Author Archives: P Copas

Plan Z Music runs into controversy

Oh dear, I seem to have incurred the wrath of the militant faction of the Yorkshire recorder-playing fraternity. No…sorry, I can’t do this: to take my mind off scales and arpeggios, I have been reading The Mirror and the Light, the third book in Hilary Mantel’s brilliant Wolf Hall trilogy, and I can’t dispel the mental picture of those pesky northern papists, whipping up support and fomenting trouble in Yorkshire. It’s a wonderful read, but go slowly: it is densely packed.

On 12th May I posted a short video on YouTube entitled Why Scales are so Hard (click here to view). I linked this to my Facebook page and boosted the post. With hindsight, I think I should have targeted my audience more specifically as I received several comments from guitar players telling me that a) scales are easy, and, b) they were very good at playing them. I welcomed their comments and pointed out that they were actually reinforcing my case, which was very much about the challenge of clarinet fingerings (watch the video and you will see). There was much good-natured banter and it quickly became clear that the video had turned out to be my most successful so far.

Then came this from a recorder player called Nigel Martin:
I take great exception to your comments about the recorder being a limited instrument. You really need to do your research before you post untrue comments. The recorder has a near 3 octave range and beyond which is something that you obviously didn’t know about so please research!! The recorder also has a vast repertoire!!

Perhaps unwisely, I responded:
I am aware of the recorder repertoire and know that there are many fine players of the instrument. Nevertheless, more than two centuries of woodwind keywork development attest to the fact that wind players found the keyless model insufficient for the needs of the developing orchestra, especially as much of the technique used by recorder players to obtain the full chromatic range simply does not work on larger bored instruments. I regret your indignation: I am sure you would agree with me that embarking on a childish feud about who plays the better instrument would be futile and embarrassing.

Back he came:
My comments to you were simply about your untrue comments about my instrument the recorder and not about any other woodwind instrument! You are the one who even mentions pitting one woodwind instrument against another, not me. I regret your ignorance in the first place by stating that the recorder is a limited instrument! I find this to be appalling and I regret your arrogance! I certainly have no intention of arguing with you at all but please bear in mind that when you make a provocative statement about a musical instrument a response will occur. I do wonder what my colleagues and friends in ERTA, society of Recorder Players and professors of recorder at the UK Conservatoires/ Universities would think if they heard your posting about the recorder being a “limited instrument”?

At this point I started to smell a rat and responded:
I think this must be a wind-up! Best wishes!

Well, I was wrong about that:
For you to think that this is a wind up certainly says a lot about you! I can assure you that this is no wind up at all! Why would you suggest that?

I started to think it might be best for me to extricate myself from this, and responded:
If your colleagues and friends in ERTA take my comments as a provocation, I expect to hear from them. I fear your main aim is to whip up pointless antagonism and I am not disposed to continue this dialogue.

On he went:
I have no aim in any way, shape or form apart from challenging your ignorance about the recorder! As a committee member and Yorkshire Regional Representative for ERTA UK I certainly find your comments about the recorder to be provocative and ignorant. Your arrogance in making ignorant comments about the recorder is beyond belief! I will be discussing your video clip with ERTA members in our meetings as we often come across bad attitudes like yours about our beloved instrument!!
Then he added:
Just to inform you that I have shared your video clip on my timeline. May you receive many more responses!!

He then posted a link to my page on his Facebook page and my Video duly received five “dislikes” on YouTube. Perhaps rashly, I made a final effort to lay the matter to rest:
Your hyperbolic language and sense of personal affront led me to conclude that your comments were made in jest. I now see that this is not the case and I am concerned at your failure to apply an appropriate degree of intellectual rigour in this matter. I shall try to set out my position in clear and simple terms. I described the recorder as a simple woodwind instrument. This is not a qualitative judgement, but a statement of objective fact. The recorder as illustrated in my video has no moving parts. However precisely the dimensions of its bore and tone-holes are calculated, it is simple in design because it dates from a time when wind players and makers had not yet developed the technology to add key mechanisms. I made clear that recorder players had evolved ingenious solutions such as half-holing and lowering notes by closing holes further down the bore, and I can assure you that I admire the considerable skill the best players develop to produce playing which is even and expressive even though they have to negotiate many tricky cross-fingerings. I explained that instrument makers eventually moved towards a different solution to accessing the full chromatic range, namely adding keywork, and this was the basis for the development of the instruments which have now become established as the regular woodwind section of the symphony orchestra. Again, this is simply a statement of fact, not a claim for superiority of some instruments over others. Clearly, the recorder did not become redundant with these new developments, any more than the harpsichord was made redundant by the piano, though this nearly happened. In the twentieth century we saw a great revival of early music. Scholarly research uncovered a huge wealth of repertoire and fine players of early instruments honed their skills to ever greater heights to perform this music, bringing the authentic sound to the modern ear. Some composers were then inspired to write contemporary pieces for these instruments, and I have much admiration for the skill and dedication we see so often in this area of music-making. Where qualitative judgements were made was in the growing consensus that the recorder lacked the power, tonal range and agility to be effective in the orchestra as it had become at the end of the enlightenment period. You may wish to condemn composers and other musicians for making this judgement, I cannot. I am concerned that the tone of your comments has become emotive and, at times, bordering on threatening. You are, of course, free to discuss this with your professional association and, indeed, any other party. I trust that, in so doing, you will ensure that neither I nor Plan Z Music will be misrepresented.

Back he came:
I most certainly don’t need you to give me a history of woodwind instruments as I play other woodwind instruments whilst the recorder is my main instrument. I challenged you on your comments when you stated that the recorder is a limited instrument. Again you are the one who has taken this out of all proportion. May I suggest that you research about the new modern recorders that are now available. I don’t condemn any musician or composer so stop making things up to suit your arrogance!! You need to start supporting recorder players and not attacking and demeaning me by showing off your arrogant behaviour! My only comments to you has been about your statement about the limits of the recorder. Please update your old fashioned, archaic view and accept that the recorder is an equal, valid musical instrument that is on a par with any other woodwind instrument!

At that point I decided that enough really was enough. Mr Martin’s comments were becoming increasingly emotional in tone (so many exclamation marks!) and alarmingly ad hominem. Nothing was to be gained by goading him further.

All instruments have their limitations, and players draw on considerable skill and dedication to overcome these limitations. My own, boëhm-system clarinet is the result of a couple of centuries of piecemeal development and presents many mechanical challenges which must be overcome. If you set out to redesign the key system from scratch, you would probably come up with something very different, but trying to do so does not seem to be worth the effort. I remember seeing a clarinet on display in the excellent Musical Instruments Museum in Brussels, which was the result of a complete, logical rethink; and the museum is where it remains.

I admire recorder players and the distinctive way in which they are able to bring an authentic voice of the time to early music. I am aware that players have also found ingenious ways to cover the full chromatic range for more recent compositions, but those of a scientific inclination may enjoy this article: click here

I detected some resonance in a quote I stumbled on the other day:
Human beings from time immemorial have felt the need to owe primary allegiance to a collective body of one kind or another – be it a tribe, a city, or some alternative ethnic, geographical or cultural unit; and the impulse to assert the identity of the group, however large or small it may be, can easily lead – especially when feelings of insecurity are involved – to aggression and intolerance.
Christopher Duggan, The Force of Destiny, a History of Italy since 1796, Penguin Books 2008.

Quite so.

Why clarinet scales are so hard

The problem with clarinet scales is that the arrangement of keywork on wind instruments is chaotic: some keys are pressed to open holes, other are pressed to close holes. And the clarinet is particularly problematic because a large range is available within a relatively short instrument and fingerings are very different from one octave to the next.
Compare this to other instruments such as the piano or stringed instruments. I am not, for a moment, pretending they are easy, but, at least, they are set out in a regular form. You only have to look at them to see how they make sense.
To understand why this cannot be the case for wind instruments, you need a brief history lesson. The most primitive woodwind instruments followed the basic design of the recorder. This is a very limited instrument because it has no keywork: there are only as many holes as the player has available fingers. A scale of C major is fairly straightforward, but problems arise when the in-between notes, the sharps and flats to play in other keys are required. Recorder players get round this in ingenious ways such as half-covering holes or flattening a note by closing holes lower down the instrument – something that works after a fashion for the recorder, but cannot be applied on larger-bore modern wind instruments. This use of compromise fingerings leads to significant unevenness of tone, with notes of different strengths and timbres, as well as suspect intonation. A much better solution is to drill more holes in the instrument, but, if you do this, you need more fingers. The answer was to add keys – prosthetic fingers, if you like – to bring the opening and closing of these extra holes within the player’s reach.
Keywork on woodwind instruments has developed piecemeal over several centuries, accelerating as the demands of music increased, particularly when the orchestra grew in the Romantic Period and composers pursued more adventurous harmonies and dissonances. Modern instruments need to be made to work in all the keys. Fingering in keys such as C major or F major is relatively straightforward, but venturing into remote keys such as F-sharp major or D-flat major requires complex use of extra keywork and, while this works much more effectively than using recorder techniques, the simple logic of fingering patterns starts to break down.
There is no easy way to learn scales and arpeggios. They have to be conditioned in through persistent repetition over a long period of time. Building an instinctive grasp of all the keys can take years. And that’s where Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios, our course of lessons for download comes in. There is really no substitute for Plan Z.

Clarinet lessons online under lockdown

You can find on our YouTube channel a number of short videos introducing Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios, a course of clarinet lessons online for download, and the worksheets to use for this are available from www.planzmusic.com. Most of us are stuck at home more or less all the time at the moment, but students still need some structure in their lives. Now is a good time to get properly on top of this tricky, but essential aspect of learning.
The seriousness of this pandemic must not be underestimated, and many lives depend on us all isolating ourselves, probably for a considerable period – nobody can predict how long. But, in a civilised society, education must continue.
A well-run school music department is a community, a complex network of interactions: successful music-making at all levels is essentially tied up in collective endeavour. For this reason, the necessity for the lockdown has potentially been devastating for music in schools. But we owe it to our children to ensure that they come out of this experience more resilient and more optimistic for the future.
Many schools have stepped impressively up to the mark, putting in place facilities for remote learning, keeping in contact with their students, maintaining the structure of the school day, monitoring work closely. This has been a challenge for instrumental teachers such as myself because our lessons need to be conducted face-to-face. Achieving this while ensuring that all the usual safeguarding measures remain in place requires careful planning and, for everyone’s wellbeing, must be closely monitored by school leaders.
There are a number of platforms for video link-up. My schools have variously chosen Teams or Zoom which can be logged into using approved school email addresses. The signal is not always great, and there is a time lag which prevents providing accompaniment or counting along to keep students in time. Many adjustments are required to make lesson delivery work, but, even after just two weeks, I can see and hear that real progress is being made.
Now is the time for teachers and learners to explore the many online resources that are available to assist home learning. I have always stressed the importance of self-directed learning. And, despite our best endeavours to deliver online teaching, this has never been of greater importance.
Do follow Plan Z Music on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to our YouTube channel as there is lots more useful stuff on the way.

The very real challenge of clarinet lessons online

With the lockdown and curtailment of almost all normal activity necessitated by this horrible virus, I have no alternative but to deliver my clarinet lessons online. I have noticed that many well-known names in the music business have taken to providing advice, demonstrations and inspiration to young learners through YouTube and other online platforms. They are to be commended for this: now, more than ever, our students need as much encouragement as they can get to maintain their musical enthusiasms and aspirations. Spare a thought, though, for the regular school instrumental teachers, those who deal with the nuts and bolts of instruction week in and week out; the ones who know that it is not enough to inspire, you have to perspire as well.
Many schools, especially at secondary level, aim to continue education remotely, linking with their students via platforms such as Teams or Zoom. There is much emphasis on maintaining the regular school timetable so that students’ work from home is structured. When I first suggested to my schools delivering clarinet lessons online, via video link, the reaction was close to panic: schools are very sensitive about safeguarding, and this would entail my students and me looking into each other’s homes. It was even suggested that I might simply enjoy a very long paid holiday. This may seem an enticing prospect, but if the instruction I provide is put into suspended animation, it may never be revived: at my schools, the contract for lessons comes up for renewal every September. The safeguarding issue was eventually resolved by using the same platform as the school, accessed through my school email login, and only provided once written consent had been obtained from the parents of each student.
I have stuck to my regular timetable, and online teaching has worked pretty well, barring the odd frozen screen or dropped link. There is a time lag though, so you can’t click your fingers and count to keep them in time. This places extra responsibility on the student to concentrate on rhythm and fluency – no bad thing. I dare say my emphasis on discipline in learning makes me come across as a bit of a fascist – I am not really – but we all know there are no instant results in this business, and our students need all our encouragement to explore and develop.
And the clarinet worksheets available from Plan Z Music, guiding students through the whole process of learning scales and arpeggios, have an important part to play in all of this. For remote learning to work, the student needs to develop musical self-sufficiency. This requires a developed technique and a sound grasp of the navigation of the instrument. The six-day practice plans, which are presented at the end of every stage, fit perfectly into a well-structured learning day.

 

The Dubious Challenge of Grade 5 Theory

I conduct a lunchtime music theory class at my girls’ grammar school. We have advertised it as Fast Track Grade 5 Theory from Scratch and it is aimed at students who have been taking graded exams up to Grade 5, want to continue, but have never done any theory. This is a common situation, especially among those whose first musical experience was taking up an orchestral instrument at the end of junior school or after starting secondary school. I am still surprised that children can get up to Grade 5 on an instrument without even a scintilla of theoretical background being explained to them by their instrumental teacher; it’s a bit like trying to learn a language without paying any regard to grammar.
The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music recently changed the syllabus for Grade 5 Theory, removing the option of melody-writing or word-setting. This was the one section of the exam which required the candidate to look at music on the page and hear it mentally. The whole paper can now be completed by a robot. Whilst my students are rather more than that, I have every expectation that even those with little musical aptitude can pass with at least 90%.
The students in my group, some of the most intelligent children I have ever taught, are earnest, attentive and utterly delightful; though I sometimes wish they would be a bit more shouty and combative. Some years ago, I taught at a major public school for boys. The students were spectacularly wealthy, often rather dim and imbued with a profound sense of entitlement. The meek do not inherit the earth.

The New ABRSM Syllabus – A challenge it may not be worth rising to

Firstly, full disclosure: my textbooks, Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios for Clarinet and Saxophone were modelled around the current syllabus of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music and quote directly from it. To be able to do this I signed a licensing agreement with ABRSM which is legally binding and entails payment of a royalty; if you have used their copyright material, including syllabuses, in your publication without such an agreement, you could find yourself in a lot of trouble. This arrangement has undoubtedly enhanced sales, as many exam candidates are desperate to find a solution to what can seem like an intractable problem. The syllabus change makes the books in their present form, whilst not redundant, less relevant to many students. A setback, however, can also be an opportunity. A second edition of these books is currently in preparation. All reference to the ABRSM syllabus is to be removed and I am now free to reorganise this progressive methodology into a more logical order than was permitted by even the current syllabus, making the books relevant for a wider range of students including those preparing for different exams or none. Issuing this material in different formats including as e-books will make them available to a wider market. Additionally, I will no longer be liable for royalties to a third party.

I have, nevertheless, examined the new syllabus for clarinet and saxophone with a sense of puzzlement and dismay.

Clarinet

    • The introduction of scales and arpeggios for a twelfth on an instrument with such a large range seems a regressive move; at Grade 2, students can no longer be trusted to play beyond G in the second register, whilst Grade 3 students no longer have to venture into the third register.
    • For Grade 3, A major has been extended to a twelfth, requiring the student to negotiate break fingerings, so why not go for the full two octaves?
    • Sharp keys are introduced at an earlier stage than the corresponding flat keys, despite flat keys being easier to play in than sharp ones on the clarinet (this is why the clarinet in A was invented).
  • E minor does not appear until Grade 6!

Saxophone

    • The saxophone plays more comfortably in sharp keys as befits its being a transposing instrument in E-flat or B-flat. D major does not appear until Grade 2, while D minor is included in Grade 1. A major and E minor, both easy scales, now do not appear until Grade 4.
    • There was really no need to reduce F-sharp minor to one octave at Grade 4: the top fifth of the scale does not cause difficulty.
    • Candidates are not required to use C-sharp, B or B-flat on the L5 keypad until Grade 5; the range at Grade 4 is reduced.
    • B-flat minor does not appear until Grade 8 when it is required for two and a half octaves.
  • Chromatic scales for a twelfth or two and a half octaves have no coherent rhythmic structure. This is dealt with in arpeggios for a twelfth by repeating the dominant at the top and the tonic at the end. No such neat solution is proposed for these chromatic scales (strictly speaking, half an octave is an augmented fourth: that would work rhythmically).

Both Instruments

    • Dominant sevenths should now resolve on to the tonic: why? More often than not, this does not happen when dominant sevenths occur in music, and the tonic is not part of the chord. Such notions will have to be abandoned when students reach an advanced stage and begin practising dominant sevenths in their inversions. This curious affectation is familiar to string players, but no string teacher of my acquaintance has been able to explain why they do it.
    • The introduction of extended range scales and arpeggios and scales in thirds at an earlier stage seems arbitrary and is not part of any logical process of learning. While such exercises can be a valuable part of scale work, they seem to have been introduced here simply to provide extra hoops for students to jump through.
  • The principle of arranging scales and arpeggios in clusters for the advanced Grades is sound as it is consistent with a methodical approach to learning. It was possible to apply this when working from the old syllabus; however, the order in which these clusters appear for the top three Grades has no apparent logic, with some easier clusters from Grade 6 reappearing at Grade 8 for no apparent reason.

The new wind syllabus has been under discussion for a long time and I was one of many teachers who responded to a questionnaire sent out by ABRSM more than two years ago. I also discussed some of the proposals with the Chairman of the Board, Mick Elliott when I met him at the Rhinegold Music Education Expo at the Barbican Centre in 2015. On this occasion, he gave me his assurances that there would be no reduction in the Board’s rigorous standards. What is clear from my examination of the syllabus is that there is less to prepare for each grade and that the selection of items is less reflective of a systematic approach to learning scales and arpeggios than before; it is, to a greater extent, an arbitrarily selected series of hoops to jump through.

Whilst this is not a change to the wind syllabus, it is also worth noting that the removal of melody writing and word setting from Grade 5 Theory, a hoop all must jump through before proceeding to advanced grades, means that candidates can now complete the entire paper without the need to hear in their mind a single note of music.

The most significant area of dumbing down, however, would appear to be in the new sight-reading tests. The parameters set out in the syllabus have pulled this test at every grade down to about one grade level below the current syllabus. In addition, the new tests are much shorter, in many cases, less than half the previous length. This sends, very much, the wrong message when sight-reading is such an essential skill for orchestral wind players.

Advance notification of the new syllabus promised: “a wider choice of repertoire than ever before, including syllabus favourites alongside famous classical tunes, music from the world of film, TV, and musicals, and much more”. My heart sank at this: my students cringe at any suspicion of teachers and other adults trying to “get down with the kids”. You will be lucky if you find a Grade 3 student who even knows Hedwig’s Theme or the March from Raiders. Most of the supposedly popular pieces are more likely to be recognised by their grandparents than by their parents, so whose needs are really being served by inclusion of this material? In any case, many such pieces are popular because they are melodically unambitious, and the constraints of writing for the voice mean that vocal pieces generally do not transcribe well for orchestral wind instruments. Mind you, such pieces are easily avoided: it turns out that the selection of pieces is mainly the same old stuff with a few supposedly popular numbers thrown in as a bit of a sop.

At the top end of the Grade range for clarinet, there is much Brahms, though examiners are unlikely to hear it all that often as most accompanists will not be able to manage the piano parts. There are just two opportunities to dip into Weber’s considerable output and very little other established repertoire, but a high proportion of arranged pieces (Paul Harris must be very happy). To omit the Mozart Clarinet Concerto altogether is perverse in the extreme; it is the most famous and popular piece of music ever written for any wind instrument and occupies a unique place in history. It may be argued that overexposure of this work means that other repertoire does not get a look in, but this is lazy thinking. Essentially an operatic composer, Mozart recognised the potential for the clarinet, with its distinct registers, to convey dialogue: the consequent narrative and dramatic power of his writing had a profound effect on subsequent composers and there is much to be said for studying their output in the context of this.

The dilution of rigour and relevance in the new ABRSM syllabus forces me to re-evaluate the role of graded exams in my teaching. I have, throughout my career, found this progressive system of assessments to be useful in providing a structure for learning. It is comprehensive in its inclusion of technical elements, demands for developing musicianship and the opportunities provided for interpretative and cultural development. Increasingly, however, and very much in line with trends in education generally, schools and parents have come to regard the graded exam system as an end in itself: effectively, a series of qualifications. This commodification of educational provision (“If I play it the way you say, how many more marks will I get?”) is far from conducive to the proper development of both executive skill and creativity, and seems to lead to the presentation of arbitrary and, ultimately, meaningless hoops for the student to jump through.

I envisage an approach, tailored for the needs of each individual student, which builds an understanding of the history and development of the instrument, its technique, repertoire and context in musical and cultural history. None of these elements can be studied in isolation but should be assimilated through a comprehensive and carefully structured process. It is right to give students a degree of choice when selecting pieces to learn, but they need a broad experience on which to make those choices. Primarily, this means developing reading and quick learning skills to enable them to build as wide a stylistic awareness as possible, and will entail the return of the study book. As I have demonstrated through my scale books, technical development should be methodical, and relevant to the demands of music being studied. Downsizing the importance of exam preparation will provide greater opportunity to support ensemble work, without which justice cannot be done to wind instruments. This will require close cooperation between instrumental teachers and school music departments, always a tricky area logistically, but with the potential for huge mutual benefit.

I will continue to use the grades, where appropriate, in my teaching, but the graded exams can provide a comfort-blanket for instrumental teachers and there is laziness in over-reliance on them. Educators have a responsibility to reach out to parents, setting out objectives and explaining how they can support their children’s learning. We cannot expect parents to free themselves from the narrow prescriptions of an exam syllabus unless we do the same.

 

Why do they call us instructors?

Like most people working in music education, I am appalled at the proposal to exclude creative, artistic and technical subjects from the EBacc. Originally unveiled by Michael Gove, enthusiastically supported by his successor, Nicky Morgan, equally passionately advocated by Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, this proposal has scant support among the teaching profession. Dissenting voices are met with lofty declarations about the government’s core aims for every child which fail to address concerns and reinforce the growing impression that our elected representatives are more interested in denying than providing education. Perhaps Justine Greening will be different, but I’m not holding my breath.

What we do know about Greening is that she is an enthusiastic advocate for extending academy status for schools. One consequence of this change in status is that schools cannot any longer benefit from the expertise that comes with centralised, local authority provision of instrumental tuition and teachers are appointed at the absolute discretion of headteachers. I have known some impressively enlightened heads who have a clear grasp of what a school music department should be delivering, but there is no reason why every head should have such attributes. I also know of schools where a jolly, smiley person has confidently said “I can teach all your wind instruments and some strings as well!”. The resulting, joyous cacophony in the classroom tells the headteacher that all is well with instrumental tuition in the school: another box ticked, time to move on. Every September, at my secondary schools, I inherit the products of such a system as they come into Year 7. I always aim to be gentle and tactful, but many hapless children wonder what has hit them.

I have always felt it is something of a misnomer to refer to instrumental teachers as instructors, as many schools do, and I assume this has arisen from an attempt to distinguish us from classroom teachers who have qualified teacher status: if you do not have QTS you can’t be a teacher. My beef with this is the implication that we simply hand out technical instructions which lead to students being able to play, a bit like driving instructors (it should be noted that those who instructed me to drive showed saintly qualities of patience and perseverance: I do not wish to denigrate their excellent work). By far the most challenging part of learning any instrument is the development of musicianship: reading, fluency, rhythmic accuracy, phrasing and aural awareness. Compared to learning these aspects of music-making, figuring out which fingers go where is the easy bit. Musicianship, in turn, cannot be separated from interpretative issues: music is a language of many dialects reflecting a huge cultural diversity. This we must also try to communicate to our students: not to do so is rather like trying to teach a language without reference to grammar.

Much is made of the transferrable skills developed through instrumental learning, and they are considerable: physical coordination, communication skills, social skills, concentration, problem-solving, self-directed learning, self-confidence, assertiveness, self-esteem and so on. We should not, however, disregard the intrinsic value of participating in music: it enables us, as social animals, to connect with our essential humanity. We have been collaborating to produce coordinated sounds since we fell out of the trees; our social connection and, therefore, our very survival depended on it. Nick Gibb tells us: “Every child deserves to leave school fully literate and numerate, with an understanding of the history, geography and science of the world they inhabit, and a grasp of a language other than their own.” Quite so:  those attributes enable us to pursue goals and serve causes greater than ourselves. But I can’t quite let go of Thomas Paine’s magnificent assertion, enshrined in the American constitution, of the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”: selfish but legitimate ideals. The education system should provide access to knowledge and understanding; it cannot and should not seek to shape our destiny.

The opportunity to participate in music-making has a profound effect on the lives of young people and, even though they may never play again after leaving school, many treasure the experience for the rest of their lives, encouraging their own children in turn to take up instruments. I have the good fortune to conduct the Wind Band at one of my schools. I have always been a vociferous advocate for such bands in all secondary schools which usually have far too many wind players for the symphony orchestras. Whilst the stronger players carry things along, the weakest play what they can and mime the rest, eventually getting the idea, developing the necessary skills and becoming, in turn the stronger players: to an extent, if you can’t run you can hide. The reason why this activity is the highlight of my week is because I see at first hand the delight of young people who are achieving something impressive that they had never believed could be part of their lives. They certainly value this above any transferrable skills and their lives are better for it.

An understanding of what our students can really gain should provide us with both a responsibility and an opportunity. The responsibility is to ensure that every child develops the knowledge, skill and self-confidence to participate in school music at the highest level they can achieve. The opportunity is to communicate our own enthusiasm and wonder and show them that an orchestra or band really can be greater than the sum of its parts. And that is the problem for secretaries of state and their acolytes: in our transactional society all endeavour is commodified, all value must be quantified. You can’t eat music, nor can you kill people with it, it won’t keep the rain off or keep predators at bay.

But most of us can’t live without it.

Progress Report

The clarinet scale books have been in circulation for about ten months now and sales have steadily increased. Whilst I am happiest if these books are bought from this website, I am pleased to see some five-star reviews on Amazon.

As you would expect, many of my own students have bought the books and some lesson time has been devoted to guiding them through them: the intention was always for the books to provide support for the teacher at the same time as for the student and careful guidance is essential. Some of my students have shown reluctance to work through the practice plans at the end of each lesson. This has particularly been the case with more advanced students who have started with Book 2 or Book 3. The practice plans in these books consist of long lists of scales and arpeggios, most of which are to be played once. By the time they are ready to take Grade 5 they can face a list of over 40 items to work through in each practice; however, if previous stages of the process have been gone through properly, this should not take very long. I frequently demonstrate this in the lesson by working down a list at slow tempo, timed by the student. Even quite long lists can be completed in well under ten minutes if the student is able to play each item correctly the first time.

In the case of those students who have followed the instructions diligently, usually because they have high levels of parental support, the results have astonished even me. How often does a teacher find their student knows all the scales for an exam before they have begun work on any of the pieces? I have also found that working on the many exercises in the books has had a significantly beneficial effect on general technique and I have been impressed by the increased facility and confidence these students have gained.

As I write I am awaiting delivery of the first print run of my new publications, Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios for Saxophone. As with the clarinet books, I have no doubt that some of my fingering choices will be controversial: relative to other acoustic instruments, the saxophone is in its infancy and, while I am by no means the first to try to formalise its technique, there can not be said to be any consensus about how it should be played. Once again, my aim is to present the student with fairly strict rules and guidelines to remove the element of uncertainty. Sometimes the student is given options to explore, but I have tried to explain my choices as they are presented.

If the saxophone is a relative newcomer, the teaching of the instrument is at an even earlier stage: very few school children had the opportunity to learn it when I was at school and, when I was a student at the Royal Academy of Music in the early 1980s, it was still not possible to take the instrument as a principal study – it should be noted, however, that fine work was being done with second study students there by Richard Addison and many excellent players in the profession now owe their success to his teaching. Nevertheless, many players and teachers currently in the field are largely or wholly self-taught and, whilst some have undoubtedly achieved a high level of expertise, all too many lack a comprehensive grasp of the instrument and its technique. Certainly there is a wide divergence of views about how the instrument should be played.

I too am a largely self-taught saxophonist, although I underwent a rigorous training as a clarinet player. The expertise to which I lay claim is based on considerable experience as a teacher and player and I believe the high level of success in my teaching attests to the effectiveness of my methodology. You may ask: who am I to presume I can lay down the law in the way I have in these books? In response I would say I am no better than dozens of others; the difference is that nobody else has tried to do this. I have. And it works.

Cross-fingerings and how to get rid of them

For those of a scientific inclination, the following may be of interest: click here.

The problem
The recorder, a very simple wind instrument, is little more than a pipe with holes in it. The holes are opened and closed by finger action and enable the player to vary the effective length of the instrument, thereby varying the wavelength of the tone produced and playing a range of notes. The number of holes available is limited to the number of available fingers. Since the right thumb supports the instrument it cannot play any part in fingering notes. That leaves us with nine fingers, therefore nine notes. Those nine notes have been pitched to constitute part of a diatonic scale, which means there is no provision for chromatic notes: the sharps and flats. The same problem existed on the earliest forms of the flute, oboe and clarinet.

One solution
The full chromatic range can be obtained by cross-fingering. This entails closing one or more tone holes below the highest open one. For example, the recorder player moves from E to F by lifting the middle finger of the right hand. To play F# the index finger is lifted while the middle finger is replaced as shown below.

Recorder cross fingeringsAs you can see, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but essentially the fingerings are the same as on the saxophone and in the second register of the clarinet. The problem associated with this is that it is well nigh impossible to achieve a perfect legato when swapping fingers in this way: there is always a bit of a “clonk” and a clearly discernible, unwanted note can creep in between the two desired tones. The other problem is that uniformity of tone colour is compromised as cross-fingered notes have a darker timbre. On larger instruments such as saxophones the technique simply cannot work.

A better solution
The other way round the problem is to drill more holes and get yourself some extra fingers, and that is effectively what keywork amounts to: the rise and fall of keys mimics the action of fingers and the soft skin or leather of the pads is similar to the cushioned fingertip. A variety of clever mechanisms bring all these extra tone holes within reach of the player’s nine fingers (on the modern, low C bass clarinet and the basset horn, even the right thumb has a busy time of it).

Players and instrument builders have developed a variety of key systems over the last 300 years or so and have succeeded in eliminating the need for cross-fingerings as employed on the recorder (the saxophone was born virtually fully grown around 1846: although its inventor, Adolph Sax was incontestably a genius, even this mechanism was built on principles developed for other instruments over a long period of time). However, much technique still calls for cross-fingering type action, in other words simultaneously lifting one or more fingers while lowering others, and legato can still be compromised. Whilst these are not cross-fingerings in the true sense, that is how I refer to them in my publications.

Much development of keywork has been aimed at eliminating the need for such cross-fingerings. On the boehm system clarinet there are alternative fingerings for throat F# and second register F# (and, therefore, low B), while the saxophone has alternative C and F# fingerings as well as a variety of fingerings for Bb. Many students are reluctant to take on board more than one fingering for any note, but it is important to employ appropriate fingerings to maximise smoothness. It really does matter: I have always regretted that the cross-fingering between top B and C on the German system clarinet can be a blemish on otherwise fine performances. The same action on the saxophone can be excruciating because of the size of the mechanisms involved and the relatively large distance through which keys move. It is particularly important to find mechanically simple solutions on the saxophone if one is to avoid sounding like an old fashioned typing pool. In my forthcoming series, Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios for Saxophone, I offer some fingering options which some may find unpalatable:

  • I recommend using the side key fingering for C even when crossing between registers: for example, in both octaves of the scale of C major. Many players are reluctant to do this and, indeed, moving between side key C and second octave D also involves elements of cross-fingering, but I and those students who choose to follow my example can execute the relevant passages more quickly and smoothly than with the middle finger C.
  • The side key fingering for Bb (or A#) should be used in all scales where those notes appear. The other Bb fingerings are for arpeggios. Using middle finger C with the bis-key fingering for Bb is as undesirable as cross-fingering between B and C in C major (it is not appropriate to combine the C side-key with with bis-key Bb as the C would be unacceptably flat).
  • The long fingerings for Bb, using either the RH index finger or middle finger may be convenient when the note is adjacent to B§, but should not be used when also adjacent to a lower note as this would require a cross-fingering: in such instances, the side key fingering should be chosen.

The saxophone is a woefully underestimated instrument: when I was a student at a major British conservatory you could not take it as your principal study. To this day many teachers of other instruments imagine they only need to get a few simple fingerings sorted and they can then take on lucrative(!) extra work. I often have to undo the technical flaws and misconceptions in young saxophone players who have had the misfortune to take lessons from them (click here to see my previous post about junior schools).

Left/right fingering choices

The choice of left and right alternative fingerings often presents a dilemma for clarinet students. Many teachers are seemingly sweetly reasonable about the matter: “You could do it this way, or you could do it that way. Do whichever you prefer,” they say. This generally results in the student dithering between the two options and becoming increasingly confused. All three volumes of Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios for Clarinet set out clear rules to avoid inconsistencies.

I shall start with bottom F/2nd register C. The use of the right hand fingering for these notes, wherever possible, is normal practice among the great majority of clarinet players. I regard it as the orthodox choice since it stems from the Albert system clarinet which preceded the Boehm system and only has a RHC and a LHB (most German players use instruments based on this system to this day). The right hand choice for C means that B, in C major, G major etc., is played with the left hand whilst the right hand remains on the C key. It is not strictly necessary to hold down the C when playing B, but it is good practice in these scales as it avoids cross-fingering when transferring between B and C.

Small children, starting the clarinet at an early age, often have difficulty reaching RHC and, particularly, LHB, so their teachers introduce the alternatives: RHB and LHC. Some junior school teachers encounter this problem so frequently that they introduce these fingerings routinely, without checking to see if the orthodox fingerings can be made to work. I have inherited many such back-to-front players from junior school teachers, usually at a point when they are too far down the line to switch them around. I have had quite a few go on to reach a good level, including Grade 8 and County Youth Orchestra, but their playing is always a bit laboured. The Mozart Concerto, in particular, suffers, with awkward left/right coordination. Any player aiming for a career in music would be well advised to make the switch. I have already written about my misgivings regarding junior school tuition: this is one of the reasons why.

For scales with C#, my choices are a little more controversial. Many players in the profession use LHB followed by RHC# in the scales of D major, B minor, A major and F# harmonic minor: in other words, when C# is followed by D§. They then need to change to RHB and LHC# when D# comes in to the scale. This seems to me to be rather illogical and is certainly likely to lead to confusion in students who have got used to pressing RHC at the same time as LHB and are likely to tend to forget to switch when learning E major. Crossing the break to RHB followed by LHC# in sharp scales is referred to in my books as the Sharp Break Fingering Pattern; it gives rise to the F#/C#/Db Rule which appears repeatedly throughout Books 2 and 3. This rule states that bottom F#, second register C# and Db should always be played with the left hand in scales and with the right hand in arpeggios.

C sharp RuleThere are several reasons to back up imposing this rule:
• It means that, in anticipation of crossing the break in both scales and arpeggios, the player can reach for a right hand fifth finger key while the left hand is busy dealing with throat notes (A or A#, for example).
• It ensures consistency throughout the major and minor scales and arpeggios.
• This is the most efficient fingering choice mechanically. Players are invited try the following exercises using both C# options:

C sharp scale exercise for Blog

 

This scale exercise is cumbersome when played with the right hand fingering because the fourth and fifth fingers are conjoined within the hand. Most players can execute this much more rapidly with the left hand fingering.

C sharp arpeggio exercise for Blog

This arpeggio exercise is more efficient played with the right hand fingering because the fourth and fifth fingers are predisposed to move together. When the left hand fingering is used problems arise with the coordination of R4 and L5 and an unwanted note tends to creep in at high speed.

For the same reason, the student is advised to cross the break to a right hand fingering in arpeggios wherever possible in order to keep the following finger movement in one hand.