 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-29 00:50
A short time ago I used the term "Larynx" while describing how I voice the clarinet. I thought some of you might be interested in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia's definition of the function of the Larynx in quotes below. Although I might or might not be describing the function correctly to everyone’s satisfaction in the voicing of the clarinet, I think the definition speaks for itself. I have no doubt some won't agree with me, but that's all right, that's what these posts are all about. Learning from each other and helping people answer questions. Besides, larynx is such a nice term to use and all of my students seem to understand what I mean.
"Sound is generated in the larynx, and that is where pitch and volume are manipulated. The strength of expiration from the lungs also contributes to loudness, and is necessary for the vocal folds to produce speech.
Fine manipulation of the larynx is used in a great way to generate a source sound with a particular fundamental frequency, or pitch. This source sound is altered as it travels through the vocal tract, configured differently based on the position of the tongue, lips, mouth, and pharynx. The process of altering a source sound as it passes through the filter of the vocal tract creates the many different vowel and consonant sounds of the world's languages." That's good enough for me. Google it to find the entire definition and a picture. ESP
www.peabody.jhu.edu/457 Listen to a little Mozart, live recording
PS. you have to read my very last post, I've changed my mind to read "near the Larynx, the the actualy Larynx itself"!
(“The larynx, colloquially known as the voicebox, is an organ in the neck of mammals involved in protection of the trachea and sound production. The larynx houses the vocal folds, and is situated just below where the tract of the pharynx splits into the trachea and the esophagus. Sound is generated in the larynx, and that is where pitch and volume are manipulated.”)Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-11-04 15:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2008-10-29 01:47
While I agree with you that the term Larynx is common and used frequently, I think that your theory is overly complicated and therefore of little use when actually playing the clarinet.
Playing the clarinet should be a simpler and more instinctive endeavor.
What do others think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-29 02:35
Good point Dileep but it works for me. That's my only point.
I don't want to make things any more complicated then necessary but as I said, when I talk to my students about voicing my explanation seems to work for them. I don't expect others to necessarily do what I do; I just wanted to show the definition of the term "Larynx” as applied to voicing as defined in the dictionary. Please, do not use the term Larynx if you think in any way it will confuse your student. Simple works, if it actually accomplishes what you need to accomplish. I don’t usually talk about this or anything else for that matter, if the student doesn’t have the problem to begin with, but if simple doesn’t work, then I go to the next step. That’s my only point, it's a definition. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joseph Brenner, Jr.
Date: 2008-10-29 03:27
Whether or not Ed Palanker's theory is useful or too complicated, his explanation is, nonetheless, helpful and provoking. At minimum, he reminds us that the hardware of clarinet playing is not the sole determinant of sound quality. So much depends on lung capacity and breath support, cushioning of the lip(s), size of the mouth, size of the tongue, health of the sinuses, attack of the tongue, angle and shape of the tongue, openness of the throat, height of fingers above tone holes, approach of fingers to the tone holes, and angle of clarinet to the body...among other things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-10-29 16:07
The reference to the Benade papers available through the Stanford University lead me to one where he considered the effects of the player's wind-way (PWW) on the frequency content of a clarinet.
He pointed out that, at the time, only the clarinet itself --from the mouthpiece to the bell had been analyzed --neglecting the other half of the acoustical system --from the mouthpiece back to the player's lungs.
He noted two things:
The clarinet-only model was working pretty darn well considering the omission of about half of the entire system, and
That the single reed/valve in the middle of the system effectively separates the two acoustic "provinces" greatly reducing the effectiveness of altering the PWW.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it has been proven (elsewhere) that players good enough to play fluently in the altissimo (clarinet and saxophone) DO facilitate their playing by alterations in the PWW.
So, here I am still trying to figure out what to do to make some of those wonderful sounds that my teacher produces on his clarinet. (I'm thinking of buffing the silver off of my sliver keys and "swapping horns" with him.)
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-10-29 16:17
To me this just reinforces the possible connection between singing and playing. When one looks back at Errol Garner and Glenn Gould perhaps they were on the right track. It is so easy to be a button pusher on the clarinet as notes slot so much easier than on the French Horn for example. Beyond just playing the correct note there is the voicing or fine tuning of the note which Ed is referring to.
Are there any singer/clarinetists on this bulletin board who use singing techniques on the clarinet?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-10-29 20:12
I just viewed Maria Callas singing Casta Diva in the new EMI dvd I just purchased. The close ups are educational to watch and I also believe her mouth and throat movements ....in a way....echo what Ed is saying. Obviously we don't play the clarinet the same way a vocalist sings but there is some relationship imo.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-10-29 23:41
The idea of directing a student's attention to what goes on behind the clarinet mouthpiece is obviously a good one. It's well-known that different placements of the tongue have an effect on the sound of the instrument.
But because the details of how the tongue is placed aren't very available to the owner of the tongue, it makes sense to encourage experimentation IN GENERAL; so that even if what is actually done by the player isn't available to the player's consciousness, the results may contribute to their better playing, via learning 'without understanding'.
(As Werner Erhard once remarked, "Understanding is the booby prize." If you can do it, who cares that you understand?)
In this spirit, I once generated the idea of the 'Internal Clarinet' (IC). The idea was that you thought about playing the clarinet, not in terms of the outer, obviously present, physically resonating instrument; but rather in terms of the internal, NOT obviously present, NOT obviously resonating bits of you -- like your mouth cavity.
And when I do this myself, I find that it helps me.
Now, what Ed is recommending is in this spirit too, it seems to me.
However, rather than the 'made-up' IC, he has chosen a real, physical part of the body. And I would say that this is a difficulty, because the LARYNX is a sound-generator, not a sound modifier, as the Wikipedia definition makes plain.
A quite good analogy with a larynx would be: a mouth-organ. The mouth-organ is a sound generator, the output of which is modified by an expert player, who creates resonant cavities with his hands that modify the sound of the reeds of the mouth-organ, in the same sort of way that the vocal tract modifies the sounds of the larynx.
Of course the larynx produces a varying pitch from just one generator, whereas the mouth-organ has several reeds of different pitches -- but still, the 'definition' of how the larynx works isn't far from the 'definition' of how the mouth-organ works. And really expert mouth-organ players seem to make the instrument 'speak' -- no? -- I'd say to a much greater extent than more conventional instruments.
So I would argue against saying that the 'larynx' modifies the clarinet sound, because it's clearly a lie. (The larynx is a generator, like a mouth-organ.)
Also, the situation is very different in a clarinet. There, THE SOUND GENERATOR, the reed/mouthpiece/embouchure collaboration, occurs AFTER the resonant cavity; whereas in singing (and in mouth-organ playing) the sound-generator is prior to the oral cavity modulations/hand cavity modulations.
So, Ed, although I agree that 'larynx' is a nice word, I think you should give it up. It's a real structure; and moreover its real properties are at odds with what you want.
Instead, MAKE UP something -- like 'the internal clarinet':-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2008-10-30 00:38
I'm most interested in what to do with this to help me play and improve, esp in the higher altissimo.
Is it fair to say that there is one source (a reed) and two resonant cavities, i.e. the clarinet and the PWW (buccal cavity?), and two things that 'damp out' the resonance or change the overtone series, i.e. instrument leaks and inadequate breath?
I've been advised to 'sing' the note to effect a change in the PWW, but I'm not sure what kind of changes to make.
Is this helpful or is there a better model and/or mental images to get me to where I want to go?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davetrow
Date: 2008-10-30 00:59
The "honks and squeaks" exercise (as Ridenour calls it) is a good way to get started on playing around with the "buccal cavity" and its effect on clarinet sound production: playing the overtones without using the register key (or lifting the first finger left hand for notes above C3). Also stopping up the bell of the clarinet (with a pillow or something) and playing "bugle tones."
I should add that so far I'm not having much luck with these exercises--or rather, that progress is slow, and I'm still stuck with upper clarion grunts. But I'm improving, and a lot of that improvement is due to things I've read here, or have read elsewhere after they were pointed out here.
Dave Trowbridge
Boulder Creek, CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-30 02:08
Well, I must say again, the term Larynx has always worked for me because when I describe it to someone one on one, they always know what I'm talking about. When they sing an arpeggio they feel what moves in their throat and that’s when they understand what I mean. Students can associate it with singing, and we do “sing” into our instruments. I will always use that term for the very simple reason that I've been successful using it and it works because everyone has heard of that term and they can make the association. It’s that simple. I could use some complicated medical term or try giving them some complicated description of what’s happening in the back of their throat but guess what, the term Larynx works. It really doesn’t have to be that complicated. If you prefer a different body part, go for it. ESP
(“The larynx, colloquially known as the voicebox, is an organ in the neck of mammals involved in protection of the trachea and sound production. The larynx houses the vocal folds, and is situated just below where the tract of the pharynx splits into the trachea and the esophagus. Sound is generated in the larynx, and that is where pitch and volume are manipulated.”)Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-11-04 15:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-10-30 08:04
Ed wrote:
>> Well, I must say again, the term Larynx has always worked for me because when I describe it to someone one on one, they always know what I'm talking about.>>
What's true is rather that they DON'T know what you're talking about, if it's the larynx.
The thing is, as well as your responsibility to produce good clarinet players, you have a wider responsibility to have the world make sense to people. By misusing a very specifically defined word, 'larynx', you work against people's understanding.
Then they may start talking about how they 'have a problem with their larynx' when they play the clarinet. I had a student once on a summer course who told me she had a problem with 'a tight throat'. "How do you know?" I asked. "Oh, my teacher told me," she said.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-10-30 08:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-30 22:30
Thank you Tony! By the way, I understand what the student meant by a tight throat, makes sense to me. Take care, ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-10-31 04:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-10-30 23:49
Hi Ed. I'm wondering if by "larynx," you're actually referring to the "pharynx" (which is what most people think of as their "throat"). The pharynx extends all the way from the nose down to where the throat separates into the esophagus and larynx/trachea.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharynx.
That's why when you get a sore throat, it's called "pharyngitis," not "laryngitis" (which is inflamed voicebox/vocal cords).
Although I think Tony is right about the problem of using anatomical terms that aren't quite right, I think you can probably get away with using the term "pharynx" in this context because it ought to be general enough (basically everything north of the larynx and not mouth or nose is pharynx), and it sounds enough like "larynx" that the students who need to hear "larynx" to get the gist of what you're saying will probably also get the right idea if you say "pharynx" instead (in fact, they may not know the difference).
Isn't somebody on this BBoard an otolaryngologist (ENT)? For some reason I thought somebody was (at any rate, we do have some doctors--any doctor's going to know more than I do about this! )
Post Edited (2008-10-30 23:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-31 04:53
Hi MRN, thank you, this makes sense to me, and it’s a nice word too. I like it. As a matter of fact, with my NY accent, even though I’ve lived in MD for 45 years, it will sound the same to my students anyway. I like the dictionary definition of the term pharynx even better so I will change my terminology to Pharynx instead of Larynx, it’s close enough. The definition is "In humans the pharynx is important in vocalization", and that the Larynx opens into the Pharyx. The area I talk about is the area NEAR OR BY the Larynx, shown as the Larynx opening in the diagrahm perhaps not the actualy Larynx itself, I hope that clearifies it somewhat and can help others in their teaching or playing, or not. Thank you MRN. I certainly hope that Tony is happy now; he seemed so disturbed by my using “the wrong terminology”. Take care all, ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-10-31 13:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-10-31 10:34
Although I do agree with Tony in principle I think it's also true that if two people understand what "they are talking about" then it doesn't matter. Like when you get the finger from an irate driver you both know the meaning.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-31 16:37
Just to confuse you all just a little bit more I recently received this e-mail and Allan gave me his permission to post it, so here it is. Just a little support. Thinking about it now, maybe that's where I got the idea in the first place. ESP
"Tony Gigliotti taught me to open the throat and thus lower the larynx by singing (not while playing) A-E-OH-Ahh-then a lower pitch-Ohh (a descending scale or chord)....and the larynx visibly lowered in the neck while singing. This created more space (or a wider volume) in the hypopharynx while playing."
Always enjoy your posts.
Allan
Dr.Allan Segal
www.clarinetconcepts.com
(“The larynx, colloquially known as the voicebox, is an organ in the neck of mammals involved in protection of the trachea and sound production. The larynx houses the vocal folds, and is situated just below where the tract of the pharynx splits into the trachea and the esophagus. Sound is generated in the larynx, and that is where pitch and volume are manipulated.”)Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-11-04 15:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-10-31 18:12
Ed wrote:
>> By the way, I understand what the student meant by a tight throat, makes sense to me.>>
In fact, the student was just repeating something she'd been told. That, as well as several other ideas of hers, had very little connection with the reality of her playing. What she needed to do was listen more, and therefore be in a position to correct real, rather than imaginary defects.
It's the reason why I say it's important to draw a distinction between metaphorical and technical language. You laugh it off; but it's important for students -- and even you yourself -- to know when something is being presented as a WAY OF THINKING ABOUT PLAYING rather than as an end in itself.
They -- and you -- need to be in the REAL world in order to evaluate the success or failure of the enterprise. Too much loose talk confuses the issue.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-10-31 18:50
Tony told me "You laugh it off; but it's important for students -- and even you yourself -- to know when something is being presented as a WAY OF THINKING ABOUT PLAYING rather than as an end in itself. Yes, I have a good sense of humor.
Thank you Tony but that's exactly l what I do which is why I posted this in the first place. It's also why I answer other peoples post in order to give them my view on there questions and try to help them over come their problems, but I tend to be right to the point and not get to wordy or flowerily so maybe once in a while I use the wrong terminology, they understand though. I'm sorry you don't agree with me all the time but I know I help many people understand how to play the clarinet better, so I'm happy with that and will continue to do so in the future. This will be my last post on this, I think everyone reading it has learned how to improve their playing. I've been successful in what I've intended to achieve. I'm not even going to read this post anymore so I'm not tempted to anwer you. Bye! ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-11-04 13:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-01 12:48
Ed wrote:
>> I tend to be right to the point and not get to wordy or flowerily so maybe once in a while I use the wrong terminology, they understand though.>>
But, as my example of the student with 'a tight throat' shows, people on here may not necessarily understand these things. And when you claimed that YOU understood what she meant, you in fact didn't, as I described to you. She was in cloud-cuckoo land.
I don't understand why you don't accept the notion that we must be careful on a list like this to underline that there isn't a way 'you spozed to play the clarinet' that can be said to EVERYONE. One person may need to be told to be careful not to go too far in the direction of doing something on the clarinet, even though to 'do that something' is exactly what needs to be said to someone else.
>> I know I help many people understand how to play the clarinet better, so I'm happy with that and will continue to do so in the future. This will be my last post on this, I think everyone reading it has learned how to improve their playing. I've been successful in what I've intended to achieve.>>
Well, you may have been successful in some cases; but you don't know in general, as I've pointed out.
>> I'm not even going to read this post anymore so I'm not tempted to anwer you.>>
It's a pity. I have to say that listening to your 'a little Mozart', in which you do indeed make a lovely sound and play most musically, you would have been better advised to be thinking more about the pitch of your first and indeed subsequent replies to the string quartet -- particularly the pitch of the open G -- than about keeping your throat open, your tongue down, or whatever it was you were doing at the time.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-11-03 06:58
Is the long established concept of "open throat" metaphorical or literal?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-03 09:23
graham wrote:
>> Is the long established concept of "open throat" metaphorical or literal?>>
The concept of open throat, perhaps better characterised as 'low position of back of the tongue', or 'the set of tongue positions corresponding to the vowel-sound aw', is literal.
If what you're meaning by adding the words 'the long-established' is the idea that the clarinet should always be played in this way, then the concept is limiting and even wrong.
It's essentially equivalent to saying that an actor should always speak with a deep, resonant voice; when, as any fule kno, an excellent actor needs a far greater range -- the possibility of whispering, for example.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-11-03 09:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-11-03 09:48
I really meant that it is a terminology I have known for a long time, not that it would or should be applied or always applied.
Thanks for the answer though, as I have heard it said that one cannot physically open the throat, but the point re the vowel sound puts that in context.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-11-03 13:35
As an amateur, I find that precise language helps me a great deal, even though my attempts to apply the language to my playing often fail! Linguistic peskiness probably makes me an annoying or even difficult student, because if somebody said something to me about "tight throat," for instance, I would ask imediately whether the person meant the inside of the throat or the outside (different set of muscles). Then I would ask what part of the throat: Above the uvula? Below it? If the teacher confused "larynx" with "pharynx," that confusion would transmit itself to me.
Instruction on a bulleting board, where we can't see or hear each other, also raises the question of physical differences between students, and between students and their teachers. "Open throat," as defined by the extent to which someone drops the jaw and lowers (flattens) the back of the tongue, can vary by an inch or even more between individuals. The different brands of mouthpiece don't differ from each other nearly as much as the bodies we attach to these implements. As an extreme example to make the point, imagine Joel Cairo, played by Peter Lorre in the 1941 version of "The Maltese Falcon," as a brilliant virtuoso and clarinet teacher. His student is Frankenstein's monster, as played by Boris Karloff. It's lucky that Cairo speaks with unusual delicacy, because he needs to be most precise about explaining "open throat" to the much larger, taller monster with his gaping maw!
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2008-11-03 13:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-03 19:32
graham wrote:
>> Thanks for the answer though, as I have heard it said that one cannot physically open the throat, but the point re the vowel sound puts that in context.>>
Well, that's just how I translate what they say; what THEY actually mean, who the hell knows -- least of all them, I'd say.
I talk about it all in an entirely different way -- and, I have to say, disparage the tradition that Ed represents. It demeans what the clarinet may best be, as does much of the American school of 'music as PRESENTATION' -- which isn't confined to our instrument.
By the way, GOOD LUCK, AMERICA! Don't screw it up THIS TIME:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-03 21:18
Tony Pay wrote:
> I talk about it all in an entirely different way -- and, I have
> to say, disparage the tradition that Ed represents. It demeans
> what the clarinet may best be, as does much of the American
> school of 'music as PRESENTATION' -- which isn't confined to
> our instrument.
What does that mean, "music as presentation?" And what exactly is the tradition that you're disparaging?
Post Edited (2008-11-04 05:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-11-04 02:52
" and, I have to say, disparage the tradition that Ed represents. It demeans what the clarinet may best be, as does much of the American school of 'music as PRESENTATION' -- which isn't confined to our instrument" This is ludicrous stuff. America has an abundance of thoughtful, creative teachers and wonderful performers. Sweeping generalizations like Tony's should be swept away along with all its' negativity.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-11-04 11:30
Too many tight throats here today. Loosen up guys.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-04 13:13
Mike wrote:
>> What does that mean, "music as presentation?" And what exactly is the tradition that you're disparaging?>>
I'll explain my perhaps not-so-lucid term when I've more time.
But, meanwhile, I'd just like to point out, for anyone other than John Price labouring under the delusion that I think all American playing deficient, that when I wrote: "...it demeans what the clarinet may best be, as does much of the American school of 'music as PRESENTATION' -- which isn't confined to our instrument." then any intelligent reader can see quite clearly that the comment refers to a particular subset of American playing -- albeit one particularly and annoyingly visible in your country, according to me.
Of course 'Arnoldstang', as he likes to call himself, chronically labours under delusions -- as we've seen in the past -- because he hasn't yet taught himself to read carefully.
But enough of him.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-11-04 16:17
Tony:
Although I am not sure I quite understand your terminology, the little I grasp from this and other posts from you, makes me think that the School of "music as PRESENTATION" is unfortunately not an exclusive American phenomenon. While we wait for your explanation of what you mean by presentation, maybe you can enlighten us by terming (does that verb exist?) what the alternative to this school is, i.e. "music as ???"
Actually, if you ever have the time, I would be very grateful if you found the time to write an article contrasting a few different schools, with sonic examples/references. I understand it isn't politically correct to have a frank analysis of what Player A vs. Player B vs. Player C do that make them into one school or another, but it would help me, and I hope others, better understand your ideas on what a musician's role should be.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-11-04 20:07
Sylvain wrote:
> I understand
> it isn't politically correct to have a frank analysis of what
> Player A vs. Player B vs. Player C do that make them into one
> school or another, but it would help me, and I hope others,
> better understand your ideas on what a musician's role should
> be.
You know, I'm not even sure that's possible to do, because my intuition tells me that what Tony is referring to is more of a philosophical difference than a stylistic one.
I still don't know for sure what Tony means by "music as presentation," but I did think a little bit about the words *could mean*, regardless of whether such meaning might be what Tony is thinking.
It does seem to me that there is a difference in philosophy among musicians about the process of musical interpretation and the nature of musical expression. According to one school of thought, the focus of musical interpretation should be on the music as the composer wrote it, and the task of a performer is to "discover" the composer's ideas in the music and express those discovered ideas through whatever techniques are appropriate to achieve a particular end result. I would put Tony in this category as well as myself.
There is another school of thought that focuses more on the perfomer as the creator of musical ideas, rather than as discoverer. In this other school of thought, techniques and stylistic elements of the performer are more likely to exist for their own sake. For example, a performer operating according to this school of thought might play everything with vibrato, just because *they themselves* like vibrato, not because of anything in the music that suggests vibrato is appropriate or musically desirable. This school of thought is thus more concerned with the practices of legendary performers and particular "schools of playing." They view expression as something to be *added* to music, as opposed to being *uncovered*. I don't think this view is necessarily limited to American players, but some of the most prominent adherents of this school of thought do happen to be American.
Regardless of whether this is what Tony was talking about or not, I think I now understand a little better why it is I've never quite understood the whole obsession some people have with national schools and with following the approach of this teacher or that teacher, or why people have told me I sound German. Of course, when I play Weber I sound German. Weber was German, right? My Poulenc sounds like it was written by a Frenchman, too!
Post Edited (2008-11-04 20:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-11-04 21:04
I misinterpreted the word "much" in regards to a "school" that only Tony knows of. Enough of me. Back to practicing.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-11-04 21:45
Mike wrote:
>> According to one school of thought, the focus of musical interpretation should be on the music as the composer wrote it, and the task of a performer is to "discover" the composer's ideas in the music and express those discovered ideas through whatever techniques are appropriate to achieve a particular end result.
>> There is another school of thought that focuses more on the perfomer as the creator of musical ideas, rather than as discoverer....They view expression as something to be *added* to music, as opposed to being *uncovered*.>>
This is very close to what I wanted to say.
However, I want to bracket out the composer by saying that the distinction I want to investigate is: -- and I'm changing the words slightly -- "PERFORMANCE as 'PRESENTATION' versus PERFORMANCE as 'RELATIONSHIP'."
What that does is to move the judgement toward the audience. An audience may well not know how closely a particular performance relates to the text that gives rise to it.
But surely, they can know when a performer is thinking of himself or herself rather than of his or her relationship with the music -- and therefore, necessarily, the other performers.
>> I don't think this view is necessarily limited to American players, but some of the most prominent adherents of this school of thought do happen to be American.>>
And how right you are.
When I have access to my own computer, I'll start another thread about this.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-11-05 03:46
>> By the way, GOOD LUCK, AMERICA! Don't screw it up THIS TIME:-)
I just heard that they didn't
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
