Woodwinds again...

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