 The Clarinet BBoard
|
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?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2014-11-01 23:07
It's all Skill and placement with no luck involved.
For a teacher to get into the name positions (the Curtis, Colburn, Juilliard, etc), it is sheer skill that gets them there. They have the talent pol which does create the stars attending already.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-11-01 23:47
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> It's all Skill and placement with no luck involved.
>
> For a teacher to get into the name positions (the Curtis,
> Colburn, Juilliard, etc), it is sheer skill that gets them
> there.
I agree with David to a great extent. But, the teachers who hold those "name positions" are not the only people in the world who are competent and could have ably filled them. As with playing positions in major orchestras, the selection process involves choosing from more than one competent alternative. The ones who are not chosen may be as skilled teachers as the one who is. What separates them are other considerations - availability, familiarity and reputation and perhaps what people might call"a little bit of luck."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2014-11-01 23:58
Let's look at it this way. There are many excellent clarinet teachers who teach advanced students, and they come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Some are active performers, but others are not. It would be interesting to make a list of these teachers (perhaps it's been done), and I'd be willing to guess that there are hundreds of names on the list in the United States alone.
Next, think about the number of professional clarinet players who make a living from playing the clarinet. Let's also consider the number of superstar clarinet players who are active today, including Morales, McGill, Williamson, etc.
These are much smaller lists.
Most students aren't going to become superstar performers, and that's fine. The vast majority of teachers aren't producing many superstars. Practice and hard work are important, but you're right--luck is definitely a factor.
One of my favorite teachers was Keith Stein. When I studied with him he was no longer performing (serious arthritis issues), but he was an excellent teacher. He taught several people who went on to teach at the university level, although I'm not sure if any of them went on to achieve the fame of someone like Stanley Drucker.
Later on, I studied for a short time with an excellent performer who was principal clarinet of a major orchestra, and he shall remain nameless. He was frequently sarcastic, he often had a bad temper, and he belittled university teachers who weren't active performers. There were those who loved him, but even though I practiced and tried to please him, I can honestly say I learned nothing from him. Perhaps he trained some famous performers, but I don't know of any.
Although I teach privately and formerly taught music in public schools, I'm amused to share this story: my former student who achieved the greatest fame is a low brass player I started as a beginner. He was a great student, and now he's a member of a major orchestra. You just never know!
Post Edited (2014-11-02 00:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-11-02 00:15
Another factor is choosiness: in school settings, teachers often have to take anyone who comes along. It's easier to be sure of earning a living with a school job, but it's harder to get a reputation as a great teacher when most of the students are average or worse.
A private teacher might take any-old-body, too, and live with mediocrity. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The teacher may be a true altruist who embraces the recognition that music brings joy to many of us (ahem) who are not destined for greatness (or even competency). But the private teacher determined to gain recognition as a great teacher always has the option of making sure that "all my students are above average" by electing to accept only the students who show the most promise in the first place. Later, the private teacher can tell an underperforming or untalented student to go away.
Of course the teacher is probably much too civilized to scream, "Get out of here and squeak like a barn rat for somebody else!"
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
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-11-02 00:22
Your in the Boston area, study with Bill Wrsesian (he's faculty at NEC). A wonderful teacher!
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2014-11-02 18:17
A couple of things to add. You mentioned that Russianoff and Opperman were not known as players. While that may be true of Russianoff, who never had a playing career, Opperman was a very highly regarded NY player, doing the top Broadway and studio work.
http://www.kalmenopperman.com/biography/professional_work
There are many factors to consider in the debate of teachers/players. What works for one person does not necessarily work for another. Personality, temperament, needs, strengths etc may not fit. One teacher may be great for advanced concepts and may not deal well with those who need work on fundamentals. One who is great in teaching the mechanics of playing may not have the musical insight or knowledge of advanced repertoire. Both of these teachers might be great for individual students because they are able to fit the needs of that student at the right time.
I often think that a player like Drucker, who is a real force of nature, may have had a huge career no matter who he studied with.
Some of the top players are not necessarily great teachers. Fine teaching and playing are not necessarily related. Some lack the ability to verbalize and explain what they do, some lack the passion, some are just too focussed on their own playing.
A great teacher has to be the right fit for a student and have the ability to find solutions to a variety of problems. To me, whether a teacher becomes a huge name is not necessarily related and is a result of many other factors.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2014-11-02 20:46
Paul - Bill retired from NEC several years ago (2007). Last I heard he was living in Texas. Plenty of other options in Boston, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-11-03 02:56
Ed:
I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear that Opperman was quite a recognized player as well as teacher; thanks for making that clear. My claim was that he and Russianoff were known better for teaching.
I don’t mean to imply here that one teacher was better at playing than the other; I simply don’t know. I do mean to imply that Kal’s playing was far better known.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wkleung
Date: 2014-11-03 05:30
I think it is difficult to judge how well someone teaches purely by the quality of his students.
A mediocre teacher with the most talented students in the history of clarinet playing on planet earth will produce better students than an excellent teacher working exclusively with tone-deaf students with no fingers and only one functioning lung.
Of course this is an exaggeration, but I think the reality is somewhere in between.
Often a teacher becomes well known and can get the best (and only the best) students, and the teacher's greatness becomes a self-perpetrating truth. At least that was the case in my native Hong Kong.
Ideally a teacher should be rated for value added, and not the final value of his output.
Post Edited (2014-11-03 05:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-11-03 17:40
David Blumberg wrote,
>A mediocre teacher won't keep those great talents for long though.....>
Good point. Students studying with private teachers have options, too.
Sometimes, though, a teacher who's mediocre for most students might be perfect for a student who's unusual in other ways besides extreme musical talent. For instance, an immigrant who speaks a language that's uncommon in the USA might do spectacularly well with the only local teacher available who can communicate in that language. The shared bond of being outsiders with a common background could cause the two of them to work much more intensely and effectively with each other than either of them would in a situation with a serious language barrier.
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
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-11-03 20:21
Thanks for the update in Bill Wrzesian. I am older than I think. I did a quick search on the net and found an NEC reference to him and assumed he was still there. Bill's a great guy and a consumate musician!
I need to get current with what's going on in Bean Town.
....................Paul Aviles
P.S. Instead of equivocating, someone should just post a few current recommendations out there!
Post Edited (2014-11-03 20:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2014-11-04 21:22
I think it's a combination of both. Also, include teaching styles in the equation.
There's no doubt that someone like Stanley Drucker would have done well no matter who the teacher. But let's assume there are 5 others he could have studied with that would have been as good as Russianoff. Then it was luck that Russianoff was the one he chose and stuck with. What if the teaching style had been incompatible with Drucker? Would've/could've/did Russianoff change his teaching style to accomodate the student? A more flexible teacher would more likely have better luck progressing students. Could another teacher out there have made the same progress with Drucker in a shorter time? Maybe.
I think teachers have to look a lot of factors. There's the "is this student worth it" component. You can take money from anyone on a weekly basis. But is it worth it if you could choose someone else to fill that time that is more compatible to your style of teaching or is willing to work harder and make more progress? Can you even teach that student in a manner that he/she will understand and progress? You can assign whatever page of whatever book you want, but can you COMMUNICATE effectively so that student UNDERSTANDS what the desired outcome is and how to get there? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not a bad thing, just maybe you're not the best fit for that student.
And what if Drucker had chosen ANY teacher and that teacher was horrible? Probably wouldn't have stayed.
So I think the teacher HAS to be a good teacher. That's step one. A bad teacher simply won't make it. There are many many teachers who can help a student progress. At that point, it's pretty much luck of the draw, and sticking it out enough to determine whether you can understand and effectively communicate with that teacher.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
