 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2005-10-22 14:28
As I said in a previous post, I have been reading Tom Ridenour's "The Educator's Guide to the Clarinet". Good book. There are lots of things in the book that surprise me, so I am posting about those from time to time to see what others think.
Ridenour says there are two ways of blowing. One is the "toothpaste" or diaphragmatic method where the abdomen area starts out full and then gradually presses inward and upward so the "tummy look" goes away. That is the way I was taught. His way is what he calls the "aerosol" or compression method, where the abdomen area starts out full as before, but the air is pressurized by pushing downward with the abdomen muscles and the "tummy look" stays there. Tom says to "direct the air downward, as if they were going to push it straight through the seats of their chairs". (This sounds like something just a little dangerous to tell a 13 year old! Too many openings for digestive tract jokes.) He says the toothpaste method results in slow, warm air and the aerosol results in fast, dense, cold air.
I have re-examined my blowing and find that when I am playing well I do as he says. I get the sensation of floating over the sound. However, as the air in my lungs gets low, I find myself going back to the toothpaste method. This also happens when I am playing at very low volumes.
How were some of you taught to blow?
(I have played continuously for 45 years and perform in semi-pro groups)
johng
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2005-10-22 15:28
Dear John G,
Ridenour all the way !!! In fact I will now proceed to name drop all over the place again. Robert Marcellus used to tell the anecdote in masterclasses when he questioned himself on this (he used the Ridenour method) and marched down to Clark Brody's office at Northwestern to ask this very question. Brody looks up and him, thinks for a moment and tells him that he'll get back to him. A few hours later Brody strolls into Marcellus' office and just says...."out."
The master source for all questions of breathing should be the book written by the late Arnold Jacobs (Song and Wind), former tuba player of the Chicago Symphony. I don't recall how he explains it all but I'm certain this is the upshot of his experience as well.
If you do this diligently, the last bit of air will be much more supported at the end. What does the sound do with your method....honestly?
And I refuse to get dragged into another "cold air/warm air metaphor smackdown."
.........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2005-10-22 17:53
LOL, Paul...that is so Brody!!! I studied with him 15 years ago, and that's exactly the kind of thing he'd say!!!
As far as how I blow...I do push out with my lower abdominal muscles. Seems to be the "aerosol" method. That's how I was taught starting in high school, and through conservatory.
I must add that when I'm teaching, though, I use the "toothpaste" metaphor differently. I have many students who try to use the throat to push the air out, so I ask them how much toothpaste they'd get if they squeezed just the small, stiff nozzle of the tube. This usually gets them on the right path of blowing from somewhere below their shoulders...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2005-10-22 20:28
I don't really see how abdominal muscles can push downwards- like any other muscles they can either contract or release. But I understand what he's getting at, and I certainly don't use the toothpaste method, so I suppose it's what Tony Pay would describe as a useful metaphor for some.
Regarding the warm/cold air idea, I almost always try to play with "warm" air, as do several other famous clarinetists whose tones I particularly admire. But most of the BBoarders on the other side of the pond would disagree with this...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-22 20:29
There is no 'should' about this.
The difference between your two methods is just that one of them involves abdomen/diaphragm support to the end of the note, and the other relaxes the diaphragm towards the end of the note. Each method has its uses, and you can choose.
Arnold Jacobs was obviously a great player, and what he had to say about the larger context in which breathing and blowing may be embedded may well be of great use to a player.
However, this continued mystification, including what has been called the 'last word' on the subject by Mr Jacobs as published in 'The Clarinet', is unhelpful in my opinion. There is a very clear reason why it's difficult to explain the matter, and I've posted here about why it's difficult. And it's not my opinion -- it's just what's so.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=181794&t=181794
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tyler
Date: 2005-10-22 21:34
I read through that old thread, and understood it for a while, but it got a little confusing for me. So, in general, what are ideal 'support' levels for different dynamics situations, and how can these be achieved (I am a visual learner so imagery is useful to me).
Is abdominal pressure (blowing out 'hard') what we are calling 'support'?
help......!?
-tyler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-23 07:30
Actually, when I wrote that "The difference between your two methods is just that one of them involves abdomen/diaphragm support to the end of the note, and the other relaxes the diaphragm towards the end of the note," I was guilty of misreading the original post. I'm sorry I said anything about it.
My understanding of the matter doesn't include what happens if you pull your abdomen in as you blow. That would appear to be an unnecessary 'rearrangement' of your gut. (Better to keep the relationship between diaphragm and abdominals 'one-dimensional' and therefore simple.)
To answer your question, "So, in general, what are ideal 'support' levels for different dynamics situations, and how can these be achieved (I am a visual learner so imagery is useful to me)," I would say that the level of support for a given dynamic is measured by the degree of flexion of the abdominal muscles. For example, you can see that if you're playing quietly with your abdominals working hard, your diaphragm must be resisting -- hence you're playing with support.
As to the ideal amount of support -- well, sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn't. If you have to play a passage like the second variation in the Rossini Introduction, Theme and Variations, then playing with strong support allows you to 'pick out' the staccato notes without seeming to change anything, because your diaphragm relaxes slightly at each one of them. You can't do that precisely without support, because you can't suddenly blow more and then less, fast enough. Whereas one of two opposing muscles (in this case, your diaphragm) can relax slightly and then get back to its original state almost instantly.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2005-10-23 12:11
I just want to address the "across the pond" issue. There are different International schools of thought regarding the clarinet sound. This is a good thing. As long as the fundamental mechanism works (as discovered and used by great singers, brass players etc.) then I am all for the different approaches that yield different sounds.
There has been a little more of a tendency of late for the sounds across the globe to become more homogenized. I don't think this is a good thing. My previous assertions on airstream and execution represent one particular school of thought, may it remain one of many.
..............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2005-10-23 15:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2005-10-23 15:19
Thanks to Tony for your two posts. Your second post does address the matter directly, although I well remember the valuable previous discussion about "support" and the resisting of opposing muscles. What I think is interesting is the surprise that came to me that how I was taught about blowing is not what is being taught now.....and that at least in part, I have been doing it right anyway without noticing.
And to Paul who said "If you play musically, and you are heard at the back of the hall (and you get the job) who cares how you do it?" I agree that is true in a professional sense, but as a teacher, I want to know the most efficient and best way to teach my students so they just might get to that place where no one cares how they go about doing it.
Getting back to Ridenour's book, he also says that the aerosol/compression method of blowing where you keep the "tummy look" does not work for all instruments.....just those with lower resistance like clarinet. He says that instruments like the oboe work better with the toothpaste/diaphragmatic blowing where the "tummy look" goes away while a note is played. This surprises me since the eight years I spent playing oboe taught me a whole lot about breathing and how to blow correctly.
Tony's post also got me to thinking about flute, where there no resistance coming from the instrument. Perhaps flute players think more along the lines of Tony's opposing muscles to provide a feeling of resistance????
johng
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-23 17:38
johng wrote:
> Getting back to Ridenour's book, he also says that the
> aerosol/compression method of blowing where you keep the "tummy
> look" does not work for all instruments.....just those with
> lower resistance like clarinet. He says that instruments like
> the oboe work better with the toothpaste/diaphragmatic blowing
> where the "tummy look" goes away while a note is played. This
> surprises me since the eight years I spent playing oboe taught
> me a whole lot about breathing and how to blow correctly.
It surprises me too. A more resistant instrument like the oboe doesn't need as much support, but that support is still a useful tool for precise control.
Perhaps I should buy Ridenour's book. Or not.
One of the difficulties of discussing these things is that very few players of any of these instruments have ever thought analytically about the matter. They have their own tricks -- or perhaps are regurgitating the 'tricks' of their or other legendary teachers:-( -- but those tricks are simply metaphors. Whereas what is required is to understand the fundamental situation, and then use metaphors (like the 'magic diminuendo') to communicate that.
> Tony's post also got me to thinking about flute, where there no
> resistance coming from the instrument. Perhaps flute players
> think more along the lines of Tony's opposing muscles to
> provide a feeling of resistance????
I'm sure that flute players do this. In fact, the first response to an article I wrote in the Clarinet and Saxophone magazine about the matter was from a famous British flute teacher, who heartily agreed with me.
Another aspect of it, for flute players and singers alike, is that it explains the rather mystical aspect of diaphragm vibrato. If that occurs outside conscious experience (because you can't feel your diaphragm directly) it's not surprising that it's difficult to explain how to do it.
You can't!
Tony
Post Edited (2005-10-23 17:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-23 22:15
By the way, apropos the Brody/Marcellus/Ridenour/etaletaletal ad nauseam stuff that has been posted here -- why don't we tell them to go stuff themselves?
For example, who cares about Clark Brody and his arrogant [Snipped for inappropriate language - GBK ]
Clearly those sorts of people were/are more interested in promoting their own prestige than in establishing what is so.
....you might want to say the same about me, perhaps -- but how could I possibly hope to *gain* prestige by posting here?...
Quite the opposite. It's *really* enhancing my career, I can tell you:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markael
Date: 2005-10-23 22:32
Wait just a doggone minute.
There's no need to fall down and worship Ridenour or trash him.
The same for Tony Pay.
I bought Ridenour's book, The Educator's Guide to the Clarinet, because I teach clarinet and wanted a resource that would help me be a better teacher. There aren't many books out there that are anywhere near as comprehensive on the subject of how to teach clarinet.
It's a good book. I could easily nitpick and find fault with some of the explanations and even the editing. But it's helpful to pluggers like me and others who are trying to teach music to kids of varying degrees of talent who are trying to play the clarinet.
We could argue about the confusing finer points about breathing and how the diaphragm works, but most of us are trying to figure out how to get kids to breathe deeply, period. We're trying to teach the basics.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2005-10-24 11:25
Dear Mr. Pay,
ONE LAST TRY,
I had a slightly different form of my "apology" posted up a little further. In it, I admitted to years of being an adherent of Maestro Gervase DePeyer. It was meant to adress the point I make clearer in the post you see, but it came off as cheap therapy (for myself that is!!!).
I would hope that we are all part of the clarinet "community in action" sharing are views and perusing those of others. In that spirit we can take from it what is useful and laugh off the rest.
I shamelessly name drop when it helps my point. Those I've quoted are great players who were principals in major symphonies and are no longer with us to speak for themselves. Unfortunately I do not have the same personal experiences with players if similar ilk "across the pond" such as Karl Leister, Jack Brymer, Guy Deplus and others. That is for the rest of you to share with us on this board. Certainly those anecdotes should receive the respect they deserve when and if they ever come.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ray
Date: 2005-10-24 14:56
Mr. Pay said:
"By the way, apropos the Brody/Marcellus/Ridenour/etaletaletal ad nauseam stuff that has been posted here -- why don't we tell them to go stuff themselves?
For example, who cares about Clark Brody and his arrogant [Snipped for inappropriate language - GBK ]
Clearly those sorts of people were/are more interested in promoting their own prestige than in establishing what is so."
Mr. Ridenour is a friend. I believe I know him well enough to say that he is an exceedingly humble musician who is very motivated by his desire to help others to be better musicians and better clarinetists. The existence of the Opus, Concerto and Arosio clarinets and the ATG System is proof that he is deeply analytical. His teaching and publishing efforts clearly indicate that he is driven by a desire to help others understand what is so. Your last statement could not be more wrong about him.
While he does not currently post, he is known to be at least as generous with his knowledge and time as you are when it comes to promoting understanding and better musicianship.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johng ★2017
Date: 2005-10-24 15:16
Now, now, folks. Let's not get too excited about Mr. Pay's attitude about some of the players and teachers many people respect. He thinks for himself and wants others to do that, too. He has pointed out many times here and on the Klarinet list that being a slave to what some teacher said or performer did does not constitute thinking for one's self. (He has also pointed out that he doesn't need defending!)
That is one reason I was excited to read Ridenour's book because he points out many parts of the physical act of playing clarinet that seem to differ from how I was taught or thought about the clarinet. There are many things I would like to ask others on this bboard about and plan to do so from time to time.
johng
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2005-10-24 17:08
John Krell, the logtime piccolo player in the Philadelphia Orchestra, put together "Kincaidiana," a wonderful collection of William Kincaid's ideas and methods. http://www.nfaonline.org/storeDetails.asp?ProductID=74
Kincaid describes his use of the tummy method very clearly and says that you should never push up, but always down.
Keith Stein taught that you move your abdomen up and in and then drop it down as low as possible. You then inhale to the bottom of your belly and blow. This also sounds like the tummy method.
On the other hand, every singing teacher I know of teaches the aerosol method. Inhale, create a fist-sized muscle contraction just under your ribs and push it in and up, expanding your ribs and keeping a bubble of air at the top of your lungs.
Arnold Jacobs said that there was another problem to be avoided. When you start to blow, you should not execute the Valsalva Maneuver, which is the downward push we make when defecating.
The problem, I think, is that words are inadequate to describe what works and what doesn't. It takes one-on-one observation and experimentation.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2005-10-24 19:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-24 17:58
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Dear Mr. Pay,
>
> ONE LAST TRY,
I don't really know what you want from me, but here is an attempt.
Gervase was a hero of mine when I was young. I like to think that that was because he represented a view of the clarinet that was dramatic as well as expressive. For a time, I also tried to emulate his sound and vibrato. I well remember rushing to the record shop when I read a review of an LSO recording of Rachmaninov 2 that praised his performance of the clarinet solo, and my disappointment when I heard that it could not possibly have been him playing it, because it didn't have the 'line' that I knew he was committed to.
I quickly found that it had been played by another highly regarded (though not by me) clarinet player.
Later in my clarinet playing life, and as the principal clarinet player of the London Sinfonietta, I invited Gervase to play the clarinet part in the Schoenberg Suite, op 29, while I played the Eb clarinet part. I thought he played magnificently. You can hear the recording.
Latterly, I have found that my initial clarinet 'loves' have evaporated. I no longer judge clarinet playing by straightforward sound quality. And I am no longer 'in love' with Gervase's playing in the way I once was, though I still appreciate its qualities.
Rather, I can appreciate sounds that I would previously have dismissed, because what is in the foreground of what I now hear is whether or not the player has a variety of sound that allows them to show the important musical structures in the piece they are playing.
Another way of putting that is that I appreciate what 'works' about what they do.
At one point in my clarinet playing, I thought that Harold Wright's playing in the famous recording with Serkin of the Shepherd on the Rock was 'just a joke'. I'm now beyond that sort of judgement.
In the course of my work now, I often have to 'judge' clarinet players -- say, as applicants for financial support, or as applicants for positions.
So, I try to subtract out my personal likes and dislikes -- they persist, you see -- and replace them by the notion that an artist has to produce something that 'works' artistically.
Of course that defers to the context in which they have to play.
This post could go on forever.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-24 18:07
Ray wrote:
> Mr. Pay said:
>
> "By the way, apropos the Brody/Marcellus/Ridenour/etaletaletal
> ad nauseam stuff that has been posted here -- why don't we tell
> them to go stuff themselves?
>
> Mr. Ridenour is a friend. I believe I know him well enough to
> say that he is an exceedingly humble musician who is very
> motivated by his desire to help others to be better musicians
> and better clarinetists. The existence of the Opus, Concerto
> and Arosio clarinets and the ATG System is proof that he is
> deeply analytical. His teaching and publishing efforts clearly
> indicate that he is driven by a desire to help others
> understand what is so. Your last statement could not be more
> wrong about him.
I was wrong and foolish to lump Tom Ridenour into my dismissal of 'arrogant clarinet teachers'.
I apologise. And, I should almost certainly read his book.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-24 18:10
What you say, as always, is right, Ken. But I'd want to add that there are fundamental truths about the matter that need to be appreciated before we read anyone's wisdom, or metaphors, or whatever.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SueSmith
Date: 2005-10-25 21:35
Quote:
At one point in my clarinet playing, I thought that Harold Wright's playing in the famous recording with Serkin of the Shepherd on the Rock was 'just a joke'. I'm now beyond that sort of judgement.
Speechless!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-10-25 22:05
Hi Sue,
I'm sure you agree that the power (and the craziness) of falling in love is both one of our greatest strengths and one of our greatest weaknesses.
In this case, what I'd fallen in love with was something completely different from Wright's sound.
I don't say that I ever actually transferred my affections to him as a clarinet player, but I can see his positive qualities.
That recording is now for me rather a revelation about the piano part. Serkin's playing of it demonstrates that, far from being the boring accompaniment that most pianists make of it, is actually better thought of as the very life of the piece.
It can shape everything.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
