 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2011-12-17 02:16
In Vollume 32 of the Clarinet, No 4, September 2005. Thomas Ridenour has this to say about the emboucure. Does anyone understand what he's geting at?
THOMAS RIDENOUR:
"So in relation to em- bouchure, I began with three observa- tions. First, the purpose of embouchure is to control the reed’s vibrational pat- terns. Second, the purpose of the reed’s vibrational patterns is to generate the musical tone. Third, since musical tone is a part of reality, it must be essentially paradoxical in nature. I delineated this in the Ed Guide by drawing attention to only one set of paradoxical tonal ele- ments, freedom and control. Remaining true to the Law of Contradiction and the principle that purpose dictates process, I reasoned backwards as follows: Given that musical tone is paradoxical, and that the reed generates the musical tone, the reed must express the tone’s para- doxical nature in its actual vibrational patterns. Therefore, I concluded that the method of reed control that permits the reed to most perfectly and fully actual- ize those paradoxical elements is objec- tively the superior method. This is what I described in the book and called the friction-style embouchure, and I am ab- solutely convinced its correct applica- tion is the key to solving a multitude of problems that frustrate players of all skill levels".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-12-17 02:46
Man, Tom Ridenour may have some good ideas, but he is terrible at expressing them. This reads like a bad Google translation of Kant.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2011-12-17 03:27
I disagree that Tom is terrible at expressing his ideas -- he's precise in the verbiage that he chooses, he just presumes that those who will read what he thinks are equal to interpreting his description as he would have it read.
If you've read any of Tony Pay's posts and followed them through his progression you'll see the same type of reasoning and explanation, even though Tom and Tony may not agree.
The "friction based embouchure" = double lip embouchure.
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2011-12-17 03:30
Chris,
His idea of embouchure is, I believe, that the best musicality comes from freedom in expression. Good music is freely formed without constraint. Oddly, the best embouchure is very much in control and can be "paradoxically" constraining.
To summarize, the best musicians have the most control and by virtue of their control have amazing flexibility. He believes his system leads to flexibility through control. Too many people have issues with biting and his method tries to eliminate just that.
His books has been edited and certainly that has cleared away the fuzziness of some of his writings.
-Tim G
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: denkii
Date: 2011-12-17 04:01
I really just got extremely confused from reading that haha. TJTG's summary made A LOT more sense to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-12-17 05:22
"Third, since musical tone is a part of reality, it must be essentially paradoxical in nature."
Sentences like this are either nonsense or only make sense if you have extremely eccentric and specialized definitions of the words involved. I'm really not trying to knock Mr. Ridenour- I think his reed system is very good and use it often. I just think he's better at expressing himself on camera than in front of a word processor.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2011-12-17 05:53
I looked up Mr. Ridenour's full article in the interest of elucidating the quoted paragraph above. For those interested:
http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/role.htm
While the full article reads less like a bad undergraduate philosophy essay than the quoted paragraph, there are some problematic passages in both.
Perhaps someone could further clarify for the bboard readers the "paradoxical nature of reality" and this nature's manifestation in clarinet tone.
Are "freedom" and "control" objectively present in a clarinetist's tone, or are these simply qualities which we perceive to be present in a particular performance? Moreover, to what degree is the embouchure responsible for these perceived qualities? Perhaps the air column, tongue, fingers, or any number of systems which we employ when we play the clarinet (to say nothing of a performer's expressive/stylistic decisions) are equally if not more important for creating the perception of a free yet controlled tone. For that matter, what does free and controlled even mean in terms of one's tone?
"Given that musical tone is paradoxical" is where I should have ended reading (how is this statement a given principle), but I read through the full article as well. Much of what is contained in the article appears to be the usual embouchure advice which can be found on the bboard here: flat chin, high tongue position, push up with your right thumb, et cetera.
The main point of the article, however, is of some note: Mr. Ridenour posits that the jaw should remain in a "fixed position," without movement while playing. He fails to clarify exactly the optimal position, nor does he notify us of how we may find this position for ourselves (funny as this is the thrust of the article).
Speaking solely from experience, I have often employed my jaw in the act of playing: when using vibrato, for instance, or other manipulations in the tonal color or pitch. Mr. Ridenour states that this is harmful to one's playing; I say hogwash.
The rest of the article is a mixture of commonplace pedagogical concepts and rather funny statements- such as advising one not to bite downwards with one's top teeth.
To Phurster, I say do not bother putting too much effort into deciphering the paragraph which you posted.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-17 07:26
I understand the verbiage Mr. Ridenour is using, but the usage of seemingly correct verbiage makes for an accurate description not.
Quote:
First, the purpose of embouchure is to control the reed’s vibrational patterns. Second, the purpose of the reed’s vibrational patterns is to generate the musical tone. Third, since musical tone is a part of reality, it must be essentially paradoxical in nature.
*On the first point he is correct, though incomplete in explanation. Better- the lower lip dampens the reed's natural high vibrational frequency when driven by a constant input: air-pressure.
If this did not occur, the reed would not vibrate at the necessary frequency to excite the air inside the bore and generate the steady-state standing wave. (Steady-state assuming a constant air-pressure input is maintained.)
It is "paradoxical", actually counter-intuitive, that a reed vibrating with maximum kinetic energy is non-functional; it cannot in-put the correct frequency of energy needed to create the standing wave. However, that does not correlate to the Reality Paradox Mr. Ridenour writes of.
*The second point is a bit skewed. The vibrating reed in-puts the energy necessary to create the standing wave inside of the bore. The audible musical tone that exits the instrument is energy loss from the standing wave. This occurs from the skeletal tone hole system, and to a small point the bell.
*The third point loses it all however.
The Reality Paradox is actually a famous argument proposed by Einstein regarding Quantum Mechanics. It states that Quantum Mechanics cannot be a complete explanation of reality due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As it is normally diluted to make it tractable in speech- "No spooky action at a distance." (Quantum Theory is truly only explicable in the language of mathematics.)
(The application of the equations of Quantum Mechanics predicts what happens on the macro-level- the visible world in which we can move about- with incredible accuracy. The physical laws of the behavior/states of micro-level particles "discovered" are what constitute those equations.)
To dilute it further: every particle is a wave-form with its possible "states" predicted by Schrodinger's equation. The true position (or "state") of any particle is not known until it is "observed." However, once "observed" and its position is known, the "movement" of the wave is unknown. That is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Once position is "observed", the momentum is unknown- and vice versa.
In Physics today, the general consensus is that the Quantum world exists of all the possible wave states of quantum particles- until they are "observed" and snap into the visible reality that we live in. Newtonian Physics is said to be the sum average of the quantum states as predicted by Schrodinger's Equation; the Newtonian Physics which governs acoustical waves (the musical tone) that Mr. Ridenour speaks of.
(The danger is that we assume we ourselves are the observer and thus create our own reality. To view it this way is vastly incorrect; but to delve into how and why, it needs be discussed in the language of mathematics- far beyond the scope of this discussion. And admittedly far beyond my realm of true knowledge. However if it were true, to think it would be to create it- and practice and study would never be needed!!! .....alas it is not so.)
Einstein's Reality Paradox was a thought experiment used to illuminate possible flaws in Quantum Mechanics; its extrapolation outside of that world to one of musical tone on our Newtonian level is right out.
I do believe once that point is realized, the reverse engineered thought experiment resulting in the statement:
Quote:
Therefore, I concluded that the method of reed control that permits the reed to most perfectly and fully actualize those paradoxical elements is objectively the superior method.
is a bit spurious.
Those "paradoxical elements" cannot incorrectly be extracted from Einstein's thought experiment on the nature of reality re. Quantum Mechanics; thus no right of objective superiority can be claimed.
That fact makes the statement:
Quote:
.....the friction-style embouchure, and I am absolutely convinced its correct application is the key to solving a multitude of problems that frustrate players of all skill levels.
quite moot.
-----------------------
Also, I can ignore all of the pseudo-science in Mr. Ridenour's statement and demonstrate its fallibility.
I do not play with the friction style embouchure and suffer none of the ills that he wishes to cure; though that is not a scientific statement.
Mr. Ridenour has every right to disagree with my assessment of this.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-17 18:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-12-17 14:35
It may help to know that Tom is a double lip advocate and plays that way. All that he may be saying is that one should use an embouchure that allows the reed the most freedom to generate sound--and for him, that is double lip. He most certainly has a way with words, but in real life (thankfully) he does not talk that way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2011-12-17 15:06
Definition of VERBIAGE
1
: a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content <such a tangled maze of evasive verbiage as a typical party platform — Marcia Davenport>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-17 19:30
As someone asked of the 'Reality Paradox', I was merely explaining what it is; and the misapplication in Tom's quoted passage.
If my "verbiage" offends, confuses, or annoys then simply refrain from reading it. Or perhaps in the future I will save my energy and refrain from contributing. I would like to say that what I wrote of may seem to be obscure and of little content, but to a Physicist (a true Physicist, i.e. not myself) it is common vocabulary. (Though the equating of what I write to a conniving politician is a tad angering.)
Unfortunately, overly technical and lengthy writing is at times necessary to explain why a much shorter statement is incorrect. -A much shorter statement that at its core is attempting to (incorrectly) claim objective superiority. That sort of writing annoys me as it can harm a lay-person.
(I would like to state that my personality is nothing like those on "The Big Bang Theory"; i.e. not a dork.)
I would also admit that I too use double-lip as Tom, but not with his "method." However, I claim no superiority and do not advocate any particular method in an abstract context such as this BBoard.
Now I must go as I have a cold beer and college basketball awaiting me.
Sorry for the short post.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2011-12-17 20:09
Hi Jason -- I think that Bmcgar was making fun of Tom's verbiage more than your explanation.
James
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2011-12-17 20:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2011-12-18 13:49
Mr. Ridenour also has a covert sense of humour........
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
