 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: JPMarcellus2011
Date: 2011-12-04 16:31
What etudes or exercises did Anton Stadler play? What about Heinrich Baermann or Carl? Mülfeld? Obviously their respective courses of study could lead to great insight about the pieces written for them and their ability to execute them as virtuosi. Stadler didn't play the Jeanjean etudes or even Rose (because they didn't exist), yet he undoubtedly played kv. 622 very well. What did he work on to make it happen? How about the others? Thoughts?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2011-12-04 18:35
Good question. Maybe they played etude collections that were not widely published, if at all, and have not survived the many decades since? Maybe they played etudes written for other instruments? (I'm informed that a number of the Rose etudes were originally for violin or oboe.)
One might ask similar questions about any groundbreaking genius. Who taught physics to Isaac Newton? How did Shakespeare (or whoever wrote all those plays) learn about playwriting? When the creators of what is now the Bible needed inspiration, where did they turn?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-12-04 19:04
Hmm...if they had good etudes, why would they publish their own? ;-)
I guess what separates Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, Bach, (you name 'em) from us mere mortals is the way how they spun and merged known ideas into thitherto unknown never-thought-of ways. What counts is not what you have but rather what you make of it...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-04 21:46
I do believe you mean Richard Mülfeld......
First off it need be realized that the conservatory "system" as we know it was not exactly the state of things in past times. Schools of study did exist, but the environment was much varied from what we know. (Many of said schools existed to make musicians to serve in the courts of the ruling class- not fostering much intellectual development. As so, most of those students are not known to us today- save Haydn for one exception.)
Not having grown up in that world I cannot claim to truly know myself. Yet, many of the musicians we famously know now grew from a master/apprentice relationship; I realize this sounds conspicuously similar to a teacher-student relationship with which we are familiar, but there are differences.
Just as a simple example, take the manuscript of a Classic composition: Articulations and dynamics are sparse in most cases. Are we to assume that was how the works were performed?- I should think not! The apprentice would learn the aural traditions through oral transmission from the master. (Perhaps something akin to a youngster sitting at the feet of an early blues musician.) Past works could be used to learn the "technique" of the instrument, but the style of the times was passed on in a differing manner. -The past "etudes" (if they even existed) were not to be worshiped.
"Cookie-cutter" musicians were not the goal of study. "Etudes" were not applied as a dogmatic gospel as they seem to be today. Or if some were used, the fact they have fallen into oblivion perhaps speaks to their weak importance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think that what constitutes an etude need be defined.
Etudes are "study pieces" written to take an already past musical aesthetic/technique and combine it into a piece to be used as study. i.e. In playing Rose, JeanJean or Cavallini we are studying a musical aesthetic that has already passed- an attempt has been made to write a cogent collection from which to study.
-Traveling back to Stadler, and this forces us to make dangerous assumptions, I'd think he would have used Baroque/proto-Classical literature for technical study, applying it to the current musical trends of his day: the Classical aesthetic. (I have not read who taught Stadler- nor what he studied. I have read that he existed and inspired.)
The "tonal" musical harmony of the Baroque period is not foreign to, nor archaic, in the music of the Classical period. The way it is expressed may differ however... Perhaps he used Quantz or Bach, playing the arpeggiations, scales etc... contained and applied the learned "pure technique" to apply to the growing Classic "style."
....and I think it bears repeating that any period of music is neither named, nor "codified" until that period has already passed; and the borders are always a bit fuzzy. It's not as if anyone said "Now we are in the Classical" period. -Our current "period" will not be defined for many, many years.
-The Baermanns (Heinrich and Carl) had access to all that Stadler did, plus the works of Mozart, Stamitz (and perhaps of Mannheim, Munich composers that have passed into oblivion) and applied that knowledge to the current works of Mendelsson, Weber, Spohr et. al.
Carl Baermann consequently wrote the method that we are all familiar with (perhaps the earliest famous clarinet "methodology"), and also helped develop the Ottensteiner clarinet that Mülfeld used.
-With Mülfeld, and I can only surmise, he would have used all that preceded him in clarinet literature coupled with the development of the Ottensteiner clarinet, to begin his weeding. Perhaps he used the Baermann method, but I do not know. What we do know is that Mülfeld began as an orchestral violinist and later moved to the clarinet: thankfully so!!! -Lest we would not have the wonderful compositions of Brahms that he inspired. (But, beginning as violinist, his earliest works of study may be quite different from what we may surmise- We weren't there to know.)
------------------------------------------------------
In summation, I don't believe the question is out-of-line, nor pointless. Yet, I do think our fixation on etudes/methodologies are a product of the Conservatory environment that we currently exist in.
In our current climate, we use "famous" etudes to learn how to apply the technique of our instrument to a past aesthetic. That is certainly not out of place- and can be quite useful. Yet it seems that we place much more emphasis on those study-works, and famous Golden-Calves, than simply using them to learn how to approach a past style. Maybe the apprentice view-point needs to return a bit to replace our devout-worshiping?
***If viewed from the other side: the fact we know of Stadler, Mülfeld, the Baermanns, Oxenvad and the incredible works they inspired -coupled with a lack of knowledge of what "etudes" they may have used- speaks of something greater. They methods of learnin' that we worship are not the important thing; what can come from them is! What those before us studied is perhaps not important- only that they studied is. (And you can only know if you are there, which we cannot be- that boat has sailed.)
I don't mean to dodge the question, and I do apologize if I appear to be preaching. Etudes are not out of place- but they seem to be placed in a improper context in many cases.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-04 22:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-04 22:32
John wrote, in part:
>> What etudes or exercises did Anton Stadler play? What about Heinrich Baermann or Carl [Baermann]? [Richard] Mühlfeld? Obviously their respective courses of study could lead to great insight about the pieces written for them and their ability to execute them as virtuosi.>>
Well, I think not; they probably did the sorts of things to improve their playing that we may well intelligently do ourselves.
Exercises that you create for yourself play an important part in improving the fluency of the physical abilities that you have decided are important. It's not necessary to play any particular studies -- or indeed, any particular exercises. You may do better to generate appropriate exercises from the notes of the pieces you are playing.
I said, "the physical abilities you have decided are important".
In the case of the Mozart concerto, one of the abilities that is important is the ability to play the constituent notes of a phrase evenly, and in such a way that the phrase is perceived as a unity by the listener. Mozart said of his klavier playing, "I had to work many hours to make the passagework flow 'like oil'."
So Mozart himself says that in order to play his music well, we have to demand that ability of ourselves.
The better studies try to make that sort of demand evident to a player. But they fail in the case of a player who does not see the need for the demand. Clearly, it is an illusion that playing ANY study BADLY helps at all. And most people play studies badly, and hence, uselessly.
I have read here reports of statements from legendary players like, "the Rose Etudes are ESSENTIAL preparation for a musical career on the clarinet."
Well, that's nonsense. (I never played or saw any Rose Etude before reading this list and BBoard, for example.) What IS essential preparation is to take seriously what the music needs for its best expression, and either to create exercises that support that, or choose to play studies that support that.
I say, "choose to play studies that support that". Clearly, JeanJean in C# major is not much use for much of the classical repertoire. You can improve your playing of the classical repertoire by creating your own exercises, and then studying THEM; that is, if you have any idea of what the requirements of the classical pieces are.
Finally, I've seen here the pejorative term, 'C major virtuoso'. Well, if you're playing classical music, particularly on old instruments, you need to be virtuoso in that and other simple keys, and it's NOT trivial, even on modern instruments. (In fact, I'd like to hear the C major, G major and F major performances of the people who bandy that term about.)
Would that more people were willing to follow Mozart's example.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-04 23:12
Tony Pay wrote:
> Would that more people were willing to follow Mozart's example.
Not a bad "Idol" to follow on that account.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-12-05 17:36
I was fetched up short when following up another thread here --the one on the LeBlanc downloads.
Amongst those were the "ROSE 16," the half of the Rose 32 that are the slower, "expressivity" studies --all nicely marked with dynamics, articulations, hesitations, ... by Bonade.
It occurs to me in the present context that having the etudes on your stand is not nearly as important as having someone who's already visited them show you the way.
In addition to getting musicality guidance, sometimes it makes a huge difference to have someone come in out of left field and suggest an alternative fingering --particularly, in my experience, in the Kreopsch exercises.
I would never have looked "upstream" to make a pinky switch so solve an immediate problem, and it might not have occurred to me to drag out the fingering chart and explore different sets of altissimo options...
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-12-05 18:37
I think the influence of military wind band music is usually overlooked in these discussions. Guys like Bärmann came up through military schools, and I'd imagine that the vast majority of employment for wind and brass players came in the form of military bands. (This is also why the Bb clarinet beat out the rest of the family, I'd wager.) In the primary-sources jazz history "Hear Me Talkin' To Ya", even as late as the early 20th century (at least in New Orleans), players measured themselves as virtuosos largely according to whether they'd mastered difficult solos in marches.
Also, there was a lot more 'doubling' prior to the current ultra-specialized era of music, and a lot of the early clarinet guys played, say, trumpet or violin as well. Today there's a tendency for classical people to be real prigs about, say, performing a violin sonata on a clarinet, but these people wouldn't have felt that stigma and so there was a lot more literature available.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 18:48
Bob Phillips wrote, in part:
>> I was fetched up short when following up another thread here --the one on the LeBlanc downloads. Amongst those were the "ROSE 16," the half of the Rose 32 that are the slower, "expressivity" studies --all nicely marked with dynamics, articulations, hesitations, ... by Bonade.>>
So, I went and had a look at these, and then at the Drucker edition I bought a few years ago when everyone was talking about Rose....
...and before saying anything about either of them, I'd like to know: since I have DRUCKER'S edition, and now BONADE'S edition, what is the source of these studies? Is there a ROSE edition?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-12-05 19:19
The Carl Fischer edition of the Rose etudes is the one I know (and use and teach), but have always made modifications to the slow etudes (using Bonade's edition as a guidelines).
Ultimately, Tony, the etudes were adapted by Rose from other material anyway, so the phrasing and articulation and usage is, IMO, flexible. I do like much of Bonade's versions, but not entirely. I frequently change them (not because I think I know better, but because my students have a hard time with the symbols he uses).
FYI, I have never seen manuscripts, and have a few other editions of the etudes, but am most "comfortable" with the Fischer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 19:38
Tony Pay wrote:
> ...and before saying anything about either of them, I'd like to
> know: since I have DRUCKER'S edition, and now BONADE'S edition,
> what is the source of these studies? Is there a ROSE edition?
>
> Tony
Most of them are adapted from 19th century violin etudes. The Hite edition (you didn't mention that one ) actually cites the sources and puts back a lot of the music that Rose cut out.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 20:05
Karl wrote:
>> The Hite edition (you didn't mention that one) actually cites the sources and puts back a lot of the music that Rose cut out.>>
That seems to imply that there is a Rose version in between the violin sources and the Hite edition, no?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-05 20:15
As a teacher, it is our inescapable responsibility to show how a certain etude, or even just a few measures contained, can aid any said "physical difficulty" in a differing piece.
The application of etudes "onto" a student is not out of place, but if anything of merit is to come from that, it is essential to extrapolate and show where the contained knowledge applies in other situations. -Otherwise, we are simply transmitting etudes for their own sake.
Learning "pure technique" to perform an etude written in the style of Mozart, or Bach, may aid; or not. As a teacher it is essential to explain why, why not, where, when and how it may be apt; or again, not.
In your own personal studies you may do what is wished- if you keep it to yourself.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 20:36
No, Hite's is a much more, perhaps the most, recent edition. I think he was trying to demonstrate the lineage that other editions ignored as successive editors either kept or changed the editorial markings of earlier versions. The one I studied in the 1960s was an edition that was old even then published by Carl Fischer that was part of Bonade's curriculum at Curtis (and carried on by his students). Drucker was later - maybe during the '70s? There have probably been one or two others since then to correct wrong notes and suggest "better" articulations and other expressive features. Hite actually included a forward that's dated 2000.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 20:39
Here is Bonade's foreword to his edition:
Quote:
Experience has proven that there is a real need for an edition of these well-known etudes containing correct phrasing and dynamics. There are many different books of studies in existence, but none of them actually show how to phrase correctly. This book can be used as a vade-mecum either by students, teachers or professional players. In it, I have indicated with repeated dynamic signs what should be done in good phrasing. Occasionally I have deliberately overemphasized, because I have found by experience during my long years of teaching that the usual tendency is to play "coldly" -- that is to say, "underphrasing" rather than "overphrasing".
I recommend that teachers use this book as a textbook of phrasing, along with the regular Rose 32 Etudes, allowing the pupil first to perform from the original and then to correct the playing with the revised edition. Later on, let the pupil play directly from the revised copy until phrasing becomes as much a part of his ability as technique and articulation.
Daniel Bonade
1952
This also seems to me to indicate -- among other things that I may go into later -- that there WAS an original 'regular' Rose version.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-12-05 20:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 20:45
Karl wrote, in part:
>> No, Hite's is a much more, perhaps the most, recent edition...the one I studied in the 1960s was an edition that was old even then published by Carl Fischer that was part of Bonade's curriculum at Curtis (and carried on by his students).>>
Do you still have that? Was it edited by someone other than Rose?
>> Drucker was later - maybe during the '70s? There have probably been one or two others since then to correct wrong notes and suggest "better" articulations and other expressive features.>>
I want to see the phrasing that 'went with' the original, you see.
>> Hite actually included a forward that's dated 2000.>>
Does he talk about the original at all?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 20:51
Katrina wrote, in part:
>> The Carl Fischer edition of the Rose etudes is the one I know (and use and teach), but have always made modifications to the slow etudes (using Bonade's edition as a guidelines)...I have never seen manuscripts, and have a few other editions of the etudes, but am most "comfortable" with the Fischer.>>
Does the Fischer mention a clarinettist-editor?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-05 21:51
Tony Pay wrote:
> Karl wrote, in part:
>
> >> No, Hite's is a much more, perhaps the most, recent
> edition...the one I studied in the 1960s was an edition that
> was old even then published by Carl Fischer that was part of
> Bonade's curriculum at Curtis (and carried on by his
> students).>>
>
> Do you still have that? Was it edited by someone other than
> Rose?
Yes. Hite re-edited Rose's 40 Studies. The Fischer edition is dated 1910 and names no other editor. I assume it was Rose's original edition.
>
> >> Drucker was later - maybe during the '70s? There have
> probably been one or two others since then to correct wrong
> notes and suggest "better" articulations and other expressive
> features.>>
>
> I want to see the phrasing that 'went with' the original, you
> see.
>
Of course, the "original originals" by Dancla, Kreutzer, Mazas, et al, are in many cases longer and have sometimes more string-specific markings. Rose left some things out for brevity, others to provide for breaths, etc...
> >> Hite actually included a forward that's dated 2000.>>
>
> Does he talk about the original at all?
>
I'd have to go back and read the forward. I'm on my way out the door to a rehearsal, but I'll look later tonight. I don't recall that he talks about Rose's version (if that's what you mean by "the original") but was more concerned about the original violin etudes, but I don't remember clearly.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-12-06 02:05
The Fischer edition mentions nothing. It's fairly bare-bones as far as info, but has some wretched printing inconsistencies and outright errors which have not been amended over many years. IIRC, the initial printing of this edition was sometime in the 1930s.
Why do I still use it? Force of habit, I guess, and I tend to teach mainly high school kids so most of the time the amount of musical info there is more than they will ever need.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 02:49
Katrina wrote:
> The Fischer edition mentions nothing. It's fairly bare-bones as
> far as info, but has some wretched printing inconsistencies and
> outright errors which have not been amended over many years.
> IIRC, the initial printing of this edition was sometime in the
> 1930s.
>
My copy says 1910 (MCMX). Maybe yours is a later printing?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 02:58
This is personally interesting because, although I studied over several years with at least 3 of Bonade's students in the 1960s, I've never seen a Bonade edition - they all taught Rose using the original editions published by Fischer. I guess they all decided that his over-emphases were...well,....over-emhpases.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 03:05
Tony Pay wrote:
>
> Does he talk about the original at all?
>
Yes, Hite does talk about Rose and about what he assumes were Rose's reasons for the changes he (Rose) made to the original string material and his rationale in compiling and adapting these selections from the string literature for use by clarinetists. Hite doesn't say anything specific about phrasing or expressive style in Rose's work, but he points out that he (Hite) has deliberately left out the dynamic markings because the string etudes for the most part didn't indicate them.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-06 03:47
Bonade's foreword has always confused me a bit.........
Mainly, in his suggestion that students play the original (or deficient in his eyes) edition, only to then correct them with his phrase interpretations (which I can only assume he believed to be the correct way.)
Ignoring any views one has on Bonade's phrase markings, why would you -as a blanket practice- have a student play (and maybe "learn") a deficient "way", only to later correct it.
I guess in some cases, with a particular student, it may be necessary; though I will not presume to decide when in this setting. Overall, it seems a bit counter-productive, at least in terms of time efficiency.
Having never seen the original Rose edition, I have no idea what it contained. Perhaps Rose intentionally left out phrase markings for legibility; perhaps they were absent so he could guide his students in "how to play them." We cannot know with what he currently have at hand. (The Cuper edition is foreign to me as well, though I would be very interested to have it at hand.)
Furthermore, Rose's phrasing could only have been transmitted to Bonade via Henri Lefevbre- an actual student of Rose. It is quite possibly Rose's intent was mutated via this transmission.
At any rate, if Bonade's phrasing marks are applied ad hoc to all "periods" of music, the original character of said music could be destroyed. -Mainly that of the Classic period which requires a very different approach than the bar-line weakening quite present in Bonade's "system." At times, under-phrased is necessary.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-06 06:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 13:46
All the discussion about Rose's studies and their various editions aside, the strong implication seems to be that the "legends" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at least, were using string literature as study material in addition to, perhaps, some of the original etude collections and tutors we're still familiar with - Klose, Carl Baermann, etc... I have a copy of Otto Langley's "New and Revised Edition of Celebrated Tutors" (also published by Carl Fischer) that has an original copyright date of 1890. And I have a slightly later tutor in PDF format by Lazarus with a copyright of 1906. I'm not sure when Langenus's method was published- my copy is quite new and has a copyright date of 1928, but I don't know if that's its original date of publication or not.
It's interesting, maybe, that all of this material seems to have been published by Carl Fischer. Did no other publisher print teaching material at the turn of the century?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 15:47
Coincidentally, an extraordinary amount of interest (30+ responses, and rising fast) is being generated on the Klarinet list at the moment by an offer (from Gary Truesdail) to make available a copy of Gustave Langenus's annotated and autographed version of the (Fischer) Rose Etudes.
I find it striking that my major interest is in the opposite direction -- I want to know what came from Rose's pen, because all the evidence I have about that so far leads me to suppose that HIS phrase marks and dynamics were fairly minimal.
To me, that means that his studies, as well as being exercises in clarinet technique, were exercises in reading what I have described here before as 'thin' musical notation. Any edition that attempts to 'thicken' the notation destroys that function of the Etudes. (Imagine someone trying to 'thicken' jazz notation in order to represent, say, 'degrees of swing', to get some notion of how inappropriate that is.)
What you have to do is to practise wearing the 'spectacles' that enable you to read what is there, and play musically and expressively within the style.
Of course, it is slightly interesting to see in what ways various clarinet player/editors have missed the point; but I'm amazed that so many people have shown such a strong interest in what, after all, is merely anecdotal.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 16:52
Tony Pay wrote:
> Coincidentally, an extraordinary amount of interest (30+
> responses, and rising fast) is being generated on the Klarinet
> list at the moment by an offer (from Gary Truesdail) to make
> available a copy of Gustave Langenus's annotated and
> autographed version of the (Fischer) Rose Etudes.
>
No discussion, though - only "Yes, I want a copy." Although without actually seeing Langenus's markings it would be hard to discuss them. The best response was the one about responding off-list.
> I find it striking that my major interest is in the opposite
> direction -- I want to know what came from Rose's pen, because
> all the evidence I have about that so far leads me to suppose
> that HIS phrase marks and dynamics were fairly minimal.
>
Assuming the 1910 edition without an editor attribution is Rose's original work, some etudes are more minimally marked than others. All are articulated, but dynamic markings range from non-existent to fairly explicit. It might be that Rose's markings were a reflection of what was in the original sources he used. What might be interesting would be a 3-way comparison among Rose's markings, Hite's (which are mostly the same as Rose's but sometimes more explicit) and the composers' - which adds another layer of difficulty, since we can't really tell without a lot more research than anyone is likely to put into it what editions Rose had at his disposal of the works of Dancla, Mazas, etc... How edited were the versions he used as sources?
> To me, that means that his studies, as well as being exercises
> in clarinet technique, were exercises in reading what I have
> described here before as 'thin' musical notation. Any edition
> that attempts to 'thicken' the notation destroys that function
> of the Etudes.
>
> What you have to do is to practise wearing the 'spectacles'
> that enable you to read what is there, and play musically and
> expressively within the style.
>
I haven't seen Bonade's edition, even though, as I've said, my teachers were all either his students or students of his students. But my copies of the studies are riddled with brackets showing anacrustic "direction" over top of the printed barline-oriented slurs and extra crescendos and diminuendos, most of which I'd bet were more or less directly passed down from Bonade. So, I assume his markings "thickened" the notation considerably. I would also assume that Drucker did the same thing. Else, there would have been no reason to do more to Rose than correct the misprints, unless it would have been, as Hite tried to do, to go back even closer to the sources.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 17:32
Karl wrote:
>> I haven't seen Bonade's edition, even though, as I've said, my teachers were all either his students or students of his students.>>
There's a link here:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=351675&t=351674
I think you'll be pretty shocked, especially in the light of the Foreword.
>>...there would have been no reason to do more to Rose than correct the misprints, unless it would have been, as Hite tried to do, to go back even closer to the sources.>>
I've tried to get hold of the Hite edition for that reason, but no-one seems to offer it for sale now. I don't mind so much about the 'original original' sources; it would be enough for me to be able to show that there was a difference between the assumptions that Cyrille Rose made about HIS students' reading spectacles, and the assumptions that modern players have made about THEIR students' reading spectacles.
Taking Bonade's ideas about Rose seriously, on this account, does considerable damage to a student's ability to appreciate, say, Mozart's writing; much of Rose is not so very distant from classical style.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-12-06 18:07
"I've tried to get hold of the Hite edition for that reason, but no-one seems to offer it for sale now. I don't mind so much about the 'original original' sources; it would be enough for me to be able to show that there was a difference between the assumptions that Cyrille Rose made about HIS students' reading spectacles, and the assumptions that modern players have made about THEIR students' reading spectacles."
All the Hite's stuff is in print, in nice cheap editions, from Southern Music:
http://www.smcpublications.com/catalog/music/instrumental/woodwinds/clmeth.htm
You can order directly from them, I believe. I think his Rose is much better than the C. Fischer (although I never felt the C. Fischer was bad when I was using it).
(Incidentally, I find the worship of the Rose etudes a little perplexing, as nice as they are. They're just violin etudes!, albeit well-selected ones, and I imagine Rose might have tossed some of the other bits of Mazas or Wohlfahrt together and produced an equally good book.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 18:24
I see it. He used 16 of the 32 in a different set from the one I've been referring to. Hite edited the 40 Etudes, which, from the publication dates, are older. The 32 Etudes, or at least my copy of it, was published in 1913. Bonade seems to have added a lot of dynamic, breathing, and duration indications (but no directional brackets ).
BTW, the Rose 40 Studies on the Sheet Music page at the same Leblanc site appears, from a quick glance through it, to be what I have in my 1910 printing.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-06 22:00
The brackets my teachers always penciled in connecting the eighth or sixteenth notes following a beat forward to the next beat. This "anacrustic" phrasing was nearly invariable regardless of the musical period or style or printed phrase marks.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-12-06 22:35
One more note about the Bonade edition and (what I believe to be) his intent:
He thought that most of what a clarinetist would require in an orchestral position _in the 1930-50 era_ was contained in the Rose etudes (both the 32 and the 40) and the Baermann Division 3 book. Therefore, I don't think I'm too off my rocker in suggesting that his phrasing and musical ideas were mostly applicable _at that time_ and by musicians with the goal of playing in an orchestra. I don't think there's much there for "authentic" performance of anything else!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-07 00:42
Katrina wrote:
>> [Bonade] thought that most of what a clarinetist would require in an orchestral position _in the 1930-50 era_ was contained in the Rose etudes (both the 32 and the 40) and the Baermann Division 3 book. Therefore, I don't think I'm too off my rocker in suggesting that his phrasing and musical ideas were mostly applicable _at that time_ and by musicians with the goal of playing in an orchestra. I don't think there's much there for "authentic" performance of anything else!>>
I suppose I think that using the word "authentic" obscures the simplicity of what we might call the 'Viennese tradition'. That has always been present in the classical playing of great performers in all parts of the world, in America and indeed in some American orchestras. However, that presence was not obvious to me for many years, largely because of the influence of my musical upbringing. I had to fight my own way towards an understanding that not all musical phrases yearn towards a local climax, and that bar-structure, phrase-structure and harmony interact subtly with each other.
Therefore, I cannot BLAME Bonade for his attitude towards phrasing. But I find it necessary to point out that, applied to an essentially simple and straightforward line, it produces an unreasonable distortion of the musical meaning. (You are yourself interested in folk music, and I'm sure would never dream of doing Bonade-like things routinely when you play it.)
In my experience, once a student sees the point, they find it difficult to explain why it was not obvious to them before. Bonade-like things are still available to them as and when they don't distort musical meaning -- sometimes, of course, those things are an essential part of a piece -- but the student is finally freed from this terrible imposition of being told "what should be done in good phrasing", independently of the style.
Does Bonade's breathtaking complacency in this regard not annoy you?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-07 02:54
Tony Pay wrote in part:
> Does Bonade's breathtaking complacency in this regard not annoy
> you?
Much as does the worship of Tabuteau's "system"....... or students from a "school which shall not be named's" devout following of it.
Or worse yet, being viewed as deficient if his tenet's are not strictly obeyed- even when suspect.
Similarly, the "Upbeat Baermann" Third division has the same effect on me.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-12-07 15:59
Yup, Tony, it does annoy me, and I agree with all of your points. My comments were not intended as a defense, but as an explanation of how I have been trained to see these etudes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-12-07 16:33
To further confound myself, I'm about to receive a copy of "Sound In Motion."
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-12-07 23:17
I have been considering the discussion on the Rose Studies editions and wonder if we need to look at the W. Ferling etudes in order to get a better idea of the phrase markings etc.
I recently saw an edition dated copyright 1926 of Ferling Studies for oboe or saxophone but didn't have enough of a chance to look through plus I didn't have my copies of the Rose studies with me at the time. I did however notice, as I flicked through, that there were many of the same etudes but just transposed to accommodate the clarinet range. They seemed to be similar if not the same as those in the book of 32 studies.
I'm unsure whether Ferling or Rose came first but these might offer us something in the search for an accurate edition.
Peter Cigleris
Post Edited (2011-12-07 23:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 04:04
Peter,
Did a little searching; the Ferling Oboe Etudes op.31 date from 1840.
As C. Rose was born in 1830, I'd think the Ferling pre-dates.
Or perhaps Ferling stole from the compositions of an 8 year old Rose!!!! ;-)
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-08 10:30
Katrina: I was in fact talking to Bob. However, I would be very interested to know further details from you.
It's beginning to become apparent to me that Tabuteau, Bonade and others working in that period were trying to characterise, and then impose on their students, a notion of 'musicality' that sought to be independent of the stylistic norms of a piece. I didn't really know that, and it seems a crazy idea to me; but I want to know more about it.
Bob: I was puzzled by: "to further confound myself" in your post. Actually, following up your reference, I have myself ordered "Sound in Motion', because I want to know what it says. Understanding the enterprise might 'unconfound' me.
In general: I agree with Trevor that some of Rose is not very interesting, musically. But it can be shown at its best by intelligent playing, which according to me is what a 'study' is intended to elicit and develop. To shoehorn a study into an inappropriate model does both it and its player a disservice.
I don't want an unedited version of Rose in order to be a purist about getting back to an original conception -- the music isn't worth that much. I want it in order to be clear about the extent to which Bonade (say) treated its notes merely as an inert vehicle for his so-called 'musicality'.
What that sort of musicality does is to put attention on the performer AS A PERFORMER, rather than on the performer as an (inextricably important) part of the music. That's because the music then doesn't really make sense, and so our only possible response is to admire the performer (or not).
All of this doesn't apply to the parts of music that may benefit from the Tabuteau/Bonade system. I THINK I know what that system amounts to, and have the feeling that, on the contrary, if anything, mastery of the 'classical' approach is what would benefit musical performance in the world in general at the moment. (As I've pointed out elsewhere, the classical approach is culture-independent, being fundamentally based on the universal human phenomenon of SPEECH.)
We shall see.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-12-08 10:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-08 14:55
Tony Pay wrote:
> (As I've pointed out elsewhere, the classical
> approach is culture-independent, being fundamentally based on
> the universal human phenomenon of SPEECH.)
>
Tony, to save some search time, can you point to a post where you go into detail specifically about this. The act of speech is, of course, a "universal human phenomenon," but speaking styles, mannerisms, phrase and sentence structures, vocal inflection and other characteristics seem so heavily culture-*dependent* that I'm curious to see what universal characteristics you look at as a basis for the classical approach.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 18:59
Karl,
I have yet to read Tony's links, but I don't believe the implication is "musicality" stems from any one specific language. "Musicality" equates to what spoken language accomplishes as a form for the clear expression of ideas.
I am not a linguist, but generally speaking, isn't speech organized and structured, what with its' pauses, punctuations and the like, to most clearly express meaning or ideas? That is a universal aspect of any spoken language I should think. (And perhaps I should have added, or subtracted, some commas from the previous sentence. My control of the English language is not that great in a written medium. Or perhaps I may have added them for clarity?)
Living in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language, I was forced to adapt to the "rhythm" of a differing pattern- in this case Spanish. Being a Romance Language, it varies quite a bit from English- and trust me, if I attempted to speak with Spanish vocabulary in a pattern derived from English I was poorly understood. (Differences in speech patterns between differing spoken languages are not important for this discussion; but the fact they are different is!)
Is that not what forcing an improper system of "phrasing" onto an existing musical composition does? -distort its' meaning?
Classic music has its' own "speech" pattern and rhythms for aural recognition; when we "speak" it with improper grammatical structure (or with the structure of a foreign language to be a bit more colorful) we distort the meaning. Unfortunately, the foreign language applied quite often is that of "ego"; or better said a performer views a composition as a platform to show how well they "play." I would say that is an improper re-realization of the printed score.
Shouldn't we all be coming at music from the other direction?- applying our "learned technical skill" to effectively express a composition accord to its' own spoken structure. Unfortunately, we often fail to learn the source language or structure. (And I should add it took me far too long to realize this myself, so I am not preaching. or is that preachin' ?)
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-08 19:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 19:17
I thought of a simple example:
Take the Classic 'colloquialism' of an appoggiatura. They occur to such a great extent that they could be considered a simple punctuation of the Classic language.
Yet, how many performances do you hear where the performer leans (appoggio) quite heavily on the non-harmonic tone?, sometimes so much that it borders on silliness. Perhaps they merely wish to show how pretty their sound is. Maybe they are trying to "emote" by doing so........
At any rate it destroys the function of a basic appoggiatura- it often functions as a comma, or period in a Classic sentence. By emphasizing it heavily, one destroys the natural structure of the Classic language. (Or it comically sounds like "I am placing a comma here!")
However, sometimes an appoggiatura is to be more heavily stressed- it is necessary to consider harmony and rhythm to determine if and when. But, if every preceding appoggio has been "expressed" so greatly, then you have little more you can do when the truly important one arrives.
-J
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-08 20:05
That's interesting, Jason. My analogy with speech, though, was much less ambitious, as this extract from the 'Speech' link shows:
"Music and language have often been compared, with varying degrees of success. But the comparison I want to make here is much more straightforward and basic than most such comparisons. My analogy is only between the surface structure of speech itself and the surface structure of classical phrases."
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-12-08 21:27
Tony -
The evolution of the Rose Etudes is complex.
According to the page at http://www.niu.edu/~gbarrett/resources/rose_32etudes.shtml, the Rose 32 and 40 were taken from Franz Wilhelm Ferling's 48 Studies for Oboe, Op. 31, usually transposed and with substantial alterations by Rose. The oboe version is available on IMSLP at http://imslp.org/wiki/48_Studies_for_Oboe,_Op.31_%28Ferling,_Franz_Wilhelm%29. Some of the Rose etudes (e.g., 40 Etudes #1) are not in the Ferling collection.
The IMSLP page says its PDF came from a 2004 Kalmus edition, but the engraving of the PDF looks much older. Kalmus is well known for photographing public domain music and republishing it. According to the IMSLP page, the first publication was in 1840, and the Kalmus edition more likely than not came from that.
The IDRS has published on-line a complete modern edition of the Ferling etudes with extensive commentary and optional piano accompaniment. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35418648/F-Ferling-48-Studies-for-Oboe-and-Piano-Op-31.
A brief biography of Ferling is contained in the dissertation at http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11112011-090013/unrestricted/Historical_etudes_for_oboe.pdf.
Dwight Manning has done research on Ferling and published an article is at http://www.idrs.org/publications/controlled/DR/DR24.2.pdf/Franz%20Wilhelm%20Ferling.pdf, but it’s available only to IDRS members. His contact for additional information is http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academics/?facid=dm2723&page=biographical+information.
I don't know the date of publication or the publisher of the Rose Etudes for clarinet. I own an edition of the 32 Etudes published by Leduc, which may well be the original. Teachers have told me that it's more accurate than the Carl Fisher edition.
Good luck in finding the first published editions of the Rose books. I'm sure you will give us the benefits of your research.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-08 22:01
Buster wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I have yet to read Tony's links, but I don't believe the
> implication is "musicality" stems from any one specific
> language. "Musicality" equates to what spoken language
> accomplishes as a form for the clear expression of ideas.
>
> I am not a linguist, but generally speaking, isn't speech
> organized and structured, what with its' pauses, punctuations
> and the like, to most clearly express meaning or ideas?
Not having finished read the essays Tony posted links to, I'd say conditionally yes, that is how speech is organized. But it's organized idiomatically for different languages. One of the first things a French student (learning it as a foreign language) learns is to make the sounds of a "u" and a nasal consonant ending in a way no American does naturally in English. Among the next set of revelations is that a French phrase and sentence often leads to an accent on its last or next to the last syllable, whether it's a question or a statement. Although English sentences are sometimes phrased that way, it isn't nearly as idiomatic a feature. There are other features of German that make a listener, even if he doesn't speak German, recognize the sentence structure largely by the tone - the up and down inflections - of pitch and emphasis. These are things that might have profound implications for phrasing features in the music of a French or German composer. We all talk of stylistic differences between German classicists and German Romantics. We most likely should also talk about differences, though, between German classicists and French ones or English ones. Again, without having read all of Phrasing In Contention and not having yet gotten to Playing Classical Music Stylishly, I can't quite shake the feeling that Tony is talking very specifically about Mozart (which he says near the beginning - W.A., not Leopold) and expecting to generalize to other German Classicists, but that the generalizations may or may not turn out to be as smoothly direct when applied to non-Germanic composers of the same period (unless we define Classical to include German and define a different stylistic descriptor for others). But again, I don't know yet exactly what Tony is saying, and I don't want to try to get him (Tony, I know you're probably reading this) to reiterate what he's already written in such detail in the essays he cited. I have to finish with them and think about them some.
>
> (Differences in speech patterns between
> differing spoken languages are not important for this
> discussion; but the fact they are different is!)
>
Well, that's the crux of my question. I think they may be.
> Is that not what forcing an improper system of "phrasing" onto
> an existing musical composition does? -distort its' meaning?
>
Yes. We all agree on that, I think.
> Classic music has its' own "speech" pattern and rhythms for
> aural recognition; when we "speak" it with improper
> grammatical structure (or with the structure of a foreign
> language to be a bit more colorful) we distort the meaning.
Well, I don't know that Stokie, for example, distorted the meaning of his words when he spoke them from the podium in any of the various fake accents and foreign affectations he used until he was quite old. He just came off sounding more attractive to a certain group of listeners. Everyone knew what he meant - "Stop rustling those programs!"
Maybe I'll write more after I've finished Tony's pieces.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 22:15
Tony,
As is my (known?) tendency here, I over-explain things to the point of being inane at times; or confusingly specific. At any rate, I hope no confusion was caused for anyone following this thread.
By delving more deeply into linguistics, I can see an implication of a foreign "Classical language/structure", that must be studied as one does a foreign language, is implied by my post. Again- quite over-stated in hind-sight. (20/20 no?)
-The short paragraph you posted above, from my interpretation, does summarize what I was attempting to get; though in a more accessible manner. (And perhaps I should have read about the Cocktail Party before posting........)
And I think (though I should not assume) you would agree that the surface structure of music in general (as speech) is what allows musicians to collaborate/cooperate/communicate with each other, and thus communicate with the audience. (or co-collaborators?)
When instrumental/egotistical concerns enter into that large scale collaboration, the structure seems to be destroyed. Or to apply the often used phrase- " you're dancing about architecture."
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 22:53
Karl,
I do think what I intended to say, and actually got across, may have been a bit tangential.
In speaking of the specific differences between spoken languages, I over-stated what I intended. ...And in stating we need learn the "source language and structure", it think it bears saying that the structure is far less "flowery and complex" than what I implied. (From a further removed, more general viewpoint, I think the structure of any "language" is far more simplistic than we make it.)
Mainly, I wished to form an analogy from applying an -at times- inappropriate phrasing system (the foreign language structure) onto the existing music (or the language of the composition.) Yes, a bit of a loaded statement I'll readily admit.
Similarly, demonstrating one's "instrumental skill", or exerting one's ego, has the same effect.
And for clarity, maybe we should replace "Classical language norms" with Western European Traditions if we are to speak of specifics of musical structure. That structure spans a much larger "arena" than that of the Classical Period- though the specific structure as such is not the true crux of all of my previous blabbering. (Though we do seem to always journey back to 18th century Vienna.)
------
Actually, I'm not sure how specific differences in language structure between concurrent composers applies to instrumental music.......... or if it actually should?
Perhaps a case can be made in vocal compositions as they are operating from a libretto, and as instrumentalists we must collaborate with that "tangible" variable.
Not being well-versed in linguistics I cannot say. -I have heard some discussions about how differing languages result in differing, nationalistic "sound", but that is for another discussion.
I'm sure Tony (Pay, more than one Tony lurking here!) has some thoughts on these matters.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-12-08 23:21
As we've slowly morphed the subject ... I am currently working on a few projects/studies on the interrelationship of language, sound, and music for a degree in psychology (a degree totally unrelated to what I've done for a living for 4 decades - age has its benefits ). A good basic set of public reference papers on some of the interrelationships between language, sound and music is at http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=107, Dr. Diana Deutsch's website. She is one of the premier researchers in this subject.
My research is in pitch recognition accuracy in frequency and time domain of native speakers of tonal vs. non-tonal language - in other words, if you speak a tonal language, is your pitch discrimination more or less accurate than a non-tonal language speaker, and if so, is it dependent on frequency of the tone and/or dependent on how long you hear it? If this is true, there may be some follow-on projects concerning the evolution of some of the musical forms indigenous to the areas speaking tonal languauges vis-a-vis non-tonal languages.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-08 23:25
Mmm....
What I think too often happens in discussions of this matter is that we lose people who might be willing to try out what is, after all, a very simple idea. Everything gets too complicated, too theoretical, and too argumentative.
If you read 'Phrasing in Contention', you will be invited to try out for yourself the idea of changing how you go about looking at, and executing, Mozart's phrases. As I explain, it can't happen all at once, and it certainly can't happen BEFORE you try it out.
I attempt to give some arguments for trying it out. But really, it's up to you, whether you find that you convince yourself, or not.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-09 00:22
For those us who just want the names of etudes, can someone post a list of all those mentioned?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-09 12:53
Well, my copy of 'Sound in Motion' arrived, and I realise that it's a book that I already glanced at in a bookshop and DIDN'T buy. Though some of it is wise, it is almost irretrievably wedded to this drive/upbeat idea, and as a result seems to me to contain quite a few straw men. Doubtless some 'classical-style-aware' players -- what can you call us? -- are blinkered and unmusical; but not all of us are.
This discussion has a long history for me on the Klarinet list; my first posts there included:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/1998/10/000412.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/1998/10/000421.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/1998/10/000447.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/1998/10/000474.txt
...and looking at those might be an alternative way in for someone like Karl, who asked for posting references.
Why I continue to go on about it is that it seems to me that Tabuteau, though clearly an inspiring player himself, succeeded in killing off a whole range of expressive possibility for musicians, primarily in US wind playing, but also to some extent in the rest of the world. Because, if you're taught HIS way from an early age, it's very difficult to extricate yourself, and your students suffer too.
My work is to help musicians extricate themselves; posting on this BBoard is probably fairly ineffective way of doing that in the world -- but don't worry, I don't limit myself to posting on this BBoard;-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-09 19:52
Tony,
And in many circles here, across the pond, one is often viewed as heretical if anything contradicting "Tabuteau-isms" (or 'local crescendo' as you term it) are suggested. At times his ideas are apt, but certainly not Gospel.
Yet, trying to discuss this in said circles can make one feel like Sisyphus.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-09 21:09
I didn't quite understand what Tony was driving at when I first read his article a while back, but this dialogue has made it more clear: I encourage other players to give it a shot. If I've read him correctly this time, it clarifies a practical approach to music rather than clouding it, and isn't easily found in many American approaches to performance--at least among clarinetists.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-07 13:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-10 00:21
Eric
(and actually to all),
My schoolin' was in the Bonade/Marcellus (every. single. teacher) lineage as well, so I understand the implications and limits of the Philadelphia/Tabuteau "system" as I am sure you do. (Living in N.E. Ohio, some of that influence is unavoidable I do think ;-) ......)
Having been "developed" from my first lessons through that "system," breaking the 'bad habit' was as difficult as it was for me to quit smoking--- let alone mustering the courage to even question it.
It finally took someone grabbing me by the shoulders and forcefully stating "Marcellus is dead" to give me the courage to question. (And I think it bears stating this was a quite well known Marcellus student at that- the actual name matters not.) Finally, I was freed to dip my toe outside my sphere of influence.
Later, as a member of an orchestra comprised of musicians that were little aware of "The Philadelphia School", I was forced to further think for myself: realizing the true limitations of "constant local crescendo" we seem to learn here. And thus when it Can be aptly applied.
(Also, revisiting an earlier recording I had of myself performing K.581, I felt sea-sick what with the constant surging ahead of each phrase only to ebb and flow mercilessly again. That recording has consequently been burned, as has every recording of myself I can find..... my career needs no documentation.)
Having just read 'Phrasing in Contention', it has helped clarify the post-"Tabuteau" thoughts that I have fostered, highlighted ideas in some of the "scholarly" works I have read, and has also aided in structuring my thoughts more logically. Though, I don't view it as a "system" as such..... that moniker is quite self limiting.
I am not pandering, but I certainly hope that all following this thread read the article....... with the true "response to be in the creative register of today's performers." in the author's words.
Some schoolin' needs to be questioned.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-10 01:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-10 01:58
Could someone who has been present during the whole discussion provide a list of the "etudes that the legends played"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-10 04:25
Read the 50 three paragraph responses that don't mention a clear answer? Oh yeah, I'm half way through those
:D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-10 04:54
Take heart, all will become clear..........
The answer is 42.
Now you must figure out the question.
-J
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-10 17:22
For those of you who are truly interested in learning more about the life and teaching philosophy of Tabuteau, a better read might be Laila Storch's recent biography of Tabuetea and her years and ongoing professional relationship with the famous teacher.
While I have read David McGill's book (and like it for an elucidation of the Philadelphia approach), it does not really give insight into how the Tabuteau school developed after his move to the US shortly after the turn of 20th century.
Things to remember for those that are interested include:
> Tabuteau developed his numbering system as a way to explain in simple terms the rudiments of phrasing to the very inexperienced and unschooled players. When Curtis started (mid 1920's) and then during WWII, the student quality was relatively poor and often included students who have NEVER had private lessons! This "system" allowed Tabuteau to make the concept of phrasing more easily accessible.
> While Bonade may have taught concepts in a parallel manner to Tabuteau, it is unfair to think that all his students interpreted his instructions the same way. I studied with both Gigliotti and Marcellus. Their manner of articulation and concepts of music making were almost 180 degrees apart. Yet they both claimed that their idea of "Truth" came to them directly from Bonade.
> Tabuteau's musical concepts have as much to do with his work with Stokowski (Philly Orch) and to a lesser degree, under Toscannini at the MET.Especially in concepts of sound, Tabuteau attributed his style to his work with Stokowski and the sound he sought from the entire orchestra. In Storch's biography, Tabuteau is quoted as saying that Stokie would go out into the hall and have the orchestra play a certain passage 10 times and then would pick out what phrase that Tabuteau was doing that he like the best. Then have the entire orchestra try to duplicate it. But Stokie was able to hear the subtle differences that each rendition contained.
I think that while teacher admiration often becomes a desire to become an "Evangelist of the Master", it is important that a truly mature professional player uses his/her training to come to his/her own conclusions which are based on,hopefully, a wide range of inputs including research, listening, and admiration of favorite performers.
Too often in the name of what so and so said (long since dead and gone), people feel entitled (because of their studio lineage) to claim that the intent of a past teacher is Gospel and The Truth.
And in the end, the audience - those that attend concerts and pay the admission charge - don't really care. They just want to hear great music played by dedicated artists who have something intelligent to say with their instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-11 03:55
Dileep,
I don't disagree with you in principle.
The transmission of the Philadelphia School has transformed through its' later teachers, as you've stated. That it changed is not the issue I think; the fact that a version of it is still "passed on" by the uninitiated is. (And it seems that is something you agree with also.)
In regards to why Tabuteau developed his "system": it may have been pragmatic from its' inception- I wasn't there and could not know. Yet, to have any "system" by its' by nature, or to continue to "apply" it after its' primary purpose has been served, is limiting.
I cannot speak if this was the intent of Tabuteau or not- though the anecdote of Stokowski having the orchestra emulate Tabuteau does perhaps speak to why some are lead into the realm of "worship."
As you've said, a musician should speak "intelligently" with their instrument. Where the problem enters in is how that "intelligence" is gained, or fostered.
We are limited on the BBoard to a small group of the music population- many of which are far more interested in other issues and trifles. What needs be accomplished is an extrapolation of this larger notion, that of challenging "preserved/preconceived" knowledge, far beyond the reach of this BBoard.... or the realm of the clarinet.
But I do realize I am preaching to the choir.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-11 05:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-11 12:36
Jason...well said.
One other thought on the original intent of this topic (Etudes that the Masters worked on).
With regards to the Rose etudes and Bonade, one must remember that for all practical purposes, Bonade's playing career lasted until the early 1960's, when orchestras and clarinetists played a very limited repertoire. Repertoire for clarinet soloists (were there really any at that time?) was either the Mozart Concerto or the solo works of Weber. The Nielsen was a "contemporary" oddity.
The Rose etudes, along with learning the important Solo de Concours from the Conservatory, and perhaps a Jean-Jean etude or two, would have sufficed for getting and keeping an orchestral position in the USA. I cannot think of one exception in the orchestral repertoire from this time period that is more needs more technique than what this curriculum presents.
While the Rose etudes represent trivial musical material compared to the pedagogical etudes available to string players (think Bach, Ysaye, Paganinni, etc) and pianists (Chopin, Lizst, Bach, etc), they do present frequent opportunities to teach phrasing, articulation, and basic concepts of tone production and technique.
And though they were originally written for violin, the fact that they are now not used in most leading violin studios says quite a bit right there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2011-12-11 13:01
Thank you, Dileep, for more clearly stating what I attempted to say about Bonade and the Rose etudes.
Tony, that's what I would have said if the words had come to me sooner!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-11 13:58
Dileep Gangolli wrote:
> Repertoire for clarinet soloists
> (were there really any at that time?) was either the Mozart
> Concerto or the solo works of Weber. The Nielsen was a
> "contemporary" oddity.
>
Not by the '60s. Nielsen had already gotten into graduating recitals (with the piano accompaniment and a snare drummer). Clarinetists were actively looking for alternatives by then to Mozart and Weber - think also Debussy, Hindemith and Ben-Haim for starters (in addition to Nielsen).
> The Rose etudes, along with learning the important Solo de
> Concours from the Conservatory, and perhaps a Jean-Jean etude
> or two, would have sufficed for getting and keeping an
> orchestral position in the USA.
Not by a long shot, at least not in a major symphony orchestra. *Maybe* 50 years earlier, but I wasn't around then to testify to that. I was in college during the '60s. Serious orchestra candidates were a lot more broadly schooled and technically developed.
> I cannot think of one
> exception in the orchestral repertoire from this time period
> that is more needs more technique than what this curriculum
> presents.
>
Well, it may depend on which Jean-Jean etudes you have in mind, but orchestra repertoire, at least for major orchestras with active recording contracts, were long since out of the Mozart-Beethoven-Schubert and late German Romantic repertoire. Rose is not enough to prepare for much Ravel, most Shostakovitch or Prokofiev, to name only three newer pre-1960s composers.
>
> And though they were originally written for violin, the fact
> that they are now not used in most leading violin studios says
> quite a bit right there.
Mazas, Kreutzer, Schubert, Fiorillo and Dancla (some of the sources for the Rose 40) are used in string studios. Maybe not at the virtuoso graduate student level (I have no idea - my violin and cello playing are limited to 1st position ). If you mean that Rose studies themselves aren't used by violin teachers, I don't know what that would say, but that's probably not what you meant.
Karl
Post Edited (2011-12-11 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-11 16:22
Dileep wrote:
"I think that while teacher admiration often becomes a desire to become an "Evangelist of the Master", it is important that a truly mature professional player uses his/her training to come to his/her own conclusions which are based on,hopefully, a wide range of inputs including research, listening, and admiration of favorite performers."
Agreed, but this can become a too facile and therefore incomplete solution to the problem. I think what we are faced with, too often in American clarinet playing, is a lack of alternative opinions in approach to the instrument.
Once habits are engrained in a student they become difficult to weed out--and perhaps more importantly, it also becomes difficult to make natural (and one's own) a better approach.
Regarding articulation, for instance: if a student doesn't come relatively early, or at least receptively and untaintedly, to the idea of articulation as a fundamental aspect of both sound production and phrasing--perhaps the single most important aspect of them--it might very well be impossible to help them to it. This is because it is foundational, rather than "integrational", if you catch my meaning--it's not something that can be grafted onto playing, but must be accepted as a first priciple.
I know of many well known teachers (and have even studied with at least one) whose concept of the clarinet was dominated by what I would call "vowel" sounds--as though all phrasing came from the manipulation of those, and the goal was to have a completely consistent, unruffled, perfectly clean sound shaded largely through dynamics. Though my old teacher, a highly successful clarinetist, would never have put it this way, articulation was then grafted onto the vowel sound, with the caveat that the unmentioned 'articualtion problem' was not to disturb the perfection of the vowel sound. The result was like singing without consonants--and all phrasing was basically done through dynamic and color contrast within the vowel sound.
If this is engrained a player too early (and I would argue that many in America are in this situation), it becomes very difficult to learn a different basis--and all playing becomes rather bland with esoteric dynamics as the 'sign' between players of 'taste'. It's like a secret handshake that never makes it to the audience.
A relatively easy way to break out of this is to study the often neglected (in America) Baermann FIRST and SECOND Divisions, with attention to Baermann's directives about articulation (which run counter to a lot of prevailing wisdom in American studios).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-07 13:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-11 20:12
Eric,
That's precisely why any version of, say, K.622 that is "thickly notated" (as Tony would term it), never ceases to annoy or sicken me. Certain editions, such as Ricordi should be burned outright. Said editions truly destroy the pronunciation of any idea with "articulative slurs" as opposed to the slurs (or "liga"- connection) used as a "phrasing device", or at times an "anti-phrasing device" in Classical notation.
Articulation, or the annunciation of musical language, is of key importance. Just as 'every phrase must begin', I would add, and I believe you as well, every 'idea must be stated'. We do sustain on the vowel, but enunciate with articulation. Articulations should not be hidden, or negatively seen as a temporary disruption; that is precisely what they are! The method of disruption can then be explored.
The notion of articulation as being "integrational" to "musicality" is precisely how it should be viewed. (To my mind, every aspect of wind playing should be "integrational"- or it is simply self-serving.)
Yet, on some level, any "student" can experiment with this notion- outside of the reach of a "teacher." (I do think we at times under-estimate the aural abilities of many.) Perhaps with this investigation, other notions may be formed which challenge a "teacher's" approach. I would say no harm could come with this personal experimentation. (Just as a personal investigation into diaphragmatic support will cause no harm.) It may take the guidance of a skilled "teacher" to place this experimentation into context- or not. As I've said, I do believe we under-estimate the aural abilities and intelligence of our "disciples."
The practice that truly needs to be challenged is the dogmatic transmission of what compromises "integrational" playin' by any "teacher" that has not fully explored the possibilities for themselves.
Again, I fear I may be preaching to the choir; and where we are currently writing is small in its reach. It should be our job to transmit this freedom to explore in practice outside of the "theoretical" verbage of this BBoard- with our own investigations as some form of "ammunition".
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-11 20:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-11 21:10
Jason,
In general I'm in agreement, especially regarding your admontion that we encourage players to try a wide range of options for themselves, regardless of whether a teacher is available to help them with a particular apporach to the clarinet.
My one caution in regard to this concept--that articulation be understood as foundational to sound and phrasing--is that there is a dominance of vowel singing going on, and players who have been trained this way think of themselves as radical even when going barely halfway in another direction. This can result in some really bad playing, and a rejection of the principle before it was ever fully engaged (and before the transformation from being played by the instrument to declaiming the music can become a reality).
Unlike many on this board, I'm not one to insist upon teachers. But in this instance, the chief benefit of a teacher capable of this type of playing is that they represent another set of ears--and can say "nope--not yet you didn't" or "see? I told you so!" when you get there. Coming from other habits, this can be necessary--even for very talented players. The more advanced they are, the harder it will be to break the vowel singing taboos, and realign their priorities.
This is what I'm driving at when I say that articulation shouldn't be seen as "integrational"--that it isn't to be grafted ONTO phrasing, but that phrasing should spring FROM it (pardon my emphasis caps). To treat it as integrational, at least in the manner I'm discussing here, is to miss the radical change in approach from the "vowel singing school".
I think there are vowel singers who more successfully integrate articulation than others, and that approach will probably always be with us. But there is another, articulation driven approach that I find very rare here in 'Merica--yet it is a remarkable method for owning and declaiming the music (and I think by implication in much of the literature, more natural to much of the repertoire).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-11 21:46
Eric, just so that we are on the same page here, what do you mean by 'articulation' in this context?
I use the word as in the following example.
If I had to articulate, or sing the sentence, "I am a new man, I win!" then I could do it without gaps, and clearly would have to do it without the help of plosive consonants. But I could still vary the degree of articulation -- say, to suit the acoustic I was in.
(A musical version, in 3 bars of 3/4, 4/4 and 1/4, might look like:
(3/4)I am a |(4/4)New man, I|(1/4)Win!|
…with the rhythms being, bar by bar: half note plus two eighth notes, all under a slur; quarter note plus half note plus quarter note, all under a slur; half note (perhaps under a dagger:-))
Playing that musical version on a clarinet, I wouldn't break the overall line, and would hardly use my tongue at all. Yet I would ARTICULATE it; and what's more, be able to vary the degree of articulation -- again, perhaps to suit the acoustic I was in.
It seems to me that THAT sort of articulation -- both dividing and joining -- is important. It's complex, because it relies on the ability to modulate both timbre and dynamic (I talk a bit about that in Phrasing in Contention); but we can learn to do it, just as we've learnt to do it in conversation.
You speak out against 'vowel singing'. That's different from what I've described here, no?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-11 22:25
Eric,
Quite so! (Though I personally tread lightly in claiming to truly know what is implied, and thus more natural, in any composition.)
I do believe some confusion has arisen from our differing usage of "integral" and "integrational." Semantics are important in some cases (and I fear the confusion stems from my pen.)
As you've said all are free to explore, but perhaps guidance may be needed. That many whom attempt to offer morsels of guidance have not explored other "possibilities", or "approaches", does speak to what you have clearly stated: there is far more available than what is often prescribed to students here. (The vocal, or vowel-based approach you speak of, does predominate here. I fear a lot of it comes from the need to offer "the most beautiful sound quality possible" that we seem to obsess about. ...I surely fell into that camp at a point in my development truth be told. I'm sure the influence of living in N.E. Ohio played a large part in that.)
Another set of ears may be necessary, perhaps more so for an "educated" musician with more deeply ingrained principles. That more educated player may be a "student" regardless of their perceived level!- the unfortunate spoils of some "Conservatory atmospheres." It took a forceful suggestion for me to accept the existence of other possibilities while in Grad school.
Extrapolating further than your statement that articulation should not be applied ONTO the music...... NO aspect of playing should be applied ONTO music, in my mind. Having come at it from what I believe the incorrect side- applying my abilities ONTO a composition for far too long, I try to integrate any technical matters, or better- CONCEIVE them, as a way to realize any said composition. ..... or come at it from the other direction.......
More importantly, when working with a student, the introduction of any "technical" concept is quickly extrapolated to illuminate why it is important. ....coming at things from what I believe the proper direction. (If the student is quite young- a luxury which I have not had in recent years- they may not even realize the true implication of what is "illuminated" for some time. But confusing them properly can be quite successful.)
The physical act (be it articulation, "voicing", finger-movement etc...) elicited may be exactly the same as if it is "integrational", but it comes from the proper place. -Serving the music, not the clarinet/ego.
That's consequently why I prattle on about the false dichotomy of pure-technique and "musicality." For me they are one and the same.
-and I do believe that "articulation" encompasses much more than just the usage of the tongue. In some cases, following the "vowel/vocal" approach as we've termed it- couldn't a dynamic change, or a color change serve as an "articulation" if properly conceived. A maintenance of line that is still articulated? Through color/dynamic EMphasis, or is it emphaSIS?
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-12 00:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-11 22:36
and I do see I (pre?) plagiarized Tony a bit upon reading his post.
The nerve to post while I am in the midst of composing a overly-lengthy reply.... ;-)
I do apologize for any pre-plagiarization at any rate
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-11 22:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-11 23:38
Jason, with respect; no-one will read you if you write like this.
Also, I'm afraid no-one will read US if you write like this.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-11 23:39
Tony,
You mentioned something very close to this in an exchange with me here over a year ago--I've been pondering it a bit ever since. And my answer is YES, this is the sort of way I mean articulation--though your explanations have added considerable shading to my original understanding.
Your use of the terms articulation/joining, distinguishing certain timbral subtleties, implying different types of tongue strokes, etc., all make sense in the way I mean articulation--though in honesty you are helping me to define it as we go.
Having said that, I also mean it in a blunter (and perhaps cruder) way: something as basic as "attack" or "tonguing." This ties into my critique of what I've termed "vowel singing" but requires some explanation.
"Vowel singing" is my shorthand for those who do not view music in the same way as analogous with speech or texted song, but who consider there to be an Ideal Clarinet Sound (alluded to by Jason just now)--a siren call that drives American clarinetists mad, usually by junior year of conservatory. This Sound is to be maintained at all costs, and becomes the focal point of music making--it is usually expressed in positive terms as 'perfect evenness of tone'. An emphasis is placed upon the virtue of being able to create a sound "coming out of nothing" (without being tongued to begin with--an air attack). The effect is like singing an entire piece all on one vowel, without the use of consonant 'attacks'--'pure' vocalise on the "u" in the French "tu."
Articulation (in any sense) is treated as an invasion of the Ideal Sound--a problem to be solved with as little damage done as possible, rather than as an essential characteristic of musical expression (which is how I view it, and I'm fairly sure what you've been arguing for all along).
Many of our vowel singers start with mechanics: I knew one prominant professor who began by telling students the One Proper Tongue Position, then the Proper Reed Strength (very stiff), etc. Everything he mentioned was designed to lock the player more permenantly into the one proper sound, making it less flexible to articulate (in the braoder sense--tonguing was easy enough, if practiced). I've known many other professors who seemed (but only seemed) the opposite--saying a player could play any equipment and any way necessary...but they of course were to use the equipment to acheive the Perfect Vowel. The goal remains largely the same.
This is often exaggerated by vowel singers to the point of 'breath attacking' the beginning of every phrase--and the viewing of tongue attacks (of any variety) at the beginning of phrases as 'amateurish' or crude. Hence the need to sometimes state that my use of 'articulation' is even as basic as to mean tonguing.
What I've presented here in a nutshell is an extreme descritpion of vowel singers....but it is VERY common as a standard of clarinetistry here in America.
Jason,
Yes--I think we're pretty much on the same page. By the way, though I live in Cleveland now, I'm not a native to N.E. Ohio, nor was I trained here. I'm originally a New Yorker, hence early and strong Russiannoff influence.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-07 13:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-12 01:37
Eric,
Though you only now live in the region, I am sure you have the knowledge from where the "sphere of influence" existing here stems. Consequently, I would imagine that it could be extrapolated what effects that may have on a musician during his formative years.
Speaking from a personal place, it took me much time to shake those shackles and dare step outside my realm of comfort.
To say that I deny what I assume my "idols" strove for, excellence in musical presentation, would be false. But I conversely think that stating I now subscribe to a differing system would be just as false.
---------------------
The "vowel approach" (or "vocal approach" as I hear it referred to in other circles), does prevail in circles here; -consisting of long arching phrases, with little to no 'annunciation' present. It "feels" quite self-gratifying for the player as it exists as a platform to demonstrate the beauty of one's tone quality and instrumental control. Yet, to educated ears, it is a purely instrumental approach; illuminating virtually none of the musical content of the composition at hand.
---------------------
Though I do think I understand what you are getting at, I would not say that how I personally reconciled these deficiencies brought me any closer to "Cioffi's Method" nor "An Articulative Method", than it distanced me from any other system. I would rather say I subscribe to Mozart's Method when his music is at hand; or Debussy's when his music is present.
I would prefer think my ability to intelligently realize any composition stems from the fostering and development of "pure technique" drawn from the compositions of minds I dare say more brilliant than I. To approach it from the other direction, imposing myself onto their brilliance, is disrespectful at best.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-12 01:44
Tony,
I do realize my penchant for out of place "comedic" asides, and I do not wish they devalue the words of any other contributor. I have edited a previous post a bit, as what I intended to say was skewed; but will let the rest stand. Nothing of value can come from my name if I do not acknowledge my flaws.
To all,
Please do not let any of my diverting comments force you to disengage. I do feel that far more important matters than that of my ego are being discussed here.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-12 01:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-12 02:52
" I would rather say I subscribe to Mozart's Method when his music is at hand; or Debussy's when his music is present.
"I would prefer think my ability to intelligently realize any composition stems from the fostering and development of "pure technique" drawn from the compositions of minds I dare say more brilliant than I. To approach it from the other direction, imposing myself onto their brilliance, is disrespectful at best."
To be more clear:
What is being discussed here, at least by me, is the means by which we are able to express a given composer's ideas--or rather join with that composer in expressing something--as opposed to engaging in what might primarily be described as display of sound control. I assure you it has nothing to do with imposing a method on the composers, though it DOES have to do with being in control of the musical material, the way an actor must be in control of his role--and being as deeply involved in it as a great actor must be. The "vowel singers" always seem to me to be like actors more concerned with their looks than the emotional or dramatic content of their roles--more models than actors.
For clarity, 'Cioffi's Method' is only used here as a shorthand. The things taught were presented as general principles of interpretation, not as a method. I found it interesting, as few trace their clarinet lineage to Cioffi these days. Given how much importance American clarinetists lay on teacher legacy, it perhaps presents a different path than most in our country pursue.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-12 03:39
Eric,
I perhaps over-stated in my post, implying that you yourself subscribe to a particular "system" or method. As well, I also wish to illuminate the means used to realize any given composition.
As you've stated, it involves a collaboration with the composer as well as a personal control of musical statement. For myself, the technical demands of the instrument are brought to light by the composition itself, and to a lesser extent the environment in which it is transmitted.
When any name or methodology is invoked I perhaps have a reflexive reaction- it took much time to truly extricate myself from my schooling; and its namesake. Yet I meant not to imply that you are burdened with that load.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2011-12-12 11:23
Quote:
And though they were originally written for violin, the fact that they are now not used in most leading violin studios says quite a bit right there.
Somebody must still be using them...there are a ton of YouTube videos of violinists playing Mazas, Kreutzer, and Fiorillo etudes. Probably more than there are of the Rose 40 and 32.
Here's one that made it into the Rose 40 book, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4_aKQL6PG0
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-12 12:49
@Karl
Not by the '60s. Nielsen had already gotten into graduating recitals (with the piano accompaniment and a snare drummer). Clarinetists were actively looking for alternatives by then to Mozart and Weber - think also Debussy, Hindemith and Ben-Haim for starters (in addition to Nielsen).
DRG: True but how often did these works make it in the concert hall for audiences?
> The Rose etudes, along with learning the important Solo de
> Concours from the Conservatory, and perhaps a Jean-Jean etude
> or two, would have sufficed for getting and keeping an
> orchestral position in the USA.
Not by a long shot, at least not in a major symphony orchestra. *Maybe* 50 years earlier, but I wasn't around then to testify to that. I was in college during the '60s. Serious orchestra candidates were a lot more broadly schooled and technically developed.
DRG: I still contend the the majority of the orchestral literature can be performed with the technical foundation from the Rose studies. Esp if one is a section player. That comes from having played in professional orchestras for over 30 years.
> I cannot think of one
> exception in the orchestral repertoire from this time period
> that is more needs more technique than what this curriculum
> presents.
>
Well, it may depend on which Jean-Jean etudes you have in mind, but orchestra repertoire, at least for major orchestras with active recording contracts, were long since out of the Mozart-Beethoven-Schubert and late German Romantic repertoire. Rose is not enough to prepare for much Ravel, most Shostakovitch or Prokofiev, to name only three newer pre-1960s composers.
DRG: My point is directed towards the career of Daniel Bonade not what is being done currently. Beyond Shost #1 and 5, or Prok #1 and 5, I doubt he did more than that. Those can be played well if one can handle the Rose Studies. Sorry.
>
> And though they were originally written for violin, the fact
> that they are now not used in most leading violin studios says
> quite a bit right there.
Mazas, Kreutzer, Schubert, Fiorillo and Dancla (some of the sources for the Rose 40) are used in string studios. Maybe not at the virtuoso graduate student level (I have no idea - my violin and cello playing are limited to 1st position ). If you mean that Rose studies themselves aren't used by violin teachers, I don't know what that would say, but that's probably not what you meant.
DRG: Again, they serve a pedagogical purpose but they do not form the core of what artist teachers will assign for top level students for pedagogical purposes.
So in general, I do not agree with much that you have written. Again, apologies.
Karl
Post Edited (2011-12-11 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-12 13:51
Jason,
No blood no foul.
Dileep,
I'm with Karl on this. Bonade played in an era that included the Stravinsky ballets, Strauss tone poems (more popular in his day than in ours), Ravel scores, Shostakovich and Prokofiev symphonies and ballets, Bartok premiers, etc. His own compiled excerpt book (c. 1947) includes much of this repertoire.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-12 18:21
@ Eric,
I understand that the repertoire is what you describe in the Bonade excerpt book.
What I am arguing is that this repertoire can be played with the basic French foundation of training and does not really need technique much beyond the Rose etudes for someone to handle competently.
So lets use some of the examples you cite:
Stravinksy Petrouchka cadenza: not much harder than the cadenzas in the slow etudes or Solo de Concours of the early 20th century.
Prokofiev Peter and the Wolf cadenza....ok this is harder than most Rose studies but again not harder than many of the Solo de Concours.
Ravel Daphnis similar to Solo de Concours and Jean Jean.
Strauss tone poems. Which ones are harder than early 20th century Paris Conservatory material?
As the 20th century progressed into post WWII modernism, then yes, I would argue that better technique is needed to play works with extended ranges and greater velocity (Boulez, Nielsen, Corigliano, Copland, Stockhausen, Carter, Birtwistle et al),
But these are not composers that concerned Bonade for the most part during his career.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-12 19:10
Dileep,
If you're saying that a Paris Conservatoire education in 1924 would prepare a player for an orchestral career in that same era, I agree.
I was responding to these:
"I still contend the the majority of the orchestral literature can be performed with the technical foundation from the Rose studies. Esp if one is a section player. That comes from having played in professional orchestras for over 30 years."
"My point is directed towards the career of Daniel Bonade not what is being done currently. Beyond Shost #1 and 5, or Prok #1 and 5, I doubt he did more than that. Those can be played well if one can handle the Rose Studies. Sorry."
I'd be interested to know the curriculum of the Conservatoire from the the 1920s. You just seemed to me to be overemphasizing the place of Rose in the overall study.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-12 20:35
Dileep,
As Eric, I would agree that the entire education received at the Paris Conservatory in the early 20th century could prepare a musician for a successful professional career. Yet, I do have to disagree with some of your assertions.
Quote:
"I still contend the the majority of the orchestral literature can be performed with the technical foundation from the Rose studies. Esp if one is a section player. That comes from having played in professional orchestras for over 30 years."
On the front of a "section player", I find the implication that the challenges of a section musician are somehow less than that of a principal a bit skewed.
The 'technical foundation' received from the Rose etudes would little prepare a section musician in the realm of tonal variations, and the like, that are necessary to perform in a "supportive" role. In fact, the Rose etudes would perhaps leave a clarinetist less prepared for a "section" role than a principal for theirs; those "supportive" elements are not addressed.
Quote:
"I understand that the repertoire is what you describe in the Bonade excerpt book.
What I am arguing is that this repertoire can be played with the basic French foundation of training and does not really need technique much beyond the Rose etudes for someone to handle competently. ...
...Strauss tone poems. Which ones are harder than early 20th century Paris Conservatory material?"
I would think the aforementioned excerpts (which I have mostly edited out for legibility) may have become "playable" from a 'technical' standpoint in the study of the listed French literature. i.e. The "pure technique", muscle memory development, could have arisen from said study.
However, the character of the excerpts and the mentioned French literature is quite different. I do not believe that a direct illumination of one from the other can be drawn.
As was stated, a dissection of an early-20th century Paris Conservatory syllabus is needed for a complete discussion. I certainly would hope that they reached out beyond their borders and dared study Mozart to play Mozart, or Stravinsky to play Stravinsky.
My foundation of study stems from the "Old French School" as well as yours it would seem. Though my career has not spanned over 30 years and thus I cannot speak from the realm of tenured-experience, I would still have found myself ill-prepared to play the literature concurrent with Bonade with such a limited scope of study.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-12 22:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-12 21:16
Jason,
> Having spent the majority of my working life as a section player, I was not slighting section playing in the least. The skill in that regard, (while technique is important), is more about intonation, playing "shadow" to the first, and blending with the overall wind section. The skill with a great section player is not about technique per se. Indeed, to get an orchestral section position, one must demonstrate sound technique. But then the other skills become much more important on a day to day basis.
> Bonade, I believe at the end of the Clarinetist's Compendium (his short treatise) outlines a course of study that is typical for the era. This course of study goes well beyond the Rose etudes. But I believe the intent is to develop a technique that is far superior to that which was needed for most orchestral works performed at the time and therefore to make orchestral playing relatively easy (especially under pressure) in comparison to what was needed on a daily basis to do the job.
> This certainly cannot be said about contemporary concerti such as the Corgiliano or those performed by Martin Frost where the works themselves go well beyond the technical challenges found in most contemporary advanced etudes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-12 21:58
I would say that the job of a section clarinetist goes beyond that of "shadowing", but that is an argument that will ultimately lead us nowhere.
Without this devolving into an argument about what any one person knows more of than another, which I hope is not the intent of any, perhaps the "course of study" should be the subject.
Yet, going beyond any generic course of study, and to perhaps steer this thread back to its genesis and away from the "French" discussion where it resides: I would say an abstract course of study is not the important aspect. Where I think the emphasis needs to be placed is how that course of study is illuminated/and then applied to the generic act of "music making."
Any syllabus of study may be apt if what it contains is extrapolated to illuminate what is required of skilled wind-musicians. The content of said syllabus may be of little importance; though to my mind it should include actual compositions beyond that of etudes. (-which the original poster inquired of.)
With regards to what etudes the masters practiced, we truly cannot know. I would say the "what" is not important but rather the "how." That is where our emphasis needs to be placed. Any etude in a removed setting may not serve anything but itself. If it is explained how it may apply to something else then it is apt. But beyond all of that, I would not say that the usage of any etude is essential- and I dare say they are a much more modern "invention" than most assume.
More than likely, the "giants" of the past that inspired brilliant composers spent little time with etudes (if they even existed in their time); rather focusing on/collaborating with the music that was composed for them. Etudes would not be necessary in this equation- the fact that the "giants" studied and developed their physical abilities is.
As Tony stated, Mozart himself spoke of many the many hours of study he required to effectively express his own compositions. I would dare say that is not a bad example to follow- and no etudes enter into the equation. The studies were derived from the compositions themselves.
----------------------
To my viewpoint- which may differ than others- etudes can be viewed as "transitional compositions" at best: they are conceived to prepare one for the "real" music. Perhaps a weak relationship....
That is not to say the usage of an etude that applies to a "real" composition is out of place; but that seems to be the step in the progression that is missed in many "schools."
To address the original question of all of this..... We do not know what "etudes" the masters practiced. What we can thankfully say is that they practiced/studied. Without that we would be lacking many of the brilliant compositions at our disposal today.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-12 23:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-13 23:17
Whether Bonade thought that the Rose studies were adequate inert material for a student to acquire, through him, sufficient technique for ANY task interests me really not at all.
What does interest me is the wrong-headed dynamics and phrase-marks that he added to these innocent exercises. 'Interest' is perhaps the wrong word: the conservatoires in which I teach are dedicated to transmitting a view of classical music that is totally at odds with what he so presumptuously calls, the 'correct' phrasing of it.
You might think that his way of approaching the matter had died out; but the book by McGill, 'Sound in Motion' shows that it has not.
I will make a post about that book in the future. For me, its very subtitle, "A Performer's Guide to Greater Musical Expression" is sufficient to sound warning bells -- just as Howard Klug's article entitled, "How to Sell Slow Movements" rang warning bells before.
I'm sure that Tabuteau's own playing had a great positive influence in his time, both on oboists and on other wind players. But now, I'm prepared to argue that what remains of him doesn't, in classical music. (In much other music, too, it generates a hyperactive and narcissistic effect.) We need to approach classical music with eyes and ears that can appreciate the wonderful and flexible system within which it operates.
It's quite untrue that McGill's caricature of that system is representative of what it has to offer. Rather, it's HIS alternative 'system', derived from Tabuteau's misunderstandings of the classical style, that needs to be killed off, and consigned to the dustbin.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-14 16:29
@ Tony
Whether you agree with the Tabuteau methodology (and in turn McGill's book) is your choice and preference.
What is beyond argument is the influence that Tabuteau's methodology (and in turn Bonade's) has had on American woodwind players in the 20th century and into this one.
Will this continue to be the case as the effects of globalization come to all orchestras including those in the US?
If there is something that is deeper in musical value than just rote transmission from generation to generation, then it should have a lasting effect.
If not, it will die a slow death as more genuine methods and techniques for musical interpretation transcend this one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-14 22:14
I don't like being condescended to; and particularly not by you, Dileep. As you already know, I don't think much of either you or your mouse.
Who you, to take the overall stance? Usually, you have nothing significant to say. (What Bonade intended? Purrlease.)
Anyway, your current point just amounts to saying that 'the market' will in the end decide.
But other forces than the market are at work in the transmission of these sorts of ideas. People who have institutional tenure have great influence over their students, for example -- and it's a rare student that can resist. It's a serious problem.
People like myself try to have an influence, by argument. (I don't mean on this stupid list, but in the real world.)
That Tabuteau had such a powerful and longlasting influence on American classical playing makes me want to say -- the more fools you, frankly.
As promised, I shall write something about the McGill book here.
But not only here.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-12-15 08:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-15 00:00
@ Tony
I enjoy reading your posts since they are often off the mark and show an inability to approach things with an open mind or any open minded intellectual curiosity. Just what you think is correct. But carry on.
The impact you will have on the world of music will be much less than that of the fellows we are discussing. That we can be sure of.
That says it all right there.
Dileep (along with my mouse)
Post Edited (2011-12-15 00:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-15 02:55
Tony Pay wrote in part:
Quote:
But other forces than the market are at work in the transmission of these sorts of ideas. People who have institutional tenure have great influence over their students, for example -- and it's a rare student that can resist. It's a serious problem.
I think it goes beyond the fact that it is difficult to resist. In fact, students are often not permitted to resist.
This can come not only from the "cult of personality" which one with influence may bask themselves in, but an actual admonishment if any question of "why?" arises in a student.
The fact this authority comes from a teacher's view that their own lineage elevates their status, and thus infallibility, is the true problem. ...To challenge what comes from lineage is thus a challenge to all that 'said teacher' uses to prop themselves up with. This goes far beyond the realm of "clarinet" in music.
I know not what the state of things across the pond is, but this is the way the prevailing winds blow in America- as faulty as it is.
------------------
I am not looking to insert myself in any dispute, but can only draw from my personal experience- that is all I have at hand.
I openly state that my lineage is Bonade/Marcellus. I do not say that as if it raises my stature.
Yet, I would not change any of it. I embrace the useful things that my schooling fostered in me, and also the short-comings. Perhaps embracing the short-comings is the most important aspect.
In seeing what are to me now, obvious flaws in my "heritage", I have learned much. Seeing the flaws, and thus looking elsewhere to attempt and find the actual state of things, has taught me more than what anybody has ever told me. (Simply viewing the first line that Bonade has illuminated in the Rose studies now shows me much- much of what I used to lack.)
I have little influence here, be it on the BBoard or elsewhere. Most of my short career was spent in a differing country anyways, so how would I have any true influence here. I did what I could there and that is that.
That I do not reach out and affect change here, some of it through lack of "stature", much of it from a lack of academic writing ability, also says something. -Perhaps I should stop lamenting and actually do something about it. But that is my great flaw.
I can say striving for a "Rose-Lefevbre-Bonade-Marcellus-insert name here-Jason Hastings " to be emblazoned on some imaginary statue in my head is a flaw which I no longer have. I could care less if my name is noted in the realm of music when I leave.
So, I as well say "Bonade?..... Tabuteau? Who dey?" And I don't say this down to anybody, nor up at anybody, because I also look in the mirror and say "Who I?!" Though this should not be seen as an indictment towards anybody else.
*But after all of this- take heart.... Though it may only be a small pool of people, there are those that have stopped being fooled.
-Jason Hastings ('Who I?')
Post Edited (2011-12-15 02:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-15 12:32
I think some of the ideas being discussed here constitute an ethical as well as a musical issue.
Dileep, with respect for your position, the notion that the strongest musical ideas will ultimately win out strikes me as at least a little naive. We don't live with an ideal Darwinian playing field: oftentimes very weak ideas are given much more power by tenure and position.
I've seen inferior musicians ruin the careers of superior ones. One partial example: I remember a highly placed DMA student at an important music school once telling me before my audition there "Just be careful. I remember a girl coming in and nailing the Francaix concerto. She played so well that, after the audition, the professors looked at each other and said...'Well....but maybe her TONE was wrong...." and the rejected her application on the basis of tone, when in fact she had only scared them with her abilities.
I recognize that, because I won't release information about who was involved in this case, the story might seem suspect--but if you can even imagine that such a thing might be done (on a regular basis), you'll see that when inferior musicians have attained power, they do not always use it fairly. In fact, I've noticed they tend to make a virtue of their limitations and force them on those within their power: ego gratification becomes the goal.
Tony, I'd really appreciate anything you might do to challenge any of the foundations of the problems here in America. I, for one, think you're onto something important. But as you wrote to Jason earlier, if you post the way you did to Dileep (insulting and belittling), I don't think it will help people take this discussion seriously.
I recognize that this can be challenging when dealing with Dileep, who has often posted in an insulting and belittling manner himself; but the current subject matter is important, and you have true insights.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2011-12-15 12:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2011-12-15 17:14
I know this is not a part of the discussion... But I would like to thank you all for your input. The knowledge, ideas, and discussions -- most of us look in on from the outside -- are truly insightful. At some point in my college career I decided to look further than my teacher's influence, I'm glad this is a part of my readings.
It is sometimes distracting to see people quibble, yet I think there is good that comes out of it. When authors reaffirm positions and take the time to defend themselves in an adult manner it really gives insight.
This thread really has gotten me thinking.... thank you.
-Tim G
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-12-15 19:40
Eric wrote, in part:
>> ...if you post the way you did to Dileep (insulting and belittling), I don't think it will help people take this discussion seriously.>>
No, well, I'm a bad person, aren't I?-)
I'm afraid that, having taught in Spain for 8 hours a day for 3 days (say), and then struggled home through airports, immigration etc to Oxford, I sometimes find myself late at night pissed in both the US sense and the UK sense.
There then sometimes also comes upon me the irresistible impulse to give a flea in the ear to someone who gets up my nose. I work hard at what I do; I like to think that it's worthwhile; and I don't like dilettante smartarses.
The flea in this case wasn't very well constructed (due to the UK sense). Sorry about that. I'll try to be more amusing next time.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-15 20:52
Tony,
So far as I'm concerned, you have every right to speak your mind as you see fit on this stuff: you've paid your dues and have more career credibility than the rest of us posting on this topic (and for everyone else out there: yes, it DOES matter). I just want people to take your points on this topic very seriously, because I too believe that what you're talking about is worthwhile. So far as your style of delivering those points, from here on out, I'll keep my mouth shut: my opinion is known. I'm looking forward to where this all will lead.
Tim G,
Welcome to the Revolution.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-12-16 03:44
> If Spain is importing this nonsense, then no wonder the Euro is in trouble.
> My mouse and I never mean to be insulting to anyone on this board.
> We all work hard at what we do. So get on with it and stop sniveling.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2011-12-16 03:50
[ To all - Please keep the thread free of any further personal attacks and sniping - GBK ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-16 05:23
Going beyond the original question, and I mean no insult to the original poster;
There is an issue that I see needs be laid out naked for all grapple with and not look away, lest we will never get anywhere in our current course of discussion:
-Here in America, we seem to hold an intense, misguided pride in Nationalism. But look at our country's history: Our culture is that of immigrants.
*Rock and Roll/Jazz stems from the blues, which stems from the spirituals of the slaves we brought to our country.
*Western European music comes to us from the immigrants that came to this country not quite so long ago.
In a vain attempt, we take the small morsels from the full meal that is Western European music offered us by a small group of immigrants, and somehow now claim to fully grasp "the way."
To confound matters more, we take our "way" as Gospel without actually having vetted the sources of our knowledge; consequently viewing the outside world as strange and suspect if it differs from what we now hold true.
Isn't that a bit backwards? ....to claim to have a grasp of things when we never feasted upon the actual meal? Did our "cooks" here actually have the real recipe?
It is perhaps uncomfortable for some to challenge their ways as it is a challenge to what comprises "The American Way."
Well, as an American I look at that statement as see the inanity. Perhaps "The American Way/System" is flawed because we never got the entire story. Our American-musical forefathers served their purpose; but it was smaller in scope than we think- and they are long since DEAD.
Perhaps we need to look outside our borders and realize that we have been fooled to a point.
Yet once this has been pointed out, it is up to each reader to do with it what they will. Keep bowing to the Golden-Idols without thought if you wish. ......or realize that we never got the full recipe and seek out your own knowledge.
I think we can do that and still honor the fact that our "Idols" existed.
........but who am I to stand in the face of Mozart, or Beethoven? Take what I say for what you will as well.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-16 05:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-12-16 10:39
Jason,
I think you're onto something. Maybe even enough for a new thread.
Beyond some of your ideas regarding an American mindset, it helps to remember that the clarinet community is a very small subset of the American (and global) population--that really the last hundred years or so it has been dominated by a handful of people (mostly men).
The International Clarinet Association just reported that membership is up to 4,031--"The highest membership count in recent memory." (pg 92, The Clarinet, Dec 2011*). While not every clarinetist in the world is a member of the ICA, this gives a touchstone for the size of the clarinet community. And that's only the size of a small town. I would suggest that the clarinet community behaves a bit like a small town too--everybody knows everybody else's business (or thinks they do), there is an inclination to be insular, and those in power don't give it up easily.
With communications being what they are these days (this site is a good example) clarinetists are not limited to the offerings of their instructors in the way they were just twenty years ago. Back then, we were limited to what recordings we could purchase at the local record store, or what our teachers might have had in stock. In my own case that meant a lot of NY Phil and Leonard Bernstein; a lot of Ormandy and Philly; a little Cleveland Szell, and not much else. I was in college before I heard Chicago, Berlin, Concertgebouw, the great English orchestras, et al.
These days, a young player can jump on youtube and hear in a matter of hours what would have taken us years to compile. I think the future of clarinetistry is rather bright because of this.
The old "legends" of pedagogy are being reassessed--they weren't a race of gods, and their ideas must stand scrutiny like everyone else's. The contemporary student doesn't live in a practice cell and teacher's studio only (as really was the case not long ago).
One word of caution to this brave new world, though. There is no replacement for real expertise; the sort which can only come from experience playing at a very high level for many years, in professional situations. This is sometimes lost in a kind of false egalitarianism of the internet. We should remember to respect the work of those who have earned it.
When I have the opportunity to discuss the clarinet on this site with some of the top professionals out there, I'm grateful and try to show the respect they've earned. That includes, but is not limited to Tony Pay, Ed Palanker, Gregory Smith, 'Liqourice', and many others who are not regular posters. I also think that respect should be extended to younger professionals who are trying to make it in this difficult market. I think we're lucky they share their ideas and opinions here.
[*PS. Dileep has a very informative review of Mark Simpson's "Prism" in December's The Clarinet: I encourage everyone to read it]
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-12-16 13:30
"The International Clarinet Association just reported that membership is up to 4,031."
Mark -
Any idea of how many people have posted here and on the Klarinet list?
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-12-17 20:14
I have just waded through Tony Pay's "Phrasing in Contention". I say wade as the complexity forced me into just trying to glean a general idea of each paragraph. If anyone is interested in discussing some of the basic concepts i would be up for it.
After you read the article it will be evident why Tony is sometimes less than enthusiastic about the issues that are discussed on the BB such as "What is the best ligature'. ps. I'm not trying to flatter Tony. That won't protect me from his powerful pen.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2011-12-17 20:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-19 21:22
It took me a few days to find this:
http://www.pickstaiger.org/video/menahem-pressler-chamber-music-master-class
-This was posted on the BBoard some months ago, but bears re-watching as it elucidates what this is all getting at.
Pressler's work on K.502 (the first half-hour) should serve ears sufficiently well.
I will leave any direct illumination of Tony's writing to his desk; and beyond that I do think it needs be tried for oneself.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-12-20 12:18
Thanks Jason, This looks like it might be window into this subject matter. Initially I find the speaking a little pianissimo but it's a good video worth digesting. John
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-12-20 15:33
I just listened to the Pressler master class, which is worth every second of its 1-1/2 hour length. He asked for, and got, things that wind players rarely do -- matching of articulation, tone color and emotional temperature. The improvement in each of the three groups was dramatic. What started out as merely very good was transformed into real excellence.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-12-20 20:39
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I thought I'd mention a personal discovery I've made this afternoon. After a week off for a vacation trip, I've come back to some of the standard etudes in my drawer. I pulled out the Rose 20 Grand Studies. My copy of that is the International Music printing edited by Drucker. I've never seen an earlier edition (or one without editorial attribution) so I went online and downloaded facsimiles of two very early editions of the Rode 24 Caprices for violin on which the 20 Grand Studies are based. I found that the reason there are *24* of the Caprices is because Rode composed them as a "circle of fifths" series of studies, starting with C Major, A minor, then G Major, through the sharp major and minor scales, switching to flats at G-flat major and back through the flats to D minor. Anyone familiar with the Rose 20 knows it includes none of that (I can't imagine that was Drucker's doing). With one exception, those of the Caprices that had signatures of 3 or more sharps or flats were transposed by Rose, usually down a third, to produce signatures of 2 or fewer sharps or flats. Of the two studies Rose puts in keys with more than 2 flats, one is a transposition of Rode's caprice from G-flat major to E-flat. The other Rose transposes, to me inexplicably (maybe if I think about it more I'll at least understand why) from D minor to F minor. None of the Rose sharp-key studies has more than 2 sharps.
Apart from Rose's having defeated one of Rode's most obvious goals - to provide (violin) students of the early 19th century (Rode died in 1830 - he was roughly a contemporary of Beethoven) with music in all keys - I wonder what this procedure says of the expectation of clarinetists at the beginning of the 20th century (when Rose was publishing his etudes). Clarinetists certainly had to be able to handle more than 2 or 3 sharps or flats - this wasn't any longer the time of Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Karl
Post Edited (2011-12-21 01:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-20 20:46
I personally find it most illuminating to view the Mozart portion of this masterclass. (In particular regarding the discussion of Tabuteau in this thread.)
First, as the clarinet is not involved, we are not tempted to judge another clarinetist's abilities.
Second, the "demands" that Mr. Pressler makes serve to eliminate to constant pushing forward of the music. The music must breath as he says!
Simply watch what Pressler asks of the pianist in her left-hand 'block-chords.' He demonstrates what she is doing, pushing toward the bar-lines, albeit a bit exaggerated to make his point clear. Then, the "reverse" is demonstrated, with a slight lightening toward to bar-line.
This may be viewed as a subtle change; and to some ears it may be...... However this subtlety makes all the difference in the world! It immediately changes the way the violin and cello can approach the conversation. Of course, Pressler later works with the violinist as needed, and a tad with the cellist; but what he evokes still stems from the kernel idea stated from the start; a removal of the constant need to drive forward.
Again, the music must breath and settle as he explicitly states. The musicians are then freed to communicate; with themselves and with us as the listener.
-----------------
I do not wish to interpret "Phrasing in Contention" for anyone, but I think may be able to clarify one essential aspect that some may be confused over.
The idea of beginning-oriented phrasing does not consist of a constant strong emphasis at the bar-line only to be followed by a sharp weakening in intensity. That would simply be a contrived reversal of the need to constantly push forwards.
This is a more subtle, and dare I say natural, approach than it seems some are making out of it. Yes, a phrase must begin- but not always with a bang.
Viewing all this from a personal perspective, I think the difficulty in understanding this stems from our schooling. We are constantly being told that the music must always go somewhere. Well, if we take that safety-blanket away, we are left grasping for a way to "express ourselves": and we will normally find a differing affected way of expression.
But, if one is lucky and presented with a new-mind set, such as Pressler illustrates, a new world is opened. Once experienced, it seems to fit like a glove and one is left wondering how they could have been so blind for so long. ....Again, personally, I can say this is how it occurred for me.
Once this mind-set is properly contextualized, the idea of placing a 'local crescendo' where apt due to the harmonic/rhythmic demands actually has true 'meaning'; it ceases to be an egotistical affect that is constantly painted onto the music.
--------------
I strongly suggest re-viewing the Mozart potion, listening not only to what Pressler plays, but what he says: that is of equal importance.
I post this clip not as a personal justification of what I write; but rather as a clear example of the true beauty that can exist.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-20 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
