Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-09-19 11:23
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> I am trying to understand how we blow into the clarinet. Many articles are complicated and long on the subject.>>
Yes. Most of those long and complicated articles confuse rather than illuminate -- including, I have to say, the one by Arnold Jacobs.
I tried myself to sort the matter out in a thread on this BBoard; several other people joined in:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=714&t=714
...and I think that that thread, though more piecemeal, gives a better idea of the situation than the one that Ken Shaw posted above as representing me.
You wanted us to make comments on your original post, so I do so below. You may find that these comments make more sense in the context of the thread above.
>>Here is my take on this. We inhale while flexing muscles and expanding in the stomach area. This flexing out and down allows the diaphragm to do its' work during inhalation. ie .unfettering the lungs if you will.>>
In fact, the work of the diaphragm can occur without any extra muscle flexion in the stomach area. Those muscles can be as they are normally, when we are standing up, and are just pushed down and out by the movement of the diaphragm.
I need to provide a bit of background.
The most important thing to realise about any muscle is that it works only when it contracts. It bunches up -- 'flexes' -- and pulls on its points of attachment to other body parts. It can never do the opposite, by 'pushing' on them. But because we very often also want to be able to act in the opposite direction on those body parts, we usually have also attached to them another, 'opposing' muscle to do so -- which works also by pulling. So there is a division of labour between the two pulling muscles, and a resultant control of body movement.
The clearest example is probably our control of our lower arm, from the elbow down, by the two muscles 'biceps' and 'triceps', the biceps serving to bend the arm, and the triceps to straighten it.
Notice at this point that it's perfectly possible to use both these muscles simultaneously -- as body-builders do to 'show off' their muscular development. When a body-builder 'strikes a pose', their arm doesn't move -- but that's because the effect of the opposing biceps and triceps muscles cancels out. The only effect is to put a stress on the bones of the arm -- and make the muscles stand out, of course.
The abdominal group of muscles, when they contract, primarily serves to bend the torso at the waist -- as when we perform situps; and (as in the case of the biceps/triceps system) there is another group of muscles at the back that serves to straighten the body -- say, after we have bent over to pick something up.
And just like the biceps/triceps, a body-builder can show off both abs and back muscles in opposition, without moving.
BUT -- and here is the difference from the situation with the arm -- this oppositional flexing of abdomen and back muscles DOES have an effect on other parts of the body. The 'standing out' of the muscles has a squeezing effect on our guts, and it's this action that enables us to BLOW, by pushing the diaphragm upwards. So, blowing is an additional function of the abdominal muscles/back muscles system. (As other people have noted, assisting defaecation is another function of the system -- as, I imagine, is childbirth.)
In normal breathing, the diaphragm doesn't need an opposing muscle for its return -- the simple elasticity of the gut is enough. But when we pant, to recover after violent exercise, we use abdomen/back flexion to speed the return of the diaphragm.
>>..The stomach flexing has nothing to do with air flow. You can flex your stomach and exhale, inhale or remain neutral with no air flow.>>
Your second sentence is exactly true, as above. The diaphragm, acting downwards, can be overwhelmed by the stomach flexing (exhalation), can overcome the stomach flexing (inhalation) or be equal to the stomach flexing (remain neutral). But the first sentence is wrong, for exactly the same reason! It has everything to do with air flow, BUT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DIAPHRAGM.
>> The flexing somehow sets up an appropriately firm conduit for air flow. There is tension from the stomach up to the oral cavity. It is flexed and not relaxed.>>
I think this is wrong. There are no muscles governing the firmness of the trachaea, and even if they were they would be independent of the stomach. Nor is it necessary to change any internal properties of the mouth for acoustic reasons.
>> After this conduit is in place we can then move air by blowing. Blowing is a separate function. I'm not sure how we achieve this....perhaps it is the intercostal muscles.>>
Almost everyone is agreed that using intercostal muscles in order to blow is in general not a good idea -- I talk about that in the BBoard post referenced. Essentially (1) you don't need to (2) it complicates what is a very simple and beautiful system driven by abdomen/diaphragm.
I should say that I don't mention on the BBoard the function of back muscles (as opposition to the abdominal muscles, preventing the abdominal flexion from bending us at the waist) because I was concerned to keep the word 'opposition' for the relationship between the abdominal muscles and the diaphragm. Perhaps I should have -- ultimately it makes the matter clearer, because it's TRUE, even though the idea is slightly more complex.
To spell it out: in 'support', the actual opposition isn't between the diaphragm and the abdominal muscles; but rather between the diaphragm and the force generated by the opposition between the abdominal and back muscles.
>> In any case we don't have to teach people how to blow. We figure out how to blow as children.>>
We may not catch on to the power of deep, abdominal blowing, though. Compare -- we figure out how to talk, as children. Yet we can be helped to speak publicly to a large audience by being taught how to use our diaphragm more effectively. The two situations have many similarities.
>>Perhaps the oral cavity is an extension of this conduit. If the cheeks are puffed and oral muscles have no flex the conduit's work is ruined.>>
Dizzy Gillespie did quite well....
The common reason for not recommending blowing out the cheeks is that it can cause counterproductive distortion of the embouchure. (But as Gillespie showed, not for everyone;-)
Tony
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
