Klarinet Archive - Posting 000159.txt from 2008/01

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Support again
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:37:13 -0500

On 8 Jan, Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org> wrote:

> ...while metaphors can be inspirational (if you know what they mean), it is
> always critical to be able to translate that into something physical that
> you understand and can control at will.

Yes. I think that metaphors (similes, in Keith's term, or perhaps even
better, analogies) are mostly useful when they describe *relationships*
between playing elements.

An example would be: that the touch of the tongue on the reed in STOPPING a
sound can be thought of as analogous in some ways (though not in others) to
the touch of a lowered hi-fi stylus onto a vinyl disc in STARTING a sound; or
that the opposition of the abdominal/back/pelvic muscles (ABP) and the
diaphragm (D) in support can be thought of as analogous to the opposition of
the drawing arm and the bow just before shooting an arrow.

And as I said, you can draw *other* analogies between such elements that make
it clear that any particular analogy doesn't fully capture the situation.

> I am still clear, however, that you must change the pressure, embouchure
> and voicing whenever making medium to large skips on the clarinet.

Yes, me too. But look at the matter from the following viewpoint:

As you try to give a student a feel for how the second two of your list
(embouchure and voicing) help these skips, you ARE able to reduce the matter
to what you call above, "something physical that [they] understand".

In the case of embouchure, they can both feel their lips (and in a mirror of
course, even see their lips). And they know (or can be told) what an
embouchure does to a vibrating reed in sound production. So quite direct
instruction can often help here to give a student the idea of subtle
embouchure variation that they will refine in practice, listening to the
results they produce.

In the end, these subtle embouchure changes will become automatic -- even to
the point of seeming not to occur at all.

In the case of voicing, it's less easy to give direct instruction; they can
feel the position of their tongue only to some extent, and they can't see it,
even though they know, or can be convinced, that its action is incredibly
subtle because of what it can do in speech. In this case the precise details
are perhaps better not explicitly characterised (as Margaret said) --
depending on the student, of course. They need to be concentrating more
exclusively on the results they produce, and in hearing those results
improve, because they don't have sufficiently precise awareness of what
they're actually *doing* at any moment.

The end result of this process, too, will be internal mouth movements that
are automatic.

In the case of the pressure, though, and in particular in the use of the
ABP/D opposition in clarinet playing to modulate it, there is a fundamental
and unavoidable difficulty right at the start with the notion that 'D' can be
something physical for the student. Sure, they can understand, indirectly,
the physicality of D *in gross motion* -- when it moves substantially, it's a
muscle that has them breathe in, and they certainly have a direct experience
of *that*.

But on top of the fact that they can't see D, and wouldn't even know it was
there if they hadn't been told, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE, no
proprioception, that corresponds to D 'in opposition' to ABP in clarinet
playing. It's not understandable physically AT ALL -- except in terms of the
results it produces.

See, it's quite hard for us as expert players to reimagine ourselves into the
confusion that that can generate in a student. (A similar problem exists in
mathematics teaching, when, say, fractions are introduced for the first time.
The difficulty has evaporated for the expert, who lives in a world of easy
familiarity with these strange objects -- and as you probably know, the logic
behind the extensions of the number system, from negative numbers through
fractions, to real and then complex numbers, is pretty substantial meat at
the beginning of an undergraduate course.)

So the fundamental realisation about ABP/D for me is: we cannot have any sort
of physical understanding of it until we are willing to LET GO OF THE IDEA
THAT WE MUST SEEM TO OURSELVES TO DO SOMETHING when we use it for dynamic
modulation (or for legato) -- and in that context, willing to go on with the
usual practice of refining an ability.

EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE MAGIC.

> A great example of that is the opening of the Copland Concerto. It shows
> up every fault a player has in this area in just a few measures of playing.
> Most players solve the problem by playing the whole passage too loud,
> despite the fact that it is marked piano. In fact, I have never heard a
> student (at any level--grad, undergrad, high school) come in and play the
> opening correctly for the first time in a lesson or masterclass.
>
> After a little bit of work on changing air pressure, embouchure and
> voicing, however, they all walk out of the lesson/masterclass being
> able to play it.

I understand and agree with all of that.

But in addition, since we understand the situation, I think we owe it to our
students to show them what a marvel of computational economy they embody in
the ability of their diaphragm to learn; and how, if they want, they are able
to 'change the air pressure' whilst seeming to do nothing.

Tony
--

_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
mobile +44(0)7790 532980 tony.p@-----.org

------------------------------------------------------------------
The Woodwind.Org 2008 Donation Drive has started. Visit
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------