 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Agomongo
Date: 2016-01-30 06:56
So I got to have a lesson with Daniel Gilbert and Chad Burrow and I have to say they have changed my whole perception of the clarinet. Just like Hawkins and Ronald Aufmann. All of whom say basically the same thing.
I've learned, or at least perceive, that there are two ways of clarinet teaching. One is using your ear to activate your support and the second on focusing more on the feeling of how air is pushed through the clarinet. I've always been taught the feeling and to blow A LOT of air through the clarinet, but when I took a lesson with Gilbert, Burrow, Hawkins, and Aufmann ALL of them basically say, "Use your ear." Yes the feeling is important, but hearing is EVEN more important.
Yes every teacher says use your ear, but what made them 4 unique is by saying, "Use your ear to hear the sound, air, rhythm, tone, and line." while the other train of thought focuses more on, "Use your ear to see if it's clean, even, and with lots of air with no mistakes." I found that I use the second train of though and, because I was ALWAYS so worried of making a mistake, clean, and even I would become anxiety filled which caused me to: rush and become unclean.
There are some more differences, but at the end of the day the whole approach of how to use your ear is what made them different. Has anyone else noticed the difference in teaching? I believe I've found the style of teaching that works for me.
Post Edited (2016-01-30 06:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-01-30 07:45
Sounds like Gilbert and Burrow are focusing on how a listener would respond to the music you are trying to make with the instrument. Listeners are not concerned with the anatomical and neurological processes the performer's body and mind need to make to get the music to sound; they are only concerned with the resultant musical patterns they hear. If you also listen to the music that is coming out of the clarinet rather than consciously fretting over the mechanical details of how you are producing the result, you will be in communion with the audience, and your body will subconsciously do the right things to make the music sound good.
In other words, let your mind concentrate on the substance of what you are playing and the body will make the countless subtle and not so suble changes necessary that are really beyond the ability of your conscious mind to fully select and control. If you hear and picture the exact musical result you want, the body will give you just the right amount of embouchure tension and air support to produce it. If you direct your attention instead to the way your lips feel or the position of your diaphram and intercostal muscles, the music will not be served, and the result will be lackluster.
Always, "serve the music" and listen to what is coming out.
Post Edited (2016-02-01 16:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-01-30 11:19
What they are teaching is basically the tenets of Suzuki Method. It is all about the tone.. and listening to what you are doing.. and listening to the master, and making yourself match the master.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-01-30 17:04
SarahC wrote:
> What they are teaching is basically the tenets of Suzuki
> Method. It is all about the tone.. and listening to what you
> are doing.. and listening to the master, and making yourself
> match the master.
That's fine for 3 to 6 year-olds. But I hope that last part about matching the master isn't part of these teachers' intent. They're teaching maturing students whose technical and musical execution have already reached a reasonably high level. Matching the "master" should no longer be the goal, but rather reaching toward the the student's own musical concept and ideal.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-01-30 17:37
Quote:
Q: Did he dictate bowings and fingerings?
A: Definitely. I studied Bach's D minor Suite for three weeks. He insisted on certain bowings and fingerings for each movement, which meant that I had to write into my part exactly what he did. We went through the entire suite in this manner. After a while, this started to bother me, so I finally said to him, "Mr. Casals, I am concerned that I will end up being just a poor imitation of you."
He replied, "Don't you worry about that. You just put your cello down and listen."
He then played the entire D minor Suite, changing all the bowings and fingerings from what he had taught me during the last three weeks. I sat there absolutely aghast as he finished. He smiled and said, "Now that's the real lesson of how to play Bach. You must learn it so well that you remember every single idea that you have had in your practice. Then you forget everything and improvise."
This was very difficult to do, especially after such rigid training the prior three weeks, but it was a profound lesson. I eventually played each Suite in a recital in New York, but it took me a whole year to learn each one to the point where I felt I could improvise as I played.
[Bernard Greenhouse on studying with Casals.}
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-01-31 01:15
The job of a teacher is to respond to the current state of the student, in order to move them forward.
Sometimes that may consist of direct advice; but very often it may consist of demanding of the student something that the teacher sees they currently CANNOT DO, in order to have them expand their abilities.
The teacher may well not know exactly how the student will manage to do it, since everyone is different. And, that 'something' may not be the same thing for one student as it is for another; so students comparing notes (or Bulletin Board members sharing reminiscences) may find inconsistencies in the teaching that they cannot explain satisfactorily to themselves.
The point is: to be a really good player, you have to be ABLE to do EVERYTHING.
Then, you have a rich choice, and a possibility to find your voice.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-01-31 01:20
> But I hope that last part about matching the master
> isn't part of these teachers' intent.
That's not really what that means in context of the Suzuki Method.
Suzuki greatly admired Fritz Kreisler and Mischa Elman, both violinists whose artistry was unique and immediately identifiable by their tone and phrasing. In order to cultivate a sense of direction in young musicians, his teaching focused on Tonalization, both in creating beautiful tone oneself as well as seeking out models of excellence to emulate and learn from. So "master" doesn't necessarily mean "your teacher," it could be any artist you experience.
The ideas are not limited to pre-K children. I make my violin students work on Tonalization concepts in their scales/etudes and spend time listening to great artists whether they are playing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, or the Sibelius and Tchaikovsky Concertos. Same goes for my clarinet students!
Post Edited (2016-01-31 01:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-01-31 01:27
Seabreeze wrote:
>> Love the line, "You can forget everything and improvise." >>
Mm. I don't think he meant that for everyone – only Greenhouse, with whom he had worked for three weeks.
You need to suffer.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-01-31 01:33
I wrote:
>> You need to suffer. >>
Sorry, that's wrong.
Rather, you need to come up against barriers.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2016-01-31 02:18
I tell my students to use the support/air like a compressor. Then use the ears to hear and adjust.
Different amounts of air, still same air speed, just less, and play musically. My lessons focus on the musicality, but the technique has to be there to not sound sloppy or clunky.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-01-31 03:18
gwie wrote:
> The ideas are not limited to pre-K children. I make my violin
> students work on Tonalization concepts in their scales/etudes
> and spend time listening to great artists whether they are
> playing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, or the Sibelius and
> Tchaikovsky Concertos. Same goes for my clarinet students!
>
Well, the ideas weren't Suzuki's, particularly. They pre-date him, perhaps, by centuries. The specific application he designed was primarily aimed at teaching young, pre-literate students aurally before introducing notation, which it's widely agreed can lead to straitjacketing young students who have little aural foundation for the sounds the notation is meant to represent.
My objection was the implication that rote imitation was likely to be a mainstay of the approaches of people like Gilbert, Burrow, Hawkins, et al given the level at which they teach. I may have misread the comment about Suzuki. His "method" was certainly more sophisticated than could be contained in a single line of description.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-01-31 04:18
> Well, the ideas weren't Suzuki's, particularly.
Suzuki never claimed the ideas where his, and I doubt any one teacher (except the truly egotistical ones) claim that what they do is not built on a foundation of centuries of previous experience and research. What he was particularly effective at doing was matching up the learning of music using the violin with some early stages of child cognitive development, to the point that he was teaching children music at an age where traditional educators previously felt that it was unrealistic.
> which it's widely agreed can lead to straitjacketing young
> students who have little aural foundation for the sounds
> the notation is meant to represent.
That's only true if you assume that they aren't taught what the logical connections between sound and notation are at the appropriate stage of cognitive development, and that somehow they shouldn't deal with the aural experience prior to the symbol-recognition one.
At least in my experience, that isn't the case. I welcome anyone to come visit my youth orchestra's Suzuki program, or check out the one led by our colleagues at the Colburn School in Los Angeles...music literacy is part of the process, and it is introduced at a developmentally appropriate time.
>the implication that rote imitation
Depending on a student's age, they have to learn some things by rote at the beginning. A four year old learns to speak their primary language by imitating their parents. In no way does it imply that someone becomes an adult artist by blindly copying everything they hear without introspection, criticism, and self-evaluation.
I think the difficult thing here is that discussion about the Suzuki Method has been a very polarizing topic, particularly among string educators. A lot of misinformation is out there, and critics on both sides have resorted to citing extreme examples to support their arguments. I look at it as one of many important bodies of knowledge in the pedagogical field, and anyone who wants to teach kids who are three years old ought to not re-invent the wheel, and see what has been successful to date.
Post Edited (2016-01-31 04:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-01-31 05:31
gwie wrote:
> What he was particularly effective at
> doing was matching up the learning of music using the violin
> with some early stages of child cognitive development, to the
> point that he was teaching children music at an age where
> traditional educators previously felt that it was unrealistic.
>
> they aren't taught what the
> logical connections between sound and notation are at the
> appropriate stage of cognitive development,
> I welcome anyone to come visit my youth orchestra's Suzuki program, >...music literacy is part of the process, and it
> is introduced at a developmentally appropriate time.
>
> Depending on a student's age, they have to learn some things by
> rote at the beginning. A four year old learns to speak their
> primary language by imitating their parents. In no way does it
> imply that someone becomes an adult artist by blindly copying
> everything they hear without introspection, criticism, and
> self-evaluation.
>
> I think the difficult thing here is that discussion about the
> Suzuki Method has been a very polarizing topic
I think the difficult thing here is that we started talking about a mature student studying with an advanced teacher and it got muddled up with Suzuki, which isn't meant for that age group or level of development. The OP's well-intended point had almost nothing to do with any of this, which has in a way hijacked the original thread, so I'll leave it here. I have no argument with anything you've written above - my original point was only that it was, I thought, non-sequitur to bring Suzuki's approach or his "method" into the discussion. Suzuki is another, and in this thread, somewhat peripheral subtopic of learning to listen as a way to self-monitor one's playing, which is ultimately the whole point of a performer's training.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-02-01 00:18
Sorry, I was just commenting on the Op question has anyone noticed this difference in teaching. And made the comment of the similarity to Suzuki method, which focuses on listening to tone, technique etc to correct it. More so than focussing on the technique itself as the sound the technique produces. That was the total meaning of my comment. And yes, suzuki method is known for teaching beginners... but IS also a philosophy that is used all the way through, including to advanced levels. And this year I have many more students doing diploma level than the beginner.
The listening to a master comment is referring to students, not any particular age, who listen to someone better than them to try improve their abilities.And with clarinet I have been listening to Chris Swann of late and trying to make my tone as beautiful as his. As I have been playing since December 19 only, and wish to progress as fast as I can. When i did my LRSm in recorder, I listened to many many recordings to observe how different professionals chose to interpret the music, while i did perform in my own style.
Suzukis whole aim was exactly what you said here "learning to listen as a way to self-monitor one's playing, which is ultimately the whole point of a performer's training." I guess people who haven't read Suzukis writings in detail may assume otherwise. And yes, they weren't his ideas, he was highly influenced by the German Romantic school of violin playing. But became famous for it because of the mass groups of young violins playing together.
And for the record, I just had a 6 year old pass his grade 5 theory with flying colours last session.. the theory knowledge etc can be just as present as anything else, depending on how it is taught.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Agomongo
Date: 2016-02-01 07:52
Wow this blew up, haha! Though I think get generally what you guys are trying to get at.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
