what? like this?
What I want to know is, why do we want to do this? Why do we need to analyze recordings? Are we really that in the dark about what flute a particular player uses, to the point that we can’t just ask? I’m sure June would be delighted to lift the veil. Even in the case of the departed, I’m not aware of much controversy or mystery awaiting science’s best efforts.
Rob
“what? like this?” Denny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbnuIYp6HsI
Aye Denny, exactly, that’s how I hold my flute, works for me, but everybody’s different 
What’s the name of that first reel by the way? Ryan’s was suggested …
Now, Rob. If we can use particle accelerators to demystify Genesis, certainly poking at a couple of hollow sticks can’t be all that sinful.
It’s science, Rob. I bet you like to use your computer or your car. And you can be sure the reserches that led to their invention weren’t done because scientists knew what they would lead to.
The knowledge of how Nature works is something beautiful, i think it makes you appreciate it even more.
Don’t lecture to me about science. I come from a scientific family; one glance at my nightstand would reveal books by Dawkins, Gould, and Feynman, and that’s just this week. What I am questioning is whether there’s relevant inquiry happening, or just, as I suspect, irrelevant over-complication of a fairly straight-forward topic.
Anyone ought to be able to see and hear what June is doing using the original equipment that most of us were issued on day one.
Rob
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
You never know what you’re going to find.
For me, folks who investigate the obvious from an apparently eccentric perspective
are of extraordinary value.
‘But Sigmund, it’s just a dream!’
Along with copies of the sacred books of Mani, perhaps? 
You’re usually black and white about this, Rob. But you also know that the notion that reductionistic and holistic perspectives can’t exist in the same field, or in the same brain, is a false dichotomy. The Eternal Golden Braid, etc. etc.
Sure, from a certain pedagogical POV, analysis runs the risk of giving the possibly pernicious impression that that mastering the art of music (or any art) is only a matter of picking stuff apart. And yes, there are beginners of an analytical bent or insufficient ear who are happy to glom onto analysis as a substitute for musicianship. But banning analysis won’t improve their deficiency, and Terry’s investigations aren’t directed at them anyway.
I think I understand what you’re doing, offering some balance by pushing back from the other side. I just wish there were a way for experienced players to do this succinctly without giving the wrong impression. The nature of the online beast, I guess. And I suspect that as long as the ratio of Chiffboard participation to actually playing music is > 10:1, there’s little danger that Terry’s tinkerings are going to ruin anyone’s music.
So long as every discussion on here gets run through some computerized meatgrinder, I shall continue to yawp from the Wilderness.
Don’t make me hold a seance to summon the ghost of Andrew…
Rob
True, unless your head is out of joint, or severely turned in, or something.
and home again all safe and sound
I have yet to hear a good explanation, despite multiple entreaties, of how to take any of that computerized analysis and use it to improve one’s own music-making. I’m still waiting.
Rob
Barbaric!
I don’t think there is a direct path from viewing the raw data to using it to improve or even tinker with your playing. If you know what to look for, the FFT can help, but knowing what to aim for is the problem.
But I can envisage a tool, rather like a “tuner”, that could be of help, particularly to beginners. Imagine an on-screen meter, or perhaps a series of them, with names like “darkness” and “reediness” and maybe even “clarity”. And probably one for “tuning” too, why not? And even “loudness” if you want to practice that. You pop a recording of say Matt into the CD slot on the computer, run a track or two and note the levels of darkness and reediness and clarity Matt achieves. Or your teacher plays a bit. Now you try, adjusting embouchure coverage, jet angle, jet thickness, jet width and whatever other parameters we can identify as relevant, until you can achieve the same order of numbers. Now, out with Matt and in with Catherine, or Harry, or whoever. And back to you. “Aha, so that’s how they do it!” “Hmmm, need to work on the clarity.”
Now, you might counter, why not just use your ears? Easy answer, not everyone has very discriminating ears (as early HiFi enthusiasts found to their domestic peril). Expressions like “cloth ear” and “tin ear” are so well-known that you’ll find them defined on the Web! But we can almost all read a meter, and the correlation between meter reading and the sound should prove very illuminating. Ears can be taught.
There’s a bit to be done before we get there, and the first of it is to define terms meaningful to us and gather the relevant aspects of the sound under those headings. I’ve made an initial foray into the field in the Paul Davies analysis, but there’s more to do before we can say we have a process. That’s where I’d hope to be able to call on discriminating listeners to assist and cross-check.
Actually building an application to analyse and read out in the desired format shouldn’t prove hard, even if I have to resurrect my ancient programming skills myself! I imagine it will be ported to iPhone about thirty seconds later!
Terry
The accomplished player would no doubt prefer to spend time playing the flute than engaging in such fruitless – regarding one’s level of accomplishment – analysis. It’s on the level of Sudoku and crossword puzzles, isn’t it? Interesting and challenging, perhaps, but of not much interest for most of us. And not really relevant to playing the flute. But I’m not going to argue the point further than this.
Interesting thoughts, Julia.
It’s probably less likely to benefit the accomplished player, unless they are still not happy with their tone but have found it difficult to break through. Some of the feedback I’ve been getting suggests this is the case for some. Whether accomplished players feel any responsibility to assist the next generation is a decision for them to make. I like to think Irish flute players are a nice lot (compared to those surly pipers referenced on the Forums list), and will be in general keen to advance the art where they can.
Many years ago (I’d guess the late seventies), I wrote to the Chieftains. They were to play in Canberra, so I asked if they would be interested in doing some classes for local Irish musicians. I could only offer them a venue, some food and drink. No money. We had four of them for the best part of a day. Michael Turbridy was one of them.
I’d argue the analysis is far from fruitless - it has already taken us well beyond what we knew about Irish flute tone in several afternoons. How much more there is to find out we’ll only find out when we get there.
It’s on the level of Sudoku and crossword puzzles, isn’t it? Interesting and challenging, perhaps, but of not much interest for most of us.
Funny you should pick on games as a metaphor for your derision, as I abhor games. I failed Ludo as a child, though I had some limited success with Snakes and Ladders. I’ve never done a Sudoku or a crossword. I don’t play chess or Monopoly. I had a panic attack (the only one I can ever remember having) when forced by a management consultant to join in a “team-building game” at about age 40! But give me the natural world to untangle and I’m your man. So, no game, this is serious.
And not really relevant to playing the flute.
I wonder why you would say that? Would you say that to your swimming coach taking a video of your swimming style? Or your mental health specialist taking an EEG of your brain-wave patterns? Or your car mechanic attaching a computer to your ignition system? All around you, people are developing and using new tools to refine our understanding of what’s actually going on and what we can do to make it better. Is it that hard to accept that it could happen in our branch of music?
But I’m not going to argue the point further than this.
Heh heh, careful. I might quote you!
Terry
Well said, Terry, especially your third point:
I wonder why you would say that? Would you say that to your swimming coach taking a video of your swimming style? Or your mental health specialist taking an EEG of your brain-wave patterns? Or your car mechanic attaching a computer to your ignition system? All around you, people are developing and using new tools to refine our understanding of what’s actually going on and what we can do to make it better. Is it that hard to accept that it could happen in our branch of music?
cheers,
Paul
As I said, I’m still waiting.
Rob
Some people do not understand, or see the relevance of, the difference between a man-made puzzle and a natural one.
Most people don’t mind not understanding; they may not even have noticed that they don’t understand. Some of them are musicians. If they are happy that is fine by me, so long as they are not trying to teach me, or run the country I live in or …
And even a tuner helped me train my ears and recognize that some of what some ‘experts’ said on the internet was twaddle.
maybe they do understand what’s going on
maybe they don’t agree that analysis is a beneficial path
does everyone that does not hold dear your opinion speak twaddle?