The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2010-04-22 19:50
On another thread the poster wrote:
"The (xxx reed) requires a much more constant level of support than my cane reeds. Coming from a concept of playing, where I vary my support for musical, sound, and color reasons, I wasn't used to having to provide a full support all the time, and I found myself becoming a lot more tired. Any time I didn't give the right amount of support, rather than thinning the sound a little, the reed just stopped vibrating, and it felt like a constant battle to keep the reed making sound."
I'm an advanced amateur, and I've never, ever heard anyone, at any time, advocate lessening diaphragm support. Have I missed something? What musical effect, or tone color, would be achieved by such? Can you point me to any pedagogical discussion of such?
In my playing I alter the quantity of air, and to a MUCH lesser degree its speed, but never the support. Again, have I missed something?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-04-22 21:23
How do you alter quantity of air without altering the speed of air?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-04-22 23:58
I think the "type" of air is what is being discussed. My teacher talks about this frequently. At no point is this meant to say that it is sometimes supported and sometimes not supported.
I think the poster was referring to having to keep a faster and more focused air support and wasn't able to use as many types of air as he wanted, or was used to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2010-04-23 01:31
I am the poster of that thread, and maybe can explain myself.
Have you ever tried playing with less support? Have you ever tried playing with more support than usual? What does that do to your tone color? I find that it can thin out the sound a little, make it a less full, and it can also make the sound a little more pushed.
These are sounds or sound qualities that can be used as a musical tool. I like to think so, at least.
Everything you do as a clarinetist, you can either say it's right or wrong, or say that anything can be used as a musical device. You would never keep the accelerator of a car pressed down full the whole time, and just let up and down on the brake. As a painter, you would never always put as much paint as possible on the brush, and go wild (maybe unless your jackson pollock) Just a musical device, maybe I'm just an idiot. . .only time will tell, but I think I get good results with my methods.
Vjoet, I would imagine that if you are varying the quantity of air (but not necessarily the speed of the air from your embouchure) I bet you are actually varying your support a little, at least.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-04-23 03:55
If you are varying the quantity of air but not necessarily the speed of air then I might think you were taking more mouthpiece in your mouth creating a larger aperture for air to flow through.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-04-23 04:03
Sacha wrote:
>> Have you ever tried playing with less support? Have you ever tried playing with more support than usual? What does that do to your tone color? I find that it can thin out the sound a little, make it a less full, and it can also make the sound a little more pushed....anything can be used as a musical device. You would never keep the accelerator of a car pressed down full the whole time, and just let up and down on the brake.>>
This last analogy is rather too violent for my personal taste -- it's something you would never do in a car, surely?-)
Nevertheless, it shows that your understanding of the meaning of the word 'support' is probably the same as mine: namely, that it consists of OPPOSITION between the abdominal/back (A/B) 'blowing' muscles and the diaphragm muscle.
However, not everybody sings off the same hymnsheet about these things, as Nathan's remark about 'types of air' shows. That notion belongs to a completely different metaphor, designed to achieve a variation in what I, and probably you, would describe as mouth shape, or equivalently, tongue position.
And Vann Joe's original question, including the words "I've never, ever heard anyone, at any time, advocate lessening diaphragm support," sounds very strange to my ears -- probably because he's using the word 'support' to mean something different from (A/B)/diaphragm opposition. That's because I myself quite routinely vary support in this sense, for technical rather than expressive reasons.
So I think that much of the confusion can be explained by seeing that we need to agree on the meaning of our terms.
However, I do think that it's a bit mysterious WHY variation in support (in the 'opposition' sense) seems to go along with variation in sound quality. Theoretically, there should be no difference on just one note, because what happens in the mouth is surely unaffected by how the air pressure is produced 'down below'.
I suppose that I've come to think that it's an illusion, caused by the fact that I usually imagine the sound I want BEFORE I go about making it. So, if I want a concentrated piano or pianissimo, I imagine high air pressure coupled with a small tube -- so small mouth volume. That is a 'non-relaxed' stance, and goes well with the 'non-relaxed' support stance (your abdominal muscles are more tense when you play with support).
I notice that if I want tension in my sound -- say in the big F# crescendo in Abime des Oiseaux -- I find it helps to create tension in my body too. The trick, of course, is to be able to relax again afterwards; in the case of the Messiaen, so as not to interfere with the fluency of the bird music. But I take the position that CHOSEN tension isn't counterproductive. We just mustn't be at the mercy of it in general. (So I'm not worried by the fact that my RH2 has a mark on it after playing Abime:-)
So probably I just automatically associate support with precision and concentration, so it comes as a package.
The other thing that strikes me to say is that of course, PERCEIVED sound isn't just the quality of a single note. It includes the quality of the transitions between notes. And when I play with support, I think I get much more precise transitions (because the opposition helps the legato to be much smoother) and therefore the quality of the passage seems more intense.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vjoet
Date: 2010-04-23 13:59
Thanks to all you have responded:
Arnoldstang, NBeaty, srattle, & Tony Pay.
I've printed out the comments, and will study them carefully before responding. I'm really trying to understand.
Vann Joe
(amateur)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2010-04-23 15:25
WOW,
place still another up-check on Tony Pay's ledger!
His insight between the quality of movement between notes and breath support expresses one of my recent mysteries.
I've noticed (after all these years) that EVERYTHING improves with increased support: articulation in the altissimo, big leaps, breath attacks, ...
The only thing I can make happen with reduced support is the "magic diminuendo"
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-04-23 22:27
Some people confuse breath support with embouchure support. Everything you do to "support" your tone is in fact support of some sort or other. Players that don't support their air properly use the muscles in their throat to control the release of air, obviously wrong because it results in choking off the tone. Embouchure support is a whole different animal. Different players and teachers describe "breath" support in different ways. Some players that do it naturally can't find the words to describe it properly and perhaps it is different with some people but basically you're either supporting your tone with your diaphragm or you're not. I often compare it to using a water hose. The faucet is your diaphragm the hose is your throat and the nozzle is your embouchure. If the water pressure is not strong enough, your breath support, to fill the hose the water will drip out instead of making a steady stream. The more pressure you put behind the faucet, your diaphragm, the further the water will go. You want to play ff you use more pressure, you want to play pp you use less pressure but the hose, your throat, has to always be full. The nozzle, your embouchure, controls how the water, your air stream, will spread or stream. Now I know this is pretty simplistic so don't jump all over me. It's my opinion and it's worked very well for me in the past so if you don't like my comparison that's fine but I've been successful with explaining it this way. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2010-04-27 20:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-04-23 22:34
To clarify on "Types of air"
I believe you have control over the type of air you use until the air leaves your mouth. Before the air goes into the mouthpiece there are many points of control (or constraint, as is sometimes the case).
1. the "down below" abdominal pressure and opposition
2. Expansion or contraction of the chest and throat
3. Tongue position
4. Embouchure "grip" or pressure
All of these factors have a significant impact on what type of sound will result.
While my teacher talks of "types of air" frequently and how all these factors create different types of air, perhaps there's a more clear phrase to describe this idea?
Tony Pay:
"that I usually imagine the sound I want BEFORE I go about making it."
This point Tony makes is probably the most profound one made in this thread. It can (and must) be used for every aspect of playing. From the most nuanced ideas of sound to basics of tempo, style, articulation, dynamic, phrase structure...the list should go on. Knowing this in your mind before you play a note is crucial.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-04-25 10:58
Nathan wrote:
>>
To clarify on "Types of air"
I believe you have control over the type of air you use until the air leaves your mouth. Before the air goes into the mouthpiece there are many points of control (or constraint, as is sometimes the case).
1. the "down below" abdominal pressure and opposition
2. Expansion or contraction of the chest and throat
3. Tongue position
4. Embouchure "grip" or pressure
All of these factors have a significant impact on what type of sound will result.
While my teacher talks of "types of air" frequently and how all these factors create different types of air, perhaps there's a more clear phrase to describe this idea?
>>
You could say that:-)
In the introduction to my chapter in the Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet, I wrote:
Quote:
When I went to my very first teacher, Wilfred Kealey, he started to talk to me about music, and suggested ways of thinking which weren't directly related to the instrument, or even to the details of what I myself did. One thing which stuck in my mind was that I should imagine the clarinet sound as a smooth, round tube, which should begin deep inside me and stretch out through, and beyond, the bell of the instrument. It was my first encounter with a playing metaphor…In this chapter I will use this 'tube of sound' as a sort of reference. It divides up naturally into a number of bits, beginning with the abdomen/diaphragm system, proceeding to the space inside the mouth and throat, then the embouchure, and finally the physical instrument itself. I want to look at some aspects of each of these bits in turn…
[But] although there seems to be a sequence, in the sense that the later bits wouldn't work without the earlier ones, it is a mistake to think that it is a sequence like an assembly line, in which some product undergoes independent processes at a number of different points and emerges complete at the end. When we play a note, all the bits are interacting with each other in a complicated way, so we shall need to remember that simply considering them in order may be misleading. This is particularly true when we talk about the sound of the clarinet.
The phrase: "types of air" is a natural consequence of teachers trying to push the 'tube of sound' metaphor beyond its domain of application, so that they are indeed thinking of an 'assembly line'. All the bits of the assembly line, particularly mouth shape, can affect the sound, they reason; therefore that quality of sound must be somehow 'coded' in the air that enters the instrument. (Notice that you write above, "BEFORE the air goes into the mouthpiece there are many points of control..")
But the quality of sound isn't 'coded' in the air. There are no 'types of air' entering the instrument. The only variable is the pressure, and consequent small variations in speed of entry, depending on the current reed aperture. And the air is at body temperature, despite talk of 'cold' and 'warm' air in some pedagogy.
Quote:
One of the consequences of thinking of the sound of the clarinet as a smooth tube passing down the instrument may be that we are led always to associate a strong sound with a strong flow of air. This association, whilst useful in some ways, can create problems. We can begin to want the experience of pushing lots of air through the instrument in loud passages, and perhaps start to use reeds that are too stiff.
A more useful metaphor is to think of the tube of air vibrating rather like the string on a 'cello.
The fact is that the sound of the instrument is made by the vibrations of the air column; and the air is already inside the instrument -- we don't have to put it there. Some extra air obviously does pass down the instrument, but this is incidental. If the reed's motion were to be driven by some other means than blowing, we would still obtain a sound from the tube.
If we think about the matter in this way, we can see that we may indeed on some occasions be putting more air down the instrument than we need. It is not always the case that a large quantity of air is necessary to produce the most powerful, effective, or resonant sound. What IS required is to have the most efficient coupling possible between the reed and the air-tube, and to allow the instrument and the reed to vibrate together.
To succeed in this requires that there is sufficient air pressure to set the reed vibrating, and will also certainly have to do with precise details of the embouchure. The idea of the delicate control of a freely vibrating object (the reed), already co-operating with the resonance of the vibrating air inside the instrument, is a pleasing one, and it is also a mental image almost guaranteed to have the effect of avoiding an unduly tight or restrictive embouchure.
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' behaviour 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 [and sound quality] in other parts of the instrument too, provided the reed is sufficiently responsive.
All this isn't to say that metaphors like the 'tube of sound' aren't useful. But each of them has a limited domain of application; and when one of them breaks down, as in this case, we have to return to physical reality, which means some sort of scientific description.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-04-25 16:34
Thanks Tony, an interesting look! The flexibility we should have with air speed, reed pressure (jaw pressure), and tongue position is an aspect of playing that any player can explore further.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-04-26 14:46
This is in regard to quantity of air.
Is it possible that clarinetists are making minute embouchure shifts that are not usually talked about. It would be similar to an oboist or bassoonist who uses different embouchure sets for different registers. There might be smaller changes for dynamics. If one looks at flute pedagogy it is quite common for flutists to use a larger aperture(embouchure) for loud and smaller for soft dynamics. This goes hand in hand with slower air for soft and faster for loud. One can of course mix and match these components for different effects. I know on clarinet that embouchure pressure naturally alters with playing softly and loud. It is a proclivity built into relaxing. We are taught not lose the set for soft playing as the tone will get "flabby". With all this in mind I would ask.........DO CLARINETISTS ALTER THE EMBOUCHURE APERTURE AND POSITION TO OBTAIN A BIGGER TONE AND SMALLER TONE(QUANTITY OF AIR) MAKING CORRECTIONS FOR PITCH ALONG THE WAY? If they don't then I can't see how quantity of air is differentiated from air speed. Some of course would equate more resonance to bigger tone I guess but I wouldn't refer to this as the use of more air.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2010-04-26 14:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-04-26 16:40
John wrote:
>> This is in regard to quantity of air. Is it possible that clarinetists are making minute embouchure shifts that are not usually talked about[?] It would be similar to an oboist or bassoonist who uses different embouchure sets for different registers.>>
Yes, I'm sure we do.
>> There might be smaller changes for dynamics.>>
I would have said that even quite large embouchure changes with dynamic change are very common.
>> If one looks at flute pedagogy it is quite common for flutists to use a larger aperture(embouchure) for loud and smaller for soft dynamics. >>
I don't have direct experience, but that seems plausible.
>> This goes hand in hand with slower air for soft and faster for loud. One can of course mix and match these components for different effects.>>
OK, seems likely.
>> I know on clarinet that embouchure pressure naturally alters with playing softly and loud.>>
Yes. As the amplitude of the reed's vibration increases, it tries to come away from the mouthpiece curve on a French style facing, and needs to be held by increased embouchure pressure in order to avoid flatness.
Funnily enough, the opposite seems to be the case on a long, German style facing. There, you have to guard against SHARPNESS as you play louder, though I have to say I don't find the reason for that directly intuitive.
>> It is a proclivity built into relaxing.>>
Perhaps you mean that when an inexperienced player plays quietly, they might tend instinctively to relax their embouchure, and thereby damp out too many of the higher harmonics in their sound.
>> We are taught not lose the set for soft playing as the tone will get "flabby".>>
So, that fits, if by 'set' you mean, lip muscle tone. Your embouchure doesn't relax when you play quietly, even though the pressure exerted by it on the reed is smaller than when you play loud. So the damping effect on the reed is not too large, because the 'footprint' of the flexed lip on the reed is still small.
>> With all this in mind I would ask.........DO CLARINETISTS ALTER THE EMBOUCHURE APERTURE AND POSITION TO OBTAIN A BIGGER TONE AND SMALLER TONE(QUANTITY OF AIR) MAKING CORRECTIONS FOR PITCH ALONG THE WAY?>>
I would say 'yes' to that, if the parenthetic "QUANTITY OF AIR" were not included. I don't see what the quantity of air has to do with the rest of the sentence.
Bigger tone doesn't map directly to bigger quantity of air throughput, as I pointed out in a previous post.
>> If they don't then I can't see how quantity of air is differentiated from air speed.>>
Do you mean, "if you are playing with air speed V for t seconds, you use Vt quantity of air; if you double the air speed to 2V, then you use 2Vt quantity of air in t seconds; so quantity of air is directly proportional to air speed"?
>> Some of course would equate more resonance to bigger tone I guess but I wouldn't refer to this as the use of more air.>>
So...?
It seems to me that, as on previous occasions, you are swimming in a sea of contradictory concepts, trying to find a relation between the random assortments you encounter.
Why not go back to first principles, and accept that most of the things teachers say don't actually make sense? Or at any rate, accept that the things they say very often aren't consistent?
You're better off with scientific concepts because they are designed to guarantee consistency. That's why they are mostly couched in the universal language of consistency -- namely, mathematics.
Mathematics is fundamentally just a way of saying what is consistent.
Tony
Post Edited (2010-04-26 17:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
|