 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Le9669
Date: 2011-09-02 04:30
Hello. I'm curious as to which clarinet players studied with Russianoff on a regular basis. So far, I only know the Druckers and Charles Neidich. Please let me know. Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2011-09-02 16:48
There may be a list somewhere of former Russianoff students. I know that a lot of players from the New York area studied with him: Charles Neidich, Alan Kay, Frank Cohen, Ed Palanker (who posts here rather often), and many others I'm sure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-09-02 18:49
I know Phil Faith, may have spelled his last name wrong, a former principal on the SF Phil. There were many players that are no longer playing or even living that studied with him as their major teacher and so many that studied with him for a while. I can't even begin to spell the names I remember. It would be interesting if someone had a listing. I believe at one time all the players in the NY Phil were his students, or at least studied with him for some time. I believe Eddie Daniels was his student as well. I believe it is a very long list, especially if one includes those that studied with him for a year or so like Larry Coombs and MIchelle Zukovsky, sp? (I think I butchered that one.) . It's not uncommon for a player to study with one or two other teachers after their "principal" teacher. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2011-09-03 02:50
Ed is correct.......many players are no longer playing or living. Additionally, many who took lessons did not pursue their clarinet playing beyond the lessons or schooling (some had Leon as a teacher when attending Manhattan Scl of Music or other educational institutions.)
Thomas Piercy not only took lessons but in Leon's later years of teaching, Thomas was his Teaching Assistant.
I took lessons from Leon my last 2 yrs in HS, 64-65 and then 1 yr at Manhattan (offsite at his 1590 Bdwy studio) and then for 2 summers while at Hartt and taking lessons thru the school with Opperman and Hadcock.
As Ed mentioned, Larry took lessons from Leon. He did so while he was in the West Point Band and traveled down to NYC. Michelle Z came to NY to take lessons. She chose Leon over Opperman.
The list is not endless but is of considerable length.
Leon accepted private students on an audition basis.
To give an idea, In the summer of 1966 I paid $65 / hr for lessons. (that was my take-home pay from my summer job)
be well
dennis
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-09-03 16:14
Thanks Bob, I'm not shy about that,I'm very proud of it. It states that on my Website, I consider myself a Russianoff student even though I studied with others. I studied with him for my last three years of college. Brycon made reference to me being his student on the 2nd posting so I didn't feel I needed to agree, I do.
Russianoff's greatest strength was the way he bought out the best in his students and the fact that he didn't try to make clones of his students as so many teachers try to do, especially in his day. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2011-09-03 20:53
In 8th/9th grade before I moved to PA, my Clarinet Teacher Eddie Knakal would fly once a month from Norfolk to study with Leon. I played for him in a MasterClass.
Eddie taught among other players Scott Andrews (Principal St. Louis)
So what would $65 Hr be in today's $$$'s?
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2011-09-04 10:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-09-04 07:50
Thanks Eddie, Just want people to know a few of the great teachers produce great students that are now great symphony players and teachers! The never ending cycle continues to get better and better. I think a similiar case would be Bonade and his fellow students. Gennusa, Mitchell Lurie, I think Harold Wright and so on. I'm not sure about Marcellus.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-09-04 17:49
Actually it may be easier to look at all the successful clarinetists from the generation between Drucker and Neidich and then look at who DID NOT study with Leon.
I never did study with him but now wish I had as each of his students plays very differently from the other.
And they all vouch for his abilities as a teacher and his ability to bring out the best in the individual.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2011-09-04 18:03
The Clarinet volume 18/ number 1, volume 18 number 2
have tributes to Leon by many of his past students.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2011-09-04 19:12
I was accepted into Russianoff's studio as a high school student the year before he died. Never got the chance to study regularly with him, but the audition itself was a learning experience.
I played the Mozart and Copland Concerti for him, and remember being quizzed on the chord structure of the Copland Cadenza.
When asked what I wanted to begin with, I said "Mozart," and as I placed the music on the stand, he smiled and said "So you're going with the hardest piece first. Good choice."
It was probably the most relaxed audition I ever took. He was a kind man.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Niethamer
Date: 2011-09-05 02:16
Those of you interested in Russianoff may be interested to read Stephen Clark's dissertation "Leon Russianoff: Clarinet Pedagogue." It gives a biography of Russianoff and how Leon felt his life related to his teaching style. Clark also interviewed five Russianoff students about his teaching style - very interesting. The dissertaion is available from ProQuest through their Dissertation Express service. A PDF copy costs $37.
I studied with Leon for three years in the mid '70's. We had a lot of battles over how to play the clarinet, because I wasn't smart enough to respect his knowledge and practical experience as a successful teacher. After I got my job in Richmond, I thanked Russianoff every week for 23 years for giving me the tools to do my job successfully - he was a wonderful, patient (especially in my case!!) teacher. One of his best characteristics was teaching you to solve your own problems. Another equally important aspect of his teaching was to poke holes in all the preconceived notions you might have about playing the clarinet. As others have said, he didn't create clones. He brought out the potential in each student.
When he died in 1991, it was a very sad day for me.
David
niethamer@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/dbnclar1/index.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2021-05-18 08:25
1972 through '76 as a student at Queens College.
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: MarkS
Date: 2021-05-18 20:39
I noticed that in one of the earlier postings in this thread, hartt mentions that Russianoff was charging $65 for lessons in 1966. A few years ago, I happened on a letter in the Daniel Bonade archives at the University of Maryland. The letter is from Bonade to an American college student in the early 1970s. The student was asking about the possibility of taking a few lessons from Bonade in the south of France while they were studying abroad in Italy. Bonade replied that he would be happy to give the lessons, and that the cost of each lesson would be $25. That seems to have been a veritable bargain given what Russianoff was charging several years earlier!
Mark S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2021-05-18 21:55
When Russianoff was teaching at MSM, they would send him a contract with the salary line blank and let him fill in the amount.
I studied with him in the early 1970's and I can tell you he taught many students for free or for a minimal amount of money. In any case, I never heard that he charged $65 a lesson, even then.
Perhaps there was an extra charge for being a PITA...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 2E
Date: 2021-05-24 08:24
Stephen Clark is definitely the man to talk to about this, search him on youtube/facebook.
I know Heather Monkhouse (Tasmania, Australia) studied with him for a time, she's now at University of Tasmania (UTAS).
I think Andy Simon studied with him too?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Piercy
Date: 2021-05-24 17:37
Re: Russianoff lesson fees.
I studied with Leon from mid-80s until his death in 1990.
His lesson fee for me ranged from $0 to $50.
He charged me $50/hour at first (which was a bargain at that time) but soon stopped charging me a fee as I was assisting him with things in his studio.
He told me that if anyone asked what his fee was, I was to tell them it was $100. He was very generous with his time and would often charge different fees for different people. If he thought someone could afford more, he would charge more, and vice versa.
Tom Piercy
Post Edited (2021-05-26 16:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-05-24 21:57
Tom: Jimmy Hamilton-Duke Ellington's great clarinetist-studied with Russianoff and was charged...nothing.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nellsonic
Date: 2021-05-24 22:46
DavidBlumberg wrote:
>
> So what would $65 Hr be in today's $$$'s?
>
$535 in 2021 money!
Anders
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2021-05-25 01:16
Not sure where you got that figure. According to inflation charts I have seen it seems to be more like $160
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2021-05-25 05:12
OK, got it. I thought the date in question was in the 80s. I now see that there was previous mention of an earlier year. My mistake
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joe englert
Date: 2024-06-26 08:22
When I studied at Mannes back in the late seventies with Glazer, I remember calling and talking to Russianoff because I was interested in his mouthpieces that he was selling at that time..never bought one but was wondering if anyone out there had any thoughts on those>? I never heard if they were great or not, but I do remember that he did have his name on some back then?
6692325075
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-26 19:02
"A library is a repository of lies.." lol
https://youtu.be/23TLuB9f_9Q?si=_oza3Oj76qhErygr&t=873
(In fairness, Russianoff's point (I believe) was that the nuancical music markings of a particularly publisher's rendition of some work were as varied as the publishers and those under their employ--who were not the original work's composer--and subject to not be necessarily taken as gospel.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2024-06-26 19:37
SecondTry wrote:
> "A library is a repository of lies.." lol
>
>
> https://youtu.be/23TLuB9f_9Q?si=_oza3Oj76qhErygr&t=873
>
> (In fairness, Russianoff's point (I believe) was that the
> nuancical music markings of a particularly publisher's
> rendition of some work were as varied as the publishers and
> those under their employ--who were not the original work's
> composer--and subject to not be necessarily taken as gospel.)
He seems to be going farther than "not be necessarily taken as gospel." He's saying (whether or not he meant it) that editorial additions (not original from the composer) are invalid and are to be ignored (white-out everything on the page).
I note that this masterclass was recorded in 1989, when most students might still have had first-hand experience with white-out.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-27 01:49
kdk wrote:
> SecondTry wrote:
>
> > "A library is a repository of lies.." lol
> >
> >
> >
> https://youtu.be/23TLuB9f_9Q?si=_oza3Oj76qhErygr&t=873
> >
> > (In fairness, Russianoff's point (I believe) was that the
> > nuancical music markings of a particularly publisher's
> > rendition of some work were as varied as the publishers and
> > those under their employ--who were not the original work's
> > composer--and subject to not be necessarily taken as gospel.)
>
> He seems to be going farther than "not be necessarily taken as
> gospel." He's saying (whether or not he meant it) that
> editorial additions (not original from the composer) are
> invalid and are to be ignored (white-out everything on the
> page).
>
> I note that this masterclass was recorded in 1989, when most
> students might still have had first-hand experience with
> white-out.
>
> Karl
I would not know first hand but FWIW I have heard stories that auditions for clarinet positions have been won and lost by in part players performing works closer to the interpretations of those sitting on the audition panel than not respectively.
Post Edited (2024-06-27 01:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2024-06-27 02:59
SecondTry wrote:
> I would not know first hand but FWIW I have heard stories that
> auditions for clarinet positions have been won and lost by in
> part players performing works closer to the interpretations of
> those sitting on the audition panel than not respectively.
>
Maybe in some cases, although I'm not sure, if the audition committee members aren't published editors, how an auditioning candidate would really know for certain.
Players on audition committees are, for sure, prejudiced toward auditionees whose concepts of sound and style are closest to their own and to the prevailing approach of the orchestra in question. That's a different issue than following all the "expression" markings in a published *edition* (not the composer's original markings).
Where those published editorial nuances become important, unfortunately, is too often in school-level auditions for things like County, District and All-State bands (and orchestras).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-06-27 08:03
Quote:
He seems to be going farther than "not be necessarily taken as gospel." He's saying (whether or not he meant it) that editorial additions (not original from the composer) are invalid and are to be ignored (white-out everything on the page).
My main teacher was a Russianoff student. He would sometimes say: "A good musician could make the music happen without any of the expressive markings. A bad musician still couldn't make the music happen even with all the expressive markings." (I vaguely remember this formulation being a Russianoff-ism but could very well be misremembering.) That is, students learn that forte means x, tenuto means y, accent means z, etc. And the piece of music, then, becomes a series of "moves" you have to execute and whoever executes them the most accurately wins high school or conservatory or whatever. But, of course, these expressive markings can mean different things.
One of my favorite examples is in Debussy's rhapsody. After the introduction, the long melody that comes back several times throughout the piece begins on a C half-note tied to an eighth, above which Debussy places a tenuto line. When I ask a student "What's up with the tenuto?" He or she will usually say, "Oh, I need to play that note long." But it's already two and a half beats at a slow tempo: it doesn't really make sense to have a tenuto. Underneath the C, however, is a Db major harmony in the piano. The C to Bb in the clarinet, then, is a 6-5 appogiatura, and the tenuto could be an indication to "press" the C and subsequently to relax on the Bb. (Alas, many players miss this beautiful detail because they're too wrapped up in the piano dynamic.)
At any rate, maybe Russianoff's use of white out is more about pushing students to get their heads out of their music stands, to stop worrying about executing what's on the page, and to begin using their ears and minds to play the music.
Post Edited (2024-06-27 08:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2024-06-27 09:44
Interesting stuff about effacing expression markings. I surely go too far the other way, but it doesn't matter. I've self-taught and been isolated from other musicians (except as a listener) for so long that, to me, all the marks on the page are expressive indications, and the music is mine alone. There's no-one else to hear anyway. Practice of others' compositions is always a process of determining what expression is indicated and working toward that. Indications are never exact, so departures from or modifications of them are always going to happen to some degree. That applies to any markings, sometimes even notes. It's all, all about expression. I acknowledge this is a recipe for crap, but that would depend, wouldn't it. Anyway, doesn't matter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-06-27 11:57
Quote:
Practice of others' compositions is always a process of determining what expression is indicated and working toward that. Indications are never exact, so departures from or modifications of them are always going to happen to some degree.
And that may be what Russianoff was aiming for with the student in that video. The voice leading, harmony, rhythm, figuration, texture, voicing, etc. of any given phrase usually lead us toward some way of playing it: the music itself wants to be rubato or cantabile or any number of things. Being able to figure these things out for yourself and then draw them out with your clarinet playing is part of being a musician. And once you can do it, you begin cultivating a deeper relationship with the music than someone who simply executes markings without much thought (e.g. this music has a piano marking, so I'll play softly; this note has an accent, so I'll hit it; and so on). It's like a good Shakespearean actor who studies what Hamlet's saying--the philosophy and psychology of it all--compared with someone who recites Hamlet's words in an English class but has no idea what they even mean.
Think of the old Rose etude edition (published by Carl Fischer, I believe), which has very few expressive markings in it. These etudes can make good phrasing studies because students have to make decisions based on the music. The modern David Hite edition, by contrast, is horrible: nearly every note has some expressive marking. It turns students into reciters.
Once you have this musical know-how, you can really engage with whatever expressive markings a composer does put into his or her music. Richard Taruskin, in his essay on conducting Beethoven, for instance, talks about how Nikolaus Harnoncourt is able to justify musically some unusual sforzandi in the symphonies. With great composers (with the clarinet, I'm thinking of that opening poco forte in Brahms), there's always something interesting to work through this way.
Post Edited (2024-07-02 12:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-27 19:52
It seems that we've pivoted a bit from talk of Leon to musical notation: which is okay.
Said succinctly, notation both has its place and limitations. There are cases in which a composer has marked a piece because that's how they want it played--and that should be respected, there are cases where an auditioner would be wise to play (as if) markings similar to those used by artists sitting at the judge's table, and there are times when the absence of markings, or adheering to them helps not only cultivate artistic expression by the performer, but art itself.
Borrowing from popular music there are times when a cover artist may, for example, take a work slower or faster than its original performer and practical reinvent (or destroy) the original inspiration: I imagine as defined in part by the listerner's opinion.
Pardon the pedestrian but well known example that follows of famous changes to a work as the original artist covers themselves:
https://youtu.be/ECMIC1JPacg?si=mJib6FFpkYJoUYm2
(Sadly I lack an example of this from the popular group "Kings of Leon" as the double entendre of "Kings" and this thread's title "Students" might have been worth the effort.)
Disclaimer: this poster is a student (or King) of Leon too, albeit hardly a famous one.
Post Edited (2024-06-27 19:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2024-06-27 23:33
Many students like Larry Combs and others studied with him when they played in the West Point Band on tour.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-06-28 00:21
Quote:
There are cases in which a composer has marked a piece because that's how they want it played--and that should be respected...
Yes and no. In the case of Stravinsky, for instance, there are precise metronome markings put in the music by the composer (moreover, a composer famously gave priority to the printed text). Many musicians, myself included, though, don't stick rigidly to them. The third of the Three Pieces, for example, is very often played faster than notated. It's probably because in some sense, expressive markings can themselves be interpretations of the music, i.e. this arrangement of pitches, rhythms, etc. seem to express x character, and x character, then, comes across best at y tempo. It's probably why most Bach performances gravitate toward particular tempos despite having no metronome markings and often no tempo indications. Again, I think if you're a good musician, you should be engaging with the text, not simply executing it.
Quote:
there are cases where an auditioner would be wise to play (as if) markings similar to those used by artists sitting at the judge's table...
Sure, but Russianoff is teaching a student, not prepping someone for an audition.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-28 21:50
> Sure, but Russianoff is teaching a student, not prepping
> someone for an audition.
IMHO this comment has as much merit as it doesn't.
I should probably explain exactly what I mean by that so that I don't risk coming accross as disparaging.
Yes, Bryan: in the sense that a teacher seeks to bring out the musician in the player, allowing the player wiggle room to explore their own sense of musicality, on top of rigid technical studies which provide them that ability, preparing for an audition and training a student are two distinct things. I agree.
But it does get to a point in a student's advancement, should they seek professional opportunities with their talent--which means auditioning; and especially for Russianoff who perhaps is one of handfull of leading teachers of his time who created the teachers and players whose careers have or are now approaching the tail end of their tenure, that "teaching to the test" becomes imperative to land those very jobs.
Of course Russianoff is not Gilad of the Colburn school, and Gilad perhaps is more a master class type teacher, not one who works on fundamentals, but I've read how students in his studio debrief each other after an audition so each can possible be better equipped when it is their turn to audition.
I guess my point is that at some point, at least for the student eventually seeking employment, that there are fluid transitions and overlap between fundamentals, artistic expression, and learning how to do that which judges want.
Post Edited (2024-06-28 21:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-06-29 02:44
Quote:
IMHO this comment has as much merit as it doesn't.
I should probably explain exactly what I mean by that so that I don't risk coming accross as disparaging.
No worries: don't find it disparaging, just weird. Your posts here have the effect of saying something while actually saying nothing at all. I have a vague recollection of something similar in the past but don't post frequently enough here to keep straight who's who.
Quote:
But it does get to a point in a student's advancement, should they seek professional opportunities with their talent--which means auditioning; and especially for Russianoff who perhaps is one of handfull of leading teachers of his time who created the teachers and players whose careers have or are now approaching the tail end of their tenure, that "teaching to the test" becomes imperative to land those very jobs.
And what appears to be an undergraduate student at Austin Peay State University (a fine institution then and now, I'm sure) performing Weber's first concerto in 1989 led you to think about orchestral auditions and whether Russianoff's advice would translate to audition success in 2024? Okay.
Quote:
Of course Russianoff is not Gilad of the Colburn school, and Gilad perhaps is more a master class type teacher, not one who works on fundamentals...
This bit is simply untrue. I've had several former students go study with Yehuda; they work on fundamentals all the time. In fact, one of my former students told me: "He works on music and clarinet playing, not excerpts." (I'm sure, of course, students play excerpts in their lessons. This anecdote, though, shows where his priorities are at.)
Quote:
I guess my point is that at some point, at least for the student eventually seeking employment, that there are fluid transitions and overlap between fundamentals, artistic expression, and learning how to do that which judges want.
Sure, fine. But this is again one of those instances of saying nothing: at one point in your career, you're learning. At another point, you're ready to take auditions.
Post Edited (2024-07-02 12:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-29 21:58
You've claimed that your not offended by my post but lodge an insult claiming that my words have the effect of saying something while actually saying nothing at all.
Okay, then please clearly express:
1) What you think my words are trying to say and
2) Why they're not actually making the point that you think I'm trying to say.
Even if you truly believe this, I think that it's quite a stretch for you to infer that others draw this conclusion simply because you do.
I have a theory why you might conclude this. And that's that you make wrong assumptions, to which I will provide examples.
When I wrote that "there are cases where an auditioner would be wise to play (as if) markings similar to those used by artists sitting at the judge's table" this wasn't a critique of Russianoff ignoring said markings in a video I linked where he's coaching a specific undergraduate student: that's your wrong assumption.
To answer your question as to 'what led me to think about orchestral auditions based on this video and whether Russianoff's advice would translate to audition success in 2024?' your answer is "I didn't."
What led me down this road wasn't this video but the fact that a fair number of people holding professional positions were once Russianoff students, who had to play in ways at auditions to please specific judges, which speaking first hand, Russianoff was keenly aware of and not only advocated the opposite to those student to what you see in that video, but suggested that those students also FWIW, study music education as a backup plan.
Next your critique this as untrue:
"Of course Russianoff is not Gilad of the Colburn school, and Gilad perhaps is more a master class type teacher, not one who works on fundamentals.."
citing examples where Gilad took his students "back to basics."
There's your reading comprehension again Bryan. My point, which I stand by, wasn't that Gilad didn't at times focus on all aspects of play but far more spent his time, compared to the more rudamentary teachers of his students that preceeded him, and as I believe he should, honing students mastery of the materials to get a job rather than (speaking in metaphors) the "missing sharp in measure 12 of Bearmann exercise 172, that the student not only already knew about, but even informed their students of."
I never said or implied that Gilad didn't do fundamentals.
The fact that you provide examples to retort that which I never claim suggests that you don't get my point that such areas of study where more (not absolutely, just more) the realm of teachers prior to Gilad who brought their students to a level in which they were good enough to work in Gilad's studio.
"One of your students?" Can we agree that your sample size is limited?
As to your statement:
"At one point in your career you're learning. At another point, you're ready to take auditions.
I'd like to add my critique.
These steps are not serial but fluid. You don't from Thursday to Friday transition from learning to focus on audition. You never stop learning. When you play to groups you never stop "auditioning."
And if your career (I think you mean the role of student) is performance professional you didn't get there showing those hiring you how many hours you learned. You tooted your horn.
So, when Rusianoff suggested that I listen to the performances of certain pieces by certain artists, even as a student, do you think he meant this an example of what not to do, of how I should ignore these interpretations like the markings he suggests a budding student in a video for now ignore to promote artistry?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-06-29 22:36
Lots of rhetoric here, not to mention more than a bit of pedantry! Oy…
However, it causes me to wonder who here has actually taken an audition for a major orchestra and who here has actually sat on an audition committee for the same.
The sad truth is that 95% of those who audition for such positions have no business being there in the first place: they can’t play in rhythm and they don’t play in tune, two of the more important aspects of being in an ensemble. One wonders whether we should even assess their sound and musicianship when they can’t successfully hack the basics of ensemble playing. And there’s so much more involved, but…well, why bother? 🤷🏻♂️
One can “follow” all the so-called markings and sound something akin to an automaton. It’s that rare player who understands what it means to make music and who will cause one ears to perk up and take their eyes away from their phone.
Honestly, the only thing more brutal than taking an audition is listening to a few hundred of them! 🙄
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2024-06-29 23:42
"Honestly, the only thing more brutal than taking an audition is listening to a few hundred of them! 🙄"
Jajaja! Replace "audition" with "interview" and you're in my territory.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-06-30 06:58
SecondTry,
Yeah, I remember now the pedantry.
Look, I studied with one of Russianoff's students for about eight years and was simply trying to provide context for his comments on notation because 1. I think notation is interesting and 2. I think Russianoff's teaching is interesting. But I don't think getting into weird debates simply for the purposes of winning internet arguments is interesting. So I'll hold back from responding to you in the future (unless, of course, you actually want to have a good-faith discussion about something).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-30 17:03
brycon wrote:
> SecondTry,
>
> Yeah, I remember now the pedantry.
>
> Look, I studied with one of Russianoff's students for about
> eight years and was simply trying to provide context for his
> comments on notation because 1. I think notation is interesting
> and 2. I think Russianoff's teaching is interesting. But I
> don't think getting into weird debates simply for the purposes
> of winning internet arguments is interesting. So I'll hold back
> from responding to you in the future (unless, of course, you
> actually want to have a good-faith discussion about something).
Right... my pedantry.
Let's look at posts that kick this off:
I say, accurately:
"There are cases in which a composer has marked a piece because that's how they want it played--and that should be respected..."
I don't say, "every marking of every piece should be respected." Just that there are some cases, implying that there are situations where this is not the case where 'play as written' is appropriate. This is completely factual and impossible to disagree with, and yet you find a way:.
"Yes and no. In the case of Stravinsky...."
Then I say, also accurately:
"there are cases where an auditioner would be wise to play (as if) markings similar to those used by artists sitting at the judge's table..."
Clearly, in the video I linked Russianoff is not teaching a student up for auditions or at that moment formally auditioning for an opening, either by ability or his underclassman undergraduate status. I'm not referring to the video, nor taking issue with Russianoff's approach here trying to get the student to think musically.
My statement fully allows for situations where it's okay to not play to the auditioner's (or composer's or editor's or whoever's) interpretation.
And your retort:
"Sure, but Russianoff is teaching a student, not prepping someone for an audition."
Yeah, I get that. What you don't seem to get is that I get that.
You've taken the time to (think you are) correcting me on two things my statements fully accounted for.....
but I'm the pedantic one. Yeah.
Post Edited (2024-06-30 17:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-06-30 17:41
“Then I say, also accurately:
"there are cases where an auditioner would be wise to play (as if) markings similar to those used by artists sitting at the judge's table..."
Ok…this brings to mind a couple of questions:
1. Could you please relate to us those “cases”?
2. How could (or would) you have any idea what those “markings…used by artists” might be and what they were looking for in a player might be? How would those auditioning know?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-06-30 19:02
lmliberson wrote:
>
>
> “Then I say, also accurately:
>
> "there are cases where an auditioner would be wise to play (as
> if) markings similar to those used by artists sitting at the
> judge's table..."
>
> Ok…this brings to mind a couple of questions:
>
> 1. Could you please relate to us those “cases”?
> 2. How could (or would) you have any idea what those
> “markings…used by artists” might be and what they were
> looking for in a player might be? How would those auditioning
> know?
For example, when Drucker retired and sat on the audition committee for his replacement in the NY Philharmonic, given the fact that there was recordings of him performing many works, (in addition to versions of works he edited) if an auditioner was asked to play an except for such a work they might be wise to know how Drucker played it and play it similarly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2024-07-01 09:20
And yet... the NY Phil job has been offered to several players and accepted by one who don't/doesn't really play much like Drucker at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-07-01 14:42
"For example, when Drucker retired and sat on the audition committee for his replacement in the NY Philharmonic, given the fact that there was recordings of him performing many works, (in addition to versions of works he edited) if an auditioner was asked to play an except for such a work they might be wise to know how Drucker played it and play it similarly."
And what do you base this on?
While I wouldn't presume to know what every orchestra's audition procedures might be, the norm is that when one decides to leave an orchestra (through retirement, moving to another job, or non-renewal, for example), they have absolutely no role on an audition committee for the position they are vacating. In fact, they are generally forbidden from serving on such committees. Most orchestras have this written in their collective bargaining agreements. The New York Phil just happens to be one of those with contract language that states this very clearly. So, my question to you is how do you "know" if Stanley actually sat on an audition committee that chose the person who assumed his former chair?
Actually, when a player decides to leave an orchestra, they shouldn't participate in ANY audition committee. Only those who will be in the orchestra should be on committees to choose their future colleagues (and, of course, final decisions are made by the music directors).
Furthermore, sections evolve over time and the one thing we can agree on (or should) is that a lot has changed over the several decades that Stanley was in the orchestra in regards to personnel, conductors, and expectations and desires as to what other musicians in the orchestra (i.e., the various members of the orchestra who are seated on any given audition committee) are looking for in a player for that position. To say that because of recordings and editions and whatever else you think is (or should be?) part of the equation that someone should play those same parts similarly is, frankly, an example of idiocy. If a person goes from audition to audition attempting to imitate each and every person they hope to succeed in any given position, all that does is tell us that this person auditioning has absolutely no musical personality whatsoever.
I can't imagine that any audition committee is searching for a clone of a departing colleague and I highly doubt that those who might have sat on the committee to fill Stanley's position did either - the goal (as is the goal of every audition committee, btw) is to find the best qualified musician that fits their particular situation.
Stanley Drucker was a singular talent and personality in the New York Phil and, while in the orchestra, was a living legend. But he left the orchestra and his former position was filled by another incredible talent and musician in Anthony - and as Donald just mentioned, he hardly evokes Stanley's playing.
Please don't make things up - especially things of which you really have no idea.
Post Edited (2024-07-01 17:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2024-07-01 16:19
Thanks Mr Liberson, well said.
My experience has not ever included being on an audition panel, but I once was in the Green room and overheard the principal winds discussing another player. The 2nd Oboe was on trial for Principal (in an orchestra that gives quite long trials- often up to 6 months of "trial period" before another period of "probation"). What was being discussed was not technique or rhythm or intonation, but the Oboists ability to "match my phrasing" and "shape phrases with the section". This was a very fine player trained in the top US schools, she could do everything perfectly but the Principal clarinet didn't feel that she could shape phrases with him.
This has led me to think about things over the years, and while I have both some cynical thoughts on the topic I also think that the section is quite within their rights to be looking for someone who they can rely on when it comes to "musical instinct". There is a time and place for music making to be an adventure, but most often these players want a level of confidence that they can anticipate another players decisions.
There's also the story of the 2nd clarinet who totally brown-nosed the Principal of a "better" orchestra he wanted to play in... he mimicked that guys playing style etc got to do a lot of subbing whenever he could get leave... then the moment the Principal left he was OUT. His efforts were so transparent that no one actually considered him anything other than the former Principal's "gimp". He's still where he was before he turned his playing upside down to flatter the other guy.
Just some relevant anecdotes.... no names...
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-07-01 18:27
Lawrence:
I had heard from multiple sources that Drucker was part of the committee that sought his replacement. I'll try to find them, much that even if I do so it still opens the door to the idea that orchestras don't, or perhaps shouldn't hire the closest carbon copy of their retiree.
It shocks me that you believe I've made things up because nothing in your response says to the contrary, just what you presume and hope for.
The fact that the person who took over does or doesn't play with similar style, the fact that orchestras evolve...let me try to explain this another way.
Regardless of where and what you are auditioning for, whether its a professional orchestra seat, conservatory placement, or first chair in a community band, if someone in a position to decide your fate has samples of them playing or even conducting works you'll be tested on, you would be wise--based on human nature and egos--to play in ways that are--if not carbon copies--closer to those interpretations than father.
Donald
That in "the ends justify the means" logic of McGill not playing like Drucker and still getting the chair I would respond that many factors land a player a job, and that while the better player might win over the inferior one despite someone at the auditioner's table preferring the inferior player's interpretation, if not abilities, the real world competition for such slots is an intense battle among virtuosi, where human nature is statistically more likely to advance the player whose style more closely resembles that of a playing judges--if in fact samples of such things are available.
~~~~~~~~
If auditioners want to buck human nature--do things their own way: they should be my guest. All things equal--and often they are not--I contend that playing the classic excerpt repetoire closer than father to how auditioners like it, or have performed it, or have been part of a performance of it on another instrument--assuming such data is available-- is more likely than not, a path of less resisitance.
Post Edited (2024-07-01 18:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-07-01 18:45
Wait..an example...so people will have something to debate me over...
https://youtu.be/Bd00AxPPmxw?si=kaDjAQbd7qYtx8Yw
My contentions:
* Ms. Sarmiento, the player, has forgotten more about this piece than Benjamin Zander knows. Maybe not.
* I think it is nothing short of the stuff of which comedy is made that Zander waves his arms as if doing so is changing the way Sarmiento is playing.
And yet, if I were auditioning for Zander I'd closely watch this and put all the flourishes into the work at points his arms wave most because that approach comports with the human nature tendency for those at the audition judges table to favor those with interpretations that are consistent with what they like and expect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-07-01 19:39
Well, I have no idea if Stanley sat on the committee or not. Should you have anything to confirm that, fine. What I said is that it is highly irregular these days to see anyone in a position to have a say in appointing their successor. And if he did sit on the committee - well, the player who was chosen was quite different!
Interpretations vary from not only one player to the next but one playing to the next - and from the same player! Imitation is not always the most flattering.
I remember attending a master class back in the dark ages given by one of the most revered orchestral clarinetists of their time. After hearing a class participant mimic exactly what the teacher had done on a recording, no less, he pulled the music off the stand and reamed him out from top to bottom. I guess he was not flattered.🤷🏻♂️
Music making - interpretation - is fluid, is not formulaic, is not paint-by-numbers. While everyone has their own ideas and practices them accordingly, what one does in a performance situation (and an audition is a performance) also demands flexibility, spontanaeity, and the necessary give-and-take between colleagues.
If everyone came to an audition with similar, Stepford wife-like approaches to the music because that's how it had been done, etc., it would make for a very long and tedious day of listening. A committee does not sit down with expectations that they will hear what others think they want to hear nor should a candidate fall under that pretense. One needs to make music their way and let the chips fall as they may.
I can only speak of my own experiences - and every audition I've ever listened to resulted in a different type of player than was there before. Not a lesser or better player, necessarily, but a different player. They provided the committee with whatever they were collectively looking for at the time, I guess. And all these players have continued in highly successful careers.
Perhaps you prefer the cookie-cutter approach, perhaps not. But keep in mind that you don't know what a listener wants. Music is a living entity. It changes, it evolves. How dull if it always sounded exactly the same!
There's a story which I can only paraphrase that took place decades and decades ago. My apologies if I don't have all the details spot on:
When the great, long-time Chicago Symphony Orchestra oboist Ray Still arrived there from his previous position in the Baltimore Symphony, he soon found Rossini's Ls Scala di Seta on his stand, a piece with a monster oboe solo. They played it through and then Fritz Reiner asked him to do the solo somewhat differently. So they did it again. He played it exactly the same way! Reiner then repeated his request and, apparently, it was played the same way yet again at which point Reiner was losing his patience with his new oboist. In response, Still exclaimed "but that's how I played it in Baltimore!"
You could hear a pin drop as Reiner laid his baton on his stand and glared around at the orchestra - his orchestra. "He said he played it that way in Baltimore. Who did you play with, Mr. Still? The Orioles?"
I bet that Ray Still adapted as his tenure lasted a very long time!
There are different ways to skin a cat and different ways to turn a phrase. Be a musician, not a copycat - skinned or not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-07-01 19:53
Donald,
Lol, don't you see, he wrote: Quote:
...If an auditioner was asked to play an except for such a work they might be wise to know how Drucker played it and play it similarly.
Everything's been qualified and hedged so that he can't be wrong: the law of noncontradiction doesn't apply. (Aristotle said engaging with this sort of thing is like trying to have a discussion with a potted plant...)
His shtick reminds me of a poster back in the day named WhitePlainsDave (I think it was Dave: could be misremembering). He would post pedantic walls of text that read like a high school debate team word salad: "In point of fact, when one examines the case from the contrary point of view, so as not to ignore several important features, one finds that one might, though one might not, too, it must be said, in some instances prefer double-lip embouchure." Everything was so qualified that the writing didn't say anything--no claim could be pinned down--and everything, then, could be debated from an invulnerable position simply for the sake of winning debates (and perhaps also to cover up that he didn't know what he's talking about.)
At any rate, not saying SecondTry is WhitePlainsDave, but the writing is very similar.
Post Edited (2024-07-02 11:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-07-01 20:01
"Everything's been qualified and hedged so that the he can't be wrong..."
Yes, brycon - but it doesn't mean he's right, either!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-07-01 20:18
Brycon:
I 'qualify and hedge' because there are rarely absolutes here, only guidelines, and for me to make absolutes regarding auditions would be wrong; not so I "can't be wrong."
Rather than offering color commentary to such comments you chose pedantic dissent to that you now admit wasn't wrong, then accuse me of being pendantic. Then you claim to "hold back from [further] responding," only to respond.
Still more, in my last post with link I stated concrete, even controversial opinion. So if you're looking to dissend, here's your chance.
Larry:
You can claim all you want that the different styles of replacement players are testament to the idea that playing like their replacements: even going so far as an anecdote where a teacher fumed at being mimicked.
I take no issue with the idea that players aren't and shouldn't be carbon copies of their predecessor. What I claim, to reiterate, and this pertains to situations far beyond music, is that the practical thing to do in life--even if it shouldn't be the case--is, if it's possible, to "study for a test" and give back to the marker of said test the answers you've heard them expound--if such data is available.
This is the path of least resistance to success, not a guaratee of same, or a guarantee that such approach is optimal in all cases or won't even backfire. It is just the path statistically of less resisitance to deviate less rather than more from that those marking you do.
And it is also entirely possible that how an auditioner performs at an audition, wise to heed this advise, and once securing that position, how they deviate from that somewhat to serve their own artistic expression may be two different things.
This doesn't preclude the ocassional individual in a subordinate position challenging their (extremely open minded) superior and being recognized. This doesn't preclude the habitual "yes man" from never being advanced because they never had an independent thought.
It's just a numbers game that I didnt invent.
Post Edited (2024-07-01 20:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-07-01 21:30
Quote:
"Everything's been qualified and hedged so that the he can't be wrong..."
Yes, brycon - but it doesn't mean he's right, either!
Yep. Clearly, he's someone with very little or no experience taking auditions, high-level preprofessional education, etc. A BS-er. Don't feed the Dunning-Kruger troll!
By the way, Larry, we met over Zoom in 2021 or 22, when you were giving a class at Interlochen. Hope your retirement from the DSO is going well!
Bryan
Post Edited (2024-07-01 21:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-07-01 21:45
Ahhh, that Bryan!
Thank you - life is different now, for sure: I no longer take my instruments with me when traveling and my priorities have changed somewhat, such as turning down a very nice chamber music gig so I could attend my grandson's 5th Grade graduation ceremony.
But I still practice and still love to play the clarinet - even though it doesn't always love me back! 🙄😂
Take care and be well. I enjoy your posts - especially the ones I understand! 😉
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-07-01 22:55
brycon wrote:
> Quote:
"Everything's been qualified and hedged so that the he
> can't be wrong..."
>
> Yes, brycon - but it doesn't mean he's right, either!
>
> Yep. Clearly, he's someone with very little or no experience
> taking auditions, high-level preprofessional education, etc. A
> BS-er. Don't feed the Dunning-Kruger troll!
>
> By the way, Larry, we met over Zoom in 2021 or 22, when you
> were giving a class at Interlochen. Hope your retirement from
> the DSO is going well!
>
> Bryan
>
>
> Post Edited (2024-07-01 21:33)
Rule #2 on this board Brycon:
"No ad hominem attacks (discuss the question/answer, not the person."
* You take dissent with statements that you subsequently admit are generalities that can't be wrong, written that way because I am citing best practices, not hard and fast rules (not because I'm avoiding being wrong) and then
* accuse me of being pedantic,
* claiming to bow out of this discussion, but then make a reemmergence to say that because you think that I've never taken an audition etc. that I can't know what's best: that I am surely inexperienced.
Russianoff, who I studied with, placed many a player in professional roles. I can attest to his (I believe smart) belief for students to know as best as possible the preferences of those at the audition table; that and get an music education degree as a backup.
Still more, to deliberately not play closer than further from the desired interpretations of a panel of judges---when known--simply defies human logic and the laws of probability.
I think that you're upset at dissenting to that which wasn't absolute, and getting called out for it, so you've tried to transfer your pedanticism on to me, and label me as inexperienced when all I've done is cite basic rules of human nature.
You seem to want debate. I'll give you a topic. Tell me Zander knows more than Sarmiento in my previously linked video.
You seem unhappy if I don't take a hard position that you can disagree with as well as unhappy when I hedge rules of thumb that are simply more wrong than right; not always right.
Please fight with and disparage ideally nobody, but at least someone other than me. Thanks.
And Larry, the issue here is not whether I'm right. There will in fact be times when my advise doesn't work, worse backfires, as I've already conceeded. Welcome to the world of best practices, not hard and fast rules.
The issue is whether this advise is likely to be more often right than wrong. I believe it is.
Post Edited (2024-07-01 23:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2024-07-01 23:32
Quote:
I enjoy and benefit from brycon's posts on this forum.
Thanks!
If SecondTry is who I suspect he is, unfortunately, he ran some people off the bboard with this exact same stuff. Anyone with experience as a professional musician, Larry, for instance, can easily see through it. It stinks, though, that it can scare off participants.
Quote:
But I still practice and still love to play the clarinet - even though it doesn't always love me back!
I'm with you there!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-07-01 23:43
Mr. Try:
I'm still trying to figure out how one would know what the preferences at the (so-called) audition table (btw, we've always sat in the hall, sans tables) might be since how would one know who exactly would be sitting at said table? Personnel changes occur from year to year and certainly those who may have played on a recording that one was allegedly using for reference, for example, five years ago may no longer be in the orchestra - or even alive. Ergo, it's a fool's errand to try to predict what those behind the screen are listening for.
What people listen for and what people appreciate and prefer is subjective. Sure, the basic fundamentals of pitch and rhythm are non-negotiable. You don't play in tune, you don't play in rhythm, you're gone. Go home.
However, you have anywhere from four to fourteen individuals on a committee, each who have their own ideas as to what constitutes an acceptable candidate. It's not like the committee meets ahead and goes through a laundry list of tonal preference, phrasing, etc. (the only list we look at is the lunch menu!). To me, the "basic rules of human nature" are that we're all different and we often think differently. That's why committees vote - they rarely agree 100%. I may really like the way someone plays yet a colleague may strongly feel that this is the worst playing they've heard all day! There is no "desired interpretation", per se. Sure, there are "wrong" ways to play something - but otherwise there's a whole sea of possibilities. Understand that rigidity - the alleged "company line" - does not always bring out the best in a musician.
Human logic and the laws of probability don't apply to the audition procedure. It's not like taking the LSAT, after all. Most often it boils down to the intangibles - does this particular musician move me, are they doing something special, would I pay to hear this person?
And, to further clarify, I'm speaking of professional major orchestral auditions - not the local community band or anything else, for that matter.
Obviously, your experience (or lack thereof?) differs from mine. But I've been there, on both sides of the curtain. I have the "luxury" of actually knowing what goes on and have known so for the better part of fifty years. Can you say the same?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-07-01 23:56
Lawrence:
Perhaps I can state this in even more general terms, fearing it fuels Brycon's claim that I fail to take a position:
In life, including professional orchestral auditions, the more 411 you can have on a judge's preferences, acknowledging the reality that you may not know beforehand at times who those judges are, or if known, what their opinions on how they think a work should be played is, the better chance you stand to meet their favor if you operate closer than further from that metric.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2024-07-02 16:49
Well, I would go as far as saying that I can see some agreement in the life category. Of course, that’s unless you’re dealing with a contrarian - or a disrupter? - on the other end.
The “professional orchestral auditions” part? Well, possibly yes - but only if you’re a psychic.
Hell, I’ve sat on dozens and dozens of audition committees without having the faintest idea of what my colleagues are thinking. Perhaps that’s why we employ secret ballots, maybe? Nobody wants to give themselves away……
We can argue whether using committees (or subcommittees?😱) in auditions is more efficient or possibly preferable to some other method but why continue all the verbal diarrhea, eh? (that was my belated salute to Canada Day!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-07-02 18:11
I've fully agreed that performances which more closely resemble in style those of people at the judges table might not only not grant favor but backfire.
To reiterate, I contend though that in the laws of large numbers (statistics) giving people what they want to hear, (when such 411 is available) whether it's music[ical performance], in court arguments, or something in between, is likely to gain favor more times than not, the closer not farther said expressions resemble the mindset of the examiner.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
