Klarinet Archive - Posting 000807.txt from 1999/01

From: TOM RIDENOUR <klarinet@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Subjective and Objective
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:54:47 -0500

Roger,
Thank you for your commentary. I only have a limited amount of time, so I
will try to be brief. If I mis-answer your comments or misunderstand
please let me know. I will do my best.
>
>My belief - regardless of the instrument chosen - the tool picked - is
>that adjustment happens always.

Of course. This is undeniable. Practically speaking, that is not really
my point though one, due to the terseness of my post, one might erroneously
assume so. What I assumed was that we all understand that absolutely no
adjustment would happen only in a perfectly perfect, completely complete
world, which we are not in presently; this means that a practical
understanding needs to be applied to many of my statements, lest I be bound
to writing an exhaustive philosophical treatise on how I understand the
relationships and experience we, as humans have in a world which can, at
very, very best, possess only perfections of a relative nature.
Does that make any sense?

What is meant when someone
>says "without the need to adjust embouchure or air pressure over the
>middle or high break"? Does this mean that if someone plays on an
>perfectly accoustical instrument as defined by the laws of physics that
>they will not need to adjust either? Or does it mean that they adjust
>less?

In a perfect world, neither; in a world of relative perfections, less with
the aim of moving every closer to that ideal perfection only conceptually
possible in the human intellect in the phenomenological world.
Again, my intentions were not to make absolutely absolute statements, but
to simply be practically helpful in an immediate sense; the necessity to
qualify absolutely every statement to the Nth degree would have made that
impossible and discouraged a lot of reader (enough were probably
discouraged as it was).

In fact, is the lack of adjustment evidence that the clarinet being
>played on is accoustically perfect (not meant with sarcasm)? I'm trying
>to find out if that is the extreme end of the opinion with, perhaps, Tom's
>viewpoint of some clarinet - perhaps the Opus - falling somewhere short of
>that?

I had no such instrument in mind whatsoever, Roger. But practically
speaking, we all have the common experience that some clarinets are more
efficient and agile than others. If absolutely no adjustment were needed
then it would certainly be acoustically perfect in that regard; but of
course there is more to the clarinet and to music than that. That is so
self evident that I hope you don't feel I need to elaborate further to
explain it.
But this does bring up an important point: the clarinet is multi-faceted.
My hope was that someone might take this information and use it to being
looking at the clarinet with an eye to examine each of these facets in
order to get a more realistic and detailed impression of the clarinet;
think seriously about what is really valuable to them in clarinet playing
and music makiing, weigh all these aspects, once examined, in the light of
what is truly valuable to them, and be able to, with more confidence,
select an instrument which, point for point, comes closest to meeting the
overall ideal image of what they conceive their playing ought to be.
As the player matures, , develops, and advances both skill wise and
conceptually these ideals will also grow into more and more specific and
clearly definable concepts, which will, in turn. So, again, I am no seeing
something as fixed and rigid, but something dynamic; nor am I dictating
values or even saying what they ought to be.

I think, as clarification, I will share with you a principle upon which
some of this thought is based. IT is the principle of ACOUSTICAL
EFFICIENCY.
Now, for me this is not a vague, esoteric term, but a hard cold technical one.
It goes like this:

To the degree a player can the clarinet play low, high, loud and soft with
a minimum of embouchure/air pressure exchange, to that degree, the
instrument is said to be, in regard to the aspects of its' dynamic and
register response, acoustically efficient.

Does such an instrument exists in a perfectly perfect state? No. But some
most definitely come closer than others.
Because there is no absolute perfection in this area does it mean we should
disconsider the matter altogether?
Absolutely not. It would be tantamount to saying, since I cannot be
perfectly good, I will not try to be good at all, and that, practically
speaking, is a formula for personal moral and relational disaster.

>
>> 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.
>
>Again - "fudge" - many seasoned, internationally recognized soloists and
>orchestral clarinetists adjust embouchure, air, and tongue position.

But would they have to if the instrument they played did not demand it to
work. And a second question to consider is very, very important:
Do they adjust out of necessity to make things fundamentally work, sound
and respond (because of inherient unevenness of the instrument or playing
set-up)? Or, do they find freedom within the context of an efficient
instrument and adjust for artist and musical considerations?

In
>fact, my belief is that tongue position is always changing - (depending on
>register and volume). I'm not sure what "fudge" means - if it means a
>drastic change on each note (perhaps only a whole step apart) or smaller
>changes.....it is not a specific term that helps me understand what Tom is
>really saying. Does he mean adjust or change? And what exactly do those
>things mean? I feel like Dan Leesson trying to understand Dark and
>Bright!

Not at all; again, it is a practical improvement I am looking and hoping
for in this aspect of playing, not the impossible: absolute perfection in a
relatively perfect realm. In this regard, my answer to the tone
color,shape and pitch stability matter is the same as that of response.
If it is unsatisfactory to you, I am sorry. But it is meaningful to me in
a practical sense.

>
>> 3. Whether the tone color, pitch and shape remain stable in
>> dynamic changes.
>
>As determined by........? If they remain stable, but number one and two
>are not followed, does that mean number three is not really being
>realized? Is it possible for number three to happen and for a person to
>be able to adjust?

We know that in the change of dynamics (air pressure), there is also an
adjustment in the pressure applied to the reed. More air, less embouchure
pressure, less air, more embouchure pressure.
If, when one is increasing air pressure to increase VOLUME and the
embouchure is relaxing to allow the reed more amplitude for the desired
increased VOLUME, if the shape of the sound begins to shatter or spread, or
dissolve (use whatever words you want) at a certain point and the pitch
begins to sag flat, but another instrument hold the pitch level and shape
at that same level of air pressure and embouchure relaxation one can say
that the other instrument is (and here's that word again) more ACOUSTICALLY
EFFICIENT than the other in the areas of pitch and shape stability.

There is no contradition here, and perhaps what I say now will help to clarify:

When I say a clarinet is acoustically efficient regarding response from
register to register it logically assumes that all other aspect must remain
the same, for if I change other aspects how can I get an objective fix on
response?
When we are talking about a change in volume it is obvious we are talking
about a change in sound that will necessitate a change in the degree and
relationship of the elements which effect that change; in the case of
dynamics that would be embouchure and air.
In this respect, we are not talking about whether a change will occur or
not; it must. Our concern is how great that change must be and what the
effect will be. Therefore, change is not our concern in looking at pitch
and shape stability in dynamic changes, but the DEGREE of change
necessitated to create the effect.
Efficiency in dynamic changes, then, is determined in how minimal that
embouchure/air pressure exhange needs be to create the greatest or widest
dynamic effect while maintaining pitch and shape stability.
The instrument I can play the loudest and softest on with the least amount
of embouchure/air pressure exchange, while at the same time creating the
smallest amount of shape and pitch distortion is the instrument that is
(and here we go again) most (notice the relative term "most") acoustically
efficient regarding those aspects. I express it simply by saying, " This
clarinet is more shape and pitch stable in dynamic changes than the other,
all other things being equal.
It this unreasonable? I don't think so.

>
>> 4. How much "hold" there is in the clarinet to help maintain pitch
>> shape tuning so the embouchure can relax.
>
>Should an embouchure ever relax?

Should an embouchure ever tighten and constrict the reed?
I don't think so. For an explanation see my article, "The Role of
Embouchure in Clarinet Tone Production."

I can certainly relax my embouchure much more on some instruments than
others and maintain pitch, response and shape intergrity, just as I can on
certain mouthpiece/reed set ups.
Certain instruments which are "easy on the air" (free blowing) tyrannize
the embouchure, making it do the work to hold up the pitch and maintain
color and shape. Other instruments "hold" these elements in integrity in
the acoustical design of the clarinet, and allow the embouchure more
relaxation and freedom.
This can be proven with reeds. Just try to keep shape and pitch stability
as you increase dynamics on a very soft reed and see how much embouchure
pressure is require and how quickly it must be increased to keep it from
splattering all over the place pitchwise and shape wise. Now try it with a
somewhat harder reed.
It's not the same is it. You can relax the embouchure more can't you? I can.

A good example of this is the Selmer Signature. If I use the same amount of
embouchure pressure in playing a Buffet as I do on the Signature the pitch
and shape goes to pieces. I can play a certain strength reed on the
Signature and still get very good and stable results in pitch, shape and
color stability, but it falls apart on the Buffet, especially in certain
areas. (In contrast, the Signature responds more consistently in color and
shape no matter what reed I use).
But specifics notwithstanding, it can be generally albeit generally said
they REQUIRE different approaches in embouchure and reed/mouthpiece set
up. Why? Because of what I call the matter of RESISTANCE DISPLACEMENT.
Their acoustical design it complete different in this respect and you can't
play both the same way with the same equipment and get the same results.
As I said in my article on the Signature, the resistance displacement is
more akin to the German clarinets, which displace the resistance in the
bore, which allows for freedom and flexibility in both embouchure and
reed/mouthpiece set up.

>
>> 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.
>
>Agreed on all points here.

Gott sei Dank!
>
>> 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.
>
>Again - if number one and two are not consistant with number six, does it
>invalidate number six?
Again, understand my statement relatively and practically, not absolutely
and ideally. If that is done I don't think my statement here is
unreasonable.
I must say, however, that there are some instrument on which I can play
specific intervals and experience no perceptible exchange. (The tongue
changes of course, but reflexively most usually, not consciously and
determinedly).

What if this can be done easily on an
>accoustically imperfect clarinet such as the Buffet R-13?
Then, in regard to that specific interval or area, the instrument is
acoustically efficient. That's obvious. I have not ever used the term
"imperfect" as a euphemism for "utter useless". I am most certainly
profoundly imperfect, riddled with faults, but I hope I am not useless and
utter reprobate. So let's not imply that I am really meaning one thing
when I say plainly what I mean, or leap to an erroneous conclusion; in
other words, please don't put words in my mouth.......since my foot takes
up so much space there's no room for them anyway;-)

Does it
>validate that instrument as no longer being "inferior"......?
Again, we need to speak of specifics: the word "inferior" begs for an
object to be meaningful.
"Useless"..........."Useless?" "In regard to what?"
"Tom is so old and out of shape he is useless."
Useless for what?
"Useless for the U.S. Olympic track team."

This spoon is useless.
for what?
For interstellar travel.
et cetera!

>
>> 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.
>
>But....isn't the very definition of voicing the adjustment of tongue and
>air speed/temperature/pressure to accomodate a given register or note? If
>we follow this argument (now I'm not disagreeing, just asking the
>question), shouldn't the word "voicing" be completely eliminated with the
>"perfect" clarinet? Or is voicing required on the perfectly accoustical
>clarinet? Or.....do we disagree on what voicing actually is?

I don't think so.
Voicing variations, like all other aspects of tone production, would still
be used on such an instrument. But the use would be different.
How? As I explained above:
Voicing would now be used out of free, artist choice to create aesthetic
effects and variations within the context of the set and secure parameters
of what the instrument (and the whole setup for that fact) supplies.

Whereas, an acoustically inefficient instrument or set up does not give the
player the CHOICE: it demands and necessitates change and sometimes radical
adaptation just to get a certain note to speak or be even remotely in
tune, or to not sound so garshawefulluglyandharsh (What do you know, I just
coined a word!).
Put another way:
A poorly made or inefficient set up will cause the player to worry "if" he
can make a note speak, color or tune, and FORCE him to change and do all
sort of things (voicing included) to just get the tone out.
In contrast, whether things will respond is not a question if the set up is
acoustically efficient. Therefore, the player is FREE to take his
attention off the more primitive, rudimentary aspects of playing and begin
to use his arsenal of playing techniques FREELY, at his disgression to
color, shape and pitch variation for musical and aesthetical reasons; it
other words, he can become a poet and expressive artist, and not just a
technical artisan.
So, to repeat, there is a qualitatively different reason a player uses
technique variations on an acoustically efficient instrument set up.

Again, Roger. I did not present this material to create a debate or
quibble with symmantics, but, as I said, simply for the individual's
personal and sustained consideration and reflection. I'm just trying to
share what I've learned from others, many great clarinet players I have
been fortunate to know........and (believe it or not) most especially from
the tried and true principles regarding the nature of reality found in the
philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. I think most of this will be clear for
any "Thomists" out there?

>
>> 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.
>
>Now, if that had only been at the beginning of the article.....LOL!
>
>A question.........is it possible that an instrument can be designed with
>a school of playing in mind? That is....that a person not ever make
>adjustments in air pressure or embouchure? Is that, then, how we would
>define clarinet playing as a "perfect" (again...the extreme end of the
>spectrum we all aim at) goal? If so, would it mean all those who do not
>play that way are playing incorrectly because of traditional
>approches that need to be changed and they are not aware of their
>incorrect approach? What if those people are at the top of the field
>(Shifrin, Meyer, Stoltzman, Yeh, etc.....).

If change is required in the music it necessitates a change in some or all
physical aspects of playing; the question is which aspects and to what
degree.
If the note changes and the dynamics don't, then the fingers must, or
course, change, but the proportions of embouchure/air pressure should
remain relative stable; any necessitated movement, practically speaking,
would be hardly if at all perceptible.
If the dynamics as well as the note changes, then more aspects of the tone
production mechanism need to be brought into some degree of variation; it
would be a logical contradiction to maintain otherwise. (That would be
very "unThomistic".........a word which I consistently use as a euphemism
for "stupid";-)
>
>> 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.
>
>But wouldn't we need to buy into the argument including numbers 1-6 before
>we could realize the objectivity as put forth here?
Or, is it a different
>objectivity for each school of playing.......is there a right or wrong
>school of playing?

Is there a right and wrong dessert to choose? I don't think so. But there
are certain elements common to all schools, with variations within the
context of those commonly desirable elements.

>
>> 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.
>
>Absolutely - but hopefully, we can view our purchases without the
>measuring tools, the words on the pamphlet.......rather - our own play
>test.
Of course, our playing skills need to be developed to become more sensitive
testers and therefore glean more objective information. How can we develop
our playing skills without pamphlets, words, instruction and thought and
then purposed application of what we have come to understand.
Our playing, at any given point, is little but the fruit of applied,
purposed efforts according to an ideal we have formed through instructions
and learning.

>
>> 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.
>
>Yes.....it is clear what you are saying here (sorry I snipped just before,
>but I trust everyone remembers - I'm not trying to edit out some and use
>the rest......just saving space). Ok....now, if I believe adjustment and
>air pressure/speed/temp change for every note - my understanding of what
>you are saying is that - we do that because we play on instruments that do
>not allow us to do otherwise. That the more perfect the instrument is
>accoustically, the more easily we will not have to adjust (those were
>your points above - I hope I am correctly assuming that they are what you
>mean by "correct Principles of tone product[ion]". The problem is that,
>even with a perfect instrument, the variation of air speed, tongue
>position, etc. is still there - in my opinion. Physics and accoustics do
>not show that those things are not present - just the the instrument will
>respond in a specific way to a reed that vibrates the air column a certain
>way.
Exactly, efficiency is what we are talking about not a catatonic state.
Efficiency in what? Movement to create effects? I won't elaborate, since I
think I have explained the idea of the necessity of change above.
thanks for your comments Roger. I hope my responses help qualify and
explain them so they make more sense to you.
I'm going to sleep.
best regards,
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