Several recent threads appear to be talking at cross-purposes about the best uses of technological analysis of flute playing. At the risk of offending everyone, here are some comments on why I think the discussions appear to be going nowhere.
Listening to the 120 or so players on the Wooden Flute Obsession CDs, most have a tone rich in harmonics. I’d bet that most did so by listening to someone else, and trying to replicate the sound, without benefit of technology, or of explicit instruction on how to get such a tone.
The previous observation doesn’t negate the possibility that learning tone could be done more efficiently by some other method, including explicit instruction on how to produce a good tone, or having the learner compare the harmonics present in their sound compared to that of the desired sound.
People do learn differently, so the more different ways to learn and to teach, the better.
Lack of a good technical foundation can hinder becoming a good musician, so it’s desirable to be explicitly taught good technique.
I bet we’ve all heard older musicians whose technique is deteriorating, yet whose musicianship is mesmerizing. I bet we’ve all heard musicians whose technique is stellar, and yet whose musicianship is boring and sterile. So it’s not just technique that matters
Without the ability to hear what great musicians are doing,to hear why and how what you yourself are doing differs, and to change what you are doing, technique alone isn’t enough to allow you to do more than play an imitation of the music.
My take is that there’s a lot to be said for improvements in analysis and teaching, but it’s not the be-all and end-all.
Is playing an instrument like real estate?
Instead of location, location, location… you have to listen, listen, listen.
As far as technology goes, short of living next door to a great player nothing beats The Amazing Slowdowner for learning tunes and technique. Nothing substitutes for a friendly session, but I find my computer, a good Itunes library, and the Slowdowner enormously valuable for what you can’t get face-to-face.
In the recent thread involving technology it was implied that understanding and graphing the physics of the flute might help you become a better player. I can see that this might make you a better flute-maker but I doubt anybody will become a better player without years of listening and copying great players.
There are a number of exercises involving long tones that involve varying one or two of volume, tone and pitch whilst holding the other(s) constant. Varying volume as much as possible whilst keeping the pitch constant has been recommended several times on this site. That’s a lot of ‘aural space’ to get familiar with.
If one is going to do these exercises then, as a beginner without a very experienced listener to provide comment, how does one know that the pitch really is constant ? A reference tone won’t work because that complicates the ‘aural space’ ( and raises the question as to whether or not ensemble playing sometime includes deliberately slightly “wet” tuning for timbral effect).
david_h – I think that just learning the tunes and practicing ornaments will take you where you want to go a lot quicker than spending time on such exercises as you have described. Eamonn Cotter had this to say about learning to play the flute. Its been posted before but I still find it helpful to reread from time to time. It’s all there.
To get a good tone you need a tight embouchure. You need to practice tone separately from everything else. Play long notes, and keep adjusting your embouchure until you get a nice tone. Record yourself, play your jig or reel and listen back and you’ll soon know whether you’ve got a good tone or not. The flute is one of the few instruments where you have total control over the quality of the tone of the instrument. You could be given a Rudall and Rose but if you haven’t got a good embouchure the tone will be lousy. Every aspect of Irish music should be practiced separately. To play reels for an hour or two in the evening isn’t going to make a good flute player; you have to practice each aspect of flute playing. In my classes, I emphasise the physical aspects of it – the use of the diaphragm, power, stamina, and how you can play for three or four hours and not end up on the floor. Play a note for as long as you can to build up your diaphragm. When I play with Shaskeen we play for three or four hours continuously.
If you come from a classical flute to a wooden flute, I find people are used to playing with more restraint. The wooden flute is a completely different instrument: it needs to be played with more energy, it doesn’t respond as easily as the Boehm system metal flute, and you just need more power, you have to drive it out a bit more.
With ornamentation, practice that on its own. Make sure you have the right fingering and the right technique first, and practice slowly and build your speed up. Put very few rolls in jigs, because when you put a roll in a jig it takes up half a bar – and you’re losing a lot of the basic tune. In a lot of ways it’s a question of taste. Cranning, well, it’s advisable to stay away from it in a lot of ways: it’s very hit and miss, it’s a piping ornament really and it’s very hard. It can work out fine at the back of the stage, but when you go out to perform it – you know… And that’s a common feature with that ornamentation. I think in recordings… I’m sure there’s some editing done to get in the cranning – it just doesn’t work out when you want it to work.
Julia, I was trying to use something simple that has been suggested several times here. It is not far from Cotter’s first paragraph in your quote, and that contradicts your “just learning the tunes and practicing ornaments will take you where you want to go a lot quicker”.
Thanks to a tuner I know that within 5 or maybe 10 cents of ‘in tune’ I can confuse ‘out of tuneness’ with timbre. Thanks to a tuner, I know I am not the only one. Often it is my mistake but not always. Flutes being out of tune is a common session complaint. There is uncertainty around where technology can help with the “whats going on here”.
Edit to add: I suppose at the basic level a tuner can help someone with a wind instrument learn which is the sort of out of tune called ‘sharp’ and which is the sort of out of tune called ‘flat’. And at a similarly basic level someone could opine that we don’t need to know.
Technology is a crutch. Ever since someone found a hollow stick or bird bone and blew a Lydian dominant mode series of notes, people have not been able to leave a good thing alone. First a few holes in the side, then the keys. Not to mention the Lathes and forges needed to make them. Now you have your choice of a petrochemical or metal tube formed on a computerized lathe with air releasing valves sealed with polymerized foam seals to play an unnatural equal temperament scale.
Not only was production of sound attacked, but receiving of the music was also modified. listening was attacked by sheet music. Why spend time listening when you can just play the music recorded on paper. Poetry had gone that way centuries before. The visual component had even become more important for some with “poets” like e.e.cummings and William Carlos Williams “artistically” breaking conventions of writing (although the Japanese had long pined over the “perfect” brush strokes to communicate 17 frick’n syllables). I am sure that the art of “composing” will someday have a breakthrough “artist” that leaves out ledger lines, key signatures and other conventions because “that is how the common man plays.”
Each step of technology replacing skill of the player. Now “Playing Music” means pressing play on an iPod. That brainless parrot device relying on few remaining anachronisms to actually make music. Even those throwbacks are dieing out and I can see a day where someone plays a pea whistle into an auto-tune and is considered a great flutist.
As said of the Pony Express the day the doors closed due to a strangling tangle of wires “Nothing that has blood and sinews was able to overcome your energy and ardor; but a senseless, soulless thing that eats not, sleeps not, tires not. … Rest, then, in peace, for thou hast run thy race, thou hast followed thy course, thou hast done the work that was given thee to do.” ~ Jeff Brady
So if I drive a car then I have to accept the whole canon? This argument is weak. The existence of this stuff is no kind of recommendation for a technologically-focused approach to playing the wooden flute, as opposed to a more organic, music-focused approach such as I am advocating for.
Even the flute itself is a tool; the music exists quite independently of what you’re holding in your hands. Obsessing too much about the mechanics of flute-playing is putting the cart before the horse.
brilliant!!! It’ll solve the traffic, pollution and GOK how many other things!
So ya’d need a couple a auto mechanics classes, some internal combustion theory, physics, vector analysis, upholstery skills? air conditioning maintenance, this could go on for a bit!
[quote=“Eamon Cotter as quoted by “Julia Delaney””].. You need to practice tone separately from everything else. Play long notes, … Every aspect of Irish music should be practiced separately. To play reels for an hour or two in the evening isn’t going to make a good flute player; you have to practice each aspect of flute playing… [/quote]
No, David, Julia and I are in complete agreement here. Playing long notes and putting your flute through spectral analysis are two different things. One depends on the ear, the other is, well, what is it?
You know, I have 2 fifes of totally different construction. I like the sound of one better than the other. Knowing about academic things like harmonics and overtones helps me to understand why and how the construction of the fife effects these. Knowing this bit allows me to understand the sound better than just thinking they “sound different”.
As an example, for a technical comparison, I would really like to see a visual of the graph made from the harmonics of two of McGee’s piccolos (the 11mm and 12mm) and see how they compare. In the lower notes I have little doubt that with similar volumes being played the narrow bore piccolo would have a different spectrum with stronger overtones.
Wasn’t comparing your view with Julia’s, that quote from Cotter contradicted what Julia said.
Surely as discussed (‘obsessed about’) here this just an internet focus, a ‘behind computer can’t play flute just now’ thing. Don’t think I ever spoke about a harmonic with anyone I played or sung with. Was mentioned by an experienced workshop leader though in the context of close tuning.
Then why drag me into it? Honestly, you’d think the scientifically-minded would be able to assemble a more clear expression of what they’re trying to say. I’m having trouble discerning most of the “arguments” here.
Where did I recommend technology in lieu of teachers, flute friends, sessions, live performance, hajj to Ireland, and beer? We have more choices is all.
I’m sorry, I thought this was an open discussion forum. And let’s leave religion out of it, shall we?
I have been speaking out recently because it seems very fashionable hereabouts of late to turn every thread into some sort of pseudo-scientific jargon-fest. Add to that the threads whose agenda seems to be co-option and codification of adjectives, various ways to re-invent the wheel, and po-faced over-mystification of quite simple topics, and I imagine I shall continue to have plenty to say, in my capacity as a perfectly ordinary flute-player who chooses to participate here.
Agreed! So to that end there are no objections to continue with posting pseudo-scientific gobbledygook – and corresponding rebuttals of course. Potentially much more interesting than another flute for sale.
Julia was mentioned as the source for the quote because I had not gone back to the original source.
You then dragged Juilia into it by saying you agreed with Julia.
I then pointed out that Julia’s quote from Cotter disagreed with what Julia had said because that was relevant to you saying you agreed with Julia.
And I was dragging Cotter into it because your statement was just that, a statement of opinion, not an “argument” . When someone makes dogmatic statements it is hard to question them in a way that cannot be regarded as ‘personal sniping’.
