Flutter/was TB

["James Thurgood" <thurgood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:19:40 -0000
> From: "Winslow Yerxa" <winslowyerxa@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re:  TB
>
> - >
> SNIP>
> Here are the problems I have with the way harmonica players often use
> the term "flutter":
>
> 1) It tends to be inaccurate physically
>
> 2) It contradicts how other musicians use the term.
>
> When most wind musicians use the term tongue flutter, they mean like
> blowing a raspberry - the tongue essentially acts like a reed. The
> tip of the tongue is set against the roof of the mouth so as to block
> the passage of air. Air is forced past the tongue so that it opens
> enough to let the air past, then snaps shut until the presure build
> up enough to open it again. The player does not choose to open and
> close this aperture each time - its an effect of a force the player
> has set in motion. The rate of opening and closing are not directly
> created by the player, either, they are an effect of the airflow and
> pressure. The player can control the rate only indirectly through
> controlling the airflow. He/she just sets a force in motion and the
> force does the work.
>
> Recently, harmonica players have take to using the term flutter to
> describe a quite different action, in which the player rapidly
> alternates between blocking several holes on the harp with the tongue
> and lifting the tongue to expose all holes enclosed by the
> embouchure.
>
> This produces an audible effect quite different from the flutter
> tongue effect described above, and it is also not a flutter. Each
> movement of the tongue is directly initiated by the player, instead
> of resulting from a force set in motion by the player. It is quite
> possible to play this type of "flutter" at absurdly slow and
> deliberate speeds - say, two per minute. A true flutter could never
> be performed so slowly because it depends on a dynamic force to set
> it in motion and because it is impossible to directly control each
> individual cycle in the flutter. It is possible to form the habit of
> doing this rapidly without having to think of each motion
> individually, but each individual motion is still in the direct
> control of the player.
>
> I called the rapid repeated repeated tongue lift just that - a tongue
> lift.
>
> I'd be happy to call a rake a lateral tongue wag, as this accurately
> describes the physical action, but rake seems more evocative and is
> easily understood. I believe it also has some general currency. I
> didn't invent it; I recall getting it from Barbecue Bob late one
> night in a car in Cambridge or Boston.
>
> Winslow


Winslow -

Thanks for the clarification.  I've seen the term "flutter" misused (sorry,
Glenn!) a couple of times lately, and was wondering if it was me or the
rest of the world that was confused.  I think perhaps the misuse stems
partly from the fact that the "true flutter" (so much more pleasant than
"raspberry"!) is such a rarely-used technique, as it seems to me (although
I'm hearing it more lately).

BTW, I've stumbled onto another way to produce a flutter-effect -
what if anything is actually fluttering I don't know, but it feels like
the roof of the mouth, rather than the tongue, is somehow fluttering.
It creates a slightly different sound, with a bit of a growl to it.

- - thurg