 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-11-05 01:15
I've been trying to clarify my thinking on various aspects of practice to refine my playing. I've reduced the operations of practice/playing to four basic aspects and wanted to get the opinion of those in the forum on this reflection. It may be useless but so far it helps me in maintaining a better sound and facility when I practice. I have to admit to a personality that needs to examine the simplest explanation and recast it in my own terms but I also have to admit that no-one has ever explained playing as a system of this order before. That doesn't mean that these aspects have come from me, far from it, they are from a range of written and other sources. All the following assumes a working instrument.
Please feel free to criticise this mercilessly:
1. Breathing - the lungs function as an airstream generator that initially fill the instrument with an aircolumn and then maintain that aircolumn over a prescribed number of beats.
2. Thoracic and oral cavity - the dimensions of the cavity influence the intonation of the pitch/instrument.
3. Tongueing - rhythm and attack generator.
4. Fingering - pitch selector.
If this is accurate then it is in the mouth that two things are happening at the same time: intonation and rhythm (which are the two fundamental areas of attention in the Russianoff books, no?). And that is about as simple as it gets for me. And I'm aiming for simplicity to build up again from that base.
Of course the above assumes integrating these various aspects so you don't need to tell me that but you could highlight things that I'm missing out on.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-05 03:38
Tony M,
I'm going to pre-face this by saying that nothing I am going to say is original to me. The components of "good wind playing" have existed for far longer than any one of us has been alive. Here, we can simply state the facts, and try to set up a way for you to experience what is needed. Yet, again, nothing that anybody says is revolutionary in that it magically uncovers some new idea- we simply pass things on as best we can.
You might be better served not viewing the act as a set of components (as you've alluded.) Each bullet-point you've stated relies on the others, so at some level it is impossible to entirely divide them. Yet, if you need to think in this manner for the time being, vaya con dios.
Just one thing I'd be remiss not to state before moving on further- the act of "musicality" and "technique" are not two differing entities. They occupy the same space and are ultimately the same thing. What you do as a technical/physical act should be generated by what the music itself calls for; no "technique" exists to only serve itself. They do serve the expression of the music however, which is something I rarely see stated in a clear way- far beyond what is written on this BBoard.
--But if you need divide the act into separate components, there are a few clarifications that need be made:
*The lungs don't themselves generate the air-stream. They do contain the air necessary to vibrate the reed, but the abdominal/diaphragm system is responsible for air regulation.
*The thoracic cavity, where the lungs are contained, I don't believe can affect the intonation directly by its' size. -But a caveat, it could depend on where you view the thoracic cavity to end; if the throat (pharynx, larynx) are viewed as part of the thoracic cavity, then perhaps a case could be made. However, anatomically speaking they do not constitute the thoracic cavity in so much as I have read.
*The oral cavity can affect intonation, but so can embouchure adjustments ad nauseaum. The variations and combinations are infinite.
*The tongue can be the attack generator, but so can the abdominal system. (You need not start a note with the tongue, no?)
*The tongue can affect intonation with its' position in the oral cavity, but again the variations approach infinity.
*The tongue can also play a part in the quality- or "type"- of sound produced (what is normally termed "voicing".)
*The pitch selection is a combination of the fingering and position of the rear portion of the tongue. (The rear portion of the tongue serves as the harmonic selector. -What some incorrectly term "voicing." The rear tongue position is not optional for the note you wish to sound. Search the archives for the article by Raymond Wheeler for a more in depth explanation.) For an easy example, play an open G and then sound altissimo D with no fingering change- the tongue position has changed allowing the next harmonic/partial to sound.
*Rhythm cannot be said to lie in any one portion of the body. Rhythm is the emission of sound, through the interplay of all that you have stated, in the meter that is needed.
I'm not trying to be merciless in my statement, lest you find me insufferable. I know you are looking for simplicity, but simplicity does still require correct thought and knowledge.
and I don't have the name recognition of Leon Russianoff, but what he writes of, is not original. This is no slight to him however....
"How come I've never heard of you?"- Well that's because there are no herds of me. ;-)
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-11-05 05:51
Jason,
Thank you. That's exactly the type of response I was looking for. I have lots to think about now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dharma
Date: 2011-11-05 11:44
That was some great initial thoughts and a great follow up.
I'd be interested to learn more about this kind of analysis, and will look up Russianoff, but would also be interested to read more of this thread!
-----
A horse is drawn to water, but a pencil must be lead.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-05 16:02
I agree with the basic premise that the mouth is where pitch and rhythm occur.
I would disagree over some of the more detailed responses above (and many, MANY disagree with me) in that it is the abdominal muscles (and to a much lesser degree the intercostal muscles between the ribs) that produce and maintain the air column.
Even more controversially I assert that if you actually stop and think about maintaining a ROCK steady embouchure and IMMOVABLE jaw pressure, you can move your tongue until the cows come home and there will be NO CHANGE to pitch or tone WHATSOEVER. I (and only me apparently) attribute this to our engrained connections of ALL these systems for speech since infancy and therefore we cannot rationally disassociate them (or isolate) enough to be truthful with our results.
All I try to get at with this it that clarinet playing is MUCH simpler than many of us make it, and if you are having trouble with it adding all the voicing stuff then maybe you don't need to bother. If you are SUCCESSFUL using all the voicing stuff...........keep up the good work.
.........................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-05 20:24
Paul,
If you disagree with what I have said, then please explain what with some detail. Blanket statements that don't really address your "problems" with what I have written serve no purpose but to confuse matters for others.
Yet, I will reply;
***What generates the air column then?
I would be curious to know as the lungs do not contain muscular tissue themselves which expels the air. The thoracic cavity is enlarged by the descending diaphragm, creating a vacuum, or imbalance in pressure, and air must enter to equalize external atmospheric pressure. (Search 'negative pressure breathing'.)
The action of the abdominal muscles then work to exert a mechanical pressure against the descended diaphragm, which in turn decreases the size of the thoracic cavity. This causes an increase in pressure in the thoracic cavity and expels air as the atmospheric pressure outside the body is at a lower level. Or in the case of playing, causes the air to be expelled against the mouthpiece/reed/clarinet system.
Now keeping in mind we can control how much the diaphragm resists the mechanical push of the abdomen we have breath control- or diaphragmatic resistance/support.
***As for your assertions over the non-contributory factor that the tongue plays, well, I don't know where to start. ...and I don't have the energy right now to explain where you are wrong. The same goes for voicing- others have tried and I'm not going down that path.
Do not assume I am taking the path of disagreeing and simply walking away however; I just can't stomach the thought of fighting right now. And the fight is not with you.
***"I agree with the basic premise that the mouth is where pitch and rhythm occur." -That may be the single most incorrect and confusing statement currently written on the BBoard. ...And talk about contradictory- if the tongue plays no role in intonation/pitch-selection (they Are 2 different things), then how in the world could control of pitch (or partial selection), or intonation be said to lie there?
As for rhythm, how can it be said to lie in the mouth when every portion of the body has a contributory factor? -That the air passes into the instrument inside the mouth is somewhat ancillary to the situation.
--------------------------------
That, as you stated, many, Many, disagree with your beliefs speaks volumes. Perhaps, given the fact you only use conjecture to support your "ideas" it is difficult to know where to start a conversation. Or perhaps, if most everybody disagrees with what you write, you may just be incorrect.
Perhaps you too may still learn something.- even about all this voicing stuff.
but I do thank you for your good wishes and I'll "keep up the $%&^ing good work."
-Jason
p.s.- if you do not wish to read a long post then don't read what you have just read.
Post Edited (2011-11-05 22:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2011-11-05 20:39
Paul,
How exactly does "rhythm lie in the mouth?"
Also, I remember some bboarders posting about a machine which "played" the clarinet. As the volume of air being pushed from the machine into the mouthpiece of the clarinet was increased, the pitch went flat. Changes in intonation without variation in "jaw" pressure would seem to contradict your hypothesis.
If anyone remembers this topic better than I do, please correct me.
Post Edited (2011-11-05 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-05 21:02
brycon,
I'll search for that thread because I know what you are speaking of. (Not my experiment I should state.)
The difference between the experiment you are speaking of and the act of playing lie in the volume(dimensions) of the resonating cavity in which the mouthpiece/reed lies.
(It is worth re-stating that the sound waves not only pass "out" of the instrument, but propagate themselves in the mouth/resonating cavities. It is as if the sound is reflected back into the mouth as well as out of the clarinet; explains how we can voice the throat tones to sound acceptable even without using resonance fingerings. The physics of why the sound "reflects" backwards though the instrument are not really of importance for this discussion.)
In the experiment, where the mouthpiece was placed inside a large chamber (far larger than our mouths) the air speed alone caused changes in pitch. The chamber was large enough that it exerted little effect, thus pitch modulation could be accomplished by air speed alone. Also, the quality of sound was not influenced by the chamber as it was quite large.
The oral cavity is much smaller than the chamber used in the experiment however, so changes in volume(dimension) are necessary for variations in intonation and sound quality. That is why voicing is not a crock as some have stated.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-11-05 21:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-05 22:25
Well, if you read the initial post, rhythm comes from the delineation of note to note, or articulation - the tongue. Of course as Karl Leister even demanded of a student on the Pick-Steiger Concert Hall website you CAN and often DO want to start a note with the breath. I doubt anyone would want to play Midsummer's Night Dream that way. So it is the tongue, or mouth.
As for voicing. My favorite reference is the much vaunted video of the clarinetist in x-ray who makes the 'HEE-YAW' sound and then plays that way to demonstrate this point. As you watch him play, two things are quite evident ONE, his jaw relaxes (so is this not a lessening of the support around the reed ?????) and TWO, his contact point with the reed drops down SIGNIFICANTLY on the 'YAW' part of the sound.
So if you want me to believe in voicing you may have to get into the the physics of the back cavity's affect (which should include how with voicing can turn your Bb into an A clarinet for that matter) on pitch.
.....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2011-11-05 22:52
Rhythm comes from the tongue?
So passages in which notes are connected have no rhythm, nor does someone employing vibrato give the listener a sense of rhythm?
By the way, the word articulation has several meanings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-05 23:14
Paul,
Do you want me to respond or let you keep painting yourself into a corner?
and don't look at me in that tone of voice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 00:40
Tony M,
In seeing that somethings written here are unsupported, or talk themselves in circles to ultimately speak of nothing, I would suggest that you take what you read as you see fit.
Please ask questions as needed however.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-11-06 00:55
Jason,
Thank you for your initial response to my original post and for the invitation to ask questions in your last post. When it comes to clarinet, I need all the help I can get. When it comes to reading, however, I feel fairly competent but thanks for the tip.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-06 03:00
"(It is worth re-stating that the sound waves not only pass "out" of the instrument, but propagate themselves in the mouth/resonating cavities. It is as if the sound is reflected back into the mouth as well as out of the clarinet; explains how we can voice the throat tones to sound acceptable even without using resonance fingerings. The physics of why the sound "reflects" backwards though the instrument are not really of importance for this discussion.)"
I was actually looking for some support for this statement. I really do want to know.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 07:23
Paul,
I have no desire to revisit my Physics days, nor write an academic essay, but I'll sum it up as simply as I can. (and an actual acoustician can feel free to correct me as needed as I am admittedly a bit rusty.)
To preface- Some things I will say, to simplify matters, will ask you to assume that the clarinet is a perfect closed pipe cylinder with no energy loss in the system. These things are of course not true; the instrument could not emit sound without energy loss. Yet I am sure you are aware of this.
*If you wish to understand anything you need to read about what standing waves are, and how that is what makes playing the clarinet possible. To dumb it down: a standing wave is the sum of two sine waves, of equal frequency and amplitude, moving in opposition. This is called superposition (if memory serves.) THAT wave, the superposition, is what you actually hear when you play. So, the sound you hear is actually the vibration of the of the air that is already present in the clarinet.
*Where the two opposed sine waves "cancel" each-other out (picture a static line with 2 sine waves moving in opposite directions along it- they cancel out where one wave is equidistantly above the flatline as the other is below it. Or simpler, equal frequency and amplitude moving in opposite directions. Or even simpler, simply think of two opposed forces meeting.) we find a node of vibration. An anti-node, where the superposition is at its' highest amplitude, occurs halfway between those nodes. (Again picture the two opposed sine waves. Where they meet above and below the flatline is where the anti-nodes occur. Maximum amplitude is generated as the two sine waves frequency and amplitude are equal, and "add up" to simplify.)
(You can read about cut-off frequencies as I am too rusty to explain it well, but they are of importance.)
*Wave behavior is the same in a string as it is in an acoustical wave- which is governed by air/or "acoustic" pressure.
***Now actually moving to the clarinet (and remember that wave behavior is governed by air pressure) we find a node at the end of the bell (atmospheric pressure) as it is open, and an anti-node at the mouthpiece where air pressure is generated (maximum energy.) (1/4 of a full wave length- where low E is sounded.) When the reed is vibrated by the air, we produce a "movement/displacement" node at the mouthpiece and an anti-node at the open end. The standing wave is then produced (superposition) and the note sounds (through energy loss.)
*Now a reed vibrating un-damped by the lip (at its' natural frequency) will vibrate wildly and not excite the air in the bore at any appreciable amplitude. But when we place our lip on the vibrating reed, it is dampened, or weakened, as it excites the air in the clarinet. The key here is that the reeds' energy is weakened (by the lip) and is forced to vibrate at the frequency of the bore- the bore takes over so to say. The standing wave is generated (interacting pressure and displacement waves I believe are the two terms- but those more knowledgeable please correct that.) The harmonic produced will generally be the lowest possible- through conservation of energy I would think, but again feel free to correct that if you are more knowledgeable than I. (Why I believe it can be said that the reed actually vibrates slightly faster than the frequency of the note being produced.)
*So you go along playing in any particular harmonic, opening and closing tone holes (which changes the position of the pressure anti-node and the standing wavelength obviously) and all is right with the world. The impedance (think a resistance of sorts) of the clarinet bore controls the vibration of the reed. What happens downstream of the mouthpiece is not affected much by what occurs upstream. But something important happens if you tune your mouth/throat resonance to match, or come close to, the bore resonance downstream.
*The tuning of the mouth/throat resonance (what Wheeler discusses, and yes this includes tongue position) have a profound effect when they approach a natural harmonic of the standing wave in the bore (1,3,5,7,etc...) By matching resonances above and below the mouthpiece, you also match impedance- the reed is not "controlled" by the bore anymore. At this point, you can force the instrument to change what harmonic it is playing in. And conversely, we must say that for the reed to vibrate a desired harmonic of the standing wave, the mouth/throat resonance must match that natural harmonic of that wave.
*That is how mouth/throat/tongue "system" interacts with the instrument. That we have register keys is helpful- but don't fool yourself for a second that your mouth resonance upstream is not at play. Register keys are simply a luxury, or aide.
*We can also have the resonance of the mouth "system" take control. That is how we can "force" the instrument to jump harmonics with the mouth "system"- we overcome the impedance of the instrument. This occurs much more easily in the upper harmonics where said harmonics are weaker. (Look at a spectrum analyzer.) This is also why we CAN bend the pitch of an altissimo C a 4th or 5th downward using only the tongue- we are controlling the resonance of the clarinet with our mouth "system" (upstream of the mouthpiece.)
No jaw movement is required as the strength of the resonance of the mouth "system" is quite strong here; it over takes the impedance of the bore. Yet at some point the bending of pitch, controlled by the tongue, will either:
-A) stop because the tongue has raised so high that it chokes off the air. (Remember that the rear tongue position is inversely related to the frequency being produced.)
-B) or drop down to the next harmonic as the impedance of the bore/standing wave takes control back. (Or better, the increasing wavelength produced requires increasingly more energy input to be maintained; ultimately it loses to the impedance of the bore.)
Now, you can continue the bend downward past F, or so, if you incorporate a jaw descent- AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I can bend down to a D, on a good day with the right reed, incorporating the jaw- but it is not necessary for the majority of the bend.
*We can also easily change the quality of sound with the mouth "system" on certain notes where the impedance is low due to the standing wave strength, or we match the resonance of the wave with our mouth "system", OR cut-off frequencies come into play. (I don't have the energy, nor my resources at hand to begin on that- do some of your own research.) Thus, we can "voice" the quality of the throat tones upstream of the mouthpiece in certain instances, for example. We must also take care as certain notes, such as throat G on the A clarinet, tend to speak louder- they match a resonance of our oral cavity and are amplified as such.
*Notes/standing waves with a high impedance level can not be as easily manipulated by the mouth "system", that is where some jaw movement MAY be applied.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-11-06 07:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 08:01
Paul,
I edited a bit, but seeing that I've spent 3 hours of my life on you, I don't feel like looking at it anymore tonight. I am sure I misstated things- I'll go over it some more tomorrow. And yes there was a point in my life where I could show the math of this, but I don't need access that dark corner of my brain anymore.
Yet, I wanted to back up what I say so you are held accountable just the same for the idiocy that spills from your mind.
What Wheeler writes of is correct. The video you cite is but one example. It is old, and clearly shows that the musician it simply not very good: thus the profound jaw movement. Subsequent studies have been done that prove his findings however; they simply use better technology for observation.
That you attribute everything to the jaw is FLAT OUT WRONG, and I did not invent the physics that prove it.
What these videos show are 2 things
1- That harmonic selection is dependent upon rear tongue position/vocal tract tuning (this is not voicing)
2- The resonance tuning of the oral cavity/vocal tract/tongue placement can affect pitch and sound quality (part of what is called voicing.)
--------------------------------------
Now drop your pants and let's see you you've got. I will at least expose myself with what I have to be judged.
Start with how you believe the air stream is generated if you disagree with what I have written.
Then we can get to your asinine assessment of "where rhythm lies." (and yes I have read the initial post several times.)
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-06 14:36
I am being supportive of the initial poster's assertions to a point. If you want to be fair about the rhythm as stated by 'Brycon,' of course there is legato movement, but many of the things we do over all include delineating notes with some sort of stop. For me rhythm IS the length of time of each note (whether stopped or not) so much of our rhythm is determined by how well we coordinate our tongue with what's going on (stopping and starting that is) - that's all, nothing more nothing less.
The matching of the resonance in the mouth/throat is intriguing. You mention (I believe) high double C in your example. Yes, here we CAN manipulate THAT harmonic much like a trumpet player. You ever stop the bottom of your horn and do trumpet calls? I concede that I see this working in the stratosphere of the horn where you are dealing with very tight harmonics but once you engage the bore of the horn I am not experiencing a real world difference in the sound as you state.
One example of resonance that I CAN experience is the technique of humming a certain note against a played one. In this instance you can generate various 'growling' sort of sounds for jazz in ALL registers.
The other real world example off of which I play is my time as student with John Yeh. I was enamored with the sounds of DePeyer and Brymer and thought I was getting the greatest throat notes ever by using 'open throat' (saying AHHHHH as if a tongue depressor where in your mouth - oh, and by the way using a Boosey 1010 with a Nr 2 Boosey mouthpiece). All John Yeh heard was an unfocused, hollow tone. Naturally my first response was indignation and shame. This was closely followed by, 'oh look, you were right.' At least in the 'American Mid-Western School of thought' (to include Combs, Brody, Yeh, Marcellus), the achievement of the best center of sound is to deliver a focused, thin, quick movement of air to the mouthpiece. I DO NOT imply that those teachers listed above would be critical of 'voicing,' but there was a demonstrable tendency to avoid the "AHHHHH" tongue position amongst them.
Over the years I am arriving more at a notion that LESS IS MORE with tongue movement, and more and more seems to be involved with how much air energy is used and how much energy one places around the mouthpiece (I avoid the term 'biting').
..........................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 16:45
Paul,
Did you actually digest what was written, or simply glance it over without processing any information?
**the C I refer to is C6 ![[C6]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/c6.gif) .
**What I spoke of doesn't involve stopping the end of the horn and performing trumpet calls. That you believe what I wrote of refers in the least to that underlies the fact that you have not actually understood anything I wrote. ....or you have no clue what the laws of physics are......... or both.
The clarinet doesn't operate as a closed pipe because you plug the end of the bell with your leg. You can force the instrument to jump harmonics with vocal tract tuning alone- and an open bell. Try playing a C4 and forcing the G5, then E6 and finally A6 to sound without moving your jaw. This is actually quite easy to accomplish on that notes' harmonic series; I am sure that an accomplished clarinetist as yourself should have no problem executing this. If the jaw remains stable then what is changing? (This is not voicing- this is simply harmonic selection.)
And please, do not refer to the video clip you so incessantly use. It is out-dated. Try doing some of your own research on things for a change. The findings prove, as I already stated, that: 1- harmonic selection is dependent on rear tongue placement, and 2- the voicing/tuning of a note is also possible in the oral cavity/vocal tract- including forward tongue placement.
Why are you so blindly thickheaded to see that the tongue, or differing portions of it, can play more than one role in the act of playing; including two functions at the same time. (Voicing can be said to encompass many things, including, yes, jaw movement at times, but it is not necessary. It can lie in many areas, also including tongue position.)
**Your ignorant name dropping angers me. I could care less that you got to observe Karl Leister's masterclass at Northwestern- that doesn't give you any more stature or knowledge. It IS particularly annoying that you distort his words. Invoking his name doesn't elevate yours.
**I'm from the Bonade lineage, so don't preach to me about what the goals are.
**That the mid-western teachers did not advocate an "AHHH" tongue position does not mean that it doesn't occur; or didn't occur in their playing. It must occur for certain harmonics, so what they spoke of was not quite correct. I am not bashing their work (as I stated, my lineage is the same as yours, I simply am smart enough to place it in the proper context.) Yet, when concrete laws of physics occur on the Newtonian level, you are not exempt from them. Fool yourself all that you want, but that simply shows that you are quite unaware yourself what is occurring inside of your own body.
**"The matching of the resonance in the mouth/throat is intriguing."
This is NOT intriguing. It is a concrete, verified acoustical aspect of playing- whether you are aware of it or not.
**"once you engage the bore of the horn I am not experiencing a real world difference in the sound as you state."
Again, I don't care what you think you are experiencing. This is the way the clarinet operates as an acoustical tool- its' laws are not mutable. This is Newtonian level physics- nothing in the quantum level. If you don't experience something, well that may speak of the situation. The matching of mouth resonances actually make the clarinet acceptably playable by a human-being.
**"I DO NOT imply that those teachers listed above would be critical of 'voicing,'
In fact, as critical as they would be of it, they are doing it. I say this not to criticize their playing (again , I grew up with those "gods" as my ideal), but to show that even the best players do not always know what they are talking about.
**"Over the years I am arriving more at a notion that LESS IS MORE with tongue movement
Good for you; I'll buy you a cookie if we ever meet. Yet, what you are coming to believe is not fact when speaking of matters. The vocal tract (including the movement of the god damn tongue) must occur for a said harmonic to sound.
Now you can think whatever the hell you want while you are playing- I could care less. But don't write that in this forum for someone to read. You are stating incorrect facts that can be dis-proven, and shouldn't we be speaking of what is true here?
**Do not assume that because I can speak of the acoustical properties of playing that I am some mathematician sitting at his desk. I simply took the time to understand how my instrument works. I'm not being cocky, but I can play a "little" bit too. Perhaps intelligent, well-read people make for the best musicians.
.... and I would still like to know what generates the air-stream as you have disagreed with what I wrote. If I am wrong, then I would like to know -and the why. Yet, you seem to be ignoring this; or have you inadvertently put your foot in your mouth?
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-11-06 16:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-06 18:50
The most important thing from above is that you promised to buy me a cookie. I prefer sugar cookies (sweet tooth I'm afraid).
I acknowledge physics, I just don't know how much the hard and fast rules apply in the case of the clarinet. You said yourself that if there were no loss of energy the clarinet wouldn't sound at all ........... my point exactly.
I do REALLY appreciate your explanation of the standing wave. Also very critical to this discussion and illuminating - BRAVO !!!! Where I still miss the point is in the resonating chamber above the mouthpiece (anti node at mouthpiece/node at bell .....got it). If you're saying that there is some ideal size to this chamber for resonance then you must be saying that those of us with large mouths (mine can accommodate an extra large sugar cookie) must use the tongue to minimize this space. If that were true then there may be some of us with mouths too small to make this perfect resonance possible. What do they do?
I have another analogy (you may not like) courtesy of an engineer I worked with some years ago who said, "Do you realize that a motor needs to run at full capacity to be at peak efficiency?" Some how we were talking about cars, yet I doubt if even he would do this to his engine, or he'd be replacing said engine every couple of years. So no, I don't always feel pure Newtonian physics can be applied to day-to-day situations.
Back to the harmonic: When first challenged with moving octave to octave without voicing (and without the octave key) I found that applying more air pressure (via my trusty abdominal muscles) gave me what I needed EVERY time. So, no I do not use my tongue, I use air.
As an adherent of Bonade's approach to clarinet it saddens me that we lie so far apart on such a fundamental point. To clarify the voicing thing, I was corrected by Chadash on Marcellus' voicing methodology. Marcellus did firmly believe that one must incorporate proper voicing to achieve evenness of scale (and I believe the key was in the altissimo). I was promised a copy of a tape of this very lesson but have yet to receive it. Still in its absence I believe Chadash and forgive Bob Marcellus.
I don't name drop in the true sense of the word (I hope), I am only merely trying to put my frame of reference into perspective (support my claims).
But on THAT note I want to defend poor Karl Leister. The master class to which I referred involved the First Brahms Sonata which begins in a very singing style. Karl Leister wanted the student to start this sound the way a singer would sing it, that is, instead of starting the first note as "Tah," he wanted to hear 'AHHH.' Or rather no abrupt note but a rounded entrance only achievable by starting the note with just the air. I WOULD NEVER intentionally distort his words and would eagerly put in a link if I knew how to do that sort of thing.
And finally at this point I'm sure of two things. We are the only two people still reading this thread (I'm sure the original poster has checked out a while ago). And Mark will shut this down real soon.
I look forward to my extra large sugar cookie,
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 20:12
I sincerely hope others are actually reading this thread.
Paul Aviles wrote:
in part:
> I acknowledge physics, I just don't know how much the hard and
> fast rules apply in the case of the clarinet. You said
> yourself that if there were no loss of energy the clarinet
> wouldn't sound at all ........... my point exactly.
If you cannot understand how basic , hard and fast, rules of physics apply to the clarinet, then I fear there is no hope of explaining anything properly to you. It would lie far above your sphere of knowledge.
The clarinet doesn't function as a truly closed system (i.e. no energy loss) or no sound would be produced. Yet, this does not negate the behavior of the clarinet as according to concrete Newtonian laws. (now the quantum laws that determine Newtonian level are a subject of debate- but that has nothing to do with the clarinet as we do not access, or serve as the "observer" that brings quantum fluctuations into being. ...the average of which allow Newtonian physics to exist and thus provide the world which we Can observe.)
The energy lost through sound emission is however mathematically quantifiable. Rest assured, that with the requisite subtractions of energy from the system due to sound emission, the physical clarinet system still is subject to the rules of Newtonian physics/wave behavior. On the macro level we live in, EVERYTHING IS. YOU cannot argue that wish as you may.
>>I do REALLY appreciate your explanation of the standing wave. Also very critical to this discussion and illuminating - BRAVO !!!!
Save me the pat on the back. I'm not writing here for my own self-promotion. Nor do I look for someone to say "'atta boy- You REALLY got him on that one!" What I would like to see is some actual thought put into banal statements that fly across this BBoard- most of which speak of nothing at all; or worse are blatantly incorrect. The reason I spend too much time actually putting thought into what I post here is simple: I would absolutely love to see statements, such as what you endlessly spew, disappear from this forum. They help no one and just confuse matters for those less knowledgeable. -A category which you ultimately fall into in spite of your schoolin'.
I did not invent, nor discover the action of the "standing wave." This is simply necessary to understand how the wave inside of the clarinet Can be affected by the behavior upstream of the input (mouthpiece/reed combination.)
and you further wrote:
>>Back to the harmonic: When first challenged with moving octave to octave without voicing (and without the octave key) I found that applying more air pressure (via my trusty abdominal muscles) gave me what I needed EVERY time. So, no I do not use my tongue, I use air.
First off, we don't move octave to octave so stop writing bad ?-| -we move harmonic to harmonic. (And I'll ignore the fact that you are now generating your airstream with you ab system, which you earlier stated was not the case.) Now you obviously "use air"- we are playing a wind instrument. If more quantity of air is needed at a harmonic change, that's fine; perhaps more "input energy" is necessary to over come the dominance/impedance of the bore. But, that you cannot feel an internal change, nor note it from outside observation does not mean that it is not occurring. You can feel your active increase in "air pressure", but not the change that is occurring elsewhere. Just because you do not note something, or feel it occur, does not mean it is not occurring.
(We cannot feel our diaphragm in action, yet we breathe. I cannot actually feel my intercostal muscles, and I do not actively call them into action. I control my air with the interaction between the ab-system and the diaphragm. Perhaps the intercostals are at play, but as I don't feel them, nor actively compress my rib cage, I do not discuss them; nor place electrodes on my chest to check for muscular activity. And I can discuss the differing ways the diaphragm can descend- possibly negating the necessity for intercostal action; but that is for another thread.)
Excuse the dramatic aside, let's get back to the shifts between harmonics. If you change harmonics, increases in air pressure withstanding, then the requisite changes in rear tongue/vocal tract position MUST occur. This is not debatable. It was theorized, tested both mathematically and with scientific instruments, and proven.
***A quite easy experiment: play a C6 at mf, close the register key, and maintain the sounding C6 (granted it will be a tad flat as the clarinet is not a perfect cylinder.) Now with out moving your jaw, decrescendo and crescendo- all the while maintaining the sounding C6 without pitch fluctuation. Your air speed is changing, thus the dynamic shifts, but the note is maintained. How can this be????
If you want to understand the matter further, do your own research, but quit stating incorrect facts.
And I said I grew up through the Bonade lineage. I do not consider myself to be an adherent to any one persons', or schools', approach. It is simply stupid to think that way. I am an adherent of the clarinet and what needs to be done to express the music properly through it. That is not unique to the Bonade school, nor any "sect" of clarinet playing.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-11-06 20:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-11-06 20:12
Paul,
I'm still reading and I'm finding it quite fascinating. I will post as soon as I have time to construct a proper contribution.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 20:26
Paul Aviles also wrote
"I have another analogy (you may not like) courtesy of an engineer I worked with some years ago who said, "Do you realize that a motor needs to run at full capacity to be at peak efficiency?" Some how we were talking about cars, yet I doubt if even he would do this to his engine, or he'd be replacing said engine every couple of years. So no, I don't always feel pure Newtonian physics can be applied to day-to-day situations."
I actually do like this analogy quite a bit (my love of cars withstanding.) This paragraph underlines why it is impossible to reason with you- you do not understand that you are actually supporting me with your statement.
IF the clarinet were a perfect system, or at peak efficiency, then it would not be playable. It are the inherent flaws in the clarinet that allow us to play differing notes, harmonics, bend pitch etc....
You may not feel that Newtonian physics apply to day-to-day situations, but rest assured they do. In fact, our lives would be quite unbearable if it were not so.
--I actually found a web-site that illustrates everything I am speaking of quite clearly and well supported, but I hesitate to post the link. I fear you would not take the time to actually read and digest what is contained there with an open mind.
.... or perhaps everybody is out of step but you.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-11-06 20:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 21:06
Paul,
I've just re-read this entire thread. Considering I've illustrated my points with scientific evidence as best as I could with what we have at hand, and each statement you write begins with "Well I believe", or "I think", or "I don't think" or "Person X told me" or worse "Person X told me that Person A said"..... well, I feel inclined to disengage until you actually provide something concrete to go on.
Also, considering that you talk yourself in circles to the point where you start to contradict yourself I don't know where to begin.
Stay comfortable in your black hole, but I'm not coming any closer to the event horizon.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-11-06 21:14
Paul wrote: (I'm sure the original poster has checked out a while ago)
I'm still here but I can't honestly explain why.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-06 21:29
"**A quite easy experiment: play a C6 at mf, close the register key, and maintain the sounding C6 (granted it will be a tad flat as the clarinet is not a perfect cylinder.) Now with out moving your jaw, decrescendo and crescendo- all the while maintaining the sounding C6 without pitch fluctuation. Your air speed is changing, thus the dynamic shifts, but the note is maintained. How can this be????"
I was about to posit the opposite to you (we think alike I'm afraid). I had just RE-tried my previous attempt to play C6 with all varied position of the tongue both generating the tone in static positions as well as C6 with tongue in motion (not the way anyone would play clarinet mind you) and I was able to maintain (or reestablish) a perfect C6 in every way. Would this be possible if there were only one perfect resonance position of the tongue?
As we say on the Board "you're mileage may vary." I suspect this discussion has gone into the black hole as you said. I just saw a Nova show the other day that asserted that more and more physicists are coming to the conclusion (through black hole analysis) that all of three dimensional reality is only a manifestation (or projection as it were) of a two dimensional reality. Newton is being left in the dust.
......................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-11-06 22:06
Paul,
I could illustrate where you are wrong, both in the realm of quantum physics, and how Newtonian physics relate to the clarinet, but you would not understand the language.
Thus I will depart thee with the famous words of Bartleby: "I would prefer not to."
....and if you don't know why those words are apt, you need to do some reading
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
