Klarinet Archive - Posting 000102.txt from 2009/02

From: "Alexander Brash" <brash@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Brahms quintet
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:10:29 -0500

>>>
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.
>>>

Hang on, which one of you has the physics degree? Oh, right.

> 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.

You *clearly* do not understand what the word "power" means. Jonathan
defines himself extremely clearly, and makes a cogent argument. You do
not.

>> 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.

Wait what were you saying about smokescreens? Seriously grow a pair and
stop bandying about meaningless metaphors. Intimate eloquence? Sound
Pallette? Do you have a crush on him, or are you trying to make an
argument?

> 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.

I'm curious, does that even make sense in your head? You first make a
statement that is completely incorrect. Sound is a measurable quantity.
Bite has to refer to some measurable quantity, or it doesn't exist. You
say it's not harmonic content. What is it then? Tell me the measurable
quantity you call bite? You don't have one, because you have no idea what
you're talking about.

> substantial experience of playing Ottensteiner clarinets, and your
> handwavy
> 'science' is designed to obscure that fact.
>

You once called me a "daft, stupid, c***" in a private email, and think
you'll get away with statements like that. HE'S USING REAL SCIENCE.
"experience playing an instrument" is not science. Physics is science. Do
you get it? Do you see it?

It's not just that you're wrong, it's that I'm convinced you don't
understand how to think.

On Thu, February 5, 2009 11:01 am, Tony Pay wrote:
> 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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org