 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-11 19:46
There are people who have switched to a new mouthpiece before a new ligature or barrel or reed and those who chose to change one of the others first.
We can all agree that the equipment towards the top of the clarinet improves the sound the most compared to the upper-joint, lower-joint, or the bell; now what is the proper order in which early clarinet players should upgrade their upper clarinet equipment?
In other words, what order would yield the best results? Which should a novice clarinet player upgrade first?
For example, if you were looking to change the suspension and the weigt of the car, you would, of course, change the weigt of the car first as the suspension of the car would be dependent on the weight force of the car. Applying this to clarinet, is the mouthpiece dependent on the barrel or is the barrel dependent on the mouhpiece? as this dictates which one should be changed/improved first.
Post Edited (2011-12-11 23:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-12-11 20:10
oca wrote:
> clarinet improves the sound
rather, "changes the sound". It'd be nice if all adjustments "improved" the sound - whatever THAT means ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dtiegs
Date: 2011-12-11 21:57
I would put it in this order: Reed, Mouthpiece, Body (the clarinet itself), barrel, bell, and ligature. This order is based on my opinion(s) on which would make a bigger change, and is not based on facts. Just what a student would do.
Every time I am not happy with my sound, I simply switch different brands/cuts of reeds. Should I find a better suited reed for the music I practice, should I find that the reed is unsuited for the music, I make myself play it, come back tomorrow and appreciate what I have with the original reed. And then ask dad to buy me a different kind of brand/cut. *shrugs
DTiegs
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-11 22:46
Quote:
Which should a novice clarinet player upgrade first?
-Their ears
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-11 23:05
Mark with all due respect, if you are going to quote me please quote properly. Include the full predicate (full subject) and verb, otherwise conversations can quickly turn into nonsense.
What I actually said was:
We can all agree that the equipment towards the top of the clarinet improves the sound the most compared to the upper-joint, lower-joint, or the bell
And what you said was:
rather, "changes the sound". It'd be nice if all adjustments "improved" the sound - whatever THAT means ...
I think this point that you make is partially true, however, it is partially flawed. Improvements are a type of change; specifically a positive change. As upgrading from a used Suzuki clarinet to a new Buffet R13 is a change in the positive direction, upgrading a stock, plastic barrel to a Clark W Fobes is also a change in the positive direction. So yes, "improved" still seems to be the logical choice in this context over "changed". I use "improved" in the objective tense, not the subjective. Improved means not "better tone" but rather "the lowest emission of undesirable harmonics" or "highest emission of desired harmonics".
But we digress. My main goal was to figure out which "upgrading" method is the most beneficial. For example, if you were looking to change the suspension and the weigt of the car, you would, of course, change the weigt of the car first as the suspension of the car would be dependent on the weight force of the car. Applying this to clarinet, is the mouthpiece dependent on the barrel or is the barrel dependent on the mouhpiece? as this dictates which one should be changed/improved first.
I think I will put the above example in the original post.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dtiegs
Date: 2011-12-11 23:07
Reeds. I find my peers playing a reed that is way beyond soft for them. However, I keep my mouth shut, for the fear of offending them. Then, maybe a mouthpiece. My two cents.
DTiegs
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-12-11 23:38
As far as improvement vs. change, I have seen far too many eager shoppers equate "change" with "improvement." A change of equipment, say a barrel, may change many aspects of the clarinet, and may improve one particular aspect that bothers the performer significantly. At the same time, though, it changes other aspects of the instrument that the player may not notice so much at the time. A 30% improvement on one note, and all the other notes play 4% more poorly. (a simplistic example, typically there are plusses and minuses throughout the range)
It is very easy to end up in an endless equipment chase, where each replaced component fixes your problem du jour, offering little to no net improvement at all, though to the player it might appear that barrel X fixed the upper clarion, but then barrel Y ALSO fixed the altissimo, and barrel Z fixed the chalumeau, neglecting to realize that the chalumeau wasn't a problem with the stock barrel.
I've also been surprised at how well I play on equipment that would be considered a "downgrade."
Also, since you've invoked matters of protocol, oca, it is much easier to read the chronological progression of a thread if posts aren't edited. Right now, you've made it seem as if everyone between your original and your most recent has ignored much of your original post.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-12-12 00:34
I assume Vandorens for reeds so there is no need to improve on the best.
A good mouthpiece can make all but the worst clarinets sound good, so I would say that the mouthpiece is your "key" piece of improvement (that is if you're not going to include going from a Vito (not bad mind you) to a Yamaha CSG.
The other changes are minor as pointed out in various other posts but I had an ear opening experience with a Greg Smith trial. Greg Smith sent out about four barrels along with a host of his mouthpieces and one of the combinations of barrels and his mouthpiece was astounding in its improvement. I had just switched to a CSG as my main horn so the matching Chadash barrel would have only improved a secondary horn and thus made the whole thing less appealing but the sound of the combo WAS astounding.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
