 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-08 22:45
The question seems silly, but after reading all sorts of warnings about gear, and "bad habits" that might develop (or...left unsaid - might not develop) due to any number of things...
And...having been told in college that I had developed a couple "bad habits" which I then forced myself to work tirelessly to address (most of which, I later realized, were misdiagnosed to begin with)...
I'm now left wondering what all the hubub was/is about.
Could "bad habits" actually be considered "alternatives"? Maybe not the "preferred way" - but a valid way?
To me (as an individual), learning how to make the sound/effect I want to make is a huge step towards understanding the instrument and getting it to achieve the results I desire. I usually discover many ways to achieve the same goal. This gives a freedom. It allows artistic interpretation. Freedom of approach.
Perhaps there is a "more efficient" way to do X or Y, but what if that efficiency doesn't work for me/you/the student?
I think there's a blaring truth sometimes missing in the clarinet world (including the bboard). That truth is: Very few clarinetists will make a living playing classical music in a professional orchestra. Yet - virtually everything we do from the time we pick up the instrument, till the time we graduate from college/graduate school aims us, trains us, and points us towards that goal...or the goal of teaching someone else to do it. Is this our goal because we wanted it from the point we were little kids, or is the goal one we assumed somewhere along the way because it is the only goal offered to us by the clarinet community - our instructors and peers?
We have been trained by A to be A, and then we (as the new A) train B to be A..."And don't pick up any of those bad habits. Use this piece of gear (because I've found it useful, and it's what the industry agrees is best), and play "this" way (because that's what I was taught was proper)," and etc.
My thought is: If the person is able to achieve everything they want to do. What difference does it make whether it is the "correct way" to do something in a professional orchestra that they'll never play in?
I think of all the self-taught guitarists and self-taught keyboardists. You know...the ones who have terrible form, hold their fingers/hands all wrong, don't finger things correctly by classical standards - yet make a great living in the music industry? Sometimes even becoming famous?
Why do we discourage clarinetists from experiencing that same freedom? To me, it seems that a person trying to learn clarinet is met with discouragement after discouragement from the clarinet community. "There's a tight rope which must be walked in order to play the clarinet 'properly.' Stray at all, and risk becoming a failure."
Nearly all fail.
I have a hard time thinking folks approach any number of self-taught (successful) rock guitarists to say, "You know, you have some really bad habits that wouldn't fit into classical guitar playing at all - go back to the basics and fix them. Distortion pedals?! Electric Guitars?! All must go - not proper gear at all! Tsk! Tsk!"
Maybe (just maybe) bad habits aren't bad habits.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pokenerd
Date: 2023-03-09 04:08
I play double lip embouchure which my teacher considered as “wrong” and a “bad habit” before
She was still a bit annoyed but she was fine with it because I sounded fine with it
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-03-09 04:35
The rock guitar analogy may actually be the best way to address the topic. You have bonafide great guitar players like Eddie Van Halen, Jimmy Page, Joe Satriani. Then you have groups like KISS. I don't think even they always care for their music but they all enjoy the living that the make-up and schtick earned for them.
So you don't have to care about having the most clean, academic technique to enjoy playing any instrument really. You chose what is important to you and find yourself a way to do that.
My idea of playing is much the same as it is for equipment. You should use the best equipment you can afford. And, it is best to pursue the best technique possible so that you can then choose what of that you will use. That way it is YOUR CHOICE rather than having an unnecessary limit to what you can play.
Benny Goodman was a student (a darn good one) of strict classical clarinet pedagogy. He chose band music but later in his career returned to intensive study, rehearsal, performance and even commissions of classical works. One interviewer who walked into his home noted that he had Brahms on his clarinet stand. Goodman was a little ruffled by the insinuation and said, "Should I just play China Boy all the time?"
You don't have to be Robert Marcellus to enjoy playing the clarinet, but getting as close as YOU can does give you MORE options.
................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2023-03-09 04:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-09 05:41
There are bad habits...things that if not corrected will likely limit a player's advancement and make it harder, if not impossible, for them to do the same thing that other players without such bad habits are doing.
Then there are what I'd like to call, rather than bad habits, "failure to incorporate best practices."
That definitely needs some explanation.
If I were to observe, by way of example, the finger position of some of the finest clarinet players I know, I bet if these people came to me as youngsters that I've have something to say about changing aspects of their clarinet grip.
And I would do so because most students advanced most adopting such approaches. This isn't to say that some students don't thrive not conforming to such standards, or that such conformation might have even held them back.
Many aspects of clarinet playing are not one size fits all, just one size fits most--and we tend to teach to that standard because as a pure numbers game, it stands the most chance of improving the most students by the widest margins.
If your playing the "Nielsen" with the ease of practically doing it in your sleep, who am I to say that your switching of the order of your clarinet's upper and lower joints is wrong....if you get my widely exaggerated metaphor.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2023-03-09 07:02
Staccato tonguing. Starting the note by saying "Ta" ("Ti", whatever) like we teach beginners on all wind instruments in school. Or by thinking about the fact that the sound is produced when the tongue leaves the reed? Which is "wrong"?
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-03-09 18:21
Tom,
That example is a bit confusing like some of the examples in the original post. We produce "ta" by withdrawing the tongue from the roof of the mouth......so it is essentially the same thing.
But it does get at the fact that many descriptions of complex systems of articulation, breathing, etc. are described in ways that are frankly not correct. However, we on the Board have mentioned in recent past that many of the analogies or metaphoric language still have their place in teaching if it serves to communicate to a student how to accomplish the task at hand.
I parroted on this Board for many years the verbiage I heard as a student from great player/teachers that was not accurate such as "use cold air," or "use fast air," or "breath from your diaphragm." Those specific words are meaningless, but do suggest to someone learning how to approach better playing technique. So as a teacher I'd say if you find a way to say something that elicits the correct response, then it's correct.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-03-09 18:58
Tom H wrote:
> Staccato tonguing. Starting the note by saying "Ta" ("Ti",
> whatever) like we teach beginners on all wind instruments in
> school. Or by thinking about the fact that the sound is
> produced when the tongue leaves the reed? Which is "wrong"?
>
So, if we try to say "ta" with no air stream already trying to move past the tongue as it presses against the roof of the mouth, nothing much happens. Without the air pressure in place, you don't even get the "t" part of the sound. Nor will a sound result, without a pre-existing air stream, from simply removing your tongue from the reed. So, in that sense, neither is really correct or, at least complete.
It reminds me of a demonstration most teachers have worked through in their pedagogy classes, in which class members are asked to describe a simple task, like tying their shoelaces, to a learner as if the learner has never done the task before. The assignment is to break the task into discreet steps that, if followed, will allow the learner to be successful.
Most education students are amazed, when a different class member tries to follow the instructions, at how many steps they've left out, simply because they've been tying their own shoelaces since before they can remember and don't think of the details that turn out to be necessary. Some amusing results can sometimes result from this test.
I have learned as much about playing the clarinet from trying to diagnose and solve my students' problems as I learned from my own teachers. In the case of some technical issues, more.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-09 21:46
"I think there's a blaring truth sometimes missing in the clarinet world (including the bboard). That truth is: Very few clarinetists will make a living playing classical music in a professional orchestra. Yet - virtually everything we do from the time we pick up the instrument, till the time we graduate from college/graduate school aims us, trains us, and points us towards that goal...or the goal of teaching someone else to do it. Is this our goal because we wanted it from the point we were little kids, or is the goal one we assumed somewhere along the way because it is the only goal offered to us by the clarinet community - our instructors and peers?"
If I may paraphrase and consolidate the above, allow me to suggest that it proposes, "why teach a student to be the next Julian Bliss if only 1 in a million will be?"
And the answer is our lack of a crystal ball as teachers. Our goal isn't to expect perfection any more than it is to accept critical flaws in play in a "the ends justifies the means" notion that "does it really matter if I correct them, they're not going to be the next Morales."
And of course this doesn't mean that every aspect of play that is less than perfect should be addressed. You have to pick your priorities and not have a student, particularly a young one, trying to solve too many problems simultaneously or become disenfranchised with play. It also means that if you are teaching an elderly player with 100% interest and 0% aspiration that you especially pick your issues.
The teacher's goal, particularly with the budding student, is to instill the best practices that have shown the most students to achieve the greatest advances.
We're not shooting for the next Stanley Drucker but we are shooting for a situation where a student who has the potential to be the next Drucker isn't denied because we taught with no less enthusiasm as he likelihood that such potential will be realized.
And as mentioned prior, is it possible some tried and true technique backfires on student X? Sure. It's a numbers game. We go with what works most for most.
That ultimately a student, either from lack of virtuosity, or desire to choose an easier direction to make a living, opts out of pursuing professional play we want to be a choice we didn't negatively effect.
"We have been trained by A to be A, and then we (as the new A) train B to be A..."And don't pick up any of those bad habits. Use this piece of gear (because I've found it useful, and it's what the industry agrees is best), and play "this" way (because that's what I was taught was proper)," and etc."
A short and sweet reply. My most important piece of gear is an etude book. In it lie the peer reviewed for decades exercises that introduce the player to the widest set of skills for the most diverse ability at playing all the clarinet's genres.
"My thought is: If the person is able to achieve everything they want to do. What difference does it make whether it is the "correct way" to do something in a professional orchestra that they'll never play in?"
My goal is to bring out the best in every student. The shortest path towards that goal happens to be an extremely long straight line that is shortened for most players by the most amount by prioritizing their most egregious shortcomings if any. Will I temper my approach depending on the student's goals, sure.
Should I tell you about the student who came to clarinet lessons on the insistence of his/her parents with not only no goals but protest, and then developed a love for play? Is it possible that love might have never been achieved if teachers only taught to initial goals and interests?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2023-03-10 02:32
kdk, I guess I always just assumed you have the air stream going at the same time you say "Ta". Never gave it that a thought really.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2023-03-10 07:51
Hi Fuzzy, love the topic and the large response shows that a lot others do as well. I have chosen a generic response as we all have a different bend on many solutions.
What is the goal, music just needs to hold meaning for the player, is there really anything else?
Is the problem that:
-People live in their bubble e.g. how they were taught etc
-They tend not to look outside that bubble
-They are linear in their approach e.g. it worked before, do it again (there is a lot of research regarding your local doctor on this.)
-They are often lazy and don't look/like other solutions.
As an example there is a stack of high-quality research on motor learning and music that provides great information (probably the best) information on how to get better.
Anyone out there have a teacher look at this stuff, learn about it and teach it?
Likely not:)
We may well be very lazy might be the problem:)
Cheers
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-10 07:58
I've enjoyed reading through the replies. Thanks to those who have contributed!
Double/single lip, chin shape, tonguing. I remember seeing such things being referred to as being "bad habits" in the past as well. Puffed out cheeks? Slackening of the jaw? Movement of the jaw? Lifts? Drops? Vibrato?
I've spent half the day writing and re-writing responses to this thread, but they all end up becoming poorly written tomes.
Instead, I offer a few questions for you all (these questions came to mind during my contemplation of the entries by Paul and SecondTry, but are open to everyone):
Do you believe it is possible to separate clarinet pedagogy distinctly from classical music training?
If it is possible: Do we do that?
If it is not possible: Why is it not possible?
Very interested to hear your thoughts and opinions,
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
PS: one last question (I just saw crazyclari's response - which spawned this question in my mind):
How much of our training is "chicken and the egg?"
Meaning: Is most clarinet training based in classical music because that's where the interest is, or is most interest (perceived to be) classical because that's where the training is?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-10 09:38
IMHO one of the bibles for clarinet training is Bearmann III. For those who disagree I might suspect they have their favorite etude book, and by no means is this or any one book sufficient.
That said, the stuff in Bearmann III is "classical." It certainly doesn't teach one, for example, the art of improvising or playing jazz, but it is classical not because were we expect all our students, hobbyists or professionals to end up playing classical music. Heck, I'd love to see a clarinet playing in a rock band.
Rather, it's classical because it lays the foundations through scales and the circle of fifths, and chords, and exercises in 3rds and 6ths, etc. for the classical music theory that is important to know for all genres.
To rephrase in your parlance Fuzzy "most clarinet training based in classical music because that's where the" best groundwork lies, at least IMHO and that of many other teachers, for all directions a clarinetist can take.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-10 23:30
SecondTry,
Thanks for the sincere response. I'm not sure I fully understand some of your assumptions, but your answers did point out a flaw with my question.
Please let me rephrase the question(s) more accurately (of which I again ask the bboard at large):
Is it possible to separate basic clarinet pedagogy from a specific training of style?
If it is possible: Do we do that?
If it is not possible: Why is it not possible?
Thanks,
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-03-11 02:28
I get the impression that you want the answer to be YES.
There IS jazz pedagogy but it is more spread out almost from player to player on how this works with some generalizations that have been implemented by schools of higher learning such as the Berklee School of Music in Boston. There you learn improvisation by having a simple bass line presented. You then take the notes of each "scale" represented by each chord (staying away from what are known as "avoid notes"} and you write a melody above it. And you keep doing that for some time. In conjunction with that you learn that you must memorize the "head" of as many "standards" as possible (Misty, Girl from Ipanema etc etc.).
Of course there is more but that is a start.
To arrive at his ultimate technique Artie Shaw consulted violinists and many other masters of other instruments. Ultimately he developed a sound that is quite unique to clarinet.
Honestly it is hard for me to separate out the classical music since that's "my jam," but it almost sounds like you'd ask a brass player if they can develop a good sound without buzzing into just their mouthpieces. So I'd say there is a "classical format" for learning the instrumental technique of clarinet that IS separate from classical music per se but the more discipline and (unfortunately) rote training the better the results.
I think about it like the acrobats of Cirque du Soleil. They present flawless, magically flowing presentations at performance. But that came with soooooo much work over countless hours of grueling training........with mentor performers who had done the same thing.
It just depends on what YOU want. Do it, or don't do it.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-11 03:16
Paul,
I appreciate your response. Please let me assure you: I don't "want" a specific answer at all. I'm truly interested in hearing what others think.
I have my own thoughts, but am hoping to hear more from others before sharing them.
I also appreciate your statement, "...Honestly it is hard for me to separate out the classical music since that's 'my jam'..."
That's why I am hoping for a lot of input - we each come with our own biases. It would be interesting to see where there's a commonality (if any). I do realize that the bboard is mostly classically-minded, so perhaps there won't be enough variety of thought be useful - but I'd like to hope there will be.
Thanks again for taking the time to response.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-03-11 03:32
First, we all come to the clarinet for different reasons to play music of different genres.
Before I continue (elaborate?), my disclaimer is that prior to my retirement last summer, I had spent forty-six years as a member of a major American orchestra. I’ve performed plenty of chamber music over the years. I also play jazz. I also have played ethnic/Klezmer/world music. Happily, my musical and clarinet life has been more than rewarding, both artistically and financially.
Most all of us who grew up in the US probably got our start in a school band program, a place where the basics are taught: embouchure, where to put the fingers, how to blow, etc. But there is nothing to stop anyone from forging their own path as to what genre of music one wants to pursue.
However, those “basics” that we are exposed to don’t belong to any one type of music, nor does any of the traditional study material, for that matter.
But Baermann as classical? That’s about as ridiculous as saying that learning modal scales are only for jazz or pentatonic and Oriental (Klose’s words, not mine!) scales are just for other genres.
Baermann (and Jettel, Gillet, Hamelin, ad infinitum…) exist for us solely to gain control and command of the instrument as are modes and “different” types of scales. Not a one of them are for a certain or specialized genre of music because music is non-discriminatory: these patterns show up in all kinds of music that may be thrown in front of you. If you haven’t gained that command of the instrument, you simply aren’t equipped to play. Do you really think that a jazz artist doesn’t benefit from what one gets from dedicated study of Baermann? Does an orchestral player without technical control and command of more “exotic” material faint at the sight of some Bartok or Messiaen or Bright Sheng or John Adams or untold numbers of composers? Doesn’t a jazz player benefit from a perfect legato or would they rather avoid the first Rose study because it’s perceived as “classical”?
It’s where one decides to go in regards to repertoire next: true, you’re not going to get a grasp of improvisational skills by practicing Baermann. But if you haven’t gained fluid control of all those scales and patterns, your foray into improvisation is going to crash into a brick wall. Yes, many “traditional” teachers go the so-called classical route. That doesn’t mean you have to follow that route, does it?
I’ve had students who played jazz, who played in a blues band, did a lot of doubling jobs in theatre orchestras and the like. We wouldn’t work on orchestral repertoire - we worked on whatever could improve their clarinet playing. And it was the “traditional” study material. It works.
No matter what level of player one may be, study of this kind of material will help anyone approach whatever kind of repertoire they are interested in playing.
My answer to Fuzzy is that it’s not really so much about “bad habits” - unless it prevents you from doing something with the instrument that you want to do. If you can’t make an embouchure (whether it’s single or double lip) to affect the kind of sound you want, you need to make enough of a correction to make it happen. If you can’t play the notes because your fingers and/or hands are overly tight (or too high or just plain screwed up!), you need to find a way to correct it..right? And that’s what it is - making corrections to allow us to express ourselves to our liking. If you like vibrato, use it. If puffing out your cheeks makes the sound you prefer, go for it. A certain teacher may look askance at that but…
If you’re playing for yourself, do what you want. However, please keep in mind that there very well might be a more efficient way to accomplish your goals, should you have any. And if you should be looking toward a performing career, well, that’s a whole other conversation!
The end result here (which, on this BB, is hardly ever mentioned, btw) is to make music, no matter what kind of music one wants to make. If you gain that elusive control and command of the clarinet, it will free you to make your music. Basic clarinet pedagogy (as you put it) on its’ own is not necessarily aimed at a particular genre of music - it’s about learning how to best approach and master the instrument.
What you do with it after that is all up to you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2023-03-11 03:55
“Bad habits” are often connected with unsustainable techniques that cause forms of repetitive strain. E.g. “biting”. Many solutions deliver over a short run, but will they work out over several hours or years or a career?
But there’s plenty over which to keep an open mind, and the key is to think about what you are doing second to second, rather than sticking uncritically to the pattern book.
graham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2023-03-11 17:05
As long as a habit doesn’t set a burden and doesn’t prevent you from implementing your musical concepts, I won’t consider them to be bad. The tricky part is determining if these habits won’t become an unnecessary difficulty later.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-11 21:08
Larry:
I feel like you've misunderstood me, contradicted me, and then reiterated what I had to say.
The "classic" (not to be confused with classical music) etude books of our craft, given that they serve as the gateway into whatever genres of music the clarinet player finds themselves in, by definition, of course don't belong to any one genre of the clarinet.
Classic here means "regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style." And those etude books are and should be considered as such.
In this definition, yes Bearmann III is a "classic." Notice the use of quotes around this word here and in my prior post.
I think you've read me as conflating ideas that I expressly did not, and in fact expressly said the opposite on: that the classical (not the genre of music) books of our craft--perhaps I should have said "standard" books of our craft-- are for classical (yes, the genre of music) music destined clarinetists only. Nothing is further from the case in my opinion. Rather, the "classic" etude books of are craft are the foundation of all clarinet genres, one of which happens to be classical music.
Oh and Larry, that second paragraph of yours is a plug, not a disclaimer--which is fine. All I ask is that you just don't confuse the two ideas. A disclaimer might be where you disclose having focused on one branch of clarinet play that might leave your response here biased. You pointing out that you've worked in multiple genres rather suggests why you are equipped to respond here with objectivity.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-03-11 21:41
Now, hold on a Second!
Quoting directly: “That said, the stuff in Bearmann III is "classical." It certainly doesn't teach one, for example, the art of improvising or playing jazz, but it is classical not because were we expect all our students, hobbyists or professionals to end up playing classical music.”
I don’t believe I misunderstood that particular comment. To me, “Classsic” (as per your last post) and “Classical” are two distinctly separate things, especially when we are referring to genre. Well, at least they are to me.
Tomato, to-mah-to?
And, actually, I thought “disclaimer” to be germane as the primary (90+%) of my performing career was orchestral and, going back to Fuzzy’s initial question, I wanted him (and whoever else might have been the slightest bit interested…) to know mainly where I come from in this discussion. It’s up to whomever to discern whatever bias there is in what I say…or even care what I have to say.
But a plug? Nahhh…I’m way past that. In fact, the only place I would likely need a plug is in my scalp - and a lot more than just one!
Post Edited (2023-03-11 21:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-11 21:45
Fuzzy wrote:
> SecondTry,
>
> Thanks for the sincere response. I'm not sure I fully
> understand some of your assumptions, but your answers did point
> out a flaw with my question.
>
> Please let me rephrase the question(s) more accurately (of
> which I again ask the bboard at large):
>
> Is it possible to separate basic clarinet pedagogy from a
> specific training of style?
First off, I have to make sure that we're on the same page. I read the above question as, "can we tailor the teacher/teaching (especially the initial teaching) to the genre of play desired?"
Yes, but it's the wrong question to ask IMHO if producing the greatest potential from a budding student is the goal. That said, I think your next question is "getting warmer" in its asking, "if we can tease the teaching to the genre should we?"
>
> If it is possible: Do we do that?
>
Generally no. And Larry explains why, re-expressing my ideas in what he thinks is in opposition, only doing so better than me, in the paragraph that begins "Baermann (and Jettel, Gillet, Hamelin, ad infinitum…) exist for us solely to gain control and command of the instrument "
There must always be a pragmatic (practical) aspect to teaching. For example, some 60 year old, having just attended a jazz concert but never played before comes to a teacher wanting to improvise. Solely sticking Klose I in their face will likely find them losing interest. Instead, trying to reason that we need to "walk before we can run" (and practice Klose) at the same time referring that student to videos like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAl5sEusVoc might be a better compromise.
> If it is not possible: Why is it not possible?
Fuzzy, I realize that you are just asking questions. I ask you in turn to appreciate that such questions--and yes they're just questions--are hard for some to not get emotionally invested in for two reasons. The first, but not valid, is we are set in our ways. The second, and on point, is that those ways of teaching are time tested, peer reviewed strategies that many eyes have seen for many years and nobody has yet, to my knowledge, devised a markedly better peer reviewed approach. So it's possible but I suspect not probable.
==========
Fuzzy, as a comedic side note, if we had a time machine and you could go to take lessons with the great Kal Opperman, it would be my advise to NEVER, EVER ask such questions of the man. Profanities would fly, and his wife Wheezie would come in from the kitchen to calm him down, as he screamed at you to do the etudes he assigned you until perfect, and not spend (he'd say waste) your time on philosophy. He'd say that "time is your most precious asset."
Post Edited (2023-03-11 22:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-11 22:05
lmliberson wrote:
> Now, hold on a Second!
>
> Quoting directly: “That said, the stuff in Bearmann III is
> "classical." It certainly doesn't teach one, for example, the
> art of improvising or playing jazz, but it is classical not
> because were we expect all our students, hobbyists or
> professionals to end up playing classical music.”
but rather because it is the foundation for all genres of play. It is classical in sense that is is "regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style."
that's the definition of classical I meant there. If I meant anything different I would have suggested such study work only for the aspiring classical clarinet musician. Instead, I expressly said its study served as the foundation for all genres.
>
> I don’t believe I misunderstood that particular comment.
..so you know better what I meant than I did..ok..you win.
> me, “Classsic” (as per your last post) and “Classical”
> are two distinctly separate things, especially when we are
> referring to genre. Well, at least they are to me.
Me too.
> And, actually, I thought “disclaimer” to be germane as the
> primary (90+%) of my performing career was orchestral and,
> going back to Fuzzy’s initial question, I wanted him (and
> whoever else might have been the slightest bit interested…)
> to know mainly where I come from in this discussion.
Now, if you had said the above initially, this idea that most of your time was in classical music (music written in the European tradition during a period lasting approximately from 1750 to 1830, when forms such as the symphony, concerto, and sonata were standardized) and therefore commenting on what is best for students of other genres might not be the area where you best "cut your teeth," even if you are not blind in these areas...yeah, that's a disclaimer.
It points to the upfront disclosed life experiences potentially affecting your judgement on a topic.
Rather, your "disclaimer" does nothing short of profess proficiency in 4 genres (classical, chamber, jazz, klezmer) with no particular emphasis on one.
It's sounds like your the perfect player to comment on teaching styles given this exposure, it which case citing it isn't disclosing potential shortcomings, but rather why your uniquely qualified to answer---which is perfectly fine...
just not a disclaimer.
Post Edited (2023-03-11 22:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-03-11 22:20
Oy…well, I’m not going to spend my time splitting hairs here, especially since I have so precious few to split…
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-12 01:31
lmliberson,
Thank you for your contributions. I fully understood your disclaimer to be a disclosure of any potential bias based on your classical experience. Followed by evidence that (in spite of your primary style) you were not a one-trick pony, and had also taken the time to understand/play other styles and could attest to how basic training applied to all styles.
I'd also like to say that I had misunderstood the same point in SecondTry's post about Baermann that you had. So I appreciate SecondTry's clarification.
SecondTry - I must admit, in small part, to hoping to stir a little emotion. This bboard becomes far too mechanial in my opinion, and ideas are regurgitated (sometimes without thought - as Paul mentioned early about "cold air" etc.) I don't intend to cause strife, though - only to encourage thoughtful conversation. To re-introduce meaningful thought instead of cyclic cut-and-paste. I appreciate Ruben's attempts at exactly this...perhaps he is more skilled than I at finding ways to do this without confrontation - but I am doing my best to improve on that.
I think we might agree that sometimes, the clarinet community at large becomes a parrot to students. "Only Buffet can give that ring." "Only X or Y mouthpieces are suitable 'beginner mouthpieces'." "Wood is the only serious material for professional clarinets." et al. I know you and I align on many thoughts about gear, but this goes against the bulk of what one can find online - and (probably) in lesson rooms.
Coming through a standard US music education, I was constantly bombarded with all this "parroting" - only to realize later in life how little actually applied to me or what I wanted to do. But the commands always came from authority figures whom I would be forced to follow if I wanted continued instruction.
I enjoyed lmliberson's post greatly. My only strong point of disagreement is to his statement: Quote:
But there is nothing to stop anyone from forging their own path as to what genre of music one wants to pursue.
My experience was 100% opposite of that (well, 98% opposite). I was not allowed to pursue what genre of music I wanted to pursue. I was forced to learn saxophone if I wanted to play jazz and to receive even remedial instruction in jazz.
At the college level, I was told that I needed to change to saxophone as my primary instrument if I wanted to pursue jazz. Furthermore, schools would no longer recommend students to me if I offered jazz on clarinet. To any degree I have frustration towards the clarinet community (and public music education community) - this would be the cause.
We start children on clarinet in grade school and then remove all off-ramps to anything other than classical music for them. This is much different than for saxophone students, trumpet students, trombone students, drummers, guitarists, etc.
In the same way that a convicted felon might be "free to leave" prison prior to his sentence being served - I was free to pursue styles other than classical.
I might suggest, though, as also being a possible slight point of difference in viewpoint with lmliberson: That there does become a point where certain techniques (habits?) can become negative "hurdles" and intrude in one's fluency in other styles. For instance: lack of vibrato, lack of tonal color. Rigidity of embouchure, etc.
This is probably coming across incorrectly, so please let me state it this way: When I tried to break free of my classical identity and go fully into jazz - I found many hurdles had been placed in my way by my "classical music" training. (I feel this had to have occurred at some point past the basic clarinet proficiency standards).
I watch other clarinetists go through these same road-blocks and hurdles when they attempt to go from classical to klezmer/folk/jazz. I suggest these hurdles exist solely due to classical-only training. I don't see this same issue for saxophone students who come over to clarinet, for instance. However, listening to a classical-only clarinetist come over to jazz can very much sound like an adult trying to speak the kids' modern slang in the hallway. I root for them, but there's an awkward stage that I don't see occur when instruments other than the clarinet take the step. I can only guess that this is because other instruments aren't so limited and boxed-in during their training.
SecondTry (trying my best to put this kindly so that it doesn't come across as confrontational...): Quote:
First off, I have to make sure that we're on the same page. I read the above question as, "can we tailor the teacher/teaching (especially the initial teaching) to the genre of play desired?" Shows that we're not on the same page at all. My question was the exact opposite of how you read it. I'm not sure how to more clearly state the question, or I would.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
EDIT: Corrected a quote tag
Post Edited (2023-03-12 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-12 06:53
Fussy writes:
Is it possible to separate basic clarinet pedagogy from a specific training of style?
I interpreted that, opposite to what was asked it turns out, as :
"Can we tailor the teacher/teaching (especially the initial teaching) to the genre of play desired?"
Fuzzy writes
My question was the exact opposite of how you read it.
I write now: well then I guess the opposite of my take on your thoughts would be:
"Can we not] tailor the teacher/teaching (especially the initial teaching) to the genre of play desired?"
To which I'd respond "yes." That's exactly what we do. We start clarinet players on a similar path with books like Klose I. Nobody's built a better mousetrap than that so far.
Or maybe by opposite you meant:
"Can we tailor the teacher/teaching (especially the initial teaching) not to the genre of play desired?"
If the second version is what you meant....to what attributes do you want to tailor the teaching?
Or maybe you meant something entirely different....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm tagging out. Practicing what I preach, literally and figuratively I've got some music to practice that trying to answer questions I don't understand prevents me from addressing.
Good luck finding the answers you seek Fuzzy, I really do mean that.
Post Edited (2023-03-12 06:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-12 09:19
SecondTry,
Sorry to see you leave the conversation, but thanks for the input you offered.
The point of the question was not one of philosophy, but to see if there is an agreed-upon basic set of skills which applies to all clarinet training - regardless of genre. Judging by the resulting dialog, I'd guess the answer is probably "no."
In sports, athletes have a large overlap in training...to a point. However, the training for football is quite different than the training for track. The training for tennis is different than the training for wrestling. It needs to be because the body is being asked to do totally different things depending on the sport.
I believe the same to be true when speaking of clarinet training.
However, what I don't see (and didn't experience) - something which is available in sports and other instruments - was the chance to train for anything else - except classical music - all the way through my college education.
Thus the question - where is that line between "basic skill set" and "genre specific skill set?"
Can there be even a rough consensus on where "basic skill set" ends and "genre specific skill set" begins?
Hüsnü Senlendirici
Sidney Bechet
Yona Ettlinger
Evan Christopher
Please listen to the above links. I think there is an obvious common skill set. My opinion is that the line between "basic common skill set" and "genre specific skill set" might occur much earlier in training than we usually recognize.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2023-03-12 09:24
Fuzzy, I hesitated for a long time to inject a response into this thread because I really didn't feel qualified to join the discussion. However when you wrote: "When I tried to break free of my classical identity and go fully into jazz - I found many hurdles had been placed in my way by my "classical music training", I felt that there was a possible opening for me.
First of all, I completely agree with you.
There's an old saying: "Practice makes perfect."
Actually, although true it is also inhibiting.
IMHO, Practice Makes Permanent.
https://www.modacity.co/blog/deliberate-practice-helps-musicians-learn-faster/
This is why, I believe, you had so much trouble with all of your classical training, you also developed "permanent classical habits" that made it very difficult for you to venture into a different genre such as jazz with lots of vibrato.
Just my opinion...
Post Edited (2023-03-13 04:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-03-14 02:02
Hi Dan!
Great to see you again! Thanks for the input.
What you say makes sense, and lines up with my personal experience.
I really was hoping to see more discussion on this topic, but understand how wearisome this thread became.
Collectively, there are quite a few professionals and instructors on this bboard. I was hoping more would have chimed in.
I'd sure be interested to hear how others' experiences differed from my own. For instance, it would be great to hear the story of how a clarinetist unwittingly got pushed into jazz, or klezmer, folk, or rock by the educational system.
Equally intriguing would be an example of someone who was trained in some other form of music as their primary genre through college, but then came over to classical musical...and what difficulties they faced. etc.
It would be interesting to know/learn/understand how such experiences effected their view of a "common skill set" and "bad habits."
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
Edit: added sentence which had been inadvertently deleted before first posting
Post Edited (2023-03-14 02:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ACCA
Date: 2023-03-15 00:05
From a thesis regarding the teaching approach of Leon Russianoff:
The fundamental thrust of Russianoff's philosophy of
life is one of respect and encouragement for individuality
(or one's freedom to express individuality); i.e., while
exercising one's freedom of individuality, one should never
be afraid to question or challenge tradition, legend, or the
status quo. Moreover, one should consider challenging the
status quo as one's duty and responsibility (especially as
a creative performing artist).
...The best teachers haven't fallen into the traps that the OP was talking about, even if they ARE training their students to be professional symphonic/ classical players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2023-03-15 00:55
Quote:
Could "bad habits" actually be considered "alternatives"? Maybe not the "preferred way" - but a valid way?
There are some objective things in music--rhythm, intonation, technical precision, and dynamic contrasts--about which we can say students have good or bad habits. If, for example, a student goes sharp as he or she tapers a phrase ending, it's not an alternative version of clarinet playing but a bad habit.
Quote:
Do you believe it is possible to separate clarinet pedagogy distinctly from classical music training?
And as someone who grew up seriously studying jazz saxophone, I've found that these more objective things are taught in similar ways to how people teach classical saxophone or classical clarinet: intonation with a drone pitch, rhythm with the metronome on different beats, etc.
Aside from these things, however, there's a lot of handed-down wisdom, such as use the minimal effort to play, keep your fingers close to the clarinet for great technique, touch the tip of the tongue to the tip of the reed, and so on, that I think is open to alternatives. Indeed, at the heart of the issue you raise is that we ought to approach learning and/or teaching the clarinet with the goal of good clarinet playing in mind. And the problem is that many people don't often have satisfactory answers (or they've passively internalized their teacher's answers) for what good clarinet playing is.
I agree with Artur Schnabel's answer that good piano (insert "clarinet") playing occurs in those instances when the way you interpret a phrase in your mind's ear comes out through the instrument without any impediments. When we're practicing, then, we ought to have expression in mind not only because good articulation, for example, requires direction in the air but also because "good" depends on a musical context, i.e. what's a good articulation in the third Stravinsky piece might not be a good articulation for the Mozart concerto.
So teaching someone that the only way to play clarinet is with a clear and focused sound is a bit of a disservice because to play the glissando from Rhapsody in Blue, for instance, you have to lower the back of your tongue, open up the embouchure, and "spread" the sound (i.e. the music dictates what's good clarinet playing). But at the same time, if a student always plays with a bit of a spread sound in his or her wind ensemble, it's a bit of disservice to let it slide as an alternative version of clarinet playing because it doesn't blend well with colleagues or project (i.e. again, the music dictates what's good clarinet playing).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TriPut
Date: 2023-04-17 10:49
I'd like to answer your question, Fuzzy, if I may.
Quote:
I'd sure be interested to hear how others' experiences differed from my own. For instance, it would be great to hear the story of how a clarinetist unwittingly got pushed into jazz, or klezmer, folk, or rock by the educational system.
I was fortunate enough to have a band/orchestra teacher in high school who pushed me in the best way possible to stretch my wings. My teacher pushed me to join the jazz band my junior year. Yes, I learned and played alto sax as part of the deal, because we were a competition jazz band and much of the available competition-level pieces were geared toward a sax section, but he deliberately programmed works that featured us soloing on our principal instruments (a number of us in the band the next two years played cello, violin, oboe, bassoon, French horn and yes, clarinet). We were given the tools and encouraged to find our own jazz voices, while still maintaining our "classic" studies and style where that was more appropriate (like, oh, wind ensemble and orchestra).
He also pushed us into playing in pit orchestra, not only at the school but in local community theater groups. But he also got us involved with community orchestras and bands. The idea was broad exposure to what was available out there.
So yes, some did get pushed out of the classical nest so we could grow in other ways :D
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
