Author Subject Bob Local user (4/23/00 9:34:05 pm) 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 9:52:13 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 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