Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That certainly is an example of placing in sequence and a good reason to do it too. I think the whole point of this thread is that there are many reasons to learn sequential placing AFTER learning block placing really well.
I’m not saying it needs a special name. I came up with placing in sequence to try to describe the technique. When I published my edition of Faure’s Une Chatelaine en sa tour( which requires placing in sequence throughout the entire piece) I used the term in my forward to describe the required technical skill.
Another good example where placing in sequence is critical is the Glinka Nocturne. The arpeggios in the left hand are piano arpeggios, meaning that they double back on themselves. If you don’t place in sequence in the left hand on this piece, your constantly choking the sound by touching strings that have just been played. And because the left hand is playing down in the 4th and 5th octaves, there is a high risk of buzzing when replacing on these vibrating strings. So you have to replace, in sequence, at exactly the moment that another left hand note is being played.
Stephan- I thought of something else that should be mentioned for the benefit of everyone who has never heard of this technique and may want to learn it. When you place in sequence, it is crucial that each finger that is placed on a string touch the string at exactly the same moment that the finger already on another string plucks. In other words, in placing in sequence, one finger is placed and another finger plucks the string exactly together. That way, if the finger being placed either creates a small buzz or stops a vibrating string, it is camouflaged by the sound of another string being plucked. You do not ever place a finger before, even a microsecond before, another string is plucked. Needless to say, the technique of placing in sequence is exactly the same in both hands.
Kim- I don’t even think of this as ‘breaking a rule.’ Playing the harp involves many techniques, and some of those techniques cannot be learned until another one is solid. Placing in blocks is fundamental to learning many skills on the harp, and placing in sequence doesn’t replace it, but rather is a variation, or if you want, an advanced form of placing in blocks.
This is why I am such a stickler for learning a good solid technical foundation. Ultimately you want your technique to be so firm, so complete, that you never have to think about it.
Some good examples where you would use placing in sequence on chords are the opening statement of the Impromptu of Faure and the beginning of the harp cadenza in Britten’s Young Person’s Guide… Both have 8 note chords that you want to ring as long as possible, and both repeat notes that were just played. To simply learn the chords in each of these examples, you have to practice placing in blocks until you can find the notes quickly and easily. BUT THEN, you have to place each chord from the bottom to the top, placing only one or two fingers at a time, and placing the right hand after the left, so that you don’t hear any strings being muffled or buzzing.
Tony- That’s almost exactly how I work too. On the subject of fingerings, I usually start a new piece by reading through it several time and writing in pedals and fingerings as a point of departure. But as I get to know the piece better, I frequently find that a fingering I originally put in doesn’t work, maybe because it causes a buzz, or at a faster tempo is awkward, etc. Sometimes I find that pedals have to be moved around too as I get to know the piece better.
Placing in sequence is something that ultimately is intuitive. I don’t think about it or do it consciously. It just happens as I get more familiar with the piece. The same with muffling. Almost all of the muffling I do is with individual fingers in the left hand. i almost never muffle with the flat of my hand. Again, this is intuitive and just seems to happen as the piece gets closer to performance level.
One of the problems I have to work on is making sure that the piece I have learned reflects accurately the way I actually play the piece. A lot of times during the learning process, I’ll change a fingering but not write it down. If I go back to the piece a few years later, I sometimes have to try to figure out what it was I actually did in the piece. I’m getting better at writing down the changes though.
I wanted to add one more thought. Your teacher was absoloutely right to teach you to place in blocks. But at some point in your development it will be time to teach you the more advanced technique of placing in sequence.
You have to go through the stage of placing in blocks first. You have to be able to form very precise patterns in the air first(octaves, triads, 4 note chords, V7 arpeggios in all the positions to give just a few examples) in order to place your fingers on the strings accurately. Placing in blocks forces you to learn those patterns. For example, if you place a 4 note chord, placing all 4 fingers simultaneously, and one or more fingers is wrong, you know immediately that you’ve made a mistake. Once you can place in blocks very accurately, then the next step is to place the same notes in sequence. Even at the advanced level, a harpist learning a difficult piece will probably place in blocks initially until the patterns are learned, then move on to placing in sequence.
Elizabeth- That makes sense. I think I probably do it the same way. The questions I was asking at the start of this thread were: 1)Do other people use this technique(placing in sequence or whatever else you choose to call it) and 2) Do you consciously teach it as an identifyable technical point? It seems to me that those of us who use it pretty much figured out on our own that it was necessary, and we each figured out on our own how to do it. I teach it to students at a fairly early level. I’m just wondering what other teachers do?
I think that one of the best things to come out of this site has been an open discussion of this whole Salzedo/non-Salzedo issue. For years it wasn’t discussed at all, and even at the national level, the American Harp Society didn’t address it in any way.
I wrote a letter to the directors of the AHS many years ago with a list of suggestions for things that should be incorporated into the AHS (at that time annual) conferences. One of my suggestions was that whoever gave the opening recital should, as part of the package, give a masterclass the following afternoon. I received a letter in response to my letter of suggestions and the idea of a masterclass was flatly turned down. The person who wrote me the letter ( I can’t remember anymore who it was) said, point blank, that they could not do that because, if the opening night soloist was a Salzedo person, then it would offend the non-Salzedo harpists there, and visa versa. She said that! And so the divisions lasted another 15 years or so.
It was only in 1994, at the Boston Conference, that I made the suggestion again, this time to the local organizing committee, and they loved the idea. Marie-Claire Jamet was the first opening night recitalist to give a masterclass the following day, and now it is a standard part of the harp conference format. To my knowledge, no one on either side of the division has complained.
The discussions on this site concerning this very divisive subject have at various times been acrimonious, snide, venemous, and many other things as well. But they have also been informative and frankly have had the effect of softening to a large degree my own feelings on the subject. And that, I would think, would be the intended goal of any discussions on any controversial subject here. I’m sure, from reading many posts on the subject, that other people have softened their stance on this subject as well.
I would not want any subject to not be discussed here because the person posting was afraid or intimidated by the possible reaction. And I think a site like this is at its most interesting when people disagree, even strongly, provided their posts are not vicious or hurtful to anyone else. So bring on the controversy, bring on the strong opinions, but make them informative, well articulated, and if possible, witty.
Well then whatever it is you do, KEEP DOING IT!!! I’ll look forward to a demonstration some time. Now, about that Ice Cream…
Saul- I was not including you in that mention of male harpists. I think it is safe to mention one of the people I had in mind, because he died a few years ago, at the age of 43 I believe. That was Conrad Nelson. I met Conrad at the 1975 AHS Conference in Minneapolis. He was 14, had been studying the harp for one year at that point, and he dragged me into a practice room one day and played the whole Introduction and Allegro, from memory! I nearly fell on the floor. He was unbelievably talented. Mildred Dilling took him under her wing and taught him, for free, any time she could. The family didn’t have a lot of money and so Jack Nebergal bought him a harp. He got into Curtis and studied with Marilyn Costello for several years, although I don’t believe he graduated. As he moved into adulthood, he developed severe problems with alcohol and drug addiction. He became very difficult and arrogant to several of his teachers, particularly Costello. He did get into the Utah Symphony, but was very unpredictable and undependable. Almost every year he had to go into rehab, but they put up with him for 10 years or so. Eventually he was fired. He made a feeble attempt to get an orchestra job in Europe, but thought he could skip the audition process, because, as he told my friend Catherine Michel, he was so much better than anybody else. Catherine tried to explain to him, several times, that things didn’t work like that in Europe. Everyone, no matter how good their references and resume, had to audition.
Conrad returned to the U.S. and a short time later died. I’m not sure what the cause of death was.
I’m telling his story here because it is a tragic example of enormous talent gone to waste. He should have been one of the major harpists and teachers in this country. But his personal demons and arrogance sabotaged his career. Let me add here that Conrad and I were good friends. He had enormous respect for me and I had absolutely no personal beef with him. I don’t want anyone reading this to think that I have some sort of ax to grind.
Someplace else on this form I mentioned the fact that, at the advanced level, the differences between Salzeo method and anything else, at least in terms of hand position, finger motion, etc. is minimal.
‘Walked placing’ is not a bad name either. But I think I’m going to stick to ‘placing in sequence.’ By the way, is there someplace where Grandjany explains what the marking for this means? I don’t remember seeing it anywhere.
David- Honestly, I can’t understand the logic of placing high and then sliding down. I have a student now who did this big time when he transfered to me two years ago. His previous teacher didn’t teach him to do this, she just let him do it, as well as a whole host of other things that caused many problems.
The most obvious reason I have for not placing high and then sliding down is that it necessarily forces you to place before you actually play the string, and many times, on fast difficult repertoire, there is just no time for this added motion. Also, if you are placing on a string that has just been played and is still vibrating, you stop the sound. As one gets into harder repertoire, it becomes important to touch the string at the moment that it is played and not a micro-second earlier. To me, the best technique is the most efficient, meaning that the desired result is achieved with a minimum of effort and movement. Placing high and then sliding into position sounds to me like a lot of unnecessary movement with a high probability of creating unnecessary noise(sliding on the string), buzzing(by placing earlier than necessary) and stopping the sound(again, by placing earlier than absolutely necessary).
