 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-04-27 11:53
:)Note: yellow thingy experiment
Note: yellow thingy experiment
I think this demonstrates that the yellow thingy operates like the tongue in staccato.
Tony
Post Edited (2012-04-27 18:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-04-27 18:02
YES !!!!
Exactly, just how Daniel Bonade would have tweeted it........... if he could.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-04-27 20:32
>> Bonade's staccato tweet from beyond the grave.>>
What are you trying to do in this post?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2012-04-28 04:23
What's all this about then?
I'm gobsmacked! ![[huh]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie11.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2012-04-28 04:25
Q: The circumference of a circle is composed of how many straight lines?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-04-28 13:11
I still haven't a clue what any of this is about.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-04-28 13:54
John Kelly wrote:
>> What's all this about then? >>
and Chris Peryagh wrote:
>> I still haven't a clue what any of this is about.>>
Well -- because I found that writing:
:)
...before some text didn't show up as a yellow smiley, but that writing it AFTER some text did, it struck me that the analogy between:
(1) its behaviour in this regard (works to end text, but not to begin text)
and
(2) the behaviour of the tongue in a sequence of staccato notes, PROPERLY REGARDED (works to end each note, but not to begin each note)
...though perhaps rather far-fetched, might be worth drawing.
As Paul Aviles pointed out, (2) is precisely what Bonade said, in his very sketchy Clarinet Compendium, about staccato sequences of notes; rightly, according to me -- and, actually, rightly according to the actual mechanics of the situation.
But because there are further subtleties unaddressed by Bonade (to do with how you may shape isolated notes), Jason confused the issue by trying to talk about those subtleties in his extended version of the rather far-fetched 'language of smilies'.
He totally lost me, and clearly you -- until he explained himself.
My intention was merely to add one more slightly jokey metaphor to the collection I made in:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=316748&t=316712&v=t
...where the corresponding metaphor is number 1, MUD:
(mud-ud-ud-ud.... rather than du-du-du-du....)
Tony
Post Edited (2012-04-28 16:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-04-28 14:16
John Kelly wrote:
>> Q: The circumference of a circle is composed of how many straight lines? >>
There isn't an answer to this, really.
However, interpreting 'composed of' and 'how many' with a bit of latitude in the following, you can get the answer, 'one'.
Imagine the circle sitting on a straight line, so that that line is a tangent to the circle at its lowest point, S, say.
Through the highest point of the circle (N, say), draw another straight line that cuts the circle in one point P, and the original line in another point P'.
In this process, we make a correspondence between the point P, on the circle, and the point P' on the line.
In fact, we can make a correspondence in this way between ANY point on the circle and a unique point on the line. Equally, given any point Q on the line, we can by drawing the straight line NQ obtain a unique point on the circle.
N, on the circle, corresponds to what is called, 'the point at infinity' on the straight line.
What this shows is that there are the 'same number' of points in the circumference of the circle as there are in the one infinite straight line.
Of course, it also follows that, in this sense, there are the 'same number ' of points in ANY straight line, however short (just bend it into a tiny, tiny circle and do the same construction!)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-04-28 14:18
I see.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2012-04-29 02:34
Tony Pay wrote: ''There isn't an answer to this, really.''
This is correct, to a point(no pun intended). In fact a circle is apparently composed of an infinitesimal number of straight lines, according to Davis & Hersh "The Mathematical Experience, 1981.
My maths is only fair, and that is why I'm reading this book. It's for self education after I failed mathematics miserably in high school.
Here's their explanation: ''Now, the circle can be thought of as composed of infinitely many straight-line segments, all equal to each other and infinitely short........'' There's more, but it's a little dense for me.
The discussion then goes in to an explanation of triangulation. They describe how one of each of the sides of these infinite number of triangles will be one of the infinite straight lines on the circumference - and of course, the pointy bit is smack dab in the middle of the circle - together with a infinite number of other triangle pointy bits.
Think of a pie with the slices being cut into an infinite number of triangular servings. Such a mean host, one may say, still if you have a lot of guests at least everyone gets something!
What's this got to do with the clarinet?
On the face of it - nothing. But I see that the ever expanding amount of information, opinion, gossip.......or whatever, appearing on the BB, to me at least, amounts to evermore efforts at hair splitting.
One can wax lyrically ad infinitum about a topic such as embouchure position, reed thickness(infinity certainly plays a part here), density of bore oil, mouthpiece shape, the physics of vibrations of a column of air, and so on...............yes, well it just made me think of this book and a circle composed of straight lines.
A note to our moderators:
I am also a correspondent to another musical BB and it has an index of topics which are not related to the main topic (steel guitar, in this instance). This not only serves to categorise the postings in to some sort of order, it allows the correspondents to communicate across a broad range of subjects. This is the site I mention: http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/index.php
I'm sure that many folks here, waste a good deal of time clicking in to postings with vague headings such as ''Help" or ''I'm Lost'' and so on, only to find out that they can't help, or that the person is not lost.......................it's just a suggestion.
cheers,
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-04-29 06:26
For anyone reading,
John Kelly wrote:
> Tony Pay wrote: ''There isn't an answer to this, really.''
>...........
> What's this got to do with the clarinet?
>
> On the face of it - nothing. But I see that the ever expanding
> amount of information, opinion, gossip.......or whatever,
> appearing on the BB, to me at least, amounts to evermore
> efforts at hair splitting. etc....
Perhaps I am reading too deeply into Tony's last post, and John's, but I think there is a quite clear point to all of this business. And it has everything to do with the clarinet.
As Tony point out, there really isn't an answer to "Q: The circumference of a circle is composed of how many straight lines?."
Yet, he then proceeded to illustrate (if one can visualize the diagram, and understands the terminology) a method to derive a rational answer of 1 - with a "bit of latitude" necessary.
However, there is no true rational answer, only an irrational answer of ∞. Well, ∞ is an irrational number (as is pi) and little serves a rational discussion. Rational discussion as we need on the BBoard.
Just as asking "How many straight lines comprise the circumference of a circle?", we do have many come to the BBoard asking questions that amount to "How do I play the clarinet correctly?"
Answering that question is as irrational as the whole circumference business unless handled with a bit of latitude. Only then can rationality arise...
Returning to our circle, we can say that stating the number of straight lines present (using the triangulation method) is only as accurate as the number of significant figures present in our calculations. But we can never actually answer the question of 'how many' as we approach an irrational answer (∞) as we increase the sig. figs.
As a parallel, actually answering "How do I play the clarinet?" is only as accurate as the number of significant "factors" that we attempt to include. Yet, attempting to include all the significant factors only ends up in irrationality. (Couple that with those adding in insignificant factors and mind-warping confusion grows.)
***We need to use latitude and include only a loose framework of significant "factors" in our responses which the reader can then take home and flesh-out for themselves. Insignificant factors should be burned. If one is unable to discern in a particular case, then refrain. (And I do admit some personal irony as I added confusion to this thread with my "thumbs" and "smilies" business.)
Metaphor is an essential tool for rational discussion.
If one wishes to use more concrete "action" terms, much care should be taken: either explain it with exceptional clarity, or leave it "rightly confusing" enough for the reader to explore for themselves and figure it all out.
or if some asks the equivalent of "What is pi?" Determine whether to answer 3/1, 22/7, 311/99 or 245850922/78256779.
Only then can any rationality arise, as John requested.
And I do believe the moderators do a good job in determining what should be edited, or terminated on the BBoard.
But sometimes derivation from the initial post leads to important areas.
The reader is free to determine if this holds true in my current writing.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-04-29 06:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2012-05-01 03:54
I like smiling! But I tend to look a little stuffy, cuz I tend to smirk when I play clarinet. *scoff*
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[mad]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie9.gif)
triple forte![[whoa]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie10.gif)
SQUEAK!![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
your reed lest it be too dry.![[down]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley23.gif)
note ![[up]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley24.gif)
![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
