 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Lorie
Date: 2001-04-26 12:16
Hi, all:
I am a graduate student considering doing a pretty hefty (and possibly a bit controversial) research project within the next year. It concerns clarinet embouchure pedagogy and I would LOVE your feedback...
MANY years ago, I was taught clarinet embouchure in this way: 1/2 lower lip over lower teeth, chin nice and flat (pointed, actually), and corners of the mouth drawn back into a smile. Then, "open-up" the sound, as Keith Stein says - by doing the closed mouth yawn thing. Okay...sound familiar to you???
Now, I have been taught another way to play - still about 1/2 lower lip over lower teeth, chin still pointed and flat, BUT now the corners in and forward. The tongue is now higher in the mouth (like saying "Hee"). How 'bout this???
I know that the disparity exists - but I would like to do a little informal survey. Which way were YOU taught, who was your teacher, and are you aware of BOTH ways of playing? Why did you choose the method that you now use?
I appreciate any input that you may send my way. This is a very interesting topic for me and I am looking forward to compiling your responses. You may see me at Clarinetfest in Sweden - doing formal surveys...
All the best!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler
Date: 2001-04-26 12:52
Lorie,
Many, many articles about this in the Instrumenalist Woodwind Anthology, Vol 2. All by very respected performers. Some of them are older (50's and 60's) but still very good reading. (Waln, Low, Hovey, Jennings,Langenus,Collis just to name a few). Check it out at your local library.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-04-26 16:18
You can find all kinds of "emb's, just look around. I have several, prob. dependent more on what horn I'm playing, even have "bad habit" of several for each. You quote Stein, good, read in all our "good books". Luck, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gretchen
Date: 2001-04-28 03:16
I have studied with four of the prominent clarinetists (all principals of major orchestras). The first taught corners in, "hee" on high notes. The second taught corners in, open throat. The third taught corners out and didn't mention voicing to me. The last one didn't mention corners or throat to me. Personally I now play with an open throat, and my corners are neither squeezing nor smiling. Considering the playing abilities of these four individuals, I came to the conclusion that all combinations are acceptable. What's best may indeed vary with the individual and his equipment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gary
Date: 2001-04-28 03:26
I'm finishing my masters with Bil Jackson in Northern Colorado, and his embouchure is "'O' with the lips, 'E' with the tongue." When I first tried this embouchure I thought it was the absolute dumbest thing I'd ever heard. I couldn't get a decent pitch out of the horn--everything was smeared. After a few months I find this very same embouchure to be priceless. It has worked for me (NOW); and it's VERY different than what I was doing before (open throat, etc.). My pitch is also a lot better now--I used to play quite shart.
Hope this helps,
Gary
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorie
Date: 2001-04-28 12:14
Hey, Gary:
Thanks for your reply. What happened to you also happened to me. I struggled for quite a time with the "new" embouchure - but the focus of the sound and the intonation improved drastically. I actually had someone come up to me during intermission of an orchestra concert to say that he was amazed at the beauty of the sound. I have NEVER had that happen before!!! I guess that made the struggle all worthwhile. Thanks again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorie
Date: 2001-04-28 12:21
Gretchen: Thanks for the input. It just reinforces for me that there is not a consensus and there may never be one. I know that there was a difference for me in the focus of the sound...but I think that what one perceives as the characteristic clarinet tone quality is not really understood. Like all other artistic endeavors, the "quality" in tone quality is one quite subjective, don't you think? I would be interested in who those four teachers were...as I am trying to trace the various "schools of teaching" of clarinet embouchure. I can understand that you might not want that info blasted across the bulletin board. If you feel comfortable doing so, email me directly.
Thanks, again
Lorie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gretchen
Date: 2001-04-28 18:57
Lorie, here are the names of the teachers and the schools they represent
Corners in, "hee" - Robert Marcellus (Cleveland Orchestra). He was a Bonade protegee.
Corners in, open throat - Sidney Forrest (National Symphony). Student of Simeon Bellison.
Corners out - Richard Pickar (Houston Symphony). Studied with Bloch and Jettel.
No mention of either - Anthony Gigliotti (Philadelphia Orchestra). Another Bonade student.
I was in high school when I studied with the first two. I was much more advanced when I worked with the last two. I assume they didn't mention as much because they did not feel a need to instruct me in those areas. I personally use the more open throat because intervals are easier that way. It requires quite a bit more push from the diaphragm to compensate from the loss of air speed that is accomplished with the higher tongue placement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-04-29 02:24
By the time I studied with Marcellus (1976-1980) after he had left the orchestra, the syllable he used to describe the shape and position of the tongue was slightly different than "eee".
He used a french syllable "teu" or "deu" which tended to more acurately describe a "dip" in the tongue just behind the tip he believed. He seemed to think that "eee" would give the impression that the tongue would be too flat and not keep the "dip" that was so necessary in speeding or compressing and shaping the air through the instrument. This was the method taught by Bonade and Bonade's teacher, Lefevre (a student of Rose).
Interesting that they are all french isn't it? I've always thought there to be somewhat of a correlation with dialect and different tonal sonorities and articulation styles.
Also that the lips were like "rubber bands" around the mouthpiece - a description he credited to the turn of the (19th) century clarinetist, Alexander Selmer. He used the syllable "ooo" to describe the basic formation of the embouchure.
Marcellus always insisted that an open throat would tend to make the sound spread by slowing the air stream and that it was inconsistent with acoustical efficiency, good intonation, voicing, tonal shape, and a beautiful tonal sonority.
Also that the "smile" embouchure, which he considered obselete and left over from the german school of clarinet playing, promoted biting, lack of flexibility in the sound that promoted stridency and a plethora of acoustical inefficiencies when applied to the french clarinet.
I guess that I would have to see the merit in what he said since I've seen and heard the two types in action with many student and professional clarinetists.
This is an extremely interesting research topic Lorie! Best of luck to you...
Gregory Smith
Clarinetist
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorie
Date: 2001-04-29 11:10
Gretchen - I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate this information. THANKS !!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorie
Date: 2001-04-29 11:22
Gregory: Thanks a million! I love the Marcellus sound - and it, to me, exemplifies the "American" sound. There are those who would disagree - and that's okay, too. There are those who say that his sound was too confined and without color. I will take the focus and sweetness any day. I appreciate the historical information that people are providing because it will most certainly help me trace where the schools originated and their development. That is interesting about the flatness in the tongue, as I feel like that same flatness is contributing a little to some spread in my own sound and I can't pinpoint what is going on - I knew that I could feel my upper molars with my tongue (I knew my tongue was "up")...but there was this feeling of spread in the sound that I could not eliminate. So, that was a little personal assistance (THANKS).
The project will be good if I continue to get frank, honest answers to these questions. When I do the actual survey, I'll let you know. Thanks for everything.
Lorie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-04-30 02:59
Lorie said,
"...There are those who say that his [Marcellus'} sound was too confined and without color."
************************************************************************************
Dear Lorie,
My suggestion to you for your research project would be to pay special attention to those that heard or have heard a particular clarinetist's sound in person. Not a single musician I've ever talked to or heard talk about Marcellus' sound that heard him in person mentioned confinement or lack of color.
As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. Always in the most complimentary terms re: beauty and proportion as to the size, shape, and color of sound - the tonal sonority.
Focus doesn't necessarily confine a sound.....it actually expands it with a "glow" or "ring in the sound" or as Marcellus related to me, "a candle inside of the sound". This is the part of the sound that projects and gives it size, color and tonal weight.
He despised what he termed the "dead school of clarinet playing" that he heard more and more of nearer the end of his life - and he fought it whenever he encountered it in his teaching studio. Sounds with "no color, life and focus or discernable shape" as he would put it. "You might as well go throw you clarinet in the lake" he would say with resignation.
GS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorie
Date: 2001-04-30 10:05
Gregory- this is incredibly valuable information. I will email you the idea that have for the actual surveys.
Thanks,
Lorie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
