Klarinet Archive - Posting 000824.txt from 2002/03

From: "Gary Smith" <asemsi@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Another can of worms or two - was: Time for an outraged response
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:29:52 -0500

>What the clarinet world consists of is thousands of insecure people who
>believe that the other guy has all the secrets; these secrets include
>the specific instrument make and model, the mouthpiece brand, the
>ligature, the reed, the kind of nose hair clippers, and what he or she
>eats for breakfast. We feel guilty all the time and presume that it is
>the lack of one or more of those phyisical elements that are preventing
>us from playing like Stanley Drucker (who as far as can be seen, is
>about the least insecure clarinet player on the planet).
>
>I am so insecure that I went on jury duty and was sent home because I
>kept finding myself guilty.

Y'know, Dan, this somewhat flippant paragraph touches on what I *most* agree
with about your argument. I am a serious cyclist, a bitterly failed former
golfer, and a clarinetist/saxophonist whose proudest career accomplishment
is having to pay the IRS self-employment tax one year on a 1040 (though
better record-keeping of expenses has solved that problem in subsequent
years). What all these diverse interests have in common is that someone has
figured out that the real racket is in equipment, and that the equipment is
so good, and so durable, that the only way to keep selling more new stuff is
to keep people insecure about what they have.

Did I mention that I do sales and marketing work in real life?

My cycling improved (at least in terms of my own enjoyment) tremendously
when I ditched Bicycling magazine. Golf - let's not even go there. And -
sorry ICA guys -- there was a time when I felt very depressed and
demotivated every quarter when the *Clarinet* journal came out and about
every article (and of course every ad) concerned some new instrument or new
gadget guaranteed to give you a more
youthful/compact/dark/light/centered/giddy/manly/floral/hairy tone. And
competition results. Yep, I want to read about 13-year-olds who probably can
play faster than I do, even if you suspect they might sound like strangled
chickens. Then I learned to start reading the articles that were by, for, or
about people who actually *played,* and disregard the rest. What does
Lance/Tiger/Richard ride/eat/play/wear? Give me a break.

And most of the traffic on this list, you'll notice, is about equipment
issues as well. I think there's something natural about this that isn't
necessarily bad - it's a lot easier for us to get a handle on, and describe,
equipment issues or problems than it is for us to help each other figure out
"why am I having trouble with high notes?" Those are matters for lessons.
But in these days of digital recorders and mp3 files, I wish we were sharing
more actual performances or even practice runs - it'd be kind of cool (if a
little ego-bruising) to critique performances. Perhaps a pipe dream at this
stage of techno-development...

All that said, I'm a little amused/concerned about the dichotomy you seem to
place between the player and the equipment. A clarinet tone is produced by a
system that involves several parts of the body (especially the brain) AND
the instrument. If this weren't true, I think we'd all be playing plastic
Vitos (or dazzlers, if we just hated black). Now, I know from some things
you've said that you recognize that equipment matters when it comes to feel,
ease of playing ,etc, but I was kind of amused by your concession that
*mouthpieces* affect *tone* because they change the oral cavity, but you
stick by your guns as it pertains to the rest of the horn.

I agree with you that (if I'm paraphrasing your argument correctly) tone
quality is very nebulous, that much of it can't be
weighed/measured/described, and that equipment choices don't have near the
effect on it that the ad wizards would have us believe. But the impression I
get is that because we can't describe it adequately, or see it on a tuner or
spectrum analyzer, it doesn't exist for you. If you can't *prove* it, don't
talk about it or make any claims, seems to be your attitude. You have jumped
in and corrected many people who have popped in lately and said that
such-and-such seemed to give them a better tone. You've done it in a nice
way, but still the idea is to discourage such statements.

Now, when Ricardo Morales or Eddie Daniels tells me what reed to use, I
resist greatly. I resist greatly because I know there is a payday attached
to their endorsement, and if the Peanut Growers Association saw a great
untapped market in convincing clarinetists to dip their reeds in peanut
butter before playing, and if their ad people wrote either of these
gentlemen a big enough check, I am convinced I would see an ad in the next
Clarinet Journal featuring them extolling the more "peanutty" tone to be had
by such procedure.

But if you or anyone else I respect came in and said that they felt such and
such a reed/barrel/type of pads seemed to give them a better tone, I might
give it a try. It might work for me, it might not. But such experiments are
what lead us to better results. I play Mitchell Luries because a teacher
recommended them, and I enjoyed the experience of playing more when I
switched. I have recommended them to some students myself, and heard
markedly better tone from them after *they* switched, especially when they
were using one very well respected, yet markedly inferior reed brand (in my
opinion) which I will not name, lest I start another war. I record myself
often these days since I got a Mini Disc recorder, and I heard an *amazing*
difference when I switched to #4 reeds from #3.5. Does this mean that
everyone should be playing Mitchell Lurie #4's? Of course not. But my
experience leads me to share that information in the hopes that it might be
worth a try for you, too, even if I can't quantify the results.

The difference is *credibility.* Much marketing puffery is not credible
because a) we consider the source, and the source's motivation to say it and
b) we are intelligent and experienced, and something tells us that these
special brass weights duct-taped to our bell will not enhance our magnetic
auras enough to matter.

Dan, I like and respect you, and hope I am not building a strawman out of
your arguments. I agree with most of what you are trying to say, and give a
big "hear, hear" to any encouragement for more of us to spend more time
thinking about and practicing *music* than worrying about equipment. At the
same time, I am concerned lest we go too far in discouraging experimentation
(notice I didn't say "dogmaticizm" [esp. since that's probably not a word]),
because experimentation prompted by people telling me they got better tone
when they tried X has led me to a lot of good investments in my playing. I'd
hate to go back to that Noblet clarinet, Noblet mouthpiece, metal ligature,
and the #2 Rico I started on in Junior High School.

Now for something completely different that touches on what I think would be
another point of agreement - Artie Shaw was interviewed by NPR recently (go
www.npr.org and search "artie shaw," they're great interviews, listen to the
*long* one before radio edit) and he compared himself to Benny Goodman by
saying that BG was more obsessed with *clarinet* while AS was more obsessed
with *music*. Okay, so that was a little self-serving, but I think it
touches on something we all need to think about as clarinetists.

I read in the latest *Clarinet* "Masterclass" article something to the
effect that the technical barrier as represented 50 years ago by Malcolm
Arnold et al. has long since been surpassed by more recent composers who
have incorporated ever higher notes, multiphonics, etc. Great, and if you're
going to be a working clarinetist, this is information you need to know,
because these techniques will have to be in your bag. But is it
*necessarily* better *music*? There is no right answer, but I think how we
answer that question says something about how we approach the art and craft
of clarinet playing. Are we motivated by a desire to communicate musical
ideas to the audience, to stir emotion, or are we fascinated by all the
little shiny buttons on this big black stick and trying to see how we can
push them faster and faster?

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------