| Author |
Comment |
Bob
Local user
(4/23/00
9:22:46 am)
Reply
|
Moving ahead . .
.
Sure is quiet here. You can almost hear the e-tumbleweed blowing
through this place. However much the kids bash this board, I hope
that at least a few of us will come here to enjoy tranquility and
rational discussion. For starters, there's Tim's excellent,
provocative interview with Mantel in the latest newsletter. Mantel
has obviously put a great deal of thought into the mechanics of
cello playing, and, I'll say right off, most of the ideas expressed
in the interview conform to mine (independently, I might add; I
tried to skim his book years ago, but got bogged down and gave up).
He's especially good in describing the functions of the right arm
& hand. But let me pick some of this apart and y'all see what
you think:
"In addition to my work on systematizing cello
technique, I have been trying to understand artistic issues, like
why is one interpretation more compelling than another, or how is it
that two equally competent cellists can sound completely differently
on the same instrument?"
[Is it just me, or is this guy
naive? Since when, in the history of art, has anyone, ever, been
able to "bottle" creative genius? We can all say, after the fact,
"this prelude of Bach's is superior to this prelude of Telemann's
for these reasons . . ." but of what use is that? Has anyone ever
become a greater artist upon adoption of a set of rules? And is it
not patently obvious that the true spark of creativity in a work is
at precisely the point where the creator BENDS "the rules"? This, to
me, points up certain recurring shortcomings I've noticed in German
aesthetics; that things can be reduced to little more than
engineering standards if one simply studies them hard enough.
Finally, as to this point, his premise seems to be that there would
be general agreement about which interpretation is "more
compelling," and thus we should study that artist to find out what
he does differently. Excuse me? Does he ever read Cello Chat? Have
we EVER agreed on whose interpretation of the Bach Suites, the
Dvorak Concerto, etc., etc is "more compelling"??? Ridiculous! What
might be the more worthwhile study would be the study of different
LISTENERS hearing the same 4 interpretations, to see what
personality characteristics people have who like Slava as opposed to
those who like Ofra. Kind of like the Myers-Briggs for musicians.
Maybe he and I can collaborate on the Battey-Mantel test!!!
As to
his second question, I am mystified that someone who has dissected
the physical actions of cello playing to the detail he has, and
noted the antatomical differences between players, could even ask
such a question. DUH!]
"{in response to a question about
sitting}: When you do something with your hands, like peeling a
potato or carving a piece of wood, it is natural to lean over what
you are doing. The same thing applies to cello playing, particularly
in the higher positions, where you need to move your body closer to
the left hand's activity in order to maintain the necessary
leverage."
[What is he talking about? I don't lean forward
when I peel vegetables, and if I carved wood I would lean forward
only if I needed to see something up close. And what is this
"necessary leverage"? Has anyone noticed any particular weakness in
their left hand when playing up high but sitting normally? Lord have
mercy, Starker's been playing wrong ALL THESE
YEARS!!!]
"{on the left hand}: I use a changing amount of
thumb counter-pressure in order to have what amounts to a pair of
tongs between my fingers and thumb. I release the thumb for shifts
or when I am playing a series of fast notes, when fluidity is
necessary."
[This "pair of tongs" image is the most gruesome
in all of cello pedagogy. How can he think this? Does he really keep
these "tongs" clenched when, for example, vibrating on the pinky in
a singing passage? If so, this may be one reason why we don't see a
lot of Mantel recordings in the CD stores.]
"A string
does not vibrate from side to side, but between the bridge and the
nut. {. . .} Imagine holding a laundry rope in your hand, whose
other end is attached to the wall of your home. If you now start
quickly moving your end of the rope up and down, the wave that
arises by this movement travels to the wall and back. The vibration
does not incite all points of the rope to move simultaneously in the
same direction, up and down. This is also the way a string vibrates.
The movement occurs along the length of the string."
[This, I
feel, is wrong too. The correct analogy is not a limp rope along
which we send small waves, but a TAUT rope, which, when "plucked,"
vibrates in one large cycle. How could the string move visibly from
side to side if it was doing what he claims? It's a little
disconcerting to see such an error from someone so thoughtful.]
I have more to say, but I need to get to a gig. My
rhetoric is somewhat biting because I respect so much of what this
man has done. Indeed, I'm envious; he has publicly elucidated many
concepts that I found on my own but now will be seen as simply
following his. Early bird gets the worm, I guess. So what do you all
(and I hope there ARE some of you out there) think?
Edited by Bob
at: 4/23/00 9:34:05 pm
|
quarles
Global user
(4/24/00
6:19:04 am)
Reply
|
Re: Moving ahead
. . .
Re the comments about tempo and the Dvorak Concerto. Harold
Schonberg the noted piano critic and author of many books on
pianist's and performing practice says as regards choice of tempo
that as a rule he finds that almost all of the older pianist's adopt
tempi that are far brisker then their younger collegues. Listen to
any of the great's Hofmann, Rachmaninov, Horowitz, Petri, Arrau
(early in his career), Bachaus, Cortot, Ignaz Friedmann, Josef
Lhevinne, Emil von Sauer and Gieseking. A random list, but it tends
to prove Mr. Schonberg's point particularly when contrasted with the
under fifty-five crop of today.
Feuermann, Casals,(until his
very late year's)tended to move thing's along, They both in very
different ways played expressivly but, and this is important, didn't
moon (or swoon) over phrases .They just got on with it. Not a bad
idea, and one would be hard pressed to call either a cold
player!
Peter Schenkman, Toronto, Canada
Edited by quarles
at: 4/24/00 9:52:13 am
|
PatWhite
Global user
(4/24/00
8:38:02 am)
Reply
|
Re: Moving ahead
. . .
Dear Bob,
In all honesty, I think you are thinking like a lawyer
when you read the interview. Which is not a bad thing, per se, but
the extreme analysis doesn't allow forgiveness for the
idiosyncrasies of a live conversation. Mr. Mantel was in a
conversation with Tim Finholt and may not have chosen his analogies
the way he would have were he able to write and edit his remarks...?
I know when I am in the midst of an explanation and fumbling for an
analogy, sometimes I come up with a real winner and other times
not!
At any rate, I was disappointed to hear that Fournier likens
the daily playing of scales to the brushing of one's teeth because I
use that one and now know it is an older idea from a wiser
cellist!
You quoted, "In addition to my work on systematizing
cello technique, I have been trying to understand artistic issues,
like why is one interpretation more compelling than another, or how
is it that two equally competent cellists can sound completely
differently on the same instrument?" and then you asked, "Is it just
me, or is this guy naive?"
I have to say, his remark would have
been read by myself with no comment on his naivete. Yet, I am the
one who marvels at the fact every human being has a face
approximately the same size as the next human being, with two eyes,
two ears, a nose, and a mouth -- yet how do we all look so different
from each other? I think Mantel was just marvelling at the abstract
nature of creativity, and the question was more rhetorical... except
for the fact he proceeded to get analytical on the subject in the
next breath.
Using the word analytical brings me to the crux of
my problem with the man. I am not prone to minute analysis. I never
could be, and do not have patience for it. I read the entire
interview and as always, enjoyed Tim's skill at asking interesting
questions quite a lot. However, the idea of such detailed analysis
of what to me should come naturally left me cold.
However, Bob,
I will say that I do lean forward over the counter when I am slicing
and dicing. I cannot imagine you mean to suggest you stand up
straight as an arrow when in that occupation? I must confess, I
round my shoulders to play in thumb position (upper register), and
find that my upper back & shoulders lean forward about 5 degrees
or so. Again, I cannot imagine someone who does not. I always try to
get my students more physically aware of themselves when playing.
Those who are doing their best to imitate statues are asked to throw
a frisbee, using only their hand. They quickly realize that it is
impossible to throw something without also using the arm, shoulder,
back, and momentum. I think Mantel was getting at this adaptibility
of the body when playing, n'est-ce pas?
I must claim ignorance in
never having previously heard of Mr. Mantel, but I did not find his
ideas so absurd as did you. (Except the string vibration and the
tongs. You got me there)
Patricia White |
Tim
Finholt 
Global
user
(4/24/00 3:40:44 pm)
Reply
|
String
Physics
Go ahead and pick on Mantel about "tongs," but he is right about
the physics of the string. The following link shows a picture of the
waveform of the "fundamental" on the string, though its amplitude is
exaggerated for clarity. It is taken from a book on the physics of
music.
His analogy is not really that far off because the
physics of the string and waves does not change just because the
rope is under much less tension (i.e. not tight like a string on the
cello). By waving the end of the rope, one is merely exciting the
string in a different way than "plucking" or bowing. But the wave
that results is still the
same.
www.cello.org/stringwave.htm
|
Bob
Local user
(4/24/00
5:17:00 pm)
Reply
|
Re: String
Physics
There's a wave, but it's still one large side-to-side wave. While I
may not have described it exactly correctly, Mantel's analogy is
still wrong.
|
Tim
Finholt
Global
user
(4/24/00 5:59:32 pm)
Reply
|
You are both
right.
He is right that the wave travels up and down the string. You are
right that his analogy is off.
|
Tom
Flaherty
Global
user
(4/25/00 1:53:32 am)
Reply
|
Re: Moving ahead
. . .
Bob, I agree that a study of Slava vs. Ofra lovers would be
interesting, but I wonder if Mantel really meant "more compelling"
to refer to a concensus opinion. I often use such language to get
students to intently focus on "what is there" rather than "what is
good." In the end, a heightened sensitivity to what is there is
rewarding in itself; there is generally more "there" than we ever
completely perceive. It is sometimes worth the effort to discover in
some detail what it is that WE find compelling in a performance,
even if our friends think we should just get a good night's sleep
and feel better in the morning.
And Pat, I'm also a great
believer in "what should come natural", but not everything that
should does, at least not for everyone. Sometimes minute analysis
can help solve a problem for a student when more intuitive analogies
and the like will not. Frankly, I prefer the less anaalytical
approach, in teaching cello or composition or in learning or
composing a piece myself, but I do often find the analytical
approach helpful in all endeavors.
|
MsCheryl
.gif)
Global
user
(4/25/00 5:41:32 am)
Reply
|
Physics
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are talking about two
different "waves". The string itself moves side to side, whereas a
wavegraph of the soundwave created by this side to side vibration
would look up and down (amplitude and frequency). Rocket science,
anyone?
|
OyOy
Global user
(4/25/00
8:40:51 am)
Reply
|
Re:
Physics
I think Bob & Mr. Mantel are both talking about the physical
path of the string, but you may have indentified one reason why
there's dispute & confusion.
|
Tim
Finholt
Global
user
(4/25/00 9:17:43 am)
Reply
|
Waves
None of us are talking about the sound wave as far as I know. We
are all talking about the behavior of the string itself. If you
limit yourself to only looking at a single point on the string, it
will appear to be only moving up and down, but when you look at the
string as a whole, you will get a much different and much more
accurate picture of what is really going on, as is shown in the
graphical depiction posted. The picture clearly shows that a wave
bounces back and forth between the ends of the string. The wave is
traveling back and forth several hundred times per second, so none
of us can see what's really going on with the naked eye.
|
tada
Global user
(4/27/00
9:08:34 pm)
Reply
|
waves and
strings
Recent research about which there was an article in the Strad
magazine recently would indicate that Bob and Gerhardt are both
WRONG, rather than both right on this subject. I won't claim to have
any answers myself, despite once writing a 10000 word dissertation
on the subject. Aparently all the sources I used for that assignment
have been proved wrong. The sticking point seems to be the fact that
if you bow the string exactly in the centre, no sound is
produced.
Although this is definitely no closer to the truth
than any other simplistic analogy, I like to believe that it is
precisely the rather more chaotic nature of the bowed string than
might be expected that gives sting instruments their warmth.
|
Bob
Local user
(4/28/00
6:40:04 am)
Reply
|
Re: waves and
strings
"The sticking point seems to be the fact that if you bow the string
exactly in the centre, no sound is produced."
The sticking
point in this analysis is that the above sentence is wrong. I have
no scientific instruments and cannot prove what I'm saying about the
shape of the string vibration. But I CAN, and have, bowed the string
in the center, to make a point about how the bow speed has to
increase drastically the farther away from the nodes you get. Anyone
disbelieves me, try it yourself.
Having said that, I
nonetheless welcome "tada" to our board and hope she/he will
return.
|
Tim
Finholt
Global
user
(4/28/00 10:08:36
am)
Reply
|
Whoa now!
I saw that article too, and, as I recall, there was no explanation
for the alleged phenomenon, just a lot of head-scratching. Even if
it is a real phenomenon (which Bob questions), I'm not sure it
necessarily implies that current theories about string behavior can
now be thrown out. There may be a way to explain it in a manner that
is compatible with current theories, which I'd bet there is. Time
will tell.
|
tada
Global user
(4/28/00
8:18:43 pm)
Reply
|
bowed
strings
Thankyou very much for responding to my message, Bob. I have posted
a number of times on Cello chat and usually feel invisible by the
lack of replies to my posts!
Anyway, because it fascinates me
so much, I want to mention a few details which are not often
accounted for in the analysis of bowed strings. I didn't mean to
tread on any toes in my last post, I just wanted to allude to the
complexity of the issue.
One phenomena which, for the life of
me I can't remember the name of (it was a good 6 years since I wrote
that thing) is that the direction of the vibrations of a plucked or
bowed string changes. i.e. the string goes around in a circle. This
is easily observed on the cello. What I find most fascinating about
this is that, as you would expect, when the string is vibrating in
the direction of the bow, it applies a completely different force on
the bridge from when it is vibrating perpendicular to the bow. I
believe you can hear it, if you listen carefully.
The torque
(turning force) which is applied to the string by the bow also
affects, but is not responsible for, the previously mentioned
phenomena. Each time the bow grips and releases the string, it also
twists the string slightly and the string snaps back around when it
is released. (hard to explain without diagrams) As you would expect,
this twisting motion adds an extra "wobble" to the direction of the
string vibration.
Is it getting more
complicated?
Combine all issues with the vector forces
perpendicular and parallel to the string as they change throughout
the bow stroke. Believe it or not, a component of any bow stroke is
a force parallel to the string which either pulls the contact point
slightly away from or towards the bridge. You got it... the string
is also stretched spring-like along its length.
And finally
(for this post, but this is by no means all the components
contributing to the action of a bowed string) the rate at which the
bow repeatedly "plucks" the string needs to be investigated. I have
not come across any research dealing with this issue but there is no
reason to assume that the bow plucks the string at the same
frequency as the string vibrates. This is the real part in which the
"shaking a loose rope" analogy falls apart. Because in that analogy,
the frequency is set by the rate at which you shake the rope. When
bowing a taut string, the frequency is set by the length and tension
of the string (and the thickness, material, construction etc etc you
get the point) and not by the rate of grabbing and releasing by the
bow. So the little wave travelling in a nice neat shape between the
bridge and your finger ceases to exist for all practical purposes
because there are simply so many of them.
Of course, none of
these factors explains why you can not get a proper sound in the
middle of the string (I will not challenge the claim of those
intelligent people who have spent years investigating these things)
so either it is all wrong or there is yet another important factor
which needs to be considered.
 Tada
|
Roland
Siemons 
Global
user
(6/23/00 3:52:09 am)
Reply
|
vibrating
string
Tada wrote:
"And finally ... the rate at which the bow
repeatedly "plucks" the string needs to be investigated. ... there
is no reason to assume that the bow plucks the string at the same
frequency as the string vibrates. "
Yes there is, and it
does. The bow plucks the string at the same rate.
Why you
cannot get a proper sound in the middle of the string: Then the
waves send to the bridge and the nut extinguish eachother. If Bob
experience some sound, I expect he will admit that sound is a lot
less then away from the string centre. If he does: The theory is
about a perfect physical model of the stringed instrument. Perhaps
perfact instruments are not identical to perfect models?
I
guess I will start reading Mantel's interview now ...
Roland
|
Tim
Janof
Administrator
Posts: 262
(8/21/01 8:09:59 pm)
Reply
|
Mr. Mantel asked
me to post this reply.
I would like to add a few remarks to the discussion of my interview
with Tim some
time ago. My example of the rope does match the
behavior of a string perfectly,
with the only difference of the
string being more taut than the rope. Scientific
information can
be obtained by looking up “violin acoustics” through “google”
in
the internet. There is a very good animation picture,
describing my point
(nothing new, really).
I would also
like to explain the bow “plucking” at each vibration of the
string.
If you bow faster, adding pressure accordingly, the
distance between the two
extreme left and right string point
positions AT THE POINT OF CONTACT WITH THE
BOW increases, and
logically, so does the velocity of the string AT THIS POINT
(the
frequency being the same, for instance, 1/440 of a second for a')).
The
result is an accordingly larger amplitude. If you calculate a
little bit, you can
sum up the string velocities of each
vibration of a medium loud cello tone a'
(440 vibrations per
second) to the bow speed. Just a very rough example: If you
bow
at a medium velocity of, say, 44 cm per second, you cover 440
single
“plucks” of 1 mm each. The bow speed matches the “little
velocities” pretty
exactly. If you play louder (using also more
pressure), the distance between
those two points is increased,
say, to 2 mm per vibration. Then you must have a
bow speed of 88
cm per second (at a given point of contact), otherwise the
tone
is crushed. This is all very rough and does not consider the
leeway which exists.
Just to explain the physical behavior of a
vibrating string.
The fact that you don't see the string in
its single vibrations does not mean
that
the string vibrates
as our slow eyes can follow. The longitudinal vibration of
the
string is also responsible for the well-known phenomenon, that a bow
movement
which contains a movement PARALLEL TO THE STRING
(non-perpendicular) destroys
these longitudinal waves
immediately. If you try to move the bow (perpendicular
position)
towards the bridge on a single bow stroke, you do just that:
destroy
the sound. Or if you bow with a slant bow, but stay on
the point of contact, the
same phenomenon arises. The string is
being pulled ALONGSIDE ITS LONGITUDINAL
POSITION, the sound is
destroyed. (If you move your bow in a TEMPORARILY slightly
slant
position, by the way, you can move alongside the string without
this
negative effect. The pulling direction stays perpendicular,
even if the position
of the bow is not.)
There is another
interesting consideration in this strictly physical field.
The
overtones must be produced by the string - in reality, not
virtually.
Therefore, In a given moment, let's say, in a picture
taken at 1/1000 of a
second, a string is never a straight line
nor a smooth curve, but always a
wiggling snakelike figure,
in
order to be able to physically produce the overtones on top a
the fundamental
vibration. The visible eye-picture of the
vibrating string is a “shell”
of all the mechanical movements of
the string. This is not an opinion.
All this has very
practical and very teachable consequences: Anyone who knows
WHY
the sound is unsatisfactory can do something about it instead
of hoping or
despairing.
I would like to clarify the
vibrato issue also: The pitch perceived is the
AVERAGE of all
frequencies which change a little bit (up and down) during
the
vibrato. (Scientifically speaking: We perceive the exact
middle line of the
mathematical integral of ALL vibrations
between the upper and the lower end of
the vibrato.) If the
vibrato is an exact sinus curve, the pitch perceived is
exactly
in the middle between the upper and the lower pitch. If the vibrato
is
uneven (for instance, if one direction, up or down, is slower
than the other,
producing a sort of “saw tooth” curve), the pitch
perceived wanders again back
into the middle of the integral of
the uneven curve, which then may not be
exactly identical with
the middle between the upper and the lower point of the
finger.
Try this experiment: If you slide rapidly up and down around a
given
tone, you still have the perception of a pitch center
through all the howl, even
if the finger slides between, say,
half an inch above and half an inch below the
note.
And
finally, when I said, it always was interesting for me to find
out
differences (“more or less compelling”, which might not have
been the best word
choice for some), I describe nothing else than
what every professional musician
does from morning to night both
in playing and in teaching. We always compare
different versions
of a piece, of a passage, and evaluate them, then choose the
best
(for the time being). We evaluate them in a way to have a reliable
grasp on
our playing on stage, on the playing of our students in
lessons and on stage.
This produces my question: WHY is this
better than that, which I think is much
more valuable than just
stating THAT this is better than that. It has helped me
in
all
my concerts and recordings (there are plenty, btw.) through my life,
anyway.
That is what I meant by the different degrees of
“compelling”. It has nothing to
do with the fact that each and
every artistic personality has and should have his
own personal
style. Even in the highest class of playing one might prefer
one
artist's interpretation to another one's. That is not what
was meant. I did not
mean to compare Rostropovitch to Yo-Yo-Ma,
but a beautifully shaped phrase to a
"correct" one which lacks
profiel (even decribale profile!!).
The sympathy someone
extends to an approach (“analytical” vs. “intuitive)” is
not a
good argument in favor or against a physical fact. Talking about
different
approaches, I would much rather use the term
“descriptive” or "describing"
instead of the ugly term
“analytical”. As teachers, we should use both
approaches, of
course, the intuitive and the descriptive, which in so many
cases
has proven extremely effective. Robert Schumann: “Head,
heart, and hand” must go
together in art to reach the goal! There
is no battle between soul and head, they
must work together. In
modern thinking (psychology, brain neurology etc.), they
form a
completely interwoven unit anyhow...Of course, I realize that there
are
different completely legitimate approaches, as there are
different people. The
completely intuitive approach is wonderful
and indeed enviable, if rare, as long
as it does not make
attempts to sell vague impressions and personal feelings
and
associations as straight facts. This may prove harmful to
other people with - or
without the more intuitive
approach.
Personally, and I think most would agree, we should
at least to some degree try
to explain to ouselves and to a
student WHY one version is better than another.
In those not too
frequent cases when I cannot do this, I leave the
student's
version as it is. I don't want to pour my personal
taste over him. In almost all
cases, however, we find a
consensus. To me, the fact that there is such a huge
degree of
esthetical consensus in comparing “more or less compelling” versions
of
a passage, is even more astounding than the fact that there
are differences in
taste.
There was also a
misunderstanding about my “pair of tongues”. Of course, you
can
squeeze your left hand “to death,” which really should not be
insinuated as for
my own playing. No, it is just pretty simple.
You can either “hang” your arm
completely relaxed to the
fingerboard, so to speak, by a certain (minimal)
“tongues”
pressure between playing finger and thumb, making the fingers stick
to
the fingerboard (“static friction” again). Or does anyone
seriously propagate to
have the thumb constantly hanging in the
air in lower positions? Otherwise,
without this friction, you
cannot “hang” your arm on the fingerboard, but you
must instead
carry it by the shoulder muscles (no harm is done in either
form,
nor do we have any additional options but these two
actions).
In practical playing, these two forms change
rapidly all the time with every good
cellist. Of course, if there
is no more thumb for slight counterpressure in the
thumb
positions, this is not possible any more. And there are a few
situations
where the tumb leaves the fingerboard even in lower
positions, large double stop
stretches for example. Of course,
DURING shifts the thumb leaves the fingerboard.
And finally,
unless I am handicapped, I would not peel a potato, indeed,
with
arms stretched out. This is an opinion of
course...lol
I am quite happy about this whole discussion,
which also includes quite a few
positive and sensible appraisals
of our interview. I would not mind to
continue, if only to
clarify some misunderstandings. Don't we all try to
learn
more?
| |
Internet Cello Society
Forums
Email
This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator only)