The Clarinet BBoard

Re: Best clarinet studios in the US

Author: mrn  Date:   2009-02-18 23:13 frank wrote: <<It angers and saddens me, as music should not be about a wrote, mechanical "he/she said do it this way" mentality.>> I'm no fan of "Legendary Teacher Syndrome," either, but I think it's important to make a distinction between studying with someone to become exposed to new ideas (which is what Peter is talking about) and trying to emulate a particular teacher or adopting their teachings in an uncritical way, as if they were "holy doctrine." Becoming familiar with the ideas of others--including ideas you dislike or disagree with--is an important part of "forging your own path." This is true whether you're talking about music or the visual arts, or even more mundane subjects like law or computer programming. Here's an example of what I mean by this: The 20th century neo-classical composers forged their style by *rejecting* the "mushiness" of the then-prevalent romantic style, *reviving* 18th century (baroque and classical) ideas about form and structure, *abandoning* many of the characteristics of common-practice harmony (while, to varying degrees, still preserving some of its most essential qualities, such as the basic notion of a tonal center and some fundamental voice-leading principles), while also *borrowing* modal ideas (and other "non-common-practice" influences) from medieval music and folk sources. It was familiarity with those previous styles that gave innovators like Stravinsky and Hindemith a *context* in which to develop their own ideas. To that end, it is even helpful to become familiar with ideas you dislike and ultimately reject, because the insight you gain from the experience may help you to better define your own ideas as a rejection of those ideas (or you may find aspects you like and can adopt, while rejecting other aspects you don't like--nothing is ever black and white). In a lot of cases, you may have heard something or have picked up on some piece of knowledge somewhere secondhand (like the "you shoulds" you often read here on the BBoard), but without further study with "the source" of the information, you won't know the how or the why that gave rise to the supposed "should" in the first place. Sometimes an idea that sounds very prescriptive in nature when you hear it secondhand becomes much less so when you go back to the source and hear that person say it in context. And sometimes when you hear the real reason behind something that once sounded like a "sine qua non," you may simply decide to reject the idea in the end because the reason for doing it either doesn't apply to you or is something you disagree with. In any case, if you don't explore the matter further, you'll be less in a position to come to your own informed opinion. An F, Ab, and Db played together in isolation is just a plain old major chord (in first inversion). Throw it into a piece in C Major, though, and, as if by magic, it's a Neapolitan 6th. Context is everything in music. But I also think the same can be said in any field that involves some level of creative thinking, however minimal--exposure to new and different ideas (whether good or bad in themselves) is by and large a *good* thing. Creativity demands context. And in Peter's case, I'm going to bet that not even Charles Neidich is going to be able to talk him into giving up his Peter Eatons! (and that's as it should be, I should add) Post Edited (2009-02-19 01:02)

Reply To Message

Avail. Forums  |  Need a Login? Register Here

User Login  User Name:  Password:  Remember my login:

Forgot Your Password? Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.