Author: JPMarcellus2011
Date: 2011-11-15 03:28
Why should we be learning etudes? Can't all of our lessons be learned from the repertoire? Why would I learn how to tongue fast from Rose so that I can apply it to Mendelssohn, when I just can just learn it from Mendelssohn? Why learn JeanJean for whole-tone patterns when I can just play the first clarinet part to Faun? I've never been a big etude person, although, through my teachers, I have gone through Rose 40 bks. I & II, Rose 32, Delecluse Grand Etudes, the Paganini Caprices, Gambaro and Cavallini, all of Kroepsch bks 1-4 and the Bach cello suites. My colleagues seem very excited to go through etudes and find new ones, but if I'm going to spend my time learning something, it's going to be the repertoire that I'm going to directly be performing - - excerpts, concerti and chamber music. If my point is not valid, could someone tell me what an appropriate percentage of my practice that etudes should use? And, can you explain how that time is better spent on an etude, instead of on an actual part, please? I'd love to be one of those people who is excited for a new etude, but I really don't see the practicality. Any help?
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
