Klarinet Archive - Posting 000731.txt from 2002/04

From: Audrey Travis <vsofan@-----.ca>
Subj: Re: [kl] Embouchure question
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:59:11 -0400

Okay, Tony - I'll tell my teacher his embouchure is wrong and *has* to
change!! Not! That gorgeous, warm, round, rich, chocolately sound he gets and
the impeccable intonation I keep hearing must be just a fluke, after all.

Cheers,

Audrey

Tony Wakefield wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Audrey Travis" <vsofan@-----.ca>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: 24 April 2002 20:46
> Subject: Re: [kl] Embouchure question
>
> > The post about the *o* embouchure might have been mine.
>
> I`ve never heard of the *O* embouchure being applied to clarinet. Saxophone,
> yes, due to the difference of angle of the mouthpiece as it enters the
> mouth - saxophone is more "straight out", whilst clarinet sits at it`s lower
> angle. It may be that the O is not suitable for the clarinet due to this
> lower angle of entry. If you experiment with this angle, the O suits the
> saxophone due to the increased amount of tuning fluctuations possible on
> sax. More control is therefore available to control these fluctuations of
> intonation with the O in the "straight out" set up. If you experiment with
> this angle, on clarinet, you will find that with the normal angle, more
> lower lip "pressure"/"feel"/"control" is available, making for true control
> of intonation. With the sax angle, (straight out)on clarinet, less lip
> available to control the intonation, causes flatness. This "normal" angle
> (for clarinet) cannot facilitate easily enough the O shape, and I feel
> therefore that it should be avoided. Use, and experiment with all the
> "normal" teachings therefore, for clarinet. I don`t hold out for much
> success with the O on clarinet.
> Any other embouchures need disecting?
> Tony W.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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