 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2010-03-16 18:28
In my Teaching Methods class at Tel Aviv Uni. the students have to bring a student to the class, teach for an hour and then we have a discussion about
the lesson we have watched.
Today , one of the students, a flutist, brought his student- an amateur flutist who studies medicine at TAU.
During the lesson he talked with her about support and I thought that it will be interesting to hear what she thinks about it as a medicine student. I asked her to explain how the diaphragm works and she said that during her anatomy lessons she couldn't understand how the diaphragm works, until she saw it in dissection- and she tought that its a good idea that every wind player will come to dissection at the medicine school and see how the diaphragm looks and works.
Years ago I was in a dissection- just to see what is it, and it took me some time to get rid of the sights. I wonder if I should take the class to see it...
Sarah
Post Edited (2010-03-16 18:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2010-03-16 19:41
Dissection merely gives a static view. After all, the muscle is dead at the time.
A better idea might be to observe how the diaphragm FUNCTIONS in a live situation using an image intensifier with cine-radiology.
This could be recorded on a disc (DVD type) for you, and you could play it on TV without having to take the students into a medical setting. You could even add in a bonus....glottic and throat motions.
Likewise, a thoracoscopic video would be helpful.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davetrow
Date: 2010-03-16 19:51
Just out of curiosity, what kind of radiation exposure are we talking about, compared to, say, a standard chest x-ray?
Dave Trowbridge
Boulder Creek, CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-03-16 19:52
Alseg wrote:
> Dissection merely gives a static view. After all, the muscle is
> dead at the time.
I had a doppler echocardiogram taken of my heart to look for suspected mitral valve regurgitation a few years back.
I've dissected a heart before ... just didn't realize how violent a place it is when it's beating, with valves flying open, cords attached to the valve leafs to limit the travel, the valves snapping back HARD, and all the other squeezing and squirming going on ...
And that was when I was relatively relaxed ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-03-16 20:06
Hmmm........
The diaphragm is a bell shaped muscle that upon contracting compresses the abdominal cavity and expands the thoracic cavity. It's ONLY function is to expand the lungs. We really need to be more cognizant of the importance of the ABDOMINAL MUSCLES in the arena of breath support.
It's all well and good to take in a full lung's worth of air, but what we do with it once it's there is what becomes most important........ isn't it???
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-03-16 20:15
Unless you breathe by bending over forward, I wouldn't concentrate on the abdominals as the primary mechanism of exhaling. I can both inhale and exhale with both tense and relaxed abdominals, so they aren't the culprit.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2010-03-16 21:10
Mark Charette got my point.
Actually, the radiation is minimal.....perhaps you could cajol the medical student to get a video of deep inhalation with proper use of the diaphagm, then sustain exhalation against a slight resistance. This could be done with someone who is getting an exam (eg an Upper GI test), so there is no radiation that would not have been otherwise incurred.
If I were not retired, I would get it for you while I was inserting a pacemaker using C-arm fluoroscopy like I "useta could"*
* a favorite Engvall or Larry the Cable-guy ism, up there with "widja didja"
as in "Bring yer clarinet widja, didja?"
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-03-16 22:05
It seems to me you can teach a student how to breath properly without all the blood and gore. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2010-03-16 22:42
I've always thought the diaphragm only seperates the thoracic cavity from the abdominal cavity, and any pressure exerted during exhalation is done more with the abdominal muscles than the diaphragm itself as the diaphram isn't an active muscle in the way the abdominal muscles are in that they can be consciously controlled. I know we don't have to think about breathing but it's something we all do.
Could anyone (preferrably with anatomical/physiological knowledge) shed any light into this as I'd be interested to know more.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2010-03-16 23:58
Chris P asked "Could anyone (preferrably with anatomical/physiological knowledge) shed any light into this as I'd be interested to know more."
Yes, but it would take awhile and get technical, BUT...start here with a ditty on elastic recoil of the thoracic cavity, note that the intercostals are also at play (as are some neck muscles, but we wont get into that)...then follow the video links on the right side of the page for more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWJHSTAWTCk&feature=related
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2010-03-17 07:07
Ed Palanker wrote:
"It seems to me you can teach a student how to breath properly without all the blood and gore"
Breathing properly and supporting properly are two different things. And even when its understood- it takes long time to implement it and to internalize
the full potential of support. The only way to understand support is to do it right---and , I think, that the work on support is done by listening. The difference in sound quality is the only way to know if there are changes in support.
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-03-17 19:11
>>It seems to me you can teach a student how to breath properly without all the blood and gore.>>
You know, there's a promising horror screenplay buried (alive!) between the lines of this discussion....
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2010-03-17 19:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-18 01:23
"Use a diaphragm accent". I was told this during rehearsal today.
I find it very unfortunate how LITTLE people know about the wind part of woodwind playing. (This was a piano player, but I have heard wind players say the same thing, as if you can use an involuntary muscle for something).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davetrow
Date: 2010-03-18 03:03
NBeaty, perhaps I misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that the diaphragm is an involuntary muscle. It's assuredly not. To demonstrate this, simply hold your breath without closing your throat: you're using your diaphragm in balance against abdominal, thoracic, and other muscles. As I understand it, this is the whole of breath control, all else is commentary. <g>
However, I agree that a "diaphragm accent" is a misnomer, since the impulse behind the accent comes from the other muscles mentioned above. As far as I know, there is no instrument that is played by sucking in air, which would involve the diaphram and permit diaphram accents.
(Although I once built an atrocity called a suckorgan, assembled from two bagpipe drone reeds, a cardboard box, and a vacuum cleaner, as my "performance" for admission to my college's chapter of Phi Mu Alpha. A friend and I played a Bach two-part invention on it by squeezing the reeds with thumb and forefinger. The faculty advisor was so offended that he wanted to deny me membership, but the rest of the fraternity dissuaded him, once they stopped laughing. The imagined history of the suckpipe was the best part: its inventor was the only man in history to be beaten to death by a 64-foot bagpipe reed.)
Dave Trowbridge
Boulder Creek, CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-03-18 03:07
davetrow wrote:
> As far as I know, there is no instrument that
> is played by sucking in air
Harmonica
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davetrow
Date: 2010-03-18 03:54
Harmonica...right! Shows what I know!
Dave Trowbridge
Boulder Creek, CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-18 03:57
Because the diaphragm does something, as you noted above keeping the balance between inspiring and expiring muscles when holding a breath, does not mean that you have control over it in the way that you control other muscles involved in breathing. The abdomen pressure and position, as well as the position and action of the muscles around the rib cage have the active role in breath. The diaphragm wants to be in its relaxed state, in a similar way to the rib cage wanting to reach a state of equilibrium (where it neither wants to expand nor contract). However, the diaphragm does this on its own. Involuntary doesn't mean that the muscle does nothing, it simply means you have little or no direct influence on it.
Even if you still think that you have SOME type of control over it. 99% of your control of your breath comes from posture, especially concerning the opennes of the chest\ribcage and position of the lower abdomen and the way that you use these muscles to provide sustained support through the clarinet.
You might as well focus on the muscle groups that you have direct control over, the diaphragm will do its purpose (as it has no choice in the matter!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-03-18 04:59
>> As far as I know, there is no instrument that is played by sucking in air <<
Depends on what "played" means. I sometimes play clarinet by sucking in air. Obviously it's not traditional.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-03-18 05:40
There's a piece by Witold Szalonek that calls for sucking in on the back of the mouthpiece to make a squeaky sound. You can control the pitch fairly well by putting your finger on different spots on the tip of the reed.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-03-18 07:18
NBeaty: So which muscles do you think you use when you inhale? And can you not inhale deliberately?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-03-18 08:05
>> So which muscles do you think you use when you inhale? <<
The air muscles? 
>> And can you not inhale deliberately? <<
TRY to inhale NOT deliberately!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-18 14:57
We inhale "not deliberately" all the time. Playing a wind instrument, as well as discussing breathing, makes us think about it more often, but we do it anyway.
Taking a large amount of breath into the lungs requires more than just the diaphragm to flatten out. The rib cage expands, the stomach goes out, you can feel expansion around the waist and just above it.
For example, flexing your ab muscles and chest all the way out, hold it there and exhale as much as possible. When you do this, you naturally want inhale quite a bit of air. Is the diaphragm working? Yes. Is it what you're controlling actively? No.
Teachers never say "Feel my daiphragm at work!". They discuss expansion and removing tension to create a free and fast air column.
Go to your local gym. They have machines and products to work every muscle possible. If you could control your diaphragm, like any other muscle, you'd be able to improve its performance. This would be beneficial to most any person in any sport to be able to breath better. Of course, there's no diaphragm strengthening machine. You can however, work on abs, chest, and back muscles, as well as cardiovascular improvements.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-03-18 15:38
NBeaty, I think you're actually confused about this. To quote from one of Tony's posts above:
"The diaphragm is half-way between the sorts of muscle of which the triceps is
typical, and the heart. Like the heart, it can contract involuntarily, in
response to the body's need for air -- you don't have to *remember* to
breathe! -- but also, unlike the heart, it can contract if I decide at a
particular moment to take a breath."
Post Edited (2010-03-18 15:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2010-03-18 15:48
Here's something from an article published in the new Voice and Speech Review:
"Standard Speech and other contemporary issues in professional voice and speech training", edited by Rocco Dal Vera. This is from Some Breathing Physiology Basics and Voice Training by Natalie Stewart on pp. 239-252. On page 246, Ms. Stewart handles some misconceptions about breath:
http://www.yorku.ca/earmstro/res/qanda.html
[Link inserted - GBK ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-18 16:24
When discussing breathing, it is not useful to discuss the diaphragm for the most part.
As stated above, most everything involved in breathing for wind instruments involves everything but the diaphragm. Getting students (and ourselves) to feel the position of the chest, stomach, back, throat, and all these areas and the various effects they have on our tone and other areas of playing is far more important.
I can buy that the diaphragm is both voluntary and involuntary. What I don't buy is that it is worth focussing our attention on during breathing and instructing students how to breathe properly.
I have taken a seminar on this very topic and discussed it with many accomplished musicians from vocalists to woodwind players. No improvements were made by any of us in our own playing by using the diaphragm in any different or improved way. A new appreciation for use of EVERY OTHER muscle used in breathing made noticeable improvements.
Notably, understanding the elasticity of the chest cavity at various stages of lung volume (quantity of air). Muscles used to create necessary pressure and air flow for various instruments.
The diaphragm in discussing proper breathing is not relevant relative to the rest of the body.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-03-18 19:31
Nathan wrote:
>> When discussing breathing, it is not useful to discuss the diaphragm for the most part.>>
Actually, when DISCUSSING breathing, it's absolutely ESSENTIAL to discuss the diaphragm, in order to explain why there is confusion in what almost everybody says about both the diaphragm and about the concept of support (including even highly talented players who are obviously 'doing it right').
Otherwise everyone is left with a sense that they haven't understood, without really knowing why.
>> No improvements [in the seminar] were made by any of us in our own playing by using the diaphragm in any different or improved way.>>
One part of the trouble is in your word 'using', above: the sort of 'use' of the diaphragm involved in support, and in the variation of support, is initially strange and counterintuitive; so you may not have considered it.
And of course, other things are important too, and talking about them may easily yield immediate positive results -- though, in my view, talk of intercostal muscles is a red herring. (I myself hardly move my ribcage in playing.)
But it turns out that the 'voluntary' action of the diaphragm, and its use in dynamic modulation -- an important constituent of nuance -- can be driven directly by our perception of our playing, without our 'feeling' that we are doing ANYTHING. The 'magical' quality of this 'cutting out the middleman' I found totally delightful when I first realised it. And it simplified both my own playing and my own teaching.
I urge you to understand it. The BBoard and Klarinet references I gave view the matter from a number of different angles.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-19 01:16
Tony,
When I say it's not useful for the most part to discuss the diaphragm, I mean to say it has its place in the understanding of what is going on with breathing, but is not where I spend my time pedagogically and in my own playing.
You say you don't move your rib cage. I agree, I try not to move mine either. Knowing that the rib cage is wanting to collapse (having non-desirable effects, including closing the throat and tonal problems).
McGill has a system set up, which supposedly cost around 1,000,000, that is a motion capture system. It has been used to see chest expansion and other motions involved in breathing. Another project monitored finger height of professional players (the difference between slow, moderate, and fast playing). It found that most professionals actually have their fingers slightly higher off the keys during fast playing. This being a very small amount, of course.
Other projects are in the works.
My main point I wanted to get across was that the diaphragm is one of many different muscles to be discussed in breathing and support, and to a great extent is less important (not to say shouldn't be discussed) than others that have a greater impact on sound and other aspects of playing.
Most players, to one extent or another, collapse their throat and chest (more and more as breath goes out). Not just students have this affliction, of course.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-03-19 05:43
I disagree with the obsession with not moving the ribcage. Not moving it up and down, I'll buy. However, I started allowing my ribcage to expand outward in all directions earlier this year, and instantly my mezzo-pianos came out as double-forte effortlessly, and I had about twice as much air to play with on any given breath.
What is the rationale behind not moving the ribcage? I've been told by lots of people to breathe that way, and can't recall a good reason why.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-19 14:07
Not moving the ribcage (much) doesn't mean to keep it collapsed. Keeping the ribcage from collapsing in any significant way as the breath goes out is more the point. Anything collapsing in the breathing process is not a great thing. Any reason you can think of for having good posture is a reason not to collapse your ribcage.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-03-20 22:15
Nathan,
I'm going to answer your posts, one by one, in detail.
You're on record as saying that you are grateful for the opportunity to learn from others.
I sort of doubt it. I see you as a relative neophyte, concerned to parade AS FACT your erroneous opinions, possibly in the hope of enhancing your standing here.
In a way, that's excusable given the culture you come from. The scientific ideal, that you try to say what's true and have it criticised, is very far from uninformed and dogmatic instruction that I imagine you've encountered.
But I might be wrong -- in which case, it ISN'T excusable:-)
Ken Shaw said of me that I "don't take disagreement well".
No, I don't. Neither, on points of fact, do any scientists -- until they're proved wrong, that is.
Galileo was a good example. He didn't take disagreement well.
So, here goes:
>> "Use a diaphragm accent". I was told this during rehearsal today. I find it very unfortunate how LITTLE people know about the wind part of woodwind playing. (This was a piano player, but I have heard wind players say the same thing, as if you can use an involuntary muscle for something).>>
You're right in one sense, that you can't 'do an accent' with the diaphragm; but that's not because it's involuntary. It's because its action is in the wrong direction.
However, the diaphragm, as well as being a muscle, is a membrane separating the abdomen from the thorax. That means it can be pushed up by the simultaneous flexing of abdominal (A) and back (B) muscles (hereinafter 'A/B') resulting in an accent 'from the diaphragm'.
What your pianist friend most probably meant, however, was the sort of accent, not involving the tongue or any other interruption of the airstream, that results from having A/B and the diaphragm in strong dynamic opposition during playing. Then, relaxing the diaphragm, suddenly, results in a sudden increase in dynamic -- namely, an accent.
Such accents are well-documented in early clarinet and other instrumental tutors. (Indeed, there was once a thing called, 'diaphragm staccato'.)
>> Because the diaphragm does something, as you noted above keeping the balance between inspiring and expiring muscles when holding a breath, does not mean that you have control over it in the way that you control other muscles involved in breathing.>>
Here we have to unpack the notion of 'control'.
That you have 'control' of something usually means two things:
(1) that you can influence it 'consciously' -- that is, when you want to, and to a varying extent. (You can't do this with the heart.)
(2) that you are consciously aware that it is in fact doing what you wanted it to do. (You can't be aware of this directly with the heart either.)
But in the case of the diaphragm, unlike some other muscles in the body like the biceps and triceps (but LIKE the heart), you cannot be aware directly of what it is doing.
That's because there are no sensory nerves in the diaphragm (or in the heart) reporting its contraction to your brain.
So, though you can control your diaphragm in sense (1), you cannot control it DIRECTLY in sense (2).
But you can control it INDIRECTLY in sense (2) when you play the clarinet.
>> The abdomen pressure and position, as well as the position and action of the muscles around the rib cage have the active role in breath. The diaphragm wants to be in its relaxed state, in a similar way to the rib cage wanting to reach a state of equilibrium (where it neither wants to expand nor contract). However, the diaphragm does this on its own. Involuntary doesn't mean that the muscle does nothing, it simply means you have little or no direct influence on it.>>
One of the difficulties of what you write here is that it uses a language that isn't scientific.
Firstly, muscles don't WANT to do anything. They obey the instructions of their efferent nerve fibres (the ones that come from various parts of the brain). When they receive such messages, they CONTRACT. (Notice, this is ALL they can do. A muscle cannot exert force in the opposite direction.)
Then, you use the term, 'active', as in "The abdomen pressure and position, as well as the position and action of the muscles around the rib cage have the ACTIVE [my caps] role in breath. The diaphragm WANTS TO BE [my caps] in its relaxed state, in a similar way to the rib cage wanting to reach a state of equilibrium (where it neither wants to expand nor contract).>>
This use of 'active' is meaningless.
If the diaphragm is sent messages from the brain, then it will contract, or try to contract. And that force of contraction is totally independent of what else is going on. The diaphragm may be able to contract; but equally, it may not. There may be other, greater forces (like those of A/B) that force it to lengthen, against its own tendency under instruction.
You might think that abstract; but actually, it's a description of what occurs when 'playing with support'.
>> Even if you still think that you have SOME type of control over it. 99% of your control of your breath comes from posture, especially concerning the opennes [sic] of the chest\ribcage and position of the lower abdomen and the way that you use these muscles to provide sustained support through the clarinet.>>
Well, no, it doesn't. And flashing unsubstantiated percentages around in that way is a sign that you're flannelling.
>> You might as well focus on the muscle groups that you have direct control over, the diaphragm will do its purpose (as it has no choice in the matter!)>>
You unwittingly come close to the truth of the matter here. Yes, you might as well focus on the muscle groups that you have direct control of in senses (1) and (2); the diaphragm WILL do not ITS, but rather YOUR purpose, not because it has no choice in the matter, but because it's being driven by the difference between the feedback to your own ears and what you wanted to do.
>> We inhale "not deliberately" all the time. Playing a wind instrument, as well as discussing breathing, makes us think about it more often, but we do it anyway.>>
Yes.
>> Taking a large amount of breath into the lungs requires more than just the diaphragm to flatten out. The rib cage expands, the stomach goes out, you can feel expansion around the waist and just above it.>>
You can take a quite large amount of air into the lungs without expanding your ribcage much. You can take more by expanding your ribcage, but it's not necessary to do so.
The stomach going out and the other expansion things are a result of diaphragm flattening, and pushing stuff out of the way.
>> For example, flexing your ab muscles and chest all the way out, hold it there and exhale as much as possible. When you do this, you naturally want inhale quite a bit of air. Is the diaphragm working? Yes.>>
No.
>> Is it what you're controlling actively? No.>>
Again, the words 'actively' and 'control' have no meaning in this context.
>> Teachers never say "Feel my diaphragm at work!".>>
They'd better not. Since there are no afferents between diaphragm and brain, you can't.
>> They discuss expansion and removing tension to create a free and fast air column.>>
You pick your teachers. All that about 'free and fast air columns' is just a teaching metaphor.
>> Go to your local gym. They have machines and products to work every muscle possible. If you could control your diaphragm, like any other muscle, you'd be able to improve its performance. This would be beneficial to most any person in any sport to be able to breath better. Of course, there's no diaphragm strengthening machine. You can however, work on abs, chest, and back muscles, as well as cardiovascular improvements.>>
This is rubbish. The argument just doesn't go over. All the machines in gyms exercise the heart, via the cardiovascular system, as you say. But equally, all the machines exercise the diaphragm. It's the main muscle you use to breathe in, so it's exercised by anything you do that raises your breathing rate.
>> As stated above, most everything involved in breathing for wind instruments involves everything but the diaphragm.>>
NO.
Getting students (and ourselves) to feel the position of the chest, stomach, back, throat, and all these areas and the various effects they have on our tone and other areas of playing is far more important.>>
It can be important to do these things that you can feel. But to say that the diaphragm is less important because you can't feel it directly is an error. You can HEAR the results of its working in the most direct way.
>> When I say it's not useful for the most part to discuss the diaphragm, I mean to say it has its place in the understanding of what is going on with breathing, but is not where I spend my time pedagogically and in my own playing.>>
You should change that.
>> You say you don't move your rib cage. I agree, I try not to move mine either.>>
I don't TRY not to move my ribcage. I just don't, because it's only necessary to do so when taking really large breaths.
THEN, I do.
>> Knowing that the rib cage is wanting to collapse (having non-desirable effects, including closing the throat and tonal problems).>>
The rib cage WANTS to collapse? That's more of the same meaningless talk.
>> McGill has a system set up, which supposedly cost around 1,000,000, that is a motion capture system. It has been used to see chest expansion and other motions involved in breathing.>>
And? Why does it matter how much money they've spent?
>> Another project monitored finger height of professional players (the difference between slow, moderate, and fast playing). It found that most professionals actually have their fingers slightly higher off the keys during fast playing. This being a very small amount, of course.>>
But how can we possibly use that information?
>> Other projects are in the works.>>
I hope they have a clearly defined purpose.
Look. Science doesn't progress by spending lots of money on measuring meaningless things. It progresses by the creation of intelligent theories that are tested against reality by careful measurement.
I once had a correspondence on the Klarinet list with a person who maintained that you could take a deeper breath standing than you could sitting. He claimed that he had measured this with a 'scientific' instrument, properly calibrated.
I said that if that were true, and I took the deepest breath I could standing, and then sat down, I would have to expel air.
I didn't.
Also, I said, if that were true, and I took the deepest breath I could SITTING, and then stood up, I would be able to take in more air.
I couldn't.
As far as I was concerned, that ended the matter. But just in case it was gender-specific, I asked my wife to do the same experiment.
She, respectively, didn't, and couldn't.
But he maintained that that wasn't SCIENTIFIC, because I hadn't used properly calibrated instruments.
>> My main point I wanted to get across was that the diaphragm is one of many different muscles to be discussed in breathing and support, and to a great extent is less important (not to say shouldn't be discussed) than others that have a greater impact on sound and other aspects of playing.>>
As I've already made clear, you don't know what you're talking about. So, who are you to judge what's important, or not?
>> Most players, to one extent or another, collapse their throat and chest (more and more as breath goes out). Not just students have this affliction, of course.>>
What?
>> Not moving the ribcage (much) doesn't mean to keep it collapsed. Keeping the ribcage from collapsing in any significant way as the breath goes out is more the point. Anything collapsing in the breathing process is not a great thing. Any reason you can think of for having good posture is a reason not to collapse your ribcage.>>
All of these statements are meaningless. My ribcage doesn't collapse because of its design structure. It's DESIGNED not to collapse.
And, 'Not a great thing'?
Purrlease.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-20 23:25
Tony,
All I was saying about the ribcage is expanded, it will come back to an equilibrium. When I said collapse I mean collapsing from its expanded position. With less and less air in the lungs in playing, it is quite natural to want to "squeeze" the lungs to keep airflow going.
I have read through your comments I thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I don't claim to be a scientist and am not writing an article for a medical journal here. I'm simply trying to describe what works for me and why I feel a certain way about certain aspects of breathing.
Regarding "standing versus sitting" and breathing. I prefer practicing standing up most of the time. I play excerpts sitting down. Personally, I feel more alert and energetic when practicing solo repertoire and technique standing up. If you have good posture when sitting, there's no reason why it should be any different for breathing. I agree with you 100 percent.
As for the finger height for technical passages, I thought it was an interesting bit of information. Also notice I didn't post a lengthly article discussing entire projects run by this University. I mentioned it to show that people are doing very practical studies on these issues, at great expense of time and money.
If you find no value or interest in that tidbit, that's fine.
I do not feel that anyone on this board, myself included, should not be questioned or taken as gospel on any issue. I have no problem with you commenting on any of my posts, and will not be reduced to petty bickering as sometimes happens here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susannah
Date: 2010-03-21 01:57
To go back completely to the original post - Sarah, if I had a chance to see a diaphragm dissection, I would jump at the opportunity, so yes, I think you should take your students.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
