 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-02-28 03:09
So he's now teaching at Mannes, Peabody and Julliard as well as playing in the Met and concertizing when ever he can as a soloist and chamber music player. I wonder which school he will give up as he builds up his NY studios? When Peabody hired him I was told by the director that one of the reasons they wanted him was because he didn't teach anywhere else, surprise. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: smoreno
Date: 2011-03-01 04:08
I am one of his masters students at Peabody and this is absolutely THRILLING news. He is the finest clarinet teacher I have personally ever come across and I am not shocked to hear this piece of news one bit. He is extremely dedicated to his students, and it's great that he is getting yet another opportunity to spread his fine wisdom.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-02 00:18
I didn't know that Bard had a Conservatory, just what the world needs, another music school to graduate students for a profession that has almost no opportunity to get a job in their field, especially for a clarinet player. It's a sad state that so many want to be musicians and so few jobs available. I wish students and schools would wake up the reality. We probably graduate 50- 60 clarinet students a year in this country and have only a few job opportunities available, and that's on top of all those that graduated last year, and the year before and the year before that. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mcgillab
Date: 2011-03-02 04:55
It's true, and I am very excited. Thanks for not keeping the post positive, Ed. Bard is a double degree program btw. So your idea is that no one should go to music school anymore or teach at one (or four) because they should wake up to reality. So law school really is a better idea? How about business school? Have you looked at those statistics as well? At least the music students are spending a a few years doing what they love while you are hating on the harsh realities of life as a musician. To have an honest discussion about what to do if the music thing doesn't work out is fine, and having options is good, but saying "hey kids this music school thing is a bad idea, I did it but you definitely shouldn't" Sounds a little bitter. I know I don't check this board that often but have you ever thought once that maybe, just maybe, I would look at what you have to say and take it personally?? How about we use these boards as places where we promote positivity and good will toward our fellow musicians, students, teachers, friends and everyone else.
Thanks,
Anthony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinettist1104
Date: 2011-03-02 15:51
I agree one hundred percent with Mr. McGill !! He truly understands the music business, and the recession in general !! And I couldn't agree more with the
"spending a few years doing what they love..."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-02 19:05
Anthony, I'm just trying to be realistic not negative. I've always encouraged my performance majors to either double major or at least have a minor in a subject they are interested in. I've taught at a University for 33 years, mostly music ed majors, but some performance majors too and at Peabody for 19 years. I've had many students that graduated with tremendous loans to pay back, some as much as 100K. I've always lectured my students in the beginning of each year, and would tell the parents when asked, that it's a very competitive business with very few opportunities to find full employment. I did that to not only make them aware of what they were facing but to encourage them to work as hard as possible to compete. I also told them about the opportunities in the service bands and that they need to at least consider them when they graduate. I also encouraged them to learn bass clarinet and Eb clarinet and learn the literature to enhance their chances of finding a job. I always told them, and their parents, that they need to follow their dreams but to also be realistic. What I was getting at is that there are far to many schools offering performance degrees and most of those teachers need to recruit to fill their schedules if that's their full time job, as a great many teachers have to do. Of course I'm not talking about teachers like McGill having to do that. What that does is water down the quality by accepting students into their studio's that have no business being a performance major without a double degree.
When I graduated college in 62 there were probably a 12-18 schools that offered a performance degree now there's probably 50 -60. It seems every college and university is adding a performance degree, that's all I'm trying to say. Bravo to Bard if they only offer a double degrees. If a student really is competitive they can and should go for a masters in performance if they really think they have a crack at it. I'm just asking students to be realistic. I have a good page about that on my website if you're interested in reading it. By the way, I have many students that made a living from playing their clarinet, some in orchestras, many in service bands, some teaching at the college level and a few in other ventures. Unfortunately I have too many that never made it in music but at least they knew what they were getting into when they began. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-02 19:28
By the way, when I was 19 years old and a student at Aspen studying with Earl Bates, principal in St. Louis at the time, he told me at the end of the summer that I don't have what it takes to become a professional clarinet player and should consider doing something else. At the time I wanted to be a ww doubler, flute, sax, oboe but fell in love with orchestra playing at Aspen. I took that to heart and doubled my practicing, sold my other instruments and bought an Eb and bass clarinet, added practice time for each of those every week as well. I was driven, and he made me so. In my case at least, someone being "realistic" worked. It woke me up to what I had to do, which was to try to be better than the next guy, and the next and the next. I knew I had to be the best I could be. In two years I was principal clarinet in the Manhattan school of music orchestra switching off on bass and Eb as well with who now is the second clarinet player in Philly. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mcgillab
Date: 2011-03-02 20:53
I see. I agree with you Ed on these points you just mentioned but sometimes the only things people hear are the negative "realities" Just as you said, being educated about them is the best thing, but also you wouldn't have achieved the great things in your life or I wouldn't have either if we had given up at the first sign of failure. I think people need to read things like you just wrote much more often. And it is important to mention that being realistic and optimistic are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2011-03-03 02:08
Mr. McGill. Thanks for your comments and congratulations on the new gig!
Regarding majoring in music:
It's hard? Well ****, I guess I'll quit. If it's not easy, it's not worth doing anyway.
Being aware of the difficulties of the profession is good. Dwelling on them and getting sucked in to the bitterness that can come from that is not good for anyone, in any major, or in any profession. Quite frankly, it's pretty annoying to hear about how everything is so terrible and the only solution offered is to DO SOMETHING ELSE.
Most music majors are multi-talented and very creative. People open private studios, learn to be recording techs, make clarinet equipment, work in admin with arts organizations, start chamber groups that tour, play in regional orchestras\bands, and countless other things.
I don't think many people out there assume they're going to be in one orchestra and have that be their sole source of income. I don't think most people really want that anyway.
I do think most music majors that are passionate about it will be more enthusiastic about finding various sources of income\fulfillment than be bitter that they didn't get that "holy grail orchestral job".
Life's too short. It really is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-03 18:35
NBeaty, Except for my double majors and recording majors just about every one of my clarinet majors, when I was at Peabody, wanted to become a symphony player. I would say that 90% of my students wanted to make a living playing in an orchestra. One or two wanted to be soloist or chamber music players and a few wanted to teach college. The vast majority of performance majors wanted to play in an orchestra. That's why I always informed them of other opportunities in music such as opening a private lesson studio, going into arts management, forming a chamber music group, getting advanced degrees to teach in college, play in a service band, instrument repair, learning other styles of music, doubling, etc. I never told a student to give up their dream, just to be realistic about it. I'm not going to apologize for telling my students that they may not be able to make a living from just playing their clarinet and they should prepare them selves for the future. I also reminded them that they had to be better then the next guy. Better and lucky. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2011-03-03 22:20
I always respect the fact that Ed P states things as they are. Reality is not always pretty.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2011-03-03 23:16
No one is questioning whether or not to tell students it's a tough business. The problem is only saying that you have to be the top person in the country or else you're going to fail, so you better have a degree in another field because music degrees lead nowhere.
My point, and what Mr. McGill was saying to some degree, is that it's not doing much for the arts to tell all students to go do something else if the dream orchestra job doesn't work out. It's not really helping the arts to make it so black and white. Either you get that dream orchestra job or you go to a completely different field.
Also, college education isn't just about the subject studied. I've personally learned much from teachers\professors that has nothing to do with music, but are lessons that I consider to be invaluable to daily life. Lessons on how to deal with people, how to collaborate, work ethic, being as detail oriented as possible, and many others that I consider invaluable to being an educated person.
So yes, getting students to understand how difficult it is to get orchestra jobs etc. is important. It is the professors obligation to make students aware of the difficulties of their profession, but more important to give them the tools they need to succeed. Pessimism\bitterness is the last thing the arts needs more of, so college (and yes, conservatory teachers too) have an obligation to work even HARDER to make sure their students are successful in the arts in the best way they can.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2011-03-04 00:22
One can give students all the tools they need and do everything possible to make them successful. The simple reality is that there are few playing jobs available and there are fewer with each passing year. Large ensembles are struggling, regional groups are closing up shop, ballet groups are going to recorded music, shows are hiring smaller pits if at all. It is downright painful to see.
Sure, there are options available in the music biz. All of my colleagues who were performance majors were hoping to play. Nobody was thinking that they would get other employment so that they could afford to play.
It is no different than all of the people who like to play baseball in little leagues, high schools and colleges who dream that they can make it to the majors. It is simply not reality. Will some make it? Sure, but a microscopic number.
Does this mean that nobody should major in music? No, but they need to be prepared for what is out there, or more appropriately, what is not out there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-03-04 00:37
My son had some of the finest teachers and went to a very expensive high school and conservatory to try and make it as a clarinetist. He had to stoop to being a conductor to make ends meet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2011-03-04 02:26
Quote:
He had to stoop to being a conductor to make ends meet.
Maybe there is some type of support group you could join ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2011-03-04 07:16
>> I would say that 90% of my students wanted to make a living playing in an orchestra. <<
Maybe that's an issue. Of course it's not always the case, but maybe too many times students are just taught to follow this path, not really realizing there are so many other things possible to do in music and as a clarinetist. I know because about 10+ years ago I was on this path to be a "classical clarinetist". I guess if things would have been different maybe I wouldn't find out (or at least not as soon) that wasn't at all what I wanted to do. I was lucky to find it, but I imagine a lot of people continue on a path that doesn't really show them many other options. My decision had nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is to find a "job".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-05 04:14
Mark, I'm really sorry that your son had to stoop so low, too bad he couldn't become a musician.
Nbeaty, I think you missed the point of what I was saying. I began by stating that I think there are too many schools that are offering a performance degree which encourages the studio teachers to have to fill their students with many that simply don't belong doing an exclusive performance degree. ( of course it employs music teachers) I never suggested telling all students that they need to do something else, just to be realistic and to consider having another interest in case, just in case they become one of the 95 percent of clarinetist that don't make a living playing their clarinet, that's all.
When I joined the BSO they practically had to beg a viola player to audition, now they turn away dozens. Think about the fact that there are ten time as many clarinet players graduating from our schools today and 1/4 the jobs of a viola player, other than service bands. Do the math. You don't have to discourage them to open their eyes to the real world. There's a balance and in my opinion unless a student is extremely talented they should probably minor in music or at least double major because every kid that puts on a reed thinks they can become a Ricardo Morales, they can't. I know several fantastic clarinet players that just haven't found a decent job, what happens to the hundreds of them that are just mediocre and no one prepared them for life? ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-05 05:54
Music in the classical scene these days is different from many of the arts in that the artist (i.e. performer) is often actively encouraged to reproduce or interpret more than to create. I think this may have much to do with our issues. The "struggling musician" has a lesser likelihood of "being discovered" than, say, the "struggling painter" or "struggling actor" (though actors may find themselves in a similar predicament).
Classically-trained musicians are largely replaceable, with such similar skillsets that an awesome clarinetist can vanish from an orchestra, be replaced by another awesome clarinetist, and (while the departing may have a great style) the orchestra will still sound *pretty much* like it did before. I may be missed when I leave a wind ensemble, but they'll go on playing Ticheli just fine without me.
There are a lot of musicians out there who do something truly distinctive, but there are countless more that consider "I'm going to make the Berio Sequenza my signature piece" or "I'm going to be a kick-ass orchestral player" a way to establish themselves as something unique. I might consider such a player to be more of a technician... a fine technician, capable of making great music, but a technician nonetheless, where a piece of music is a problem to be solved -- attacked from every angle, lived with, analyzed, fallen in love with -- but, at its core, something to "conquer" or to "master" or to "interpret", not to "create."
We need these highly-skilled musicians to make great classical music, but on a macro scale they're pretty easily swappable with little to no effect on the integrity or significance of the music, for better or worse.
While I know it's not a perfect metaphor, consider that painters don't set out to reproduce the works of Van Gogh (or even the style), at least not as anything other than an academic exercise.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-05 15:35
Very good Alex. As I've always said, a student should follow their dream but know what the possibilities are and where they stand in the running. It's not like 25% or 15 % or even 5% of clarinetists graduate and make a living from performing. There are so many other opportunity's to use your musical skills and training in one's life, but only a select few, very few, actually make a decent living from it exclusively . ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-03-05 17:26
"what happens to the hundreds of them that are just mediocre and no one prepared them for life?"
Ed, you obviously are wise enough and honest enough to try to prepare your students for the realities of their chosen profession. But has it occurred to you that you might be the norm rather than the exception in this regard? I honestly don't think you give the majority of your colleagues enough credit.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-05 17:55
Jack, I do not assume that the majority of teachers are not honest with their students but I know many from experience that aren't. I've heard far too many students that have been excepted into studios and graduated that had no place being a performance major. There have been many instances that I have rejected a student because they just were not qualified and had no problem getting into other schools. I'm not saying that I never accepted borderline students, I have, but I was honest with them about what it would take and always suggest that they at least consider a minor in something else that interested them as well. I'm not talking about all students and certainly not all teachers. Please don't assume that I am talking about the majority. I don't know what most teacher do I just know that as the talent of the top players has improved tremendously over the years and that the numbers of students being accepted into performance programs have indeed been watered down by having so many schools that need to fill their studios and actively recruit. I have the utmost respect for those teachers that are honest with their students and I'm sure there are plenty of them out there. I just want students to realize that at some point they have to pay the rent, buy food and maybe even want to support themselves and a family. Every student needs to have all options on the table and then, only then, to go after their dreams and all teachers need to be honest, encouraging and show them their options. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-05 19:16
Thank you David, that's very good to hear. Even he, a master teacher, realizes that accepting from the cream of the crop that many of them, even most, may not be able to make a living from the music alone. ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2011-03-05 21:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2011-03-05 19:45
I know a young man, a brass player, who is an excellent musician. He had his heart set on becoming a performance major. After a year in a major college program, he switched his major because he realized that performance jobs were hard to come by. He's being realistic, but it's such a shame that his dreams were dashed so quickly.
Here's what I'd love to see, and perhaps some colleges are already doing it. Make it possible for a student to get a double bachelors degree without having to take a lot of extra courses for an official "double major."
Let's say, for example, that a student is undecided between music and law. He/she could take a basic 60 credit program in music leading to a BA in music. At the same time, he/she could take 60 credits or so in political science (or a related field) for a basic degree in that area. The university would be flexible and allow the political science courses to count for the social science classes that some universities require for all majors. The music courses--possibly music history or music lit.--could count for humanities credits for the political science side. The only extra requirement might be an English course or two.
In so many fields nowadays, a masters degree (or equivalent) is a must. A student with a double bachelors degree like the one described above would have several options after graduation. Law school could be one. A number of other masters programs in business, HR, etc. could be other options since they are open to students from a wide variety of undergraduate majors. If the student has tremendous ability in music, he/she could go on for a masters in performance, music business, arts administration, etc.
It is certainly possible today to get a double major in two unrelated areas, but it can require more time in school and it can get costly. I would love to see more collaboration between university departments and a little more flexibility when it comes to required classes that have nothing to do with ones major(s). Let's make it possible for a student to get this kind of double bachelors degree without having to pay a lot of extra money and jump through a lot of hoops.
As a part of my music ed. degree, I had to take a lot of extra required university courses in English, humanities, social science, and science (along with some classes in the college of education). I also had to have a ten-credit cognate, sort of a "sub" minor. When I graduated, I was certified to teach music, but nothing else, and I think it's still this way in many universities. Looking back, I wish there had been more flexibility. What if the university had made it possible to use some of these required courses for something that was actually useful? What if they had made it possible to use these extra required courses to obtain certification in a second area? That sure would have been nice!
Universities really need to rethink a lot of their current practices. Costs are going up way beyond the rate of inflation, and we're getting to the point where many families can barely afford it. There is no reason why it shouldn't be possible to obtain a "stripped-down" double bachelors degree in two separate areas.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-03-05 23:31
Interesting discussion.
Not sure that I agree with anyone here despite my having four degrees (including music and an MBA) and a career that has gone from being a full time professional musician in an ICSOM orchestra to corporate America and now consulting work in media relations while performing music and teaching.
To be successful in the competitive field of music (esp in America), requires a focus at a young age that cannot be done later in life. That includes the HS and college age years. So if a young aspiring student "diversifies" their human capital and effort, they will lose valuable time and focus in gaining the skills necessary to be competitive on the audition circuit. There may be the odd exception like Bill Buchman, bassoonist in the CSO, who was a physics major at Brown, but he is the only exception I know of in the US. I know that the English system of training allows for a greater latitude of education but that may also be that the life of the musician there is much harder and therefore less appealing than the top orchestra jobs in the US.
A professional career in business, medicine and law can be found after the most vigorous attempt at a professional career has been made. I know many musicians that have gone on to successful careers in the professions after what many would consider successful music careers. But I have never met an MD that decided to become an orchestral musician and was successful in transitioning.
However, musicians have the ability through focus and drive to switch gears in their late twenties and perhaps even the early 30s to allow for new horizons such as law, medicine and business. And some employers and professional schools even look at this music background as an advantage.
But it requires an extra effort to make up some of the foundation classes such as math and general academics that are necessary to even get in the elite programs. But it can be done.
I think that it is much more important in this day and age and going forward, that teachers such as Anthony and Ed prepare their students at their respective conservatories for a fulfilling life as a musician that will include teaching at the community level, going into schools, doing "Pops" style concerts, playing weekend wedding jobs, and treating the whole package as being a musician with no condescension to any part of the package.
That mindset is what will be needed to make a living going forward for many musicians outside of the top jobs that are only available to a handful of clarinet players.
The successful musician of the future will need to be much more flexible in definition, approach and training.
And remember, success means different things to different people. A successful life can be found by being happy in one's situation, being surrounded by a loving family, and enjoying the blessings that come from living in a peaceful country and in good physical and mental health.
If one uses this criteria, one can have a successful life and a successful musical career in NYC and in Laurence KS and be happy though nothing is ever perfect.
So congrats to Anthony in his new position. I think he will make a great teacher. And Ed's words of warning should be taken seriously by anyone who is looking at spending the money to pursue a college degree in performance.
I look forward to comments to this post going forward.
DRG
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-06 04:13
"To be successful in the competitive field of music [...]"
This assumes a classical/orchestral focus/limitation, of course (which I'd put on par with "to be successful as a pro athlete"). Teaching, schools, pops, and wedding jobs are just part of the musical picture, though they're the part most often looked towards by classical-folk.
There are whole other sets of musicians who are struggling at the "not enough people are into my niche/weirdness/style" angle, rather than the "not enough work for a classical musician" angle. Going into classical sets almost in stone your job prospects, while the other approach gives potential to do something out and independently successful.
I'm not saying to be different for the sake of being different, but likewise I'd encourage people not to be the same for a lack of trying something different.
It boggles to me how many musicians don't look for anything to do that doesn't already have, effectively, an instruction manual written for it. Music is an art, not a trade or a sport.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-03-06 13:02
There's another factor, too: "Musicians" and "students" aren't monolithic groups. What discourages one student will spur another on -- maybe to glory, maybe to a change of plans later or maybe to failure and bitterness. "Teachers" aren't monolithic groups, either. Sometimes harsh criticism, discouraging words and even insults get results, with some students, some of the time. (I did my best work for teachers who challenged me, the more fiercely the better. I goofed off for teachers who offered unearned, empty praise.) We need more than just lists of rules about how to behave with each other. We need to stay alert, to pay attention to what works for us and what works for the people around us.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2011-03-06 13:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-03-06 13:19
Alex,
To be fair, this board seems to be oriented towards the Classical world. Any conversation regarding the professional opportunities in music will be tilted towards that genre.
Since 1962, when the large American orchestras started providing 52 week seasons to their musicians, being an orchestral musician represented an opportunity to provide a middle class life for musicians and their families.
Unless I am mistaken, the world of rock/folk/popular that you refer to has just two levels. Those who hit home runs (stars) and those that play casually and at best struggle to make a living. For the stars (Clapton, Black Eyed Peas, Madonna et al), issues regarding job placement, student loans, etc are not in their vocabulary.
For those that are struggling to make a living doing casual work, paying bills is a real challenge and the benefits that come (came) with playing in an orchestra (up until recently) such as health care, pension, work/life balance are not even given thought since it is too unrealistic.
If you read my post carefully, there is no question that I am stating that the Classically trained musician of the future will need to be more flexible in what they consider to be their job description.
But given the new methods of music distribution, lack of real wages for casual music work, rising costs of health care, and a slow US economic recovery that effects even weddings and club dates, I doubt that, for most musicians, casual work outside of the Classical genre represents much economic opportunity unless one is able to achieve "star" status.
There will always be a need for new and fresh blood such as Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga and those stars will do just fine. But that doesn't mean that the odds in this genre are any better than the orchestral career track for providing livelihood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-06 14:08
I think Anthony McGill getting appointed to another conservatory, for which I wish him the utmost of success, has developed this posting into a very interesting discussion. I hope many students that want to pursue a musical career read them and take them to heart. As I said, follow your dreams, just know what you're getting into and what your options are going in before you find yourself on the way out. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2011-03-06 14:30
"I think Anthony McGill getting appointed to another conservatory, for which I wish him the utmost of success, has developed this posting into a very interesting discussion."
Because you steered it that way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-03-06 16:14
There may be the odd exception like Bill Buchman, bassoonist in the CSO, who was a physics major at Brown, but he is the only exception I know of in the US.
Add to your list:
Jonathan Cohler (honors physics from Harvard)
Kenny G(orelick) (magna cum laude accounting from Washington)
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2011-03-06 18:34
Andrew Lowy (North Carolina Symphony), Harvard College
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-06 23:29
Phil Kolker, principal basson, just retired from the Baltimore Sym. majored in an academic subject too, can't remember the major. If you're smart and talented, you can do both. One of my two best students at Peabody were double majors, they were a computer engineer major and a recording arts major. Either one went into performance but they certainly could have if they desired to do it and did a masters in clarinet only. They were easily the most talented clarinetists at the school at the time.
J.J., you're right of course. Other wise it would have simply been an announcement and I turned it into, what I consider, an interesting and valuable thread. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-06 23:49
Dileep:
I realize you were talking primarily about classical, but found it a relevant-enough point for conversation on classical-vs-otherwise matters, especially since we're coupling "the classical world" with "how to make it as a musician."
Restricting yourself to the classical world does largely curtail your opportunities of reaching "star" status, and even local-star status, and niche-star status (which is growing in prevalence due largely to those same new distribution methods, and is allowing some mid-range semi-star bands to make "ok" money).
More critically to me personally, though, is that it also curtails the possibility of being an integral part of new, emerging movements, whether you're a star or on the playing-clubs-for-free fringes. Whether or not they pay the bills, who knows, but dedicating yourself to only things that come from the classical tradition and its mechanisms will tend to put a performer in preservation/interpretation mode, just as specializing in any other genre/world whose heyday has passed (e.g. Beatles cover bands, glam rock, ragtime, ska).
Maybe that doesn't interest people in the classical world so much. I just find it a very curious disconnect... people who specialize in preserving or reproducing genres and traditions of the past in most other artistic fields would be considered scholars or curators. Classical musicians tend not to see themselves this way, though they often fill the same role.
The odds aren't particularly better for providing livelihood. However, I'll be much more likely to take a couple weeks of Top Ramen if I feel I have the possibility of creating something new and meaningful than if I'm expertly manicuring a fine garden. If there's a set of instructions on how to "do art" and you can get to the top of your field by putting a lot of time into it and doing very well exactly what the instructions say, I'll just as soon let the next person starve trying to make a living off it.
That's important to some people, and not to others. I just think it's important to be aware of that distinction and decide if it's relevant to you. If all musicians disappeared from 1960 to 1990, a new breed could pick up the instruments, read a bunch of manuals, and probably eventually come to play Beethoven just as well. However, we would be left without a huge swath of genres throughout music, and those things would never recur in the same form, nor would the things that followed them. There would never be a such thing as disco, because disco as we know it could only have happened in the 70s under a particular set of conditions.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-03-07 12:32
Alex,
Thanks for the response. I think I understand your position.
I would agree. That being a Classical musician is much like being a curator rather than being a creator. Orchestras serve as a museum in that respect and orchestral performers are trained to re-create the music written by others rather than perform music that they themselves have created.
I would always encourage musicians to write, develop and produce their own material. I think that creating music is perhaps the highest calling in our field.
But in regards to making a living and the debate of focusing one's efforts rather than diversifying them, your points would be worthy of another discussion.
Perhaps we have veered away from the initial post by Anthony and the subsequent questions raised by Ed.
I'm turning the lights off after this post.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-07 15:52
Yes it is true that we are talking mainly about classical because it began about McGill teaching "classical clarinet" at Juilliard. In one of my posts I did mention that I encouraged my students to learn different styles of music as well. Points well taken though. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-07 18:01
There are a couple of misconceptions in this thread that it's worth correcting.
The first misconception is that there are hundreds of highly talented students exiting music colleges who are unable to get jobs SOLELY because of increasing competition for a shrinking number of jobs.
The fact is that most of those students aren't up to what is required. People on this list marvel that orchestras are choosy about who they employ. But if you sit on audition panels, you understand that it's difficult to find someone who fills the bill.
Of course many of those exiting students are able to play the instrument well. But what is required of a real musician is well beyond instrumental proficiency.
Which leads us to the next misconception.
The second misconception is that people who play classical music are somehow uncreative compared to people who improvise. They are simply ciphers in the process -- 'curators', as someone said.
The converse is the case. If you consider HOW the great composers -- Bach, Mozart, Beethoven -- interacted with their public, you see that PERFORMANCE was central to their enterprise. When they performed their music, they 'brought it to life' for their audiences in the most crucial way.
Nowadays, the job of classical performers (and by performers, I mean, seriously good performers, not necessarily the people admired on this list) is to bring to life the great music of the past. There is no-one else to do it; that music has survived because it has been worth hearing over and over again; there is a job to be done.
(Why can we continue to be moved and surprised by great music, even though we may have heard it many times before? The reason is that we have an 'unconscious music parser, just as we have an 'unconscious language parser'. That's explained by the work of Ray Jackendoff -- incidentally a clarinet player himself. WE may not be surprised, but our parser is.)
What a seriously good performer does, then, in 'bringing music to life', is to create, as a response to a 'dead' sequence of notes on the page, something that has much in common with a living organism. Audiences respond to it precisely because of that quality. It's alive because it responds to context: not only what has just happened in one's own part, but what other people have done, and what overall is going on.
So, as performers, we are doing a crucial, creative job. We are bringing something to life.
You wouldn't think it, though, would you, judging by what is commonly written on this BBoard? The assumption here is that you have to REPRODUCE SOMETHING perfectly.
That's such a naive, crap view of what we do.
But if you have this naive, crap view: then, of course, it's possible for someone to make the case that classical performers are lesser beings.
However, I deny that the case goes through. Rather, I think that those claiming superiority in that regard are actually claiming superiority to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, not superiority to classical performers.
THOSE composers are not passé. They have earned the right to be continually recreated because the musical structures that they set up continue to be worth listening to. And we -- the seriously good performers -- are an inescapable part of that.
The 'mostly different' composers may be new in a superficial way. But they have to prove their worth in their turn.
So beware: your 'newness' may remain 'forever new' because it will never be repeated; and for most of us, it may be immaterial that it ever existed.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-07 18:53
I wouldn't say at all that playing classical music isn't creative, and I think there's an infinite realm of possibilities of what you can do with existing music. There's always something new to discover, something new to bring to the audience, some new way to make it come alive.
That said, it's only a slice of the huge possibilities that music has to offer. I think that a great many musicians really miss out by only doing things the way the classical institution runs them. To me, only playing classical music, and primarily playing it in the setting and surroundings and culture of the classical world, is like going to the best ice cream parlor in the world, featuring 3,000 flavors, and always ordering a neapolitan hot fudge sundae. It may be the best neapolitan hot fudge sundae in the world, an orgasmic dining experience, and you may even vary which of the 300 kinds of nuts and 15 varieties of cherries you order on it.
But you're probably missing out on a huge realm of other things to order, or even things to request that aren't on the menu.
That's what bugs me most about laments about the music world and its possibilities... when people look at the classical world as a sort of take-it-or-leave-it enterprise with a certain set of rules and protocols, standalone and separate from music elsewhere. In my view, a musician shouldn't have to consider playing noise or rock or punk "branching out," something they cautiously dip their toes into, wondering if it will tarnish their reputation or somehow make them a lesser musician, or if it will be a waste of time. For me, it's a "why would you NOT try that" enterprise. Not even so much for versatility or career advancement, but for a greater understanding of music's possibilities. Every new type of music I hear or read or play or write, I find something new and surprising and deep in it, and I can't NOT try to investigate what more can be done with it that nobody's tried. Will it be meaningful in the long run, or just a worthless passing novelty? I don't know. But I have to try.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-07 21:15
To boil it down, two of my big complaints:
1) Musicians at the university are schooled primarily through the classical tradition, and if they don't cut it in the classical world, there's a feeling of "oh well, guess I won't make it in music" (at which point the musician resigns himself to playing community orchestras, wind bands, and clarinet choirs) without even the slightest hint of "maybe you'd be better at a different kind of music." It's like a kid determining he'll never be good at any sport because he sucks at hockey, though maybe he'd kick ass at judo or pole vaulting.
2) The classical-or-bust system discourages some really great musicians from exploring other genres. There are complaints right and left about how rock isn't sophisticated or rap isn't real music, but rather than encouraging our sophisticated and highly-trained graduates to embrace popular music and infuse it with some much-needed oomph, the classical world, self-assigned arbiter of "culture", puts out that such genres are somehow lesser and not worth your time.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-08 01:39
"The first misconception is that there are hundreds of highly talented students exiting music colleges who are unable to get jobs SOLELY because of increasing competition for a shrinking number of jobs."
Hundreds of highly talented students, that's news to me. Maybe more talented students but I doubt there are hundreds?
Playing classical music takes a certain type of talent that some have and some don't no matter how much time and lessons one puts into it. I think the same can be said for playing jazz, klezmer, folk, rock etc. I can't speak for others but I can't play jazz, not real jazz, and some great jazz players can't play classical well. Yes, people should try all types of music that interests them but one might be a lot more successful at one type than another, making a living at it or just as a hobby. You have to have some type of natural talent for the musical field you choose just like an athelete or math genius has to have some natural ability for their sport or subject. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2011-03-08 05:26
>> The second misconception is that people who play classical music are somehow uncreative compared to people who improvise. They are simply ciphers in the process -- 'curators', as someone said. <<
I don't think this issue is about classical or non-classical musicians, or even completely about music. It's beyond that, sort of a fear of the unknown. People want to follow a recipe. Some people can live that way, that's fine. But a lot of times people are led to this path when in reality they could have done a lot more if they didn't have this fear planted. either in different styles or inside on particular style, including classical music.
BTW re creativity of improvisors vs. non-improvisors, there's a very good player/teacher here that teaches a lot of free improvisation classes in uni for tradtional classical and jazz musicians. He says the mainstream jazz players (who improvise all the time) are actually the most difficult to get out of their "comfort zone". Much more in comparison with classical musicians. I noticed this too sometimes.
In the same class (I was there when I was in uni) you can see people so afraid to even play/sing one note that is not what they are used too. By the end of the year they might do a lot of really creative things in that class. It's not their fault, IMO a lot of them are just led to be this way. Some even become musicians who work mostly in that style.
It's not important that something is classical, jazz, improvsed, written, etc. What's imporant is that in any style, creativity is not blocked by some ready-made recipe... and that can happen in any stylefrom the most traditional classical music to completely improvised music.
Post Edited (2011-03-08 06:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-08 09:07
Alex wrote:
>> I wouldn't say at all that playing classical music isn't creative, and I think there's an infinite realm of possibilities of what you can do with existing music. There's always something new to discover, something new to bring to the audience, some new way to make it come alive.>>
I would say that the phrase, 'things you can do with existing music', and the phrase 'some new way to make it come alive' are indications of a misconceived attitude to what playing classical music is all about.
When you see a horse in all its glory, you don't want it presented 'in a new way'.
Tony
Post Edited (2011-03-08 16:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-08 15:26
Semantics. Would "things you can do with music that's already been written down" be more acceptable?
To run with the horse analogy...
I also would much prefer to see that horse in its natural habitat, which for classical music might be 18th century Vienna. I'll make do with our current zoos, but no matter how spectacular and "like his original home" our current habitat is, it'll never be the same as the place in Spain where he came from, and even that place in Spain has probably been bulldozed to make a subdivision by now.
At the moment, I'd say there's a pretty rigid view of what kind of exhibit the horse is supposed to be housed in, and while I think there are plenty of perfectly awful exhibits that could potentially be made to display the horse, I also think that "a trapezoidal area of between 13.1 and 13.32 acres in area, fenced in by chain link fence with camouflage mesh, with up-close glass-walled viewing areas from the east and north and an aerial tramway" would be pretty stifling to see at every zoo you ever went to if that were all so homogeneous.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
Post Edited (2011-03-08 20:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mcgillab
Date: 2011-03-08 15:48
Who knew this appointment could create such an uproar in the musical community! Maybe we can keep this going and break the record of most posts ever. Or we can start another few posts about the value of music education? Or about categories and genre in music? Have fun everyone! Come on Spring you can do it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-08 16:51
Mcgillab wrote:
>> Who knew this appointment could create such an uproar in the musical community!>>
Well, it's not 'the musical community', is it?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-08 16:52
Alex wrote:
>> To run with the tiger analogy...>>
What tiger?
Anyway, I knew you wouldn't understand.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2011-03-08 17:01
A McG,
To take a different tack and perhaps extend this thread to a new record, I thought your comments after the "schredding" of your inaugural Copland were terrific. As I recall, you said you felt "honored" or words to that effect. My reaction was if Anthony McGill can find the humor in the shredding, he's tops in my book. Good show!
HRL
PS I don't care how many schools you work at! My personal record is three universities at the same time (and I had turned down one BTW). My next door neighbor still talks about me being over-employed!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-08 17:25
Gee Anthony, just think what will happen on this board if you get appointed to the Manhattan School of Music too some day, this place will go wild. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-03-08 20:38
EEBaum wrote:
> "What tiger?"
>
> Who said anything about a tiger?
>
> You're just spouting off nonsense now, and I'll thank you not
> to put words in my mouth.
Ah, shall I unedit your previous post to refresh your memory?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: reedwizard
Date: 2011-03-08 20:53
His was not the only post that was edited.
[Yes, but his response made absolutely no sense ... it appeared to make someone a liar and "putting words in my mouth" when that was not the case whatsoever. Whether or not someone agrees with another poster, trying to make them look like a fool or a liar by editing a response is probably not the best way to "make friends and influence people". Mark C. ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-08 22:03
Wow, I was just being playful. I responded to a comment about a tiger with a comment about a tiger. The comment I responded to later revised tiger to horse, with new comment suggesting that I was talking nonsense. Finding this hilarious, I responded in kind by revising mine to match such horse and make it look like the suggestion of my nonsense was in fact nonsense itself and how dare he make such outrageous claims! I thought the "post edited" on both of our original entries would speak sufficiently to the silly nature of our exchange.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-03-08 22:18
Actually, the point was independent of any animal, and was in either case misunderstood by Alex -- even though I think his post was joking.
I have no interest in further pursuing the matter with him. If you investigate what he has to offer as an alternative to 'classical music', you will see what I mean.
What we offer when we play the music of a great composer is: a collaboration that that great composer CANNOT DO WITHOUT. We are both humbled and ennobled by it -- because we are an essential part of the tiger.
Or horse.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-08 22:40
I took your point. My point, in a roundabout way, was that I reject the notion of there being a proper "right" approach to appreciating or performing music, classical or otherwise. There are lots of ways to do it, and I'm not suggesting an "all ways are equally valid" mindset, just a notion of "maybe we don't have all the answers, and maybe our way about it isn't the only way."
I'll accept that some of my approaches to music may not gel *under the prevailing classical traditions*, but I refuse to limit myself to that. Will it end up producing a whole bunch of unlistenable dreck in the process? Probably, and I've written and performed my share (probably more than my share) of turds. I'll gladly take the fall, if it produces the slightest possibility of stumbling upon something really amazing.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-03-08 22:56
Tigers... Horses... Seems to me it's really about pigs. Tony feels he's casting pearls before them. Alex is trying to make silk purses out of their ears and Ed has a new reason not to try to teach them how to sing -- they won't be able to find employment, at least not until they learn how to fly.
Well, at least I've inched us one closer to the record.
Oink, oink,
jnk
Post Edited (2011-03-09 00:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-03-09 00:17
post #63
just trying to get Anthony the Clarinet BB record.
Pass it forward.
By the way, "TIGER" these days (at least in the USA) could be used a reference for Charlie Sheen's interview on 20/20 (a TV mag). Perhaps we should stick with horses.
For those of you "across the pond", Google Charlie Sheen.
You may be glad you let us go in 1776.
And by the way, if a clarinet major from Juilliard doesn't make it in music, he can always go on to do serious damage to the rest of the world as did ALAN GREENSPAN (student of Henry Christmann), who went on to head the US Federal Reserve and preside over the Dot Com bubble.
....I knew that would make your day!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2011-03-09 01:31
Alex, I think were you falter is in dwelling so much on the habitat of the tiger (or horse). Yes, the zoo may not be the same as plains of Africa, but this is not what we are concerned with, just the same as we are not concerned (to a degree) with where classical music is performed. So what if we can't perform Mozart's music in 18th century Vienna? There are great concert halls today, with some (perhaps only a few) great performers willing to bring the music to life. I believe what Mr. Pay was driving at was that you don't want to go anywhere and see a tiger as something it is not; you went to see a tiger, and that tiger without its stripes, or its hair or its ability to growl, would be something different (and understandably lesser) than the original. You might think a hairless tiger is "cool," but its not the same and for most it would not fit the bill. You might, then, want to believe that this "alternative music" (and I use that term loosely as I know it has its own meanings in the music world) is cool, but its not what classical music is, and insofar as we are lovers of the incredible body of work that is classical music, we would understandably believe it to be less great.
Then you say that you believe there is not only one way to perform classical music. I don't think Mr. Pay disagrees with this inherently; rather there is an all-encompassing way in which classical music is performed (which was carefully explained already), but of course within that way there are a multitude (infinite, perhaps?) of possible routes one might choose to go. Not everyone plays a quarter note the exact same way, but its still a quarter note every time.
I'm also under the impression that Mr. Pay edited his original post about animals not to make you look bad, but rather to raise the point that it doesn't matter what animal we are dealing with. A little bit tricky to grasp, perhaps he may have stated this more simply in order to avoid the confrontation...
"What we offer when we play the music of a great composer is: a collaboration that that great composer CANNOT DO WITHOUT. We are both humbled and ennobled by it -- because we are an essential part of the tiger." This, of course, says much of that in a much more eloquent way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-09 02:31
I see where you're coming from with that, and for the most part I don't disagree.
However, as people who were not around when this music was written, technically we're all performing the music in the tradition that has evolved, in good faith, with the intention of how to perform the music. We can't know, though, whether what we're doing is actually faithful to how the music was played, or is just how our classical culture has evolved to believe is faithful to the music.
For example, a significant body of concert etiquette rules has developed over the past couple centuries, rules that may not have existed in Mozart's time (or at least not in the same form), rules that very much alter both the performing and listening experience, but those rules are very much codified today and taken for granted as "the way things are" when listening to music, rules that are enforced upon the audience, and rules that the performers have come to expect so thoroughly that breach of them throws them off. Better or worse? Don't know, but different, and causes the music to be different.
Recordings have also immensely altered the classical atmosphere. The ability to hear all of one's imperfections played back to oneself is a double-edged sword, allowing a performer to fine-tune his sound, but also leading to greatly increased criticism, perfectionism, and concern about posterity with any performance, plus an insistence on note-perfection in order to sound like the good recordings (which have all had the crap engineered out of them). This may or may not come at an expense or even benefit to the music, but it is a new aspect that did not exist before, and it colors our performances.
Classical music was also written for performers who had never heard Schoenberg or Bartok or Shostakovich or Britten or Ticheli or John Williams or Jazz or Funk or the Beatles. Anyone who's watched enough Disney can't play Mahler 3 without at least a hint of "Be Our Guest" in their head, which didn't exist when Mahler was around.
These and so many other aspects of the music did not exist in the world where the music came about, and these are not the performers the music was written for. If anything, I'd say our tigers today have been thoroughly manicured, groomed, trained for amiability, bred for favorable genetic traits, etc. They're still very much tigers, but they're a measure different than the ones in the wild.
Which is not to romanticize the past, or say that then the music was better. It may well be better now. But the conditions under which the music evolved cannot be replicated. Music does not exist in a vacuum, it comes about in a world with a multitude of factors. 18th Century Vienna isn't just about the time and physical location, it's about the musical culture, the Viennese school, perhaps a bit of the local cuisine, drinking customs, smells of a time before universal indoor plumbing, conventions of personal etiquette, logistics of royal court occasions, and dozens of other factors we might not even think to consider. What we're left with now is notes on the page, an instruction manual with many assumptions that were made at the time (such as the awareness of two different intervals of whole tone). Listen to London or Vienna play Strauss waltzes. Practically a different piece by either of them. Same notes, but different cultures, different performers, different assumptions and innate sounds in one's head, make for wholly different performances, also wholly different from how the Viennese in Strauss's time would have performed it.
It is different, and the difference is significant to me because it could just as well have gone in another direction, and our interpretations of the music are based on our own assumptions and cultural take on it, and assuming that we are authorities on what the music is and how it should be performed and what to get out of it seems arrogant.
Tuning systems and conventions have changed, as have instrument configurations and quality. When a performance-practice-expert ensemble puts a great deal of effort into replicating those conditions, we often consider it "closer to what the music would be like in Mozart's time." However, we must then realize that what we currently do is further from how it was in Mozart's time. Most of us are totally comfortable with departures in that realm, but somehow less so with departures on other aspects.
I'm not, by a long shot, suggesting that something like a death metal cover of the Mozart Clarinet Concerto or other shenanigans I'd be inclined to put on are classical music. I like to take classical sources and make entirely different music out of them, and I fully acknowledge that it is not classical music, though it shares certain aspects. I'm just trying to make a point that the thing we have declared to be "this is how to play classical music" may be romanticized -- further from how classical music came about than we lead ourselves to believe -- and in fact classical music originally existed in a way we are incapable of reproducing, so assertions over its purity or "supposed-to"-ness seem very slightly absurd.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2011-03-09 14:52
Yes Alex, we approach classical music from a different perspective than the original performers. The improvements in technical ability and equipment have more of an impact on the performance.
In my experience, having a living composer at rehearsals to say how it's supposed to go doesn't make much difference on whether it's a great piece of music or not.
Just being "different" is such a boring philosophy for composers. I could elaborate, but it is really....really...boring.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-03-09 15:46
Indeed. I'm not advocating being different for difference's sake, rather for being open to exploring different ways of doing things if there's the possibility they have merit. Seeking to challenge the validity of elements of sameness, especially if said sameness may be a recent invention.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-03-09 21:27
Did anyone see the news a few weeks ago about the book about the "Tiger Mom"? I don't know what that has to do with anything here but I just thought I'd throw it out since we're talking about animals now. How did we get there? All I was trying to say is that there are too many clarinet students that probably have no chance of ever getting a job in music, that's all. Follow your dreams but be realistic too. Roar! ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-03-12 14:19
Mark Charette wrote,
>>My son had some of the finest teachers and went to a very expensive high school and conservatory to try and make it as a clarinetist. He had to stoop to being a conductor to make ends meet.
>>
Mark, I've been watching the news footage about the earthquake in Japan. I hope that you've heard from your son and that he's okay.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-03-12 14:40
Lelia Loban wro
>
> Mark, I've been watching the news footage about the earthquake
> in Japan. I hope that you've heard from your son and that he's
> okay.
Thank you for your concern. He's fine, just minimal damage to his house- things falling off the walls, etc. My in-laws are fine, and a relative in Sendai itself is fine- they live in the mountain area of Sendai, not the coastal area.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
