 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2020-07-28 22:05
In reading the question about tonguing on the bboard today, and in reading the responses from Karl and Tony, I began thinking about musical concepts vs musical methodology. (This type of provocation of thought is why I love the bboard so much.)
As a jazz player, I feel that the musical concept is superior to the technical methodology used to bring that concept to fruition. Meaning: I am free to do whatever I want (technically) in order to achieve the musical concept. I can tongue how I want, I can finger how I want, I can slide/not slide as I want, I can use vibrato, not use vibrato, use vibrato from my diaphram, throat, or jaw, etc. all based on the musical concept in my mind; and how best to achieve it. There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" way to do it, as long as it correctly produces the sound I wanted it to.
What this makes me realize is...that in a much narrower scope, this is also true with classical music, isn't it?
I mean, I understand that there are reasons to do certain things a certain way for various reasons (many having to do with habits and training for other applications of similar principles), but - given technical proficiency has been reached, does the classical player utilize a similar freedom of concept over technicality? Is this where true expression comes from in the classical player's world? Sort of the "purposeful" breaking with what a person has been trained to do?
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2020-07-29 08:43
Good post. I sort of agree. Musical concept is paramount. By "technical methodology" I figure you basically mean technique. I am not a top player, but can do most of it all really well. You have to be a technical whiz in all aspects and also know what you want to do musically. I don't think one or the other is more important.
I used to tell the HS jazz band I taught that it's the same as concert band, the only exception being if it's a swing piece you swing the eigth notes. You count the same. All rules the same. Improv, that's a different story, and one I only "play at".
But you still need the chops.
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: brycon
Date: 2020-07-29 20:12
Quote:
I mean, I understand that there are reasons to do certain things a certain way for various reasons (many having to do with habits and training for other applications of similar principles), but - given technical proficiency has been reached, does the classical player utilize a similar freedom of concept over technicality? Is this where true expression comes from in the classical player's world? Sort of the "purposeful" breaking with what a person has been trained to do?
I don't really think about it in terms of "okay, I've reached a certain state of proficiency, time to make music." I can see where that sort of thinking might be good with younger or less experienced players. (If you were teaching a beginning clarinet class, for instance, issues of time and skill would probably hem you in to teaching "proper" technique.) But I think it can also be detrimental to players.
For one, we never really reach the finish line of technical proficiency. Great players still work on their intonation, matching of timbre, flexibility, etc. If you wait to start thinking about expression, you could be waiting for an awfully long time.
Moreover, deep thinking about expression leads to technical improvement. With my own students, I find that having them sing through phrases, think about voice-leading, hear harmonic motions, etc. fixes many of their technical problems.
And although every student is different and responds to different approaches, here in the U.S., music education has often worked the other way around. That is, teachers gave their students abstract exercises to tongue "correctly" (usually passed down from famous teachers, such as Bonade, without much thought about the nuances of Bonade's own teaching). And when these skills were mastered, students could move on to etudes and then to repertoire. The problem here, however, is that the art music repertoire is immensely more nuanced and complex than any set of abstract technical exercises. If you learn how to tongue correctly using one of any number of the Bboard's typical suggestions (e.g. tip of the tongue does x, air does y, etc.), could you do the same exact thing for music as different as Mozart and Stravinsky? What about a more introspective part of Mozart vs a more outgoing part? Or what about playing with the bassoonist in the piano quintet vs the pianist? You get the idea, I'm sure.
In the sports world, people call these different approaches "skills training" versus "in-game" or "game-like" training. And I think most competent sports trainers, like most competent music teachers, try to find a balance between the two. And obviously, there is a good deal of interpenetration. When I discovered I could use my tongue to dampen the reed in order to achieve a sort of wind-instrument pizzicato, for example I quickly developed an exercise to hone the new skill. (Jazz saxophonists, by the way, have used this technique forever; they call it "dood-n tonguing.")
Unfortunately, many players and teachers are entirely skills-based. Perhaps in the U.S., it has something to do with the way Europeans immigrants at the beginning of the 20th century had to teach people with no musical background. I've heard from oboe-playing friends that Tabuteau's "system" was designed with this problem in mind. But, to me at least, it seems as though there's cause for optimism. The stuff I read here now seems very much outdated as far as American clarinet pedagogy goes. And as Bonade recedes further into history (my own students recognize him only through the ligature), teachers are able to take the best parts and ditch the rest.
Post Edited (2020-07-29 20:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2020-07-30 00:31
Fuzzy wrote:
> but - given technical proficiency has been
> reached, does the classical player utilize a similar freedom of
> concept over technicality? Is this where true expression comes
> from in the classical player's world? Sort of the "purposeful"
> breaking with what a person has been trained to do?
>
I don't think there's any question that for the high level artist technical development and attention to textual detail are used *in the service* of musical expression. The interpretation of notation and the ways players are trained to produce results (technique) are both grounded in what historically has been found to support controlled and refined playing so that awkwardness and lack of control don't call attention to themselves or interfere with achieving expressive goals.
That said, there are jazz musicians who, when they improvise, do little more than "play the changes" and there are jazz musicians who produce inspiring music using the chord progressions as a framework. In the same way "classical" players can simply play the written text or use well controlled technique as a vehicle to try to draw expressive meaning from the music.
The problem for the classical musician, more than for the jazz player, is that the roles of creator, performer and listener in classical music are typically much more discreetly separate than they are in jazz. For much of jazz performance the creator and performer are literally the same person. Even when the performer is working with a pre-composed tune, tradition allows him almost free reign over what he can do with (or to) it. The classical performer, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries, is rarely the composer and is limited by tradition to a much closer fidelity to what the original composer wrote.
So, the latitude of the "freedom of concept over technicality" allowed the classical musician **by tradition** is much more narrow than it is for jazz performers. But if the classical performer fails to realize a meaningful concept beyond the technical demands of the composer's script, the performance is generally criticized as empty and the playing as pedestrian.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2020-07-30 17:37
As a classicial player that grew up during the swing era, I took up the clarinet because I wanted to play like Benny Goodman after all, my views of interpretation are this. A classicial player uses someone elses notes and map, dynamics, tempo, articulations, etc. for the vast majority of music we play. A jazz player improvisers often using someone elses idea but than adds their own ideas. I don't mean to be simplistic, I don't play jazz. I don't listen to much jazz but when I have I often don't even recognize the "tune" that the player is imporvising off of at some point. I can't say that about any performance of a classical work. A Brahms Sonata always sounds like a Brahms Sonata from the first note to the last note no matter who's performing it. Tempo's may vary somewhat, musicianship and interpretations certainly vary, a few dynamics and perhaps even an articulation may vary but every note is still Brahms. I find one major difference with those performers that have phenomenal technique is that some of those often play some pieces much faster than others. I've often found that to be misguided but that's what we call interpratation. Some call it showing off. I've often told students I wish I could do that but I wouldn't.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2020-08-01 03:27
I think it helps to distinguish between several aspects of music. They aren’t all mutually exclusive, but I think most people could agree on these:
1. The technical approach to the instrument.
2. The artistic approach to the music.
And within the second:
A. The existing musical tradition.
B. A personal view (or expression) of the piece.
All are applicable to all kinds of music, even “avant garde”. The difference is how they apply.
For example, there are basically no rules whatsoever when it comes to Jazz tone production, but there is range of acceptable results. The rules of approach are situational (what you are playing and who you are playing with). Everyone knows these rules, some tunes seem ALWAYS to sound the same... Being “hip” is knowing the rules, and knowing when you are breaking them. You can be different and hip, but not too different. I wonder if dudes like Thelonious Monk or Roland Kirk could become popular today.
With classical the APPEARANCE and PERCEPTION is that everything is extraordinarily rigid and there is a “right” and “wrong” way to do everything, but it’s not as much as we think. Just spend some time listening to different recordings of the same piece. The music places more constraints on the performers (it says FFF or ppp), but there is still a lot of freedom. Directors or performers ignore markings, take different tempos, say (or fail to say) different things. Reading notation is more an art than a science. Some recordings from 50+ years ago now sound distinctly “old fashioned”. They were “correct” at the time.
The obvious difference is that a jazz musician is usually the “composer” (improvisor), while a classical musician is almost never the composer. Classical does require a different sort of attention on the part of the listener.
Listen to Bernstein’s famous remarks on Gould: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvWPM783TOE Gould was known for being eccentric, but IMO not quite the exception that proves the rule. Bernstein indicates that there are always important differences of opinion.
“Early Music” has a bit of both, complete with new “takes” on old things, but it too has developed it’s own set of rules (which are sometimes not so historical). It’s its own thing now. I love Gywydon Brooks Bassoon cadenza in his recording of Mozart’s Bb Bassoon concerto with Sir Thomas Beecham. No one could get away with that today, but it’s awesome. Today we might not have Gould and Schiff selling out records of Bach on PIANO (Gasp!). It wouldn’t hurt to have an opinionated, funny, blustery guy like Beecham around to liven things up.
Perhaps someone like Martin Frost is the antidote to “sleepy” classical music.
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2020-08-01 03:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2020-08-01 20:16
I’d like to add, following Brycon, that my education was almost entirely technique. That sort of rationalist-reductionist thinking pervades all schooling. The basic assumption was that everything was “cumulative” - that everything came in a particular rational order, and that you had to completely master one thing before attempting another.
For the most part this is just false. It’s simply not how you actually learn. If you observe yourself you will see something very different. Real learning is very disorganized and confused, and it’s not linear. It’s not “efficient”. It’s a process of moving here and there from confusion to clarity. You are always going forward and backward, learning something new and then reconsidering what you’ve already “done”. It’s seems extremely inefficient, time consuming, and difficult - but it’s also fun and engaging. Rationally this seems very “disorderly”, but by trial and error you will find that it’s the only way it actually happens. People are all different of course, but I think you will find that this is true.
Putting interpretation and meaning “after” technique is actually backward. You have to have a reason to woodshed. If you want to play a piece, but it’s too hard, you have a reason to go back and work on specific techniques, and by exercising them in context, you learn how to make them musical. Playing everything as an “exercise” is a misuse of art, and unmusical - it’s like forgetting what you are doing - making music. Students, as far as they are able, should always learn about interpretation, history, etc. The whole point is to play beautiful music.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
