 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-02 03:59
Tony -
I became close friends with Kalmen Opperman, who, I suggest, was at least as good a player as you and who trained at least as many professional performers as you. I used to go over to his apartment every couple of weeks to play for him -- not much clarinet music, except for Mozart, Schubert and Brahms. Mostly I played Schubert and Schumann songs, opera and instrumental music, channeling Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Maria Callas and Peter Pears, John McCormack and Jussi Bjoerling, Dinu Lipatti and Alfred Cortot, Jascha Heifetz and Fritz Kreisler (though of course always playing as myself).
Kal loved it, and that was enough for me. Before you and I quarreled (frankly, for no reason I could discern), you wrote that you liked my ideas about the Mozart Quintet and the Beethoven 8th and wished that you could hear me perform them. I claim, with I suggest good reason, to be a real musician, even though I haven't made my living that way.
Arnold Jacobs was one of the world's great musicians, who transformed the lives of innumerable players of every instrument from the tuba to the piccolo. When you show contempt for Arnold Jacobs, Arnold Jacobs is not mocked. It is you who mock yourself.
By the way, David McGill is still alive. He's the Chicago Symphony principal bassoonist, and 10 times the player you'll ever be. I've read his wonderful book Sound in Motion many times, gaining new wisdom each time. You will recall that you threatened to rain down your wrath on him for writing an evil book that brought disrespect on your ideas. Have you forgotten that fatwah?
Oh, and by the way, I'm perfectly aware that that Christopher Hitchens told the story of Jerry Falwell, the Enema and the Matchbox. I stole it from him without apology, because it fit you so well.
Floccinaucinihilipilification.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-07-02 05:15
A "call-out thread" is poor form, mate. A private email would suffice, in my opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-02 16:34
From my point of view, Tony's attack in the prior thread richly deserved a response, and I wanted to get Garth out of the line of fire. You'll recall that Tony did it to me. http://test.woodwind.org/oboe/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=314914&t=314881&v=f.
Nevertheless, Bryan and Dileep are big guns. (I assume Dileep is being ironic.) As far as I can bear (which may not be always), my response from now on will be "Dear Tony - You my be right."
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2013-07-02 20:01
proof-read before posting
But i don't approve of this really, it's all a bit tyring.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2013-07-03 01:08
I was being serious. I would enjoy seeing this play out online and seeing the discourse. I too have been in Tony's line of fire at times and rather enjoy it since most of the time he seems to be writing for himself.
I guess it is a kind of intellectual bar fight that I want to observe.
No one is going to get hurt so no point in taking it outside.
Fight on, my good fellows, fight on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-07-03 01:09
I must say, I never read Tony's recent rant of you Ken so I won't respond to it directly, but knowing what Tony has said to me and others in the past, I can only say good job. I will however defend Jacobs. I've heard so many amazing things about his teachng and playing all my life. Our tuba player in the BSO is a student of his, a fine player in his prime himself. He's taught at Juilliard for several years and the Peabody Concervatory. He's constantly in demand to travel to different universities and brass and band conferences to do workshops on Jacobs teachings. I dodn't understand anyone putting Jacobs down for his fantastic playing and teachings. I just don't understand it. Again though, I did not read Tony's ranting about him myself, I can only imagine.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2013-07-03 01:24
I'm a bit confused. I couldn't see anything offensive in Tony Pay's questions about possible errors in an article about clarinet bores and tuning. He seemed to me to be only asking for clarification on what you (Ken) thought the errors were.
Am I missing something?
Post Edited (2013-07-03 05:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2013-07-03 01:28
I, too, have felt TP's ire. He's a good clarinetist, but that does not entitle him to be a jerk.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-07-03 16:22
It seems there is not a lot of criticism of Arnold Jacobs breathing ideas. One source says he doesn't have a defined method of breathing. Jacobs just wanted to get rid of obstacles in the way of a natural(what he deduced from his study of anatomy) simple (not over thought causing paralysis) music making. It appears that the teaching of breathing has caused confusion with many players. This confusion caused paralysis as people obsessed about the process. People were fixing their cars while driving. Jacobs helped these people. But.......who out there would argue a case for paralysis? It is fine to support Arnold Jacobs but who out there is following his advice? Who out there doesn't use an oppositional muscle approach to woodwind breathing? We overcome the paralysis by practice which makes it second nature also by understanding the process.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-07-03 21:13
Listen:
I post here because I'm interested in clarinet players having information that will help them play better.
I teach a lot. I find it wonderful when students come to understand the powerful idea that nuances can occur without their compromising the line of their playing. Indeed, I remember when the notion first occurred to me whilst I was giving a lesson in Italy. I couldn't believe that I'd never noticed it before.
I was never taught it. That worried me, because, surely, if it was so useful, someone would have explained it to me?
Then, I came to see WHY it's difficult to explain -- it involves a muscle that we can't feel -- and devoted myself to spreading understanding of the paradox that it's complex to understand but easy to use.
So, thereafter, I found that someone called Arnold Jacobs was a growing nuisance to me. HE says that something that I find supremely useful in my own playing is a no-no in his system.
Arnold Jacobs was clearly a great tuba player, and a great musician. Probably, several of his contributions to the psychology of wind playing can be used across the board -- piccolo, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and so on.
But, THIS one can't. It goes, for example -- in what I called his 'silly' article --
"...support is never tight muscles, whether you’re silent or blowing, or in a diminuendo or crescendo."
See, he uses the word 'tight' -- but of course, any muscle that is being USED is FLEXED. (Of course, you can say, it's 'tight' -- but that has a pejorative implication.)
And if you throw away the idea of 'used' muscles, you lose -- for example -- the floating ballerina, poised on exquisitely balanced tensions in her legs.
And you destroy a large part of your ability to produce nuance in the clarinet repertoire.
So, I argue against Arnold Jacobs in this regard.
By the way, thank you, Arnoldstang, for your understanding of this. I think it's fair to say that I have been both generous to you and -- I would say understandably -- dismissive of you in the past, on this subject.
But I'd like to acknowledge your generosity of spirit on this occasion.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-07-04 03:14
Arnoldstang said "It is fine to support Arnold Jacobs but who out there is following his advice?" The tuba player in our orchestra, as I pointed out, is in big demand to give lectures and work with students in colleges and university as well as festivals all over the county. He has a class at Peabody that every wind player can sigh up for and most do. He teaches the Arnold Jacob method everywhere he goes so at least some people believe in that method. I'm not going to argue Jacobs wording, I've never read his method. It's possible he used some terms that didn't mean to him that mean to others and his students understood what he meant. I'm just saying. ?
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2013-07-04 05:41
I haven't read Arnold Jacobs' ideas about breathing but my own ideas have been improved and informed my some of Tony Pay's articles as well as some of the recorded examples of his playing.
I would think that Arnold Jacobs' ideas about breathing might well be influenced by his choice of instrument. The Tuba having to use a large volume of air but with little resistance (i.e. no reed). Perhaps his situation suits words like 'relaxed' more that a clarinet player pushing against the resistance of the reed.
Whatever the breathing issues I'm still confused as to what Ken could have found offensive about asking what the problems were in an article on clarinet bores.
As a side issue just because a person is a good player it doesn't necessarily mean that they have any understanding of the physiology of playing an instrument.
Chris.
Post Edited (2013-07-04 06:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-07-04 11:50
Arnold Jacobs was bestowed an honorary Doctorate degree for all the research he did into the actual physiology of the human breathing system. Students of ALL wind instruments in Chicago sought him out to hear his incites AND to take advantage of all the breathing related instruments and machines he kept in his studio.
My take on this "controversy" is that Pay and Shaw are just talking passed one another but are truly USING THE SAME TECHNIQUE (whether they know it or not).
Read Arnold Jacob's book, "SONG AND WIND," to get an idea where Mr. Jacobs was coming from.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-07-04 15:04
Ken is mad at Tony's delivery (which is harsh sometimes) and Tony is trying to clarify a point that differs from Jacob's. *yawn*
It should be obvious by now that Tony's presence on the board is to correct (correct to him) what is being said when what's right has been lead astray by those who don't have the right answers. That's not to say Tony is always right...but we have to get past just being annoyed by his blunt nature.
I still have disagreements with Tony as well in the way he has dealt with others in the past. Much of the time, it's the delivery style of the information that I don't think is received well, unrelated to the actual content. (paragraph edited to remove thread reference I can't find a link to)
It's obvious that there is a LARGE array of people on this board, from beginners to professionals and everything in between. It should be obvious that respect needs to be given to those who have high stature in the clarinet community.
He's a great player and has a wealth of knowledge. I don't think he's the go-to guy for everything clarinet\music related, but respect must be paid and content must be given a thorough examination.
Personal attacks, even if they are felt to be responses to what is perceived as Tony being rude, have no place here or anywhere.
Tony-
I'm impressed by this particular thread as far as not engaging in attacks, but just stating your thoughts and ideas. I don't agree with you on a few things (mouthpiece thread a while ago, etc.), but I know you're trying to help the community and that is admirable. I'd venture a guess that talking in person would be different, and people would be less likely to be offended.
Many people don't like teachers who just tell them what to do and don't allow or like it for students to ask questions and discuss for a better understanding of information. I think the problem you're running into is people think you're the kind of teacher that just dictates what to do and doesn't allow questions or comments. I don't know if that's the case or not, but that's how you come across sometimes, which I believe is why people get offended by you.
This particular thread is not coming across that way, so people should calm down and read your post for content.
-N
(additional edit: This is the last time I'll come to Tony's defense. I'll leave it to someone else who believes in the content of Tony's posts and has to occasionally defend his cold reception by some people here. Best of luck, Tony. Some people will never be won over, and I'm getting out of the way.)
Post Edited (2013-07-06 16:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-07-04 15:27
I bring to your attention a YouTube video of Mr Jacobs. Breathing Exercises Arnold Jacobs Almost Alive. Nov.21, 2009. At approximately 5:37 in the video he says "we don,t want a fight between inspiratory and expiratory musculature". Just before this he mentions biceps and triceps and how we isolate their use in string bowing. I,ll leave it there.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2013-07-04 19:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 15:41
Ned -
Over on the Hanudel thread, I just posted what I strongly intend to be my final response to Tony.
This is the end, not because I think I may be wrong, but because it's too easy and too much fun. It's no sport to shoot sitting ducks.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 17:38
This would be a more meaningful discussion if it were between Tony Pay and Arnold Jacobs. That it has stemmed from a comment citing a single quotation from the deceased Jacobs, one lifted from so much larger a context that it may not completely represent Jacobs's approach, compromises the debate's quality. As quoted by the author, Brian Frederiksen, early in Song and Wind, Jacobs himself denies having a "method" and says that his teaching approach with each student depended on the student's strengths and weaknesses and individual needs (a classic Deweyan approach), and that the things he said to one student may have been very different from what he said to another student to get at a musical result.
Having been driven by this exchange to find out what Jacobs himself really said, I'm now working through Wind and Song for myself (thank you to whoever posted the title). Although it's a second-hand telling of Jacobs's biography and career, the material on breath and music seems to be quoted verbatim from Jacobs's own writing. I have read and will re-read Tony's article on the subject - not to act in any way as a referee (way out of my league) but for my own better understanding of the two views, if indeed two opposed views are really involved. Having only partially read the Jacobs material, though, I have to say that Ken's quote at best oversimplifies what Jacobs describes as a very complicated process involving the potential for a lot of *misdirected energy* (his objection to the "tight gut") but requiring, sometimes unconsciously, the needed muscular structures to engage (flex, to use Tony's term) in order to do their work. I suspect, again subject to my actually finishing the material, that even to Jacobs to "sing on the wind" is a figure, a metaphor, that involves far more activity under its surface than the literal meaning of the words.
I'll stop here - I want to finish reading the Frederiksen book and re-read Tony's article and don't want to put words into either of their mouths.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 18:07
Karl -
Wind and Song is a biography. There's a lot on the site, plus at least two books by students discussing how AJ helped them, and there are transcripts of master classes that are equally helpful. If you have trouble finding the transcripts, let me know and I'll dig them out.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-07-04 19:52
Everyone seems to think my name is Ned, haha.
I think Tony feels he's shooting fish in a barrel...
-Nathan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-05 01:18
Nathan -
Tony is right (or your description of him is). Fish in a barrel -- sitting ducks -- dodos in the forest -- it would be unsporting of me to pot any of them.
Ken
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-07-05 20:32
Words such as "tight" tend to invite trouble, don't they? -- unless we consider the context. "Tight" can mean firm in a good sense: firm support. "Tight" can mean tense, as in uptight, or it can mean overly-firm: not flexible. Too much tightness in almost any part of the body can cause injuries. Too little tightness on a clarinet reed can cause squeaks, but biting causes squeaks, too, or can cut off the sound completely. Someone with a "tight" embouchure may employ exactly the right amount of firm pressure for a gorgeous tone or may be biting like an alligator. A description pf someone with tight finger pressure on the keys may mean s/he uses enough pressure to make sure that key seals without leaking air -- or it may mean s/he's grabbing on with such a death-grip that it's impossible to move the fingers fast enough to play presto. The word by itself tells us nothing much. We need to read the essays.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
