I wonder why things like this get funded.
John Coltrane and other famed jazz saxophonists hit piercing high notes that amateurs can’t by expertly changing the shape of their vocal tracts, research now reveals.
No shit Sherlock. It’s called having chops. Practicing for a long time.
Untangling this mystery has proven hard, since it is challenging making precise acoustic measurements inside the mouth during playing.
You think? Really? No way.
“It’s wet in the mouth and the acoustic conditions in there are really variable, and it gets really loud in there during playing,” explained researcher Jer-Ming Chen, an acoustician at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
No, you think?
Can I get a grant to do pointless research like this? Jer-Ming Chen, why not focus on IMPORTANT SCIENCE? Oh, maybe creating renewable energy, or creating a cure for cancer? No? Too hard? Is that why you had to spend time on this “science”?
Chen added that for pro saxophonists to reach these notes, “they say they have to hear the sound in their head, to kind of get a mental image of the sound. This suggests they have some muscle memory with this tuning. I think that means anyone can learn how to do this, but you need to put in a lot of practice to get that same muscle memory.”
A scientific study which “proves” the obvious. I give you a nice “golf clap” for this. Now go freaking do something worthwhile with science. Geeze.
G’day Eric Dano,
Great music has been associated with scientific and technological development throughout the ages. If the saxophone weren’t invented ~150 years ago, where would you be right now? If Adolphe Sax, instead, spent his time inventing renewable energy?
As a musician, you would no doubt appreciate how “chops” (or the lack of it, in your words) make all the difference. What makes an exceptional musician different from an average one?
Practice doesn’t make perfect – it makes permanent. Aimless practicing has never helped anyone.
Just what “chops” is, is precisely what makes us scientists interested, i.e. to put “chops” in clear, objective terms. And now we know how exactly skilled players make altissimo playing possible, whilst regular players continue to struggle with it.
You may not think it’s “important science”, but certainly enough expert saxophonists and scientists worldwide believe it so. We try to answer the big questions musicians ask – Why do certain instruments perform better? Why do certain players play better? No, we don’t have too much free time – we are merely musicians too that inquire with a scientific mind, just because we can.
Cheers, from Down-Under!
Jer-Ming
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/
Um, that is not really the subject of why I thought your research was lame.
Practice. Getting a good break. Growing up with good influences. Personality. Values. Things they have been exposed to. Time spent on an instrument. Time spent on other instruments. There are a LOT of variables to consider…..
Music is an art, not a science….
Seems like poundering the Big Bang theory would be more productive…..or would have a more useful end result………
After seeing and hearing Don Menza make 3 different mouthpieces sound the same, I don’t really care. It’s kind of like the Stradivarius violin thing. Yes, you can say the wood is more dense. And this, and that. So what? If Itzhak Perlman played on a good violin made today, and a Strad, would 95% of the people hear a difference? Doubtful. If the Rolling Stones switched brands of Guitars and Amps, would anyone notice? If Oscar Peterson played on a Boesendorfer piano rather than a Steinway, would it matter?
I think the point is that there are soo many things that make a good musician what they are, it seems rather pointless to try to figure out each and every little thing that makes them what they are.
Specifically, the article on your research seemed obvious….and a waste of time. But if you are getting funded for it, and are making money doing it, more power to you.
Hi Eric,
First let me say, I just found your site, and I love it! Thanks for putting it together.
I don’t understand why you have such a problem with this. They already KNEW the obvious, as you put it, that playing comes from having chops, and that comes from practice. They aren’t asking what makes a complete musician, as you imply. They are just studying what is involved in getting a certain tone on a horn. You seem angry that someone would chose a small area of the acoustics of saxophone and try to understand it well, beyond subjective experience.
Why should science have an immediate application anyway? Like music, it can be an art in and of itself. Personally, I am glad a scientist got funding to explore the physics and control of saxophone acoustics in the mouth, something subtle and difficult to understand mathematically. You say music is an art, not a science, but science is just an understanding of how things work, and that in turn can drive your art. If you UNDERSTAND the acoustics of altissimo, you will know how to direct your practice or your teaching, and maybe you will see improvement faster. You will get to focus on the “ART” much more quickly. Is great sound on a horn inevitable with practice, or do you have to just be “lucky” enough to stumble across it by chance, or a great teacher, or whatever? I welcome understanding of our art wherever it comes from. Why does it make you angry that they study the most complicated part of the acoustics of our instrument?
Finally, there COULD eventually be applications for this type of research, even though I don’t think it matters. You say that the Strad effect is pointless now, because modern violins are so good. I agree. My own sound doesn’t change much on my friend’s Mark 6, and he sounds about the same on my Yamaha Custom. But how the hell do you think modern instruments became what they are today? Or pianos? Or stereos? Or recording equipment? Or concert halls? People asked the obvious questions and got answers that everyone else could use. They leveled the playing field by sharing knowledge. We all win if they succeed in finding a small bit of truth about the world that they can give to others.
Thanks, next year it will be 10 years on the net. I’ve had a webpage up since……man…….1994 or 1995?
But what was the end result? Nothing. “I think that means anyone can learn how to do this, but you need to put in a lot of practice to get that same muscle memory.” So, they measured, tested, and came up with that conclusion.
Does understanding how a car works make people better drivers? No. So, if I made a chart with this research and said “Ok, to get an altissimo A, you need to have your throat open exactly 10mm wider.” Is that going to help? Or would it be better to say something like “Now, to hit an A, loosen up, and imagine you are Pavarotti singing during the Three Tenors concert and hitting a nice low D or something” I’d think the latter is better……
I’m not angry. I just think it is stupid. Read the article again. They did all this “research” and what? They pretty much “proved” what everyone knows……so……ok. I want to get funded to study the Sun. I think it is really BIG and hot. I’m going to go measure it, and compare it to other suns, and then publish my findings…..
That is kind of what I think about this. Unless there is a bunch of interesting data, which, it doesn’t look like, it seems pointless. Like me doing research on the sun and saying “yep….looks like it’s big, yellowish, and really hot……but with some more experience it will become bigger, and perhaps hotter.”
If these guys are getting funded to study this, great. Go science. I’d just like to see science study something more interesting. Look, here would be an interesting study. Take Don Menza. Give him three completely different mouthpieces, and measure and document EXACTLY what he does to make them all sound the same. More lip pressure? More air pressure? Throat position? More mouthpiece in his mouth? Now that would be interesting. But not a study that comes up with “I think that means anyone can learn how to do this, but you need to put in a lot of practice to get that same muscle memory”….
Precision measuring? Modern tools that are precise to an insane amount? Modern techniques that can figure out how things work? I mean, look at cars from 1910 to ones today? Same with musical instruments. Technology has made them better.
No. They kept improving on things, and refining them. I don’t think Steinway Pianos became so great because they asked obvious questions…..they got great because they kept refining their products.
Not sure how we made the leap in logic to this. Knowledge is a great thing, however, if you cannot use that knowledge practically, then what use is it?
Look, I have no qualms about science and music. Or science studying music. I just think that this ONE was rather lame. I mean, really, read it. Again. And again. AND, it is such a SMALL sample (like how many exactly, 5 people?……they don’t say), that, if you know anything about statistics……..you’ll see the problem. It’s like trusting EXIT POLLING in our current US election cycle.
Again, give me something more interesting. Like the forementioned Don Menza thing. Something that would make people go “oh…..interesting” rather than “duh…..ya think”
After having read some of your other posts, I now see that you are clearly not “anti-science.” However, I think you might not give these guys the right credit. The article is very simplistic, and is basically a blurb put together by a reporter that probably didn’t really understand the research. I see this happen all the time. To give them a fair reading, you’d need to reference their article in the journal, “Science,” which is actually pretty hard to publish in. Here is the actual article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5864/776?ijkey=jIXC/xH6hwYS2&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
“Precision measuring.” That is exactly what they are up to- “using modern techniques” – active transducers that measures the acoustic impedance, the “tuning” of the throat – to measure exactly which resonances are occurring inside the mouth and vocal chords to drive the frequencies inside the horn itself. This is quite an accomplishment because as they say,” It is noisy in the mouth” and it would be hard to figure out which sounds are coming from the mouth and which ones from the sax on the outside. The sax is a crazy nonlinear oscillator, so understanding what the actual driving function is, in this case, the frequencies in the mouth, could help them understand the harmonics much better. Understand the harmonics = possibly design a better horn (if you are very lucky). As far as sample size for statistical significance goes, in an experiment such as this it would be irrelevant because you only need to observe how a single system (player + horn) worked when a high note was played. You are looking of the physics of a single event, not trying to determine a statistical trend among many players.
So the take-home message? We now know, through the work of a grad student working on getting a PhD in acoustics by solving a difficult problem, that in order to excite the altissimo modes in a tenor sax, a player must tune his/her vocal tracts to a note slightly above the one to be played. We already knew something was going on and that it takes years to learn and get your chops. Now we know exactly what the result of having chops does: You have learned to tune your vocal tract to a certain frequency, and we know what that frequency is. Nobody knew this before.
This might not be too useful for me as a player, but then, I don’t design horns or mouthpieces or reeds or anything like that. It’s also kind of fun to know what is actually happening when I pop out alt. notes, even if it doesn’t really help me do it better.