 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-28 11:03
In another thread, there has been some discussion about Karl Leister's internet masterclass. I haven't been able to do more than listen to the audio of his remarks on the Schumann Fantasiestuecke as yet, but I doubt whether the rest of the class (when I get to hear it) will prove to be significantly different in the respect I want to highlight here.
It's very obvious to me that the clarinet playing world is divided into two classes. There are those who are interested in the music, and whose often very considerable efforts on the instrument are directed towards attaining the technical mastery required to give it its full expression.
For these players, the notion 'full expression' undergoes some sort of evolution along with their instrumental ability, of course; what a player thinks is wanted from a piece of music may very well change considerably over the course of their playing life. Nevertheless, what LIES BEHIND it all is the assumption that the instrument, and even in some sense they themselves, are vehicles of transmission of something else -- which, it is almost always very obvious, they value highly.
The other class of players comes at the endeavour from the other end. They think they are concerned to express THEMSELVES, because regardless of their own level of expertise, THEY think that that is what the best players DO.
They often talk about 'their' playing. They are interested in playing FOR ITS OWN SAKE, and are very often dogmatic about the 'correct' way to do something, derived from the teaching of someone whom they particularly favour as a player. They 'bad-mouth' players they think are technically defective, wilfully ignoring any positive qualities they may have. All this is what gives them their buzz, and is the reason why THEY go to clarinet conventions....
...and the music comes into it somewhere.
What I particularly admired about Leister's class on the Schumann didn't lie in the details of the particular things he said about the piece. Much of what he said I was sympathetic to, of course; but nevertheless about some of it I have my own, different ideas. What I admired was rather that he that he was a crusader for young players thinking about their job in what is for me a wholly admirable way. He encouraged them to take the attitude of a member of the first of my two classes of player above.
Even when someone sent an email asking an obviously 'technical' question, he backed up and looked behind it for a musical point. I didn't hear the end of what he said, but it was definitely a 'class 1' response.
I found it instructive (and I suggest you may too) to look through the posts about Leister's effort to see which contributors belong to which class. You can even look in general on the BBoard and the Klarinet list at posts that are actually ABOUT technical matters -- you'll find that not all of THOSE are coming from the same place.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-04-28 12:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-04-28 11:59
>>They often talk about 'their' playing. They are interested in playing FOR ITS OWN SAKE, and are very often dogmatic about the 'correct' way to do something, derived from the teaching of someone whom they particularly favour as a player. They 'bad-mouth' players they think are technically defective, wilfully ignoring any positive qualities they may have. >>
You're probably describing a type of player who dates back to the beginnings of music, because some people are that way no matter what their field of interest; but I have the impression that this type of musician is becoming more prevalent, and that the ubiquity of recorded performances has something to do with this shift. Today's CDs are thoroughly edited to remove most wrong notes, intonation whoopsies, etc., and today's students work hours more per day than kids used to practice, to try to bring their live playing up to the mistake-free standard of what we hear on CDs. Maybe it's invevitable that narcissism and obsession with technical detail ensue. Kids are being encouraged to listen inwards, to their own flaws, instead of listening outwards, to the composer's music.
Parenthetical anecdote: A couple of weeks ago, a houseguest who studied piano seriously as a boy complained to me that his girlfriend, an aspiring professional pianist, practices for four hours a day. "It's taking over her life! She never has any free time!" He looked confused when I burst out laughing. Her well-known teacher probably thinks she's lazy. He would probably drop her if she practiced less than four hours a day. Of course, pretty soon she may be practicing no hours a day, because this teacher's directing her to concentrate on pounding up and down the 88 keys in chromatic octaves with her tiny hands right now (driving her boyfriend nuts--and one might ask why it's not driving *her* nuts, and the reason is because she's not thinking about what she does as music), and she's likely to end up with carpal tunnel syndrome or focal dystonia or some other baby-killer; but, if she can pass this initiation ordeal, and if her boyfriend wants to stay her boyfriend, he's going to have to be grateful it's only four hours and shut his yap.
When I listen to old recordings of Cortot on the piano, I hear torrents of wrong notes, and I have to admit I sit there and cringe--yet he was a great musician. The music is *there*, even though tastes have changed re. rubato and ornamentation and so forth. Same with Casals on the cello. By today's standards, a lot of his intonation is unacceptable--not broadcast quality. Yet, again, the music is *there*.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-04-28 12:17
one question I have in that light- have we become better musicians by becoming better technicians?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-28 12:32
skygardener wrote:
>> one question I have in that light- have we become better musicians by becoming better technicians?>>
Some people have, some people haven't.
I suppose that because Cortot's performances would have been better without the wrong notes, we'd have to say that his being a better technician would have made him a better musician, in some sense. Perhaps if he'd practised more....? I don't know the story of his life.
But I have to say that I find the sort of expertise that has no relationship to the performer's inner world -- that gives, sometimes, no hint that they HAVE such an inner world, even if their technique is extraordinarily accomplished -- far more offensive than someone who understands, but who is 'honestly' incompetent, and so doesn't corrupt the very intention of the music.
So Lelia has a good point. I think that the very best modern players, however, use the advanced technology to COMBINE insight and accuracy.
Tony
Post Edited (2007-04-28 13:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-04-28 14:02
One possible reason for this enhanced awarness/obsession of technical Vs. artistic quality could be the state of orchestra auditions in this country. Most clarinet players (like myself) know that any hope of having a career in music as a performer will most likely come from obtaining a position in a symphony orchestra. The process for auditioning for a symphony orchestra seems so flawed. Through all of the rounds but maybe the finals, most people that are succsessful must play like a machine or a computer with technical mastery/intonation/rhythm being the most important goals.
This is not to say that this is how professional orchestras make music and if you can make it to the finals then you must switch on the artist because the judging becomes much more subjective and about the music. But the early rounds is more about making no technical mistakes of any kind and taking any kind of artistic liberty's with the music will more often then not result in you not being passed on to the next round. What should be rewarded in an audition will actually hurt you in a lot of instances because it seems that playing mistake free is more important than showing a difference between Beethoven and Debussy. I myself find it hard to find any kind of artistic motivation when taking auditions. I have not taken many as I am just out of school at this point but out of the ones I have taken, the most success I have had is when I play like a robot with a constant focus on precision and flawless execution.
It's a sad state of affairs I must admit and I find myself time and time again falling into the trap of mechanical clarinet playing and listening.
I will say like I said in the masterclass thread that I admire Karl Leisters playing and music making and have a very sincere respect for his contributions. I also found a lot of the comments by one particular poster in that thread to be highly ridiculous and to say he misses the point is an understatement. I didn't see the master class but I can say that out of the recordings I have of Mr. Leisters playing as soloist and with berlin, I hear a genuine artist who is very expressive and for that I am very greatful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2007-04-28 14:17
Miles Davis had something to say about practicing technique. He said, "Learn it then forget it." I think his meaning is clear.
And when asked by a student why he placed so much emphasis on scales, Segovia answered, "They will solve all your problems."
I think this says it all.
B/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-04-28 15:46
However, by placing so much on technique have we lost some of the enjoyment and 'meaning' of the music that used to be played with a passion- albeit with mistakes?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-28 15:50
bufclar wrote:
>> [in the] process for auditioning for a symphony orchestra..through all of the rounds but maybe the finals, most people that are succsessful must play like a machine or a computer with technical mastery/intonation/rhythm being the most important goals....taking any kind of artistic liberty's with the music will more often then not result in you not being passed on to the next round.>>
Though I'm in sympathy with much of what you write, I have to take issue with what lies behind this.
The people who do auditions are not fools. They are not looking for robots -- but they are looking for people who can do the job, which requires good rhythm, intonation and accuracy. If you can't produce that, then you can't do the job. That doesn't mean that you need to play LIKE A MACHINE. Where did that come from?
It is true that 'taking...artistic liberties' will not help you -- but then, 'taking artistic liberties' doesn't help REAL performance either. In an audition, it's just common sense not to be controversial, because even the best judges will have their likes and dislikes.
In a way, the business about 'musical but inaccurate playing' muddies the waters. I might support Cortot -- but he was something of a genius. The common or garden auditioning clarinet player just isn't in the same league. I'm just as keen to have it right as the next person.
And if you find it impossible to imagine that someone can play 'perfectly' but be a useless musician, then you just need a richer world-view. Music is partly 'about' the interface between unconscious and conscious, and it can be 'alive' only because in being that it shares our own human nature, which is equally partly unconscious and partly conscious. Because that's so, if you're someone whose musical perception doesn't happen to be crippled by clarinet-(say)-related obsessions, then you can recognise the difference between a 'class 1' and a 'class 2' player very easily.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-28 15:54
skygardener wrote:
>> However, by placing so much on technique have we lost some of the enjoyment and 'meaning' of the music that used to be played with a passion- albeit with mistakes?>>
I'd say that's the wrong way to look at it. How about, if you make mistakes, you aren't REALLY playing the music?
I wish the business of making mistakes had never been mentioned. It's nothing to do with what I wanted to talk about -- sorry, Lelia.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-04-28 16:13
Tony,
Thanks for your reply. The points you make are the things I'm becoming aware of in my playing and it is obvious to me that I have much to learn about the role of a musician and myself.
I recently auditioned for two traning orchestras here in the states. I was accepted into one of them and not the other. My audition for the one I was not accepted to was the audition I felt the best about. I felt that beyond technical issues which were fine, that musicaly I was expressive and conscious. I felt like I was really displaying a"voice" and felt aware of my expression and the forces I was trying to control and display. The other audition for the program i was accepted to was also technicaly accurate but I felt that musicaly I did not do much at all because I did not feel aware of it and did not feel like I was in control of it nor did I feel like I even tried to do much of anything at all.
It makes me wonder how much of artistic, "musical" playing is from the conscious or unconscious relm and what is the best way to approach these opposing forces in ones preperation and performance. I also agree that to do the job you do need to show rhythmic and technical competence and the machiene way of thinking about it is nearsighted on my part to say the least.
If I am trying to be "musical" (lack of a better way of saying it), does that put me before the music? Is that a selfish way of approaching it. I wonder how to make an artistic/musical effort in my playing for the sake of the music and not for myself? And furthermore, How do I know that this conscious or subconscious effort is coming thorough?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-04-28 18:13
Thank you Tony Pay, for positing another of your helpful insights.
I'd like to make two comments:
On flawed audition processs:
I just had the privilege of playing a master class (at EWU/CLARINexus) with Ms. Jeanette Jonquil. She won that controversial audition for the 2nd/Eb position with the Cincinnati Symphony. I tagged along for lunch and sat stage front for her recital.
I can tell you that she is no robot. The subtlety of her playing is a shining example of the flaws in computer-performed music. On the other hand, she plays perfectly. By that, I mean that every nuance of her playing has been worked out to her complete satisfaction. To get to that point, she practices a lot --both for auditions (assuming she's not going to finish her career in Ohio) and for performances. After a day's practice, she records herself. At the beginning of the next day, she listens to the recording and makes notes. The "down time" between the recording and the reviewing gives her space to listen with a fresh perspective. The notes guide her practice for that day. She's relentless.
If you read the music while she's playing it, you can't help but notice the HUGE gap between the mere notes on the paper and the wonderful, interpreted sounds she's providing. She retains the pulse, hits all the right notes, plays in-tune, this perfection reflects her preparation.
While she's prepared, she's also flexible enough to shade what she's doing in performance to fit the right-now circumstances --as she accommodated her teammate in the Brahms 120, No. 2.
I swear that the only way you can beat this woman in an audition is to have matched her preparation AND have the judges prefer your interpretation and tone quality.
On virtuosity vs musicality;
This is a personal problem with me: My technical capability limits my musicianship. The core of my effort is to gain the virtuosity needed to play expressively. At the same time, its a challenge to know what constitutes "good" interpretation. So far, I'm mostly parroting performers I find attractive --and getting strong criticism from my teachers. Maybe someday I'll be able to judge "goodness" myself --and be able to put more of me in my playing.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-04-28 20:22
bufclar wrote:
>> It makes me wonder how much of artistic, "musical" playing is from the conscious or unconscious relm and what is the best way to approach these opposing forces in ones preperation and performance.... If I am trying to be "musical" (lack of a better way of saying it), does that put me before the music? Is that a selfish way of approaching it. I wonder how to make an artistic/musical effort in my playing for the sake of the music and not for myself? And furthermore, How do I know that this conscious or subconscious effort is coming thorough?>>
Thank you for writing thoughtfully about what is actually a very deep topic.
Rather than re-rehearse my own view here, I'll just post these links:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2002/09/000553.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2007/02/000249.txt
...which might help.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2007-04-28 23:39
Bob-
I enjoyed your words about Jeanette Jonquil. I don't see what was controversial about that audition at all; as your post suggests, a great player worked as hard as anybody else and won.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill G
Date: 2007-04-29 02:17
Great thread. I say: learn to play the notes, but don't let them get in the way of the music!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-04-29 06:13
The controversy surrounding the Cincinnati audition cycle is that a number of the applicants felt that too many candidates were accepted and that many thought that they were given short shrift.
There was a thread on this BB.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-04-29 08:51
Tony Pay - this is one of the most interesting posts I've read on the forum. It is one of the most basic philosophies of music, and you explain very clearly in words.
Some people mentioned notes, (written) music pieces, and technical vs. musical (artistic) but I think this philosophy is so basic because the types of players Tony described exist in every music, so it comes before any of that. Also, when I improvise (which is most of what I do) I would still apply the philosophy of the first type of player Tony described. Actually, even the composing/improvising itself becomes with the same philosophy, so it doesn't apply only to performance.
> It makes me wonder how much of artistic, "musical" playing is from the
> conscious or unconscious relm and what is the best way to approach
> these opposing forces in ones preperation and performance. I wonder
> how to make an artistic/musical effort in my playing for the sake of the
> music and not for myself? And furthermore, How do I know that this
> conscious or subconscious effort is coming thorough?
I can only try to explain the answer that I have for myself. I have found my "truth". My "truth" is to find what I call the "logic" inside the music. By logic I mean trying to understand everything that is possible in the music. This is a way of understanding that can be in any music and uses the same principals regardless, but allows you to understand the most global and the most specific ideas in every music. The idea is to understand WHY. I ask myself why on everything in the music that I make or hear, and try to answer myself with a sensable, musical, logical answer. This makes me much more conscious about many things that I never thought it would be possible to be conscious of. The unconscious part will always be there.
The way I apply this (Tony's player 1 type) approach with my "truth" is to have an idea based on understanding of the music of how it should sound, and play/create the music to sound like this.
Nitai
Post Edited (2007-04-29 09:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-04-29 11:59
>> I can only try to explain the answer that I have for myself. I have found my "truth". My "truth" is to find what I call the "logic" inside the music. By logic I mean trying to understand everything that is possible in the music. >>
I understand what you intend here, but one difficulty for a musician is in finding the right side of the very fine line between truly understanding the logic inside the music, as Nitai describes it, and edging into defining the logic of the music as "my truth" in the shallower sense of the commonplace phrase, "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." I think it's this shallower, narcissistic approach that Tony finds objectionable.
Tony, *that's* the interface where I think fear of mistakes (obsession with technique) relates to your comments. I think fear of mistakes, or maybe I should call it fear of criticism, or even fear of how well or how badly one might *accept* criticism, is what lies behind the narcissistic approach. I think that much of the time, the argument that something is "my truth" is specious and the person who makes the argument doesn't really believe it, deep down. It's an excuse. It's a way of shutting off the discussion and escaping.
A wrong note is a technical error: there's simply no room to argue about it and no way to justify or excuse it to oneself--or, perhaps, to forgive oneself for it. It's a mistake. Period. Therefore, the student anxious to avoid criticism must do all possible to eliminate wrong notes, squeaks and so forth, because there's simply no answer to, "You played d-natural when it should have been d-flat."
But, if listeners or judges don't like "creative" rubato, or an unusually fast or slow tempo, or an ornament nobody else has played before (even if those things happen because of nervousness and not prior intent...), the student doesn't necessarily have to accept the judgment, define those things as errors and, perhaps, feel like a failure. Up to a point, such things can be defined as *matters of taste* and therefore the insecure musician can justify the performance to himself or herself and go home and get some sleep. (Only up to a point, of course, because if the composer marked a movement "Presto" and the student plays it as a funeral dirge, it takes a leap of sheer irrationality to define the choice as a creative insight....)
I think that some teachers encourage students to make this type of self-justifying excuse, with the "empowerment" ethos of education. I think it's harmful to teach students, "I am somebody!" and "I am a winner!" It's better to teach, "I can become somebody" and "I deserve what I earn."
But teaching kids to take responsibility also means teaching a sense of proportion, and if kids think technical slip-ups are the end of the world, then it's not surprising if they fall back on making excuses, even lame ones, for the parts of the performance that they *can* excuse because those excuses are harder for a critic to answer. Narcissism becomes a self-protective device, and in a way, it's a useful one: better to say, "They didn't like my rubato--screw them!" than, "I'm a total idiot for wrecking my chances with three wrong notes. I can't do anything right. I knew better, I practiced and I messed up anyway. Keeping me alive is a waste of natural resources." Of course, it would be still better to analyse a failure more dispassionately and realistically, but when you're 17 years old and you just ran into the restroom to throw up after a disastrous audition, or when you're 25 and rushed the tempo out of nervousness and recognized a particularly savage newspaper critic in the audience, dispassion doesn't come easily. I wouldn't take all those claims of "my personal concept" too literally.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-04-29 15:32
Probably too earthbound for this discussion but I had my own epiphany the other day listening to a broadcast of Beethoven's Sixth Symphony by the Chicago Symphany. Prior to the taped performance the four lead wind players offered an interview speaking of the sonic pictures that were being painted. They all offered up their chief excerpts there in the studio amongst the descriptions. It was like listening in on a symphonic music audition.
It struck me very clearly that all four played in such a manner that was intrumentally akin to the natural lilt of human speach in conversation.
Perhaps it may just help to think of playing musical phrases as if they were sentences, with the same natural "rythms" and stresses.
Well.........."IT WORKS FOR ME." ehem.........but "YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY."
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jane84
Date: 2007-04-29 16:50
Thank you Leila, that was really good to read. One is, after all, just a human being too..
-jane
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: haberc
Date: 2007-04-29 21:35
So here I am, performing in Carnegie Hall ( my practice room at home ). the hall is full to capacity ( me, in my practice room at home ). I'm playing and, o my god, I get it...I get that measure in Rose or Polatschek, and the crowd goes wild ( I like it ). I'm happy ( I'm 65 years old ). The sound was there, I heard it. I'm satisfied beyond measure. And the best part is I get to do it again tomorrow.
I think those two categories of players Tony Pay speaks about might be one. There's nothing to judge.
So here I am, performing in Carnegie Hall (my practice room at home.) The hall is full to capacity (me, in my practice room at home). I'm playing and, o my god, I blow it....that measure falls apart, and the crowd is silent (but I'm cool - I do it again. I'm happy ( I'm 65 or 15 - you decide) The sound isn't there today. I know that. I'm satisfied with the experience. And the best part is I get to do it again tomorrow.
My only point is that I love playing the clarinet and I so appreciate all the peole who contribute to this forum.
Tony Pay, this has been one of the most satisfying threads.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-04-30 05:12
> I understand what you intend here, but one difficulty for a musician is in
> finding the right side of the very fine line between truly understanding the
> logic inside the music, as Nitai describes it, and edging into defining the
> logic of the music as "my truth" in the shallower sense of the commonplace
> phrase, "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." I think
> it's this shallower, narcissistic approach that Tony finds objectionable.
I'm sorry, it is hard for me to explain what I meant in English, but I think I need to clarify something a little more. What I call the "truth" could be different for each person. To answer his own questions bufclar will have to find his "truth", which is basically - the answer to those and many other questions. It is about asking 'why' about everything in the music you play, and to have the answer. Knowing what you like is very different and for me that is something I decide after I understand the music (which can take anything from a few seconds to hearing it many times).
Post Edited (2007-04-30 06:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Clarinet
Date: 2007-05-01 11:38
It would seem, in my experience, that (in the UK - I cannot talk about other countries) that instrument tuition is too geared up to passing exams and not about playing music. Although the exams are an indicator of standard, the emphasis is on technique and not on musicianship. I think teachers tend to teach their pupils to pass exams at the expense of 'making music'. The exams are technically orientated: 2 pieces with piano and an unaccompanied study, aural tests, sight reading and the dreaded scales. At the high grades, this is 12 major, 24 minor, 12 major and 12 minor arpeggios, 12 dominant 7ths, 3 diminished 7ths, chromatic, all for 2 octaves except for E, F, F# & G which are for 3 octaves. All tounged and all slurred. Try playing this little lot and see how long it takes assuming you do it correctly first time. The part that always gets forgotten is putting the 2 pieces together with the piano. This seems to get left to the last minute, is often rushed, and you count yourself lucky if you get through without a big crash! Wrongly, in my opinion, there never seems to be time to develop interpretation, expression, playing the music rather than the notes. I also think it is the hardest thing to teach. We are influenced by our teachers and other performers - in itself, nothing wrong with that - but a good teacher should not impose their interpretation on you, but help you find your own. But if you are struggling with the technical stuff, it is difficult to concentrate on interpretation. Just some of my disorganised thoughts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2007-05-01 12:43
"concerned to express THEMSELVES".... This phrase that TP used in his description of the type 2 player probably is unambiguous if carefully integrated into the entire description, but I would challenge it as a negative trait if taken on its own. Being a servant of the music and allowing all aspects of one's playing to serve what the composer intended always seems to me to leave something important out of the mix, which is what the player really is (as a musical personality). It is the combination of that identity and of the music which, whether good or bad, seems to me to make the essence of a performance. I am not sure that players who subjugate their own identity to the music they are playing produce very interesting performances.
This puts me in mind of Brymer. Why was he such a success? Great technique? Not really. Profound musical expression? Frankly, no; and I heard him live as well as recorded. Great sound? That is a matter of opinion of course, but for those who liked him, then I think it was the sound. And the key point is that it was immediately recognisable. You could hear Brymer on a recording and you were almost certain it was him, and the fact of him being involved added something (good or bad) to the account. There were plenty of better players that did not do as well as Brymer.
Coming back to the modern day, Leister has already been mentioned. I find him a very self effacing musician. He is a great player, but I have a problem with that trait. Compare him to Dieter Klocker. Dieter Klocker always plays "Dieter Klocker". A bit like an actor that plays himself in all the roles he takes on. But that is what Olivier did. For me, Klocker is far more interesting. His personality interacts with the pieces he is playing, and he does express himself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2007-05-01 16:22
Tony,
This is a very profound issue indeed. If I try to compare it to another field
(I am aware that it may be controversial) : Religion, then I would say:
Being a practicing religious person is not a proofe for a belife in God. Or in other words: Practicing your instrument religiously will not necesseraly lead you to Music.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2007-05-01 16:26
Clarni bass,
When you wrote "truth" I sensed that you are going into a mindfield, because truth in Hebrew (EMET) is somthing else, but I don't think that there is an equal word to Emet in English.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-05-02 07:25
Sarah, yes you are right and there are a lot of problems with explaining things in another language, and maybe there isn't an exact translation to Emet, but that's as best as I could say it in English.
Graham wrote:
> Being a servant of the music and allowing all aspects of one's playing to serve
> what the composer intended always seems to me to leave something important
> out of the mix, which is what the player really is (as a musical personality).
I think the idea is to understand how the music should sound. For some reason you write as if "what the composer intended" will cause "leave something important out of the mix" but imo it is not like this at all. Maybe the composer intended for the player to add something into the mix and it is up to the player to figure this out! This depends completely on the specific music that you are playing. The rest of what you said relies on the same assumption.
Nitai
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joeyscl
Date: 2007-06-04 05:12
I like to think of Technique as a vehicle for musical expression
Post Edited (2007-06-04 05:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-04 08:22
joeyscl wrote:
>> I like to think of Technique as a vehicle for musical expression>>
Yes...or, that Technique is musical expression CHARACTERISED in terms of the details of how you may most effectively achieve it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2007-06-04 09:33
Hello, first post here.
I don't want to simplify this discussion too much, because I think that this is a really important discussion (and problem) especially among clarinetists.
In terms of the technique, I must say:
Learn what you need to learn. Become as technically proficient as you need to be to play the piece as well as you want to play it.
For music, I find this a very difficult question to even begin to analyse because I find the discussion almost ridiculous, although important.
I very concept of playing an instrument unmusically, or without the music being the first priority, is complete mush to me. It makes me really sad to hear people actually asking if one should play musically or like a machine. . .
and as for auditioning, although I don't really know how it works in the US anymore, I can't imagine a panel of judges wanting something not musical, not subtle, not from the musician deep within. Search for what the music means to you and let that always be a part of your performance.
This is not t contradict all that history, and commensense has taught us. There are some rules or conventions that come into it, of course, but the important thing is to feel whatever you are playing, otherwise the future of classical music is very grim.
Thanks for listening
Sacha
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-06-04 12:02
>>There are some rules or conventions that come into it, of course, but the important thing is to feel whatever you are playing, otherwise the future of classical music is very grim.
>>
Yup--but it's even grimmer if the *audience* doesn't feel the music. Not to wax cynical or anything, but . . . I'm thinking of what some famous actor or other is said to have said: "Once you learn to fake sincerity, the rest is easy." Never forget it's a performance, not an encounter group.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2007-06-04 12:48
I wonder what would happen to musical expression if artists were forbidden to use verbal means (program notes, album notes, lecture or interviews) to explain what should have spoken for itself via their instrument?
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-06-04 13:37
I think a lot of human endeavors can be characterized in this way. They can either be about building the ego (as tends to happen when one is younger and trying to find/forge a place for oneself in the world), or allowing the ego to be stripped away. Often, it's necessary to do some building before the dismantling can happen, and sometimes the stripping phase never truly arrives.
Humility is not coin of our current realm, nor can it be acheived simply by deciding one day that it's time to be more humble. Placing one's self at the service of others, even when that "other" is the music, is not an easy or comfortable choice. But it's one well-trodden path to a largeness (even greatness) of spirit that doesn't need to feed on acclaim.
When I play and practice now, I try not to produce the music, but to get out of its way - to become transparent. It takes a great deal of preparation to be transparent. Nor am I particularly good at it - I stumble over myself at every barline. But it's a very different quality of experience than when I was trying to impress my Berklee classmates. Approaching playing with respectful loving care I think allows for the greatest range of connections: with the written notes, the composer, past performances, audiences, the context in which the composer lived, music history, one's playing environment, and on and on. Ego playing tends to inhibit those connections and make it impossible for that richness to ensue. It prevents approaching the world with fresh eyes and ears (my yard is a whole different place now that I'm experiencing it with my 2-and-a-half year old).
NB: As this is my first post, my still-inflated ego is no doubt heavily invested, so apologies if this is overstated.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2007-06-08 20:02
Sorry I did post something quite long here, but I realise now it wasn't particularly relevant to the original post.
I agree with Nitai's comments about finding an inner logic to the music - I think its extremely important to understand your interpretative decisions.
Post Edited (2007-06-10 08:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-07-19 05:50
bringing back this subject from a short break, I have a question of peoples' opinions on a related subject.
Tony Pay first mentions the difference between the player that serves MUSIC and the one that serves their OWN self-expression.
I would like to know what people think about "Doing it a different way"- That is- If most people play in such a manner, is it wrong to play it differently if you feel that better serves the music?? I am talking about the small gradiation in tempi, dynamics, accents, etc. that one can use to color the music. These are often not on the score, but how literally should we take the score?? In Stravinsky's 3 Pieces, he says that the metrinome markes should be followed, but does that mean we can't speed up or slow down in one or another place within the general tempo that is written on the page?? Not a different tempo altogerher, but a rubato from and back to the tempo in question.
What if one feels that taking these "liberties" are not to serve the SELF more, but that Sravinsky (or any other composer for that matter) would have enjoyed it and it serves the music (not the self) better in such a mannar??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2007-07-20 00:55
My 2-cents is that music is in the ear of the listener. Their egos matter. The performer can do anything they want and are able to do, and if it works - if it communicates something the listeners appreciate - then fine. I don't care if a performer changes the half notes - if listening I like the result then I don't care that the composer might have intended something else - I just hyphenate the composer name in my mind and I'm happy for the experience.
There may be two kinds of performer, as the original poster stated, though I think there's more a continuum than a dichotomy. However, that range of preferences applies at least as well to listeners. There are many, many listeners that get off on sheer technique, and they're bored listening less overt difficulty. There are highly trained listeners with deep understanding of the music. There's also listeners who hear in their heads something else than the composer wrote. This discussion, and performance in general, requires recognition of listeners' "interpretations". No matter how idealized and musical and technical a performance might be, if it communicates nothing special to the listeners (including those listeners actually doing the playing) then it failed the worst way.
It's like Sviatoslav Richter once said of another very famous pianist, who
had made a perfect but bland recording: "It's all there, but where is it?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-20 01:12
I think we generally put too much emphasis on "what did the composer intend?" Yes, it's cool to play it how the composer intended. Played that way, a lot of nuance can emerge. But it's only one way of performing it. As a composer, I'm often pleasantly surprised when someone takes something the way I *didn't* write it, and, given the chance, I would probably write it that way instead.
I think it's somewhat silly to assume that all composers would only want their music played one particular way, ever. Some composers are like that, sure, especially since the advent of modernism. But Stravinsky isn't personally commissioning you to play the 3 pieces. He's not renting out the hall, he's not advertising for you, he's not arranging to hire string players for other pieces in the concert.
You're the performer. People are there to listen to Stravinsky, and they're there to listen to YOU play it. If you choose to play it how you think he wanted it, great. If you choose to play it how you think he didn't imagine it but might like it, great. If you choose to play it in a way he would probably hate, great.
It's when people demand that things are *only* played the way the composer intended, or with total historical accuracy, that things get boring.
If you get boos and hisses from the audience, well, at least they were listening. Quite frankly, I'd quite like to be booed at. Refreshing change of scenery from our polite concertworld.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-07-20 10:47
I think it's a big world and there's room for more than one approach (nobody's forcing us to listen; we're all free to go hear more of that performer or not), but in general, the more I respect the composer, the more I want the performer to make a real effort to discover and play what the composer intended. The intention of an early Baroque composer was usually for the musician to do quite a lot of improvising and ornamentation. Not so today--not so since the clarinet as we know it was invented. I think it's reasonably clear that Stravinsky did not invite performers to mess with his music. That doesn't mean everybody who plays it should sound alike (I don't even think that's possible), but it does mean we should throttle back the ego and play Stravinsky to the best of our ability, not play Trois Mois.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-07-20 10:58
Lelia Loban wrote:
> the more I want the performer to make a
> real effort to discover and play what the composer intended.
Hear, hear! Like reading a really good book - there are layers and layers to dig through to understand the book. We don't re-write the book "just because".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-07-20 16:25
To Lelia and Mark-
I am not talking about 'rewriting' the music, but isn't there a difference between 'reading the notes' and 'reading into the notes'?
I feel many are taught to 'read the notes' and 'serve the composer', and students take it much too literally. If I see an 'p' here and there in a score I will not automatically assume that both should be the exact same volume. Is it wrong to consider the context and come to the conclusion that one IS louder than the other?
Post Edited (2007-07-20 16:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-07-20 16:54
skygardener wrote:
> Is it wrong
> to consider the context and come to the conclusion that one IS
> louder than the other?
Of course not - that was the intent of my "reading" reference above. Reading the words of a book is only touching the 1st surface. We then have to study and learn about the next set of "surfaces" or contexts within the structure of the book. Notes, phrases, dynamics, repeats, introductions, improvisations, etc. all have meaning - within the context of what the composer wrote. There is so much freedom within those notational contraints - what is the purpose of discarding those (weak, actually) constraints? As you so well put it - a 'p' doesn't have a definite loudness level, and a 'p' leading somewhere might be different than a 'p' coming from somewhere (and of course there's really the 'coming and going' - which leads into the composer's - and performer's - dilemma of introduction and ending - there's no 'coming' in the 1st instance and no going anywhere else in the 2nd).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-07-20 18:13
skygardener wrote:
"Tony Pay first mentions the difference between the player that serves MUSIC and the one that serves their OWN self-expression."
This is to me the key sentence. If rubato serves the music then by all means do it. But if Stravinsky says to play straight and rythmically very secure, I would be hard pressed to try to do anything else.
Also as Lelia pointed out for composers that I respect I would try my best to play exactly what they intended. In many ways I see myself as a translator of black dots on a page to sound waves.
To make my point I'll use the foreign movie metaphor. Being fluent in french and english when I watch a french movie with a bad english translation I get annoyed and feel something is lost in translation. I do feel exactly the same about "embellished" performances of major works. One needs to remain true to the text.
On the other hand if I am playing a clarinet encore showpiece by Cahuzac, I am willing to do anything. To be blunt, I could care less about hurting his music. Its intent is to showcase the skills of the performer, and I would certainly took liberties. Reminds me of Robert Spring's "Dragon Tongue".
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2007-07-20 19:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-20 23:35
As an aside...
In my experience, I find it very valuable to mess with a piece occasionally, intentionally playing it in a manner I'm pretty sure the composer would have hated, and doing so very diligently and obnoxiously. Even if it never leaves the practice room, I find that by playing something "wrong", a lot can be learned about why the composer DIDN'T write it that way, and lead to a greater appreciation of the intricacies of the piece in its original form.
However, I find that playing something in a very unconventional manner ONLY works if it is done deliberately, because it's fun that way or to explore a new angle, with intimate knowledge of how it "should" be played. Playing something unconventionally out of ignorance can really hurt the ears, like a recording I heard of Strauss waltzes played metronomically.
Also, quite frankly, I've met quite a few composers that aren't particularly great performers, and some that have never played in an instrumental ensemble. We like to put composers on a magical pedestal of omniscience, and the fact that many of them are long-dead escalates the situation. In some cases, I'd wager that what you think they "intended," they may never have thought of at all, and we're just extrapolating from what other composers intended or what we think they must have intended to have written that sort of music.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-07-21 02:22
In regards to playing what the composer intended:
I've always thought that performers should learn the "language" of the particular composer they are performing. I know that some artists study manuscripts, performance treatises, etc. to gain as much insight on a composer as possible. From this foundation, they can give an interpretation that is original, but in the language of the composer they are performing.
I think there is a point in one of Leonard Bernstein's Harvard Lectures where he explains meaning vs expression in music. He states that meaning is inherent in a piece of music. It is what the composer wished to "say" with a particular work. He believes that the primary goal of a performer should be to communicate the meaning of a piece. Then the performer can express his/herself, but not in a manner that alters the meaning.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-07-23 03:53
I do not think the meaning of a piece changes with time at all. The meaning of a novel or painting does not change with the passage of time.
Perhaps performers can find different things to express with a piece of music at different times in their lives, but I believe the composers original intent stays intact.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-23 06:03
Ohh, I'll have to agree with Philip. While the composer's *intended* meaning may not change, the interpreted meaning of the current listener most definitely changes.
All sorts of art is very commonly described as being "as relevant to today's world as it was in ____'s time." While there may be conceptual similarities, we have a completely different context to attach to it.
Once a piece of media makes its way through months, years, decades, centuries of interpretation, analysis, consumption, and satire, it takes on many connotations of its own. And once the world makes its way through as many years of scandals, wars, discoveries, indoor plumbing, reggae, and iPhones, the society is in a completely different frame of mind that might not find the original work relevant, and might find new relevance that the composer could never have concieved because of his place in history. Common themes may shine through, as common aspects of society often remain, but unless you were there when it was written and immediately sealed yourself into a suspended animation chamber, you can never have 100% of the original meaning intact.
A visit to some place you've heard so much about and have all your own conceptions of is a mind-opening experience. I'd heard all about Russia, seen pictures and the like, but being there was a completely different experience with a whole different understanding. The same goes for the 1780s... you can hear all about it, see paintings, read treatises and the like, but being there would most assuredly turn your every interpretation of it upside-down. Five minutes after our time machine arrived, I bet any one of us would say, "Ohhhhhh, THAT's what Bach meant."
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-07-23 15:27
This is very well said. Meaning is a product of relationships, just as the original composer him- or herself is a product of relationships and not a static entity. Meaning "inheres" insofar as the composition is a nexus for those relationships and a site for new discoveries. That doesn't mean that some interpretations aren't better or worse than others, or that extensive research into the original context isn't valid, or that it isn't useful to make efforts to understand what the composer was consciously "trying to convey." All of those things make for a richer interpretation, a deeper font of "meanings" and a potentially richer experience for those participating in the performance.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-07-23 18:08
This is Bernstein's philosophy not mine, but I do happen to agree with him. Just a little clarification:
Meaning and expression are two very different things. According to Bernstein, meaning is the product of the composer. "Meaning" deals with why a composer would choose sonata form for a movement, why he/she would add a suspension here, or chromaticism there, etc.
By saying that a performer should communicate the meaning of a piece, he is saying that we must play sonata form so that the audience understands the piece is sonata form, etc.
This does not change with time, just as a metaphor in a Homeric play is still the same today as it was in the 3rd Century BCE.
Expression is the variable. It changes with the mood of the performer, audience, etc.
I understand that different people, generations, etc. may express themselves differently with the same piece of music. Music would be very boring if they did not. However, the meaning of a piece stays the same, in my opinion.
Relating music to words is very difficult, so please excuse me for my posts being so vague.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-23 18:44
Looks like we have different definitions of the word "meaning" and "expression" then. Your definition of "expression" is mine of "meaning."
I always associate the word "expression" solely with what the particular performer tries to do with the piece.
Seems the meaning and/or expression of the words "meaning" and "expression" may or may not change with different people, generations, etc.
Works out in the end.
:P
As for the continuity of the original composer's intent, my suggestion is that, if you weren't there when it was written (and perhaps even if you were), your perception of the meaning is tainted by everything that's happened to the piece and the world since then. The original meaning may still be there, but none of us will ever be able to fully understand it in its original form.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelR
Date: 2007-07-23 18:46
brycon wrote:
> The meaning of a novel or painting does not change with the
> passage of time.
The meanings certainly do. Topical refernces are lost, prevailing mores change, the environment that provides the foundation for understanding shifts. The gestalt of the age provides the context for understanding. Regardless of the writer/painter/composers intent with the passage of time that gestalt is lost and the meaning of the work - the meaning available to audiences - changes.
--
Michael of Portland, OR
Be Appropriate and Follow Your Curiosity
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-07-23 19:37
I'm sorry Michael R, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
In my opinion, the meanings of the great works of art are the same today as they were many years ago. They deal with timeless subject matter, and therefore will remain relevant to our society for many generations to come. Why else would the Bible and the Iliad be the two most widely read books in the world, thousands of years after their creation? I do not think it is because man has changed and now sees a need to revisit such works. I believe it is becuase man has changed very little.
We do apply/impose art on the technological advances of the day. Many business execs now read The Art of War or The Prince as a model for running their business. However, the meaning of the text is the same as it was in Sun Tzu's or Machiavelli's age.
Perhaps the meaning of a Dan Brown novel (if there is one) will be lost very quickly, but the meanings of the great works of art will always be with us.
This is just my opinion, and my apologies for straying so far from the subject at hand. So long...
Post Edited (2007-07-23 19:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelR
Date: 2007-07-23 20:12
This is drifting...please see my profile to continue off list.
Your points about Illiad and the Bible are well taken. It reminded me of a lecture from a master photographer, Minor White. He said in his greatest photographs viewers always found meaning. It was, however, rarely the same meaning.
In this discussion we've tightly bound the composer's intent to the composition's meaning. Meaning comes from the interaction of listener (reader, viewer) and the piece. As such it will shift as the experience base of the audience shifts.
Consider the Rites of Spring, at its premiere fist fights broke out. (When I first heard it the professor described the audience as "rioting".) Today it is a standard, in no way controversial.
--
Michael of Portland, OR
Be Appropriate and Follow Your Curiosity
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-07-23 21:21
Some claim that the Rite of Spring rioting was sparked by the choreography and costuming. You can't exactly hear the music over an overwhelming uproar of boos and shouts. Heck, you can't hear it over coughing and candy wrappers half the time.
Something being widely read and something retaining meaning are two separate concepts. Also, just because something has remained relevant over thousands of years doesn't mean that it is interpreted in the same way. I somehow doubt that many people who read the Iliad do so today with great national pride over the wondrous achievements of prominent Greek historical figures.
In 9 years of Catholic school, the most common question we had to answer on worksheets was, "what does [whatever Bible passage] mean to YOU?" ... a question that really had no wrong answers, excepting those that would get you sent to the principal's office.
Not to mention the possibility of someone creating art, intending no meaning whatsoever, and said art becomes emblematic of some concept or another. Theorists and critics love finding meaning for everything, and perhaps some grand metaphor for the human condition in a hierarchical society may be intended as just a stupid dog.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-07-23 22:43
It is just as easy to argue that a cultural object remains relevant for thousands of years because it is capable of embodying so many different meanings as it is to argue that it remains relevant because it embodies a single enduring one.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
