Klarinet Archive - Posting 000100.txt from 2009/02

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:01:41 -0500

On 5 Feb, Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org> wrote:

> At 2:53 PM +0000 2/4/09, Tony Pay wrote:

> > I suggested that Mühlfeld might have made the opposite decision for the
> > same SORT of reason -- he could get more tension on it -- but that's just
> > a guess.
>
> 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 intensity" referring to the
> B-flat and you used "initimate eloquence" and "a sound-palette that
> allowed the clarinet to disappear into the string texture" in referring to
> the A.
>
> Both of these statements directly imply and are equivalent to saying that
> the sound has a higher percentage of high frequency content (on the
> B-flat). This comes from a higher cutoff frequency, which is the more
> explicity and precise way of explaining it. It is precisely the high
> frequency content (which is more directional than low frequency content)
> that gives the sound more "bite" and "intensity".

You're very good for me, Jonathan, not because I learn anything from you, but
because reading you is a spiritual exercise in experiencing myself being
misrepresented.

(Typically, you begin by saying, "Actually, what you wrote was..", and then
quote a chunk from me that I already quoted verbatim in my post, as though
you had caught me out in an inconsistency.)

What I wrote was to do with the possibility of Mühlfeld's using another
complete instrument setup to give him greater power, and enabled him to go
beyond what he had available in the rest of the piece. I didn't even mention
the Bb. We know that such setups are possible -- it's why we choose one sort
of reed to play the Schubert Octet and another to play the Copland concerto.

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

No, the use of the word 'bite' in "the clarinettist must begin to make it
[the sempre piu forte] bite" doesn't necessarily refer to tone-colour, or
cutoff frequencies. It refers to the fact that Brahms wrote 'sempre piu
forte', and we must make his instruction do its work. Have you not heard of
metaphor -- this law 'has no teeth', for example?

> > > > ...F# minor and D major on the Ottensteiner instrument that M¸hlfeld
> > > > 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#
> > > > using 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'
> > from 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 about the top F# which is a
> fifth harmonic). The top C# is indeed a third harmonic (and there are
> several fingerings for it as well as a result). The throat F# is indeed a
> 1st harmonic (or fundamental) fingering so it has only one or maybe two
> possible fingerings.
>
> Again, the use of the harmonics to discuss fingerings is a much more
> precise way of speaking about them. Altissimo, clarion etc. are imprecise
> musician jargon. For example, some altissimo notes are 3rd, some are 5th,
> some are 7th, and so on. It is much more important to now which harmonic
> it is than to simply say it is "altissimo", which just means "above high
> C". It is the harmonic that determines the major characteristics of the
> note (especially the break characteristics).

OK, but if you want to use your more precise terminology, you need to be
clear what you're referring to. I was using my terminology to label the
notes; your terminology, carelessly applied to what I wrote, led you to write
a nonsense response to my point.

> > What I called 'the top C#' CAN be played as a fifth harmonic; but one of
> > the 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 brought it up. You did. We both
> seem to agree that fingering is probably not the reason Muhlfeld switched.
> And again, you don't know what fingerings Muhlfeld used, or which ones he
> considered "easier" or "harder" so this is a non-issue.

What is at issue is the reason why F# minor on the Boehm A clarinet has a
different quality from F# minor on the Ottensteiner. I say that's a function
of the clarinet system, and to do with the way in which the tonehole
positions on the two systems are organised. That does give rise to different
fingerings, and makes F# on the Ottensteiner a note that has a more similar
character to F natural on the Boehm than to F# on the Boehm.

> > 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.

The relevant fact is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you have no
substantial experience of playing Ottensteiner clarinets, and your handwavy
'science' is designed to obscure that fact.

[snip of stuff you repeat later on]

> > Anyone reading that with a professional performer's eye would recognise
> > that 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 nonsense. Modern day B-flats are
> brighter, however, as shown be cutoff frequency. The difference in power
> output between the A and B-flat is negligible, with likely a slight edge
> to the A clarinet due to its larger size. In general, bigger things are
> more powerful.

I said, you can SET UP the Bb to give more power. He could equally well have
set up another A clarinet to give him more power.

> > Your scientific stuff is just a smokescreen.
>
> My words are precise. Yours are not.

Your words are precise, just carelessly attached to the things you're talking
about. Mathematics is precise; but inappropriate mathematical modelling
doesn't give sensible answers, because the assumptions of the model are
faulty.

> 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)!

You leave out (d), which is that he wanted to use another instrument with a
more powerful setup -- perhaps a different sort of reed? You need to be more
careful about the assumptions you make, you see, before you apply your
'logic'.

> > > Third, it is obviously true that on any modern day clarinet that F
> > > Minor
> > > 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
> > > higher
> > > than that for A clarinets).
> >
> > ...more smokescreen. Since we KNOW it already, why talk about cutoff
> > frequencies?
>
> Your fear of science IS the smokescreen. Precision is always preferable to
> meaningless, ambiguous terminology that no two people are likely to agree
> upon.

I don't have a fear of science. I rather have a more heightened sense of
responsibility toward science than you. I didn't like it when you got the
science wrong in capitals on the Bulletin Board, and refused to acknowledge
it; and I don't like you using scientific terminology inappropriately here
now.

Tony
--

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

... I intend to live forever - so far, so good

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