 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2010-05-02 23:00
There's a very interesting article in Discover Magazine, "Why Athletes are Geniuses." http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/16-the-brain-athletes-are-geniuses/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C= I think it applies equally to clarinetists and other instrumentalists.
Athletes and clarinetists learn complex and difficult skills and perform them calmly and under control. Also, athletes and musicians must constantly adjust their actions. It's not just memorizing a set of simple motions, but recognizing small variations and adjusting dynamically to them. The description of pistol shooting is very enlightening.
When I was a beginner, I couldn't think fast enough to do everything the music called for. The tasks would pile up, I would panic and have to stop. (Remember the I Love Lucy episode in the candy factory.) The article notes that good athletes keep their brains in a restful state and can respond quickly to anything that happenes. Similarly, when I can keep my mind calm (as when a technical passage is totally "under my fingers"), I can go along easily with minimum effort.
That's why knowing your scales is the basis of technical proficiency. You become able to recognize scale patterns as soon as you see the first couple of notes and play the calmly and without effort.
On the other hand, basketball players do better shooting free throws if keep their brains busy visualizing a perfect throw. This works on clarinet, too. In the Mozart Concerto, a few bars after the entrance, the descending G7 arpeggio and the descending C and ascending F arpeggio a few bars later work best if I think about how it feels to play them perfectly and then let them go, almost by themselves, using my attention to make the moment-by-moment adjustments, like a pistol shooter.
Finally, the article mentions that there is an immediate and lasting improvement in learning produced by sending a small current through the surface of the brain toward a group of neurons in the primary motor cortex. This is done by only battery power, and involves no drilling. If clarinetists could learn scales and arpeggios more quickly with this device, it would be a great advance.
Lots to ponder.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-05-03 00:02
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> So why are so many pro athletes practically morons?
I'm sorry - what brings forth that stereotype?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-05-03 00:20
Why are so many great musicians practically morons?
I think David is on to something.
I've run into MANY players who are savant like on their instruments and basically would be the last person you'd want at your dinner party.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-05-03 01:09
Musicians = large part of the brain controlling many small muscles
Athlete= small part of the brain controlling large muscles
Was from a Doctor's lecture on Musicians/Mind.
Basketball, Baseball, Football, Boxers, your choice - they aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-05-03 01:19
Check into Multiple Intelligences theory. Just because someone's a genius at one thing, doesn't mean they're even remotely competent in other areas.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-05-03 01:50
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Musicians = large part of the brain controlling many small
> muscles
>
> Athlete= small part of the brain controlling large muscles
>
> Was from a Doctor's lecture on Musicians/Mind.
You state that, the onus is on you to prove it. I think you're on shaky ground.
> Basketball, Baseball, Football, Boxers, your choice - they
> aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree.
Choose almost any profession - I can say the same. Even in the engineering field, where I happen to have some first-hand knowledge.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-05-03 02:03
I'm reminded of the title of an old Louis Jordan song:
"If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GLHopkins
Date: 2010-05-03 03:16
Pro athletes make a lot more than pro clarinet players.
Pro athletes have trophy wives. Clarinet players might get a flute player.
Pro athletes live in huge mansions and drive Bentleys. Pro clarinet players don't.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: justme
Date: 2010-05-03 03:34
GLHopkins said" Pro athletes have trophy wives. Clarinet players might get a flute player."
Some of those flute players ARE "trophy wives!"
Justme
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GLHopkins
Date: 2010-05-03 03:35
"Some of those flute players ARE "trophy wives!"
You've got a point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2010-05-03 10:28
Now I'm hopeless at sport, but talking to my sporty friends begins to make me think that it's the same part of the brain used for sport and music. In me it does music; in them it does sport. The whole skill aspect and social activity thing seems to tie up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-05-03 11:36
I know a many good musicians that are very dumb.
A former employer thought that musicians and athletes are very similar in a lot of ways. Generally, they are extremely focused on their goal, and require lots of repetitive practice. Also (and I think she hit the nail on the head with this one) they often are very bad at conversation because they know little about anything other than their specialty, and they are often not very interested either.
Invariably, they are bad spellers. 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2010-05-03 12:18
Very interesting.
When I was in grad school, I had my eyes checked at the eye clinic of Indiana University. I was told that my peripheral vision was shockingly good--up there with the point guards on the basketball team. I've always felt that was developed in orchestral players--we have to be hyper sensitive to the body movements of those around us, while also focusing on conductor and music stand.
Beyond this, I've found that athletes are usually among the only folks who can understand the level of committment and public scrutiny that musicians also must deal with: we are both performance disciplines, and often our scholarships (when in school) depend upon whether we can produce results under pressure.
I've learned as much from athletes, especially boxers, about how to prepare for performances, etc, as from musicians. Floyd Patterson's Victory Over Myself and Sugar Ray: the autobiography of Sugar Ray Robinson are deeply insightful books by highly intelligent men. They deserve to be considered valuable works of American literature. I'd compare them in depth to Sidney Bechet's Treat it Gentle and Duke Ellington's Music is My Mistress and of the four books, I'd say Patterson's was the most profound.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2010-05-03 12:35
The only sports men I would say that are educated to university level are cricketers and rugby players. Cricketers especially use their minds while playing, as mentioned in the article they need to essentially read the mind of the bowler, who will be bowling a big heavy leather covered ball at them at about 90mph which can do a lot of damage, as to where the bowler will pitch the ball the the trajectory of the ball after it pitches all the while deciding which shot to play, a straight drive? A shot through the covers? A pull or a hook? All this happens in a few seconds.
I believe accomplished musicians do the same thing. They are always thinking during practice and performance about the multitasking that they have to do. Add transposition on top, geography of the piece... The list is endless.
It's all about the complex motor skills and training them. When these are highly developed does that make them a genius? Einstein for example didn't need to train his motor functions to do what he did, his thought patterns were conceptual. How else would he have been able to work on the Theory of Relativity?
I believe conceptual ideas which are put into practice either as a musician/artist, scientist, sportsman or whatever the field can take one on the path of genius.
Peter Cigleris
Post Edited (2010-05-03 12:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-05-03 12:54
Dear David Blumberg,
I believe there was a certain principal clarinetist with the Dallas Symphony that had a series of heated exchanges with a certain trombonist of the Dallas Symphony. Upon one of their disagreements this certain principal clarinetist took a chair and thrust it down upon the head of the said trombone player.
Not a gun shot to the leg, but I'm going through my mental files now.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-05-03 12:56
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Ok, when was the last time that a pro clarinetist shot himself
> in the leg at a bar, or pulled a gun in the locker room on a
> violist.......
>
> Sports figures make a ton of money, but often blow it all.
Oh geez ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-05-03 13:16
You are what you practice. If you practice sports with extreme dedication, you will excel at that. If you practice music with extreme dedication, you will excel at that. If you practice intellectual pursuits with the save fervor as sports (see: Mike Richter), you will be good (or at least better) at that. If you work on your personal relationships with the same dedication, you will be good (or at least better) at that. Your focus determines your reality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2010-05-03 13:27
I've often wondered why we pick an instrument. My parents made me start on piano as a 2nd or 3d grader and made me practice...Of course I fought them at every turn! In 4th grade I started on trumpet ( Herb Alpert was big in the mid 60s) and failed miserably. Not quite ready to give up just yet , I showed up in 5th grade with a used Bundy clarinet ( much to the director's dismay) and within a month was in the bad, and 1st chair by Xmas...I would practice hours a day....why? I have no idea...but it clicked with me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2010-05-03 15:33
Some comments:
The violist shot ME;
ALL girl Flutists are someone's trophy.
In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell points out that, in many sports the timing of kiddy play and birthdate cut-offs have a strong effect on which potentially great athletes get the advantage of early coaching to go with their advanced physical development.
Paul Elvstrom, the great competitive sailor said that if you can't sail well by age 9, you'll never be worth a damn (paraphrasing).
Back to Gladwell: we've all got to put in our 10,000 hours of focused practice; I'm hoping to complete my curriculum before I die.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DixieSax
Date: 2010-05-03 17:27
Gun to a violist's head? That's a public service. (I kid, I kid)
String quartet = 1 good violinist, 1 bad violinist, 1 former violinist, and someone who hates violins.
As for flautists.. this one time, at band camp...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-05-03 17:58
Reading some of the postings on this BB, one would never suspect that clarinetists are geniuses.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2010-05-04 09:42
David Spiegelthal wrote:
> Reading some of the postings on this BB, one would never
> suspect that clarinetists are geniuses.
But Dave, we constantly demonstrate our superiority to athletes who are not smart enough to engage in endless discussions of how their equipment influences their playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2010-05-04 11:42
Clarinet quartet:
1 good clarinetist
1 bad clarinetist
1 alto "clarientist"
1 guy whose goal in life is to drown out all clarinetists
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2010-05-04 11:56
If clarinetists are supposed to be geniuses, how does one explain marching band?
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-05-04 14:22
I think there is truth to the parallels being drawn here between music and athletics. There is the focus on developing particular motor skills, the psychological aspect both groups encounter regarding performance, and the need to read physical cues from others.
I have watched my son (good football player, high measured IQ) and his friends learn to play tackle football these past several years and followed a quirky, fun to watch college level offense in Boise State. This has convinced me that football players have to be smart to understand and execute what is being asked of them. It is complex!
Most of the problems involving pro athletes do not involve intelligence. They are a function of young men being handed too much at too young an age. This is particularly true where there has been no dad involved in the young man's life. It is a loss that manifests itself in many ways in the lives of the young.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GLHopkins
Date: 2010-05-04 15:26
I'm just glad all clarinetists aren't required to shower together after rehearsal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-05-04 18:06
If we were really geniuses we would have found a way to get paid 10-20 million dollars a year for what we do. We do what we love for the love of it and try to make a living from doing it, they do what they love and become millionaires while doing it. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-05-04 22:50
Some random thoughts:
1.) The title of this article, while an effective hook to lure the reader, has very little to do with the actual scientific subject matter of the article, which is that scientists are beginning to unlock HOW the brain is able to train and develop itself. In particular, they focus on seasoned athletes' ability to perform tasks with minimal conscious effort (which is the same thing we musicians achieve with practice).
The mere fact that people (skilled athletes being no exception) rely on their brains to perform complex motor tasks is nothing new. People who have experienced a stroke or other brain damage and have suffered motor impairment as a result of this are prime examples of why this is so. The scientifically interesting thing is HOW IT WORKS, not whether it does or not.
The only thing really *controversial* about this article is the title, which was intended to arouse strong feelings in order to lure in the reader. Beyond that, it serves virtually no purpose.
2.) The notion that the availability of a simple electrical power source would improve one's ability to perform certain mental tasks is interesting. It reminds me of some of the research that was performed on Albert Einstein's brain, where they determined that the most salient difference between his brain and those of other people was the number of glial cells it contained. I'm not a neuroscientist, but as best I understand it, glial cells are the support cells that essentially feed and support the neurons (which are the actual nerve cells) in the brain. Perhaps there is a connection here--it seems that the more energy your brain has to work with, the better it will perform.
3.) Getting back to the title and the controversy surrounding it, there has been a movement over the past...oh...30 years or so to try to redefine what is meant by "intelligence" to make it encompass things other than general cognitive ability. So you hear talk of "emotional intelligence" and Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligence theory," etc. Despite being dressed up in scientific-sounding language, I tend to think that these represent more of a philosophical inquiry into societal values, rather than a scientific theory.
When stripped of its verbal window dressing, for instance, multiple intelligence theory really says nothing more than that some people are better at some things than they are at others. That's nothing new. Calling an "ability," such as musical ability, athletic ability, verbal ability, or mathematical ability, an "intelligence" doesn't really change what it is. It merely reflects the extent to which we value it. Calling a star athlete with poor academic performance "kinesthetically intelligent" really only says something about the person talking--that they feel the athlete's athletic performance is of equal value to another student's academic accomplishments.
This, of course, does raise some important philosophical questions about the nature and purpose of education that really need to be addressed, particularly here in the U.S. For instance, should our schools put their resources into making sure that everyone meets the same minimal standards in all subjects (the apparent philosophy behind "No Child Left Behind"--and also "No Pass, No Play") or would those resources be more effectively utilized by making greater efforts to identify children's natural abilities and focusing on developing those abilities to the greatest possible extent (the apparent philosophy behind "magnet programs"--like Houston's High School for Performing and Visual Arts, for example). I really think these are issues that need exploring, but I question whether some of the fancy labels the psychologists dream up really help that much in this regard.
4.) I will say this for multiple intelligence theory, however. Gardner was perceptive enough to make a distinction between "kinesthetic intelligence" and "musical intelligence." There are plenty of musicians out there who seem to possess the former and lack the latter.
In fact, this is a major difference between us musicians and athletes. We may rely on kinesthetic ability to play difficult technical passages, but that's really only a small part of what we do. True musicianship really has nothing to do with how quickly and evenly you can play a scale, whereas for an athlete, how fast they can run, how accurately they can hit/throw a ball, etc. is the whole point of the activity.
5.) I think a real hallmark of intelligence is the ability to adapt to unfamiliar situations. Most of the time this means having the ability to apply what one knows to a situation dissimilar to those experienced in the past (which is primarily what the article discusses), although I would also argue that many of the major breakthroughs in history came from people who had an ability to selectively disregard what they knew or had been taught in order to develop creative solutions to problems.
Post Edited (2010-05-04 23:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2010-05-05 00:15
"whereas for an athlete, how fast they can run, how accurately they can hit/throw a ball, etc. is the whole point of the activity."
You've apparently never watched Michael Jordan, Peggy Fleming, Tiger Woods, Jacki Joyner-Kersee, Willie Mays, Nadia Comaneci, Greg Louganis, Mia Hamm, Muhammed Ali, Roger Federer or countless other athletes who are true artists.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-05-05 17:21
Phat Cat wrote:
> "whereas for an athlete, how fast they can run, how accurately
> they can hit/throw a ball, etc. is the whole point of the
> activity."
>
> You've apparently never watched Michael Jordan, Peggy Fleming,
> Tiger Woods, Jacki Joyner-Kersee, Willie Mays, Nadia Comaneci,
> Greg Louganis, Mia Hamm, Muhammed Ali, Roger Federer or
> countless other athletes who are true artists.
I think you missed my point. I didn't say that there weren't athletes whose performances have great aesthetic qualities--there clearly are. Likewise, there are plenty of people in the performing arts whose athleticism is worthy of great respect (dancers such as Gene Kelly, for instance).
But there is a distinction to be made here--although, as your choice of names suggest, the applicability of this distinction will vary by sport (figure skating, for instance, is really as much a form of dance as it is a sport).
The distinction is that the PRIMARY GOAL of most sports is speed or accuracy, whereas the PRIMARY GOAL of music is creative expression. Michael Jordan may be incredible to watch, but you don't score points in basketball for being graceful. Tiger Woods' golf swing may have beautiful form, but at the end of the day, it's whether he got the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes that counts. The aesthetic qualities of their performances, however notable, are still incidental to the physical demands of the sport.
Music often involves or even requires certain feats of technical skill, just as in athletics, but the ultimate object of musicianship is the *expression* of ideas in sound. Someone can have the fastest fingers in the west or the sweetest tone quality, but neither of these are of much consequence if what he/she plays is lacking in style, meaningful phrasing, rhythmic feel, emotional expression, etc.
That's also not to say that one field is necessarily "better" than the other. But they ARE different and, as such, one's level of accomplishment in one or the other field is necessarily judged according to very different sorts of standards. Moreover, the most important mental skills to have to excel in each field are somewhat different.
Case in point: Some of the most difficult pieces in the clarinet repertoire to play well also happen to be relatively easy from a technical standpoint--in particular, the clarinet works of Mozart and Brahms. Poorly played Mozart is boring to listen to and poorly played Brahms just sounds like an incoherent mess.
Post Edited (2010-05-05 17:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: George Stalle
Date: 2010-05-06 12:10
You make great points. Who are you? Would love to continue some discussions with you away from the BBoard. . . Not sure if I'm at your level of thinking, but it would be nice to know you. I always appreciate great thinking!
I loved the this thread more for its humorous exchanges, some of which were quite funny, especially as they regard female flutists.
All the best,
George Stalle
28 Lakview Drive
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Cell: 856-979-8370
George Stalle
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: George Stalle
Date: 2010-05-06 12:16
My take:
Primary Goal of Sports = To experience the joy of competition
Primary Goal of the Arts = to experience the joy of expression
George Stalle
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: abstruse_melisma
Date: 2010-09-05 08:04
To "mrn"
I realize this response is coming a few months late, but I've been out of touch with the BB lately. What a surprise after a long night of catching up to discover a thread with more than the usual talk of equipment and trade gossip!
I never would have expected glial cells to make their way into a discussion on this forum. From what I gather, they were completely disregarded in early studies of the brain. They were mainly thought of as connective tissue (neuroglia, glia meaning glue) having no bearing on neural communication. Mostly until the examination of Einstein, whose brain had actually been quartered and stolen. Only after discovering Einstein had several times the normal proportion of glial cells did they conduct real tests, proving that neuroglia actually have chemical synapses and release neurotransmitters many times faster than neurons. I think the general consensus as is that Einstein's brain, as a result, had superb internal communication, which allowed him to overcome the conceptual status quo. His thought experiments were very different from the procedures of the leading physicists of the time, perhaps due to this phenomena. At least from what little I understand. I'm not a neurologist either.
Anyway, it was nice to disprove something mentioned earlier in this thread:
"...[clarinetists] often are very bad at conversation because they know little about anything other than their specialty, and they are often not very interested either. Invariably, they are bad spellers."
It's nice to know there are others out there with diverse interests!
Sorry skygardener, that dug a little deep, being a spelling fanatic!
I'd encourage everyone to take a break now and then and pick up an interesting journal or book. Something wildly disparate from the subject of music. The brain wasn't made to be used for one purpose alone! It's not healthy! Every relationship needs a measure of space to avoid stress. Even a dream job!
Devin T.B. Langham
Clarinet Performance Major
Michigan State University
interlude
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davetrow
Date: 2010-09-05 14:27
At least playing the clarinet doesn't lead to brain damage, like so many sports (e.g. football, soccer).
Oh, wait...
Dave Trowbridge
Boulder Creek, CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-09-05 16:49
If clarinetists were really smart (genius's), they would play instruments that didn't require reeds. Theory disproven.....end of story.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
