Klarinet Archive - Posting 000650.txt from 2003/08

From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tony=20Pay?= <tony_pay@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] RE: Articulation problems
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:02:43 -0400

--- Ormondtoby Montoya <ormondtoby@-----.net> wrote: > Tony Pay wrote:
>
> > There are several difficulties here. The first is
> > probably that you don't describe what you
> > mean by 'articulation'. Is that as in a staccato
> > passage?
>
> Doesn't articulation mean "the separation of two notes by a moment of
> silence"? Thus articulation includes legato articulation as well as
> full staccato (approximately 1/2 of the note's normal duration).
> Articulation also includes separating two notes by breath control or
> even (to be ridiculous about it) by removing the mouthpiece from your
> mouth. In short, anything except separating two notes merely by a
> change of pitch.

First of all, I just wanted to know what you were meaning by 'articulation'.

Because, what I mean by articulation isn't covered by your definition:

"the separation of two notes by a moment of silence." It's more general than
that.

> > One has to ask: what do you mean by 'closing the reed'? You might mean
> > that during a note, the reed closes against the mouthpiece during the >
> cycle and that's certainly driven by air pressure.
>
> Yes, even when there's no articulation, the reed closes against the
> mouthpiece during each cycle (440 cycles for "A", etc). I wasn't
> meaning to discuss that point.
>
> Rather, I was trying to avoid revisiting the strenuous discussion a few
> months ago about whether or not a "clean" articulation, regardless of
> duration, must always interrupt the air flow, or can it be enough to
> merely stop the reed's vibration? The discussion was that the reed
> should 'close' and interrupt the air flow as well as case its vibration,
> otherwise the hissing sound of air escaping past an 'open' reed would be
> unmusical.

I never saw that discussion; but had I seen it, I would have dismissed it.

What you are interrupting in staccato is the sound, which is the vibration of
the air column. The airflow is irrelevant.

'Articulation' is a much more general concept, to do with how we show groups of
notes to belong together.

> I was trying to restrict the discussion to the forces that are (or
> should be) primarily responsible for 'reed closure' when/if it happens.

I'd say that 'reed closure' shouldn't enter the discussion of articulation.
It's a part of the discussion of *sound* -- but that comes before articulation.

> In retrospect, I can understand that some of the strenuous discussion
> may've developed because some of us equate articulation only with
> staccato. This definition hadn't occurred to me.

Yes. You can see that the term 'articulated lorry' doesn't imply separation;
and that the statement 'the elbow is an articulated joint' doesn't preclude
contiguity.

> > The tongue totally interrupts the reed's vibrations in staccato. The
> > breath is what sustains the reed's vibrations.

> I'm saying (and I thought this was a certainty?) that the breath can do
> other things besides sustain the reed's vibrations.

No, that's what the breath does.

*Variations* in the breath -- better described as variations in airpressure --
naturally change how the breath affects the reed's vibrations.

> This is similar to asking: "What does a gear box do?" Your answer would be
> that it depends on how the gears are set. Sometimes the gear box reverses >
the car's direction, sometimes it changes the torque, sometimes it
> disconnects the engine from the wheels, etc. In the same way,
> depending on how other things are set, the breath can be the main force
> responsible for holding the reed against the mouthpiece, which is the
> opposite of sustaining vibration.

You are labouring under a misapprehension.

The thing is, there are various systems in excellent clarinet playing that
modulate what we might call, 'articulation' -- namely, the showing of how
different groups of notes do or don't belong together in varying degrees.

The fundamental 'belonging together/not belonging together' system is the
abdominal muscles plus diaphragm system. Tone colour, modulated by who knows
what -- but including tongue position and lip address -- is also an important
factor.

The tongue may or may not contribute to this. Sometimes, interruption by the
tonge may create division. Sometimes, it may create belonging, but
'lightness'. Sometimes it may create drama.

> Again, my statement is that the main force which places the reed against
> the mouthpiece does not (or should not) be delivered by the tongue.
> Imagining otherwise leads to the "hitting" syndrome.

That statement is delivered from a wrong understanding of the issue. It is
quite possible that a successful interruption of reed vibration bears no
relation at all to 'closing' the reed -- whatever that means.

If you meant, pushing the reed against the mouthpiece, that's even more wrong,
if possible.

By the way, where do you get *your* 'certainty' from?

Tony

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/