Klarinet Archive - Posting 000098.txt from 2009/02

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:51:58 -0500

At 2:53 PM +0000 2/4/09, Tony Pay wrote:
>I suggested that M=B8hlfeld might have made the opposite decision for the s=
ame
>SORT of reason -- he could get more tension on it -- but that's just a gues=
s.

Actually, here's what you wrote in the post you referenced:

>After that stroke, amazing in its own
>right, the strings begin to build their implacable tremolo; and only
>then does the marking 'sempre piu' forte' appear, and the clarinettist
>must begin to make it bite.
>
>Perhaps Muehlfeld found that he needed something more at that point to
>give Brahms what he asked for. Perhaps he saw that he could achieve an
>extra level of intensity by changing clarinets -- perhaps even by
>picking up another complete instrument, including mouthpiece and reed.
>
>After all, for the rest of the piece he would want a setup favouring a
>sort of intimate eloquence, a sound-palette that allowed the clarinet to
>disappear into the string texture, yielding to the first violin almost
>as often as being a solo voice in its own right. Indeed, given the
>nature of his Ottensteiners, this would probably have been his special
>quality.

You used the words "bite" and "extra level of=20
intensity" referring to the B-flat and you used=20
"initimate eloquence" and "a sound-palette that=20
allowed the clarinet to disappear into the string=20
texture" in referring to the A.

Both of these statements directly imply and are=20
equivalent to saying that the sound has a higher=20
percentage of high frequency content (on the=20
B-flat). This comes from a higher cutoff=20
frequency, which is the more explicity and=20
precise way of explaining it. It is precisely the=20
high frequency content (which is more directional=20
than low frequency content) that gives the sound=20
more "bite" and "intensity".

>Now, I'm going to go through the rest of your post, because it seems to me
>that you use 'science', not in order to illuminate, but as a smoke screen.
>You should stop that, because it's counterproductive in the world. We're
>trying to say something helpful to other players here. Jargon doesn't help=
=2E

On the contrary, your use of words like "bite"=20
and "extra level of intensity" and "something=20
more" and "special quality" are the smoke screen.=20
Those are imprecise terms with ill-defined=20
meanings. Sound is a scientifically measurable=20
quantity. Tone color is (which is determined by=20
harmonic content) is describable in more precise=20
scientific terms, i.e. the words that I used.

> > > ...F# minor and D major on the Ottensteiner instrument that M=B8hlfel=
d used
>> > involve 'simpler' fingerings, in the sense of your 'obvious' physics,
>> > than do F minor and Db major.
>> >
>> > That's a consequence of the fact that the top C# and throat F# are
>> > fingered using just the thumb +/- speaker key, and the clarion F# usin=
g
>> > just RH1 (plus LH, of course).
>>
>> First, their are many fingerings (even on the Ottensteiner) for the
>> specific notes you mention as there are for any fifth harmonic notes. So
>> you have no way of knowing which ones he used.
>
>If you want to switch terminology to 'first, third and fifth harmonics' fro=
m
>my '(chalumeau)/throat, clarion (and altissimo)' -- the brackets are there
>because I didn't mention chalumeau or altissimo -- then, fine. It seems
>unnecessary jargon to me.

>But then, the notes I was talking about are all first and third harmonics,
>NOT fifth harmonics. So you didn't read me carefully enough.

My mistake on the F# (I thought you had written=20
about the top F# which is a fifth harmonic). The=20
top C# is indeed a third harmonic (and there are=20
several fingerings for it as well as a result).=20
The throat F# is indeed a 1st harmonic (or=20
fundamental) fingering so it has only one or=20
maybe two possible fingerings.

Again, the use of the harmonics to discuss=20
fingerings is a much more precise way of speaking=20
about them. Altissimo, clarion etc. are=20
imprecise musician jargon. For example, some=20
altissimo notes are 3rd, some are 5th, some are=20
7th, and so on. It is much more important to now=20
which harmonic it is than to simply say it is=20
"altissimo", which just means "above high C". It=20
is the harmonic that determines the major=20
characteristics of the note (especially the break=20
characteristics).

>What I called 'the top C#' CAN be played as a fifth harmonic; but one of th=
e
>reasons the F# minor arpeggio on the Ottensteiner is 'smooth' (like the
>Fminor arpeggio on the Boehm) is that you have a perfectly respectable top =
C#
>(third harmonic) with just LH thumb and speaker key, a standard fingering
>(third harmonic) F# with just LH+sp+RH1, and a standard fingering (first
>harmonic) for throat F# with just LH thumb.

Again, fingering is not the issue. I never=20
brought it up. You did. We both seem to agree=20
that fingering is probably not the reason=20
Muhlfeld switched. And again, you don't know=20
what fingerings Muhlfeld used, or which ones he=20
considered "easier" or "harder" so this is a=20
non-issue.

>The effect of what you write, to an uninformed reader, is to suggest that I
>don't know what I'm talking about, and you do.

That's your interpretation. I stick to the facts.

> > Your guess that it might be that M=B8hlfeld's B-flat clarinet was someh=
ow
> > more powerful than his A is probably not correct. His instruments were
> > both made by Ottensteiner, and I would be willing to bet that they have
> > very similar cutoff frequency curves. That would mean that they have v=
ery
> > similar "brightness". Certainly, the A-clarinet, with the larger, long=
er
> > bore, would produce more sound energy. So the A is likely the more
> > "powerful" of the two.
>
>But, we don't need to go into what you've read in Benade about the clarinet=
s
>he happened to test, or talk about cutoff frequencies. I didn't even say
>that a Bb Ottensteiner is 'more powerful' than an A Ottensteiner; though,
>owning copies of both, I can report that my Bb does have a different, more
>positive character.

There you go again with imprecise terminology=20
such as "more positive character." You did say=20
"extra level of intensity" another imprecise=20
term, which could easily be interpreted as "more=20
powerful" (a precise term).

Communication is only effective when people=20
understand the precise meaning of the words.=20
Cutoff frequencies is one of the most precise=20
ways of talking about the brightness of the=20
different fingerings on the clarinet. It has a=20
precise, actual, measurable, audible meaning that=20
any two objective observers will agree upon.=20
Nobody can agree upon what "a more positive=20
character" in sound means. Power is also a=20
physically measurable quantity. So it saying more=20
powerful has a precise meaning.

Perhaps, it is this precision that annoys you? By=20
using the imprecise terms that you prefer, you=20
can have an endless debate, because only you know=20
the meaning of your words.

Discussions are much more beneficial to all=20
parties when concepts are communicated precisely=20
using unambiguous, and yes, sometimes scientific=20
terms.

>Anyone reading that with a professional performer's eye would recognise tha=
t
>I'm talking about setting up the Bb to give more power -- and we know that'=
s
>possible.

B-flat won't generate more power. That is=20
nonsense. Modern day B-flats are brighter,=20
however, as shown be cutoff frequency. The=20
difference in power output between the A and=20
B-flat is negligible, with likely a slight edge=20
to the A clarinet due to its larger size. In=20
general, bigger things are more powerful.

>Your scientific stuff is just a smokescreen.

My words are precise. Yours are not.

Are you proposing we go back to pre-enlightenment thinking?

> > I think it is much more likely that the sound/intonation/resonance of=
the F
>> minor stuff was better than the F# minor stuff (whatever fingerings he
>> used).
>
>On what basis? Do you play Ottensteiners?

Based on the facts I have presented several times=20
already, plus logic. Once more here you go:

Logic chain:
1. Muhlfeld changed clarinets for a reason.
2. The reason was likely one of these (or a combination):
(a) intonation/resonance/smoothness
(b) fingering
(c) tone color
3. As Muhlfeld was a highly trained professional, I discount (b).
4. My guess is that (c) is not likely as the difference in tone color
between A and B-flat is small in any case and it is a very short
passage. I doubt he wanted to change tone color for one short
passage, even if there is a slight tone color difference.
5. That leaves (a)!

> > Third, it is obviously true that on any modern day clarinet that F Min=
or
>> is both slightly easier to finger and has better
>> sound/intonation/resonance, and the instrument IS brighter...
>
>Yes,
>
>> ...(the cutoff frequency curves of modern day B-flats is noticeably high=
er
>> than that for A clarinets).
>
>...more smokescreen. Since we KNOW it already, why talk about cutoff
>frequencies?

Your fear of science IS the smokescreen.=20
Precision is always preferable to meaningless,=20
ambiguous terminology that no two people are=20
likely to agree upon.

> > Therefore, whether the reason was that he wanted a brighter sound (your
> > supposition in your post from 2000), or that he wanted a better
>> sound/intonation/resonance, the conclusion is the same: it should be pla=
yed
>> on B-flat as I said.
>
>As I said before, many things come into the equation. I've tried it; and
>very often, depending on the circumstances, I don't.

Good for you. That's your decision.

It was not Muhlfeld's decision, however, and for=20
the reasons that I have clearly spelled out, it=20
is likely not the best decision for most people.=20
Especially, given the fact that most players are=20
not top professionals, for them the fingering=20
issue IS significant, and there is no question=20
that the fingering is easier in F Minor on modern=20
day instruments.

Best regards,
Jonathan

--
Jonathan Cohler
Artistic & General Director
International Woodwind Festival
http://iwwf.org/
cohler@-----.org

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------