 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-01 00:49
What in the world actually causes the audible effect we hear as "harsh" articulation?
Not just the physical action...
More essential: what mechanical action of the reed/clarinet are we causing to occur when we tongue "harshly"????
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-05-01 08:50
It seems to me that a slightly harder reed may help along with a metronome. Start very slowly and work on a really light tongue exercise. One note at a time, then 2 and you get the idea. With wicked fast passages I have really good luck using the center of my tongue instead of the tip of the tongue. I feel everyone should experiment with both types of practicing. A harder reed helps, but when you get the feel of both styles try a softer reed and see what happens. I'd give it about 2 months of daily practice for abiut 5 minutes or more.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-05-01 17:58
Harsh would be not just 'damping' the reed but actually pushing it into the window of the mouthpiece.
Fortunately I don't really hear anyone play that way anymore. I think it would just about kill me.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-05-01 18:06
I don't know, but another thing I don't know is whether the first reply was accidently posted in the wrong thread  Green smily
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-01 18:12
I'm looking at a more basic mechanical/Physics level..... what are we actually causing to occur?
For a generic articulation: we have to stop the vibration of the reed entirely. Simply damping it may not cease the reed's vibration entirely......
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-02 00:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-05-01 20:11
My suspicion is that you'll need to hear from an engineer or a physicist. The likelihood is, I think, very low that you'll get anything more from performing clarinetists than guesses and subjective interpretations of the sensations they feel while playing. The question is whether or not this has been seriously studied by scientists or mechanical engineers. You'd need at some point to be able to see actual images of real-time playing (with all the equipment that requires), somehow examine all the varied player actions and reed reactions going on at the same time inside the mouth and correlate the analyzed image content with the sounds you're trying to explain.
Most of us are far more likely to be practicing and making up our own explanations based on what we *think* is happening.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-05-01 21:42
If taking a soft reed and jamming closed the entire orifice is NOT the answer you're looking for then I'm out.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-01 23:54
We actually don't need to rely on (ample) guessing or surmising; nor the active input of an Engineer or Physicist.
And right off, let's substitute "harsh" for undesired quality....
I wrote of the generation of a standing-wave in the bore in the concurrently running thread of "Teaching how not to tongue harshly." A bit of outside investigation will help matters in that area, but it seems to me, we should know how the clarinet functions before we actually try to teach something about it.
Something to consider, and hopefully spur some discussion:
*Once we cause the reed to properly begin vibrating, the standing-wave in the bore is actually causing the reed to vibrate at the desired frequency. (You could say the bore is "choosing" the frequency of reed vibration if you desire.) The higher impedance of the bore (and its resonances) are the cause of this....
Though it is a simplistic over statement that we must use now for tractability, it is an inescapable fact. -The bore controls how the reed vibrates.
That is until it doesn't.
Any ideas? .....I'm simply flummoxed
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-02 01:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-03 20:53
As there seems to be no audience, nor interest in finding out what lies at the heart of matters, it is becoming highly likely that I'll have to figure this all out by myself.
I guess one last request will suffice... Did anybody find anything out about all this stuff?
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-05-03 22:25
Jason, the problem may be partly with your descriptor. Your question seems to have spun off of the other thread in which a high school student was asked by his band director to help the members of his clarinet section overcome their "harsh tonguing," which conjures up all kinds of images, at least in my mind, many of which are not exclusively (or at all) tonguing problems but also include problems with embouchure, use of air and even reed choice. Any of us who teach have heard any number of variations of poor technique that would be generally described as harsh or heavy or ineffective or unmusical articulation, and most teachers I've known simply start from scratch with a student and build better techniques from the bottom up rather than try to correct directly what the student is already doing.
Your question in this thread seems, unless I've misunderstood your intent, to want to take "harsh" articulation as a separate effect, perhaps one that might even be used to some advantage in specific musical contexts, that specifically results from some interaction of reed and clarinet (which I assume is synonymous with the air column within the instrument) and which, as I read your question, probably results from some overt action action (presumably a "wrong" one) by the player.
I'm just not certain enough what you're thinking about nor do I see how my reading of your question can be answered (at the level of reed-clarinet interaction beyond the physical action of the player) without a lot more science than many of us are capable of dealing with (though you may well be in a position along with a few others who follow this BB to be the physicist involved).
So, I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I don't fully understand the question and don't think, even if you clarify it, many of us have the background to attempt a meaningful answer beyond "just the physical action...."
Am I making too little or too much of this?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-04 01:21
Karl,
Making too much of it? Certainly not for me; you're at least thinking about it!
I guess I should distill it down a bit further. And I do agree that "harsh" is a poor descriptor to use, thus my suggestion of "undesired quality." Be it undesired by the player or teacher.
It just strikes me that many are only interested in causation, to the end that simply passing down "what someone told me to do before", stereotypical responses, or flat out wrong advice occurs. --Often without consideration of the actual situation at hand. (Though your post in the other thread was well thought out, so I am preaching to the choir a bit on that count.)
I'm addressing all of this from the other side- or what occurs in the machine that is the clarinet. And we certainly don't need to get down to the mathematical level. That level is the 2nd, 3rd or 4th derivative of a more generic, higher-order process that we can consider.
Perhaps I'm over-stepping my limits of "stature", but I was just curious if anybody had ever considered, or wished to, matters from the other direction. Maybe teaching or telling somebody "how to teach" would be more sensible if we considered doing it.
And maybe we could improve ourselves as teachers if the basics of "How the clarinet actually works 101" were researched. If someones own "playin'" concurrently can grow, it's perhaps a nice side-effect.
(Judging by the fact that it's just the 2 of us here and "Name your equipment" seems to mind-numbingly be far more popular, I guess I got the answer to that question as well.)
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-04 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 02:46
My college professor for a brief time tried to explain this one to me for a semester. He explained that harsh tonguing can be eliminated by keeping your tongue affixed to the reed in times on rest, thus making the it a study of releasing and not "hitting" the reed. I heard this every lesson and it never stuck. I would do it his way and he would say it was wrong and he could hear my tongue, and the only way I got him to shut up about it was by using the "L" family of syllables and he would say how well I grasped the concept (to which I would smile and nod). Drove me crazy, and I still really hate articulation. I use a large combination of syllables: for legato L's with an E or U as the second letter -typically Le (middle tongue technique), normally D's and T's with an A or a U as the second letter- typically Da and Tu (tip), and for stacatto I use two hard syllables with a soft in between or a T, D, or rarely L followed by I- typically Tat and Ti. Though I'm sure someone will disagree w/ me. Or, if I am really feeling adventurous I will tongue the roof of my mouth like a brass or flute player with the back of my tongue (this is the K or G syllable, typically only used for triple or double tonguing (3= Ti-ka-ta, 2= Ti-Ka or Di- Ga))(but this is slow and often has interesting consequences. Lately, I have been trying to learn half-tonging but that is still sloppy (at least for me). In theory it would be the cleanest legato tongue ever (as how does one make noise if your tongue doesn't hit anything.
Post Edited (2012-05-04 02:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-05-04 02:57
Buster wrote:
> It just strikes me that many are only interested in causation,
> to the end that simply passing down "what someone told me to do
> before", stereotypical responses, or flat out wrong advice
> occurs. --Often without consideration of the actual situation
> at hand.
Well, ideally, a good teacher has done his own thinking and self-examination and, rather than simply passing on "what someone told me to do," actually describes to a student "what I have discovered (at least to this point in time) solves this problem." I think the passing on of received wisdom only because of who the authority was from whom it was received is poor teaching in any case, whatever level is the focus.
>
> I'm addressing all of this from the other side- or what occurs
> in the machine that is the clarinet. And we certainly don't
> need to get down to the mathematical level. That level
> is the 2nd, 3rd or 4th derivative of a more generic,
> higher-order process that we can consider.
>
I can see why this would be useful to the advanced player in improving both his own playing and the technical foundation from which he draws his teaching strategies and tactics. Teaching a less experienced student (most high school-age or younger players) will still involve interpreting whatever "machine level" insights the teacher has gained into descriptions of action the student should consider.
> Perhaps I'm over-stepping my limits of "stature", but I was
> just curious if anybody had ever considered, or wished to,
> matters from the other direction. Maybe teaching or telling
> somebody "how to teach" would be more sensible if we considered
> doing it.
Yes, I agree, but it would be easier to make this step if some more concrete or specific effect than "harsh tonguing" or "undesired quality" were being considered (it's a little like trying to find out what makes a "dark" tone). For example, what does the reed actually do at the beginning of the sound envelope when the tone is started with a "t" stroke and how is that different from the reed's action when a "d" stroke is used or when no tongue contact at all takes place? Is the difference linear on some parameter as the "t" is gradually softened toward "d" or is there a point at which a really binary change happens in the reed's action? Is that the kind of thing you meant? I'm not sure how you'd get a definitive answer to that except by using some kind of real-time imagery.
> (Judging by the fact that it's just the 2 of us here and "Name
> your equipment" seems to mind-numbingly be far more popular, I
> guess I got the answer to that question as well.)
>
Does 238 replies to 11 seem a little lopsided?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-04 05:12
Karl, you wisely (and correctly as far as I can see it) wrote:
Quote:
Well, ideally, a good teacher has done his own thinking and self-examination and, rather than simply passing on "what someone told me to do," actually describes to a student "what I have discovered (at least to this point in time) solves this problem." I think the passing on of received wisdom only because of who the authority was from whom it was received is poor teaching in any case, whatever level is the focus.
Absolutely!!!!! The key word is ideally in that statement however.
An advanced player may have a highly developed set of skills, but have come by them quite naturally. ---Or their problems simply resolved themselves without their conscious thought. I certainly know musicians (of any given instrument) that fall into that category.
As a "player" it really doesn't matter how you acquired your ability if you can do your job. Yet, a problem arises when one of those "players" considers themselves able to amply instruct but has never actually "done [their] own thinking and self-examination" as you wrote. Often they are the source of suspect received wisdom; a problem compounded when that "knowledge" is passed on further by some mindless disciple. Or a suspect post slips onto the BBoard by accident.
Take a player/teacher on the other hand who has done their homework, both with the clarinet in their hands and nose buried in scores and writings when needed. It would seem that they would be more capable of assessing what is going on with a struggling student and devising imagery or metaphor (as you wrote of), or loosely constructing an 'exercise'. The less experienced the student, the more tact that may be needed to do these things. Taking a beginner, perhaps they can be nudged in the needed way so that a specific "problem" or lack of a certain skill never arises. The situation is highly mutable.
Addressing matters with a student on the "machine level", well I would never do that unless they were able to grasp it. But having that knowledge myself, perhaps I can trick them into doing something only to later explain the mechanics of the whole thing. Or I can assess a problem without actually being able to see inside their mouths.... Oh if only we were afforded That luxury!!!
And I do agree I have been avoiding concrete descriptors. In writing they often are misleading, can carry differing connotations for each individual, or be down right confusing.
I'm not interested in hearing about the mechanics of how the clarinet actually works- I guess I knew the answer when I asked. I've done my homework over the years, know what I don't know, and know where to look for answers. (And no, the clarinet is not a truly linear system.)
I suppose that I wasn't actually asking a question if you dig to the bottom of all of this. Maybe I was actually making a suggestion that we can address matters in a wholly different manner; perhaps a more thoughtful way with some sense of reason behind it.
I do apologize if I seem to be yelling. I'm not.... or at least not at you.
And yeah, those numbers are a tad lopsided. To the point where the possibility of change is highly improbable.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-04 05:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-05-04 05:32
Buster wrote:
>
> An advanced player may have a highly developed set of skills,
> but have come by them quite naturally.
Oh, I wish I were one of those. Maybe musical skills, yes, but everything I think I know about playing the clarinet has come mistake by sometimes painful mistake.
> I do apologize if I seem to be yelling. I'm not.... or at
> least not at you.
>
I don't hear any yelling.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-05-05 05:31
Sorry, I didn't read most of the thread, but here is a guess. It's possible that "harsh" tonguing is (sometimes, not necessarily always) not a result of the way the tongue touches the reed, but actually because of a change in embochure and/or tongue position, etc. Then when the tongue leaves the reed there is a short moment that the embouchure changes back to "good".
Maybe you can try playing with a "bad" embouchure, without tonguing, to get a "harsh" attack. Then try to use that same "bad" embouchure when tonguing "correctly". If you can get a "harsh" attack this way then it can mean it is the embouchure causing it. If you can't, it doesn't mean it is not the embouchure and then it doesn't matter what sort of face the green smily makes
Maybe you can explain what exactly you do hear when the tonguing is "harsh"...? I can think of mainly three or four issues that usually make tonguing "bad".
By the way I use the quotes for "bad" because sometimes it is not bad but a different technique someone might want to use on purpose.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-05-05 12:52
It seems to me that the best way to understand the phenomenon is to think of the reed being released in such a way that it takes a longer time than usual to settle down to a steady-state vibration coupled with the clarinet tube.
Think of how an automobile engine -- particularly an OLD automobile engine -- behaves as it starts up. Initially, it vibrates in a pretty chaotic manner; but very soon it settles down and runs 'smoothly'.
In that article about articulation that I keep referencing, I compared the releasing action of the tongue to the releasing action of the fingers in the letting go of a small pendulum. If you want the pendulum immediately to swing nicely, in a plane, you release it carefully, in order to minimise the jiggles that otherwise take a while to die out.
I seem to remember from my youthful studies that it's quite common to characterise the mathematics of a vibration by separating it into a 'transient' phase followed by a 'steady-state' phase.
From that point of view, all that's necessary in clarinet playing is to simplify the action of the tongue -- ie, touch the reed as lightly as possible consistent with stopping it; and then get away from it in such a way that you don't interfere with the beginning of its vibration -- just as you would if you were catching and releasing a small pendulum with your fingers. That minimises the duration of the transient 'noise' so that we perceive the steady state 'clarinet' sound without delay.
How to characterise this transient noise, in harsh tonguing? I imagine that that can vary quite widely, depending on the precise details of the crude approach and the crude release. (Also, it's probably relatively intractable mathematically, compared to the steady state, which succumbs rapidly to the machinery of Fourier analysis, since the motion is periodic.)
So I wouldn't worry about it:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
