 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Jeff
Date: 2002-08-14 16:34
I'd like to pose my dilemma to the group to see if you have any thoughts about my course of instruction. I took up clarinet a little over two years ago (at age 47) because I wanted to play dixieland jazz. I've been playing 5 string banjo for over 30 years now (including about 20 years worth of playing in bluegrass bands), and I had always played by ear. When I first started, my instructor (a Peabody trained, very proficient clarinetist) made me learn to read music. Indeed he would never (and still won't) play an exercise or lesson so I can hear it and repeat it. He makes me read it. That had been a source of fighting for a bit, but I gave in and it unquestionably has been helpful becasue when I see sheet music, I can at least play the notes and get the sense of the tune or melody. Sometimes, I will program the lesson into Finale and play it on the computer if I just can't figure out the timing, but I'm getting better at reading.
In any event, in the two years, I have finished two volumes of the Tune-a-day lesson books and the Intermediate Rubank book. We are now on Volume 1 of the Rubank Advanced. My dilemma is that what I really want to do is improvisational swing/dixieland jazz. I really don't ever want to be a classical clarinetist in a symphony or an orchestra, or even play in a community band where everyone has a set part. I realize that learning to read has been helpful to some extent, but I think I can get around the horn proficiently enough to stop with the classical training. At least that's what I think, and that's the beginning of the dilemma.
No, I can't peel of scales or thirds or chords in each key on demand without figuring them out on the fly, but I think that if I know a melody, I can find it on the clarinet and play it. What I really want is to learn the art of jazz improv and how to construct solo breaks, noodles in the background, etc.
The dilemma is that I don't know if it is time for me to stop the instruction I'm getting and find a jazz teacher (what instrument he or she plays would probably be irrelevant) who can help me learn to construct and play what I want to play (and to get the fun and satisfaction I took up the instrument to get) or whether I should continue through this and then Volume 2 of the Rubank Advanced before moving on. The dilemma involves my interest level which is getting harder and harder to maintain as I am able to pick out and play virtually any melody I want, but then can't figure out what to do after that. My instructor says it's ok to "play my stuff" after I work on the weekly lesson. But he simply says that constructing the stuff I want to play involves thirds, chords, arpeggios, scales, etc. and I need to be automatic with them before I will be able to just "play". Maybe that's true, but I sense that a baptism by fire wouldn't hurt either.
I realize that formal training in "legitimate music" can only be helpful, but the crossroads I'm finding myelf at is figuring out how to get the enjoyment I'm looking for and if the path requires me to plod another year and half or so through the classical (read: traditional) training in order to get there, or whether I can or should branch off now into a focused learning of the jazz genre.
I am the type of student who never shows up unprepared (part of that, for you younger players is that I am obviously paying for my lessons myself so there is an additional motivation present not to waste my money), and who practices for hours a day. The problem is that I sense a frustration creeping in and I don't know if I am unrealistically seeking to run before I have learned to walk.
I know this was a long post, but I hope it gives you the sense of the issue for me. I would really appreciate hearing other people's thoughts and experiences in dealing with this kind of issue. Thanks.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-08-14 17:18
You're a man after me own heart, Jeff :]
In my opinion, Jazz = listen, listen, listen - imitate, imitate, imitate - invent, invent, invent. In that order.
When I hear Bluegrass (love it:) I hear a lot of inventing. Most Bluegrass and Country and Klezmer and, and, and... all other musicians I know - have, each and every one, studied music to some degree or another. You *have* to know (some) basics whether you learn it by reading sheet music well - or just sorta - or [almost] not at all(by ear is acceptable).
Of course formal training won't hurt you (or anybody else) but you'll know soon enough if you've gotten as far as you want to go with it. Try branching off for a while - then come back to it if/when you feel the need (book learning is not easily forgotten by the way). Everyone needs variety, so maybe you're at that point. It won't hurt to take an exploratory detour.
Do you have opportunities to get together with other musicians 'just for fun'? Is there a 'Jazz Society' in your geographical area? Have you asked around, where do musicians gather just to have fun? Most of us have been at The Crossroads. Sometimes you just need to take a different path for a while to see where it leads. Very likely, following your heart's desire will lead you right where you want to be.
- ron b -
(who has played a good bit of Traditional Jazz and 'Country' in his time
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2002-08-14 17:23
It is very important, no matter what you want to do with music, to have a complete command of the instrument. This will enable you to have it under your fingers and be able to automatically play those changes and figures because you know the instrument and the vocabulary. It may be worth it to start exploring more jazz, but I would not discount obtaining a complete training on the instrument. Many of our greatest jazz players had a strong training in this area. Maybe you can find a teacher who does both an that can satisfy those cravings, or take some additional lessons on the side with a jazz player to cover that theory. Good luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mitch A
Date: 2002-08-14 21:01
Find a jazz player to work with - preferably someone who plays a 'bass-part' instrument so you can hear and "Play the Changes" such as upright bass, piano or tenor sax (or tuba even).
You might also check out some play-alongs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler
Date: 2002-08-14 21:12
Purchase some of the Jamey Abersold series. Also, the Jerry Coker (<i>Patterns for Jazz</i>)book for patterns. The latter doesn't come with a CD, but will give you a good start on patterns.
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lindsey
Date: 2002-08-14 23:02
I am a "classical" clarinetist and have been for about the past 8 years. I always went to lessons and it seems you know how repetitive that can be too. Anyway, last year, just for fun i joined a jazz ensemble where i played clarinet, and for the first time, sax. I know how to read music but I don't know most of the fingerings for sax so I mostly played it by ear. When I played clarinet my music came out very metronomical and not jazzy. However, when I played sax I wasn't concerned with the music or
counting so the notes just flowed with so much feeling and passion. Don't get me wrong, I think it is very important to learn to read music, but if all you want to do is play jazz and you can really feel the music I say quit the lessons and at most get a theory book or something and just learn the types of chords that are common to jazz music and practice a few improves using sequences of those notes to whatever rhythm you want.
Good luck and happy playing.
Lindsey
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-08-15 00:06
Being a totally non-jazz performer - do jazz players read off charts? Or is the whole "thing" improvisional? Curious
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2002-08-15 00:21
I think that there is a bit of a lack of communications between you and your teacher. No one can play bluegrass for 30 years and in combo's for 20 without "mentally inhaling" many cord structures and basic theory. You may not know you have to call it that by that name, but it is stuck in your memory bank so that when you hear it the response that5 comes from you , through your instrument, is automatic.
Your instructor is trying to get you to appreciate what you already know, and may not know you know, but in a more academic manner. He believes that in time it will be easier for you. Natually he will not play it for you, because he recognizes your capability to repeat it for him--but that did not fill his square, and you may not have learned why you learned what you did. Am I making sense?
Besides, somebody on this, or some other board, said that if you could get a guitar play to put a capo one his firat fret then you would be able to play all chords he comes up with. Don't know if that is true, but it sounds like an interesting experiment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-08-15 02:19
Strangely enough, I think almost all of the above may be very good advice. There is no question in my mind that as you learn to play Clarinet better, you will be able to play jazz Clarinet better. When I was 18, I stopped my "conventional" training, figuring I knew enough to do what I wanted. Big mistake. I never got any better. Hey, I was really pretty good, and many people who knew what they were talking about compared me favorably to Pete Fountain. But I quit playing entirely seven years later (1962), and nowadays I am marginally hopeless.
So play jazz. My opinion is that the best way to play jazz is just to start playing it. I like the exercises in the Buddy deFranco Mel Bay book, because they are at a level of difficulty of Baermann or Klose, yet they are oriented toward playing jazz. Whole-tone scales, minor and relative major exercises, the usual arpeggios but with seventh and extended chords, and modal exercises (deFranco says he doesn't use modal techniques in playing, but adds they are valuable for study).
By all means, play traditional jazz or dixieland with a group, small or large. I believe this to be the best way to learn jazz. Play it. And always listen to the music you like every chance you get. I am not one to suggest imitation, but rather to get your own ideas developed from listening to others, and when you play, let yourself come out.
diz, the "Red Nichols and the Five Pennies" group had every note charted by Red himself. He employed some of the very best jazz players of the time, but the improvisation was all done in his own head. He thought a consistent sound was very important. I know of no other popular traditional group that ever used this technique. Back in bygone days, the group I played with (The Frantic Five, and please don't be embarrassed if you never heard of it) never looked at a sheet of music. The melodies, harmonies, solos ("rides"), and everything else just came out. There are "rules" about how to do it, regarding the sequencing of who does what and when, but this should not be difficult to pick up by listening. You'll learn it better as you play.
My suggestion: to learn jazz, listen to jazz, practice jazz-supporting techniques (for example, can you slide from D5 to Eb5 and make it sound as if your Clarinet is shedding tears?), and continue your conventional studies. Those *will* make you a better jazz Clarinet player, because they will make you a better Clarinet player.
The opinions expressed here probably aren't even mine, because if they really were and I had any brains, I'd be doing these things. I seem to be too lazy or otherwise occupied to bother. Hope you can do it, though. It might be an occasional pain in the neck, but I suggest that in the long run, you will not be displeased.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-08-15 02:27
hmm, jazz to me - sounds as difficult as learning to play a figured bass intuitively - I takes me hat off to any musician who can do either with facility.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2002-08-15 04:39
I don't improvise, but I can play quite well "by ear." I've never understood how or why I came by this ability (I'm a classically trained player and singer and normally play or sing from a written page.) To me, the scales and chords that Rubank advanced I & II will put into your fingers and ear will only help you (and will likely be as far as you need to go in those studies.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jeff Forman
Date: 2002-08-15 10:04
I want to thank everyone who responded to my post for their thoughtful answers. A large perecntage of the posts on this board deal with classical music issues and training, and I wasn't sure that my question would elicit the level of responses that it has.
The consensus seems to be that to learn dixieland/jazz clarinet you have to do two things. Learn the clarinet and then listen, listen listen to the dixieland/jazz music that you want to someday play. What makes it so frustrating, though is that when you are already a musician trying to learn a new instrument, your ear knows what it wants to hear, but your brain and fingers don't know how to get there automatically.
I can tell you that the biggest difference between playing stringed instruments such as guitar, banjo and mandolin, and playing single note instruments such as clarinet, sax, trumpet, etc. is that with stringed instruments, you think in terms of chords and "chord noise" whereas in single note instruments, you have to think melody line. I understand that there are chords and chord progressions at work in jazz, even on the single note instruments, but they are all suggested by the string of notes you play, whereas you can strum a chord pattern on the stringed instruments without necessarily knowing the individual note components. Bob Arney is right that I do know chord structures an basic theory. But I know them from the perspective of selecting chord patterns not selectng notes. So while my ear knows what tension/resolve it wants to hear, my brain and fingers don't know what they are and how to get them. An intersting side note is that since I started learning to play the clarinet, my banjo playing has become much more melodic as my thinking is becoming more linear and I am instinctively looking for melody lines more than I used to.
I'm going to re-read these replies a few dozen times before I decide whether to ditch the current teacher because half of you have suggested that his insistence on learning the clarinet holds the key to the kingdom, while the other half say that once you have a basic level of proficiency, get the rest by osmosis and just doing it (to paraphrase NIKE commercials). The answer may lie somewhere in between - such as Ed's suggestion to just take some jazz lessons of the side.
Thanks again, and if anyone else has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-08-15 13:39
'Easy Jazz Conception for Clarinet' with Dan Block.
From Advance music, #14765
If these are rudimentary exercises at your level try;
Ken Peplowski on 'Jazz Conception for Clarinet' #14725.
These come with a CD.
The charts refer to CD tracks with, and without the solo instrument.
I think the reading is essential, if you want to run through charts.
If you can already think in chords, the charts also show those.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kat
Date: 2002-08-16 15:54
Seems to me that you already can read. I think also that if you need to work on more technical issues in different keys, you are self-motivated enough to do so. I suspect you have a good enough "command" of clarinet technique to move on to a jazz teacher.
I teach mostly kids, but have two adult students, one on clarinet and one on flute. The clarinetist just wants to play. She's expressed no specific intent to pursue any specific genre of music. The flutist wants to play jazz. I don't play jazz, nor can I teach it, but he's a rank beginner, so we work out okay together. I've insisted he learn to read at least a little so that he can look at a chart and pick out the tune if nobody else is there to play it for him. After he gets to a level of moderate technical proficiency, I'll probably refer him to a jazz teacher. He's also been listening to a lot of jazz.
The Aebersold book/cd packages were recommended above. If I had time to learn jazz, I'd use those. Balkan music right now is consuming all of my time...but that also does present a parallel. I have studied clarinet pretty intensively (B.M. and M.M.) and that has only helped in the Balkan stuff. However, there are musicians who haven't progressed to those levels who are at about the same place, too...so it really depends on your motivation to learn the style, IMHO.
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sandra F. H.
Date: 2002-08-17 01:59
I vote for Abersold. Also, find someone who can write out some jazz and blues scales for you to practice. You current teacher could even help you with proficiency in fingerings for these scales if you need help. It's a good way to start.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-08-19 14:30
I feel there re some really amazing things said above and my thought are an extension of this somewhat. In order to play music one must learn the instrument, and that means using technique to further our own individual voice. In spitre of the pain of learning certain things, a good teacher introduces material and ideas at moments in time for the benefit of the student. When a studnet finsihshes something well and then goes on to new things, this is accomphishment and should be lauded.
The downfall of not working on one's technique is then basic fundamental concepts slip into a vacuum. soon the player loses momentum and then interest--I call this the slippery slope. so no matter how low things get, ideas and concepts take time to learn, and with this we evolve and improve not just mentally but musically. Learning is just as much about ourselves and meeting goals and difficulties head on than worrying about where we think we should be.
Be open with your teacher, normally they will be very responsive and want to hear what you want as a stundet. Close off and the teacher will too lose interest...I think dialogue about goals and why we work on things is positive. Remember--- to have mountains there must be valleys.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
