 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-14 19:49
In the post The Least Possible Effort , Tony Pay writes "I've usually dealt with someone who has positioned themselves uncomfortably at either extreme of resistance, by having them move their setup a bit closer to the middle ground.
I also tell them EITHER to think of the clarinet sound as a smooth tube, 'flowing' from low down in the belly, up through the windpipe and mouth, down the instrument and out to the audience (in case they have been used to a 'too closed' setup); OR to think of the clarinet sound as being made by the vibration of the air-column that is ALREADY inside the instrument (in case they have been used to a 'too open' setup)" My question to him and others would be this. Generally speaking if we have to play at a soft dynamic level a written throat G which of the above approaches would be more suitable?
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2008-09-14 22:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-09-14 20:38
I would think both of those methods are highly metaphorical and probably most effective with regard to accommodating a change in mouthpiece. For a particular note, perhaps try them both and see if either works for you.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-14 21:07
This post no longer applies.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-09-15 11:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2008-09-14 22:03
I think supporting air columns with your belly (or diaphragm) is appropriate in every instance. You can control how much air you want to release and how long you are able to sustain a column of air.
Also, this statement is not entirely clear.
"High start....vibrations start with clarinet and go out to the audience."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-14 22:15
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> My apologies. I don't see the inaccuracy. What is wrong here?>>
The context was:
>> The clarinet, I've come to think, has one of the most varied degrees of resistance to blowing of all instruments, largely because the student is usually left in charge of the choice of reed and mouthpiece. I've usually dealt with someone who has positioned themselves UNCOMFORTABLY [my added caps] at either extreme of resistance, by having them move their setup a bit closer to the middle ground.
>> I also tell them EITHER to think of the clarinet sound as a smooth tube, 'flowing' from low down in the belly, up through the windpipe and mouth, down the instrument and out to the audience (in case they have been used to a 'too closed' setup); OR to think of the clarinet sound as being made by the vibration of the air-column that is ALREADY inside the instrument (in case they have been used to a 'too open' setup).
>> Then, being in a situation where they're neither blowing their guts out nor going red in the face, they're in a position to appreciate...etc>>
That is very different from what you wrote. I don't change "students who have played on very close and very open mouthpieces." Nor do I have them "[go] to medium openings." EVEN LESS do I "suggest Low start ...belly....up through clarinet to audience concept for the close facing convert." or...
I was trying in what I wrote to explain why Arnold Jacobs, not being a clarinet player, might have had difficulty in helping clarinet students who were in trouble. It's perfectly possible to play on both very open and very close mouthpieces -- with appropriate reeds. But if you've chosen inappropriate reeds, which students often do, you have to move them to something more tractable. And the (two) metaphors may help that.
Tony
Post Edited (2008-09-14 22:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-14 22:59
I do apologize. I posted faster than I should have and you are certainly correct regarding reported discourse. I have little experience in this.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 11:35
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> My question to him and others would be this. Generally speaking if we have to play at a soft dynamic level a written throat G which of the above approaches would be more suitable?>>
My answer to your question is that the approaches you mention are more therapeutic metaphors than things to be thinking about if you are an expert player. Whilst playing one particular note, I myself am more concerned to be experiencing the free yet controlled vibration of the aircolumn and the instrument itself, together with a sense of its probable effect at a distance in the auditorium. This has components of both approaches built into it.
Different reeds also have different resistances, sometimes even seeming to change during a performance. And your 'best' fingering for throat G may also need modification according to how 'warmed-up' your instrument is. So the degree to which you need to 'support' the G so as to be comfortable may change.
Remember that I'm using the terminology 'support' in a way that describes HOW you deliver air to the instrument rather than HOW MUCH air you deliver to the instrument. Therefore, at any one dynamic, you can choose to play with 'no support', 'medium support' or 'strong support'.
In the case of the open G, this choice will depend on how resistant your current G is, as well as what its context is.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 12:54
I thought the subject was about the wind player's equivalent of the "bottom end of the food chain" metaphor. ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
My apologies for being off-topic.
--
Ben
Post Edited (2008-09-15 12:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-15 17:40
I rephrase the question. Generally speaking would you agree that playing a throat G softly requires more support than other notes on the clarinet which have more natural resistance? support=tightening the abs
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 18:27
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> Generally speaking would you agree that playing a throat G softly requires more support than other notes on the clarinet which have more natural resistance? >>
No, not necessarily. The lack of resistance of the note means that the difference between the upward push of the blowing system and the downward push of the diaphragm is small, if the note is to be quiet. That can occur with any degree of support.
Consider: with zero support, you have to blow very little to play a quiet G. With more support, you can blow stronger.
You may feel more comfortable using more support if the attack needs to be precisely timed -- indeed, you can begin by using what you might call negative support (you're actually breathing IN against abdominal push) and have that increase through zero into positive support as you get to the 'top' of the breath.
>> support=tightening the abs>>
A better formulation is: support occurs when you are blowing stronger than you are playing.
The context of the G is important, too, because if it isn't isolated, and notes either side of it have different resistances, your diaphragm can learn to even things out, as you practise the transitions. (My 3-note exercise is useful for this.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 19:06
I wrote:
>> The context of the G is important, too, because if it isn't isolated, and notes either side of it have different resistances, your diaphragm can learn to even things out, as you practise the transitions. (My 3-note exercise is useful for this.) >>
A good way of approaching this may be the following:
Take the opening of the Debussy Rhapsodie. Now, construct a three-note exercise on:
G4 Bb4 C5
...and cycle through at various dynamics, regarding the dynamic as an independent variable and the degree of support as a dependent variable. (All that means is, YOU decide the dynamic, and then LET the system change until you find the degree of support that has it work the best.)
When you've done the exercises, I suggest we want the one with G on the beat and the other two progressively less resonant.
Now, regard the opening of the Debussy as a slowed-down version of the exercise, and begin at 'exercise speed', slowing until you reach the speed of the Debussy. At that point, the notes should be coming out without your thinking about legato or differing resistance of the notes involved.
It may even seem, now, that the notes have the SAME resistance in any case.
Processes of this sort are extremely useful on period instruments, where of course we have to contend with rather extreme examples of differing resistance between notes. And the practising process, after a bit, has the INSTRUMENT ITSELF seeming to improve.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-15 22:03
Hi Tony, Just so we understand each other, I was speaking "generally" in the question I posed. Your response "not necessarily" seems to be other than general. Not that it adds any credence to my position, but I would think most clarinetists would agree that this statement is generally the case. I'm trying to produce some common ground between us. In an old post 2005-10-23 "How Do You Blow" you wrote "a more resistant instrument like the oboe doesn't need as much support". Surely the throat g is a relatively low resistance note on the clarinet and it would follow that more support would be required compared to other notes on the clarinet. Respectfully ps.. I am still looking at your last two responses.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2008-09-15 22:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 22:53
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> Just so we understand each other, I was speaking "generally" in the question I posed. Your response "not necessarily" seems to be other than general. Not that it adds any credence to my position, but I would think most clarinetists would agree that this statement is generally the case.>>
I suppose I found that didn't want to answer your question, which was:
>> Generally speaking would you agree that playing a throat G softly requires more support than other notes on the clarinet which have more natural resistance?>>
...in such a way that the word 'requires' is given too much power.
The trouble with support is that it can be overdone. The people who want to avoid the whole notion DO have a point, which is that tension has a way of building up, so that muscular opposition used in one place infects other places. As always, a middle ground is required.
So, I want to argue against your 'most clarinetists' and say that there are many musical situations involving a quiet throat G where the support REQUIRED is minimal. I think that that position is more inclusive.
I think what I try to do is to keep the question of 'how much support shall I use?' open to practical experiment, so that I don't get stuck in tying up too much energy in unnecessary oppositions.
>> In an old post 2005-10-23 "How Do You Blow" you wrote "a more resistant instrument like the oboe doesn't need as much support".>>
Perhaps I was presumptuous to write that, because I'm no oboist. But my very small experience with the instrument makes it intuitive for me that if your blowing systems are already quite stretched in producing a sound over the entire range of the instrument, then you don't need oppositions in order to have good dynamic control.
Would it satisfy you if I said, "If it were true that the whole clarinet consisted of relatively unresistant notes like open G, then IN GENERAL I would probably find myself using more support than I do now in order to play it effectively. But because it doesn't, I like to reserve my judgement on how much support I use -- EVEN FOR OPEN Gs."
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-15 23:07
I was experimenting with support vs blowing. Holding a mf low c with firm support.....then decresc with the blow....then pull in the stomach with a toothpaste squeeze approach to bring dynamic back to mf....the blow is now p...but the resultant effect is mf ..then increase the blow gradually and nullify it with support. Does this coincide at all with your approach Tony? Please say yes!
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 23:19
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> Does this coincide at all with your approach Tony? Please say yes!>>
No, it doesn't. The crucial difference is that in my model of the situation the abdominal muscles don't change position -- you remain 'as fat as possible', always.
The reason for this is that 'pulling in' distorts the geometry of the dome-shaped diaphragm muscle. Therefore, you have less likelihood of its being able to resist in a 'simple' way.
The blowing system doesn't require gross abdominal movement. Of course you do get 'a little' less fat towards the end of a long phrase or note, but not half as much as you do if an attractive woman enters the room.
Paul Harvey tells a nice story of leaving his suspenders behind as a boy when going to a school concert he had to play in. His trousers were too big to stay up by themselves, so he HAD to be 'as fat as possible'. The discovery that he played much better as a result informed his playing for ever after.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-15 23:33
OK, Earlier here you stated "support is blowing stronger than you are playing". This was the starting point for the exercise I concocted. Obviously you think we can blow stronger or weaker than we are playing. I take it the playing is the resultant dynamic level effect here. If we blow soft how do you get a resultant sound that is loud?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-15 23:40
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> OK, Earlier here you stated "support is blowing stronger than you are playing". This was the starting point for the exercise I concocted.>>
OK.
>> Obviously you think we can blow stronger or weaker than we are playing.>>
No, we can only blow stronger than we are playing, not weaker. We can blow stronger than we are playing because the diaphragm can resist the blowing, so that the resultant at the mouthpiece is less. It is surprising that the diaphragm can do this, but it can, as the 'magic diminuendo' shows.
>> I take it the playing is the resultant dynamic level effect here. If we blow soft how do you get a resultant sound that is loud?>>
You can't. You cannot blow weaker than you play.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-15 23:48
Thanks for all this. I'll mull this over again and again.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-09-16 03:33
I'm going to put my two cents into this to hopefully make it easier for some that still don't understand. When I play a B on the break, I use more support to "push" the air. When I'm playing an open G I don't have to use nearly as much "push" so I'm using my support to hold back but it becomes and unconscious effort. My support appears to me to remain the same. I'm not conscience of any change; I just automatically adjust the air pressure. I had to think about it in order to write this. It becomes equal resistance so all the notes come out with the same intensity at forty or piano. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
Listen to a little Mozart
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-16 04:43
Thanks Ed, I'll practice some alternating G's and B's and see what i can do.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-16 06:05
Ed Palanker wrote:
Quote:
I'm going to put my two cents into this to hopefully make it easier for some that still don't understand.
Because Ed in his post uses the word 'support' in a different way from the way I use it (and have been using it in this thread up to now), I'm going to go through his post and point out exactly where he and I differ in its use. It's the sort of problem that bedevils this whole subject. (I hope he'll forgive me.)
He writes:
Quote:
When I play a B on the break, I use more support to "push" the air.
There are two differences from me here.
The first is that he says, "more support", without saying what it is 'more than'.
The second is that he is using the word 'support' to mean a force that can 'push' the air. In all of this thread, as I said to begin with, I have been using the word 'support' in a different way. The explanation will come out as we go on.
The way I would translate his sentence for the moment is:
"When I play a B on the break, it's quite resistant. Let's say I require a certain air pressure -- call it P -- in the mouthpiece to have the note sound at a particular dynamic."
He then writes:
Quote:
When I'm playing an open G I don't have to use nearly as much "push" so I'm using my support to hold back but it becomes [an] unconscious effort.
Translation (much longer):
"An open G is less resistant, so requires a pressure less than P in the mouthpiece to sound at the same dynamic as the B.
"Now, I can produce this smaller pressure by blowing less. But I can also produce it by blowing THE SAME, and reduce it by playing with support.
"What does playing 'with support' mean? It means that my diaphragm pushes downwards at the same time as I am blowing upwards, so the net upward push is less, resulting in the smaller pressure.
"This downward push of the diaphragm cannot be felt by me, because my diaphragm, like my heart, DOESN'T HAVE SENSORY NERVES RUNNING FROM IT TO MY BRAIN. Therefore its action is 'unconscious'."
Then, crucially, Ed writes:
Quote:
My support appears to me to remain the same.
Here the difference is laid bare. My translation is:
"My BLOWING appears to remain the same."
The problem is Ed's use of the word 'support' to mean 'A BLOWING FORCE'.
But in my terminology, support is first of all a NAME for a TECHNIQUE. This technique is that of using two OPPOSING forces in order to blow, rather than just one, direct blowing force.
The second, quantitative meaning, and the one that allows you to talk of using 'more' or 'less' support, is that the support is equal in magnitude to the strength of the RESISTING force, not the strength of the BLOWING force.
So, suppose I'm playing a note with support -- that is, using the two opposing forces of abdominal/back muscles (BLOW) and diaphragm (RESISTANCE). I say the amount of support I'm using is equal to the diaphragm resistance.
Now, I say I'm going to use 'more' support, and play at the same dynamic. What do I do?
I make BOTH the blowing force and the resisting force larger; but because the DIFFERENCE between them remains the same, the net effect is unaltered.
This means that it makes sense to say, "I can play this note, at this dynamic, with no support, medium support or strong support."
Going on, Ed writes:
Quote:
I'm not conscience of any change; I just automatically adjust the air pressure.
I don't need to translate that, just to explain it a bit more.
Because I've practised this going from B to G many times, my diaphragm has learnt to resist more when I play the G. But because the diaphragm acts outside my awareness, I don't feel this change of resistance; it happens automatically.
Quote:
I had to think about it in order to write this.
Yes. The difficulty is not so much in the DOING of this, because expert players like Ed have always been using this technique. (Most of them probably don't remember when they learnt it.) The difficulty is rather in the EXPLAINING of it.
Why is it difficult to explain?
Two reasons:
(1) the word 'support' has a double sense even in normal English.
If I say, "Will you support me?" I am trying to get you to do something IN THE SAME DIRECTION as I'm doing it.
On the other hand, if I say "The table supports the weight of the roast turkey," then the table is doing something IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION to the weight of the roast turkey. And that's the sense in which diaphragmatic support operates.
(2) Most people don't know that the diaphragm has no afferent sensory nerves. It's something you need to be TOLD.
You can experience it (or, rather, NON-experience it:-) easily, though, via the 'magic diminuendo'. (I've explained that so many times that you can just do a search on the words. It's in the Keepers threads under the thread title, 'Support'. Or read:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2008/01/000124.txt)
These two facts have confused the literature enormously.
Quote:
It becomes equal resistance so all the notes come out with the same intensity at forty or piano.
I'd just add a couple of words:
"Now when you play, it seems as though the G and the B have equal resistance -- because you're blowing the same throughout -- and they come out with the same intensity whatever dynamic you choose."
Tony
Post Edited (2008-09-16 11:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-17 01:47
I want to clarify a point for me here. When you stated "You can blow stronger than you are playing" I took this to mean you were separating "the blow" from the resisting forces.....diaphragm via abdominals/back muscles. Is this the case? I understood the "blow" to be a non musician's approach to blowing....rib cage collapsing....very simply blowing.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-17 02:34
Yet another question. When Paul Harvey used less than full support was his waste/stomach any smaller? ps. No dig at Mr Harvey! I have played his Saxophone Quartet music... Bannocks O Bearmeal. Good stuff. When you relax the support are you "expanded less" than you were previously at a more supported state.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-17 11:24
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> When you stated "You can blow stronger than you are playing" I took this to mean you were separating "the blow" from the resisting forces.....diaphragm via abdominals/back muscles. Is this the case?>>
I don't understand that 'via' in there, so I'm going to assume you mean, 'versus'.
>> I understood the "blow" to be a non musician's approach to blowing....rib cage collapsing....very simply blowing.>>
No, by 'blow', I did mean, blowing in what we have come to call 'properly': that is, 'from low down', using the abdominal/back muscles (a/bm). I got that out of the way right at the start in:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=714&t=714&v=t
...the very first post in the 'Keepers: Support' thread.
So, perhaps my 'shorthand' way of putting what is going on when we play with support -- namely "You can blow stronger than you are playing" -- is what is confusing you.
What I mean by that is as follows. When you just 'blow' ('properly', notice), you play at a certain dynamic -- mf, say. Then, if you gradually add support, as in the 'magic diminuendo', you find yourself playing softer, though still blowing the same amount.
Hence, you are now 'blowing stronger than you are playing".
The elusive, though actually very simple aspect of this is that the answer to the question "How do I gradually add support?" is, YOU SEEM TO DO NOTHING.
The good news is, once you believe that and try it out, you will find that it's very easy to agree with me.
You further write:
>> When Paul Harvey used less than full support was his waste/stomach any smaller?...When you relax the support are you "expanded less" than you were previously at a more supported state[?]>>
There's no such thing as 'full support' -- and actually, it would be very counterproductive and perhaps even dangerous to try to achieve it. Because you can go on increasing support -- that is, increasing the amount you're blowing, and at the same time increasing the amount your diaphragm resists -- until you get to the point that your muscles can't exert any more effort.
Does your waist change dimensions as you change the amount of support you're using? Well, perhaps a little bit -- after all, if you flex your biceps and triceps together your arm 'fattens up' -- but that's because in that case the only direction the muscles can move is outwards. When you flex your a/bm that expansion can be inwards, too, squishing your guts.
It seems to me that what lies behind these questions is that you're looking for something ELSE to tell you whether you're using support or not. You do much better to think that it's just your DYNAMIC that changes -- everything other than that seems to stay the same.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-17 15:36
Perhaps I have misunderstood the very basics of this subject. When I used the word "via" I was alluding to the fact that we can't control the diaphragm directly. I thought we could do it indirectly by expanding the abs and back muscles. The abs provide the resisting force.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-17 16:24
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> Perhaps I have misunderstood the very basics of this subject. When I used the word "via" I was alluding to the fact that we can't control the diaphragm directly. I thought we could do it indirectly by expanding the abs and back muscles. The abs provide the resisting force.>>
Ah, *that* far back:-)
We can and do control the diaphragm directly when we consciously take a breath.
Read again, very carefully, the discussion with Jonathan Cohler:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2008/01/000124.txt
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-17 16:47
I did miswrite here....I meant to write "The diaphragm provides the resisting force. " I realize even still this is not in line with your ideas. I will read your discussion carefully...it is heavy going for me. I would offer immediately however that when you state "we can and do control the diaphragm directly when we consciously take a breath ".(I assume you mean low breathing here) it is indirect to my way of thinking. Perhaps I should have expressed it...control it independently. When I move my finger I don't have to always move my arm to do this. I will do more careful reading. Thanks again.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-17 18:36
Arnoldstang wrote, a bit edited by me:
>> Perhaps I should have expressed it...we can't control the diaphragm INDEPENDENTLY. I thought we had to do it by expanding the abs and back muscles. When I move my finger I don't have to always move my arm to do this.>>
Does that capture what you meant to say?
If it does, then perhaps you're stuck in the idea that, for a muscle like the diaphragm to be contributing to the situation, it has to be moving 'successfully'.
Not so. If you and I push against each other, each one of us trying to move the other backwards, and you're stronger than me, then I'm forced to retreat. But at any stage of that retreat, we're not moving as fast as we would be if I didn't resist at all.
Now imagine an outside observer, who can't see what we're doing, but who has a machine that gives him a readout of two pieces of information.
The first piece of information is how fast the pair of us are moving (me backwards and you forwards).
The second piece of information is how much you're pushing against me -- perhaps the machine is connected to sensors on the soles of your shoes, and those sensors show how strongly you're pushing against the floor, and therefore (in the opposite direction) against me.
However, there is no third piece of information; the machine tells the observer NOTHING about whether or not I'm pushing back against you.
But, if the observer knows how fast THAT PUSH of yours would make me retreat if I didn't resist at all, AND can see from the machine that you are in fact pushing me back slower than that, HE KNOWS THAT I MUST BE RESISTING, and perhaps has an idea of how much.
So now, you're the a/bm of some player, I'm the player's diaphragm, the first machine readout is what the player hears, the second machine readout is the player's awareness of how hard his a/bm is pushing, and the observer is....the player themselves:-)
Does that help?
Tony
Post Edited (2008-09-17 20:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-09-17 19:44
Back from oboe practice with interesting results. I have a Laubin oboe and the F top line is rather unstable unless the reed is very good. I tried lowering the key height to help as the F will go sharp in its' instability. That helped a bit but then the adjacent F# was sticking out tonally. I applied the Paul Harvey stomach and blew harder.......result was that the note blended better with the F. This is a short term fix but it did bring home to me how support can even out the timbre of a register. I will no doubt raise the key height and find a better reed.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
