 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: lucnijs
Date: 2011-07-20 06:46
Hi!
Recently I've read some articles in which some statements about musical expression made me wonder what musicians would really think about it.
So I've made a very simple poll with only two questions.
It would be really wonderful if you could take this poll...
You can also find the statements that there made me make this poll.
link for the poll:
http://sites.google.com/site/murmivragenlijst/
Thank you very much!!!
Luc
Post Edited (2011-07-20 06:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-07-20 08:44
It's really not a question I can answer yes or no to, partially because it's a matter of semantics, and partially because the two statements are talking about very different things.
The first statement seems to be commenting on an element of stage presence, that something should look hard to do. The second is commenting on the constant feedback cycle between what a person does, what he hears, and what he feels while playing.
By the framing of your question, though, it seems that you may be interested more in "should the instrument be hard to play?"
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-07-20 17:46
I am not really much of a "stage presence" kind of guy. That is, I have seen mere garage bands transformed into polished looking, entertaining looking mere garage bands, but that is about the extent of it for me.
I recently ran into a video of Nathan Milstein performing his arrangement of some Paganini pieces. Until that moment I had never really heard Milstein before. I found the performance mesmerizing due to the incredibly sense of rhythm, the amazingly rock steady pitch and the flawless technique. He did this in a rather cool manner in a full tuxedo in front of a live studio audience, to which I thought ............." hmmmm." I have seen great performances done with grimaces, furrowed brows, sweat and all variety of clothing both binding and otherwise. These, for me, are ancillary factors at best (all due apologies to Andre Rieu), for the SOUND is what music IS.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-07-21 13:58
I went to a Nathan Milstein recital at the Kennedy Center years ago. It was one of his last tours. He played the unaccompanied Bach D minor Partita *as an encore*. That's a major work, the kind of thing that most violinists would perform as half the program. He played in the manner you describe, Paul -- intense, but no theatrics to distract from the music and the brilliant playing. I'm 63 years old and have gone to a lot of concerts, but that one stands out as one of the best I've ever attended. His recordings also rate among my all-time favorites.
My husband and I, barely emerging from starving studenthood at the time (late 1970s), had cheap, obstructed view season tickets in the top balcony at extreme stage-left. The acoustics in that then-new hall sucked (before two semi-successful major remodellings), but, curiously, those obstructed view seats enjoyed better acoustics than the Orchestra seats! The well-dressed people shunned that pigeon-heaven but the local musicians and students packed those cheapest seats to the rafters. Well, Milstein had figured out where the students were sitting, or maybe he knew someone specific up there, because for a number of bars during the Partita, he turned, looked up and aimed his f-holes in our direction to give us a good view and even better audio.
After this astonishing encore, Milstein looked as if he'd happily keep on playing all night, but then I saw him notice some idiots down in the expensively-clad part of the audience who were so eager to retrieve their cars from the badly-designed parking garage that they were *getting up and leaving*. So he gave up and called it a night, despite the thunderous ovation from the rest of us.
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: lucnijs
Date: 2011-07-22 07:01
Hi all,
the poll is going well. Up until now, around 40 musicians have taking it.
I hope many more will take the poll and comment.
Maybe you can also ask your musician friends to take the poll? That would be great and increase the chance of having a lot of musicians taking the poll...
So, thank you for taking the poll and for the interesting remarks ... and hopefully for sharing it with many more.
In due time I will put results on the website.
Greetings,
Luc
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-07-22 17:58
I haven't taken the poll because I'm still not sure what you're asking, and I don't want my vote to be misconstrued to prove or disprove a point.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-07-22 19:45
There is a comment on the Charles Neidich master class video posted recently on this board that somewhat supports the premise that some amount of effort leads to some greater amount of expression.
TO PARAPHRASE: Neidich is using a contemporary built clarinet, designed to the specifications of a clarinet from Brahms' time. Neidich mentions after playing the beginning of the first Sonata that "it requires a bit more effort to achieve certain phrases resulting in a greater emotional result." Or something like that...........watch the video posted at the end of "Favorite YOUTUBE clarinet videos."
I personally think that Charles Neidich means that HE gets an unexpected result out of himself due to/or despite issues with his replica clarinet. This would be a rather particular instance and I strongly feel should not be misconstrued into a broader context. HOWEVER, one should probably ask Neidich what it is he really meant.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lucnijs
Date: 2011-07-24 19:30
Hey Alex,
The poll has no ambition to prove something. So no risk at being "misconstrued" there. I was just curious how other musicians would think about this topic. I was struck by the seemingly obviousness with which these quotes were written, so I thought: Why not ask other musicians about it. Because previous experience taught me that people don't really like to fill in yet another questionnaire, I made a simple poll.
Both quotes inspired me to make the poll and I've put them above the poll as an incentive to think about this topic, which is about the musician-instrument relationship, and to reflect on the question that I have posed in the poll.
I'm aware of the fact that polls with yes or no questions are sometimes difficult to answer because it is not possible to make nuances.
Of course we can argue about a definition of "struggle". So, it is a question of semantics, true. But isn't that an argument that can close every discussion?
But if I first explain whatever I think about it or give a lot of questions to answer in the poll, then maybe less people would do the effort of taking the poll.
Fyi: I believe that it is necessary to "become one" with the instrument in order to be able to play with full expression (btw, I also make a distinction between expression/expressivenes and interpretation).
In the meantime around 80 people have answered the poll and many of them added interesting comments. So, I'm learning from all these contributions.
Greetings,
Luc
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-07-24 20:21
Fair enough. The problem with polls like this, to me, is that you get the responses of people who feel like answering the poll. With 80 responses, you may have any number who were on the fence and just chose one, and also any number (like me) who read the poll and decided not to answer it. The comment field is indeed probably where you'll get the best information.
It's a bit of a paradoxical question in my opinion. I find that musical expression can exist completely independently of any instrument, and that clarinet just happens to be something I'm good enough at to get some things across. Any struggles with the instrument are both detrimental and beneficial to the expression. Detrimental in that they may hinder your capability to express, and can significantly limit your vocabulary ("I could play it this way easy if I was on flute", etc.). Beneficial in that they may push you towards possibilities you may not have considered, and also that the heightened attention, involvement, and/or awareness that it may force can bring you into a more active state of performance, disfavoring rote phoning-it-in playing.
I've heard people with a full command of the instrument who played with great expression, and people with similar chops whose playing was incredibly dull. I've also heard both from people struggling to keep a steady tone.
So both yes and no. It's an aspect of playing that can contribute in all directions, for better, or for worse, or both at the same time, or not at all.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2011-07-26 16:49
I have just seen a performance of the Brahms quintet where this argument came up.
The playing across the board seemed so easy, and no matter how 'expressively' they played, it seemed they never connected with the pathos in the work. Everything seemed to sound the same, with the same generic expressiveness and ease. The clarinettist is an international soloist, but I have had similar experiences with this particular work in the past.
Its not a struggle in the sense of struggling with the basic operation of the instrument. Its more about conveying a sense of struggle within the piece, by intentionally creating sounds that may be, if only temporarily, ugly. Without some reference point, all that beauty just sounds generic.
Alex number 2
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-07-26 17:02
I'd say that's probably a matter of "premeditated expression". To me, there has to be a significant element of spontaneity, of living in the moment, for expression to be genuine. However, I've seen and heard far too many musicians, especially classical-types, who plan and rehearse every tiny detail of a performance, right down to which moment they're trying to evoke a sad and which moment they'll linger on for dramatic effect and for exactly how long and in exactly which manner.
Creating something ugly can be a great vehicle for expressiveness. However, it's just another shallow contrivance if it's thoroughly premeditated and calculated.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2011-07-26 17:30
I'm not sure 'real' spontaneity makes a difference...
You can practice something hundreds of time and still leave an audience hanging with it. I guess its nice to get the basic shape of something, and commit wholeheartedly on the performance. But I think you have to know what you're doing before you get out there, otherwise you're just experiencing the piece rather than playing it. I don't think its a black and white split, but certainly having a plan isn't anathema to a good performance.
I would argue that the problem with the performance the other day wasn't that it was overly planned, but that it didn't get to the heart of the piece. Sure if they had done something spontaneously on the day that would have been ok, but 'spontaneous' can be just as contrived as something well-planned. And there is an even greater danger, that the spontaneity is in fact very shallow, and making up for a failure to understand the work fully.
I think what I saw was the culmination of rehearsals where boxes were ticked, corners were tidied, and nice sounds were made. And the performance was exactly the same. If they had committed more fully to the darker aspects of the piece within the rehearsals, and then given a performance which was in effect a demonstration of their dress rehearsal, I suspect it would have been a much more engaging 40 minutes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-07-26 17:50
Agreed.
I'm not saying to not have a plan. However, I think that OVERplanning can be stifling to expression, and that often planning will take the place of expression. A performance without much spontaneity CAN be expressive, but it also makes it much easier to fall into an uninvolved rote performance, a sort of "been there, done that" and "it worked this way before, so I'll do it again" angle, where nuances that emerged during one performance are just assumed to work again without the circumstances that caused them to come about.
I liken it to the scene in Groundhog Day, where Bill Murray is repeatedly trying to optimize his date with Andie MacDowell during the day he relives ad infinitum, and the more "perfect" he makes it, the more viciously he gets slapped in the face, not realizing that he's manipulating all the spontaneity out of the encounter, while planning calculated "spontaneous" moments.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-07-28 18:25
I think it's counterproductive to make a distinction between 'professional' and other players. Many professional players don't understand the fundamentals of musical performance; and quite a few non-professionals, in my experience, do.
You rather want to divide performers between GOOD and BAD.
What any good player does, when they play, is 'dance with the world'.
Partly unpacking two significant words in that:
That you 'dance' with the world requires that you respond in real time -- in the moment.
(That is, NOW -- whenever that is.)
Because it happens NOW, it involves not only your conscious mind, but also your unconscious mind, over which you have little control.
'The world' consists of (a) whatever plan you have (that's the bit of the world inside you); (b) your current and immediate past experience of your playing; (c) your current and immediate past experience of what others are doing; and (d) your evaluation of the relation between (b) and (c) in the light of (a).
Rehearsing, or practising, enriches your UNCONSCIOUS mind. You learn to do things without thinking consciously about them. (You might, for example, learn to dance with some sophistication.)
Now, one part of your PLAN may be to represent a difficulty.
For example, I'd say that playing the solo in Tchaikowsky's Pathetique first movement (the one that gets quieter and quieter, and is then taken over by either bassoon or bass clarinet), requires the clarinettist to understand that the solo may well be saying something that is too intimate to say directly. As in whispering, you want to SAY it -- but simultaneously, to say that you don't want to say it ALOUD; or even, to say that you want to say it, and NOT SAY IT, at the same time. That's the difficulty.
Many of the most important communications in life have this quality.
So, to achieve that quality may be a part of your plan. Then, exactly how you do it is less important than the attitude you bring to it. The precise details may be different on different occasions, and relate to (b) and (c) above. You don't want to FIX them -- even though you may start out with an idea of a particularly restricted sound quality....
Well, that's a particular case. But generally, I'd say that the idea of 'dancing with the world' trumps any notion of performance that tries to tie it into 'overcoming difficulty'.
OR -- 'being different'. That notion completely leaves out the crucially important role of the unconscious. It's almost totally unappreciated on this BBoard, which is mostly dedicated to HOW YOU 'SHOULD' PLAY THE CLARINET.
Performers have bigger fish to fry -- and another, more important clientele.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
