Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-11-01 22:18
Make no mistake. You’ll find no greater exponent of the idea that all (clarinet) teachers are not alike, or closer in their abilities than we give credit for. I’ve had enough of my own teachers, and listened to enough stories from other players to know what a difference a great teacher makes, and how great players don’t necessarily make the greatest teachers: although some do.
But with that said, I sometimes wonder if there’s a component of luck—even if it’s a small one--involved in being known as a great teacher. Clearly, no degree of luck is going to make “that High School kid around the corner who dabbles in clarinet,” a teacher the likes of a Russianoff, Opperman, or Marcellus, etc. And sure, it helps to be a desired (if not also good) teacher if you are also a virtuosic player: which I’ll loosely define as what happens when a genetically predisposed individual practices their “tail” off.
But take a couple of really--and I mean really--good teachers, who say, for all their clarinet proficiency, where better known for their teaching than playing (e.g. again Russianoff and Opperman.) (Note: I am sure each of these gentlemen were great players too.) Who is to say that Russianoff might have be as well know a teacher that he was if he hadn’t also had the luck of having, for example, Stanley Drucker as a student? And yes, guys like Russianoff produced many fine players aside from Mr. Drucker. But to what extent was it his notoriety, and having the luck to teach the likes of Drucker, that then attracted other already great players to his teaching studio.
(Note: I understand that Mr. Drucker thought highly enough of Mr. Russianoff to name his son after him.)
To express the spirit of my query in yet other ways, to what extent does luck promote great teachers to superstar status among our ranks, in that they get (and, yes, in fairness advance) a great player, earn notoriety, and in self sustaining ways, then attract other students with the ability and dedication to their teaching studio, who through both their ability and the teacher’s training, rise to clarinet stardom.
I think both factors, luck, and of course the ability to teach play a role. I just wonder how much each contributes. Clearly, our High School aged teacher isn’t rising in the teaching ranks simply because they were lucky enough to teach a prodigy for a brief while. That student will move on to bigger name teachers.
I understand that Russianoff charged the same rate regardless of student, while Marcellus’ pay scale weeded out only serious students: a plug for Russianoff’s teaching abilities, if not a criticism of Marcellus. But I seem to think that notoriety breeds notoriety in the teaching world.
One final thought. My best teachers have been the ones that have really had to work at being great: as they can take some of what they learned through through trial and error, and pass it along to students. This by no means is to imply that guys like Drucker didn’t also practice fanatically, or that Drucker wasn’t as good a teacher. I simply don’t know. In fairness, performing leaves time for less students, and developing artists is in part a numbers game: the more great students you have, the more likely are your chances of developing a name recognized player: something that the player achieves through small part luck as well.
Thoughts?
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
