not a great fan of hugely edited works like Mozart et al. I prefer the urtex where ever possible and build upon that. I feel respect for the composer is paramount. When I edited this piece I changed a few slurs and articulations, suggested fingerings for a couple of passages that I felt, as a performer having performed the work in question, made the passage easier to play. I also changed a few dynamic markings. All this was in conjuction with the composer and with his blessing after the performance I gave.
This raises a question for me, do you thing composers of the past would be happy with the heavily edited editions of their works we get today? This is barring composer/performer relationships when things would possibly get edited by the performer with the blessing of the composer.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-09 22:01
Alphie wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. So why not agree on that editorial
> "improvements" are bad whoever uses it. Period!?
Well, if we're talking about editorial "improvements" I agree with you wholeheartedly.
There are some instances, though, where an editor can provide useful guidance in determining what the composer's own markings mean. For instance, a footnote that writes out the rhythm of a classical appoggiatura or some other ornament might be a useful reminder to a student or amateur player who doesn't know or can't remember the difference between an appoggiatura and an acciaccatura, for example. As long as the editor doesn't replace the original notation, I think annotations like that are benign--they're unnecessary, but they don't do any real harm.
Then there are some editions that don't claim to be Urtext, but that can be used like an Urtext edition in that they are taken from the original manuscripts or first editions and the very few editorial markings that are included are all placed in brackets. Eric Simon's "Masterworks for Clarinet and Piano," published by Schirmer, is like this. The advantage to buying Eric Simon's volume, particularly for us in the U.S., is the price, as the cover price is only $16.95 and it contains both Brahms Sonatas, the Schumann Fantasy Pieces, and Weber's Grand Duo Concertante. By comparison, the (imported from Europe) Henle edition of just the Brahms Sonatas by themselves is $30. (Of course, nowadays you can simply download the Simrock 1st edition from IMSLP for free.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-09-09 22:13
MRN wrote;
"By comparison, the (imported from Europe) Henle edition of just the Brahms Sonatas by themselves is $30. (Of course, nowadays you can simply download the Simrock 1st edition from IMSLP for free.)"
Don't forget the Wiener Urtex Edition published by Schott/Universal Music. This is fairly cheap and quite scholarly.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-09-09 22:33
> do you think composers of the past would be happy with the heavily edited
> editions of their works we get today?
I don't know. As there is no "second opinion collaboration" between performer and composer in that case, we can only guess. I like to think they'd be happy to be played at all after all those years, but they might frown at what we were doing unto their works.
Tritsch-tratsch Polka with swung eighths, anyone? Interesting, maybe, but more of a derivative work than an interpretation.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-09-09 22:48
I think we'd get different opinions......just like here.....
Mahler's take would be interesting.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2009-09-10 11:38
>> I disagree with this. On the contrary, it's the amateurs who often have the
>> luxury of being able to explore and experiment. The professionals have the
>> onerous task of playing..as they are instructed..to pay the bills.
I'm sure many here ate lousy food cooked by a "professional" chef.... and read terrible books wriotten by "professional" authors.... and one of the reason I started reapiring my instruments is that I had **** work by a "professional" repairer. The meaning of "professional" is completely unclear and it oculd mean several things.
Some professionals, for example , are nothing like what you describe, and don't have to do what they are instructed because they still do what they want to do, just like an amateur, but it is their work also. Alphie's meaning can make sense but sometimes professionals can be pretty awful at their profession.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
