source file: mills3.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:53:09 +0100 Subject: Woodwinds again... From: "Patrick Ozzard-Low" Dear Tuning, and Johnny especially, I hope the list will excuse a longer than average mail. And I hope you don't mind me returning to this subject. But it seems important to be clear about it... As I understand Johnny's argument (of recent posts): if we provide musicians at an early age with an ear and an understanding of ATS, they would grow up being able to play in alternative systems without too much difficulty. This view is based on at least two main points: firstly, that good intonation depends on well-practised, pre-emptive anticipation of the precise way each pitch is produced, and is achieved through a combination of physical and aural memory and intention: that is, no matter how well an instrument is designed to produce a particular scale, this interaction of memory and intention is part and parcel of playing in tune in any given tuning system. (Earlier, I used the word 'instinctive' as shorthand as one tends to do on this forum: but it is not really an inappropriate description of the intonational adjustments that are made in ensemble - which is what I was referring to). The point here is that realising music in an ATS is really not so different from playing in '12' (ie., performance practice of 12-ET, not the strict mathematical notion), given the time, ear and aptitude to learn a given system. And, let me say - I have no doubt there is considerable truth in this argument, having written at length supporting it elswhere. However, a second point is more controversial. This is that all (or at least very many) possible tones may be produced on a conventional woodwind using a combination of embouchure, breath pressure and fingering, in which (a) there is no loss of tone quality, or at least none so great as to be considered a problem, and (b) which are no more difficult (or none so difficult as to imply loss of facility), than those of 12-ET (ie., the tuning system for which the instrument(s) are (nominally) designed). However, while awareness and training in ATS, in schools and conservatories is slowly increasing, there is a very long way to go. As I see it, the profile of ATS in these institutions etc., would, no doubt over a long period of time, be raised by the existence of specially designed new instruments - especially if they play a part in enabling rather beautiful music (in ATS) to be realised somewhat more easily and accurately than (might) be the case on conventional instruments. In addition, some woodwinds seem to be more amenable to ATS than others, and it is often easier to hear oneself when playing solo or in a small chamber group than in larger ensembles or the orchestra (ref., Johnny's remark about the Darreg duo etc.). And, however many independent soloists there may be, there is certainly no orchestra in existence today which could manage, or is likely of being able to manage in the foreseeable future, complex works in radical ATS (Oh! please tell me there is such an orchestra, and that it sounds like the Berlin Phil_.!). New instruments, (if successfully designed in an ATS which encouraged truly musical results), would make a contribution to hastening this goal. A great deal of aural training will be needed to help players play in tune on new instruments (just the same as on existing instruments) - but new woodwind (and brass) will help the player in a way that existing instruments will not, and aural skills will develop faster with new instruments, because (a) the new instrument will help to confirm the required pitch in the performer's ear, (b) the fingering will make more sense (especially for `logical' or `rational' systems, if either of them turn out to be possible), and, hopefully, (c) tone quality need not be compromised. There is another response that I'd like to make to Johnny's remarks, because, while (I think) I understand what he's saying, I'd be interested see how his way of looking at things accounts for the following: (1) If the argument about being able to realise any tuning system on a woodwind is true, why does it matter where the tone-holes are placed on the instrument in the first placel? It matters (surely?) because having the tone-holes in the right place makes playing in tune easier. Do we agree that easier is a good thing? (2) Woodwind and brass players sometimes complain that an instrument is unplayable. This may (rarely) be because certain tone-holes are badly positioned (as in the famous story about the Russian saxophone), or ill-designed valve draw lengths. Or, because, (for example), if a clarinet was built for non contemporary standard pitch (A435 or A455), then, when the barrel is pulled out (or pushed in) to tune to A440, the scale is virtually unplayable. (See O. Lee Gibson, Clarinet Acoustics, p. 26). In short, the positioning of tone-holes or the length of valve draws, (relative to each other and to the pitch level the instrument built for) make a difference whether an instrument is considered playable by professional players. (Of course, there will be other factors_). Clearly, a virtuoso will be able to do much more with a defective instrument than an amateur, perhaps, for an audience that doesn't know any better, disguising the defects of the instrument entirely. This is, I think, not an unreasonable analogy to the situation of performing ATS today. And the amazing fact that performers such as yourself (Johnny), and many others can do this, makes me wonder what MORE you would be able to achieve on an instrument which is not, in effect, a `defective' instrument relative to whatever ATS you are playing in. In short, my position is of that there are ADVANTAGES to building new woodwinds and brass for ATS ( and I am not really interested in disputing, as I tried to make clear earlier, that ATS are to a certain degree POSSIBLE with conventional instruments. The degree is hard to define, it seems_) I'm sure someone's going to disagree with something of this! - and I look forward to it_. with further apologies for length, Patrick Ozzard-Low SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: "Patrick Ozzard-Low" Subject: Fenchaphones or Frenchaphones? PostedDate: 25-11-97 16:02:18 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 25-11-97 16:00:49-25-11-97 16:00:49,25-11-97 16:00:50-25-11-97 16:00:51 DeliveredDate: 25-11-97 16:00:51 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C125655A.00527795; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:00:45 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01924; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:02:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:02:18 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01922 Received: (qmail 8548 invoked from network); 25 Nov 1997 07:02:13 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Nov 1997 07:02:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199711251455.OAA09922@imail.norfolk.gov.uk> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu