Klarinet Archive - Posting 000854.txt from 2002/10

From: "Kent Krive" <k.krive@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:39:23 -0500

Now, shall we complicate (or make more interesting) this discussion? I would
be fascinated to hear what might be said about the notion of how the setup
(reed-mouthpiece-barrel-horn) can "suggest" one oral configuration or
another.

----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIAM SEMPLE" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subject: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> No amount of sophistry will convince me otherwise. 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Pay" <Tony@-----.uk>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
>
>
> > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:14:01 -0700, wsemple@-----.com said:
> >
> > > No, the point is not a real one. There is absolutely no relationship,
> > > except the barest logical construct, between a lock and a key and the
> > > chain that leads to far more complex result.
> > >
> > > In the case of the key and lock, the result is opening a door. In the
> > > case of the clarinet, the result is sound, which conditioned on many
> > > more variables.
> > >
> > > By your analogy, no one would need to spend time doing regressive
> > > analyses to single out variables in a complex economic equation and
> > > researchers could all go home.
> >
> > Quite a lot of those regressive analyses capture very little information
> > that is useful in dealing with a particular situation in the world. And
> > even in cases where they do capture something useful, the result is
> > never expressed in such a simplistic way as saying that this variable is
> > 'more important' than that one. Because in a complex system, 'it all
> > depends'.
> >
> > Isolating the relevant difficulty -- dividing up the whole phenomenon --
> > is of course very often the most useful way of proceeding. So if
> > someone's clarinet has a crack across a tonehole that they don't know
> > about, then what I might think of as a wonderful reed/mouthpiece setup
> > won't help them play; and if you have some experience of how an almost
> > invisible hairline crack can make an instrument completely unworkable,
> > then your advice and your expertise in how to go about dealing with it
> > is clearly very important.
> >
> > But just as clearly, if a clarinet player has a defective
> > reed/mouthpiece setup, then the best and most airtight clarinet in the
> > world won't help them. There, what you know about reeds and mouthpieces
> > will count.
> >
> > What that shows is that any *general* assessment of the relative
> > importance of the variables 'reed/mouthpiece' and 'clarinet' is doomed
> > to failure. The lock/key example is similar: the importance ratio 'lock
> > to key' is 100% if the lock is rusted up, and 0% if the key is the wrong
> > one. And how useful would it be to take a nationwide survey of people's
> > most common problems with their front doors?
> >
> > Of course there are many interacting variables in clarinet playing --
> > don't I know it! -- and the situation is usually much more complicated
> > than the example I gave above. But that makes remarks about the
> > relative importance of those variables even less meaningful than in the
> > simple case.
> >
> > What we need is not a general 'theory of importance', but a degree of
> > expertise in the flexible application of basic principles, both
> > scientific and artistic, to individual problems.
> >
> > Tony
> > --
> > _________ Tony Pay
> > |ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
> > | |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
> > tel/fax 01865 553339
> >
> > ... Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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