Klarinet Archive - Posting 000311.txt from 1995/03

From: "Edwin V. Lacy" <el2@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: It's starting again and I'm feeling faint!!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 02:16:52 -0500

I think you are exactly right. But, it's not a phenomenon that is
restricted to the clarinet - it exists among players of every wind
instrument. The problem is that there are no words adequate to describe
sounds. We all use terms like bright, dark, thin, tubby, resonant, etc.,
and we think we know what we mean. But, unfortunately, they don't mean
the same thing to everyone, and there is no way to quantify them.

I think people generally use "dark" to describe tones which contain a
preponderance of low frequency overtones, and "bright" to identify those
with a preponderance of high frequency overtones. I think most of us
feel that we are trying for a "dark" tone, BUT, depending on the
acoustics of the space in which the instrument is being played, it is
the HIGH frequencies which carry better and which therefore make the
instrument sound richer or more resonant to a listener located some
distance from the player. So, how we sound to ourselves and how we sound
to an audience are completely different. Further, how we sound to a
listener near us and one located farther away can be considerably
different. I have known players who sounded rather ordinary in a small
room or when the listener is seated very near them, but whose tone seems
to grow to fill the space when in an orchestra or on a stage in a large
hall. I generally attribute this to the fact their tone quality must
contain enough higher frequency overtones to cause the sound to "project"
or penetrate the larger space. On the other hand, some players sound
great if you are in a small practice room with them, but can hardly be
heard if they are in an orchestra and you are in the audience.

Conversely, I have also had the experience of hearing a player in an
orchestra who sounds fantastic, but then upon hearing them in a practice
room or studio, being very disappointed to hear that their tone seemed
thin, sometimes "noisy," or that there seem to be many extraneous noises
being produced which were not apparent when they played in the larger
setting.

If these ideas are accepted, it would follow that we would all need to be
less concerned about how we sound to ourselves and more about how we
sound to an audience. But, unfortunately, no one can hear themselves as
an audience does. Even recordings are inadequate for this purpose. (But
that's another topic!)

My conclusion: I try to get a "balanced" sound. Another imprecise
term, but I mean it to indicate a balance of harmonics at all frequency
ranges. I do know that those players who sound the loudest tend to have
more overtones in the harmonic structure of their tones, and that those
overtones tend to be more intense, especially at the higher frequencies.
Whether this is a cause or a result of their apparently greater volume
levels, to my knowledge, has not been determined.

It's a complicated problem, and one which most musicians are not equipped
to deal with. So, we will go on having different conceptions of tone
quality, and different ways of trying to get the sound our ears are
telling us is a good one - and isn't that great! Perhaps it is precisely
those differences which make musical sounds so interesting. If we could
completely quantify what makes an "ideal" tone, we could all be replaced
by synthesizers. And that has happened too much already. (But that is
still another topic!)

Edwin Lacy
University of Evansville