 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-07-27 17:49
Watch this video and "see" if you can hear the lack of intensity....one can certainly see physical lack of intensity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-7unOvCoRA From my perspective he is just not creating enough internal resistance.....not supporting. The metaphor mr Campbell uses if fine and good but isn't this lack of support obvious? The performer does sound very good and does create a beautiful, relaxed mood. Isn't the "pressure cooker" just support? The performer here appears so physically relaxed that perhaps it is an illusion that he isn't playing with intensity. What do you think?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-07-27 18:58
John,
Lack of intensity in whose playing? I don't "see" anything.... but perspective can be misleading.
Whose lack of support is obvious?
Which definition of sUPpport/sDOWNort are you using?
Outward physical appearance, if nothing else from what we can read here on the BBoard/Archives, can be quite misleading as to what is occurring internally.
The pressure-cooker metaphor is perhaps applicable, in differing manners, depending on where you actually place this hypothetical pressure-cooker. Is it inside of the performer or in the ether between the clarinetist and the audience?
If "the performer" does sound very good and creates a relaxed mood (which is applicable in the ear of the beholder), why is the use of support even an important discussion? or definable? quantifiable?
I don't think anything about the performers but am curious about the illusion that you see that is present....
What are you getting at?
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-07-27 18:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-07-27 19:58
"What I imagine in my head is something that is very intense" David Campbell. Almost his first words in this masterclass.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joseph Brenner, Jr.
Date: 2012-07-27 20:08
John, I agree with you; I hear intensity in Campbell's playing but do not in the other person's. I once commented to a person on this bb (who had sought comment on his performance of the Poulenc Sonata) that his playing was good but lacked intensity. I'd thought for a while that only a French clarinetist could play a piece like the Poulenc! One can play loudly or softly, slowly or quickly AND either with or without intensity. Yes, the analogy to the pressure cooker is apt. I confess, though, that I feel a bit like the late Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart when he addressed pornograhy--"I don't know how to define it, but I know pornography when I see it."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2012-07-27 20:54
For the student, playing with a pressure cooker analogy may work better than being told to 'support more'. What it seems like he is suggesting is a more intense airstream at a soft dynamic, to create a different colour. Were he to say 'you aren't supporting enough', he would be using a term, which as previous arguments have indicated, that is not clearly defined (although I think some people have more idea than others). Maybe it would work for the student, but often I find it is a point of confusion.
Plus, I would feel quite ripped off if I bought a 'play with a pro' video, and one of their gems was 'support more'.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-07-30 23:04
Alexis, I agree with you about being ripped off but I think the direct route should be tried first. If that doesn't work then a metaphor might be in order. In this case however the student really doesn't pick up the concept immediately after the metaphor is introduced. What I am getting at is whether or not things would have been fixed if the student was just asked to played softer.
I would have to take my eyes off this performer as he visually communicates a real lack of intensity. It is a rather lackadaisical and casual mood that he is conveying visually. I would like to see this performer convey different moods.....including a bravura style of playing. You can't stand there and gently move side to side like you are playing a lullaby. That doesn't work for all music. He is rather limp physically and it is carried over to his sound.
The big thing I got from this video was Mr Campbell's pressure cooker concept. If you take a breath.... hold it and then build up pressure inside like you are going to explode ....then release the air in a stream but still maintain some of that pressure cooker explosive power...this will give you intensity. you have to work hard to produce a soft dynamic. You also have the choice of no internal pressure but this is what the performer in the video was doing. It sounded good but not intense.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2012-07-30 23:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-07-31 02:22
Outer appearances can often mislead, or at best, tell us quite little.
If we look at a duck or swan on the surface of a pond, we really have little idea what their feet are doing under the surface...
It could be doing nothing, or paddling like mad- in which case we could guess that it would be moving around. But without actually placing a camera under the water level, which is a study I'd think none of us is really ornithologically inclined to undertake, we truly cannot form a correlation.
Perhaps a particular duck is a awfully horrid floater and must paddle like mad to simply stay afloat in a stationary position, as calm as it appears above the water-line...
Likewise, we may infer from a lack of outer intensity in a performer, or their lack of movement save a gentle swaying back and forth, that internally there is no actual physical intensity... but we cannot quantify the levels of muscular contraction present in an-other (let alone ourselves.)
Conversely, a high level of abdominal contraction does not necessarily an intense sound/mood make. Increasing abdominal contraction can produce a more mechanically driven airstream due to higher inter-abdominal pressure. That higher pressure in the abdomen pushes upward with more force on the diaphragm, and causes the air to be expelled more quickly; unless we resist it ;-)
Yet, without the necessary adjustments "upstream", that more driven air stream may not be properly harnessed; or applied to effective means to create an intensified sound.
Further, an intensification in the sound may not even be reliant on a more forceful air supply... we can rely on other means.
In the case of the video, as we cannot directly interact with the student, we must rely on surmising.
Perhaps simply asking the student to play more softly would have the desired effect, but we do not have the luxury of actually knowing. IF the desired effect is achieved, we must then choose whether or not to explain to the student what physical mechanisms have been employed... if one knows. At times, letting something go unexplained only to have a student discern their truth for themselves, a bit down the road, is the best path. All of that relies on the relationship between the teacher and student. Again, a luxury we are not afforded by a brief video.
But a metaphor was employed in the case at hand. I personally found it a bit confusing as the pressure cooker began as the entire hall, and then was converted into an internal concept that resided inside the body of the performer as a lid was place over-top of everything; but that confusion may be on my shoulders. I have no awareness of the students technical ability, musical understanding, or conceptual ideas that have passed between Mr. Campbell and the student prior to that short clip.
Mr. Campbell seemed happy with what occurred in the students playing... perhaps we should not second guess that; after all, there is far more to the video than the short 3 minutes we have at hand.
What came to pass later on may have drawn upon that, and become much more apt... I have not seen the remaining masterclass and will not second-guess without any knowledge.
However, one case that we can throw out is the idea that the student was not applying some internal pressure: if internal pressure is non-existent, then no air can be expelled! That steps into the realm of basic science on the natural equalization of differing air pressures when left to their own whims...
It is not a question of increasing internal intensity. Rather we chose how to do so, how much to apply and how to harness the increases/decreases.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-07-31 03:09
Buster, We can't throw anything out even if you think it is contrary to some basic law of science. He just is not creating enough internal pressure to generate an intense tone on the clarinet.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-07-31 04:01
John,
The name is Jason, I assume you know this as you spent a great deal of time emailing me offline, some months back, when I had little time but much desire to help... please afford me the small respect of using my name.
I don't throw something out because I think it is contrary to a basic law of Science. I disregard it as I know it defies a basic law of Science. Unfortunately, we are not exempt from obeying the laws of the natural world when we are playing the clarinet.
As you wrote:
Quote:
You also have the choice of no internal pressure but this is what the performer in the video was doing. It sounded good but not intense.
If there is no internal pressure, be it created by the mere presence of a high volume of air, or created by the contraction of muscles, air will not be able to exit the body. Gases/fluids flow naturally from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. i.e. If no imbalance is present, air will not move- an equilibrium is established. So yes, on that count, I can throw that quoted idea out.
---------------------------------------
Back to the 3 minute video.
How do you know that he is not generating enough "internal pressure" to create what can be perceived an intense tone.
I certainly can't tell from watching him....
How can we actually tell how much internal pressure David Campbell is creating when he performs the passage with "more intensity"?
Again, as an outside viewer I can't discern.
All we can do is listen and speculate.
Reverse-engineering on the grounds that what we hear is created by what we believe the performer is internally doing does not hold water.
--------------------------------------
We can teach with metaphor(s) that we find work with a particular student, or we can attempt to speak to them in hard and fast rules about the specific physical movements necessary to create any particular end. The latter is somewhat difficult as we often are not cognizant of everything we ourselves do, or if we are, the specifics are complexly intertwined.
Misstating/disregarding the laws of mechanics and static/kinetic forces also throws the latter method out as we merely make matters more confusing for others.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-07-31 14:22
Jason, I think you are not understanding what I am saying. It is encapsulated in the exercise I described. It is very simple. The internal pressure I refer to is not a force for blowing. It is a negative force. Take a breath and hold it and try to expand like you are bloating out . As you release this air gradually in an air stream still try to keep expanding.....this is the effort I am referring to to achieve internal pressure. As Mr Campbell demonstrates ....if he just let's the cover off the a louder tone is produced. You have to keep forcing the expansion.
I am just putting forth my empirical findings. To me they work. I am not trying to confuse people....if it does confuse...that's not a real problem. People usually just discard material they can't understand.
Back to the 3 minute video. "how do you know he isn't generating enough internal pressure"? Well i'm going mr Campbell. He seems to think so.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-07-31 15:50
John,
I'm not sure what 'negative force' refers to...
I think it is important to consider the fact that we can only control the rate at which air expelled with our abdominal/diaphragm system; any intensification of the generic air stream must be caused up-river of that system. It's simply how our body works.
I must say that potentially confusing others an acceptable practice as we assume they will merely tune out is a dangerous ground to tread. And unless we are willing to use terms as "pressure" and "force" with their proper meanings, I don't see how this discussion can continue.
As for the video, I really am not all that interested in it to be truthful. And citing a pro without the entire context at hand serves others even less.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-07-31 16:44
It is so difficult to describe what is really meant by the terms "intensity" and "support." When the word "diaphragm" is added, the confusion intensifies.
I never knew or met Joe Allard, but thanks to an assortment of online videos, I'm becoming acquainted with his ideas. Harvey Pittel, one of his former students, has a series of great videos on YouTube, and in this one, he discusses the concept of breathing mechanisms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOAiYmkSF4w
Pittel's explanations make a lot of sense to me, although they're a bit different from some of the ideas I was taught. They've made me rethink some of the things I've been doing and teaching for years. If Ed Palanker or any other former students of Joe Allard are reading this, it would be quite interesting to read your comments. It appears that Allard was a very smart man, and he must have made a very strong and positive impression on his students.
Post Edited (2012-07-31 17:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-07-31 19:36
It had seemed hardly worth joining this thread; but I'd just like to say that the video produced by Harvey Pittel is pretty worthless. Roughly, it says:
Quote:
What can cause the area of the throat to be constricted? Believe it or not, the breathing mechanism.
If there is no air in your lungs, opening your mouth simply allows air to rush into your lungs, because there is more pressure in the air outside than there is in your body -- your body seeks to equalise the pressure.
You want to allow your ribcage to expand to allow the lungs to expand.
The diaphragm, below the lungs, is an involuntary muscle (like your heart). As the lungs expand, they push the diaphragm down. Why does the diaphragm move? Because the lungs push it down. When people talk about diaphragmatic breathing, that's what they mean. But you can't USE your diaphragm to breathe.
Then the diaphragm pushes down on the the abdominal stuff, and pushes it outwards. Where is the air going when you breathe in? Not down there. It's going into your lungs, which are UP HERE. Why do teachers say, breathe from down there, fill up from down there? Well, they're trying to stop students raising their shoulders. So they've overcorrected, gone to the other extreme.
What's wrong with trying to put the air down there? It causes tension in your throat. So you can't play properly. You can demonstrate that by feeling your throat as you try to put the air down there.
When you breathe in properly your eyes get bigger, because that's how you feel -- you can get high on the feeling. It's great.
The area of the throat should be relaxed.
Let's talk about exhalation.
To 'blow' is not to play music -- you must 'allow' the air to flow.
This whole school of playing is to ALLOW the sound to occur.
Scientists have dissected cadavers to work out how we exhale, but we don't know how that works in detail. Basically if you listen, areas of your brain will tell your blowing muscles what to do to produce the right sound.
Again, try pushing with your abdominal muscles, and feel your throat -- it constricts.
If you push with abdominal muscles, you constrict the glottis, the epiglottis -- how can you play?
My answers to all of this have been rehearsed at length elsewhere; see, 'Support' in the Keepers section of the BBoard, or if you're willing to feel suicidal, 'Blowing Terminology'.
But: the diaphragm IS an important muscle in inhalation; the diaphragm doesn't descend because the lungs push down on it; it's perfectly possible to flex the abdominal muscles without tensing the throat; independent movement of the throat can in any case be an important contributory influence in tonal variation; we DO know something about what muscles we use when we blow; and so on.
I know WHY there is an unwillingness to use words like 'force' and 'tension' in explanations, and how important the idea of 'letting things' happen is; but playing can be considerably eased by using the proper words intelligently.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-08-01 19:13
Jason, You don't understand what I am saying. Negative force refers to feeling you get in the exercise. ie you are holding your breath and feeling like you are going to burst. When you start the air stream you still try to keep "bursting" (expanding) This force of bursting slows the air stream down...since it slows it down I refer to it as negative.
Although Clarinetguy has lumped this intensity discussion with 'support' I am keeping them separate. Different items.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-08-01 19:15
Jason, You don't understand what I am saying. Negative force refers to feeling you get in the exercise. ie you are holding your breath and feeling like you are going to burst. When you start the air stream you still try to keep "bursting" (expanding) This force of bursting slows the air stream down...since it slows it down I refer to it as negative.
Although Clarinetguy has lumped this intensity discussion with 'support' I am keeping them separate. Different items.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-08-01 19:43
John,
Aside from pointing out that your "exercise" actually demonstrates diaphragmatic support/resistance, I have little more to offer. (Though I misunderstand you, I'm likely misreading you... the negative force created would cancel that opposed dichotomy out.)
Think about it. You wish to continue "expanding/bursting" while the air is exiting, so the muscle of inhalation (i.e. diaphragm) must still be contracted/ing. That "downward" force opposing the "upward" pressure coming from the expanded abdominal cavity will surely slow down the expulsion of air, no? Though, the harnessing of that controlled exhalation to create the possibility of any end effect is what you seem to be missing in the "model" you have constructed.
Beyond that, I have no desire to initiate another discussion re. support; I have a finite life-span.
Further, I can't begin to understand what you are reaching at with all of this talk of internal resistance, support (a term You employed in your initial post) and the resulting sound quality that is created. There are many more factors involved beyond what you are taking into account here.
And I still fail to see how a true negative force can be generated. I have yet to be able to bang my head against the wall with less than zero lbs/square inch.
-Jason
Upon further thought, there is a "negatively" opposed force created by any head-wall banging. Given that every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction, the wall is pushing back on my head with the same force as with which it hit the wall. The pain is not reduced... in fact the pain is caused by that "negatively" opposed force. (True Physicists will abide my loose usage of terminology I pray.)
I will keep practicing and see what I can come up with though... we can surely disregard Newton for experimental means and merit-able empirical findings.
Post Edited (2012-08-01 23:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-08-01 23:29
John,
Does negative refer to an actual "negative force" or negative in your judgement of what is occurring; i.e. negative as it is unproductive?
I did manage to produce a negative force... however it took the greater part of my supply of anti-matter to achieve it
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-08-02 01:50
Jason, I think I am 'harnessing' that controlled exhalation. Why do think otherwise?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-08-02 02:39
John,
"Harnessing" the exhalation of air is required of any wind-player... I'd think the term wind-player would encompass that concept...
That matter in which you think of it yourself is your business...
The way in which you write of it confuses others...
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
