Klarinet Archive - Posting 000112.txt from 2002/11

From: "Forest E. Aten Jr." <forestaten@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 13:00:42 -0500

> What is different about what I said and what you said, except that I did
so
> in one paragraph? I said in effect that the clarinet was the type of
system
> which was impossible to consider except as a whole, all elements
> contributing to the sound having equal influence.
>
> But I disagree with you and Tony, because it flies in the face of common
> sense and logic. What you are asserting is that because there is a
necessary
> relationship between two entities (the lock and the key), neither can be
> more important than the other -- by definition, because the clarinet
cannot
> exist without all of the pieces affixed, all of the pieces must be equally
> important.
>
> That's not what I am saying. I am not saying the embouchure is absolutely
> more important than the bell of the instrument; I am saying it is
relatively
> more important.
> The instrument, in my construct, is not divided up as you would have been
> axe it.
>
> Before I go on, your reference to Hi-Fi is wrong. Resistance, e.g., as
> measured in ohms, is an important construct to the quality of a signal.
> Certain types of amplifiers drive planar speakers more efficiently, and
> effectively, than other types. Transistor amps have traditionally been
> regarded as providing "tighter" bottom ends than tube amps. Some circuits
> employ negative feedback, although many designers avoid this because of
the
> distortion this can cause. One of the key issues facing circuit designers
is
> how to step up a signal without contributing distortion (ergo., the
straight
> wire theory), caused in some measure by the resistance in the circuit.
>
> Nevertheless, as an audio reviewer, I can tell you where the most
important
> contribution occurs in the playback of music. It is what is recorded on
the
> disk. S-- in, S-- out.
>
> Back to the axe, so to speak. Everyone who has disagreed with me so far
> assumes I am chopping up the clarinet. I am not. Not once in this
discussion
> did I ever disclaim the notion that the clarinet was not an integrated
unit.
> Of course one can't dissemble the instrument, literally or figuratively.
>
> But "integration," per se, is not a sufficient condition to persuade me
that
> pieces of it can't be gauged with regard to their relative (sic., more)
> importance.
>
> I am not talking about absolutes here, I am taking about the relative
> importance of various aspects of the instrument with regard to outcomes.
Not
> perfect outcomes. Variable outcomes. We can argue the order, but what I am
> arguing is the concept whereby it is logically and intuitively permissible
> to state that the embouchure in general is more important to the
> contribution of the quality of sound than the bell of a clarinet.
>
> That doesn't mean the relationship between the embouchure and the rest of
> the clarinet is static. As a player gets to Tony Pay's capabilities, other
> issues will surface that are more important to him. But remember, he has
> already established his embouchure at an extremely high level. It still
> remains important, and I assert, the most important aspect to his tone
(and
> when I speak of embouchure, I use the phrase metonymically, speaking about
> him as a player).
>
> Whether knowing any of this is important or useful is irrelevant here.
>
> If I can get agreement with this, then perhaps I have the proverbial
camel's
> nose under the tent. But I doubt that even this example, prima facie, will
> persuade. Give Tony's clarinet to a beginner, with "bells" and "whistles"
> attached and it will sound like crap. Give the beginner's instrument to
> Tony, and I bet he can get some results.
>
>
------------------

Bill,

Playing clarinet is a dynamic system rather than a static one....a point you
made in your post.

The clarinet is just a machine....static nuts, bolts and screws. It becomes
dynamic when we as performers/players interact with the machine.

Lots of "if" this and "if" that in one of Tony's earlier post......This is
what lead me to mention hierarchy and dependency.

Everyday I play I have some issue with my playing. Not usually major issues
at this point in my career...but issues none the less. I divide these
"issues" into two categories, both for myself and my students. Issues that
are universal (issues that all/most people playing clarinet have to deal
with, i.e. going over the break) and those that are unique to a player (you
name the player and I bet she/he can/will describe a problem unique to
her/his relationship with the instrument).

I know that each and every day that I perform that I end up identifying and
creating a hierarchy of these issues. I first deal with the issues that are
most critical to my current situation. This list of issues will of course be
different from player to player and different for beginners than for
professionals. Even the place we find ourselves in time and space will have
something to do with what we perceive as an "issue". If I'm performing
symphonic music with huge legato phrases...I don't really have many concerns
about how fast I can tongue or whether I have a reed that I can easily
tongue "that" fast. On the other hand, if I'm performing Italian opera by
Rossini...I better have a reed and tongue that can deliver the goods. The
big German Wagner sound won't cut it on that particular day.

I do think, that as Tony pointed out so well, ALL parts and elements of
playing clarinet interact in a very dynamic system and that All elements
involved are equally necessary, but as you have pointed out so well.....the
entire effort is relative and one part of the system can be more important
than another, depending on the situation/issue.

Regards,

Forest Aten

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