 Keepers
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-21 14:58
I want to try again with this subject, doing it in smaller bits this time.
Several years ago I wrote an article about 'support' that I published in the
British Clarinet and Saxophone Society magazine, and then posted to the
Klarinet list; and my chapter in the Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet also
deals with it in part.
However, I find that its central point isn't generally appreciated. (Someone
on Klarinet called it 'gobbledegook', but I think he had his own agenda:-)
Perhaps that's because there are several 'wrinkles' to the idea, which are
best dealt with separately. So, briefly to start with, I'd like to explain
in this first short post why 'blowing the clarinet well' doesn't mean the
same thing as 'playing with support' -- even though some people seem to use
the word 'support' in that way.
It's been made clear here several times that blowing the clarinet well
involves doing so from 'low down', and without pulling in the abdominal
muscles; and of course I agree that that's very important.
But you can blow the clarinet well in this sense without using 'support' at
all. When you're playing very loud, for example, your abdominal muscles are
pushing the airstream only against the resistance of the reed/clarinet
system.
On the other hand, when you play more quietly, you may want to 'support' the
action of the abdominal muscles by providing an opposition from the
diaphragm, reducing the pressure of the airstream, in order to have better
control. What that means is that you're blowing louder than you're playing,
as judged by how hard your abdominal muscles are working. (Remember that the
diaphragm is a muscle that can exert force only *downwards*, to draw air into
the lungs, never to expel air from the lungs.)
On this account, 'support' is a technique that you can use to a greater or
lesser extent, rather than something that is always necessary. The diaphragm
can work to varying degrees against the abdominal muscles, so you can play a
particular passage 'without support', with 'minimal support', and 'with
strong support'.
Compare the situation with the opposing muscles in the arm, the biceps and
triceps. These muscles respectively bend and straighten the arm at the
elbow. Now, if you're trying to lift a weight with either biceps or triceps,
it makes no sense to have the opposing muscle working too. That just wastes
energy.
On the other hand, if you're trying to make a fluid gesture with your arm,
you may well need the precise control of both muscles working simultaneously.
I suggest that what we are very often trying to do on the clarinet is to make
a fluid gesture with the airstream.
...to be continued...
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2005-05-21 15:28
Tony Pay wrote:
>
> But you can blow the clarinet well in this sense without using
> 'support' at
> all. When you're playing very loud, for example, your
> abdominal muscles are
> pushing the airstream only against the resistance of the
> reed/clarinet
> system.
>
> On the other hand, when you play more quietly, you may want to
> 'support' the
> action of the abdominal muscles by providing an opposition from
> the
> diaphragm, reducing the pressure of the airstream, in order to
> have better
> control.
Very interesting topic! I have always thought about the relationship of "support" as a physical mechanism and "intensity" as a concept that one needs to have a good sound at a soft dynamic. It is not easy to wrap the mind around this, and your treatment of the subject above is the most concise and understandable I have seen. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-21 16:29
Do you agree that more support is needed the softer the passage is?
btw - Hi Tony, great to see you here!
Post Edited (2005-05-21 16:29)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-05-21 16:46
Well this will be a breath of fresh air. I appreciate that what Tony appears to be clarifying is not only the mechanics of support, but the semantics of the word.
[Forgive the teacher in me, but some younger and silent readers may not know what semantics mean. I offer it as a link and note definition three.]
Tony has also given a number of posts to the Klarinet list that help clarify what people are meaning in their description of tone color as well; that is another topic.
I will wait for the concluding post(s) on this initial entry before I contribute my two cents to the dialogue.
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
Post Edited (2005-05-21 17:02)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-21 16:57
Hi David -- yes, I think it can be worth trying more support for some softer passages.
But I'd rather leave the question open, and say that it can also depend on the register you're playing in, and also on whether the notes in the passage in question have different responses. It can also depend on other things like whether or not you need to take a fast breath at some point, as I suggested in another thread about the Weber Concerto.
I'll get to some of those considerations in due course.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-21 17:18
As Robert Moody has just anticipated, I think that much of the difficulty of this subject is to do with the two different senses of the word 'support'. In fact, that's the next little bit of what I want to post.
If I say: I'm going to attack that idea, will you support me? then I expect
what you say or do to be something like what I say or do -- and at least, to be
acting in the same direction as what I say or do.
On the other hand, if I want to write something beautifully with a pen, I may rest my hand on a desk, which I use as a 'support'. Here, the effect of the desk, as support, is to 'push back' on my hand -- in the *opposite* direction to my push of the pen against the paper.
It is in this second sense that the use of the diaphragm 'supports' our abdominal muscles in our blowing of the instrument. And it's the only possible sense, because the diaphragm, as a muscle, can only act downwards, ie *against* the abdominal muscles.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-21 20:43
So now, the next bit is to do with our experience and control of that mysterious muscle we call the diaphragm. Pretty clearly, if we want to master the ability to make 'fluid gestures with the airstream', it will help to know what is required of us.
Please don't give up. It all gets much simpler at the end.
To begin with, I want to put forward a very simple division of the muscles of our body into two classes. (Doubtless this division is anatomically naive, but I don't think it's *wrong*.)
There are some muscles in our bodies, like the biceps and triceps, that are visible, sensible, and under our voluntary control. That means, we can see, directly feel and operate them at will.
A very different muscle, or group of muscles, is what constitutes the heart. This is invisible, insensible, and not under our voluntary control. That is, we can't see it, we can't directly feel it (it can't feel tired to us, for example) and we can't tell it when to beat. We might be able to speed it up or slow it down indirectly, by thinking exciting or relaxing thoughts, but essentially it has its own agenda, determined by our bodily states.
The diaphragm lies between these two extremes. It's invisible; but contra David Peacham in another thread, it *is* under our voluntary control: clearly, if I decide to take a breath *right now*, I can do it. On the other hand, if I am concerned with other things, the diaphragm follows its own
agenda like the heart, taking a new breath at a time determined by our bodies' need for oxygen (or, more strictly speaking, our bodies' superfluity of carbon dioxide). But, again like the heart, we cannot directly feel it.
(As an aside, it's interesting that 'watching the breath' is a common discipline in meditative techniques. Something that can be voluntary *and*
automatic is a useful touchstone for an experience of self that incorporates
aspects of both.)
Anyhow, for us, the crucial thing is that we cannot know *by feeling it* that the diaphragm is working. So it's a waste of time trying to judge or control the action of our diaphragm by looking for a *feeling*.
But, fortunately, we can know that it is working in two other ways.
Firstly, we can know that it is working if we are actually taking a breath -- clearly, that it's working is the only way we *can* take a breath.
But secondly, we can know it is working if our abdominal muscles are flexed in exactly the way we flex them to blow air out -- BUT THE FACT IS, WE AREN'T BLOWING AIR OUT.
I'll stop there for the moment for responses, because this bit of the argument seems to be difficult for many people. Still, it may be helpful to consider the matter in terms of the analogy I made earlier:
Suppose we couldn't feel or see our biceps (the ones on the inside of the arm) but only our triceps. We could know that our biceps were working, then, if our arm was bending; but we could also know it if our triceps were flexed, but our arm was stationary.
Later,
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-05-22 00:00
I will wait for Tony to complete his position, but would like to note that I as read it and experiment with the ideas he is putting forth, in the competition of breathing in and out that might be played with the abdominals and diaphram, it appears the diaphram usually wins. This is refering to the willing movements, not getting punched in the gut or something to that effect.
Try and flex your "breathing" muscles in your ribs and abdomen and see if you are able to prevent your your diaphram from taking in a new breath. It appears that there is too much "soft" and "gushy" ![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif) stuff in there that the diaphram can push around when the other muscles are not cooperating.
![[rotate]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley25.gif)
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2005-05-22 02:02
Tony Pay wrote <But secondly, we can know it is working if our abdominal muscles are flexed in exactly the way we flex them to blow air out -- BUT THE FACT IS, WE AREN'T BLOWING AIR OUT. >
Are you referring then to the kind of equilibrium one feels when one has taken in as much air as one is going to for a particular breath, but have not yet begun to exhale? The abdominals do seem to flex to a different degree depending on how much air is taken in and how deep or shallow the breath is.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-05-22 03:32
OK....I operate on the chest, and can provide some insight.
First, Let me thank Maestro Pay for his insight and thank him for many enjoyable hours listening to his Crusel (done on a rudimentary C clarinet no less) and for aiming his attention onto what I consider lesson one in good playing.
Now for what little I can add:
It is not enough to consider **only** the diaphragm when discussing the muscles of respiration. There is another set of muscles, commonly refered to as "accessory muscles of respiration" which can contract or relax as a group or separately to provide resistance. These include the intercostal muscles (those morsels between the spare ribs on the bar-b-cue), the abdominal muscles (the six-pack that body-builders display), the muscles that raise the clavicle (shrug your shoulders to see what I mean) etc.
Inward contraction of the abdominal muscles in forced exhalation can be offset by chest wall muscles, creating a resistance. If these are properly coordinated, the air stream will be steady in its flow even while the lungs are naturally deflating as the diaphragm relaxes*......creating....guess what...SUPPORT! Add to this any glottic and intra-oral changes in capacitance and...voila.....a non-wavering steady stream of whatever flow (volume of sound) is desired.
*The NATURAL tendency of the chest wall is to expand. The natural tendency of the lung is to deflate. These forces are measurable and come into play in diseases such as emphysema and lung collapse (trauma or other factors)
The tendency of the chest wall to expand is GREATER than that of the lung to deflate.....this is why I can leave a chest tube catheter (about 1 cm diameter) unclamped, and the resultant lung collapse is only 20%.
Ref: any basic textbook of physiology.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-22 17:20
I'm going to leave aside what Allan writes for the moment, because I want to get across clearly what I'm concentrating on. I hope he won't take that amiss.
The thing I want to say is, whatever other influences there are, the abdominal/diaphragm opposition is fundamental, even if only in the sense that it's the first, and lowest. And I should say clearly that what counts as 'abdominal' here is any muscle that pushes on the contents of the abdomen to exert an upward pressure on the diaphragm (which may resist that pressure) and therefore pushes air out of the lungs.
BTW, my own teacher thought that it was important to use the muscles of the back to blow. For me, that didn't work at all, though it did for him. He was just built differently, it turned out.
Robert has rightly got hold of the idea that if you flex your abdominal muscles -- as though someone small was going to punch you in the middle for fun, and you need to protect yourself:-) -- you can still breathe in. This actually feels very like yawning, and it's what I quite often do to begin a phrase.
Clarinetwife spoke of the opposition between diaphragm and abdominal muscles, saying that the latter "seem to flex to a different degree depending on how much air is taken in, and how deep or shallow the breath is." I want to suggest, on the contrary, that the flexion of the abdominal muscles is something that we can actually *choose*, rather than something that is determined by the breath.
Look at it like this: you flex your abdominal muscles to some small degree, and then breathe (yawn) in against that resistance. You are now prepared to play with minimal support.
Then, you flex your abdominal muscles to a greater degree, and breathe (yawn) in against that resistance. You are now prepared to play with significant support.
Finally, you flex your abdominal muscles really strongly, and breathe (yawn) in against *that* resistance. Notice that this requires quite hard work. You are now prepared to play with maximum support.
I hope the basic idea has been got across. I'll do the final and I think best bit of what I want to say before I go to Belgium (plane leaves at 8am, spit) tomorrow.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-22 19:34
So, here's the 'best' bit:-)
Whatever level of support you're playing with, it's the relationship between the action of your diaphragm and the action of your abdominals that determines what the airstream does.
So, suppose you keep the action of your abdominals constant. (That's easy to do, because you can *feel* them.) Then, as you play, the action of your diaphragm determines what the airstream does.
But, of course, you can't *feel* your diaphragm. So what happens to the airstream, and hence to your sound, seems to happen without your doing ANYTHING.
Let's choose a rather simple example of that to begin with. I call this 'the magic diminuendo'.
If you play a loud note with medium support (your abdominals are significantly flexed); then you will find that you can, without altering the flexion of your abdominals, do a diminuendo *to nothing*.
It's as though nothing in your experience alters as you do the diminuendo (hence the 'magic' in the description). Of course, that's because what's 'doing' the diminuendo is your diaphragm, *which you can't feel*. It resists your abdominals progressively, until it matches their force, at which point you get silence.
I'll never forget discovering this for myself during a lesson I was giving. (Nobody had told me about it.) I'd used the technique before in my playing, but I'd never represented it to myself in this simple way.
It meant that I could throw away a lot of what I'd thought I had to do. Now, in order to do a diminuendo, I realised I had to do...nothing!! I continued to blow, and the diminuendo happened by itself.
But though this simple example is pretty convincing in itself, you'll very soon see that the general idea gives you much greater freedom and flexibility. Play, for example, the opening of Brahms's second sonata, using support, and without changing what your abdominals are doing.
The phrases seem to shape themselves without any action on your part.
It is as though to imagine the phrasing *is* to do it.
Later,
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: sdr
Date: 2005-05-22 20:17
For me, the most useful image of support is squeezing a toothpast tube. Having firm support is the equivalent of squeezing from the bottom of the tube: Whatever pressure you exert acts to regulate/control the flow of toothpaste out of the mouth of the tube. Lack of support is akin to squeezing in the middle of the tube: you have far less control of toothpaste flow because the energy of the squeeze is variably divided in moving up to push out the toothpase and down into the base of the tube.
Mr. Pay's description, while better than most, works no better for me than Keith Stein's "basketball in the lower abdomen" imagery. It is still a matter of stabilizing the abdominal/pelvic musculature so pressure and airflow can only go out the horn.
-sdr
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-22 21:11
sdr wrote:
> For me, the most useful image of support is squeezing a> toothpast tube. Having firm support is the equivalent of> squeezing from the bottom of the tube: Whatever pressure you> exert acts to regulate/control the flow of toothpaste out of> the mouth of the tube. Lack of support is akin to squeezing in> the middle of the tube: you have far less control of> toothpaste flow because the energy of the squeeze is variably> divided in moving up to push out the toothpase and down into> the base of the tube.
This description is one of 'blowing the clarinet well', which I was careful to characterise as different from what I mean by 'playing with support' in my very first post.
Of course, it's best to 'blow the clarinet well' in the sense you describe -- and I often use the toothpaste tube metaphor myself to explain that.
Support is another matter. That's what I was trying to make clear.
> Mr. Pay's description, while better than most, works no better> for me than Keith Stein's "basketball in the lower abdomen"> imagery.
Perhaps I should say that I'm not familiar with Mr Stein's basketball, whatever that is.
But anyway, sorry, you have to explain more clearly. What makes you characterise what I wrote as 'better than most'? In what way can it be 'better', if it doesn't make sense to you?
What I just told you, in detail, is something that works for me -- that indeed was revelatory for me when I discovered it for myself -- and I'm a quite expert player, so it's not just bullshit. (What would be my motive to bullshit you all here? What could I *possibly* gain?)
But of course, the most important thing is, *how* doesn't it work for you?
What you might do is *try it*, and then report what the results are. Then I might be able to help you do better -- or not.
Did you try it? Did you try it more than once? Can you do the 'magic diminuendo', for example?
>It is still a matter of stabilizing the> abdominal/pelvic musculature so pressure and airflow can only> go out the horn.>
You'll have to explain that, because it means nothing to me.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2005-05-22 22:56
I've waited a while before responding to this post, because I had to think long and hard about what Tony was saying. At first it ddn't really make sense to me, but after some attempts at the various things that he is describing, I realise that it is in fact EXACTLY what I am doing. I've never fully understood the anatomy of the opposition between diaphragm and abdominal muscles, although I did have a sense that that is in fact what is going on. Thank you Tony for giving an explanation of "blowing the clarinet" that for me finally makes sense.
I would like to add something to this discussion. Many people seem to advise "blowing a lot of air through the instrument". In my experience this idea is misguided.
The amount of air that you blow through the instrument has an effect on the type of sound that you wish to produce. If you blow as much as possible, eg. as if you were blowing out a candle, you produce a very "thin" sound. I find that the fullest, richest sound comes when you blow as little air into the instrument for the required dynamic, combined with substantial support form the abdominal muscles. This seems to allow the sound to resonate more. You should choose the type of blowing according to the type of sound that you want to produce in the context of the music. To simply say "blow more air into the instrument" can easily make a student produce the wrong kind of sound.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: sdr
Date: 2005-05-23 01:39
Tony,
Thanks for your quick and detailed response to my post.
I am not trying to be obtuse. Your distinction between "blowing the horn well" and "support" make sense to me as you have described them. I opined that "your description of support was better than most" because you offered both a combination of clear imagery and a fairly mechanical/anatomical explanation with it.
I am familiar with the "magic diminuendo" phenomenon and use it -- I like your terminology for it. When I do this (and what I took to be your meaning of "support"), my feeling of lower abdominal tension created by abdominal muscle contraction balanced against diaphragmatic action *feels* constant and without change *independent* of loud or soft dynamics. I am definitely *not* an expert player and may still be misunderstanding you. However, I appreciate it that you care enough to try and get the point across.
-sdr
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-05-23 01:50
This is exactly what I love about this board and having Tony here. It should be known that I see Tony as being above Keith Stein concerning clarinet and what I find absolutely thrilling about this environment is that I can read his ideas and ask him questions about it. I can do this a quarter of the way around the world from him. Good times, indeed.
Personally, I had read Stein's writings (some) and had not come to the conclusion that Tony is explaining here. I will comment more later, but I think I'm coming to understand something I had not approached like this before. In fact, experimenting with Tony's descriptions is making more sense to what Dr. Johnston had been teaching me for a long time...and apparently I had misunderstood!
So..thanks for taking the time, Tony. I will get back to this tomorrow or so.
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2005-05-23 08:35
Yes this is really good stuff.
Just to expand the discussion a bit further: Using the word "support" in the sense of a source of helpful resistance, another significant source of support is the resistance offered by the mouthpiece reed interface. That is fixed (or is it? because certain reeds seem to change resistance depending on the dynamic being played, and not in the way logic might dictate). In a sense this resistance "assists" the diaphragm in its role as supporter of the stomach muscles. Players who prefer more resitant set ups would therefore appear to require less effort or even refinement of performance on the part of the diaphragm. Softer set ups require more subtlety of diaphragm response.
Thus much I was told by my last teacher more than 20 years ago. But what does that tell us also about instruments that, whatever the apparent resistance in the set up tend in any case to consume more air? For example, I find playing the bass clarinet more difficult to "support" since even though I can (if I choose) play on a hard set up, it does have the tendency to use much more air that a B flat, and that seems to mean that the support needs to be that much more carefully done. This means that I am more careful with this instrument to use such techniques as building up pressure behind the tongue and then releasing to start the note (rather than attacking the note in one manoevre), than I am with a B flat. I then find that, when I seem not to have sufficient time to prepare in this way, I can too easily come to grief. But on an E flat (on which I am much less experienced than the bass), I feel almost able to discard the notion of support (not that it is wise to do that), because the very slow usage of air seems to lend a more natural support form the instrument.
I hope these comments make some sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-05-23 12:06
Yes, Graham. It makes sense to me. I am one who appreciates a good bit of resistance in the reed/mouthpiece setup. I am interested in exploring Tony's remarks which address a subject that because of its tenure should be commonly understood...but really isn't. I believe the idea is promulgated well from new teachers to well-known pedagogue, but not always truly understood.
I know I keep popping in without offering a full address of the subject, but I always seem to feel the need to say something when I read the new stuff.
I'll be back.
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-05-23 12:36
Many major disciplines emphasize proper breathing.
Singers have long been taught to produce the sound all the way from the toes (imagery)
Equestrians are reminded proper breathing techniques (Ref: Sally Swift, Centered Riding) and even to "let the energy (Chi) flow from your center through to the horse" (Asian martial arts in action)
When I encounter surgical residents and watch them perform, I find that "breath-holding" is a major deterent to good ergometrics.
No wonder Jos. Gigliotti (aka papa) began his lessons with an examination of my breathing (and he did produce a basketball like effect in the abdomen which could block a fullback at full speed)
He also had an anatomy book from middle son, an orthopedic surgeon, from which he pointed out the glottis, epiglottis, and trachea....and said how to use them.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-23 12:47
Today with the internet, you could very well be talking about a subject with a Harvard Medical Professor and not even know it.........
;)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John O'Janpa
Date: 2005-05-23 13:21
Thank you Tony, for your description of "support". It makes sense to me. I had confused the term support with blowing a lot of air through the instrument.
I pride myself on tone, which I have aquired through decades of trial and error noodling. Essentially, your description of support is what I do.
I had been confused at how I could blow more air throgh the instrument (which I thought was meant by support) while playing softly.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-05-23 14:48
DavidBlumberg wrote <Today with the internet, you could very well be talking about a subject with a Harvard Medical Professor and not even know it.........>
Sorry to dissapoint, I was only assist. instr. in surgery at U of Penna.
but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-23 15:27
Alseg - I wasn't referring to you
btw, I tried one of your Eb barrels - was really good!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-05-23 16:16
Huh.....How did u get my Eb barrel???
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-23 17:21
I got an Eb clarinet with your barrel. Ended up sending back the Clarinet as it didn't have Silver Keys, but did like the Barrel that came with it much more than the stock one. (it was your cocobolo)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: sdr
Date: 2005-05-23 18:57
Perhaps I am the one David is "outing". Regretably, my skills as an otologist (specialist in disorders of hearing and balance) don't cross over to help my clarinet playing -- I'm keeping my day job! In fact, I'd put ear surgery third in difficulty after both clarinet playing and flytying. I have the utmost respect for all you masters.
-sdr
---------------------------------
Steven D. Rauch, MD
Assoc. Prof., Otolaryngology
Harvard Medical School
Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary
Tel: 617-573-3644
Fax: 617-573-3939
Email: steven_rauch@meei.harvard.edu
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-05-23 19:29
Yup, it's awesome that so many diverse specialties are here.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2005-05-23 22:15
A wondeful scale for air support is proposed by Marcel Tabateau -eminent former Princicipal Oboist of the Philadephia Orchestra) Beginning from 1 to 10.
He proposes the highest level of support for very soft playing and of course less support for louder playing(but still maintaining diaphramic support.)
Keith Stein also elaborates on this very well in his "Art of Clarinet Playing."
David Dow
Post Edited (2005-05-23 22:16)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2005-05-23 22:43
I just wanted quickly to add a further wrinkle, from my hotel in Bruges late at night:-)
Others have pointed out that the reed/mouthpiece system can constitute a support to our blowing, and I agree that we want to be comfortable with that system.
The thing is, though, that that support is constant. The situation with the diaphragm is that it is a support that *varies*. That's very strange, and very useful.
You can blow constantly, and vary the support.
No more time left on this computer....
Later,
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
