Klarinet Archive - Posting 000851.txt from 2002/10

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:53:15 -0500

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:03:02 -0700, wsemple@-----.com said:

> That some regressive analyses fail to produce useful information does
> not make the regressive analysis a useless tool. Certainly, general
> conclusions are reached by regressive analyses, just as they are by
> all sorts of research process: e.g., high cholesterol can lead to
> clogged arteries. The fact that high cholesterol does not in all cases
> should not eviscerate the general observation.

I understand this. Indeed, in the case you mention, I act upon it.

But consider: we only call upon such statistical techiques in cases
where we are unable to control the details of the situation. If I could
go inside my arteries and clean them up -- perhaps, in the not too
distant future, I will be able to do something like this -- then I
wouldn't need to know about the statistics of cholesterol reducing
drugs.

So, take another example where we have a currently greater degree of
control: namely, driving a car.

Here, even if we do rely on statistical techniques in order to estimate
the probable reliability of the mechanical components of the vehicle --
and even to decide whether or not we should wear a seatbelt -- we don't
use them in order to *drive* it.

Playing the clarinet, like driving a car, is a real-time activity,
relying on sensory feedback. The particular quality of the situation
you find yourself in is what predominantly determines what you should
do.

The most commonly needed observation on this list -- to the many
participants who want to ask whether this piece of equipment is 'better'
than that, or this technique 'right', is -- does it *work for you*?

It's the way expert players deal with the world. They might try what
other expert players have done, because that's a good beginning. But
ultimately they trust a *real* criterion -- the criterion of
'workability' *for them*.

But a lot of people here don't want to know that. (Me too, sometimes;-)

> Is it useful to make the relatively simplistic, intuitively arrived
> conclusion that in order of importance, a player's embouchure (etc.)
> is the most important contributor to sound, followed by the reed, the
> mouthpiece, the barrel, and then the instrument?
>
> Yes, because in general it is true, your "exceptions" notwithstanding.
> Take a great player, and have them throw their favorite set-up on a
> Bundy. I bet the sound is pretty good. But take a beginner and have
> them play a Buffet Prestige, and I would venture that the sound would
> be pretty bad.
>
> The sound introduced into the horn is shaped by the embouchure,
> mouthpiece, and reed. No matter what kind of horn is attached, the
> horn cannot correct sonic errors that occur at the outset. The reed
> cannot correct deficiencies of the embouchure; the mouthpiece cannot
> correct the deficiency of the reed. The instrument cannot correct the
> deficiency of the mouthpiece.
>
> A lousy reed will not work on a great or any mouthpiece; yet a great
> reed can work on a lousy mouthpiece. Given a well formed embouchure,
> great reed, and great mouthpiece, then most any instrument will play,
> and perhaps play very well.

The science in this is wrong, in fact, as Bill has pointed out in
another post. Abdomen/diaphragm, mouth cavity, embouchure,
reed/mouthpiece, fingers and instrument tube are all inextricably bound
up together.

It's misleading to think of it like an assembly line, with the sound
of the instrument being modified as it passes down the chain. All the
elements in the chain are involved in a vibrating system any part of
which can have very significant effects on its overall vibrational
behaviour -- the leakage of which into the environment is what we call,
the 'sound'.

So the instrument *can* correct the deficiencies of the reed and
mouthpiece -- although that's a funny way of putting it. It's rather
that the very idea of a deficiency in a reed or mouthpiece *makes no
sense* without an instrument.

The fact that they're dependent on each other, as in the lock/key
analogy, is anyway enough to block the notion that we might assign
relative importances.

Someone wanting to 'answer' the nature/nurture question *in general* is
labouring under a related confusion.

> I think the observation is useful, scientific precision aside, because
> it places the emphasis were it should be, on the production of the
> sound at the source, which is clearly an interplay of the embouchure,
> reed, and mouthpiece. What happens after that IS of less importance in
> terms of which of these various elements contribute to the sound.

No. Allow me to assure you, it isn't.

> The barrel has a major impact on the sound, but I think as a variable
> is less important that the instrument itself. So maybe I would put the
> barrel last. But maybe, with further regressive analyses, I would find
> that it is more important than the instrument, and stick it back into
> the queue.
>
> It makes logical sense to me that the quality of the sound introduced
> into the top joint of an instrument cannot be improved with regard to
> its inherent characteristics, and that what the instrument itself does
> is to realize the full potential of a sound column that ALREADY
> EXISTS.

As above. The reed is induced to vibrate by the pressure difference
between the inside of the mouth and the inside of the mouthpiece. If
we look at the first milliseconds of a beginning sound, the initial
vibration of the reed creates a pressure wave in the air column which
passes down the tube, is reflected at or around the first open hole, and
then returns to *influence the reed*, which in turn sends another
pressure wave down the clarinet, and so on.

In the steady state, at the pitch of the tuning A, this cycle occurs
around 440 times a second, so the speed of the wave (which is the speed
of sound in these circumstances) is considerably larger than that of the
air which gradually passes down the instrument. Some of the vibration
in this steady state is transmitted to the outside air, and it is this
which constitutes the sound of the instrument.

It is impossible to disentangle the contribution of the reed from that
of the clarinet. Each component both influences and is influenced by
the other.

> Accordingly, a student should concern him or herself with learning how
> to play by developing a sound embouchure, learning how to select good
> reeds, and using a mouthpiece that responds -- than buying Selmers or
> LeBlancs.

Again, it depends on the student. Because I have some experience and
judgement, I might well tell someone to modify or replace their
instrument before worrying about the other bits of what they do. Like,
clean out their speaker tube if their Bb is duff, for example, before
spending hours trying different reeds and mouthpieces, or practising.

General pronouncements are of no use.

> No amount of sophistry will convince me otherwise.

Oh.

> And I think this applies to players at all levels. That does not mean
> that the instrument is unimportant, just less important, in the scheme
> of things, than in getting the reed to vibrate properly.

The instrument is a part, and an important part, of getting the reed to
vibrate properly, just as the reed is a part, and an important part, of
getting the instrument to vibrate properly.

And by the way, just like that important reed, that important instrument
doesn't have to be expensive or endorsed by a 'legendary' player. Some
very humble instruments can play very well -- they're being judged by
*real* criteria, you see -- despite what regression analysis might have
to say about the probability of their being any good at being clarinets.

Go Vito!

(Sophistry, what?-)

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

.... Earth is full. Go home.

---------------------------------------------------------------------