Klarinet Archive - Posting 000322.txt from 1996/10
From: Joseph Limacher <limacher@-----.EDU> Subj: Re: Embouchure position in clarinet playing Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:51:39 -0400
Dear fellow clarinetists:
Although I have not played much in recent years, I lurk on this mailing
list because my interest in clarinet playing remains. Occasionally I am
tempted to reply to someone's message, but usually overcome the urge.
This time I think it's important for me to say something, in order to
counter a potential mistaken impression that Jonathan Cohler is shouting
into the wind.
I look for Jonathan's posts precisely because of their information
content. I am neither a physicist nor an acoustician; as an
undergraduate, I was a music performance major who completed an honors
project related to clarinet acoustics. At that time, the Benade book was
mostly beyond my comprehension, but the Backus book provided a solid
foundation for an ongoing interest in why clarinets behave as they do.
Interspersed below are my reactions to some of what Neil Leupold recently
said in response to a message by Jonathan Cohler.
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Neil Leupold wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
>
> > One of the major elements of "centering" your sound, and producing a
> > "clear", "free blowing" sound is properly aligning the reed resonance with
> > one of the strong resonance peeks of the air column.
>
> John follows the above statement with further scientific data concerning
> nodes and pitch frequencies and resonance cutoff points and such. I've not
> seen any responses to his recent posts which engaged him specifically in
> terms of his technical discourse -- most likely because very few of us
> really understand how the data relate to our desire to improve as players.
> Physicists and acousticians on the list may very well be nodding their heads
> in favorable observation of scientific principles being used to explain
> phsyical phenomena -- and indeed, it is invaluable for those with a desire
> to understand *why* nodes and frequencies and resonance cutoff points affect
> our playing. But when talking about improving one's abilities as a
> clarinetist, I suspect more interest is directed toward clarinet-specific
> experience and terminology, offering understanding of *how* to play better,
> as opposed to why it works in narrow scientific terms.
I object strongly to characterizing Jonathan's explanations as being
couched in "narrow" scientific terms. I would accept the word "specific"
instead. "Narrow" connotes that what Jonathan provides is of limited
applicability, which is absolutely untrue. What he is talking about is
how clarinets really, truly work. By discussing this in terms of acoustic
principles, he is cutting through the individualized descriptions and the
various teaching devices to the fundamentals of what is actually going on
when we play the clarinet.
> For those clarinetists on the list who also understand wave theory and the
> physics of sound production, John's comments probably make perfect sense
> and might even help a few of them answer questions about their own playing.
> But for the rest of us, John, can you offer us information based more on your
> personal experiences...how experience of your own growth process and
> physical sensations informed you in the direction of arriving at your
> present level of playing excellence? Or did you really learn clarinet by
> consciously applying physical scientific principles to your daily
> practice regimen as a student? We want to tap into your knowledge and
> experience, but we also want to understand what you're saying. Help!
Jonathan's messages have helped me understand physically concepts I'd had
only a vague intuition about before. There is no doubt in my mind that
Jonathan is able to discuss his personal experiences and his physical
sensations. If he weren't acutely aware of how it feels to play the
clarinet, his ruminations on the acoustics of the clarinet would be
pathological. I prefer that Jonathan continue to provide the acoustical
information; I can provide my own personal physical interpretations.
Joseph
|
|
|