Klarinet Archive - Posting 000785.txt from 1999/01

From: TOM RIDENOUR <klarinet@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Subjective and Objective
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:52:35 -0500

I just wanted to elaborate on subjective and objective elements
which dictate our selection of clarinet and add a little reflection on the
relationship of clarinets and pedagogy for your consideration.
The individual clarinet is objective; it is what it is.
We come to the clarinet with certain needs. Some of these are
subjective; that is, related to us in a unique manner. Some of these
things are more objective.
What we might desire in an instrument regarding color, shape,
tuning docility, general blowing resistance and flexibility are very
individual.
These things are difficult talk about, and telling someone they are
wrong, that they don't want a free blowing clarinet is like telling someone
they are wrong, they don't really like chocolate cake. ( Personally, I
think I might shoot the man who tried to tell me that;-) )
What, then is left? What is objective and in some degree
quantifiable in an instrument? What can most skilled clarinetists agree
upon, whatever their tastes?
1. Whether the instrument responds evenly without the need to
adjust embouchure or air pressure over the middle and high break.
2. Whether the tone color and shape are consistent from register
to register and hand to hand without having to fudge embouchure, air or
tongue position.
3. Whether the tone color, pitch and shape remain stable in
dynamic changes.
4. How much "hold" there is in the clarinet to help maintain pitch
shape tuning so the embouchure can relax.
5. General tuning tendencies. (Players might get some variation
in results here, but the general contour of tuning relationships will
remain basically the same; ie, if the clarion "G" or third space "C" is
sharp for one skilled player it will be the same for another; if the high
"F" is flat, it will be flat for both, and so on, with perhaps the degree
of sharpness or flatness varying somewhat due to particulars in voicing,
mouthpiece/reed set up and tone production subtleties.
6. Whether you can slur from note to note with no embouchure/air
exchange and get instant, predictable response and a matching dynamic, tone
color and shape.
Notice here, I am insisting upon the clarinet being played
correctly here (which leaves a certain room for a plurality). Playing the
clarinet with bad tone production and voicing habits and all this
information goes in the toilet anyway.
There is more, but let's leave it at that.
Now I would like to bring up this image of playing an instrument as
being similar to a relationship which results in marriage.
When you first meet a person your first impression is how they
look. This might be analogous to the tone of the instrument. Tone is what
first attracts us to a clarinet.
How a person looks may attract you to them initially . But how
they act, how easy they are to get along with is what really determines
how long you remain with them or how happy you really are in the
relationship.
The list above is concerned with those things which are more or
less quantifiable, and are analogous to "how easy the clarinet will be to
get along with."
Tone itself is largly a matter of conditioning. I find that many
clarinet players either ignore this matter or are to some degree unaware of
it.
The fact is, just as two people can be very different and both be
beautiful, two tones can be very different and both be beautiful. So the
tendency to say, "This new model has a different tone from my clarinet (to
which I am not fully aware I have been condition and have come to
erroneously regard it as an absolute)....... so it must be BAD
different.".....this tendency needs education. The question of tone should
not be , "Is it different?" but
"It is also beautiful?"
If two girls you know are both attractive which one do you
ultimately want to be around? The one you get along with best.
I would like to encourage players, at the outset of choosing an
instrument, to take the rose colored glasses off, and develop methods of
testing which gives them real information about the more quantifiable,
objective aspects of the clarinet, some of which (but not all) I mentioned
above.
If anyone is vague on this or would like some suggestions as to
methods, I might recommend the article on my web site: "How to Select a
Clarinet." http://home1.gte.net/klarinet/
This article doesn't not presuppose individual taste or even a
school of playing. It only lays out how to go about getting hard
information about the instrument; information which will tells you just how
hard or easy that instrument will be to "get along with" when the
infatuation and "newness" wear off and you begin to see its' faults.
Again, I am not trying to "sell" anyone anything, but to share what
I know in the hope that it will help clarinetist decide for themselves on a
more secure and objective basis; to actually weight the individual elements
and consider clearly the separate virtures of a given instrument and
decide, rather than just look at a lable.
No clarinet will be perfect. But do all you can, objectively and
scientifically, to see its' faults first, before you invest!...... and
then make an intelligent decision as to whether you think they are
manageable and if you are willing to do what is necessary to put with them.
You may find a clarinet which is great but has a disturbing fault.
At this point, you might contact an artist technician who may be able to
tell you if the fault can be eliminated without ruining other things you
like, or if the fault can be mitigated to the extent that it is bearable.
Thought preceeds action. The better, clearer and objectively we
think about the clarinet the more successful, secure and satisfying the
results of the act of playing will be.
Finally, one might reflect upon the matter of pedagogy; the
clarinet is played in all sorts of wierd ways. One might exclaim in this
age of radical relativism, "How can anyone say one way is better than
another?"
On one hand, you cannot. On the other hand, you can say that
playing a certain way with a certain technique will cause someone to play
this or that area out of tune, cause these notes to spread, go very sharp
with you play softly, play flat when you play loud, force you to change
from one area to another if you care to play both areas in tune, cause this
area not to speak, and on and on.
In other words, a common and objectively defined pedagogy of tone
production cannot be defined in relation to the subjective tastes of each
player, but it can be defined in relationship to the nature of the clarinet
itself when looked upon as a sound making machine, subject to the objective
laws of physics and acoustics.
There is a reciprocity here: the better and more perfect our
pedagogy of tone production is, the more clearly we will see how clarinets
really play; the more acoustically efficient clarinets are the more easily
and perfectly we will be able to apply the correct principles of tone
product.
There is a lot of good information mixed with bad information out
there, but a synthesis regarding either the acoustical development of the
clarinet or an objective pedagogy based on objective principles is yet to
appear.......and both, in my opinion, are sorely needed.
With the acoustical perfection of clarinets and the mechanical
perfection of tone production based on objective principles in physics (
for embouchure, tongue, air, reed, mouthpiece, and the clarinet itself are
in reality simple machines which must work interdependently to create sound
in all its' aspects according to the laws of physics) the clarinet can then
enter into a stage of authentic developmental maturity.
I submit these ideas for your consideration and serious reflection.
tom

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org