 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Johnny Galaga
Date: 2013-11-09 01:19
When composers go and write eighth or sixteenth notes with a slur and staccato, what do they want us to do? If four sixteenth notes are written with each one having a staccato dot, but then there's a slur over all four of them, do we tongue 'em or slur 'em? LOL.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2013-11-09 02:44
It depends on the tempo. If you're able to tongue all the notes, do so; otherwise, slur as needed.
Seriously: Some call it "legato tongue".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-11-09 04:37
Legato tongue still requires you to tongue just not as detached as your "regular" staccato
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-09 06:12
Staccato dots under a 'slur' indicates to me 'mezzo staccato'. (half staccato)
I've got into the habit of playing this type of articulation by 'bumping' the notes with my breath instead of tonguing them.
I'm not sure if this is the correct interpretation but it sounds very effective.
As with notation of this type , apparently it was originally a bowing directive for string players.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-09 06:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2013-11-09 08:04
Depending on the period, it could indicate the wind version of a string player's "Bogen vibrato" which is produced by pulsations from the bow moving in the same direction. The wind player's equivalent would involve pulsations from the abdominal muscles without the use of the tongue, pretty much like Barry describes it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2013-11-09 12:39
I was always told by my teachers to use a "legato tongue" which meant to use the tongue on the reed but with a different attack. Instead of "tee tee tee" I use "lee lee lee" (with the "eeee" sound being American; most European languages would write "iiii").
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-11-09 15:26
Katrina wrote,
>> I was always told by my teachers to use a "legato tongue" which meant to use the tongue on the reed but with a different attack. Instead of "tee tee tee" I use "lee lee lee" (with the "eeee" sound being American; most European languages would write "iiii").
>>
I'm an amateur, but fwiw -- yup, that's what I do, too. I think that slur mark also indicates that the series of notes is a phrase that should all be played on one breath, similar to the string players' direction to keep the bow going in the same direction.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MSK
Date: 2013-11-09 16:46
Does "legato toungue" also apply to the notation where tied notes have staccato dots?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-09 17:08
Katrina wrote,
>> I was always told by my teachers to use a "legato tongue" which meant to use the tongue on the reed but with a different attack. Instead of "tee tee tee" I use "lee lee lee" (with the "eeee" sound being American; most European languages would write "iiii"). >>
It's probably worth pointing out that there is no difference between 'T' and 'L' when you use the tongue to stop the reed. When you're SPEAKING, the difference is that in 'L' air is only partially blocked by the tongue from leaving the mouth, so you momentarily hear a voiced (usually different) vowel before the complete tongue release; whilst in 'T' air is totally blocked by the tongue from leaving the mouth and you hear nothing before the tongue release.
In clarinet playing though, you stop the sound by interrupting the vibration of the reed, and the reed begins vibrating when you let it go; there is no analogue of the prior voiced vowel.
Of course, as everyone says, the tongue action we use to interrupt and release the reed should be as small and simple as possible. And as I say in http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=316748&t=316712&v=t: except in the very lowest register of the clarinet it is almost impossible to touch the reed centrally at the tip without stopping the note. Even a very light contact interrupts the reed's vibration. So anything that encourages you to use a gentle tongue stroke is to be, well, encouraged. 'L' may fulfil that function better than 'T', perhaps.
Also in that post I point out that neither the dynamic nor the shortness of the notes in a staccato passage has anything to do with the vigour of the tongue action. (See 'FAIRY PRINCESSES') So one way of going about playing staccatos under slurs is to make the notes long compared to the silences -- that's the fairy princess who sleeps very little:-)
But if the 'legato staccato' passage isn't too fast, there is another thing you can do -- or actually, HAVE HAPPEN rather than DO. That is that each note can be shaped, coming away slightly before being interrupted. The technique for doing this is not to blow less -- the consciously set abdominal/back muscle system stays always flexed to the same degree. You use the technique of support, so that the diaphragm modulates the passage outside consciousness as a series of mini magic diminuendos.
That's what's required, for example, in the opening of Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto. I well remember playing this with Alfred Brendel, and his attempt to get the oboe player to do the articulation he wanted. (Of course, the piano does these diminuendos naturally.) Finally, the oboist said, "LISTEN, you can have it LONG, or you can have it SHORT: WHICH DO YOU WANT?" -- at which point Brendel gave up.
Tony
Post Edited (2013-11-12 12:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johnny Galaga
Date: 2013-11-09 19:14
So why don't they just write legato lines over a group of 4 sixteenth's with no slur instead? Shouldn't the composer/arranger be responsible for notation that is understandable to the player? If the part was taken from the strings, then the arranger should make all the needed changes. If the original string part said pizzicato, then you wouldn't just leave that word in there for clarinets, would you?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-09 20:12
Tony said :- "But if the 'legato staccato' passage isn't too fast, there is another thing you can do -- or actually, HAVE HAPPEN rather than DO. That is that each note can be shaped, coming away slightly before being interrupted. The technique for doing this is not to blow less -- the consciously set abdominal/back muscle system stays always flexed to the same degree. You use the technique of support, so that the diaphragm modulates the passage outside consciousness as a series of mini magic diminuendos".
Tony , are you serious ? I'm getting a migraine just reading that verbose explanation. As I said above , I just 'bump' the notes with my breath and it seems to give the required effect. No need to THINK too hard about it.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-09 20:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2013-11-09 20:14
Johnny- by legato lines I presume that you mean tenuto lines, i.e. dashes above the notes? This could very easily be mis-interpretated as "hold the note in a sustained way for as long as possible".
For all that music can be, the symbols that we use to notate it are very few. The problem with our notation is that the same symbols can mean a number of different things depending on when and where the piece was written and what that particular composer meant by those symbols. Context is everything. Just looking at the various responses to your question in this thread show that people understand staccatos under a slur it in different ways.
What is the specific piece that you are referring to?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-09 21:07
Probably the best known examples of the staccato dots under a 'slur' portato notation in Clarinet music occurs in Mozart's Concerto (eg Ricordi edition) at bars 4 , 27 , 63 ect. I do these using the 'bump my breath' method with good effect.
Note, Portato , not potato
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-09 21:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-09 21:40
Barry wrote:
>> Tony , are you serious ? I'm getting a migraine just reading that verbose explanation. As I said above , I just 'bump' the notes with my breath and it seems to give the required effect. No need to THINK too hard about it. >>
Well, I suppose I wrote what I did because I find that if I just 'bump' the notes with my breath, it DOESN'T give the required effect. Nor does it when I hear other people do it.
What I want, and what I would say is often required, is a proper expression of the unity of the phrase that is represented by the slur. 'Bumping' breaks things up too much, partly because it's difficult to equalise a series of bumps on notes of varying response, but also because the player has limited control of the shape of each note with just the one direction of impulse.
Whereas, in what I describe above, it's possible to use opposing forces to shape the notes really quite subtly. And the unity of the phrase is guaranteed by the fact that the consistency of the action of the 'blowing' muscles provides a constant point of reference for the overall phrase shape.
It's a pity that a technique that is so simple to employ requires a deal of explanation before it can be communicated, I agree. The main problem is that excellent players who use it often don't understand exactly what they are doing, and the literature on the subject is so confused. (The difficulty, of course, is that the diaphragm is a muscle that contains no afferent nerves -- we can't feel it, in other words -- so when we use it in opposition to the blowing muscles we get no sensory feedback.)
You might try reading:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=714&t=714
Tony
Post Edited (2013-11-09 22:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-11-09 22:26
Barry Vincent wrote:
> Probably the best known examples of the staccato dots under a
> 'slur' portato notation in Clarinet music occurs in Mozart's
> Concerto (eg Ricordi edition) at bars 4 , 27 , 63 ect. I do
> these using the 'bump my breath' method with good effect.
>
Barry, I'm always a little nervous about notation examples from edited sources. We just don't know how Mozart wrote those passages and the notation in any edition is someone else's rendering of what they *think* Mozart *wanted.*
One of the first passages in classical music that came to my mind when I first read the original question is in Shumann's 2nd Symphony - Adagio mm58-59 and again at mm 114-115. These are, I think, a little too fast for Tony's note-shaping technique, but are very typical of the expressive hooked-bowing type of staccato that was (and is) a staple bow technique. The idea is that the bow keeps moving in the same direction, stopping briefly between notes to provide a separation without changing the basic tone color (which does change fairly noticeably when you change direction with the bow).
Interestingly, to do this gracefully on a string instrument and avoid harsh, scratchy starts to the notes, the player has to ease up just slightly on the bow pressure against the string. This pretty much has to give the individual notes the kind of subtle shape that I think Tony is describing, even in faster passages. That "the consciously set abdominal/back muscle system stays always flexed to the same degree" is at least roughly analogous to the constant direction of the bow. I think this similarity of intent is why composers began to adopt this notation for wind writing.
Traditionally, string players have expressive leeway in how long they make the notes and the silences between them. So, by extension, there would have been flexibility in the way the articulation was applied by 18th and 19th century wind players.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-10 02:35
KDK yes, Mozart and others of that period most likely did not have any directive in certain passages as to how to articulate, that's why I mentioned the Ricordi edition that I have.
However apparently this is the way most performers articulate those sets of 5 & 6 quavers and it seems very appropriate. I was just pointing out an example of the Portato (Portamento) that I knew is most likely the best known one for Clarinet players.
I see that you are also of the opinion that this type of notation was originally for string players.
Besides the Portato (Mezzo Staccato), the other string directive that I sometimes see is the Tenuto symbol (short line above each note) with the curved line above . Because of the curved line, is this a Mezzo Tenuto ?
Then there are the accent symbols (> ^ < ) with a dot under them, particularly the middle ('tent') one.
Is this another original string directive ? It seems that we wind players may have inherited a number of string playing directives.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-10 02:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-11-10 03:55
Tenuto lines under slurs are another version version of hooked bowing - the bow continues in one direction and the stop is barely perceptible - longer and probably a little weightier than dots under slurs.
As to the various accent marks, I don't know that they were ever specific to bowing - there's nothing uniquely bow-oriented about them, but I've never thought about how they started. Those are the subject of another current thread. My own opinion, FWIW, is that there is little consensus on what most of them mean (including quasi-dynamic ones like sf, fz, sfz, fp) and their interpretation tends to be both composer- and style-dependent. Inverted Vs with dots under them in a Basie chart doesn't mean what Persichetti or Stravinsky meant by them, and I can't say for sure I've seen them in 19th century orchestral music. Henle in its "urtext" editions of the two Weber concertos and the Concertino uses a vertical symbol that looks like an exclamation point without the dot under it where other editions use simple staccato dots. Whenever I've seen that symbol in more recent music, I've taken it to mean very short and percussive, almost like a string martellato ("hammered"), which I think is marked the same way. I can't imagine that's what the editors at Henle meant. So I think if "slurred staccato" gives us any interpretive headache at all, accent marks should probably give us migraines. I think you have to look at the context and decide for yourself what effect is needed. But it seems redundant to go over this here when it's being covered in the other thread.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Andrez444
Date: 2013-11-10 08:29
Jack Brymer in his book when discussing staccato, refers to this effect using the French term loure, meaning weighted.
"The tongue instead of being clenched and active, is relaxed and lazy in its action which then produces a snowball staccato where each note has a soft start and finish but a full sound for the rest of its duration."
He then briefly explains that this type off effect can be attained through by attacking the reed with the relaxed tongue possibly further down the blade.
The musical example relating to this effect is the last movement of Brahms Clarinet Quintet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-10 12:17
Barry wrote:
>> Probably the best known examples of the staccato dots under a 'slur' portato notation in Clarinet music occurs in Mozart's Concerto (eg Ricordi edition) at bars 4 , 27 , 63 ect. >>
I don't understand these bar numbers, I'm afraid. (By the way, the Ricordi edition you mention is a disgracefully unmusical effort by the notorious Alamiro Giampieri, who had the audacity to require that his name appear in the programme whenever the piece was played from the Ricordi edition. What a schmuck. You should throw it away and buy the Barenreiter.)
I would have said that the most evident example (which we actually do have in the Winterthur fragment, Karl, with both dots and slurs in Mozart's handwriting) occurs in bar 71 of the first movement (bar 15 of the solo part).
In bars 13 and 14 of the solo part the phrase structure falls with the bar and half-bar; in bar 15 the phrase structure begins a quaver AFTER the bar and half-bar in the solo clarinet; in bar 16 the orchestra echoes the clarinet rhythm (at half speed) starting a CROTCHET after the bar; then we return to phrasing with the bar for bars 17 and 18 with a suggestive rhythmic echo of bar 16 in the bass line in bar 18.
Phrase structure is a very important stylistic element in Mozart's music. The articulation (dots) in the clarinet in bar 15 should not obscure the shape of the phrase as indicated by the slur -- that 'comes away' from the written E to the written G, and away from the written B to the written C#. If you don't make that clear, the polarities 'with the bar', 'against the bar' lose their meaning.
That's why 'bumping the notes' is inadequate, and why the more sophisticated tonal and dynamic control provided by the technique of support is required.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-10 15:43
Attachment: Winterthur.jpg (779k)
First off, here is the bar I was talking about, in Mozart's hand, as an attachment.
Now, Karl wrote:
>> One of the first passages in classical music that came to my mind when I first read the original question is in Schumann's 2nd Symphony - Adagio mm58-59 and again at mm 114-115. These are, I think, a little too fast for Tony's note-shaping technique, but are very typical of the expressive hooked-bowing type of staccato that was (and is) a staple bow technique.>>
I'd like to try to convince everyone that the note-shaping I was talking about is quite possible at that tempo. And the reason is: that we have already practised the required technique ever since we learnt to talk, and we use it especially when we want to make a loud announcement to a group of people.
Imagine saying to such a group of people, with raised voice, "I WANT TO MAKE ALL THIS QUITE CLEAR!!" -- and then do it.
Especially if you are speaking in a resonant acoustic, you can hear that it helps if each word 'comes away' a lot. (A droning delivery has all the words get mixed up together: that's why a choir singing a text in too sostenuto a way doesn't get the words across.) And a good way to do that is to make your abdominal muscles quite firm and fixed as you speak loudly, and to let your diaphragm do the shaping.
Now do it as fast as you can. The words are still shaped by the action of the diaphragm (not by the abdominal/back muscles), but not all the work is being done there: lips and tongue come into it too. Check out what happens if you subtract their influence, and say instead:
"HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!" (like the chorus in Tippett's Midsummer Marriage:-)
You can do it ALMOST as fast, but not as easily as you can when you're allowed to use lips and tongue too, as in "I WANT TO MAKE ALL THIS QUITE CLEAR!!"
On the clarinet, we CAN use the tongue, though. So in the Schumann as in the Mozart, we use a combination of tongue shape, tongue/reed contact and diaphragm to produce the result. AND, we learn how to do this the way we learnt how to speak: namely, by listening to what it sounds like as we practise it.
Tony
Post Edited (2013-11-10 15:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-10 17:48
Tony. I also have the version published by Boosey & Hawkes revised by Frederick Thurston. Most likely not the best edition either.
I note that in the first movement at bar 15 of the solo in this edition , the mezzo staccato is written out as in the Winterthur manuscript, but my Ricordi edition has this particular passage as just a slur.
The other passages I mentioned earlier in the 3rd Mov are the same as in the Ricordi edition. Other than this , these two editions of this Concerto of Mozart are mostly identical.
Wnen playing this concerto myself , I have no problem rendering these portato (mezzo staccato) passages with the 'bump breath' method.
At least it seems identical to what I hear on the recordings of this Concerto that I have. The effect I get is clear and even in tempo.
After you commenting on the defectiveness of the Ricordi edition , I sat myself down and listened to these recordings whilst following this edition. What I hear seems to be identical or closely similar to what I have in the notation, especially the passages that we are discussing.
As for myself, I don't worry too much about the technical approach to all this, which no doubt is correct. I just do it .
That is to say, I don't fret and stress out about the finer points of being precise in everything.
It's probably why I'm now almost 70 years old and still going strong.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-10 18:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-10 18:06
>> After you commenting on the defectiveness of the Ricordi edition , I sat myself down and listened to these recordings whilst following this edition. What I hear seems to be identical or closely similar to what I have in the notation, especially the passages that we are discussing. >>
Don't worry about recordings. They're just what happened one Monday morning to some player or another;-)
Rather, the Ricordi edition is defective because it attempts to amplify what cannot be amplified: namely, Mozart's 'thin' notation. I'd say that Mozart wrote it that way because he knew that he couldn't improve it by making it 'thicker'.
Alamiro Giampieri effectively assumes that Mozart either didn't have a pen, or didn't know how to use it. If Mozart had thought that he could improve his music by writing in the nonsense that Giampieri writes, why would he not have done so? Mozart was nothing if not a working professional.
>> That is to say, I don't fret and stress out about the finer points of being precise in everything. It's probably why I'm now almost 70 years old and still going strong. >>
That I DO pay attention to these finer points is probably why I'm now almost 69 years old and still going strong.
But good luck to you.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-11-10 18:39
Tony, thank you very much for the explanations. Very helpful!
Katrina wrote,
>> I was always told by my teachers to use a "legato tongue" which meant to use the tongue on the reed but with a different attack. Instead of "tee tee tee" I use "lee lee lee" (with the "eeee" sound being American; most European languages would write "iiii"). >>
I said that's what I do, too, and then Tony wrote,
>It's probably worth pointing out that there is no difference between 'T' and 'L' when you use the tongue to stop the reed. When you're SPEAKING, the difference is that in 'L' air is only partially blocked by the tongue from leaving the mouth, so you momentarily hear a voiced (usually different) vowel before the complete tongue release; whilst in 'T' air is totally blocked by the tongue from leaving the mouth and you hear nothing before the tongue release.>
>
>In clarinet playing though, you stop the sound by interrupting the vibration of the reed, and the reed begins vibrating when you let it go; there is no analogue of the prior voiced vowel.>
Might be worth noting that you speak British English. I notice that Katrina posts from Minnesota. I post from Virginia. I wonder whether we've got one of those "divided by a common language" situations here. When I read about tonguing "lee lee lee" instead of "tee tee tee," I'm thinking that those are very different sounds coming out of the clarinet. For me, "tee tee tee" is normal tonguing with the tip of the tongue. Doing it crisply would be staccato tonguing and doing it crisply and forcefully would be sforzando. But, when I do "lee lee lee," with my American pronunciation, there's no equivalent to voicing of the "L" before the sound (as there would be when I say the *letter* L) and it's anchor-tonguing, with the middle of my tongue (not the tip) fairly flat on the reed or, really, just brushing the reed so lightly that I'm phrasing all on one breath with no full stops.
But I'm going to work on that diaphragmatic technique. Thanks for describing it so clearly.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-11-10 20:42
Well, this certainly beats having a bunch of geezers (I'm only 66) yacking about their gall bladders and livers!
:)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-11 04:22
Tony said :- "Don't worry about recordings. They're just what happened one Monday morning to some player or another".
Of course I can safely say that you are joking , correct ?
Well at least I sincerely hope so. Like the many different versions (editions) of Mozart's Concerto , recordings are an excellent point of reference for most of us.
You certainly seem to have a personal contempt for Alamiro Giampieri. However his edition I consider as valid as the other 18 editions currently in circulation. And where would we be without these numerous editors with their own approach to putting in slurs , dots, or in the case of Alamiro Giampieri amongst others , extra ossias (alternative ) passages. Use the original manuscript? Oh wait, there is no original manuscript. Sadler apparently hocked it , or so the story goes.
Anyway as I say, all these numerous editions are simply a point of reference for us. And who would want to use a copy of an original manuscript anyway ? From the ones I've seen copies of , they are often unreadable in a general sense. Composers like Mozart were too busy getting their ideas down on paper to worry about the finer details generally. They left that to their proof writers. And how much did they alter ? Maybe not all that much , but who really knows how much they may have modified before the original was type setted for the printing press.
Obviously Mozarts' Concerto didn't make it that far, otherwise we would now have an original printed version (edition)-------------- perhaps.
But there will always be those amongst us who consider original manuscripts sacred text not to be alter or modified in any way.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-11 04:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-11-11 06:15
Barry,
I think you need to re-evaluate what you know about Mozart's Concerto. Of course Stadler had the manuscript as he toured Europe with it after Mozart's death. There was a review of the concerto in the late 1790s early 1800s (I forget the exact date) of the concerto highlighting some passages of basset notes and the transposition for the "traditional" clarinet. At somepoint someone had access to the manuscript to be able to make those revisions and get them into print. Plus the arrangement for flute etc seems to suggest that Stadler was happy for publishers to see the manuscript. One only wishes that they published the whole lot basset notes and transpositions.
I for one would want to use the manuscript as many others hear would. We would be able to see what Mozart intended and not what some player who considered their version to be definitive that made its way into print. That for me doesn't serve my purpose and that is to interperate Mozart stylistically from an informed background whether on a period basset clarinet or modern. Of course recordings and to a point, edited editions are useful for reference but with recordings it really comes down to what happens in the concert or, as Tony says, what happened on that Monday session.
The point here is that one should not be a clone because they are too lazy to discover for themselves.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-11 07:00
Hi Cigleris, thanks for the response. Yes , Stadler took the original manuscript with him on his concert tour of Europe, and apparently Russia as well. I"ve been reading up on this topic on the International Clarinet Association web site. (article written by Keith Koons) I've long been familiar with what Jack Brymer's says in his book CLARINET in dealing with this interesting subject. (pages 35 to 42) As far as Stadler hocking the original, as I said, "so the story goes"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-11 07:10
Anyway , back to the original topic of the portato or mezzo staccato.
I have Tom Ridenour's excellent book The Educators Guide to the Clarinet (a Complete Guide to Teaching & Learning the Clarinet) 2nd Edition. I was expecting him to cover the required tonguing technique for this type of notation but it doesn't seem to be dealt with. Perhaps it is an oversight or he didn't consider it important.
Perhaps someone else who has this manual could draw my attention to where he mentions it.
Meanwhile , left to my own 'devices' I developed the easy and effective technique of 'bumping' my breath with this type of notation and it sounds identical to what I"m hearing on recordings.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-11-11 07:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2013-11-11 14:42
I think Lelia gets close to what I do. When I use "legato tonguing" I do use a differently-shaped tongue than when I use other types of articulation.
Additionally, Tony's right too. I am not using my air the exact same way I do when I use other articulations too.
For me, when teaching 10-14 year-olds the concept I use "tee" for "normal" (hah!) tonguing and "lee" for legato tonguing. I tell them to use the air strongly in both cases, because for my students that's usually what's causing articulation problems in the beginning.
In reality, however, I am using a much more subtle combination of muscles. When I post here, I tend to lean toward my "teacher explanations" which are geared towards my beginner students.
For example, last week I had many students faced with this sentence in their book: "Remember to use full breath support to control your tone at all dynamic levels." (This is in the same block of text where dynamics are introduced for the first time.)
I asked everyone of them (all 10 years old) what they thought it meant. None had any clue. Working with them with the sections of the sentence, the "translation" we found was this: "Remember to use your tummy muscles in order to sound pretty no matter how loud or soft (or in between) you play."
Obviously "tummy muscles" is an oversimplification. These kids are on their 4th or 5th lesson with me. I've been told not to let this group of students learn at their own pace, in order to support the band directors' in-school lessons. So no jumping ahead for the more advanced ones. (Whole other topic there.)
My posts here reflect the nature of the teaching I do in my "real life." I can only hope that by presenting a range of opinions on these topics we (the BBoard community at large) can reach as many levels of reader as possible!
Thanks for reading if you got this far...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-11-11 16:42
Hi Tony, thanks for the two threads. I've read them and find them very interesting. I especially liked your explanation of your terms 'Thin notation' as in descriptive notation & 'Thick notation' as in prescriptive notation in the first thread. I was wondering what you meant by that.
In the second thread you had a very interesting opinion concerning the measures 81 through to 84 in the Concerto whereas the pulse of 81 is in 4. Then the pulse progresses to 2 in measure 82. And in measure 83 the pulse is in 1.
I agree with that opinion.
In both my editions (Boosey & Hawkes/Frederick Thurston) & (Ricordi/Alamiro Giampieri), measure 83 has a slur on the first two semiquavers and a second slur on the 9th & 10th semiquavers.
This is incorrect. It's fairly obvious that both editors placed slurs on those semiquavers to assist in articulation. They must have assumed that this passage of 16 semiquavers was too difficult for the Clarinetist to tongue all of these separately.
This is an excellent example where one can just ignore the editing and play the passage correctly as to pulse.
Would it be correct for those who couldn't tongue every semibreve , to just slur the whole of measure 83 ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-11 17:46
Katrina wrote:
>> My posts here reflect the nature of the teaching I do in my "real life." I can only hope that by presenting a range of opinions on these topics we (the BBoard community at large) can reach as many levels of reader as possible! >>
I understand what you say here, Katrina, and also what you said before about 'teacher explanations'. Thank you for your post:-)
But I would like to say two things.
First, here -- that is, on the BBoard -- we aren't in a position to BE proper teachers, because we lack the experience of hearing the playing of the person asking the question.
And second, whilst I might trust YOU to tailor your explanations to your students -- and I'd say that your report of your interaction with your 10-year-olds is clear evidence of that trustworthiness:-) -- what we far too often get here is people explaining things in a simple and often crude way because THEY don't understand them.
It's not because they appreciate that someone reading might not understand what they themselves DO understand. It's as though they have to simplify it in order to understand it THEMSELVES.
So I don't think that having what you call 'a range of opinions' here is the best way forward.
Of course, I myself might say all sorts of sequences of things about articulation to a student in front of me, depending on what happened after I said the first one. (Some of them are at the link I gave to my 'metaphors' post above.) We're on a journey together, and my job is to give them the experience of playing well, PLUS the judgement to know when they have succeeded in doing that, as well as to know when they have failed to do that.
My fundamental principle, though, would be always to bear in mind, and continue to say to the student, that the tongue does one thing to the reed, which is that it interrupts the reed's vibration, resulting in silence even though we keep blowing.
Why do I bear that in mind, and continue to say that? Well, because it's a physical truth, independent of any system of teaching. And it's true in mezzo-staccato as well as in staccato.
In passing, if you use the consonant 'L' as a model, then it's obvious if you say 'fal-al-al-al' that the sound DOESN'T stop -- whether you're English or American. There's no silence because voiced air goes round the tongue as you say the 'L'. So I wouldn't use that move, because it's for me an imperfect analogy to give a student.
What I say about the BBoard is: since we can't hear how people here play, we should be careful always to criticise ignorant (not necessarily a pejorative word) or factually inaccurate postings, and replace them with clear statements reflecting the truth of the matter.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-11 18:02
Barry Vincent wrote:
>> Hi Tony, thanks for the two threads. I've read them and find them very interesting. >>
Thank you, Barry.
>> Would it be correct for those who couldn't tongue every semibreve , to just slur the whole of measure 83 ?>>
You mean, every semiquaver. Yes, in my view that would be a possibility.
I think what I want to say about articulation is that it can very often help to elucidate phrase structure. But if you UNDERSTAND the phrase structure, then you can use an arguably inappropriate articulation whilst playing it in such a way that it doesn't interfere with that structure. Putting in a slur or two unobtrusively whilst otherwise connecting up the passage so that it has the right 'shape' can work.
See, the thing I like about having all of those semiquavers unadorned in the clarinet part is that it forces you to THINK about how you're going to play it. Then you might play according to the phrase structure, however you solve the articulation problem.
If on the other hand you have in front of you some editor's arbitrary decision, then you're liable just to play that, however much it blocks deeper considerations.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-11-11 21:33
"except in the very lowest register of the clarinet it's impossible to touch the reed AT ALL with the tongue without stopping the sound" Tony Pay. Well it is possible!! I just did it. I simply played a g above the staff. Put my tongue on the right side of the reed.. Kept it there and sustained a g....slightly muted but it was definitely sounding.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-11 21:41
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> "except in the very lowest register of the clarinet it's impossible to touch the reed AT ALL with the tongue without stopping the sound" Tony Pay.
>> Well it is possible!! I just did it. I simply played a g above the staff. Put my
tongue on the right side of the reed.. Kept it there and sustained a g....slightly muted but it was definitely sounding. >>
Yes, you're right, and I was wrong:-)
I'd never tried touching just the one side of the reed.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-11 23:54
DavidBlumberg wrote:
>> Not only just one side! There is an exercise where the tongue very lightly touches the reed and "frys" on it. There is still a sound. >>
OK, there's a 'limiting case' scenario too.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-12 10:22
So, following information from John and David, I need to modify the italicised statement in the following passage:
Quote:
"First you must be sure that you really are producing a good firm sound before proceeding. Then, if you play a low E, say, it is possible to place the tongue gently on the reed without stopping the sound. The pitch of the note becomes flatter, but the reed is able to continue to vibrate even though it has a 'passenger' to carry.
"It's absolutely necessary to continue blowing strongly throughout the process. Some people find this difficult to do, because their tongue action is already bound up with their blowing. For them, breaking this connection is perhaps the most powerful move they can make to improve their playing, quite apart from their staccato. In fact, with a little practice, by changing the embouchure and tongue position and increasing the air pressure, we can in this way play quite a strong note at the pitch almost of an E flat.
"Speaking technically, the reed is able to vibrate, despite extra damping, but the vibration has to carry an added mass. The elementary theory of oscillations then tells us that the result will be a lower frequency of vibration – hence, a lower note.
"By contrast, and quite strikingly, in the upper register it is impossible to touch the reed at all without immediately stopping the note. This can come as a great surprise to many players. Those of us who have had the misfortune to get a small particle of biscuit or other material between the reed and the mouthpiece whilst playing will find it, on reflection, less strange. (You can almost tell which are the reed players among other orchestral musicians by the fact that they always finish their coffee break with several mouthfuls of coffee – or even skip the biscuit entirely.)
"Anyhow, we immediately become aware of a possible difference in the action of the tongue, depending on the register of the passage. Notice that this discovery is the result of an experiment that we could not have thought of making had we not been open to the idea that the job of the tongue in "tonguing" may be to stop rather than to start a note.
"It also becomes clear that in articulating a passage we must never blow less. In fact, if we don't blow strongly enough, so that there is insufficient pressure difference between the inside of the mouth and the inside of the mouthpiece, the reed is unlikely to start to vibrate again in a smooth and well-behaved way (particularly in the high register) when we 'stop stopping' it."
I suggest that it become:
Quote:
"By contrast, and quite strikingly, in the upper register it is almost impossible to touch the reed centrally at the tip without stopping the note. Even a very light contact interrupts the reed's vibration."
The main point -- that there is a difference between the high and low register reed behaviour -- stands.
Thank you John and David.
Tony
Post Edited (2013-11-12 10:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-12 14:13
Yes, and before that (1977); see 'The Wheeler Article':
<http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2005/05/000454.txt>
A short extract reads:
Quote:
"Briefly, for Bb soprano clarinet, alto saxophone, oboe, and bassoon the rear portion of the tongue was high and to the rear for low tones, and gradually moved down and forward as scales or intervals ascended into higher register tones. Movement of the front of the tongue did not affect the tone, nor did it matter whether tones were detached by the tongue or sustained."
Tony
Post Edited (2013-11-12 15:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-11-12 18:49
I can't find the youtube ICA lecture. Can you post the link, David?
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}
