Klarinet Archive - Posting 000381.txt from 2000/05

From: "Ed Wojtowicz" <ewoj@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] prescription for dark tone
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 10:39:33 -0400

One of the problems is that as often used, the term dark=good and
bright@-----. This sometimes leaves players in a quest to get as far away from
any semblance of "bright". This can lead to a problem where in the quest
for "dark" in their playing some have achieved a tone that is dead or
covered to the point that it lacks any ring, resonance or carrying power in
an ensemble.

I recommend that rather than fuss with equipment all the time, remember that
you can obtain a truly dark tone by regularly drinking Guinness (preferably
on tap).

Ed

----------
>From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
>To: klarinet@-----.org
>Subject: Re: [kl] Tone descriptions
>Date: Fri, May 5, 2000, 11:56 AM
>

> The trouble is that, as you say, every clarinetist has his own core sound.
> Assuming that sound is pleasing to him, that sound becomes "dark" or "full"
> or "round" to him and other sounds are inferior. That same sound may very
> well be what another player would refer to as "bright" or "reedy." I have
> even heard of people referring to "dark" sound as that which contains a
> large proportion of higher partials, although I think most people, myself
> included, would describe it in exactly the opposite manner. Still, as long
> as such differences of opinion exist, terms like "dark" and "bright" are
> useless in serious discourse.
>
> Do you think that helps any, Dan?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org