Chapter XI: Further Observations and Conclusions
In this document, I covered some of the topics one can find in early clarinet methods in general, and specifically in Vanderhagen’s books. I chose to omit subjects like posture, triplets, and syncopation, for example, since I found them more technical, and less fundamental among the key pillars of the clarinet pedagogy.
Regarding posture, I will take this opportunity to mention that Vanderhagen, like many great pedagogues and players on all instruments at his time, put great emphasis on a graceful, relaxed disposition while playing. This subject was covered by Vanderhagen in the first article of his two earlier publications from 1785 and 1799.
It seems that Vanderhagen's objective in writing his 1819 method was mostly to provide an introduction to the twelve-key clarinet for players who, like him, were probably used to playing the classical five-key clarinet, therefore this type of information was, interestingly omitted. Most of the emphasis in this edition is on showing how to employ the seven additional keys. Although the book did feature articles and discussions of sound production, articulation, music theory, embellishments, etc. the number of duets and studies, in addition to the articles highlighting the application of the new keys in different ways such as trilling, or having better control in the chalumeau register, supports this claim.
Still, one may wonder about Vanderhagen's motivation to publish more than one method for the same instrument, let alone three! As the author testified, by publishing his Nouvelle Method de Clarinette (1799), the second edition of his method book, he did something rather unusual. Vanderhagen added that he genuinely wished to improve upon his work, aiming to provide clarinet students with a treatise that would make them better clarinetists and better musicians. He acknowledged the oddity of publishing a second clarinet method, but in light of the first publication’s success, he also felt it was his duty and obligation of providing a more comprehensive and complete product. In Vanderhagen’s words, as written in the opening paragraph of this book:
"I believe that it is very rare that the same author has published two methods for the same instrument, but for two reasons I have decided to do so. The first is the favorable reception that amateurs have deigned to give to my first treatise though it is very short. Second, it has been my desire to make it better. I believe I am obligated further to offer this one to the public as a more perfect and more detailed work containing not only all the principles of the instrument, but also all the elements of music.
I believe that I am also obligated to make beginners able to understand what I want to teach them, what a second [interval], a third, a fourth, a fifth, etc. are and, eventually, whatever enters into the first principles of composition.
I boldly hope then that the students of the fine arts and even the masters who teach them how to play the instrument with which we are concerned here, will be grateful for the care that I have used to perfect this work."1
It is my humble opinion that with his second publication, Vanderhagen indeed improved upon his initial work. This 1799 book gave the beginning clarinetists a wider variety of information, from more specific fingering alterations and options to the basics of music theory. Furthermore, the writer’s tone is warm and personal, giving the reader encouragement, and if necessary, politely explaining that rushing ahead would eventually work against the student and his goals.
Unfortunately, I could not detect such sensitivity in his latest publication from 1819. However, I could detect undertones of a lack of confidence, and perhaps hints that the writer might have felt somewhat old-fashioned and irrelevant.
This is supported by apologetic phrases such as “I agree that this kind of study may seem boring to a beginner who, even before being master of his embouchure, would already like to play tunes, however, I do not know of any other way to acquire a beautiful sound, other than by studying the examples above.”2 Also, his clear avoidance of discussing the embouchure backs up my feeling that Vanderhagen may have felt his ways are being abandoned by the new generation of Parisian teachers and students. And lastly, his interesting, not to say puzzling, choice of featuring the twelve-key clarinet in a method written in Paris as late as 1819, while more and more clarinetists were embracing the thirteen-key Müller System clarinet.
In light of these, one can only wonder what brought Vanderhagen, an accomplished clarinetist and recognized educator, to publish this last method near the twilight of his career.
After researching the man and his work, I will attempt to provide my assessment of the reason he had done so. In reading his words and deeply examining the nuances and differences between his three books, I have found that not only was he incredibly aware of the many advancements and changes in the musical culture, and the clarinet world. He was open to new ideas and pedagogical approaches, and even also to different schools of clarinet playing and to new musical styles. Despite the fact that he did not embrace some of these trends, such as playing with the reed down, or experimenting with the newest inventions in the clarinet world, he had not denied them or spoken harshly against them like other musicians of his generation. This openness and perhaps his attempt to somewhat keep up with the times might have been the motivation behind his choices. Thus, Vanderhagen proved to be a fascinating musician, who combined old pedagogical ideals, with new models and teaching techniques, all while constantly developing and growing as a composer and arranger. All these are reflected in the evolution of his pedagogical approach, as well as his writing style.