 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2014-07-09 01:07
A must see for sure! I'm certain I have been to a remarkably similar lecture at ClarinetFest one time or another. Thanks for the laugh.
John Gibson, Founder of JB Linear Music, www.music4woodwinds.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-07-09 04:17
Once the pencil has been properly "pointed," how long at first should one use it at a time? What's the proper way to break-in a finished pencil (as opposed to the break-ing procedure he shows at the end) in order to wring the longest possible useful life out of it?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-07-09 05:23
Probably the only one who does not find these funny. I guess I've been out of college long enough to not really wish I were back in high school.
The only difference between this video and our oft talked about ligature video is that this fellow is NOT wearing cool glasses.
...........sorry............
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-07-10 21:50
It's unfortunate that you don't appreciate the humour therein,Paul. But then, my sisterinlaw can sit straight faced through the Seinfeld episodes while my wife and I are laughing our asses off.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-07-11 01:52
The real business of comedy is done by inventive stand-up comics and the writers of the better shows on TV; "How I Met Your Mother," "Two and a Half Men" (before Charlie Sheen had a meltdown), "Big Bang Theory" (sometimes).
I appreciate well constructed humor. I don't particularly care for taking one point of view and sacrificing it with snarky jabs for the amusement of others.
Oh wait.......that's Fox News.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-07-11 18:23
A parable about those who want to explore the minutia of equipment and the ramifications of possible variations.
I wholeheartedly agree that musicianship is the most important part of what we do as musicians. I also agree that much of what we talk about on this board has to do with "stuff" instead. But I think this is a result of the medium. It is much easier to write and read about "stuff." Illustrating a musical point is best done when an immediate example can be produced such as during a masterclass or private lesson. So given the limitations of this medium and what it best serves, it seems rather counter productive to mock it.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-07-11 19:05
And mocking is something that tends to be done a lot on here which only serves to damage the reputation of the perpetrator.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-07-11 23:06
There is also the option of just ignoring the things you don't like and not making other people feeling bad for having different taste and belittling their comedic tastes.
"Your opinion is a poke in the eye"
Post Edited (2014-07-11 23:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CarlT
Date: 2014-07-11 23:26
Paul said, "I appreciate well constructed humor. I don't particularly care for taking one point of view and sacrificing it with snarky jabs for the amusement of others.
Oh wait.......that's Fox News."
It's good to know there are others who can't stand Fox News.
CarlT
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2014-07-12 01:29
I'm not sure I got the point of this film.
Seriously: the band room at the HS where my orchestra used to rehearse did not have a pencil sharpener. How could the band director expect his players to have sharpened pencil at the ready?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-07-12 02:16
"There is also the option of just ignoring the things you don't like "
Sorry to disagree with you TJ. That is a popular mantra in today's culture. In other words keep your mouth shut and go along with opinions you disagree with.
There are acceptable counters to opinions contrary to one's own and IMO they should be heard.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-07-12 02:43
This was a humorous video, and people started arguing over the validity of it? It seems like we all have a little too much time on our hands. So when I say ignore it I mean it's not worth arguing over other people's taste in comedy. It all reads a little too much like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFD01r6ersw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2014-07-12 03:41
My opinion is that the pencil sharpening video is mildly humorous, but still applicable to teaching and practicing clarinet. It’s likely that we all get away from the purpose of the instrument and focus on distractions such as: fixing reeds, facing mpcs, purchasing the right clarinet, correcting our embouchure and a multitude of other technicalities, rather than play music with emotion and expression. Seems to me that there is a strong element of human nature in our tendency to dwell on side issues rather than face the more difficult and purposeful task at hand. Sharpening the pencil rather than writing the essay or novel is a perfect example. Also, it is good to be goaded into seeing the folly of our practice and allow us to laugh at ourselves.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2014-07-12 05:22
Not wishing to denigrate the pencil sharpening process but perhaps this film could be likened to playing the clarinet. There are many modern products to improve our clarinet playing but perhaps the essence of our quest is quite simple just like pencil sharpening.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-07-12 06:27
TJTG. Thanks for the link to the Utube video of Fry & Laurie. Hilarious !
But I suspect that, like the pencil sharpening video, such brilliant English humour will go right over the heads of most of our American readers here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-07-12 14:46
"We mock the thing we are to be". From the humour of Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-12 20:50
>> "We mock the thing we are to be". From the humour of Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks.
Bob Draznik >>
>> Exactly my point, Robby.
TJTG >>
How does that apply in this case? I thought the idea from Mel Brooks was that you'd be advised not to mock – for example – the infirmities of the old, because that's where you'll end up yourself.
Do you mean that the maker of the video is going to end up with his pencil-sharpener-expert's attitude, and we know that because he mocked it?
Isn't it mockable in and of itself???
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-07-12 22:47
I suppose my sarcasm doesn't come across well here. I meant to infer with my video post that the thread has traveled into people just talking incomprehensibly.... Saying "exactly my point" was using Bob's post as an example.
Post Edited (2014-07-12 22:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-13 00:20
TJTG wrote:
>> I suppose my sarcasm doesn't come across well here. I meant to infer with my video post that the thread has traveled into people just talking incomprehensibly.... Saying "exactly my point" was using Bob's post as an example.>>
Well, you may have meant to IMPLY that.
I speak now not to you personally – following you up seems to indicate that you are at least an able player – but to your post.
Do you not realise that what constitutes your 'meta-post' is boring, unoriginal, vomit-inducing, condescending and unnecessary?
I cannot tell you how many times, and in how many contexts, people have said essentially what you said here: on the Klarinet list, on the BBoard, and in countless other situations.
"Oh, can't we...come on, guys, let's...can we get back on topic here?...I think we're engaging in INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION here...why don't you all...etc, etc."
It contributes NOTHING.
Try, instead, to say something that deals with at least some of what has been said in a way that could lead out of the incomprehensibility into something that we might actually manage to comprehend. (There's quite a lot of possibility of that in this thread, actually.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-13 01:24
Someone in this thread brought up the subject of 'mockery', and thought it counterproductive.
In another thread, he wrote, apropos the idea of 'espressivo' playing:Quote:
Without any specific guidance, I play phrases very simply, playing the higher notes LOUDER and the lower notes SOFTER. When circumstances allow I bring out this difference by "winding up" (speeding up, or shortening the pulse) to the upper note(s) and "unravelling" (slowing down, or lengthening the pulse) to the lower note(s).
Suspensions are the same case as above, you move to them and away from them in this way.
In a passage marked "expressivo," I would try to make these even more clear. I wonder what – I was going to write, 'the professional'; but I'll write, 'the REAL' – players here think is the appropriate response to this rather typically nonsensical farrago that masquerades as advice...
...other than mockery?
Or do you think that I'm at fault in calling attention to it?
After all, HE'S ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION, ISN'T HE?????
But, see, I don't like it. I'm not prepared to put up with it. I think it does damage.
You can think I'm a nasty person, BUT I DON'T CARE.
Tony
Post Edited (2014-07-13 20:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-07-13 15:21
Obviously.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-07-13 17:38
Normally it would feel as though the specific thread was unnecessarily co-opted by responding to 'a-thread-within-a-thread,' but I will take my chances on this one.
I did throw out a "ball park" idea on what one might do to make "music" out of music since to me, just throwing down notes at the same volume to a metronomic beat lacks any interpretive (human) quality. There are few tools at our disposal as musicians: we can make notes longer or shorter (within the pulse that is), we can play faster or slower (changing the pulse), or we can make notes louder or softer.
THAT'S IT
You can talk all day long about the emotional setting or story behind the notes, but it boils down to the above tools.
I also make the point that 'music making' and the associated training is really best handled strictly as an auditory exercise. But for what it is worth I do appreciate discussion on the topic and other opinions put forth so that, at very least, I can learn something from the exchange.
......and I still don't like the video.......
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-13 19:20
Quote:
There are few tools at our disposal as musicians: we can make notes longer or shorter (within the pulse that is), we can play faster or slower (changing the pulse), or we can make notes louder or softer.
THAT'S IT On that level of description, it's true.
(Of course, by choosing a different level of description, I could equally say that the wonderful performance you admire on your CD is "just a sequence of zeros and ones. THAT'S IT".)
But you also said:Quote:
I did throw out a "ball park" idea on what one might do to make "music" out of music since to me, just throwing down notes at the same volume to a metronomic beat lacks any interpretive (human) quality. What you don't seem to realise – and what is the most important thing – is that your 'ball park idea' is 'SO not in the ball park' as to be laughable.
What constitutes musical understanding and musical playing is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the manipulation of notes according to your high/low, loud/soft, fast/slow recipe.
The implication that it might be captured by more complicated recipes of the same type – that CHANGING what is written according to some such scheme is what a musical performer does – is what is pernicious about your post.
I remember coaching a young clarinettist in Venezuela, playing a quite simple piece. In pencil under the first bar was written a crescendo, and then a diminuendo in the second bar. The same markings appeared under bars 3 and 4, and then under bars 5 and 6, and so on.
"Well, the first thing we have to do is rub those out," I said.
"But, Professor X just wrote those in yesterday," she said.
So I taxed Professor X, who is a quite well known American clarinettist – you would know his name – with this.
"What possessed you to write that rubbish in her part?" I asked.
"Well, you're right, it is a bit rubbish," he said. "But you have to get them to do SOMETHING.
"Otherwise, you get NOTHING!"
That way of going about it is completely awful, according to me.
Tony
Post Edited (2014-07-13 22:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-07-13 20:17
I listen with great wonder to world renown musicians and try to figure out what makes the music they produce so wonderful. Just recently I was listening to a rendition of Chopin's Etude no. 3 in E major (can't even tell you who it was) and sat there in awe over some of the 'hesitations' that made it pure magic. I don't suppose I will ever be able to equal that kind of music making but that is what I will always strive to recreate.
Just a moment ago I caught the end of a movie on cable, "Money Ball." I want to try and capture one of the final moments of that movie. The manager for the Oakland As, played by Brad Pitt, is still in the depths of misery after having lost the pennant in an otherwise winning season put together using a purely statistical method of play. His assistant (who helped construct this new winning method), played by Jonah Hill, coaxes him into a room to watch a replay video of a rather rotund ball player at bat. Jonah Hill explains that the over weight hitter obviously doesn't usually run but in this clip he hits it deep into left field and decides to go for second base. The rotund player trips over the first base bag, tumbles some feet, and recovers enough to scramble on all fours to get at least one hand back on first.
Brad Pitt: "Oh look, they're laughing at him."
Jonah Hill: "They are laughing because he hit that ball 60 feet over the wall. He didn't even realize that he'd hit a home run."
Brad Pitt: "Oh, now how can you not be romantic about baseball."
Jonah Hill: "It's a metaphor."
Brad Pitt: "I know it's a metaphor."
Now THAT'S what I call a metaphor.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2014-07-13 21:38
A quote from Ruth Waterman...
" The simple truth is that music notation is inadequate: sound cannot be translated into any other medium, neither words nor marks on paper. This realisation is of fundamental significance for the performing musician, in that it forces the need for interpretation.
Interpretation is therefore not an indulgence - something added to the written text; the very instant the bow touches the string, it comes into play, whether we are conscious of it or not. Despite the surprisingly widespread belief that all a player need do is to ‘play the notes’, this very concept is nonsensical, for as soon as notes are sounded, they have a full complement of attributes: intensity, attack, dynamic level (loudness), warmth, character, direction, length, speed and so on. So if we assert that we are merely ‘letting the music play itself’, it can only mean that we are forfeiting a conscious choice of attributes, allowing habitual, automatic ways of playing to overlay and strangle the voice of the composer".
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-07-13 21:46
It seems to me that it follows from what she says that interpretation cannot be reduced to a few simple formulas, else those formulas could be added to the printed music and the problem solved. Rather, interpretation is a dynamic concept that must be tailored to the situation and the moment, using the composer's written instructions as a starting point and, perhaps, constraints.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-07-13 22:00
Tony Pay wrote:
> I wonder what – I was going to write,
> 'the professional'; but I'll write, 'the REAL' – players here
> think is the appropriate response to this rather typically
> nonsensical farrago that masquerades as advice...
>
> ...other than mockery?
Probably depends on who here answers to the description of "REAL player" - or which of the players here you mean to single out.
>
> Or do you think that I'm at fault in calling attention to it?
>
No problem in calling attention to anything and arguing against it. It only seems a little abrupt to see it here instead of somewhere in the original thread.
> After all, HE'S ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION, ISN'T HE?????
>
> But, see, I don't like it. I'm not prepared to put up with it.
> I think it does damage.
>
My first reaction was that Tony had deflected this thread in a direction that had already been opened by Jon and that it seemed awkwardly misplaced. But then, this was Tony's thread to begin with and if he wants to take it in that direction, who am I to complain or resist?
FWIW (I've long ago given up on the idea that performing is my first strength, so I may not qualify as a REAL player), as a teacher I've never been comfortable telling a student "here, when it says this, you do this; when it says that, you do that," as if the Italian instructions (or French or German or even American English) have fixed meanings that can reliably be invoked whenever they come up in a piece of music. Allegro - the beginning books say it means fast. Presto - really fast! Andante - walking (whatever that means). Adagio and Grave - slow. Piano or forte - soft or loud. Pianissimo or fortissimo - as soft or as loud as possible. Cantabile - singing (whose singing does it refer to?). Dolce - sweetly (sounds to me like something to eat, but who am I to argue with so much tradition?).
In fact, most musical descriptors are relative to something else. How fast is fast? How slow is slow? How fast must we walk to produce Andante? Well, it depends a lot on the note values in question, the note value assigned the pulse, the *affect* (not misspelled) the composer means to convey or produce in both the performer and the listener. As I tried to say in the other thread, there are few if any musical terms - espressivo included - that can be understood in a vacuum. Most composers insert the term when they want the performer to produce something especially outgoing and emotive, but in comparison to what? It's usually the composer's signal to push the "emotive" or dramatic quality up a notch. Will that sound the same in Verdi or Tchaikowsky as it does in Bernstein or Copland? in Debussy? Applying an automatic skein of crescendo, diminuendo and exaggerated dynamic range (a) can quickly become as boring as doing nothing and (b) risks missing other affective elements available in the way notes are articulated (or not), the character of sound applied, the use of rubato (or not) and any number of other subtle gestures that can make a passage outgoing and emotive. All of these subtle ideas are within the grasp of a good student - some of it even to a mediocre one - but the point is that every musical context - every piece of music being played or studied - demands its own set of actions in response to a term like espressivio. Or dolce. Or cantabile. Or Andante. Etc. etc...
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
