I recently met a fellow woodwind player, and the conversation inevitably turned to gear. We had each recently tried out an instrument by a relatively new maker. My new acquaintance found it not to his liking. “I’m a _____ snob,” he proudly explained, naming a very popular and well-established instrument maker.
I also recently read a woodwind-related message board thread (why do I torture myself?) in which some discussion was taking place about an accessories maker who had recently branched out into a new venture. A commenter scoffed at the new product and at the maker in general, indicating his disinclination even to sample any of their (generally well-regarded) products. He offered no explanation for his strong and seemingly arbitrary opinion.
Your gear choices are your own. But if you find yourself clinging to brand names, and defending those choices with something besides objective comparisons, then you might be missing out.
In lessons and ensemble rehearsals, I frequently ask students to mark in something they missed—an accidental, a stylistic nuance, a breath.
Sometimes they tell me they already marked it. They assure me they will get it right the next time.
As you might guess, I am less than convinced. The marking didn’t do the trick this time, so why should it work next time? Or next week? Or in the performance, when you’re playing under pressure and with distractions?
If the marking you made didn’t work, do a better one. Can you make it…
…more visible? Maybe beefing up that faint little pencil stroke will help. If you’re concerned about marks you might want to undo later, make photocopies and mark those (or go digital).
…clearer in meaning? Circling a note you got wrong doesn’t add any information to the page. Instead write in the sharp you missed, or a reminder of what key you’re in, or even the note name if that helps. You can use symbols if you will be 100% clear on what they mean (even under pressure), but don’t be afraid to use words.
…earlier? If you keep forgetting to do the crescendo in measure 32, consider putting a reminder in bar 28 that it’s coming up. That gives you an extra moment to process it mentally and be prepared before the crucial moment arrives.
Every marking should make your playing better. If it doesn’t, change it!
Earlier this month I posted about a fundamental practicing concept that sometimes escapes my less-experienced students. Here is another:
Me: Play your D melodic minor scale.
Student: [Begins D minor scale, plays a wrong note in the second octave.]
Me: Whoops, remember to play B-natural.
Student: Okay. [Starts over, makes same mistake.]
Me: Please start at the second-octave A, and play just from there to—
Student: [Starts from second-octave A, makes the same mistake, proceeds to finish the scale.]
Me: No, I want you to start at the A, play just to the B-natural, and stop.
Student: [Plays.]
Me: Okay, that’s correct. Now—
Student: [Starts over, makes same mistake.]
Practicing in overly large segments is an issue for less-experienced students for at least three reasons. The first is that is it makes it difficult to notice exactly where the problem is happening. Students may tend to “power through” a section and evaluate it as a whole (“That wasn’t very good”), then simply start over again and hope for the best. Sometimes my younger students are surprised when I point out that they are actually making the same mistake over and over. In their minds, it’s a roll of the dice every time, hoping that everything turns out right, and if it doesn’t, then start again and hope for better luck this time. Practicing in smaller segments makes it much easier to identify and isolate problems.
The second issue is that even if the precise problem is known, practicing it within too large a segment increases the cognitive load—it’s hard to devote enough attention to the actual problem when there are so many other notes to think about. Plus, practicing too long of a segment raises the stakes in a way that often doesn’t work well for inexperienced practicers: by the time you actually arrive at the problem spot, the pressure is really on to get it right, since you’ve already invested a lot in this run-through. If you isolate the problem to a much smaller segment, it’s not such a big deal if you have to start again.
The third issue is efficiency. If your goal is to correct one wrong note, which lasts less than a second, and you play 30 seconds’ worth of music leading up to it and another 30 seconds’ worth after it, then you can only get about one repetition done per minute. Even if you get it right, it will take you hours to really solidify that passage. But if you can narrow the problem down to two seconds’ worth of music, you can do many repetitions per minute.
In most cases, the problem that needs fixing has to do with getting from one note to another successfully. It may be that the second note isn’t the right one, or that it doesn’t respond right, or that the articulation isn’t correct, or a variety of other things, but the crucial concept is that there is a pair of notes, and the first note is right, and the second one isn’t.
Step one is to practice just those two notes, not just once through, but many times. If this is only accomplished with difficulty, it may be due to the second note having a less-familiar fingering, or perhaps some kind of particular response difficulty. Practice those two notes—and only those two notes—over and over until they improve. If they don’t, consult a teacher who can help to you diagnose and improve your technique.
If playing the two notes is trivially easy, then the problem is something about the context in which they appear. Add one more note before the first one, and repeat it several times. If it’s still easy, add one more. Continue until the problem returns, and practice that sequence of notes slowly and carefully until it feels natural and solid. If it becomes clear that adding more notes before the problem isn’t what’s triggering it, then start again from the two notes and gradually add notes after them. Sometimes anticipating what follows can cause something to go wrong.
Don’t be overly anxious to put the (former) problem spot back into the “context” of a whole scale or etude or movement. Make most of your practicing small-segment work, and very gradually reassemble the small segments into slightly larger ones. Repeat the slightly larger ones many times, then combine them again into still larger ones.
Take the time to break your practicing down into smaller chunks, isolate the problem spots, and work them methodically and repetitively.
Frequently I think about something one of my teachers said to me as an undergraduate student. I was preparing for a rapidly upcoming recital, and played one of my repertoire pieces in a private lesson. There was a tricky page turn in the printed sheet music, and my run-through came to a halt while I fumbled with the pages. A little embarrassed, I assured my teacher that I intended to photocopy a page at some point so this wouldn’t happen in performance.
“You know, it’s not too soon to do that,” he said with a tired smile.
Of course I learned many valuable lessons from that teacher, but “it’s not too soon” is one that has really stayed with me, and now I try to pass it along to my students. Here are some things they (and sometimes I) like to procrastinate, but I try to remind them it’s not too soon to do:
Photocopy pages to ease page turns
Mark in all the places you intend to breathe, and practice them
An important part of interpreting music is figuring out how to use dynamic markings. They aren’t as simple as just playing louder or softer.
It helps a lot to understand the difference between what I call local dynamics and big-picture dynamics. Unfortunately, they are marked in sheet music using the same symbols, so it’s not always immediately obvious which they are. When you study a new repertoire piece, ask yourself why the composer or editor has provided each dynamic marking:
Is it there to call attention to a major event in the music, like a new theme, a return to an old theme, or some other kind of climactic moment? If so, it’s a big-picture dynamic. In many cases there is some other evidence that this is an important moment: a double-bar, a fermata, a key or tempo change, an entrance after some rests, etc. (If you have studied musical form, you probably have some more ideas of what to look for.)
Or, is the dynamic marking there just to provide some shape and direction to a phrase? There’s no major musical event, just a hint about the momentary musical gesture. If so, it’s a local dynamic.
When you think in terms of local vs. big-picture dynamics, it’s clear that not all fortes or mezzo-pianos or crescendos are equal. If the composer uses dynamics to contrast two themes or sections, for example with one being soft and the other being loud, that probably calls for a dramatic change. (It may also hint that some other unwritten contrasts are appropriate, like nuances of tempo, articulation, or tone color.) But a one-measure decrescendo from forte to piano in the middle of a theme might be more of a suggestion from the composer about what direction that phrase should take, and should be handled with more subtlety.
Beware of the limitations of dynamic markings in music notation, and of careless editing, and use your best-informed musical judgment to interpret the meanings of those symbols.
I’ve been working on improving my pitch this summer. Why is it so difficult to play a woodwind instrument in tune? I believe there are three reasons:
The instruments are, of necessity, built in a hopelessly compromised manner. A flute or bassoon or whatever that plays perfectly “in tune” doesn’t exist. (“In tune” is in quotation marks because of #3, below.)
The human element is full of variables that affect pitch: a little change in embouchure, a little variation in breath support, and the intonation suffers.
Woodwind players (like string players, vocalists, and others) have to meet the sometimes-confusing standard of just intonation, meaning that the “right” pitch for a given note depends very much on the context. This, of course, has to be tempered somewhat when playing with equal-tempered instruments such as the piano. We’ll call all of this intonation, referring to the precise pitch relationships of one note to another.
To play in tune, I’m working on addressing each of these problems. Some notes-to-self: Read More “Playing in tune”
The question of when to permit applause at a classical music performance has already been discussed to death. In summary, some people believe that you should encourage applause only after a complete work is finished, because:
It allows the piece to be heard as a unified whole
It’s respectful to the musicians and/or audience
It’s current accepted concert etiquette
The performance might be recorded, streamed, etc. and the applause interferes
But others believe it’s acceptable to let audiences clap between movements, or even during them, because:
Some classical composers would have expected and even encouraged it
Holding applause until the end is a relatively recent thing
Shaming concertgoers for expressing enthusiasm is rude, paints classical music audiences as elitist, and drives potential new attendees away
You’re allowed to clap, chat, sing along, eat/drink, or whatever at lots of other kinds of concerts
I think neither stance can be fully the “right” one. Perhaps an analogy is helpful:
I could eat dinner at a hamburger joint, or at an innovative Michelin-starred restaurant. These are potentially equally enjoyable and valid dining experiences. At the first place nobody would think it strange if I picked the onions out of my burger, or dipped my fries in some ketchup. At the other restaurant, a waiter might bring me unfamiliar dishes that require some explanation and even instructions in order to experience them as the chef intended.
If I ask the waiter at the casual burger place for instructions on how to eat, I will probably get a strange look. And if I request some ketchup for my avant-garde cuisine, I’ll probably get the same.
Rather than argue over the “correct” way to handle applause at concerts, we should consider what kind of experience we want our audiences (and musicians) to have, and communicate that. It’s okay to encourage people to applaud when they hear something they like. And it’s okay to ask them to remain silent until the end of the program. It’s even okay to ask for silence during one piece, and applause during another.
Audience members may arrive with differing expectations, and nobody wants to feel awkward or annoyed. Help them out. Trust longtime classical music enthusiasts to be open to experiencing music in a less-rigid atmosphere when given permission, and trust your newcomers to be respectful when you explain your expectations in a non-condescending way.
I suggest being clear about your preferred modes of audience feedback, and including these expectations in the printed program and announcing them from the stage at each and every performance. Let’s not put the burden on audiences to somehow know the “correct” way to behave. Let’s use our musical taste and expertise to interpret individual performance situations for them, the same way we select and interpret the repertoire.
I tell students or people to get whatever works for them. Just because Michael Brecker played a Selmer doesn’t mean you have to as well. Heck, Phil Woods plays a Yamaha after decades on a Selmer.
Going to a lot of these “boards” (or rather “that board”), you get the arm-chair philosophers waxing poetic on everything and proclaiming winners left and right. I think it’s funny to read “that board” and the questions and answers people put there. I wish I had the money to own or have tried all these horns the “experts” there have.
Back on topic…….It is also good to consider that people tend to stick with what works, especially musicians. You find a sound or an instrument, and you stick with it. I know I do that. I very seldom try different brands of reeds, I buy the ones I’ve used for years and years. Instruments, honestly, I rarely try anything out. Why? I have no interest, and I don’t want to start chasing that “if I only had that ______ sax things would be better” thing. I have good instruments, I don’t need to get the latest Cannonball Alto or whatever. I don’t need to relearn all the little quirks it will have. I know the quirks my horn has. If I won the Lottery, sure, I’d go out and buy a bunch of horns…..probably….in addition to a boat, couple of cars, houses……
There are PLENTY of excellent instruments being made, even by people/companies not known. If you are shopping for something, for a first time purchase, then totally check them out. Cannonball, RS Berkeley, Barone, Yanigasawa, etc, etc. I’d be happy with any of these if I didn’t already own horns (I grew up in the era in the 80s/90s when there were not the plethora of good makers of instruments and for better or worse ended up with two Mark VI horns and a Yanigasawa soprano).
If I were shopping for horns, I’d not even consider Selmer……way way overpriced for what you get. You can get a whole set of horns from one of the other makers (say Barone) for the price of ONE Selmer horn. For $5K I could get an alto, and tenor Barone and maybe a Soprano…..
I tell students or people to get whatever works for them. Just because Michael Brecker played a Selmer doesn’t mean you have to as well. Heck, Phil Woods plays a Yamaha after decades on a Selmer.
Going to a lot of these “boards” (or rather “that board”), you get the arm-chair philosophers waxing poetic on everything and proclaiming winners left and right. I think it’s funny to read “that board” and the questions and answers people put there. I wish I had the money to own or have tried all these horns the “experts” there have.
Back on topic…….It is also good to consider that people tend to stick with what works, especially musicians. You find a sound or an instrument, and you stick with it. I know I do that. I very seldom try different brands of reeds, I buy the ones I’ve used for years and years. Instruments, honestly, I rarely try anything out. Why? I have no interest, and I don’t want to start chasing that “if I only had that ______ sax things would be better” thing. I have good instruments, I don’t need to get the latest Cannonball Alto or whatever. I don’t need to relearn all the little quirks it will have. I know the quirks my horn has. If I won the Lottery, sure, I’d go out and buy a bunch of horns…..probably….in addition to a boat, couple of cars, houses……
There are PLENTY of excellent instruments being made, even by people/companies not known. If you are shopping for something, for a first time purchase, then totally check them out. Cannonball, RS Berkeley, Barone, Yanigasawa, etc, etc. I’d be happy with any of these if I didn’t already own horns (I grew up in the era in the 80s/90s when there were not the plethora of good makers of instruments and for better or worse ended up with two Mark VI horns and a Yanigasawa soprano).
If I were shopping for horns, I’d not even consider Selmer……way way overpriced for what you get. You can get a whole set of horns from one of the other makers (say Barone) for the price of ONE Selmer horn. For $5K I could get an alto, and tenor Barone and maybe a Soprano…..