 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-02-23 22:43
I was recently sent the following email:
"I read one of your postings, in which you said that you were entirely
> self-taught. I myself am a primarily self-taught player.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to talk more about teaching ourselves? After all, too
> many people seem to equate being a self-taught player with being a
> player of poor quality, and equate privately-taught players with being
> good players."
In reply I write:
I am a reasonably intelligent guy with an analytical mind and relentless determination. Perhaps to self-teach one needs to have a certain group of
charactereistics as a person, not necessarily the same as my own. For me it
has not been a complicated process.
Tone: Listen to the odd recording, and especially other players live.
Mentally store the the sound one likes. Aim for it. Constantly make minute
changes to the way one plays and retain these changes if they contribute to
the sound that has been stored. This can become both a conscious and subconscious process.
Fingering: Get a fingering chart that covers good fingerings for sustained
notes, reluctant slurrs, and trills, and that takes care of the notes. An experienced analytical player may be needed to provide this and leave out the huge array of dubious fingerings in the top octave.
Tuning: Never assume that tuning before playing takes care of pitch!!
Listen note by note (and use a tuner as a basis but remember it is a tempered scale). When playing with other players tuning means being in tune with the others, whatever their pitch is. It can be confusing because other players may be out of tune with eachother. Lip a note up slightly. If this reduces the 'beat frequency' then I was flat. If it increases the beat frequency then I was sharp. If it makes no difference then I am as in tune as I can be, and if it sounds bad it is
because other players are out of tune with eachother.
Tongueing: Without waffling on, a single sentence covers how to do it. To
improve the effect follow the rules as for tone.
Phrasing & Artistry: Listen astutely to other players and recordings to
discover what is possible, and copy the possibilities. Choose between them.
It's all to do with nuances of pitch, volume, timing, tone.
Group Playing &b Accompaniment Roles: Always be aware that a total, perhaps emotional effect is the aim. Constantly strive (using the method described for tone) to contribute to this effect.
Technically Difficult Passages. To play fast one only has to shorten the
notes. Of course relatively speaking, this makes the messy sounds arising from poor finger synchronization and from tongueing (as the tongue actually contacts or leaves the reed) more conspicuous. Therefore the most important aspect to fast playing is to reduce the volume and length of these sounds. Practice MUST be slow enough to hear these sounds before they can be reduced, once again by using the method mentioned under tone. Focus on these sounds, not the notes!
That just about covers it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-02-24 00:27
A very well written piece. You might want to include how you tackled things like correct hand position and embouchure. Two areas where those who are self taught may struggle and not know how to diagnose and solve the problems.
If we stop and think about it, we have to acknowledge that the earliest players of the clarinet had to have been self taught. They had to develop methods and techniques without any help whatsoever. As time passed, each generation learned from the previous one and added knowledge to it.
It is not that being self taught is bad or means that a person is a bad player. Rather that they may spend an unnecessarily long time trying to figure out the causes of and solutions for various problems. Or they may not even realize a problem even exists. Or may not succeed in finding the answer.
Of course a private teacher does not guarantee that everything will proceed smoothly and the student become a wonderful player. Some teachers are far better than others. The main advantage is the the teacher can look and see what the student is doing and then explain and demonstrate techniques and solutions. Live demonstrations and interaction with the teacher can often clarify what seems incomprehensible in a text.
The presence of a private teacher will not guarantee success nor will the lack of one guarantee failure. However in any field of endeavor, qualified instruction by someone who can monitor your progress and provide corrective feedback does enhance the probability of success and accelerate the learning process.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pam
Date: 2001-02-24 03:29
I suppose there is nothing wrong with being self-taught but I really appreciate my private teacher and his critical ear for things I could do better. Sometimes he catches things that I hadn't thought of yet or challenges me in ways I might not do on my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-02-24 13:43
"...You might want to include how you tackled things like correct hand position and embouchure. ...."
Hand Position: It's hard to write a book on this. It needs to be as comfortable as possible and allow the fingers to move freely. That simple, and it will vary from person to person depending on relative finger length, etc.
Embouchure: Put a little lip thinly over the bottom teeth and rest the reed on it, put the top teeth on the mouthpiece and close the lips like a rubber band top and sides. That's what I saw all clarinetists do. Blow. If it sqeeks and squarks put less in the mouth. If there is no sound, put more in. It took only a minute to discover that rule.
Now make minute changes to all aspects to see if a different 'setting' makes improvement. This is the key on-going process for self-teaching, and what I believe is the difference between a successful student and a mediocre one, whether that student is taught or not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bob gardner
Date: 2001-02-24 14:07
You said that "if it sqeeks put less in the mouth. If no sound, put more in."
I have found that if I get sqeeks it is cause by reed positioning. The first thing I do is to check the reed and move it up or down and try again.
You wrote a great piece.
peace
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. Butler
Date: 2001-02-24 14:50
I found over the years teaching that "squeaks" are seldom caused by the reed. Most of the time they are caused by incomplete covering of a ring or tone hole. Secondly, caused by too much mouthpiece, poor embouchre, or both.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2001-02-24 18:30
Let's see, I have identical twins and give each the same clarinet, recordings, books and such. But one gets an excellent teacher and the other does not... Who will play better after a year?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Anji
Date: 2001-02-24 23:08
Let's try to look at this as encouragement to those who cannot currently get an instructor into their schedule, shall we?
I was skiing 7 years before taking my first lesson, and still got something out of it.
Those who have determined to take up the instrument and use the standard teaching guides may in fact progress rapidly, particularly if they play with other people (feedback).
Most of the benefit in lessons is regular interjection of instruction to a PRACTICE SCHEDULE.
Music theory and guidance are helpful, as I often recommend, but it is entirely possible for a determined player to develop a high level of skill without outside intervention.
Considering what lessons cost, no wonder some choose to go without.
That said, I see my teacher biweekly and have undoubtedly progressed beyond what I may have achieved unaided.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2001-02-25 06:31
I am another self taught player. After some years of formal lessons on the cornet and later the trumpet I had gone from being extremely competent for my age with great range and technique to a brass cripple owing to bad teaching. A particular teacher at an unnamed conservatorium insisted on changing everything even though my range was far superior to his and having a backgroud in british brass bands my technique and reading were pretty good also.
Consequently I saw the light and went back to reeds on which I had started in the first place and decided to learn myself. By dogged perserverance listening for the sound I wanted and watching other people I had no trouble in making a success of myself on reeds and flute. I have a degree and performance diploma, am a professional player and ironically enough now a conservatorium teacher myself being entirely self taught on the clarinet, saxes, bassoon and flute.
My teaching experience has taught me a number of things and one is to look at who you are teaching, what they are doing, the results they get and forget any strict inflexible ideology. The aim is to play well and if somebody plays well there probably isnt anything to fix. Look at Dizzy Gillespie. If he had the same trumpet teacher as me he would probably be a clarinettist now too.
Greatings from Sydney Gordon.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steve Epstein
Date: 2001-02-25 08:29
I had lessons as a kid, both private and group, as in addition to my private clarinet teacher, my elementary and jr hs band directors were both reed players. This certainly was useful. I stopped lessons during the 10th grade, as there were other priorities and I had lost interest.
A few years ago, I started playing again. I called upon my memory to reteach myself and have long since passed my previous level of skill.
I do not do anything properly, as far as practcing is concerned. In fact, not only don't I have lessons, I don't even practice (just like when I was a kid:). When I was getting myself back into shape, I worked from klezmer tunebooks and jazz fake books, because that's what I wanted to play. I now play in several contra dance bands, where the music is like playing from etude books - lots of 16th note arpeggios - only prettier, and I play them with other people.
Certainly, if I had lessons, indeed, if I just practiced properly, doing long tones, etc., I'd be better. But I'm an adult with a day job and I play for fun. And the things I want to learn to do with the horn are things such as inventing harmonic counter-melodies and improvising a bit. While a teacher could help me with that I'm never really going to learn how unless I take a stab at it myself in the midst of my fellow band mates. So, I really am getting lessons and practicing, just in a different sort of way, and often right in performance. My "teachers" probably don't even realize they're my teachers:). As far as things like intonation are concerned, comments accompanied by frowns from fellow band members about being flat or being sharp on this or that note, being too loud, rushing or dragging here or there, have made me acutely aware of what has to be done. Sure, a teacher might have spotted it earlier and helped me fix it faster, but then I wouldn't have the time to play in these bands. I'd be spending the time taking lessons and practicing by myself in my room. My point is that I don't want to repeat the experience of my childhood ad infinitum. Of course, this doesn't mean I'm ruling out lessons completely at any point.
It really depends on your needs and goals. I'll get a teacher when I hit a wall I can't get over to get to the goal I want.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2001-02-25 18:41
It is remarkable that some of the very same people opposed to do-it-yourself clarinet repair (in the thread below) are in favor of do-it-yourself clarinet teaching. Good instruction can really benefit a player, but some cannot use it. Some simply do not have access to a good teacher (location, money.) Some have temperaments which make taking advice difficult (pride, know it all types). Lessons are of no benefit to the sort of personality that cannot be a learner anyhow.
Most people in my locale have sufficiently analytical minds to determine the cause and effect in mechanical devices. In the past on this BB, I was astonished at the attitude of superiority attributed to one's mechanical ability. So much so, that I mistakenly thought it must be directed toward women only, but indeed it was an equal opportunity conceit. This ability is pretty much taken for granted where I'm from.
I very much approve of do-it-yourself repair, on junker clarinets. At a minimum you'll learn a great deal, and end up with a useless junker. This is more than you started with. You can't learn to fix things without trying to fix things. It would be nice if those doing repair were more willing to share their knowledge, and direct the rest of us to articles and offer advice other than 'do not attempt this stunt at home, unless you are a professional.'
I would never encourage my son to be a do-it-yourself clarinetist. Each time you play using bad technique it wires into your brain and NEVER completely leaves. Measure twice - cut once. The most likely way to get a fine technique is to start with it as soon as possible, not hunt and peck and rediscover it. Our current teacher is fantastic. It would take years to 'discover' the tone and technique 'tricks' we learned this month and we don't spend much time learning bad habits.
You cannot go out and buy another son because you you ruined this one's technique; you can always get another horn.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-02-26 01:30
Some correction is called for here...
Ginny wrote "It is remarkable that some of the very same people opposed to do-it-yourself clarinet repair (in the thread below) are in favor of do-it-yourself clarinet teaching. "
My post on clarinet repair highlighted that there was a lot more to an overhaul than changing pads, and that considerable experience was needed to do a good job of identifying and dealing with all these other mechainical aspects. I did not intend in any way to convey that I was OPPOSED to somebody wanting to try this. How could I do that with any integrity when I am also entirely self taught as an instrument repairer. Ginny you got me wrong here. I told the would be reapirer via email to "Go for it! I am totally self-taught in this job and if I had not tackled my
run-over Haynes flute the job would never have begun."
Anji: I like what you wrote. This should be a forum for presenting and considering ideas, not emotive defensiveness.
As Ginny says, there sure are short cuts to be gained from excellent teaching. Unfortunately it is often difficult to find, and an excellent teacher for one student's mind may not be at all appropriate for another student's different type of mind. Self-tuition may well be less appropriate for a young student than it is for an adult with well developed analitical skills.
If I had gone to a school to learn instrument repairing I would have been taught traditional ways of doing each task. It probably took longer teaching myself, but because my learning is based on very thorough analysis I understand extremely well WHY I do every thing I do. Everything has been questioned thoroughly (somewthing I could probably not have done without the contribution of a background in formal mechanics eduacation). In many cases I believe that I have developed new methods and use of materials that are considerably superior to what is traditionally used. This probably would not be so if I went to a school and got indoctrinated with the traditional.
So there is, of course a place for both. The gist of this thread is to point out that having an outside teacher is not the only valid way to go. Those who are self-teaching deserve to have encouragement to confidently follow this course if they so wish without it being invalidated.
.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2001-02-27 21:36
Reading the posts on this topic, I thought about the characteristics between good self-taught players versus mediocre ones, and this is what I've come up with. See if those of you who are entirely or primarily self-taught recognize these characteristics:
Good self-taught players tend to (have) (a):
• go beyond the traditional opportunities of band and orchestra; they create their own
• when they find problems, they look for solutions efficiently and in many places
• willing to ask for help
• high level of general intelligence
• strong literacy skills
• strong analytical skills
• strong self-concept
• strong self-motivation
• strong sense of self-discipline
• good sense of sound concept
• believe learning is dependent on oneself
• willing and able to take advice on improving their playing
On the other hand, mediocre self-taught players tend to (have) (a):
• limit their playing opportunities to band and orchestra
• aren't aware of problems, or ignore them
• don't usually look for solutions to problems, and when they do, it's usually inefficient
• average/low levels of general intelligence
• weak analytical skills
• weak literacy skills
• weak self-concept
• less self-motivation
• weak sense of self-discipline
• little or no sense of sound concept
• believe learning is dependent on others
• not be willing to take advice on improving their playing
I do notice a couple of potentially serious errors in the postings above. Both are mentioned above, but if you didn't catch them, the errors are 1) that self-taught players are not aware of their playing problems. and 2) that self-taught players are not willing to take advice on improving their playing. The error in 1) is that that may be true of mediocre self-taught players, but probably not good ones: good self taught players are quite aware of their playing problems, and look for ways on solving them, through sources such as books and the Internet. The error in 2) is again only true of mediocre self-taught players; good self-taught players are usually willing to listen to whatever tidbits of information that could help their playing that they can get.
Good self-taught players often seem to not only understand the WHAT aspect of playing, but also the WHY and the HOW.
This is where I can say I am really grateful for my teacher, however, and it was a problem I could not solve on my own--the problem was embouchure, which I was very aware of, but didn't know how to solve it. He gave me an approach to it that I understood and that worked for me.
To me, it also seems that good self-taught players, should they take lessons, can be extremely successful private students, (provided they have a good teacher who is a good match) because of many of the characteristics they have developed while teaching themselves.
Not only that, they avoid some of the potentially bad things about private lessons, which I won't mention here, but if you want to know what they are, email me privately.
I can fairly say all this because it's coming from my own experience with being a primarily self-taught player, who played in high-level ensembles that required nomination or auditions.
BTW, I only had one reed-playing music teacher, and only for the first half of grade 8. (I picked up clarinet in grade 7, when I was 12; although most of my real self-teaching happened from the time I was 14) And when I got a teacher, I had very few bad habits, which one has been broken, the second is almost fully treated, and the third is starting to be treated.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-02-27 21:58
I would say that assigning high/low general intelligence levels is also incorrect. There are many very intelligent people who do not do anything with it. They may lack curiosity or drive or self-esteem or many other factors.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2001-02-27 22:36
It could be that while many good self-taught players are intelligent, not all intelligent people could be good self-taught players. Those characteristics were about good/poor self-taught players in general, not intelligent people in general!
It would be interesting to do a study of good versus poor self-taught players and determine their personal characteristics.
I did mention the other factors of curiousity and self-esteem, although I worded it differently.
And if so-called intelligent people don't use their intelligence well, can they really be called intelligent?
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-02-27 23:20
Meri wrote:
>
>
> And if so-called intelligent people don't use their
> intelligence well, can they really be called intelligent?
>
>
Of course they can. This gets into the difference between intelligence, an inherent characteristic, and common sense, a learned characteristic. Common sense is one of the rarest commodities on earth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-02-28 00:57
What excellent postings, Meri. They must have taken much thought, time, and most of the characteristics in your first list to compose. What a shame that threads such as this, representing so much communication effort, so quickly vanish to the tangle of thread history. Perhaps it would be worth this forum considering a host such as Geocities which keeps active threads at the top of the list.
Perhaps your first list could also include, only for emphasis, perfectionism and dogged determination. Of course the qualities you list are related.
Intelligence. There are many forms of it, and many different tests to evaluate these diferent forms. An appealing definition I once encountered was something like: "The ability to identify a problem and efficiently find a solution." Perhaps we could describe this as "useful intelligence". It certainly embodies many useful skills, and seems to be the type with which Meri's list could be associated. Pure intelligence as an "inherent characteristic" would seem to have little value until it is applied, using a degree of common sense. Could common sense be regarded as a component of intelligence. I was once involved in the Mensa society and was astonished at how so many members seemed to have done so little with their intelligence. Members seemed to say "Membership has confirmed that I am at a pinnacle so I can stop striving and wallow with others in the same position." Of course there are exceptions, such as Victor Serebriakov. (Spelling ??)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-02-28 02:16
Gordon (NZ) wrote:
> the tangle of thread history. Perhaps it would be worth this
> forum considering a host such as Geocities which keeps active
> threads at the top of the list.
Absolutely not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: uliano guerrini
Date: 2001-02-28 11:50
Gordon wrote
:Intelligence. There are many forms of it, and many different tests to evaluate these diferent
:forms. An appealing definition I once encountered was something like: "The ability to identify
:problem and efficiently find a solution." Perhaps we could describe this as "useful intelligence".
:It certainly embodies many useful skills, and seems to be the type with which Meri's list could
:be associated.
Intelligence is not the only gift needed, not a panacea for all evils. I tend to consider myself quite a lot intelligent (not that this means more than I do possess some sort of self esimation) and, because I'm intelligent I acknowledge my limits (e.g. I do not have any damn sense of rythm :-/) and look for solutions: eg to pay a teacher that is able to identify and tell me my errors and to provide examples to be followed! Intelligence has nothing to do with the inner sense of rythm, yes my intelligence tells me to listen a lot of music, my intelligence tells me to study more this than that, but intelligence cant give me a gift I dont' have, only time persevrance and application can, maybe, mend my lack of rythm
In conclusion my opinion is intelligence has nothing to do with being self-teached
bye, uliano
PS I'm self teached in a huge lot of things, form math to rock climbing
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-02-28 13:22
Oh yes. Pop-ups, incessant advertising, gathering of data and emails on all correspondents, information is owned for profit, list can be sold and moved to a different site, backups may or may not be taken, ...
I believe one of the reasons this BBoard is so successful is the very reason that it's <b><i>not</i></b> on one of those sites.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
