 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-02-10 08:02
By no means do I wish to disparage either Youtube or some truly informative videos of clarinet master classes that can be found on it.
Take Richie Hawley for example. Here's a guy who I think has lots to say to clarinet players and audience members that truly adds value to play.
But I have watched so many videos of so called master classes on Youtube where I think that absolutely nothing, or so little in value, or worse counterproductive advice is offered that it makes me mad.
I'm going to cite some of these videos, time permitting, in subsequent threads of this post. In the meantime, this one I happened upon today and it "got me going."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd00AxPPmxw
People, I want you to watch Ms. Luz Elena Sarmiento play Mozart 2. She is freakin' awesome. (I don't know her.) Then Zander comes in and starts talking about phrasing.
Just once, how I wish someone holding a Masterclass would, despite feeling the need to offer criticism because they're getting paid, take an awesome performance, and honestly say, "Bob/Mary, that was 'off the hook.' There is nothing for me to correct here. Opening my 'know it all mouth' could only risk harming things. I wouldn't change a thing."
Has anyone else felt this way on some so called Masterclass clarinet videos? Does anyone feel the same way here?
I'll bet some of you will rip roaring disagree with me....tell me I lack the acumen to even understand how much wisdom Zander is adding.
I'm not questioning that Zander knows what he's doing, and knows a lot more about music than me. I just don't think he added anything here.
3:02--worthless hand gestures
3:10--worthless head nod by audience member, unless they were acknowledging how well Sarmiento played.
3:13 (IMHO) Sarmiento nodding--but thinking--you've got to be kidding me maestro.
Oh--and although I completely forgive her, she's probably just site reading, I thought the pianist's first take at having the piece's voice (around 0:38) stunk and was NOT a model to build upon.
Post Edited (2016-02-10 08:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2016-02-10 08:15
Funny that you mention the Zander masterclass on the Mozart, which I just happened to watch yesterday.
You are correct that his advice was relatively worthless, considering that her phrasing was already well thought out and her playing was beautifully expressive.
I had to laugh when he suggested a phrasing idea (which she was already doing) and then she played it exactly the same way as before - which he subsequently praised as being a marked improvement.
Sometimes the less that is said - the better.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-02-10 08:16
Of course all IMHO
Advice worth every penny....
https://youtu.be/Mer3Y2BcHik?t=6m24s
When you look up in the dictionary---"an utter waste of time...."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SRWWcXXgU
The player in this video had awesome sound...awesome breath control...emulate it.
Don't bounce around balls and" blow out birthday candles" just because some "name guy" is trying to sell product (wind-o's) having carved out his little niche in the clarinet space being the "breath guy."
...and I mean nothing disparaging to Gilad's playing....and I'm not saying breath control isn't important
This young remarkable player has fabulous wind. If anything it might (might) need subtle taming--and that's being nit picky.
Post Edited (2016-02-10 08:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2016-02-10 08:23
The thing that annoyed me the most about the Zander thing was that his hand and arm gestures appeared not to reflect the advice he had just given. His advice to consider making the 1st beat of the bar stronger at the start of the phrase was... contrary to how many people play this piece, but worth thinking about (there are MANY MANY recordings of this where the solo part creeps in apologetically on a sharp concert A)
But yes a fairly annoying masterclass- at least he didn't make smarmy comments like "you don't want to sound English" to get laughs out of the audience, like some people who may get mentioned on here....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-02-10 15:01
Just my 2 cents, I've played the Mozart more than a few times along with the quintet. I look at them kind of as ballets, you have to visually see the music in your head. See the performers. Well I do anyway! Just appointed to play it again, but having 2 elbow surgeries I'm a shade afraid of it and I have to make some clarinet adjustment designs to do it. I may use a strap for the first time in my life and or sit for the performance. The right elbow is pretty screwed up and to give Mozart true just as he deserves 4 hours a day of practice is needed for about 8 months.
They guy above in the video saying to play by bar by bar is total crap and it's very wrong. It's that simple. He shouldn't teach and the video should be taken off youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd00AxPPmxw
Mozart didn't ever compose a piece bar by bar. I'm sure he had a vision in his amazing magical brain before he even started writing a piece. The slow movements of the concerto and his quintet seem to fit my mind well if I think of a ballet. I won't get into the other movements, because they weren't played in the video that video. Perhaps Mozart was thinking of making love to his mistresses? Don't know. He had a few flings! That's for sure. NEVER EVER play bar by bar. Might as well play music from the end to the beginning or read a poem and a book the same way, or letter by letter. I think you all got the idea.
White Plains nailed it. He's so right.
This reminds me of Aaron Copland. Same with Copland. He wanted players to have fun with his Clarinet Concerto. A classical piece with some jazz. The long solo often is taken way too fast and players usually screw it up with poor articuultion. Slow it down, These are the actual words from Aaron himself. I talked to him about it. Instead of playing it too fast, add some jazz to it. He felt the notes were a guide. Again, these are not my words, but Copland's words. He was a bit disappointed that Benny Goodman didn't jazz it up a bit more. Take chances. Again, Copland's words, not mine. Because of this I kind of dig Eddie Danials fun recording with it! Check it out. Free on youtube. It is fun and he adds some of his own version. I think Aaron would have liked it. I think most of us remember that Aaron wrote this piece for Benny Goodman because he was a decent classical and jazz player. Bob
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2016-02-10 20:53
I tend to differ with the prevailing thoughts here. I find something valuable in these classes. I may not always agree, but it opens my mind to considering different options and perspectives. I don't think that any one opinion is right, nor is there one right way to do things or to play any piece. As years go by, the more I realize how much more there is that I don't know and how much more I have to learn.
As one of my teachers told me "Studying with someone is like being a burglar. You take what you want and leave behind the things you don't want"
Post Edited (2016-02-11 00:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-02-10 21:33
There is value in what you say Ed, even if I don't think it applies to this video. Not all masterclasses speak to all students, and keeping an open mind is important.
I once recall a time when Richard Hawley said one sentence--just one sentence in a Youtube video masterclass, and it's stuck with me ever since then.
"Daisies are growing in my yard."
What an absurd line to put into a clarinet post, right?
https://youtu.be/Mer3Y2BcHik?t=10m14s
Well Hawley wanted a player to say this line to themselves upon beginning their entry into the Mozart Clarinet Concerto, and I think it's brilliant--I really do. Others may disagree.
I think Hawley sought to have students translate what they thought such a line, recited, might be interpreted to mean "between the lines." It suggests a light observation, not calamity, upon discovery of a pleasant sight, but not a treasure chest of gold.
As Hawley explains, I think elsewhere, that opening phrase sets the stage for the entire 1st movement, which is just variations on that theme in minor and major themes.
As for the initial video that started this post--to me it's the stuff jokes are made of. If the comedian/writer Larry David did a parody of this (conveniently a near doppelganger for Zander when not otherwise busy playing Senator Sanders) the only thing that might require change is the continuing of the hand gestures after the music has stopped, following by his disrobing--all for the purposes of conveying faux insanity for comedic effect.
Actually, David's already done this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7APrz5K1YI
Here is a master class, that I think conveys no less than the one that started this post. Ed: absolutely no disrespect intended. We can agree to disagree on the video.
Perhaps I should first set the stage:
"SpongeBob and Patrick are having fun at Jellyfish Fields. Then, Patrick accidentally falls down a cliff and loses his head. SpongeBob mistakenly picks up a piece of Brain Coral and puts it in a big hole on Patrick's head.
Suddenly, the piece of Brain Coral gains Patrick, normally an idiot, intelligence. Patrick seems to be interested in nature, work and almost any music when he is intelligent."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXkKc1PV-E
Post Edited (2016-02-10 21:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-02-10 22:08
Good, sound advice:
Fuchs getting Christine Carter to play the clarinet part of Peter and the Wolf as if to think and play as if she is the cat her music seeks to capture.
https://youtu.be/FUYuuvZ0A68?t=38s
Again to Fuchs credit, knowing when to (in so many words) shut the heck up when, for just one brief moment, Emil, who is so good technically, it's scary, out schools him in articulation.
https://youtu.be/AZzQynA6WKg?t=12s
and then knows when to open his mouth again when he has something constructive, muscially to say, "ba ba ba bum." Bravo Mr. Fuchs, Bravo.
"It's ornamental."
https://youtu.be/i2nxDpxqJOs?t=3m42s
Two words from the genius (Drucker) that can convey how the trills get properly done in this piece that every auditioning clarinetist needs to know.
(Sarcasm)
Three circles and two triangles, one inverted. Now, I not only understand everything there is to know about clarinet, but life in general! (Okay, in fairness, maybe I missed Gilad's context.)
https://youtu.be/o-ixH_bSxZY?t=1m59s
"No, no, your 'angry' again!" (Funny, I just see this as a passionate piece of music that's opened by the performer...passionately...Brava clarinetist...)
You can't write comedy better than some of this stuff.
Post Edited (2016-02-10 22:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2016-02-11 02:00
If I was to make an analogy regarding the Mozart Concerto it would be to Opera rather than Ballet- and the solo part of the K622 slow mvt definitely fits this analogy (right up to the last note).
Zander DOES appear to have comprehensive knowledge of instrumental performance practise in the 18th Century, and while the performer played very nicely in her initial performance there was certainly room for improvement. But it's fairly obvious from the video that Mr Zander was not particularly helpful in this instance.
Post Edited (2016-02-11 02:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-02-11 03:08
As a teenager, I played the Mozart concerto twice in the Royal Albert Hall, and in Berlin, Leningrad and Stockholm as a soloist with the National Youth Orchestra. Later, I played it with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in the Festival Hall, with the Academy of Saint-Martin-in-the Fields throughout Europe, with the London Sinfonietta and subsequently as a guest with many other orchestras around the world. I even recorded it.
AFTER all of that, I suppose around 30 years ago, I was brought up short by the realisation that PERHAPS I had been construing the slow movement 'the wrong way round'.
And that changed how I thought about the movement, the piece... and then the whole of Mozart.
Though I have no particular regard for Benjamin Zander, I understand what he is trying to get at with this particular student. It's a difficult issue, because what you're interacting with is what Richard Taruskin called, 'what we have built into our [musical] spines'. It's just OBVIOUS to us that the music goes the way we have always construed it.
So, Zander was doing his not very good best to turn her around.
Subsequent to that, what I see here on this list, as so often, is a few people – in a way, they're sophisticated, but in another way they're totally ignorant – parading their lack of understanding of the issue.
Of course I know, after something like fifteen years of trying here, that my saying all this means nothing to y'all. You have these very many years of Tabuteau/Bonade/etc to contend with.
Plus, and more importantly, your own strongly held and carefully nurtured opinions.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2016-02-11 10:48
Tony- are you suggesting that, in the second movement of the Mozart Concerto, the first bar should have more emphasis than the second? If so, it would be important for me to know why.
When i studied with Thomas Friedli, who you knew well, he told me in a lesson exactly this. He said that it was different from the Quintet because the harmony in the second bar of the Quintet moves on. I argued that the dominant chord in bar 2 of the Concerto should have more tension than the tonic, and that there is an appoggiatura on the first beat which calls for emphasis. He was obviously having a bad day, because his response was to ask me how many operas and piano concertos I have studied by Mozart, implying that I didn't know what I was talking about and that I should just accept his superior opinion. So I just let it be and sadly never got to discuss the issue further with him.
It's now 20 years later and if you could shed some light on this different view I'd be most appreciative.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-02-11 15:38
I think that the problem with this sort of discussion lies in the background assumptions we bring to the table. For example, I would agree with you that the second bar can be thought of as in a sense more emphasised. But how I would put that is to say that you can have the hypermetre turn out to be the opposite of what we might expect, due to the suddenly faster harmonic movement and the appoggiatura that you point out.
That way of putting it doesn't undercut the idea that the first bar has its own metric structure, and the second bar its own metric structure. (And, notice, you can get most of what you wanted without establishing ANY hierarchy between the bars:-)
However, many people have the natural inclination to translate the hypermetre statement into their own language, and it gets transformed into the notion that there is a CRESCENDO through the first bar to the beginning of the second. They then often even write in that crescendo, thus subverting the style and incidentally making what are two subtly differing one-bar phrases into one two-bar phrase (cf. the first two bars of the Allegro of K361).
I now find it interesting to remember that as a young player – around 11 or 12, I suppose – I was worried by the repeated A over the barline. It seemed to me to be unnatural to stop the first one; yet, how was I to show the second unless I did make some sort of break? And the problem seemed even worse with the repeated C two bars later.
What was tying me in knots, of course, was the crescendo. If the end of the first A is light, it becomes easy to show the second without making a gap.
A big difficulty of getting this across to a student is that when you remove their first bar crescendo, their playing becomes lifeless. They haven't the technique to allow their sound to become smaller without losing centre. You can say, "the sound becomes more compressed, rather than quieter", or something similar: but the more detailed the description becomes, the farther away they get from the simplicity that is required.
If we were to instil early the notion that, in this music, bars have some sort of structure and integrity, are mostly beginning-oriented and normally to be read as such, then I think students would have a much easier time of it.
Tabuteau, Bonade et al have much to answer for, in my view.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2016-02-11 17:19
Quote:
Tabuteau, Bonade et al have much to answer for, in my view.
Would you care to elaborate on this statement? I would be interested in hearing your perspective.
Post Edited (2016-02-11 18:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-02-11 17:34
Zander did get at least one thing right--the clarinetist was not paying any attention to the way the pianist was phrasing the line. She went right ahead doing it her own nice way rather than joining in the natural give and take necessary for good ensemble performance. If she had been at least subconsciously attending to the pianist's phrasing, she would have altered her own phrasing, however slightly, when repeating the same motives. Secure in her own little private space, the clarinetist was playing a single-minded monophonic solo rather than fully participating in the polyphonic interactive piece Mozart wrote. In dramatic terms, she was in a soliloquy when she should have been in a dialogue. Zander should have caught this, because he has a degree in English literature!
Zander might have been more effective had had asked the clarinetist to stop and listen as the pianist played, and then inquired, "so what is she doing that you're not? Are you two on speaking terms?"
Post Edited (2016-02-11 17:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MartyMagnini
Date: 2016-02-11 18:58
I'm surprised at the level of disdain some people are feeling for some of these coaching sessions. ANY informed opinion that may get you to think about a piece of music in a different way should be welcomed, even if you ultimately disregard the advice. The worst way to approach a piece of music is playing it "like so-and-so did it". Zander offers good advice, as do all the others. Take it or leave it, but if it makes you think, then that's great!
Also, I seem to recall several threads that discuss the difference between hearing a player live and hearing a recording - how Gigliotti or Drucker didn't record particularly well, but were spectacular live, etc. How can you pass judgement on a video that was perhaps taken with someone's phone? It doesn't sound different to you - so what? Maybe it sounds different to the performer, or even more importantly, FEELS different to the performer. Like Tony (but not nearly to his level), I have been playing the Mozart for over 40 years. I hope I never stop re-thinking the way I play it, or looking for nuances that I may have missed in my youth.
It must be nice to have figured out how to play this piece perfectly when you were 20, and play it the exact same way for 50 years. Not for me, thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-11 22:32
Quote:
When i studied with Thomas Friedli, who you knew well, he told me in a lesson exactly this. He said that it was different from the Quintet because the harmony in the second bar of the Quintet moves on. I argued that the dominant chord in bar 2 of the Concerto should have more tension than the tonic, and that there is an appoggiatura on the first beat which calls for emphasis. He was obviously having a bad day, because his response was to ask me how many operas and piano concertos I have studied by Mozart, implying that I didn't know what I was talking about and that I should just accept his superior opinion. So I just let it be and sadly never got to discuss the issue further with him.
It's now 20 years later and if you could shed some light on this different view I'd be most appreciative.
I think I've always placed the emphasis on the first bar. But it was more of an intuitive decision (or maybe a teacher once told me to play it that way, or it's just hard for me not to hear hypermetric accents beginning on the first bar--I don't really know).
So I played through the first few phrases of the concerto's second movement at the piano to see if there was some reason for "hearing" the piece this way. The concerto phrase is more of a 2+2+4 structure (what Schoenberg called a sentence), and the quintet is more periodic--4+4 (to which Mozart adds a 5th bar). The quintet phrase, then, does continue through the second bar, which is a predominant chord, toward a cadence in m. 4.
The concerto, however, is more harmonically static; I hear the first four bars as all tonic, in fact. The dominants are on a strong beat position resolving to a weak beat tonic, which we phrase rather differently than the usual weak beat V to strong beat I. And although you could hear the dominant in m. 2 as a hypermetric weak beat, creating something like m. 1) S tonic / 2) w dominant / 3) S tonic / 4) w dominant (which would probably lead you to increase the tension in bar 2), I think the returns to the tonic on beat 2 of m. 2 and 4 frustrate that interpretation. So for me, the first four bars are a tonic prolongation (pardon the theory jargon), and the next four are dominant.
Maybe your teacher's reaction to those phrase structures was responsible for his interpretation?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-02-12 01:12
>> I think I've always placed the emphasis on the first bar. But it was more of an intuitive decision (or maybe a teacher once told me to play it that way, or it's just hard for me not to hear hypermetric accents beginning on the first bar--I don't really know). >>
I'd say that sometimes thinking of a hypermetric hierarchy misses the point of what Mozart writes.
For example, the opening two bars of the Allegro of K361 consist of the juxtaposition of two different kinds of music. There isn't a hierarchy, because it's an opposition. They're equal.
And you could see the first two bars of the slow movement of K622 similarly.
(K361 and K622 are THE SAME MUSIC, notice:-)
Tony
Post Edited (2016-02-13 04:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-02-12 02:11
"I'm surprised at the level of disdain some people are feeling for some of these coaching sessions."
I appreciate why you'd say that Marty: I really do. I can't speak for others, but I feel the way I do because my radar's out for gimmick over substance, in all aspects of clarinet, whether than be cryogenic ligatures or worthless advice.
But it's true, the master class listener may be infused with wisdom, even never intended by the master class teacher. Sometimes that wisdom even comes in the form of "okay, that's NOT how I'd teach/play it."
===
Robert:
Ms. Sarmiento, the clarinetist in the thread that started this, I thought, did a wonderful job, phrasing and all. I thought the pianist, as I said, was the one that needed work when she took over the piece's voice after a few bars--but again, she may not be familiar with the work.
Should Ms. Sarmiento have better matched the pianist, or met her halfway...I guess that's open to argument. Should the pianist (a.k.a. the accompanist) have matched the clarinet...who went first??? That's a better question for me, and especially heightened here by my belief that Sarmiento was spot on in interpretation and the pianist was not.
If Zander's advice was good, to me, it's negated by my opinion that the soloist was already well doing what Zander suggested, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to find the soloist to have more experience with this work. Of course though, the maestro is always right. I guess I also found Zander's conducting thereafter, as if something were to be musically gleaned from his hand gestures at the time to be...more theatrics than substance, or too much theatrics relative to substance.
More theatrics than substance: that's what gets me, whether it's in product or teaching form.
I found this with Gilad too--much that he's a sort after teacher. I feel like the man has attempted to carve out a space for himself as the "pulmonary clarinet teacher" that feeds into Wind-o sales. (I'm sure his knowledge of clarinet is in countless areas.) This, by the way, is not to sell short the importance of our breath in sound, or to categorically say that new products can't possibly come along to help players, but rather to ask "how did we manage all these years to get along without it," and how if it was so great, vendors wouldn't be able to keep the product in stock even with no endorsers--in fact it would need no endorsers.
=====
As for interpretations of works are concerned, I'm certainly fine with those who know far more than I do, like Mr. Pay, offering their two cents on how to interpret a work, as long as their interpretations of the work are no more pedantic than the flexibility nearly all pieces allow in subtle changes to interpretation among players, and even withing the same player with the passage of time.
One more gripe and off the soapbox I go. I've seen Drucker, a personal hero, rip to shreds in Master Class some player's interpretation of a piece that they would approach they same way I would---and not because I'm the last word in interpretation, but because I got my interpretation imitating (or so I thought) Drucker's approach to it on a recording he did.
Ed was right above about a player's need to be like a burglar in a Master class: stealing from it only the content that speaks to you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2016-02-12 02:28
Thanks Tony.
Yes- 20 years ago I probably was making a crescendo through the first bar. I remember Friedli also muttering something about me reading Harnoncourt's "Musik als Klangrede" if I wanted to understand how to play Mozart. I imagine he was just trying to get me to move away from turning it into a two-bar phrase, as you describe.
brycon- I agree that you can see the first 4 bars as harmonically static. But that doesn't give me any reason to emphasize the first bar more than the second, does it? Another aspect to think about is the ascending contour of the melody. I cannot imagine any singer not putting some emphasis on the second bar. Right now (Feb 2016) I'd be inclined to agree with Tony that it's not necessary to make any hierarchy between the first 2 bars. Maybe in 20 years I'll think differently? :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-12 23:10
Quote:
brycon- I agree that you can see the first 4 bars as harmonically static. But that doesn't give me any reason to emphasize the first bar more than the second, does it? Another aspect to think about is the ascending contour of the melody. I cannot imagine any singer not putting some emphasis on the second bar. Right now (Feb 2016) I'd be inclined to agree with Tony that it's not necessary to make any hierarchy between the first 2 bars. Maybe in 20 years I'll think differently? :-)
Well, the opening phrase of the concerto is sentential, so there's a mini-phrase beginning in m. 1 and another in m. 3. I think one of the elements of classical era phrasing is that phrase beginnings are stronger than endings (but, of course, that style of phrasing can be executed with varying degrees of nuance). Those things might lead me to emphasize m. 1 and 3 vs 2 and 4. But that phrase structure is going to happen regardless of what we as performers do, so we don't have to do anything special to highlight it. And in that regard, I like what Tony recommends.
At any rate, I find placing the emphasis on m. 2 and 4 less musically convincing. For fun, I recomposed the opening phrase a couple of ways--firstly, having the second bar as all dominant and secondly, shifting the dominant to beat 3 of the first measure resolving to a tonic on beat 1 of the second measure. Both those versions work well (harmonically speaking) with some sort of emphasis on measure 2. But, as the piece is written, I don't find any need to increase the intensity on the dominant or on the suspension, and I though the line rises, I can also imagine a singer floating the upper notes.
I would, however, love to hear you play it! I'm sure there's a lot your doing with you sound/phrasing that makes the emphasis on m. 2 work.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2016-02-12 23:31
Thanks for the kind words brycon. But I'm sure I'm not doing anything special. Actually, I don't deliberately play bar 2 with more emphasis, but I was suprised that someone would want to emphasize bar 1 MORE than bar 2. I believe that the non-harmonic note at bar 2 gives some kind of tension on it's own, which if you are aware of it would probably influence the way you play it a tiny bit (agogically or dynamically). I think that the "singer floating the upper notes" works better from bars 3-4, because all the notes are harmonic.
I like your idea of recomposing! What a great way to re-examine what Mozart actually wrote. Do you do that often?
I once re-wrote the string parts of the opening of the Mozert quintet with more conventional harmony, just to draw attention to the interest of the real version.
Brahms re-wrote the opening of his clarinet quintet and a look at his first sketch is fascinating.
Well, we seem to have gone WAY off topic.
I'm so glad Tony is posting again! :-)
Post Edited (2016-02-12 23:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2016-02-13 03:57
''Well, we seem to have gone WAY off topic.
I'm so glad Tony is posting again! :-) ''
Well, so am I. It's always been something in the way of entertainment for me (us?) the way he seems to get up certain folks noses...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-02-14 15:16
i must say i always get a lot out of masterclasses.
Either something that works really well.. or ideas that don't come across so well. Or sometimes i think "interesting, but i don't think i will ever use it".. and sometimes ten years later i have a reason to think about it.. and use whatever idea it was.
maybe that idea did, or didn't work well in the masterclass. But sometimes that idea works brilliantly with a student.
The other thing i am conscious of, is that a master class is unprepared. So the teacher has to speak on his feet. I know i personally don't always word everything perfectly. and i can imagine that the tutor may be trying to lead the student in a certain direction, but the student isn't really getting their idea, but they don't want to lose face, or let the student lose face, and so they say "that improved"... Even master teachers aren't perfect all the time
and hey if we all played things the same, the world would be very boring!
And if all masterclasses were brilliant, we would never be able to laugh about someones idiosyncrasies either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2016-02-14 19:05
When you get to the level of playing that invites your participation in a "Master Class", there may be only a tiny amount of technical/timbre/artistic difference between the best students and the Master. A really hot and upcoming student might actually outplay the Master, in many respects. It's often mostly a matter taste and interpretation ... "picking fly specks out of the pepper" is an expression I use. The Master has more experience to share ... and that can be the best contribution.
I had lessons for a while with the Principal Clarinetist of the Arkansas "flagship orchestra", who trained with Russianoff, Gigliotti and others ... This guy was more into esoteric stuff, I hadn't a clue at what he was getting at ... About two years later, it started to sink in ...
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
