Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2017-11-05 22:47
I have to say that I am quite saddened by this interchange.
To me, it's very obvious that to think about how resonant frequencies are affected by things like airspeed is to look at the problem from the wrong perspective.
Of course, you could argue that I'm not a 'proper' scientist. I did a mathematics course in vibrations in my first year of a mathematics degree, but though I finally graduated, my heart – and my talent – wasn't in it. I became a professional clarinet player instead.
But – if you think that tongue position, instead of affecting speed of airstream, affects the shape of resonant cavities behind the reed, then the whole problem makes much more sense. These resonant cavities affect individual notes, and the ability to change them in real time is a large part of what constitutes excellent clarinet playing, and indeed excellent legato.
'Resonant cavities' operates on a timescale far removed from 'airspeed'. In fact, airspeed is almost irrelevant. You can even reverse its direction on the horn by 'sucking', and still obtain a note.
That Robert can imagine that I could be swayed in this judgement by the fact that the author of "the account that (I) don't like" is a respected 85-year-old jazz playing dentist, remains extraordinary to me.
Yes, I know that Bonade and others have said the contrary. But science doesn't progress by taking as gospel what other people have said. Bonade's advice may have been useful – but not for the right reasons.
I don't know why The Clarinet doesn't include on its advisory committee people who are scientifically sophisticated, who would understand that blazoning Bernouilli's equation above an argument to which it is really irrelevant doesn't thereby render the argument 'scientific'.
It's why I finally said, "I'm not interested in The Clarinet".
Tony
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
