Klarinet Archive - Posting 000417.txt from 2004/10

From: Adam Michlin <amichlin@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Anticipation
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:46:12 -0400

At 03:55 PM 10/15/2004 +0100, Tony Pay wrote:
>Well, 'it' may not commonly be taught, but that it is possible follows
>immediately from teaching what the tongue/reed relationship in articulation
>*has to be*. See:
>
>http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/09/000395.txt

We seem to have no disagreement on the tongue/reed relationship.

> > Additionally, there is also a very significant school of playing which
> > believes you should never use the tongue to stop the air for an attack.
>
>I don't know quite what is meant by that. You don't stop the *air* -- you
>stop the vibration of the reed.

Interesting. I am tempted to say that since the air is what causes the reed
to vibrate, it would be difficult to stop the vibration of the reed without
stopping the air. Perhaps a nit picky point, but I am not so sure.

The question becomes, how does one stop the air? You can stop it from the
source by stopping the exhalation process, or you can "dam" it (I really
hate that word, but I think it explains my thoughts the best) by placing
the tongue on the reed but continuing to exhale (obviously, the air wont go
anywhere).

I was taught to stop the air with the tongue but continue to exhale and
would be happy to explain chapter and verse, without naming a single name,
why I think it is a more effective method. There are very fine schools of
teaching (I'll spare you any big names) which feel this is incorrect (I
will leave it to them to articulate their own arguments). Which do you use
and why? Having read your article I suspect you use the method I was
taught, please forgive me for asking to be sure.

>But you won't understand how we found out how tonguing works by starting your
>enquiry with who studied with whom, or what people like Bonade had to say.
>Guess what, the world wasn't waiting for some legendary American to tell it
>how to play the clarinet sensibly.

You presume this is how I've started my research. I've been researching the
various schools of tonguing for many years and I do have my own conclusions
(which seem to be quite similar to the conclusions you have come to).

I am a bit surprised you don't feel there is value in researching what
other people have to say about the subject. I am as interested in what you
have to say as what Bonade has said. I am interested in the thoughts of
musicians who play other instruments besides the clarinet (especially
singers). I believe it was Newton (sorry, another big name) who said "If I
have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". I don't
claim to have seen further, but I'm certainly going to try to learn from
other people as well as develop my own theories.

I'm not sure if the sarcastic "legendary American" comment was directed at
Bonade or my own aspirations. If you are charging me with being an ignorant
American, I plead guilty. I really can't speak to the world of British
playing, or the world at large. What I can tell you is there is a serious
problem in the US education of young musicians. If you would like me to
elaborate on this problem, I would be more than happy to do so offlist.

As for Bonade, he was French. He also placed the majority of orchestral
clarinetists during the middle of the 20th century. My common sense says
that maybe he was doing something different than the other teachers and
maybe I can learn from that. If this upsets you, I promise not to force
upon you anything I learn.

I could make the same argument for any number of 'big name'
teacher/players, American or otherwise.

> > Anyone who has ever worked in the world of education knows you have to cite
> > sources.
>
>No, what you have to cite is reasoned argument. You don't see that Hooke's
>law is true by being told that it was Hooke that said it was true. You see
>that it's true -- and also, incidentally, how it's *not* true -- by doing
>simple experiments with springs and weights.

Hooke? Isn't that a big name?

I am interested in what Bonade had to say, I am not accepting it as law
*because he said it*.

> > Common sense just isn't enough. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just
> > the way it is.
>
>What isn't good enough is 'big name' bullshit. You should work against that.

There is a reason they are big names. You may not be interested in why and
how these people were able to do what they did, but I am. Again, I'm not
suggesting that we should accept what they say or said blindly because of
who they are or were, but I do believe we can learn from them.

If you are not interested in their techniques, so be it. Please do not tell
me I am wrong for wanting to know more about them and their origins.

I suspect you are really arguing against the blind acceptance of
information because <insert famous player or teacher> said so. This is
precisely why we must document what those famous players and teachers did
and why it worked (or didn't work). Learning from history while
simultaneously apply common sense.

Common sense alone is very powerful, but has an awful tendency of
re-inventing the wheel.

-Adam

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org