 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bb R13 greenline
Date: 2011-10-09 03:36
When inhaling air do you raise your shoulders and take in from your lungs as well as your diaphram/lower stomach or should it just be the lower stomach? I know in school they always tell us not to breath with our shoulders but I'm assuming that is just to force us to breath from our lower stomach. After you already do that should you breath with the top as well as bottom?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-10-09 04:13
Yes, but raising your shoulders is not productive....it just adds tension.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-10-09 13:29
I'm finding that shoulders should be back and chest up for good posture. If you have good posture your lungs will be allowed to fill up to good capacity. If not, your chest cavity will be severely limited by bad posture.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grenadilla428
Date: 2011-10-14 13:08
I often feel it starting from the bottom and filling upward. When the expansion starts at the top, I don't get enough air; but if I feel the expansion from the bottom first, it seems to fill more.
Leave the shoulders out of it - Arnoldstang is right that it just adds tension.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-10-14 16:04
I always call that "military breathing", stomach in, chest out. You being filling the bottom on the lungs and then the top of the lungs. Like blowing up a ballon, but backwards. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kimber
Date: 2011-10-14 16:25
Avoid the shoulder movement. Fill bottom-up. Someone watching behind you should never be able to tell when you are breathing as the back and shoulders shouldn't move - watch the professional singers closely.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-10-14 21:45
I keep the shoulders down, fill stomach first, then chest. Keeping the shoulders relaxed is good, and if I breathe with the shoulders, it tends to limit my capacity.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-10-14 22:24
From this thread, you're getting some of the worst advice I've ever heard- eg. "Someone watching behind you should never be able to tell when you are breathing as the back and shoulders shouldn't move". Utter nonsense.
It's important to understand a little about the anatomy of breathing. For instance, you can't "fill the stomach" with air, you can only fill the lungs with air, and as you hopefully already know, you don't have lungs in your stomach. Other parts of your body can move in ways which allow that to happen most productively, but it's ridiculous to talk about "breathing into your stomach".
My advice: save up some money and go and have some lessons with a proper teacher.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-10-15 05:44
I've written this a few times. Blow up some balloons for a few minutes a day for a few days. That's pretty much how you should support your air and balance your air with your sound.They may be a bit hard at first to blow them up but after a few times the balloons will be pretty easy to play with once they are broken in. You can also put the balloon in the water hose, house facet, whatever pleases you and blow up them with water; this will also make blowing into the balloon much easier. You could even have your kids do this! They love balloons! Anyway, the first time you do this without water or your kids helping, you will feel like you blew out your cheeks and perhaps find them a few doors down the road!
Don't move the shoulders, there's no air in the shoulders so leave that alone! If you wish to lift the shoulders, you probably aren't hurting anything, but I'm not in favor of this.
I would also do this in front of a mirror so you can SEE whats going on with your body.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2011-10-16 23:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-15 06:48
To follow Liquorice's good advice (sorry I don't know your name):
-breathing into your stomach is just an image used to tell someone where they may feel expansion beginning
-Should you actively raise or shrug your shoulders? I would think not. Should you actively restrain your shoulders (or better the clavicle) from rising? No. Forcing a body part to remain in a locked position can be just as detrimental.
-Look at an anatomy chart. When the thoracic cavity expands upon inhalation (particularly a large one), the rib cage can/will expand sideways and out (think like an inner-tube of sorts), the sternum will elevate and the bones that comprise the "shoulders" naturally will elevate as well as they are "resting" upon the rib cage. Is the movement an exaggerated several inches or akin to shrugging? Nope. but it's there
Do I feel or notice this at all times when playing? Nope, because I don't tank up with each breath as my air "stacks" up: the movement of the upper rib cage is much less pronounced so any visible movement is small. But if I need a larger quantity of air you can bet that my "shoulders" will elevate a bit. If I try to stop this from occurring I'll end up contracting muscles that are counter-productive to what I need.
As for watching great singers, I note a tremendous amount of expansion in the chest and back. and yes, some shoulder elevation. And I'm not bragging, but I've worked with some very well known singers and seen it first-hand. The idea that breathing should be invisible when viewed from any angle is insane as our bodies don't work that way. In fact, the only time I've ever heard breathing should not be visible is in certain yoga/meditation practices.
As for filling balloons, I would caution against it as the measuring stick. I can fill a balloon exhaling in several different ways, both correctly, incorrectly, supported, unsupported etc.. In fact, when I was younger I was told to do similar exercises and what should occur. I spent so much time trying make my body move a certain way that I ended up tangled mess unable to play a C major scale. I wish I had never listened.
We need to be careful when giving breathing workouts here because what they may accomplish could have nothing to do with the clarinet. Or the way they are done could cause harm and frustration.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-10-15 14:02
No lungs in stomach. Correct. However if I tense my stomach muscles (like I'm trying to tense them to show off abs or keep the stomach flat), I can't breathe in as much air. When I relax my stomach muscles and allow the stomach to expand, I can breathe in more air. Not sure on the anatomy, but perhaps by expanding the stomach, you are freeing any pressure there can be around the lungs and therefore allowing the lungs to expand more?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-15 17:21
The stomach is not itself expanding. In fact you cannot consciously expand your stomach at will; unless you are in a hotdog eating competition.
The stomach actually lies up much higher, directly below the diaphragm to be exact, than most imagine. The abdominal region is what can expand below the lungs/diaphragm, or be restricted from expansion. I actually note an expansion in all directions in this area when actively inhaling to play an instrument. As for "pre"-tensing the muscles- unless I clench the abs/obliques an inordinate amount, I can inhale just as much air as with them completely relaxed. I have tried this with inspiratory spirometers just for my own verification- not that a "scientific" study was necessarily needed (or rather pseudo-scientific).
Depending on the situation I may "pre"-contract (let's drop this tensing as it carries too many negative connotations for most) my abs/obliques/back-muscles as I inhale, or I may not. Remember, for many instances, a full tank of air is not needed so the quantity of air coming in is of less importance as the ability to control the exhalation: pre-contracted abs put the body in a "ready-state" to immediately turn the air around for a quick entrance.
-just one example. The Mendelssohn Scherzo. If I inhale (not a full fill-up) with my abs(obliques etc....) pre-contracted, I have much more control over not just the first entrance, but the agogic stresses, small dynamic and color shifts etc... that are needed to actually give the movement the character it needs. For me, at least, it is far easier to do this with pre-contracted abs and usage of diaphragmatic support as opposed to slowly tanking up, then contracting my muscles, and then trying to play the piece feeling like I'm driving a large tractor-trailer.
On the other hand, I will take a much larger, slower inhalation slowly flexing my abs as the air enters, before something such as the Rachmaninoff 2nd Piano Concerto solo. Here I find it far easier to match my entrance to the flute decrescendo inhaling in this manner. Same would go for the solo in Brahms 1st where we have to taper our first note in matching the receding oboe. This is what I have found works for me. It is not "The Way"; yet it shows there may be reasons to pre-set your abdominal system.
As for the expansion in the chest, it occurs to varying degrees with the amount of air taken in. Yet no matter how much I take in, the exhalation is still controlled by my ab-diaphragm system.
We need to be careful with what we write here as it can greatly mislead a reader. The lungs expanding from the bottom up is just an image we use- it is not what actually occurs anatomically speaking. The idea of breathing exercises saying "this should move", "you should feel this" or "this is how it should feel when you play" should be taken out into the pasture and shot. All that can be done, and this is much easier in a one-on-one setting, is set up an environment where a player can actually experience what we talk about first-hand. Until they experience this "a-ha" light-bulb moment, and trust me you can see it when it happens, our gadgets, exercises and concrete descriptions are useless.
I'm sorry if I seem angry, but having fought these issues because of some bad "advice", I'd prefer take your hate mail and save someone from going down that same path. I know I spoke of a set of certain circumstances where I pre-set my abs. Normally I would not speak in concrete terms, but did so to address one posting. Yet, I did try to keep out descriptions of what I tangibly "feel" inside as I breath/play. I can no better describe that as I can describe a fine clarinet sound to a deaf person. Or the color of the sky to a blind man.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2011-10-15 21:06
Related to this thread, a very fine clarinet player friend had a hiatal hernia. For him, his stomach broke through the diaphragm and moved upward nearer the lungs. Some serious surgery was done to move the stomach down and implant a significant plastic mesh. A two month recovery time was needed and he sounds great.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-16 15:44
Don't go out of your way to move your shoulders, but don't make a special effort not to move them either.
It's far too easy for us, especially neurotic clarinet-types, to overthink the physiological mechanisms of what we're doing. I'm incredibly guilty of this, and it's caused nothing but trouble.
"Put a crapload of good solid air through the instrument" is as much direction as I'd concern myself with, and gives a better chance of avoiding the tension associated with focusing on one spot or another.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-16 21:09
EEBaum wrote:
> "Put a crapload of good solid air through the instrument"........
*Once again, saying this to someone could easily be misinterpreted and cause un-due tension as a player attempts to blow as much as humanly possible. If I heard this when I was younger I would have misinterpreted it in that way.
*All of this ignores the fact that for most musical contexts you don't want/need to put a crapload of air through the clarinet.
Please stop speaking in concrete, old and stale statements like this. Or at least qualify and define what you mean by a "crapload", explain what "good and solid air" is and how one could go about producing it. Or don't say it at all.
It's better not to write anything than to leave a flippant statement with no explanation; and then disengage by saying it is no longer your responsibility as if it clears you of any resulting misguidance.... even if it is unintended.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-10-16 22:39
I guess we need to just make a bunch of suggestions, and whichever works for the instrumentalist to get the best airflow in a comfortable manner, works. Sorta a "no right answer" for EVERYONE, but a "right" answer for that person. Maybe?
Can't we all just get along?
Alexi
PS - What key is Kumbayah in?
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-10-17 00:23
Ever see a marathon runner? Mainly the top 10 or 20 leaders. Some of them use their shoulders most don't.
Although I half agree with Buster who is a well trained musician, I still feel balloons will help you understand how to support your bodies breathing. It's actually kind of amazing how all of these parts work together. By the way, I'm not suggesting to do this everyday for the rest of your playing career, just a week or so for a few minutes, to get the feel and wonders of how your body works as one unit.
Sometimes with several measures, or marching in a band, you will need to take a breath before the measures are over. Well this is part of the reasons why learning how your body works is so important. It's also one of the key issues in producing a very good sound.
I know some of the people on this board will say its the formation of your mouth muscles that make determines sound quality. That of course is totally true. Everything works together as one unit.
I was with the Air Force Band and we had to march alot of course playing while marching. It doesn't take much to run out of air. This requires exercise to build up your air supply. Balloons actually help, but walking around your house. playing the horn, will help you learn some breathing tricks. I always felt sorry for the brass players, mainly the low brass players marching. Oh my god I have no idea how they could march and play with such masterful breathing techniques.
If you are wondering if I run and if the band ran, the answer is yes, everyday, 2 plus miles.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2011-10-23 21:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-17 00:32
I don't mean to be overly sensitive, or come off as combative. However, as one who fought breathing "issues" in my formative years as a result of some well-meant, but ultimately, misguided advice I'd rather err on the side of caution.
I do agree Alexi, there is no "right" answer for everyone. Also over-looked, I believe, is that what one may do can vary based on the musical situation and context.
We can possibly make suggestions, but they need be explained well so that they are not misunderstood. That can be very difficult to do as we are not totally cognizant of what we ourselves are are doing whilst playing. Add in the factor of the written medium we have to work in and the problem becomes two-fold. It is difficult to describe, and impossible to hear/witness what the reader is actually doing.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree that each needs find their "right answer", or better, their own set of mental images and tactile experiences to draw upon. It is quite difficult to elicit and set up this here. We can assist in this process, but need to tread with much more caution and perhaps think a bit more before posting a passing statement.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-10-17 00:47
Buster, I notice your use of 'whilst'. Are you gradually morphing into a 'Brit'?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2011-10-17 00:50
Use your diaphragm and your respiratory muscles. Help yourself by doing various aerobic exercises.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-17 02:51
Bob and Arnoldstang,
I must have been watching too much Top Gear, the real British version not the American farce, and had some rub off on me.
or I did just see for the first time a movie about the making of a movie version of Tristram Shandy with Steve Coogan, Stephen Frye et al. so that may have seeped in a bit. Actually a quite quirky but smart little movie. (It helps to read the source material to get some of the sarcastic references, but is worthwhile nonetheless.)
...too remove all doubt: I grew up in Canton, OH (football town), lived in Michigan for some time, moved to Mexico for 5 years and have found my way back to Ohio for the time being. Hopefully not for much longer.... I became accustomed to the whole no winter thing.....
Bob, I do understand what you are getting at with inflating balloons as I am viewing it from a particular context: that of someone that understands their own breathing mechanism, and how what one can do with a balloon could apply to the clarinet. But for me, coming from the other side, I would have trouble describing what inflating a balloon could illustrate to someone with my own writing ability.
I'm sure I have been guilty of committing my own written crimes here, but sometimes it helps to step back and look at things from the viewpoint of someone with different experiences than oneself. Admittedly, this can be difficult to do at times. I think we tend to take for granted certain things we have learned/experienced that a reader may not have in their own sphere of knowledge.
FDF wrote:
> Use your diaphragm and your respiratory muscles. Help yourself
> by doing various aerobic exercises.
>
I hope your post was written to be ironic in lieu of what had preceded it, but that does not help matters much. Beyond describing in the vaguest terms what entails the act of playing, not much could be gleaned..... save for the fact that aerobic exercise can help condition the breathing mechanism.
-J
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2011-10-17 13:46
Well, Buster, If you know what the respiratory muscles are, my statement is very succinct.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-17 16:09
Forest,
Succinct? Yes.
Do I know what the respiratory muscles are and how I use them? Yes. Quite thoroughly.
Does simply telling someone to use the respiratory muscles accomplish anything? No.
It is impossible to play an instrument without using the respiratory muscles, so, your succinct statement, although "correct", is at its' core meaningless. What would need be explained is how to use them- not just saying to use them.
These are the exact kind of "carpet-bombing then walk away with a blind eye to any confusion you may cause" statements that need to be stopped.
If your statement is to hold any water, explain how the diaphragm is used. Explain what the other inspiratory muscles and then the expiratory muscles are. How they are employed? Describe how one can use the muscles in conjunction, or opposition, to accomplish any means.
A succinct statement does not elevate its' own merit through its' inherent brevity.
...and I do appreciate the tone you are trying to achieve referring to me as Buster, set apart in commas, when I have been very clear in actually writing my name after my posts in this thread. Were this a topic that was less "serious", I would not take offense. However, as I feel strongly about this topic, I have been very clear in trying to speak with a more serious tone, ending my posts with my actual name. If your trying to speak down at me I appreciate the attempt, but it ultimately will fail.
-Jason
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-17 16:20
Buster:
It's just the opposite case with me. I've tried to micromanage so many aspects of production that it about ruined my playing and made me a nervous wreck. I've come to the opinion that there is a hell of a lot of overthinking, and that introverted types like most clarinetists are often do themselves a lot of harm, physically and musically, by being physical personal control freaks.
Perhaps my statement does require more qualification, though.
I've come to the opinion that effective clarinet playing (or any wind instrument playing) is a far more intensely physical activity than most people give it credit for, and that this intensity (not to be confused with tension or aggression) is absolutely necessary in order to play with effective musicality. It goes against what I've learned from many teachers, and also on the surface may seem to run contrary to various schools of thought involving relaxation (though it is actually quite compatible).
In essence, playing the clarinet should, must, be a whole-body, all-encompassing experience, not something restricted to breathing here and pushing there and which things do you contract and which things do you relax. I'm not at all advocating for dance-around-the-stage antics, but I am insisting that the process requires a lot more involvement of self than is typically encouraged.
There's a certain physical space one needs to get into, one that I'm still exploring how to effectively put into words, a space that allows incredible liberation of musical possibilities. The kind of space you get into in activities that put you at the ready but also entirely loose. It's the difference between riding a roller coaster clenched up and holding on for dear life, and riding the same roller coaster while completely letting go and relishing the entire experience. It's a space I've only recently gotten into while playing clarinet, and a space that I can instantly tell whether a performer is in by watching.
When in this space, breathing comes entirely naturally, to the point that the player just puts a crapload (or less, if necessary, but with a similar freedom of attitude, freedom not to be confused with sloppiness) of air through the instrument, and the body's mechanisms take care of the details.
Get into the same space as a parkour enthusiast navigating an urban landscape steps ahead of the authorities, as Jackie Chan playfully outwitting a dozen bumbling ninjas, as Link running across the plain pursuing Zelda, as Legolas decapitating three goblins without breaking stride, and the breathing comes naturally.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-10-17 16:51
Very interesting take on the subject Alex. I think in simple terms for breathing. Inhalation is quite different from normal breathing.... quick....not through the nose(except for circular breathing)
The blowing process is like blowing up a balloon. You are pushing against something with resistance and your blowing should have some momentum...ie as though you are leaning forward constantly. For different effects you lean forward more or less. One could call this 'support' or 'intensity'.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-17 18:01
Alex,
I don't disagree that the act of playing is indeed quite complex and requires active involvement from the performer. Also, it can be much more "intensely physical" than it may appear from the surface.
The mention of micromanaging echos what I am trying to get across. Being told to move this, push here etc.. can ultimately send one down the wrong path. As I stated earlier, I was almost paralyzed when I was younger (I guess not that long ago as I'm only 33; say 15 years ago or so) by some well-meant, but misguided advice. Fortunately, I found an environment where I was able to remedy this with the guidance of a former teacher/dear friend. But, this was in a one-on-one setting where the guidance could be more hands-on so to speak; tailored for me by showing the path(s) I could take to ultimately experience what I needed. The mental keys I was able to formulate for myself are what was afforded me by this experience; not concrete rules to follow.
I can explain what anatomically is possible with the breathing mechanism and what I know I am physically doing, though that is incomplete as I cannot tangibly feel everything. However, this is only part of the equation as I have a set of "personal images", for lack of a better term, that I draw upon. To try and use these to explain the process to another would be misguided as they may not fit what they need to experience.
---Just as an example (and I shouldn't even write these things), I don't even think of blowing air into the instrument. I know why I do this, even though it sounds completely counter-intuitive to what is required. Also, at times I feel much more relaxation when playing at a louder dynamic, and consequently note more physical "activity" when playing softer or in a more delicate line. (I can explain why, but I think that subject has already been beaten to death on the BBoard.) I have other things that I draw upon that could sound even more confusing to another so I will keep them to myself. (As an aside, the notion of relaxation in playing, as you mentioned, is sorely misunderstood and misapplied- even by some accomplished "pedagogues" and performers.)
What I have been trying to illustrate, and may have failed, is how far we can instruct someone here in a remote setting. Writing about certain aspects of playing explaining what is physically possible may be helpful. But it can lead to the dangerous slope of constant micro-management that you spoke of. Trying to use imagery may be helpful if properly contextualized and "fleshed-out", but all that can do is illuminate a path one may take to tangibly experience the "goal."
You wrote of the difficulty in explaining the physical space you are in when playing. That gets right to the heart of the matter!! We can't accurately describe physical sensations; we can only help nudge someone else into their own "physical space." In words, I can scarcely do so. I cannot see the reader and will openly own up to the fact I am not the most gifted wordsmith. In person, much more success can be attained- but I may tell things to person A that contradict what I say to person B. I used to instruct my students not to discuss certain aspects of their lessons with each other just for this reason. I wasn't keeping any magic from certain students- each simply needed something personally tailored. It's a Hippocratic Oath of sorts I guess. Just like Harvey Penick's famous "little red note-book".... until he destroyed the purpose and published the damn thing.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-17 18:37
"For different effects you lean forward more or less. One could call this 'support' or 'intensity'."
Arnold, that's not at all what I'm trying to get across, and falls right back in my definition of micromanagement, which is the approach I see most people take. It shuts us into a box with variables to tweak, with a carefully-crafted plan of attack that leads to unnecessary and counterproductive learned habits. When I'm talking about intensity, it's about a presence in the moment, where such things aren't even an issue.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-17 18:54
Jason, I agree completely. I was also set on that path by plenty of well-meaning peeps. My exodus from it, though, came about when I got to the point of becoming almost non-functional when the well-meaning advice met my obsessive personality. Even (or perhaps especially) Alexander technique, which purports to free you from tension, had exactly the opposite effect for me as it gave me something to consistently harp on.
As for complexity required to play the instrument, in my experience it's a liberation of this complexity that's been the most valuable and effective. I don't speak of intensity because it's required in order to manage all the variables necessary to play. Quite the opposite, for me the intensity is the only way to STOP trying to manage the variables and let them work themselves out. Only when I stop using any imagery at all can I be free enough to actually make music.
It can be a tricky space to get into, and I can suggest lots of ways for people to try to get there themselves, but I'm convinced that it's the way to go. In any case, as you say, I agree that it's fairly likely that my attempts to put it into words may harm as much as they help (though I'd be willing to try...).
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-17 20:31
Alex,
As you have hinted at, everybody learns through different means and methods. Some need more concrete descriptors, others lean toward a more visual/metaphorical side, while another side may need an entirely separate approach- it sounds like you fall a bit more into this camp. The brain is a far more intricate device than I believe we could ever completely understand...... which is why I have been so obstinate in what I have written in this thread.
But what arises are the things we can say:
-We know how the human body is built to function.
-As you stated, playing the instrument is a complex interplay of many factors of human physiology.
-The clarinet is simply a tool, or connection, through which we can perform a piece of music.
I would think that is about all we can state as fact. What comes from this is what we can learn, and pass on, to remove any fears or struggles with those complexities. The true care must be taken when "helping" another clarinetist/musician. Also, I do not mean to imply that I am always consciously aware of the concrete physical actions, or personal "metaphors", while (or whilst) I am performing. Conversely, I cannot say I am not aware of these things in a given performance. It is probably a percentage that shifts throughout, and never repeats from performance to performance. I would never recommend, or force, another to function in the same manner as I do; but I do see that this happens far too much- way beyond the realm of this BBoard.
I think we seek a balance that need be struck between physical awareness and the ability to be active, and re-active, in the music making process. These things feed off of each-other and will manifest in different ways in each person. For me, I probably place a bit more thought on physical sensations and actions during practice (this would be much more currently as I am fighting some medical impasses that have hampered my career) than some. For me, this allows me to have those things consciously in my sub-conscience (how's that for some Existential b.s.!!!) that I can draw upon reflexively if needed during performance. I could scarcely put percentages on all these factors.
(Watch a pro golfer swing. It happens so quickly that it appears to be one smooth motion. It should happen almost without thought after they envision the shot they want. But, during the swing, a pro can feel a small move over-the-top, or their arms getting stuck behind their hip turn and hang on to the club a bit longer or shorter to compensate the shut club-face, or open in the latter. Hell, I saw Tiger stop in the middle of his 120 m.p.h. downswing when he heard his driver shaft crack- how's that for reflexes?! Watch Albert Pujols instinctively pull his hands in mid-swing to yank a 96 m.p.h. cutter down the line. .......friggin' Cardinals........)
Some are greatly helped through extended Alexander Technique studies as it gives them the knowledge of human anatomy and their own body structure. Others can be paralyzed, like yourself, as the fixation on body actions becomes over-whelming. (Not having worked with a practitioner I cannot give any personal opinions but would caution others that Alexander Technique is not something that can be learned from a book.)
It seems we are speaking of reaching a similar state, though defining our terms of "complexity" and "intensity" in differing ways. The end goal is ultimately to embrace and/or destroy the complexities so they simply become a non-paralyzing part of music. Be so intensely aware that we forget to be aware, or be so intensively active that the actions become an almost secondary, reflexive, "second-nature" entity. Something loosely akin to our ability to walk without needing to think of each intricate part of the process.
Now, that last paragraph is quite inane to read, but I think that speaks to my point: We cannot concretely define the process one must use to play in writing. We can only give some options. In a personal setting it is easier to aid another who is experiencing difficulties, but the same care of avoiding stupidly canonical methods or statements should be maintained. It does seem that you and I would agree on that point!
I picked a hell of a week to quit drinking..................
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ariel3
Date: 2011-10-17 23:38
I am compelled to stick my nose into this conversation. I agree with Jason's explanation to the complexity of the breathing issue. Why, oh why do we have to make what a baby does so effortlessly so darned hard ? And, it is difficult to describe the correct breathing process in simple terms. The Alexander technique is explained in text form, but this alone does not make an Alexander Professional. A person must dedicate many hours of one on one personal training in addition to the bookwork to become a certified practitioner. My wife's voice coach is a certified Alexander person who spent 8 years earning her certification under Barbara Conable. She has personally provided assistance for me in some issues and simplified the problem greatly for me.
I quit frankly do not know what you have against the Alexander program. These individuals are very well trained to assist musicians that get into trouble with their occupational roadblocks caused from playing their instruments.
Gene Hall
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-18 00:13
I had two weeks of Alexander at the start of last year. I took from it a bunch of concepts that ended up, combined with my obsessive personality, making me a nervous wreck, sometimes barely able to function. The past few months, I've been able to undo most of the damage.
Regardless of my experience, the fact that it takes several years to be certified speaks volumes about it, to me. While it can be effective, I find the whole process to be a terribly drawn-out, complicated solution to a very simple problem. It is, to me, a passive-aggressive approach to solving introversion-rooted postural and tension problems, problems that can be more effectively solved by other means, other means that have myriad positive side-effects as well and attack head-on the issues that Alexander side-steps around.
If I recall correctly from the history-bits in the classes, Alexander himself, an educated Victorian "thinking man", was averse to physical exercise as a solution to his postural problems. This is the core of my beef with the system. Effectively, Alexander teaches you how to effectively use your body while avoiding the vast majority of activities that can have this effect intuitively (and much more cheaply than Alexander classes). You'll learn a lot more about how to use your body by squatting 200 pounds, jumping over hurdles, or playing full-contact ultimate frisbee than by walking back and forth repeatedly.
When was the last time you saw a college athlete with lousy posture or with tension issues?
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-10-18 00:58
Alex....'Being in the moment' isn't sufficient for a novice clarinetist. There are definitely techniques to be employed for various results. As the performer develops these techniques become more automatic. There is still management to be done in every performance. As for my simple example of 'leaning' on a long note. It is only a technique/feeling that should be internalized.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-18 01:25
Alex, which post was this reacting to?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-18 01:30
>>Alex, which post was this reacting to?
Which post was which post reacting to?
If it's the one about tragically rare, it was Arnold Stang's, posted just before mine.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
Post Edited (2011-10-18 01:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-10-18 08:01
The reason I like the balloons is simple.
Ever hear your teachers, anyone, tell you to support or use your diaphragm?
I'd have to say something about this comment. Without looking at a medical book how many people, pros, anyone, knows where the diaphragm is located and how big is it? Is it a thin muscle? Or is it actually a muscle? With knowing this how do you tell someone to use their diaphragm? Oh, what does the diaphragm have to do with the lungs or your stomach? Which dierction does it travel and is one side of the muscle bigger and thicker than the other part?
If you as a teacher doesn't know this how would the student know?
Not until I went to Interlochen did I know the answer.
I really like to keep things simple by blowing up that silly balloon. It really does solve a lot of issues and time.
If you want to really learn fast try this technique and use the same principles to blow through the horn It's better then going to med school for 3 to 6 years spending around $200,000, learning about how nerves and muscles work.
Have fun finding and using your diaphragm!
Hope this helps.
Bob
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2011-10-18 08:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2011-10-18 10:43
I'm glad some people are enlightened about breathing, but I'm sorry to say there is some complete rubbish in this thread. I love that so many people use words like 'support' and 'use the diaphragm'.
I always tell my students 'breathe to expand'. That's all you really need to know.
When you breathe, your lungs fill up as a result of your diaphragm moving downward (it's more complicated than that but I won't go into it here). The diaphragm is an INVOLUNTARY MUSCLE. You might feel like it isn't, and that you can control it, but what you're doing is using abdominal muscles to do things like suck in air, hold your breath, that kind of thing. I *think* this is what people are talking about when they say 'support from the diaphragm' but that instruction seems to be saying 'get more tense'. Makes no sense to me and seems like a waste of energy.
Bearing in mind that the diaphragm is an INVOLUNTARY MUSCLE, we need to realise that breathing is actually automatic. We do it exceedingly well all the time. 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, from the time we were born until we die. We've basically never NOT done it. So why the commotion when you play the clarinet? It's all in our heads.
Breathing should be natural and organic and never forced. When we breathe in, our rib cage actually expands in all directions, thus I tell my students 'breathe to expand'. We also do some breathing meditation exercises (with and without clarinet in hand) and I find that helps a lot.
On one hand there isn't enough correct information out there about breathing, and on the other hand we overthink it to the point of tension and using muscles that really aren't all that involved in breathing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-10-18 10:57
Ummmm..............
Isn't the diaphragm a bell shaped muscle that when it contracts it causes the thoracic cavity to get bigger? How does this 'support' pushing air OUT?
I too voluntarily stay out of this one.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-18 15:17
>> Isn't the diaphragm a bell shaped muscle that when it contracts it causes the thoracic cavity to get bigger? How does this 'support' pushing air OUT?>>
This question is addressed in the sixth post in the first URL cited above.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kimber
Date: 2011-10-18 17:13
Morrigan - "We overthink it to the point of tension and using muscles that really aren't all that involved in breathing."
Exactly! Let nature do what it was designed to do. Everyone breathes diaphragmatically (correctly) when they are sleeping. And not breathing correctly can have negative side effects over time. That is why I have to spend my day teaching patients with pneumonia and paradoxical vocal dysfunction to stop using their accessory (chest) muscles and rely on their diaphragm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-18 18:23
Kimber wrote:
>> Morrigan - "We overthink it to the point of tension and using muscles that really aren't all that involved in breathing."
Exactly! Let nature do what it was designed to do. Everyone breathes diaphragmatically (correctly) when they are sleeping. And not breathing correctly can have negative side effects over time. That is why I have to spend my day teaching patients with pneumonia and paradoxical vocal dysfunction to stop using their accessory (chest) muscles and rely on their diaphragm.>>
For people without medical issues like that, the sort of breathing that you do after running round the block is pretty much what is required -- though of course breathing in order to play the clarinet is a much slower and less violent version. Still, getting a class to run round the block and then observe themselves is a good way in.
Morrigan is in error, however, when he writes:
>> The diaphragm is an INVOLUNTARY MUSCLE. You might feel like it isn't, and that you can control it, but what you're doing is using abdominal muscles to do things like suck in air, hold your breath, that kind of thing.>>
Abdominal muscles operate in the opposite direction. They cannot 'suck in air'.
And, the diaphragm is subject to both involuntary and voluntary control: you don't need to REMEMBER to breathe; but you can take a breath at any time you want.
That's explained in the URLs I quoted, and also investigated in:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2008/01/000124.txt
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-18 19:19
I have only a few points to add and then I'm out of this one. The links above state clearly what is occurring.
**As Tony states- The diaphragm is NOT an involuntary muscle, but contains no sensory nerves. That it is active, or not, while exhaling in the playing process can only be observed by resultant effects that are heard, coupled with the felt activity of the ab/oblique/back muscle contraction.
**The reason I earlier spoke of pre-contracting my ab"system" upon inhalation was to set up a state where I could control my auditory output by using my diaphragm, coupled with a constant abdominal contraction. Think about it, if your abdominals are in a constant state of flexion but you are able to quite easily change the quantity of air exhalation, what MUST be doing the work? : *insert fanfare here* the DIAPHRAGM; though you cannot "feel" its' action. I have found that the diaphragm can react far quicker to my "requests" than my abdominal system. -But the key here is you can only HEAR its' activity.
*I should have left out completely my musical examples in an earlier post. Also, I should have not have written about the sensations I feel in another posting. The reason I sense more relaxation at a louder dynamic is a bit misleading.
Imagine my abs are strongly contracted. To increase the dynamic level I simply think "louder" (and this only works up to a point where ab contraction must increase, but ignore that) and it occurs because the diaphragm relaxes a bit to allow more air to be expelled. I cannot tangibly feel THAT action, but, the sense of relaxation is perhaps present because the need to contract the abs more is not felt. Also, there may be some secondary relaxation in the chest that is tied into the non-tactile action of the diaphragm- but I am no physiologist. The opposite, Tony's "magic dimuendo"- which is perhaps more striking, will sound a dimuendo but not produce a different sensation in the body as the work is relegated to the diaphragm.
When speaking of more "activity" at softer dynamics, or in a more delicate line, I meant stronger, constant contraction of the abdominals. With the active work relegated to the diaphragm, which seems to respond far more quickly and with finer control, I can accomplish what I need with far greater accuracy. To say that I can sense the activity of my diaphragm is quite misleading-as I cannot. By activity, I was referring, perhaps un-clearly, to the constant stronger action/contraction of the abs.
I may have been misleading in how I wrote of my playing actions, but I believe in letting my mistakes stand and taking whatever flak will come my way.
**kimber- not everyone breathes diagrammatically/"correctly" while sleeping. My neighbor, with chronic emphysema, is on oxygen and must rely on his secondary muscles of respiration. His diaphragm is compressed downward by stale air in the lungs which cannot be expelled and clearly HAS to rely on other groups of muscles.
**As the diaphragm cannot be sensed- it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain what must be felt while playing. We can only set-up an environment in which it can be experience by a student/reader. I find this difficult in writing as telling one to contract the abdominal system can be quite misleading.... it is quite possible to contract that system in an un-productive manner thus rendering the "experiment" moot. This is perhaps due to my lack of writing ability.
as for me- I feel I can no longer offer anything of use without spurring more confusion, so I will depart thee.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-18 19:30
I lied.
a clarification. In Tony's "magic dimuendo", the diaphragm is clearly contracting, not relaxing. sorry for any confusion.
it's not sUPport, but s-DOWN-ort--- really like that one Tony and have used it many times
now I'm out
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-18 19:56
Alexi wrote:
>> I guess we need to just make a bunch of suggestions, and whichever works for the instrumentalist to get the best airflow in a comfortable manner, works. Sorta a "no right answer" for EVERYONE, but a "right" answer for that person. Maybe?
Can't we all just get along?>>
The difficulty with this idea is that it's possible to say something that isn't true, which therefore leads someone down a path that will be counterproductive.
I understand that it IS possible to say some things that aren't true and that do no damage: an example would be, the 'no-pressure' system in brass playing. Here, trying to play without pushing the mouthpiece against the embouchure may lead to good results, even though it's impossible to achieve fully. (The result is that the player MINIMISES the pressure.)
An intermediate example would be telling a clarinet player 'not to bite'. Without an understanding of what that really means, the instruction may well be counterproductive, for reasons I've rehearsed here previously.
In the case of breathing and blowing: the understanding of THAT involves such a sudden release of the player into a world that seems to work without effort, that it's worthwhile fighting for it even against the objections of people who don't understand it.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-18 21:56
Thank you, Jason, for your understanding and thoughtful posts -- I wish I could say the same for everyone.
I have always questioned my relationship with this list. Having some experience of clarinet playing, I try to say here things that are true and helpful, and try to point out things that others say that fail to be true and helpful.
I think that's a worthwhile objective; but others seem to disagree.
People have focussed on my objections here to Ken Shaw. But he usually has offered quite contributory posts. My beef with him is to do with his unwillingness to admit to being obviously wrong -- when he is. And, that he is unduly presumptuous about his understanding.
But more importantly, I hate to read here what, for example, Arnoldstang and Paul Aviles write. They are almost always wrong and misleading. I think they set a very bad example to the less able players here. Indeed, I wish they'd go away.
And there are others.
I say: if you are not an able player, and have not spent some time on the matter involved, with some success, then your opinion on any serious subject is very likely to be useless to others.
Sorry about that.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2011-10-19 10:23
The diaphragm is not a strictly involuntary muscle, I'll give you that. But we don't exactly have control over it, and I hate it when I hear people who instruct a student to try to control it. It leads to them doing odd things with abdominal, chest, back and shoulder muscles. I also hate the idea that you should think of your belly button going out towards your back which I've heard far too often. I mean, what is that? What is it supposed to achieve?!
A quick Google search brings up this extremely illuminating post:
http://innovativeperformanceandpedagogy.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/de-mystifying-support-and-the-diaphragm/
I think that's one to email your students!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-19 12:27
>> The diaphragm is not a strictly involuntary muscle, I'll give you that. But we don't exactly have control over it, and I hate it when I hear people who instruct a student to try to control it.>>
As I have pointed out previously, this is a delicate point, and requires careful thought to understand. Read:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2008/01/000124.txt
...which I referenced previously. We learn to control our diaphragm by listening to ourselves play, and it is one of the miracles of wind playing that that's possible.
>> It leads to them doing odd things with abdominal, chest, back and shoulder muscles.>>
Not in the way I describe it, it doesn't.
>> I also hate the idea that you should think of your belly button going out towards your back which I've heard far too often. I mean, what is that? What is it supposed to achieve?!>>
I have no idea.
>> A quick Google search brings up this extremely illuminating post:
http://innovativeperformanceandpedagogy.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/de-mystifying-support-and-the-diaphragm/
I think that's one to email your students!>>
I think it's worthwhile having a look at the rather good pictures; but it explains nothing, despite its cutesy tone.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-10-19 15:35
'Almost always wrong and misleading'.... I have a lifetime of musical experience that is more varied than both Tony or Buster. My perspective is one of a flutist, oboist, saxophonist and clarinetist. I experiment and think constantly about the musical process. All that being said I guess what I write could still be almost always wrong and misleading. To be frank however I find both Tony and Buster to be theoretical experts but 'off the mark' when it comes to expressing ideas succinctly. If I am 'wrong and misleading' then they are almost always both right , overly theoretical and confusing. Even as such they should NOT 'go away'.
,
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-10-19 17:34
>> 'Almost always wrong and misleading'.... I have a lifetime of musical experience that is more varied than both Tony or Buster. My perspective is one of a flutist, oboist, saxophonist and clarinetist. I experiment and think constantly about the musical process. All that being said I guess what I write could still be almost always wrong and misleading.
To be frank however I find both Tony and Buster to be theoretical experts but 'off the mark' when it comes to expressing ideas succinctly. If I am 'wrong and misleading' then they are almost always both right, overly theoretical and confusing. Even as such they should NOT 'go away'. >>
Well, I am sorry to have had to express myself in this way. But any perceptive reader of:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=1132&t=1132
...would have to acknowledge that I have made considerable effort to deal with you point by point.
That proved impossible, despite goodwill on, I acknowledge, both sides.
My only option really is to dismiss you tout court. It's just too much bother.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-19 21:22
John,
I stated I was not going to contribute more to this thread, but feel compelled to re. your posting.
as you wrote:
'Almost always wrong and misleading'.... I have a lifetime of musical experience that is more varied than both Tony or Buster. My perspective is one of a flutist, oboist, saxophonist and clarinetist. I experiment and think constantly about the musical process. All that being said I guess what I write could still be almost always wrong and misleading.
To be frank however I find both Tony and Buster to be theoretical experts but 'off the mark' when it comes to expressing ideas succinctly. If I am 'wrong and misleading' then they are almost always both right, overly theoretical and confusing. Even as such they should NOT 'go away'.
I object to your assertions on 2 counts:
1- I may come off as a "theoretical expert", which is not what I consider myself at all. I am, or was until a very recent time, a professional performer. I am no professional writer.
I WAS guided by some important figures in my development (which I feel is still continuing, until I decide to hang up the horn) but am only a "Expert" of my own architecture as I ultimately "taught" myself from what was provided me. As an instructor, that is truly the only thing you CAN do: set-up an environment, provide information, and let the student experience what it is we try to write about here. You help guide, perhaps provide a nudge in this direction or that, but ultimately allow the student to fit into their own form. Applying your ears, observations, and knowledge to perhaps keep them on the right track? Yes... but to me that is not a "theoretical" practice at all; it is one of a collaboration between me and a student, albeit one in which I am the "leader." It is not about putting out a continuous stream of cookie-cutter students, nor boxing each student into my rules. That fact, perhaps coupled with a lack of succinct writing ability, may be what gives the air that I consider myself a "Theoretical Expert." I'll abide that title if need be, but will not post something that is poorly illustrated here which may lead someone astray.
("Theory" is just what it sounds like- theory. In speaking of the act of playing, "theory" should be relegated to some inane philosophical realm which loosely speaks of nothing of substance. An idea must be explained, fleshed out, or it will serve little to no purpose here. If my lack of brevity, or confusing posts, serve no purpose, then I will gladly refrain from posting and save myself the ulcers.)
2. Do not assume you know everything about someone's musical experiences for the simple fact that they curtail their writings here towards the clarinet. I ultimately chose the medium of clarinet, in the "classical" realm, as my path. Yet, you know little else of my background.
I have done extensive pit work. I took 5 years to get out of undergrad because I was not only intensely involved in the "orchestral" world, but because I also spent a large amount of time in the jazz/saxophone side. I am not one to name-drop as I would prefer to have my posts (good or bad) speak for me, but here we go: I worked with Frank Foster, played with the Count Basie Orchestra, played with Chip Stephens, Bobby Shew, Sean Jones, Tony Leonardi etc... just to name a few. I even turned down a quite well paying offer to do an off-Broadway tour that would have forced me to leave school. I considered it, but ultimately decided that clarinet was always my true passion and what I would dedicate myself to.
If you want to get into a discussion about Woody Shaw's usage of bi-tonal pentatonics then let's go. Or would you prefer discuss how Coltrane derived his Giant Steps chord progression? Did it come from the bridge of Mr. Jones, or was it a reaction to how Dizzy Gillespie divided the octave in Con Alma? I have my thoughts, how about you?... How did 26-4, Coltrane's re-harmonization of Confirmation come about? Do You understand how the Giant Steps changes over the A sections and the tri-tone subs. circle back around in the bridge to bring it back to the original "tonic"? And while on the subject of tri-tone subs., how do they relate to a composer like Stravinsky, or early Schoenberg? The altered, upper extensions of the dominant chord (with a sharp 11) led to the tri-tone sub. This sound, although derived in a slightly different manner, can be heard in Petroushka, or an early suite of Schoenberg piano shorts (I think op.12, but don't have it in front of me) which pre-date Coltrane.
All of this ignores the fact that I can play the saxophone properly and improvise utilizing these harmonic devices stylistically "right". I played the flute, not at nearly as high of a level, but there you go. I know my limitations and will admit when they arise. My clarinet work now exceeds my saxophone playing 10 times over; but believe me I can still throw down if need be.
Am I trying to be an insufferable &^%?, no. But I do take offense that you somehow have a better view of the situation as your background is more diverse than mine. It is not. Perhaps your searching for a succinct post belies your misunderstanding of certain concepts. Some aspects, if written about succinctly, would be useless- such as "Use your respiratory muscles and diaphragm."
That something is confusing may be intended. Perhaps if read several times, as may be intended by the writer, it will become clear and you can have a deeper understanding of the subject. A simple post-modern writing device utilized by actual authors far more able than I. Or maybe more likely, they are confusing as the writer could be posting several options that may seem confusing or contradictory. If crafted carefully and intentionally, the reader will have several options to "try" and perhaps experience what they need. I am not gifted enough with the pen to write in this manner so I do not attempt to.
John, I do suggest that in the future if you find what I write to be confusing, theoretical or just plain lengthy- ignore it. I have enough b.s. and pain in my life currently without reading mis-guided surmising about what I do or don't know; or have experienced.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-10-19 21:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bb R13 greenline
Date: 2011-10-20 00:11
Ok I have read all of the posts from Tony in both this and his other article and I think I understand his concepts pretty well just two questions( and I promise I will not drag this out like the link Tony posted)
1.in school and in lessons the teacher always sais to use support iv never heard them say in some sections to not use it, and with support the tone of my playing does sound better. So what I get from what these posts is that as you play louder you should use less support. At loud dynamics wouldn't this make the tone undesirable and perhaps more out of tune?
2.when I squeeze my abs to the fullest I feel it's counter productive and results in less air/more work, however when I do not flex my abs the tone is less centered and I can't reach ppp. So should a median flex be used where one is not consciously thinking about it but can still be felt? This seems like the only desirable method as one retains the centered tone and is still able to produce any dynamic
Thanx for all of the information by the way:)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-20 02:01
Bb R13 Greenline;
I'll keep it as simple as I can to answer your questions as I think you have it a bit confused. (and I'm writing this while watching the World Series so I'll try to keep my attention where it needs to be
You have to think of 2 things, as per Tony's article:
1. Blowing well, or properly.
2. Support is a subset, or add-on if you will, to blowing well.
I'll try to describe in generalities what blowing well entails so I won't lead you astray:
Blowing well/properly occurs when the air is "expelled" by the contracting abdominal muscle system (abs/obliques/back-muscles) i.e. from "down low" as it is generally described. (For the inhalation process I'll refer you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoracic_diaphragm)
For me, the danger in describing "blowing-well" in writing is that the abdominal muscles can be contracted in productive or non-productive ways. I have more luck with this aspect in person, but I will reluctantly attempt to describe what I do:
(Firstly it is key to remember the the abs can only contract/shorten themselves, not lengthen.)
After inhalation, some think of actively pulling inward, some simply contracting the ab system, and some think of actively pushing outward/downward. For me, I simply think of contracting the ab system. This is obviously providing an inward "push", or squeeze, from all directions as the stretched abdominal muscles are being contracted. I have not had luck with thinking/describing/teaching actively pulling in the abdominals. Though it seems this should supply the same action as simply contracting the abs, there is something different. Anatomically speaking I cannot say what is different about this action, but it seems to cause me undue tension and I have not had luck in teaching with this technique. Pushing out and/or down with the abdomen has little, to nothing, to do with the blowing process as the abs cannot push outwardly. Also, attempting to do this can cause the sternum to collapse inward which is never the point.
So, if I contract my abs with air in my lungs, it is expelled. The more I contract, the faster the air is expelled, and vice-versa. At whatever degree my abs are contracted to however, my abdomen does regress inward some; the key is I don't actively pull in- I just let it occur as it will.
In person I find it much easier to elicit this action. I can tailor my descriptions to each student; in a manner in which they need to hear so they can experience what I'm getting at.
I'll leave it here for now for you to mull over, and ask any questions before moving on to the addition of support. (Also, we can get to the resultant sound/focus you are achieving as you wrote in your previous post.) But, take heart!, the addition of support is actually quite easy to experience once the idea of blowing properly is grasped.
That's all for now,
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bb R13 greenline
Date: 2011-10-20 02:13
Ok I grasp this part, I tried all 3 ways of flexing that you described and I agree the flexing the whole abs (which btw is how i flex while i play)does produce better air than just pulling inward which although does release the air it seems to have no force behind it and is very weak
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-20 22:42
Bb R13 greenline,
Ok,
As I cannot see you, I have to assume that you are blowing well and using the abdominal system "correctly." (That is the leap of faith I have to take in this remote setting.)
Now they way I describe the action of support requires that you think in abstract terms about the amount of abdominal flexion. With a student, I will speak of ab contraction in dynamic terms (flexed at p, mp, mf etc...), in numbers (1-10), or in simple terms of slightly contracted to strongly. Generally speaking, each person responds better to a one of these, but for our discussion I will ask that you think of contracting your abs in dynamic terms (p, mp etc...)
We WILL get to what exactly support is, but........
*First, you need to understand how to access, or experience, the active contraction/relaxing of the diaphragm.
Simply inhale and hold your breath with your mouth open and your throat relaxed (i.e. don't lock the breath in by clenching your larynx/pharynx.) Also, don't "lock" your chest to block the air, for lack of a better explanation in words. If done correctly, you will feel the expansion you achieved upon inhalation being maintained seemingly without effort. Why does this occur and why does it seem to take no effort? Remember that the diaphragm causes inhalation (check the Wikipedia links) by contracting, though you cannot feel its' contraction. If you are maintaining air in your lungs with your wind-way open then the diaphragm MUST still be contracted. The reason it feels effortless is that you cannot sense the contraction as the diaphragm has no sensory nerve endings. You have just witnessed the diaphragm in action.
Now inhale and hold your breath in the same manner (wind-way open). Contract your abdominal blowing system (what we spoke of in the above post. ...the low set of muscles, not squeezing in the chest.) as you would if trying to play mp but allow the air to remain in your lungs. Now try mf; f; ff.... if the air remains in your lungs but is not restrained by a locked chest, throat etc... then the diaphragm is contracting at the same level as your abdominals, or perhaps even stronger, though you cannot feel it.
Now inhale and hold your breath in the same manner. Flex your abs to a mf level and let small "puffs" of air out. The key is to simply think of letting the air out, not pushing it out by contracting your abs more. Simply maintain flexion in the abs and let the air out in small puffs; your expansion achieved from inhalation will slowly recede as would be expected, but your abs remain contracted constantly at a mf.
***What is occurring? Your diaphragm is relaxing slightly to allow the air to escape, and then re-contracting to stop the air flow. You simply think it and it seems to happen without any effort. Try this with your abs flexed at p; then at f. Easy, no? You simply think it and it happens "magically" (as you cannot feel the action of the diaphragm.)
We'll stop for now. Try this, ask any questions to remove confusions, and we'll get to the act of supported playing in the next post.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-10-20 22:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-21 21:35
Austen,
Ok, now that may have seen overly-drawn out, but hopefully has illustrated the action the diaphragm has. Now the easy part: transferring this to the clarinet.
We'll start with Tony's "magic diminuendo" as it mostly clearly shows what support is.
for constancy, we'll do all of this on a clarion F ![[F5]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/f5.gif)
-play F at mf, with the abs contracted at a mf level, and diminuendo to silence maintaing the same level of contraction in the abs. What did you feel/not feel? What is going on?
***You have just experienced what support actually is. Supported blowing occurs when the abs are contracted to a higher degree than is needed for the dynamic you are producing. (This is consequently why I speak of ab contraction with dynamic references.)
You maintain your abdominal contraction at mf, the diaphragm contracts increasingly more the softer you play until it equalizes, and eventually exceeds the level of abdominal contraction. At that point, the sound will cease as the air is unable to be expelled from the lungs.
"Easy", no? You think "play softer" and it seems to happen magically as you cannot feel the change in diaphragmatic contraction. You can only feel your abdominal contraction at a constant level and hear that the diminuendo is occurring. (It is a combined tactile and auditory experience.)
*Again, to repeat myself for clarity. Diaphragmatic support occurs when you feel your blowing system contracted at a higher level than the dynamic you are producing. (Or the diaphragm is providing a resistance to the abdominal cavity. When the diaphragm contracts to a greater degree than the abdominals, no more sound will be produced.)
Now you may say, so what..... I can play a diminuendo and not feel it.
-Well, play clarion F at a mf (abs contracted to mf), diminuendo to nothing and then crescendo back to mf never changing the level of abdominal contraction.
-Now do the same but do it un-supported. (i.e. decrease ab contraction for the dim. and vice-versa.)
Which gave you a more steady change of dynamic? Which method was easier to control? Which "felt" easier to accomplish?
Repeat this, both supported and un-supported, playing several dim-cresc in quick succession on one breath. What do you think now?
I have found that the diaphragm responds to requests more quickly, and with far finer control, than the abdominal system.
Now I have a few more thoughts, but have to run. Try this and ask questions to clear up any confusions.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-10-22 22:09
Yes, now I see what you mean.
.............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2011-10-22 22:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-10-23 07:46
"Breath is the bridge which connects life to consciousness, which unites your body to your thoughts."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-10-23 19:05
I. apologize as this goes way back. When Jason refers to the abdominal region. muscles that. can push out , what are these. muscles. We can tense the abs when the ab. region is out or in. thanks
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-23 21:39
been away for a day.
John, I can't answer what exact muscles are used in "pushing" the abdominal region outward, or downward.
I must claim a lack of knowledge on that one, for I have never really searched an answer: that act has nothing to do with the exhalation/inhalation process for me.
During the inhalation process, my abdominal region expands, but again I am not actively pushing the area outward. As I stated earlier, attempting to actively push the region out collapses the sternum; and that is not a desirable action I should think. I allow the region to expand.
To address the inhalation, which was actually the genesis of this thread, I only have a few thoughts/facts:
(This all assumes you have a healthy breathing system.)
-When you inhale, there must be expansion.
-The thoracic and abdominal cavities are divided by the diaphragm.
-Expansion upon inhalation will occur in the thoracic region (where the lungs are contained) when initiated by the contraction/descent of the diaphragm- but the diaphragm also exerts an instantaneous, downward, "push" on the abdominal region; you can then allow/restrict the abdominal region to expand. The action of the abdomen will have an effect on the thoracic cavity. (Simple Newtonian physics.)
-As can be seen, air is never contained in the abdominal region, so saying "breath into your stomach" is never correct. Also, stating the lungs fill "from the bottom up" is wrong. They are not like pitchers being filled with water; they expand in all directions. You can then contain the expansion in the thoracic cavity (force the abdomen to resist the downward pressure/push of the diaphragm), or allow the abdomen to expand from the downward "push" of the diaphragm. Or whatever combination you wish.
So the true question is: Where do we allow the expansion?
I don't wish to answer this in writing for fear I may confuse someone. If this seems as if I am lighting a fire and walking away, I apologize; but looking at some of the nonsensical b.s. on this subject I have read here, I don't have the strength to throw my hat in the ring and argue.
To quote what Huxley reportedly last wrote, as his wife read to him from "The Book of the Dead", before passing away: "I know how this one ends."
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-10-23 21:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-23 21:55
Austen,
I feel as if I have left you adrift with no life raft. If you have any questions, please ask- be it here or in an e-mail.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bb R13 greenline
Date: 2011-10-24 00:27
Actually I think I completely understand it now and had been using support and breathing the right way all along. Im sorry if anyone feels they have wasted their time on this subject but on the bright side I now know one more thing I am doing correctly and can ex that off of the large list of variables in playing the clarinet. =)
Unless their is anything else to it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-24 00:34
to follow up Austen, you wrote:
>>>1.in school and in lessons the teacher always sais to use support iv never heard them say in some sections to not use it, and with support the tone of my playing does sound better. So what I get from what these posts is that as you play louder you should use less support. At loud dynamics wouldn't this make the tone undesirable and perhaps more out of tune?
-When your teachers speak of using support it sounds as if they are misusing the term. It certainly sounds as if they are saying "blow correctly." That would most certainly make it easier to produce a "better" tone.
-It sounds as if you're thinking of support a bit incorrectly; thinking of it as some separate entity apart from blowing well, rather than a variation of blowing well.... Consider it this way: Blowing well is your brand new shiny iPhone: diaphragmatic support is simply a new app you download to use on your iPhone when you wish. You always should blow well/properly; support is just a technique that you use to help control the quantity of air being expelled when you so desire.
-At loud dynamics, playing with support may, or may not, be beneficial. In and of itself, the addition or subtraction of support does not change sound quality directly. It took me a while to comprehend this myself. I found that playing at a softer dynamic, strongly supported, achieved a more intense, or concentrated tone. (This is briefly addressed in Tony's link if you can bear reading it again.) But, and I guess I have to be theoretical for a moment here, I think playing strongly supported allowed me finer control of my air; and with softer dynamics being more sensitive to our inputs, using support gave me a better ability to control my tone production. Yet, think of this: the reed doesn't know how the air it receives is being produced (supported/unsupported), just that it is receiving air. Over-blowing (losing focus/pitch at louder dynamics), or attempting to put more air into the mouthpiece set-up than it can handle, can occur both supported and un-supported. The reed doesn't know which way is being used. (Sort of kills that idea of hot/cold air being anything more than a metaphor, no?)
-I can give an example where using support at a loud dynamic may be beneficial. I remember a student playing an excerpt that contained a repeated dotted-eighth sixteenth rhythm, with interspersed accents, at a mf dynamic. (I think it was Don Juan, but that is inconsequential.) With each accent, I noted the student greatly contracting their abs to achieve the increase in air. The rhythm was so distorted, due to the fact the slower reacting abs couldn't "keep-up", that the excerpt resembled a pile of mush. I simply suggested that (they) play with more support and the problem was fixed. What happened? Well, the abs were now contracted at a higher level, let's say ff, though the line was only at mf. The contracted diaphragm relaxed slightly for the accents, which sounded at forte for arguments sake, and then contracted a bit more to bring the dynamic back down to mf. (The diaphragm seems to respond more quickly, remember, so the rhythm could be more easily maintained.) The line was played with support as the abdominals were constantly contracted at a higher level than the dynamic being produced.
>>>2.when I squeeze my abs to the fullest I feel it's counter productive and results in less air/more work, however when I do not flex my abs the tone is less centered and I can't reach ppp. So should a median flex be used where one is not consciously thinking about it but can still be felt? This seems like the only desirable method as one retains the centered tone and is still able to produce any dynamic
This is a bit of a confusing paragraph here, but I think I know what you're after:
-Squeezing the ab system can, of course, be over done. Contracting the abs to their fullest degree can restrict abdominal expansion, causing un-productive tension in other areas of the body. I would never say squeeze as hard as possible; just as I would never take the entire bottle of aspirin to alleviate the head-ache I have from staring at the computer screen. 2 pills are all that are needed at times.
>>"however when I do not flex my abs the tone is less centered and I can't reach ppp"... If the abs are not flexed/contracted to some degree then you are not blowing well/properly- thus you may find it difficult to center the tone. That you can't play softly is a bit confusing. Considering that your abs are relaxed, the air would ultimately have less driving pressure pressure behind it, making it possible only to play at softer dynamics. (Think- you can't play louder than your abdominal contraction, only equal to or softer.) That you can't reach ppp- well I think you mean that you can't control the exhalation of air, and thus the sound at ppp. That makes sense too: your abs are relaxed so you are not "pushing" the air out allowing for diaphragmatic opposition/support. Control of the sound at ppp would be quite difficult.
>>"So should a median flex be used where one is not consciously thinking about it but can still be felt? This seems like the only desirable method".... The beautiful thing about support is that it doesn't lock you into a constant state of abdominal contraction- or "median flex". Would I say I use supported blowing much more than un-supported?, yes. Does that mean a constant "median flex"? No. My abdominal contraction changes based on a number of factors. Also, defining a "median flex" is not exactly possible. Based on the resistance of my set-up, my definition of "median flex" could differ greatly from yours. The idea about it being the "only desirable method" should by now be clearly destroyed. The beauty of support is that you can choose when, and how much you need.
-You also mentioned "less air/more work". Well, that is what supported blowing is. What you need to reconsider is that that is not something that carries a negative connotation. Sometimes "more work" is necessary to produce and control the quantity of air. Sometimes it is the best way to accurately control the amount of air being expelled.
I will go back and edit this in a bit as I am sure I have misstated something. But right now I'm going cross-eyed and I think my retinas are bleeding.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-10-24 00:55
"Actually I think I completely understand it now and had been using support and breathing the right way all along."
*slow clap*
"Im sorry if anyone feels they have wasted their time on this subject..."
I think that an entire discussion like this that ends with a realization that you've been doing it right all along is the exact opposite of a waste of time.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-10-24 03:07
Dear Austen,
"Unless their is anything else to it?"
I don't know what they have to say.......
There may be more to it, but as you had it all along I suspect you are no longer in need of assistance.
Yet, maybe I accidentally assisted someone else.... even if only me in trying to better explain things in a written medium.
Have I been played a fool or sucker?
Whilst' I wrote 'til my eyes b'gan to pucker.
I pray after all
I have written on this wall
T'was not all in vain mother....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
