Klarinet Archive - Posting 000119.txt from 2005/03

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] At Tony's request
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:11:25 -0500

On 2 Mar, "Vann Joe Turner" <medpen@-----.net> wrote:

> Tony has asked me both on this list and via private email to explain what I
> find deficient in his chapter in *The Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet*.
> This stems from my having labeled it gobbledegoop. I asked him if he'd like
> me to send it to him privately, but no, he wanted it publicly posted here.
> I personally would have preferred to send it to him privately, but I'm sure
> he has his motivation for wanting it here. (I bet I know what it is.)

That makes me seem calculating; the actual exchange was:

> I will define what one person sees as deficient in the Cambridge book. It
> is your choice: Would you like me to post it on the list, or write you
> personally?

...to which I replied:

> Write to the list by all means. My thought was that if you publicly call
> something gobbledegook, you should be prepared publicly to justify your
> claim.

...which I submit is only reasonable.

> His chapter is titled "The mechanics of playing the clarinet". Such a title
> makes a promise to the readers that what follows is a How-To encapsulated
> into a single chapter, and he does address the major elements: breath,
> embouchure, tone, articulation, intonation. While there is the occasional
> brilliant observation, the reader comes away scratching his head wondering,
> "What did he say?" (For excellent instructional material, though in book
> form, I can recommend Keith Stein's *The Art of Clarinet Playing* and David
> Pino's *The Clarinet and Clarinet Playing*, and as complementary material,
> Barry Green's *The Inner Game of Music*)

It might be worth knowing that the chapter title wasn't my invention; I was
given it by the editor. I then had to work out what I wanted it to cover,
given that I knew someone else was writing a chapter called, "Teaching the
Clarinet".

As it happened, I did do some 'how-to', but providing it wasn't my primary
concern. Rather, I was concerned to say some technical things about clarinet
playing that I personally find important, but that aren't covered to my
satisfaction in the literature. It is, after all, a 'Companion', not a
tutor.

In fact, early on I do make this aim quite explicit:

"That complicated system, clarinet plus player, divides up naturally into a
number of bits...I want to look at some aspects of these bits in turn.
Because anything like a complete treatment would take up far too much space,
I have tried to choose wherever possible a point of view a little out of the
ordinary, in order not to duplicate the standard wisdom."

> The problems start with his first area of explanation, "Abdomen and
> diaphragm: support". He tells us "to play on top of" the opposition of
> abdominal muscles and diaphragm. I don't know what that means, and he goes
> on to say:
>
> "The unusual part of the experience of playing on top of the
> abdomen-diaphragm opposition, and the one that I want to bring out, is that
> when you play in this way you can make a crescendo, and perhaps even more
> clearly, a diminuendo, without anything else at all happening in your
> experience."
>
> Perhaps he is right, and perhaps this is the golden grail in my playing
> I've been looking for. But I don't know what he means, "playing on top of".

I'd say that it's the central, most important thing to understand about
effective wind playing. If you don't understand it, I've provided a more
complete reference from the Klarinet archives below.

> On this topic David Pino talks about constant abdominal pressure, and
> variable air speed. That I can understand. But what does "playing on top
> of" mean? Without explanation it is gobbledegoop.

If you understand what (I imagine) David Pino says, then I think you're being
disingenous in claiming that you don't understand what I say. Playing 'on
top of' an abdominal/diaphragm opposition is, as I explain in the chapter,
"like bending and unbending my arm with both muscles flexed". And this
explanation, given with the first appearance of the words 'on top of'
precedes your quote above.

Before we go on, I'd just like to say something about this word
'gobbledegook', or 'gobbledegoop' as you've gone over to calling it. I
cannot deny that this section could be clearer, especially since it's
surprising for most people. (I would have liked to have the space to explain
it more fully: see:

http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/04/000786.txt

..for another go, although that arguably contains too much extra material
about other things.)

For the purposes of argument I'm prepared to accept that you didn't
understand the section.

*But* --what describing it as 'gobbledegoop' means is not that *you* didn't
understand it; nor that it could have been said more clearly or more fully.

It implies that *I* don't understand it, and even that it isn't
understandable by *anyone*.

This is just not true.

> The next section in the article, "Mouth and tongue - sound and nuance"
> contains this paragraph:
>
> "The shape of the inside of our mouth is not often thought of as having a
> strong effect on the sound of the clarinet. But though pressure waves
> inside the mouth are not audible in themselves, they clearly have some
> effect on how the reed behaves, just like the waves in the instrument, and
> therefore they indirectly make a contribution to the sound of the clarinet.
> Strong evidence in this direction is that in special circumstances we can
> completely change the 'normal' behavior of the clarinet: simply by altering
> the position of the tongue we can glissando down from the one-thumb plus
> register key 'c' through a sixth or more. Mouth shapes control intonation
> in other parts of the instrument too, provided the reed is sufficiently
> responsive."
>
> Unfortunately, he does not give a single suggestion as to what the shape of
> the inside of the mouth should be.

Well, that's because there isn't anything that the shape of the inside of the
mouth 'should be'. The invitation here is to try out different shapes for
yourself.

> He does NOT mention that many students find the syllable Aaah useful in the
> chalameux, and an EEEE in altissimo.

I wouldn't do that, because it's quite wrong. If anything, the reverse is the
case.

> He suggests no syllables at all.

In fact, I go on to talk about the need to find the syllables that may help
passagework, and suggest an exercise for doing so. I even write:

"Doubtless we obtain such effects by making almost imperceptible movements of
the mouth and tongue. The details of this are best left to be trained by our
ear as in speech, especially since we want the process ultimately to be
subconscious; though it is worth experimenting with the effect of making
mouth shapes corresponding to different vowels to begin with. Sometimes
strange vowels have strange effects (like multiphonics) -- but trying new
things out tends to expand our range of possibilities."

> He writes but doesn't communicate, and from the title I thought this was a
> brief "how-to". (I wonder if anyone can glissando from C down to E by
> change of tongue position alone. Perhaps if Tony had written what change
> does it, it would have been helpful. As it stands, it is gobbledegoop.)

You see, you think that the only thing that is helpful is precise
instruction. However, in the complicated situations that players find
themselves, what is often more useful is the delineation of an area of
practice and enquiry -- though this is not to rule out direct intervention
when dealing with a particular student. A book cannot really do this,
though.

I pass over the implication that I can't myself do that glissando.

> In his embouchure section he writes: "There are many different types of
> basic embouchure because there are many different types of mouthpiece [sic,
> singular], and it is evident that the strength of the reed also makes a
> difference. I think it is most useful to imagine the embouchure as
> controlling the reed by touching it almost exactly over the point where it
> leaves the mouthpiece facing. As we play louder or softer, the length of
> the part of the reed that moves away from the mouthpiece tends to change.
> We must compensate with our embouchure if the pitch is not to be affected."
>
> Huh? Since this is a how-to, some direction as to this "compensation" is
> needed.

By it pressing against the reed more, or less. I thought I might take that
for granted, and clearly my editor did too -- though he made me explain what
a gramophone was 'for my younger readers'.

> In the intonation section, there is again a lack of useful instruction, no
> discussion of changes in pitch relative to volumn, or sharp in chalameaux
> or flat in altissimo or anything else.
>
> And so it goes: words, words, words,

...like Hamlet's reading...

> without any of the promised how-to. It is gobbledegoop. He makes promises
> of presenting instructional material, but doesn't following through in
> offering the instruction itself. Gobbledegoop.

Well, what have I learned? Not much. I am perhaps disappointed on rereading
what I wrote in the bit about the 'out of consciousness' action of the
diaphragm, which insight is probably the one I am most proud of having
contributed. I do now explain that in a different sequence, and can do it in
Italian, too:-) though the explanation of the different tongue actions in
high and low register staccato pleases me as well.

I think the thing that comes out is that you weren't really on to anything
about this chapter of mine beyond seeing rubbishing it as a blunt instrument
to beat me with.

Try reading it again -- and try *trying* some of it again.

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

... I've found Jesus. He was behind the sofa the whole time.

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