 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bartmann
Date: 2008-09-30 20:02
Friends,
Yesterday I was playing duets with my cellist friend. She used to play the flute and clarinet. She was convinced that learning to play a string instrument is much harder than a wind instrument (Clarinet and Flute).
She said that it takes about 10 years before a string player is good enough to play in an ensemble. Also she said that clarinetists, and especially flutists, have it easy regarding instrument selection and especially cost. She pointed out that one time she went to the store and loved the sound that a $14,000 cello bow created.
What surprised me was her level of conviction. The first instrument she learned was the Cello (from ages 10-20). She was a cello major in conservatory. After college she added flute and said she had reached a high level of proficiency after two years. Then then added clarinet. "I was lulled into the false idea that because flute was easy that clarinet would be just as easy. But clarinet presented more of a challenge, although it was still in the same league as flute. The strings are just more more challenging overall."
Do you think there is a real big gap between learning winds and learning strings?
Bartmann
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-09-30 20:06
I think on top of learning how to play the cello, she also learned how to develop hand-eye-ear coordination, a good ear, a musical ability, so shen she started on the flute, she was way ahead of the game.
I also believe people have different genetic/physical make up that enables them to play such and such instrument better. At the end of the day, getting to a proficient level may require more or less time given the instrument (and yes I think strings are tough to learn), but if you want to become good at it then it's a life long quest.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-09-30 20:32
"Do you think there is a real big gap between learning winds and learning strings?"
Yes
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-09-30 20:36
Itzak Perlman points out that piano is easier to learn than violin because when you hit a piano key you get the prescribed note. To a lesser extent this is also true of a clarinet. Non-fretted string instruments require "a good ear" probably moreso than clarinet. I don't know that I'd put a fretted electric guitar in the same difficulty category as a cello, however, even tho it is a "string" instrument.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-09-30 20:38
Back in high school (only a couple .. umm .. years ago) i was asked to learn cello because they needed a "good" celloist in the orchestra. I took lessons over the summer. after a month or two after school started I was the first chair cellist over some pretty good competition - others who took lessong from professional for years.
that year I played in Solo&Ensemble groups (did quintets and stuff) and we got 1s (or whatever they were back then). So I was pretty good i think.
I had excellent ear training, excellent hand coordination and wanted the challenge. Of course I was primarily a sax & clarinet (and french horn) player too. I also played percussion - i loved the xylophone & marimba.
I think the hand movement of the xylophone/marimba really allowed me to propel at the cello. Plus I had some excellent ear training in general.
on the cello we did make "fake" frets made out of thin strips of masking tape to accelerate my finger positioning while learning. I also practiced hitting notes dead on intonation and all positions on each string and crossing over strings for the same note. I was really convicted in learning it as much as possible.
So take it as you may
now cost-wise .... the really good cellos/ strings etc are really, really, really up there. I'm glad i'm a woodwind player.
but i do think, from the ground up strings are more challenging.
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2008-09-30 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-09-30 21:24
I think any wind instrument is harder to play well than any string instrument, if for no other reasons, dealing with playing the natural (just) harmonic overtones an ensembles tempered tuning system and having to accoustically even out tonal qualities of the different tubing lengths used to produce those overtones. And then there are all sorts of breath issues to overcome and, for us, there is also THE REED.
All a string player has to do is gently pull the bow (one of only two directions) on a pre-tuned string--usually producing a pleasing tone with little experiance and no embouchure hassels--and place one of four fingers in position for pitch accuracy, easily accomplished by using one of four Bornhoff finger patterns.
Give a 5th grade beginner a violin or a clarinet and see which one most easily gets the first good sound. I'll bet on the violin........
[Why?? Because it is easier]
Post Edited (2008-09-30 21:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-09-30 21:52
William,
you are simply way off with your assesment of string instrument playing in my opinion. They don't play themselves and even the very best players on the earth today have a very hard time creating a beautiful sound that is consistently in tune.
You failed to mention bow speed, pressure, quality and variance of vibrato, quality of instrument and strings used. What about having to deal with string crossings and sustaining pitches while changing bow direction?
Playing a wind instrument is an extension of our body because we are using our body as part of the sound making device, such as a singer. String instruments are away from the body, using two hands that are always opposed to each other to create sound. Legato is harder, dynamic contrast is harder, playing with a vocal style is harder.
I admit that playing wind instruments takes a type of physcial strength that most players don't develop until later in life while there have been many young string prodigys, but in a more general sense, string playing is way harder to do well.
There are 100's of great wind players in this country that don't have a job and most likely wont because good wind and brass players are much more common. Good string players on the other hand are much harder to find and most have careers. It's not just that orchestras need 30 violinists because I would bet a lot of money that the Chicago Symphony or Boston Symphony isn't going to just give a job to anyone that can gently pull the bow across the string and make a pleasing sound.
I would argue that in any lower level orchestra (regional level), the wind and brass section is almost always superior to the string section. Are you actually going to argue that this is because wind instruments are harder to play? The way I see it, string players that play well usually end up in better groups.
Post Edited (2008-09-30 21:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-09-30 22:35
This is an interesting topic. As my daughter has been taking violin, I've been learning violin along with her, and we often play together.
I don't really think it is easy to compare strings to winds, because they are both challenging, but in different ways. Many of the things that are hard to do on clarinet are very easy to do on a violin, but the reverse is also true.
I think what is hardest is learning a musical instrument for the first time. It's much easier to pick up another instrument once you learned a first one, even if you're going from winds to strings or strings to winds or strings to keyboard, etc.
Intonation is probably the most obvious thing that makes strings hard. But having developed an ear for intonation on clarinet and the ability to lip up and down notes to play in tune, it's still easier for me to adjust my fingers on violin to play in tune than it would be if I had never played clarinet. If I only played piano or guitar, for instace, I think the intonation aspect would be harder. Not that it's still not hard, but it's easier having played an wind instrument.
And, yeah, you don't have to worry about reeds with a violin, which is a plus. On the other hand, for me reeds became a bigger deal the longer I had been playing and the better I got--as a beginner, all reeds seem to sound equally good/bad. So even though it's really easy to get a note out on a violin to start with, I'm sure there are very fundamental sorts of things about violin playing that get much harder the better you become, just like there are about clarinets--I just haven't gotten to that point yet. (That being said, though, violins do seem to be pretty low-maintenance instruments compared to reed instruments, which is nice)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2008-09-30 23:43
Parents of string players deserve commendation and respect.
Parents of percussionists better own a bunker...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-09-30 23:58
I look at two things if I think about difficulty.
One is the ease of sound production in the beginning- piano is instant, bad tone can usually be quickly produced on violin by children, no sound is the normal result of a kid's first try on winds.
Two is the quality at the end. Judging by the sheer amount of notes- Music that is common for violinist is amaizingly difficult for clarinet, and perhaps impossible for trumpet. Conversly, "advanced" music for clarinet is easy to play on violin.
Thus, I place the strings on the "easy" side of the scale and winds on the "difficult" side.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 00:02
"All a string player has to do is gently pull the bow (one of only two directions) on a pre-tuned string--usually producing a pleasing tone with little experiance and no embouchure hassels--and place one of four fingers in position for pitch accuracy, easily accomplished by using one of four Bornhoff finger patterns. "
I work with a student of Bornhoff's. That doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about when I disagree with your statement.
Different people have different gifts towards certain instruments. An individual's talents coupled with their determination will make a huge difference when they discuss how "difficult" their instrument is.
Many of the string instruments have existed for far longer, and subsequently the bar of virtuosity is quite high because of the number of pieces that have been written for them. This would lend credence to the argument that there the ceiling of proficiency needed to perform in some ensembles IS higher for a string instrument than that of a wind instrument.
Many string instruments can be studied at ages far younger than many wind instruments would allow.
Much of this is offset in large ensembles by the fact that the string sections are large and function closely together within instrument types. The wind section, however, is a chorus of soloists...and there's no place to hide.
My two cents. James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 00:05
Oops. I did want to add that I DON'T think you'd find Mstislav Rostropovich arguing with Robert Marcellus over whose instrument was harder to perform.
I'm not certain it would enter their heads to compare apples and oranges.
J
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liam Murphy
Date: 2008-10-01 00:23
Bartmann,
A mere anecdote:
I am acquainted with a prodigious young cellist. who has played for a large part of his life. Upon enrolling at my school (a school that specializes in music) he picked up clarinet. In about a term, he eclipsed clarinetists, in about all facets of performance, two or more years older than he.
The other day I heard him play flute, and he said "...yeah, I picked up my sister's flute the other night...it's pretty easy..." And he was flying: sight reading our Symphony Orchestra's flute/picc parts which included "Capriccio Italien (Tchaikovsky)" and "Bacchanale" (Saint Saens)
These were the full orchestral parts, not simplified or abridged editions.
Yes, he was playing the hard parts.
You can draw your own conclusions from this.
XXX END OF ANECDOTE XXX
Moving on, I have played clarinet and double bass for many years. I feel these instruments present SIMILAR challenges to the player. After all the basic elements of music are present in both instruments; tone, intonation, articulation, phrasing, rhythm, dynamics etc.
The only thing that changes is the process through which each element is executed satisfactorily - you can draw up a mental table if you wish, I won't.
I am also acquainted with a highly respected musician that firmly believes that tuning of instruments like violin, cello and even trombone SHOULD be easier. He reasoning is that the method of pitch adjustment, for these instruments, is logical and not subject to any counter-intuitive phenomena as, for example, clarinet may be.
I thought I'd just whip that one in. Not my words.
In closing, I feel it to be obvious that every piece and every instrument is hard to play well.
I'm probably about to incur the wrath of various BBoarders for saying these things.
- Liam
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2008-10-01 00:50
I think as far as technique goes, string instruments are harder to learn, but easier at which to excell. Listen to some of the violin concerti out there (Sibelius' violin concerto or Ravel's Tzigane tend to come to mind). Nobody would ever expect even the best clarinetist in the world (regardless of who you thing that is) to play on that level of virtuosity...yet there are 19 and 20 year old violinists playing the hell out of those pieces. I think that in the first few years of study, a clarinetist has a much easier time learning the technicalities of the instrument, but once a violinist finally gets the technique down, the peak level on a violin (or any string instrument, really) is enormously higher than a clarinetists peak potential. I think this comes from the limitations of a clarinet based on the fact that you 1) your your air, something that sustains your existance, to sound the instrument and 2) you are restricted to only having one or two fingers to a note, and some fingers have up to four (five if you have an extra Eb/Ab lever) notes to take care of. The thing that makes string instruments much easier as far as playing exceptionally fast is the same thing that makes it much easier to play exceptionally fast on the piano vs. on the clarinet: you can use whatever finger you have available to play a note. You aren't confined to using a specific finger for a specific note. This is probably why (generally) woodwinds are expected to play at a higher level of virtuosity than brass players.
Anyway...that's my $.02
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 01:08
"...yet there are 19 and 20 year old violinists playing the hell out of those pieces"
Who either started at 5, or are virtuosos, or are virtuosos who started at 5.
If the recording contracts existed I feel certain we could find 19/20 year old clarinetist who are ready to record the major concertos of our genre.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-01 01:37
In some ways this is a silly discussion because to be a truly great player you have to not only be gifted but dedicated as well. But, how many really fine string players do any of you know that began playing at age 12-15 and became truly fine professional players, either soloists or really good orchestra players. I know many wind players that did that, me and Morals to name two and I know many others. I don’t know a single professional string player that began playing their instrument as a teen. The demands of playing a string instrument are far greater than playing a wind instrument which is why it takes so much longer for a string player to be as accomplished as a fine wind player. A talented wind player can practice three hours a day while in conservatory and become a truly great player, if they have the talent. That’s not nearly enough for the average string player unless they are unusually gifted and well advanced already when they begin conservatory. Most of the string players I know began at age 4-7. Then there’s the price difference. I own five good clarinets; if I bought them all tomorrow they wouldn’t cost me as much as one truly good bow. Many of my friends in the BSO have loans on their instruments far more then their cars and in some cases more then their houses. ESP www.palanker.jhu.edu/457 Listen to a little Mozart
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 01:44
Finally a post from someone who knows enough to speak with certitude.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-10-01 01:50
There are many interesting thoughts presented here. First, I would like to comment on some of the remarks.
Ryan says-
"you are simply way off with your assesment of string instrument playing in my opinion. They don't play themselves and even the very best players on the earth today have a very hard time creating a beautiful sound that is consistently in tune."
You could make that comment about pretty much any instrument. In addition, while it is always difficult to play any instrument in tune, it is far easier to adjust intonation on strings (and to teach it) than perhaps many wind instruments.
and-
"I would argue that in any lower level orchestra (regional level), the wind and brass section is almost always superior to the string section. Are you actually going to argue that this is because wind instruments are harder to play?"
Well, consider the fact that you need to find a couple good players per instrument in the wind section. These players will generally be the motivated, high achieving types, the cream of the crop. They will naturally excel.
The anecdotes about someone who plays a string instrument and then picks up a wind instrument virtually overnight is really no proof of anything. As some have pointed out, once a player has learned many of the skills (including vital reading and listening skills) any second instrument is easier. I have also had some students who were fine string players who wished to start a wind instrument give it up in a short time because they found it too difficult.
If strings are considered to be that much harder, then why is it that you can find some good young string players who are playing at 4 years old or similar young age? I have never seen anyone playing a wind instrument this young.
I believe to master and play ANY instrument really well is hard. I say this having taught both strings and winds. If winds were that easy, my many years of teaching wind instruments should be less of a challenge than it has been. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2008-10-01 06:26
"If the recording contracts existed I feel certain we could find 19/20 year old clarinetist who are ready to record the major concertos of our genre."
Right...but what I'm saying is that the major concerti of our instrument aren't on par with the major concerti of most string instruments as far as virtuosity goes (in the category of "playing as many notes as possible in a short period of time"). Sure...Michael Han Kim will no doubt be playing the Nielsen by the time he's 19 or 20 years old at a near professional level, but at the same time, the Nielsen, as virtuostic and technically challenging as it is, still doesn't have the same note-to-time factor as most of the major concerti of the violin world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-10-01 07:56
What is needed is, of course, an experiment.
Take two randomly-selected groups of children, aged about ten. Teach one group to play stringed instruments, the other group to play wind instruments. After a few years, decide which group plays at a higher standard.
OK, not a very scientific experiment - how do we "decide which group plays at a higher standard" in an objective way - but more useful than the sort of anecdotes and subjective claims made in this thread.
My guess - and it is a pure guess - is that the wind instrument group would experience a lower drop-out rate and a better end-result than the string group. To that extent, we'd have proven that wind instruments are easier - that is to say, a higher proportion of the population can achieve an acceptable result on a wind instrument than on a stringed instrument.
Once we start talking about achieving a professional result rather than an acceptable amateur result, I think the comparison is meaningless. You might as well ask, is it easier to play tennis than to play soccer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2008-10-01 08:23
I don't know whether we can define what is a "harder" instrument by the nature of its repertoire, which is what some people in this thread seem to be trying to do - after all, the idiom of a piece is usually defined by the nature of the instrument for which it is written.
Also, we need to be clear about what kind of general level of playing we are talking about. Personally, I would agree that the average clarinettist or flautist with a few years' playing experience would probably be somewhat ahead in terms of the general attractiveness and technical accomplishment in a performance of a piece than a violinist or cellist who had learned for a similar length of time, assuming that they had both worked equally hard and been equally lucky with the teacher(s) they happened to land up with. There will always be the few who have an exceptional aptitiude and application and who progress far more quickly than the vast majority of people, whether on a particular instrument or playing music in general, but this does not necessarily make any particular instrument "harder" than any other. In the range from advanced student to top professional, I don't think you can say that any particular instrument is harder than any other - they all have their difficulties and most of the players at this kind of level will be more able to overcome some of those difficulties (those associated with a particular instrument) than other difficulties (those associated with other instruments).
In other words, I have always believed that the vast majority of people (about 99.9999%) are far more suited to some instruments than others, possibly wind more than strings in some cases. However, this is not a matter of the instrument being "harder" or "easier", it is a matter of personal suitability in terms of physical characteristics (size, shape of the body as a whole and of various features such as the mouth for wind instruments etc.) and personality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 11:18
"Right...but what I'm saying is that the major concerti of our instrument aren't on par with the major concerti of most string instruments as far as virtuosity goes"
Completely ignoring the point about the amount of time string instruments have existed, the number of virtuosi that have performed those instruments, the number of major compositions that have been composed for them over time (usually FOR those virtuosi), and the popularity the strings instruments have enjoyed over our instrument which is so relatively young.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-10-01 11:52
James- "Completely ignoring the point about the amount of time string instruments have existed, the number of virtuosi that have performed those instruments, the number of major compositions that have been composed for them over time (usually FOR those virtuosi), and the popularity the strings instruments have enjoyed over our instrument which is so relatively young."
--
How does that ignore the point? The point IS that, there are violin students and professionals performing works for violin that are not possible for winds except for the greatest virtuosi.
Case in point- I went to a performance recently that had a clarinetist performing the Saint Saens Introduction, Rondo, and Capriccioso. This was a performer with a quite a lot of experience. He did it very well, BUT there are truck loads of violin STUDENTS that can play that piece very easily.
Looking at it from a mechanical standpoint-
For woodwinds, each finger pushes a different key that moves in a different way than all the others. If my ring finger on my right hand is little slow, I have NO way around trying to get a fast trill from D to E.
For piano, each finger can push any key and there are only 2 kinds of keys, white and black. All white keys have the same axis as all other white keys, and all black keys have the same axis as all other black keys. If my ring finger is slow, I often have options to use other fingers for trills.
For strings- only 4 fingers on the left hand are used (the thumb is also used in the case of 'cello and contrabass) to push 4 strings in only ONE direction, DOWN. I would equate bowing with the same difficulty of the breath.
A pianist/guitarist that I know once made a very astute observation about the cognitive aspect of woodwinds. For strings and keyboards your fingers go in one direction and the pitch does also. For woodwinds, pushing some keys raises pitch and pushing others lowers pitch. There is no intuitive logic to the fingering system for woodwinds (unless you know about the design of which holes are opened/closed by which keys).
Post Edited (2008-10-05 05:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2008-10-01 12:35
Skygardener's post demonstrates a lot of what I said in mine.
First, the example about the Saint-Saens piece - this is a piece which is written for the violin and not the clarinet. I know that there are a few examples of pieces which are just as much cornerstones of the string as the clarinet repertoire (most obviously the Brahms sonatas) but this is relatively rare. This clarinettist may have had good reasons for choosing to perform it but it was not written for the instrument which, in some ways may make it more difficult (without seeing the music I can't give example but, for instance, there may be places where breathing would be difficult). Secondly, it may be true that many violin students play this piece well but do they play it as well as the very top professionals (pick your favourite violinist)?
Secondly, most of the rest of the post focuses largely on the specific area of finger/motor ability which is only one aspect of playing an instrument and in some cases a relatively minor one. As I said in my previous post this is one area where the choice of instrument and success at the instrument may depend on the player's specific characteristics.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 17:47
Skygardener,
"How does [Marshall's response] ignore the point?"
The fact that you didn't even have the presence of mind to quote Marshall's perspective, which precipitated my response, is depressing. If you ACTUALLY READ Marshall's response to me then you will understand what my facts (which you so easily supplied) mean. Marshall responded to my statement WITHOUT comprehending my explanations, which is the reason why I said HE MISSED THE POINT!
"The point IS that, there are violin students and professionals performing works for violin that are not possible for winds except for the greatest virtuosi."
NO, that is not the point of my response OR Marshall's. It may be yours, but it had nothing to do with ours, and it ONLY PROVES MY POINT FOR ME, thank you.
All of your comments towards the inherent ease of string fingerings vs woodwind fingerings are offset by the IMMEDIATE payoff of getting the note you want in the right place by having one fingering for it. The string members can't APPROXIMATE the position on the finger board...they have to get it right without the added benefit of AUTOMATIC success which we have.
Subtlelties of pitch not withstanding, your finger position is garbage. This is born out by the unending anecdotes of individuals whose hands work great on one instrument and are useless for another. They're not ALL saying that strings are easy and woodwinds are hard are they?
"No intuitive logic"...that's funny, it always made sense to me.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bartmann
Date: 2008-10-01 17:56
It is probably true that the violin, viola, and probably cello have both a more virtuosic repertoire and are inherently more virtuosic. Although one time I was dazzled by Michala Petri's recorder solos, I'm sure clarinets can't approach that rapidity of response. And the flute has a speedier response, especially higher up in the register. In the same way a tuba is not as agile as the clarinet, I believe the clarinet is not as agile as the violin or viola. And each instrument has its own limit if virtuosity.
I think perhaps that string players have a more sensitive ear regarding tuning. When a cellist tunes their instrument they tune each string and then play all four strings. Then they make further adjustments in pitch by listening to four strings each tuned a fifth apart. The clarinetist never has the opportunity do develop such aural sensitivity to the same depth as a string player. It's almost as if the fifths become second nature by default.
Maybe the idea "Strings are harder to learn than winds" has something to do with the development of hearing and tuning in addition to technique.
I do think the strings have a larger tonal palette than winds and perhaps harder also refers to developing this larger tonal vocabulary.
Post Edited (2008-10-02 13:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2008-10-01 18:27
""The point IS that, there are violin students and professionals performing works for violin that are not possible for winds except for the greatest virtuosi."
NO, that is not the point of my response OR Marshall's. It may be yours, but it had nothing to do with ours, and it ONLY PROVES MY POINT FOR ME, thank you."
Actually...that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 19:59
I apologize for misrepresenting your statements Marshall.
Your statement does not take into account any of my explanations as to why this is true. YES, the great concerti of the string instruments are extremely difficult...but it ISN'T because the string instruments are simple or "easier to learn".
That's just nonsense people tell themselves to make them feel better.
James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-10-01 20:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2008-10-01 20:23
I didn't say it was because they were easier to learn. Never once did I say that. I said it was because once you get to a certain point, it's easier to cram a certain amount of notes because you aren't confined to using one fingering for one note every single time.
"That's just nonsense you tell yourself to make you feel better."
Don't you DARE make this a personal fight. You don't know ANYTHING about me or my playing abilities. [ Post edited. mark C. ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-10-01 20:36
Bartmann wrote:
<<Maybe the idea "Strings are harder to learn that winds" has something to do with the development of hearing and tuning in addition to technique.>>
I think there's some truth to that. The mental skill recognizing when a note is off is something that is vitally important to string playing, yet not really something that can be easily taught--you pretty much have to pick up that skill as you go along. I think some people have more capacity to develop this skill than others, just as people have varying levels of ability to recognize pitches and intervals by ear.
You need this skill to play a wind instrument well, too, but notice that I qualified my statement with "well." You can be a mediocre wind player without developing this skill that much. But the consequences of not having a good ear are much more serious for violinists.
I wonder if this is perhaps the real reason why the great virtuoso violinists all seem to start so young. There is some research out there that indicates that all of us are actually born with some level of absolute pitch recognition ability (i.e., perfect pitch), but that if we do not do something to develop that ability at an early age, we lose it. They also note that speakers of tonal languages (such as Chinese) have a greater prevalence of absolute pitch than non-tonal language speakers.
Perhaps having a good sensitivity to intonation--a crucial string skill--is something, like language, that is most readily developed at a young age. Dr. Suzuki's violin method, which greatly emphasizes listening, seems to subscribe to this idea, and the successfulness of his approach would suggest there's some truth to this.
Interesting quote attributed to Jascha Heifetz (who started at age 3): "I play as many wrong notes as anyone, but I fix them before most people can hear them."
Here is another related (but admittedly not entirely relevant) question: Which instrument do you think is easiest/hardest for a *machine* to play, a clarinet, a violin, or a trumpet? Keep in mind that humans and machines have very different strengths and weaknesses. For example, a $30 portable tuner from WWBW can beat any human when it comes to pitch recognition and tuning measurement, but deciding which sound to measure the frequency of (and also not confusing fundamentals with overtones) is very hard for a machine to do.
My guess is that of the three I mentioned, the clarinet is actually the hardest *for a machine* because the reed and mouthpiece are inherently unstable (even with a good reed) and therefore most difficult to control. The trumpet, when played by a human, is technically a reed instrument like the clarinet but might not suffer from the same reed-associated instability when played by a machine because the machine is responsible for buzzing and therefore can provide its own specially-designed buzzing implement (which may or may not resemble lips or other kinds of reeds). The violin is probably easiest for a machine because although great precision is still required, the instrument's behavior given finger location and bow pressure is more easily predicted by a computer than is that of a reed instrument. Someone else might disagree, though.
In any case, as I suggested, the difficulty for a machine generally has very little to do with how difficult the task is for a human.
All that being said, pay attention to which robot squeaks in the videos below. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9sirG0UEGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAIeTm4lO5Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1etIeZFm14
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-10-01 20:49
My apologies Marshall, I shouldn't have added that last bit. A long day and you didn't deserve such a statement. I actually amended it before you responded, but you have my apology nonetheless.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-10-01 21:45
By the way, interestingly enough, according to the Guinness Book of World Records the two most difficult instruments to play are both wind instruments.
No, sorry folks. The clarinet is not one of them.
The winners are . . . (drumroll)
French Horn and Oboe
Why haven't you heard this before? Simple. Your horn- and oboe-playing friends are too busy practicing to tell you. 
(Ironically, the easiest, according to them, is a stringed instrument--the ukelele.)
Post Edited (2008-10-01 22:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2008-10-01 21:55
Wow, this has really gotten vehement!
I like to think about it this way. After one year of study, what is a student supposed to be able to do? On clarinet that might be have proper positioning and a limited range of playable notes. On violin (which I'll admit to having tried to learn but gave up due to boredom/disinterest/lack of instructor) maybe it's proper posture and basic finger positions. After 5 years on clarinet we may have mastered the full range/chromatic scale and posture as well as breath support of the clarinet while violinists have learned bowing techniques, their full range, and proper vibrato.
But the point isn't that it's any harder, per se. We all have different things that we need to learn to get to that certain level of proficiency after 'x' number of years. It's truly a bag of apples versus oranges with regard to how we compare difficulty of learning to play the instruments. No one above has convinced me how to do this. There's too many variables.
On the other hand, the arguments of "number of notes" is interesting. At first it would seem that since they can cram 32 notes into a beat easier than we can cram 16 that that might be a measure of difficulty but again, apples and oranges. Are we disregarding the ease of certain fingerings on violin over clarinet? i.e. is it just as easy to play in A on violin as it is on clarinet? If you play a piece in A on violin, can it be played in C on clarinet? These are some of the questions that are setting red flags off in my head as I read the above arguments. If you put the two side by side, I think both arguments are shallow. Hell, ask Corigliano, he didn't seem to mind putting a bagillion notes in a measure. If a violinist can play the part from Jupiter easier on violin than a clarinetist does that mean it's easier to learn the violin or that the violin is a superior instrument? I can only conclude that we haven't provided a convincing argument to one side or another. Keep debating. This is interesting stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-10-01 22:27
This has actually become really un-interesting. Comparing the two is impossible and some of the comments here show me that some posters have no clue what string players do, what makes a string player great and what is challenging about the instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-10-01 23:57
Ryan25 wrote:
> This has actually become really un-interesting. Comparing the
> two is impossible and some of the comments here show me that
> some posters have no clue what string players do, what makes a
> string player great and what is challenging about the
> instrument.
Well, I think that depends on what you mean by compare. As far as claiming that one instrument family is in general more difficult than another--I agree with you, that's an impossible and futile task and so general as to be meaningless. As the Guinness people suggest, "strings" can be as easy as a ukelele and as hard as a violin. Same sort of thing applies to "winds." Clearly just become some strings are harder than some winds or some winds are harder than some strings, it doesn't mean that one instrument family is harder than another or better than another. Those kinds of sweeping generalizations are meaningless.
But, on the other hand, if by compare you mean comparing the types of skills required to play each instrument, how the quality of one's playing is judged on one instrument vis-a-vis another (in other words, what is the difference between "good" on a clarinet and "good" on a violin, for instance), and what is more difficult to do on one versus another, I think those are very worthwhile topics.
If you write or arrange music, for instance, you need to know these kinds of things if you want your music played. (think about Copland's "too hard for Benny Goodman" Concerto--in its original form it wasn't just too hard for Goodman, it was too hard for a lot of people and really hard to make sound decent in any case)
If you play in a competition where you are judged by string players, it doesn't hurt to know what string players listen for in their own playing so you have some idea how they may respond to yours. For instance, I think some of us probably never gave much thought to how difficult a French horn is to play because we tend to think of "hard" in terms of virtuosity. Yet French horns play some pretty high notes on about 12 feet of tubing. Think about it--that's basically like trying to play the upper altissimo register on a contrabass clarinet (while sounding like a soprano clarinet). Yet we take it for granted that horn players can do this because we've never tried it. The same sort of thing is bound to happen when we clarinet players play for, say, violinists. That Midsummer Night's Dream excerpt everybody finds so hard on clarinet would be a piece of cake to articulate on a violin. But on the other hand, we don't have to contend with such things as bowing direction, which can be a real pain if you've never tried following bow markings before. Bottom line is that we don't always know what is hard on one instrument as opposed to another.
And some challenges of playing different instruments occur at different levels of playing and some are almost counter-intuitive. For instance, violins can play runs ad infinitum because they don't have to breathe. Yet, long sustained notes are (at least initially) easier on wind instruments because we don't have to change bow direction like they do (keep in mind that bow speed for them is kind of like air support for us). Of course, once you master that bowing trick, theoretically you can play much longer notes on a stringed instrument because you never have to breathe. Of course, someone who knows how to circular breathe you could assume has overcome the breathing problem. But even then you have to ask the question, which is more versatile, circular breathing or "circular bowing?" (for lack of a better term--I don't know what you actually call it). Are there limitations on what you can do with either technique? And how impressive do violinists consider "circular bowing" vis-a-vis what clarinettists think of circular breathing? (so you know if you are being judged by a player of the other instrument family what they might be inclined think of your technique) And if you're trying to write music, if you want your music to be played, I think you really have to ask yourself the question, who is going to be able to play what I write? It's all well and good if Itzhak Perlman or Martin Frost can play something, but if you're trying to write for a school orchestra, will they be able to pull it off? (And sometimes, as my Copland example illustrates, it's even possible to overestimate the abilities of some of the finest players)
So I think these sorts of questions do have their merits, even if "What's the hardest instrument family to play" doesn't.
Post Edited (2008-10-02 00:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-10-02 12:18
mrn says:
"(Ironically, the easiest, according to them, is a stringed instrument--the ukelele.)"
The ukulele, like many instruments, playing at a simple level it is easy. To really play at a high level is very challenging. Find some music of the young virtuoso Jake Shimabukuro, jazz player Lyle Ritz or classical player John King to hear some very impressive musical playing that is quite a treat.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-10-02 16:44
One aspect which hasn't really been talked about is the specific intricacies of playing cello and comparison to clarinet.
our reed selection versus their string, and bow hair selection
our lig versus their say, rosin quality, bridge and (i forgot the term) foot part that holds the bottom end of the strings
our mpc versus their bow material & make
our air support, embouchure etc vs the technique of bowing, placement of the bow, bow angle (all strings or some), pressure etc and fingers
all in all I think it would be very difficult to compare apples to apples as they are two fundamentally different instruments
as for young players - strings have an advantage because they also make 1/4 sized instruments. I don't think it would be advantageous to start a youngster on an Eb or higher pitched clarinet for size sake.
i've never looked into it, but i'm curious what the comparable same symphony salary rates are for a cellist vs clarinetist
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarionman
Date: 2008-10-03 16:56
I think this topic got out of control. We are not comparing apples and oranges here. We are comparing apples and carrots, a fruit and a vegetable. Those instruments are so different; to come up with a correct response is not going to happen. The best we can do is convey our opinion based on what we believe and know about the instruments. I think it would be easier to compare an oboe and a clarinet or a clarinet and bassoon. Comparing two instruments within the same family will probably result in a more inform comparison then comparing two instruments from different musical families.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marcia
Date: 2008-10-04 20:55
>Of course, once you master that bowing trick, theoretically you can play much longer notes on a stringed instrument because you never have to breathe.
As a recovery room nurse, that statement makes me want to jump up and down in protest. We ALL have to breathe. I spend much of my working day instructing people to do exactly that. Why don't we say what is really meant--String players do not have to stop playing in order to take a breath.
There, I feel much better now, thank you. ![[happy]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley12.gif)
Marcia
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-10-05 01:59
David mentioned about practice time and that 4 hours is lot for wind instruments but not a lot for strings.
I will add that this is true for piano, also.
I think this is an interesting idea as it is so much more difficult to play winds for a long time without injury. For example, in school I had many days of practice that I had to stop because my lips were bleeding. I know people whose tongue was bleeding from practicing long hours, but I have never met a pianist whose fingers were bleeding from too much practice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2008-10-05 02:32
Anyone who wants to hear virtuoso violin pieces played on a clarinet should check out a Summit Records CD called Tarantelle. It has Robert Spring playing a number of pieces originally played by Heifetz.
I will defer to others as to whether more violinists than clarinetists can play these pieces. I know I can play them only on my audio system.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-10-05 04:01
skygardener wrote:
> I know people whose tongue
> was bleeding from practicing long hours, but I have never met a
> pianist whose fingers were bleeding from too much practice.
And string player's fingers bleed - I played bass professionally for a few years, and can tell you blood certainly ruins bass strings ... and you can count the stitches on my left index finger by means of the scars left when I was gashed by a broken cello string right to the ligaments (5 little white dots top and bottom of the white line ... and I don't even play cello! )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bartmann
Date: 2008-10-07 14:43
Clarionman,
I certainly agree that the comparison between learning winds and strings is a difficult one to make. And that comparison between related instruments is much easier to make.
As musicians here we know that learning any instrument is a journey of hard work and dedication.
Having learned both flute and clarinet, I argue that the clarinet is harder to learn for many reasons:
Not pitched in C
Hard to choose a good instrument
Thumb and lip pain
Not based on the octave
Reeds
Reed / Mouthpiece setup can take a long time to perfect
Longer setup and break down time
But given these difficulties of learning the clarinet, I would say the flute and clarinet are both fairly comparable with the clarinet being more difficult. If we add the oboe to this equation, I would argue that it is more difficult than the clarinet. And if we add the recorder, I would argue that it is easier than all of them. Below is my chart of the winds in their order of difficulty
Recorder -easiest
Flute - easier
Clarinet - medium
Bassoon - harder
Oboe - hardest
But within the group of winds there are still comparable levels of learning.
I don't play strings, but my cellist friend who also plays winds was convinced that strings are harder; so much harder that they are in a different league all together. "Clarinet is to Cello as Checkers is to Chess" she said.
Herrn Blumberg had a good point about the cost of strings being 10 to 100 times more expensive. Cost is a real constraint for string players. As clarinetists we are fortunate that our instruments cost "only" thousands of dollars rather than tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands for strings. And there bows cost tens of thousands and their strings. Four D'Addario cello strings cost $110.
Therefore I think we clarinetists can agree from a FINANCIAL perspective, strings are much harder than winds.
Bartmann
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-10-07 15:52
Bartmann wrote:
> And if we add the recorder, I would argue that it is
> easier than all of them.
Until you do a Vivaldi or Telemann concerto, and realize how unstable they are ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-10-07 16:22
A key point missed in this discussion so far is this:
The teacher can see everything a string player is doing.
A clarinet teacher can see nothing (much) of the equivalent tone-formation activities inside the head, mouth, throat, lungs of the clarinet teacher. The clarinet teacher has to guess what's going on, and the student has to experiment.
Now, that's hard!
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-10-07 16:40
Bartmann wrote:
> Therefore I think we clarinetists can agree from a FINANCIAL
> perspective, strings are much harder than winds.
I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases. It's true that a lot of professionals play on incredibly expensive (and often very old) instruments. But if you're an amateur or a student, you don't have to shell out much more for a decent student or intermediate model violin than you do for a clarinet. That's the cost of LEARNING the instrument, right? (Playing professionally is a different story, of course)
Good cello strings are expensive (as can be good violin strings), but you can get a lot more mileage out of a set of cello or even violin strings than, say, a box of reeds--and you don't have the problem of so many duds like with reeds. Bow rehairing can get pricey, too, (comparable to two boxes of reeds) but again, you still get more mileage from a bow rehairing than you do from reeds. If you're a student, bow rehairing is like a once-a-year thing.
So playing/learning a stringed instrument doesn't *have to* be that expensive. See this thread from "violinist.com": http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=5708
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-10-07 17:25
mrn wrote:
"Good cello strings are expensive (as can be good violin strings), but you can get a lot more mileage out of a set of cello or even violin strings than, say, a box of reeds--and you don't have the problem of so many duds like with reeds. Bow rehairing can get pricey, too, (comparable to two boxes of reeds) but again, you still get more mileage from a bow rehairing than you do from reeds. If you're a student, bow rehairing is like a once-a-year thing."
Well, I think I have had students who only change reeds once a year!
;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bartmann
Date: 2008-10-07 21:13
Bob Phillips,
I agree with you about how seeing what a student is doing is extremely important to them learning the correct way to play.
I encountered this while learning the flute. My teacher could comment on my lips and suggest minute changes that yielded changes in tone. Whereas while learning the clarinet, I had to rely on the teacher's descriptions of what I should be doing with my tongue. This added to the clarinet difficulty factor.
String students are lucky in that they do have the advantage of being visible in every aspect of tone generation.
mrn,
We are indeed discussing LEARNING an instrument. But I argue that learning an instrument extends all the way to the professional level. And even advanced amateur string players strive to have near-professional grade instruments. And even near-professional string instruments cost more than professional clarinets and are a greater financial hurdle.
Mark,
You mentioned Telemann and Vivaldi concerti. I love Baroque music and for years I played it on the clarinet, (transposing on the fly) with reasonable success. But now I play Baroque repertoire exclusively on the flute. Since I don't have to transpose and because the flute has more agility in the upper register the end result is a much more fluid performance (and less stress for me). Michala Petri is my favorite Recorder player, (recordist? recorderstress?)
Bartmann
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2008-10-09 06:30
"That Midsummer Night's Dream excerpt everybody finds so hard on clarinet would be a piece of cake to articulate on a violin."
Well actually, that particular bouncing stroke is something that causes a lot of people to be eliminated from consideration in many orchestral auditions for violin and viola. Many players can't execute the stroke properly to achieve the desired sound, and most don't even have their terminology correct (sautille or spiccato?).
I think that I'd actually find more clarinet players able to play those articulations more consistently than violinists!
(I grapple with this issue constantly, as my clarinet students practice this excerpt, and my violin/viola students deal with it as well as it keeps popping up on auditions).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2008-10-11 17:20
I can more or less play all the sting instruments, although the one I'm most comfortable with is the violin. Having said this, I'm far from being a great violinist. I taught sting instruments in public schools at various times during my teaching career, and at my peak, I was able to play the violin at a good eighth grade level.
It has been my observation that an extremely motivated student can go from beginner to fine clarinet player in three to five years. I know that it's difficult to define "fine clarinet player," but I'll say that it is someone who plays with a good tone and can perform the basic clarinet literature at a good performance level. Because of my long experience in public schools, I'm thinking about highly-talented high school juniors and seniors when I use the term "fine clarinet player."
Others may disagree, but it has also been my observation that it takes longer to develop fine string players. I think it takes a minimum of six to eight years. I've seen public school districts that have eliminated elementary band and orchestra programs to save money, but expect to have talented high school groups. It might (and I emphasize the word might) work for a band program, but it cannot work for a string program.
The challenge for a string instrument student is that there is just so much to learn. It's true that string players don't have to learn how to tongue, but there are so many types of bowings to learn. And what about fingerings (and putting fingers in exactly the right spot on the fingerboard)?What about the seven positions (and constantly shifting positions)? For most notes on the clarinet there is one standard fingering, but on string instruments there are several (it all depends on which postition you're in). String players also have to contend with harmonics (which can get quite complex) and double stops. In many ways, playing a string instrument is definitely harder.
Yet, there are other factors that have to be considered. String players never have to worry about reeds (by golly, you can just pick up the violin and play without worrying about how the reed will respond today!).
Teaching and mastering the clarinet embouchure is a major challenge that sting players never have to face. Even though it takes a little time learning to bow quarter notes well with a detache bowing, it is much harder to learn how to tongue four quarter notes smoothly. String players never have to worry about covering tone holes completely or crossing the break. Finally, there is the all-important stamina factor. It takes a lot of physical energy to play the clarinet. Playing a clarinet for an hour is much more physically taxing than playing the violin for an hour; I think I know because I've done both.
There is one final factor that your cellist friend didn't mention. She learned the cello first, and while she learned it, she learned basic musicianship. She learned all about rhythms (quite a challenging area for many students) and about how music is "supposed to sound." When she picked up the flute and clarinet, she didn't have to learn how to play dotted quarter notes, dotted eighth notes, or sixteenth notes. She didn't have to learn how to play cut time or six eight. She didn't have to learn that a piece of music should be played with feeling, not honked out until its bitter end. She was able to devote all of her time to the instrument itself itself. I would say that it took me many years to master the clarinet, but when I picked up a saxophone in high school, I learned it very quickly. While in college, I learned to play violin, cello, oboe, flute, bassoon, horn, trumpet, trombone, tuba, and percussion. I've also had some piano lessons. While I'm not a great performer on all these instruments, I'm really not bad. It's hard to become a proficient performer on everything, but if I had the time, I probably could become proficient on a couple of them within a couple years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MalcolmH
Date: 2008-10-11 20:32
Did I read correctly that someone was advocating that a measure of someones virtuosity was how quickly they can play 32 notes in a bar.
Wow, what nonsense
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-10-12 09:28
That is a good comment.
Although some (me included) have said that this or that is more difficult, we have not been so specifis as to point out "difficult for _____". That all depends on one's goals and the goals of the music they intend to play.
If one's goal is to play loudly, then trumpet is clearly easier than classical guitar. But if one's goal is to play softly, then the opposite would be true.
If the goal is "to make great music", maybe that can't be answered...?
edit- I have always been talking about the "easier" instrument as the one that has more ability for speed.
Post Edited (2008-10-12 12:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
