 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: claricat
Date: 2005-03-27 02:17
I need to get a darker sound for some pieces I'm playing in orchestra, so am looking for suggestions. I have a Selmer Centered Tone clarinet, a Richard Hawkins mouthpiece, and use Vandoren V12 3.5 reeds and an old Rovner ligature. The horn has always been rather bright-sounding. I find that I can darken it a little by shaping my mouth more like saying "oh" instead of "ee" but I am not sure what else to try.
Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-27 02:42
I have been told by several pros that the more fabric your lig has, the darker the sound, so get a fabric lig that has a lot of fabric. (I have a mark III rovner lig and it gives me a really nice dark sound. I get comments on it all the time. I highly recommend it). ALSO- there are these little MP patches that people use for various reasons, so the teeth dont slip around on the MP, to keep the MP from being dented from teeth...but they are also used to darken the sound. and the thicker the Mouthpiece patch, the darker the sound.
I hear, but i am not sure, that the thicker the heart of the reed, the darker the sound, but I couldn't say I know from experience.
also- MP has to do with it... if you have an open tip, you'll tend to get a brighter sound. so pretty much, the more close tip, the darker the sound. MPs with concave baffle contours produce deep tone color. so dont get a MP with a shallow baffle contour (not saying you should spring for a new MP, but if you do...). I THINK larger bore gives a darker sound too.
and yes, the embouchure does contribute to the sound...so continue to experiment until you get a darker sound.
-Lindsie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-03-27 04:04
Ah...the elusive "dark" sound request. Sigh. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
Lindsie offers you a lot of "classic" hardware suggestions for getting a "darker" sound. In my opinion, and this really is simply my opinion, most of it is hogwash. Nothing against Lindsie! What she offers has been going around for a long time. PLENTY of WONDERFUL players with DARK, melodious sounds used metal ligatures.
The "darkness" of your sounds is primarily affected by three things: the reed, the mouthpiece and your physical make-up in your lips, throat, palate, etc. Find someone for whom you admire their sound and get that mouthpiece and reed combination (which really is moot since both their mouthpiece and reed have undoubtedly been adjusted). Then listen, listen, listen and listen some more to their playing in as many different pieces and settings as possible. Practice long tones with their sound in mind and practice lots of lyrical stuff...with their sound in mind. If you can, pick something that you can play along WITH them on a recording. Record yourself with some decent equipment...a lot! Listen to yourself and listen some more.
Putting a "slab of meat" between your ligature and the reed or mouthpiece is not going to give you a Karl Leister darkness. Somehow getting Jell-o to hold your reed on is not going to darken your sound. Forget the hoopla about hardware and get a reputable mouthpiece, a good reed with a decent amount of wood in it and get to work.
Listen, play, record, listen and listen some more. That is your answer. You make the difference in the end, not the hardware (as much). I bitched and moaned about my tone being too bright before going on tour with Jim Heffernan and while on tour I listened to him play on a couple different mouthpieces and clarinets of people who thought THEIR sound was too bright. Guess freagin what? On every clarinet and mouthpiece, he sounded like Jim "freagin" Heffernan. [Wonderful and enviable sound I might add.] In fact, there was a clarinetist from our band who asked to try HIS mouthpiece (actually his back-up) and SWORE that he sounded so much better with "Jim's" mouthpiece. He didn't. Not only that, he did not sound as good on "Jim's" mouthpiece as he did on his own. A bit of "dark" is in the mind as well. Don't forget to ask others if your sound is dark, bright or somewhere inbetween that is simply pleasant (mine fits there, I believe).
Oh, and another thing, the nice pleasant and dark sound that you hear sitting next to someone loses something out in the hall. And that strong, seemingly slightly bright sound sitting next to someone, darkens and is vibrant out in the hall...ESPECIALLY when playing in an orchestral setting. I could barely stand to sit next to Dr. Johnston at times when he played in our lessons. But OH MY GOD, when he sat in the recital hall or on stage and played, such a rich and beautiful sound sang out from the front of the hall.
Listen to these excerpts http://www.musix4me.com/html/body_music.html and tell me if they are too bright or dark enough. I'll let you know what I play on. If it's dark enough, maybe I could sell you the reed and mouthpiece for...let's say $500. I'll take the money and go out and pay $75 to replace the mouthpiece and reed and still sound the same. ![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif)
Good luck. 
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-03-27 05:34
Have you tried playing with the lights off?
Also I'm asking the same question as Liquorice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GoatTnder
Date: 2005-03-27 07:54
When people talk about a "dark" sound, they usually mean a sound that has certain characteristics. Basically, the sound should be full, even, not airy, and not reedy. And, on top of that, it should sound covered. That is, it should sound like there's something hovering right on top of the sound that's keeping it from going crazy. A bright sound seems like nothing is on top of it, and it's just having fun being where it wants to be.
Anyway, that's about as good as I can explain it. It's much easier to give examples of a dark and bright sound. Anyone want to help with that?
Andres Cabrera
South Bay Wind Ensemble
sbwe@sbmusic.org
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2005-03-27 11:07
As an off-shoot of some other acoustic work that I have done I have developed algorithms that identify frequency patterns which are associated with the subjective terms "bright" and "dark"- as identified by subjective opinions of a panel of professional players. The latter is comprised of more complex series and pattern of the odd harmonic frequencies. The clarinet acoustics favor this odd harmonic series anyway and distinguish it from instruments producing more even harmonic patterns. Producing more complex odd harmonic series is the quest for those wanting this frequency pattern. Several hardware configuration options may aid in this regard but the interplay of all of the elements producing frequency patterns that we call notes come into play.
As stated by previous posters the old progression of the most important factors starts in the brain; is translated and modified by the embouchure, air flow, nasal pharngeal configuration; affected by the mouthpiece configuration, type and configuration of reed and ligature; modified by the barrel; and finally affected by the configuration of the bore, tone hole placement, size and taper of the tone holes and finally pad height above tone hole. The most important factor starts back in the brain to bring all of the other elements into play.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-03-27 11:24
Robert,
You are right on track again with your comments "In my opinion, and this really is simply my opinion, most of it is hogwash. Nothing against Lindsie! What she offers has been going around for a long time. PLENTY of WONDERFUL players with DARK, melodious sounds used metal ligatures."
IMHO, all too often on this board, someone brings up what can best be called clarinet urban legends and suddenly, people begin to say: "well, two years ago on this BB, I read..." and the mis-information continues. The parroting/echoing of what you have read on this BB does not add to the body of knowledge about clarinet playing and is all too often exactly what Robery Moody says, hogwash.
It seems to make sense that if you have an original idea and/or thought, share it but you do no not help people that are seeking information when you perpetuate myths. For all of you out there that have little experience beyond HS (or are in HS and still acquiring your clarinet tools), have no formal training from skilled players/teachers, or have earned no college/university music degree, you do not really help the situation with your comments. In most cases, you are offering hearsay information of questionable value and worth; this only confuses the situation. If you have to think twice about your qualifications to make a comment, it may be best for you to refrain from doing so.
This is not to say that HS players are not gifted and credible (I knew Larry Combs in HS and he was an exceptional person and a gifted player - but the Larry Combs, Gene Zorros, and such others are not the norm). "It is not enough to talk the talk, you must have walked the walk" (John Wayne, 1952).
HRL
BTW, I play with a thick patch and have never been told I had a dark tone (which after over 50 years of playing I still do not recognize).
Post Edited (2005-03-27 12:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-03-27 12:45
I applaud Omar's research into this deep/dark subject. I have long believed that the scientific defining of sound character lies in the sound "spectra", the energy distribution among the higher frequency harmonics, and in particular what methods we employ to reduce the energy content of the highest overtones. A case in point is the "ill-winded" oboe which is known to "sound" an octave higher than its fundemental as borne out by its spectrum. In my feeble attempts in oboe playing, the reed and my facial/head "configurations" seemed most influential. Like present efforts to combine Einstein concepts with "thread" theory [the PBS series], much thoughtful research/experimentation is required. Just my Easter Morning thots. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2005-03-27 13:30
There are too approaches to this that I have tried: 1) the bolt-on approach, and 2) the other approach.
For the 1) approach, I am a gizmo freak and have lots of bolt-on stuff. Ligs, barrells, mouthpieces, funny reeds, all the stuff. Checkbook was empty at the end of this adventure. Unfortunately, none of it worked too well on me. There is some stuff that can move you in the right direction, but you may break the bank trying to find what works for you.
For the 2) approach, find a live room to play in, where nobody will bother you. Find a reed that is on the soft end of your normal range of hardness. Use your normal setup. Either stand up or use a firm, straight-backed chair. Don't work on scales, technique, or anything else. Play long tones, or slow passages. I personally prefer to use slow passages. Pick a couple you really like. Plan on repeating them for some period of time. Play them over and over, and relax. Hey, I mean really relax. No coffee today, unless that gives you a headache, in which case you should really quit altogether. Focus in on every note, and really listen to how you sound. Make sure you are taking in all the air you can, and work more on the full side of your lung capacity than the empty side. This is like yoga. OK - it is sorta wierd, but you have to become one with what you are doing. Do you like what you hear? This is a clarinet, and your timbre changes from note to note. Do you year the differences? Forget about everything but what you hear. The critical thing *is* what you hear. Are you having fun? This is only a starting point.
Regards
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-03-27 14:35
The whole deal is like running shoes......Buying the best Nikes or Pumas will make you more comfortable, but ultimately its your body that supplies the speed.
Equipment (Walts, or Gregs or even mine) will only HELP you achieve with greater EASE the result that you are capable of achieving.....but it will NOT achieve it FOR you.
Now, how does one attach the slab of raw meat (see above) to the ligature??? Must it be organically grown? (j/k)
Thread theory? or is it string theory? Einstein mustve used metal....on second thought, he was a violinist, so he shoulve known.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-03-27 15:24
Rite y'are, Alseq - I should have said "String" not thread, also I should "Engage brain before opening mouth [or posting]". I'm also a believer that material densities used in clarinets etc DO have an effect in "shapeing" [sp?] the sounds we produce. I feel that my glass mps, [sp. gr. 2.4-2.6 [lead?] ] produce darker sounds than Hard Rubber and plastics [generally only slightly higher than 1.0] [mp interior dimensions are a factor here] , as do the most dense/machinable woods, ebony [grenadilla/dalbergias], box [!!] etc, as in our inst's history [a bit more than 1.0]. A case in point, IMHO, is the Selmer Recital where wall thickness [and horn weight] is somewhat greater than most others. Just a bit more gasoline on this fire !! Help, please. Don
should "Engage brain before opening mouth
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-03-27 16:16
Don, The Recital is heavier, but also the bore is considerably narrower. The latter may have more influence. I think the same is true for the newer Yamahas.
The Jet age and availability of cd's is slowly erasing the tonal differences between the French and German sounds. The British sound is even succombing to American influences, with the latter veering away from the French and more towards the German, which in turn influenced the French in the mid 1800s....There is hybridization of the clarinetic DNA.
Convoluted analogy: (Think in terms of eohippus starting in NA, crossing to Asia, settling in Arabia, and reintroduced as equus back to NA by the Spaniards....what goes around comes around)
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-27 17:10
music_is_life wrote:
> I hear, but i am not sure
> but I couldn't say I know from experience.
> I have been told by
> I THINK ....
As Hank Lehrer pointed out:
IMHO, all too often on this board, someone brings up what can best be called clarinet urban legends and suddenly, people begin to say: "well, two years ago on this BB, I read..." and the mis-information continues. The parroting/echoing of what you have read on this BB does not add to the body of knowledge about clarinet playing and is all too often exactly what Robery Moody says, hogwash.
It seems to make sense that if you have an original idea and/or thought, share it but you do no not help people that are seeking information when you perpetuate myths. For all of you out there that have little experience beyond HS (or are in HS and still acquiring your clarinet tools), have no formal training from skilled players/teachers, or have earned no college/university music degree, you do not really help the situation with your comments. In most cases, you are offering hearsay information of questionable value and worth; this only confuses the situation. If you have to think twice about your qualifications to make a comment, it may be best for you to refrain from doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------
[ As we all know, the bulletin board is open to clarinetists of ALL ages, thus the information which is sometimes posted can range from experienced, informed and tested to the "I think", "Maybe" or "I once heard" variety.
Although we certainly welcome the enthusiasm and quest for knowledge of the younger players, certain threads are often beyond their current area of expertise.
Starting a reply with "someone told me once" or "I'm not sure if this is correct, but I think I once heard..." is often better not repeated...GBK ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-27 18:13
dear Hank, robert moody et. al
I must say I disagree with your statements. Sure, I have less experience than you, but when I switched from michele lurie reeds, a metal lig, and the crap MP that came with my clarinet, and I switched to a rovner mark III lig, vandoren reeds, and a hite MP, my sound was MUCH better. And much darker as well. not only to my ears, but to my clarinet teacher's (who has been playing for about 20 years I believe), band director's, and other musician's ears. I'm sorry if you don't agree with me, but I have heard noticible difference between the sound of my friend's tone...he has simply switched ligatures and has gotten a brighter sound. when he got his new walter grabner MP his sound was quite darker than it had been on his old mp, which I believe was a hite.
I do agree with alseg, though. perhaps the equipment HELPS achieve, but why work with crap if you dont have to? I have to say, on a slightly different subject, that had I not bought my buffet r-13 clarinet, I would not have come so far on my plastic bundy (selmer?). sure, I can play well on it, but the instrument hinders me, even if only slightly. so let's not say that the set up doesn't do anything.
I played with tom labadorf (not sure if anyone knows who he is...look him up online if you must), who IS a credible source, told me that a thicker MP patch does give you a darker sound. I didn't pull that out of thin air, and nor would I repeat it if it were not from a credible source.
and sorry if "regurgitating info" is not a good idea, but I am simply utilizing my teachings from PROFESSIONALS with degrees in music.
-Lindsie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-03-27 18:28
music_is_life wrote:
> dear Hank, robert moody et. al
>
> I must say I disagree with your statements. Sure, I have less
> experience than you, but when I switched from michele lurie
> reeds, a metal lig, and the crap MP that came with my clarinet,
> and I switched to a rovner mark III lig, vandoren reeds, and a
> hite MP, my sound was MUCH better.
I don't think anyone disputes that. However, it's only one experience; some of the other people posting here have had many, many more experiences and can better offer a more directed posting.
> I played with tom labadorf (not sure if anyone knows who he
> is...look him up online if you must), who IS a credible source,
> told me that a thicker MP patch does give you a darker sound. I
> didn't pull that out of thin air, and nor would I repeat it if
> it were not from a credible source.
But ... Tom's not the one posting here and discussing it with the other pros here who might turn that upside down and say it's NOT true. Tom might be able to better clarify the conditions where he feels it's a better idea, and other people might be able to persuade him that there's something else going on (read up on bone conduction here and find that it might not be the effect that Tom thinks it is.).
> and sorry if "regurgitating info" is not a good idea, but I am
> simply utilizing my teachings from PROFESSIONALS with degrees
> in music.
Believe me, in every profession, just having a degree doesn't carry as much weight as you would think in the "rightness or wrongness" of an idea. A higher degree, one that requires a peer-reviewed theses, more ably describes one who can come up with an idea, research it, and can defend it. That is a difficult thing to do and does carry a lot of weight.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-27 18:41
music_is_life wrote:
> that had I not bought my buffet r-13 clarinet,
> I would not have come so far on my plastic bundy (selmer?).
> sure, I can play well on it, but the instrument hinders me,
> even if only slightly. so let's not say that the
> set up doesn't do anything.
On a recent July 4 concert by the Boston Pops, the entire clarinet section was playing on red, white and blue plastic (Vito?) clarinets (and mouthpieces!).
If the camera hadn't shown a number of close up shots, you would have never known it from their (as usual) fabulous sound ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-27 18:47
note: > sure, I can play well on it, but the instrument hinders me,
> even if only slightly.
I can produce a fine sound and play well on my bundy, but there is a small difference because the clarinet itself is not as good as my pro buffet. it has small key problems and a bit of intonation issues that I really have to work to correct. but it simply is not as good as my buffet. and why work so hard to correct issues caused by the clarinet when I could be focusing my energies on more important issues, like tonguing, embouchure....darkness of sound ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
p.s. thank you mark.
-Lindsie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nickma
Date: 2005-03-27 18:57
Try a Morgan mouthpiece. Then increase the diaphram pressure and loosen up the embouchure, but ensure the mouth surrounds and gently closes against the mouthpiece (your 'o'). Then try holding your tongue slightly higher and further back. Not neccessarily in that order.
Ligatures, mouthpieces and clarinets reflect you. 'Hardware' variables are not neccessarily the answer, though if you want to try that route I'd say mouthpiece and clarinet are the 2 most significant. I've not found ligatures to make a huge difference to tonal characteristics. People assume that leather will make you sound darker, presumably because it's a) leather and b) brown or black! I can get a richer sound with a metal Bay than I can with the Vandoren leather ligature, mainly becasue the Bay can be played with a minimal amount of pressure on the reed (which allows it to resonate better), whereas the leather lig requires tightening to stop the reed moving. There comes a time when its best to stop fiddling with material changes and concentrate on you.
Nick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2005-03-27 19:10
I would have to put barrel before clarinet. The tone of almost any well adjusted, quality made (which includes tone hole placement, tone hole configuration - e.g. undercutting) clarinet can be augmented significantly by mouthpiece and barrel changes. My own experience using a Morrie Backun barrel indicates improved intonation, smoother register transitions, and improvement in the tonal qualities that I seek (this is of course my own personal journey and YMMV).
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-03-27 19:30
I've found that for me, a brighter sound naturally occurs when I find myself pinching the reed just a little too much. Don't know if you are or aren't, but if you find yourself with a tight embouchure, that may one cause of the problem. It's not necessary to tighten up the embouchure for certain notes, so if you find yourself doing so, then maybe it needs some more training.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-03-27 20:02
Quote:
I played with tom labadorf (not sure if anyone knows who he is...look him up online if you must), who IS a credible source, told me that a thicker MP patch does give you a darker sound. I didn't pull that out of thin air, and nor would I repeat it if it were not from a credible source.
Sorry. ![[frown]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie2.gif) The old Robert is coming out here.
Without jumping on Tom, without knowing him or understanding exactly what he said to you or meant by it, I offer this: If you communicate with Tom again anytime within memory of this post, ask him exactly what he meant by that and tell him the gist of this discussion. IF, at that point, he insists that the mouthpiece patch on top of the mouthpiece or used between the ligature and the mouthpiece "darkens" the sound with any significance (I am speaking about darkening to the listeners' ears) then you can pass on my opinion of his... hogwash.
Thanks.
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2005-03-27 20:54
Let's not forget that all this is on the internet. If you want verifiable info look elsewhere. I have always thought of this site and the whole internet as more of a place to get some thoughts as to what MIGHT work but not as a credible source for undisputed facts. It seems ridiculous to tell people that what they have as opinions may be less credible than what someone else may have as an opinion. Every so called expert on this site should be treated with as much credibility as every young, inexperienced clarinetist. I think it is taken for granted that there is myth mixed in with fact. It is up to the reader to decipher between the two. Otherwise you will end up with empty threads! What Hank Lehrer said about" if you don't have much more experience than HS don't comment about myths" could be used on every single thread on this board. That is what these boards are all about, isn't it? Peoples opinion AND facts about clarineting. Relax Hank and enjoy the fact that YOU know what is myth and what is fact. This is the internet, not the University of Facts Only.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-03-27 21:04
Dano wrote:
> It seems ridiculous to tell people that what
> they have as opinions may be less credible than what someone
> else may have as an opinion.
Perhaps to you it seems ridiculous, but in fact those with more experience/experiences have opinions which most certainly have more weight than those with near none.
That's not to say that even those opinions should not be questioned; rather, they should be even more verifiable. We've lost some of the more experienced people from the BBoard when their thoughts have been questioned. That's too bad, but the BBoard does allow us to question everyone.
> Every so called expert on this
> site should be treated with as much credibility as every young,
> inexperienced clarinetist.
That would be rude to those that have the experience, at the very least. There's a large difference between questioning someone on the validity of their experience and treating all people as being equally credible. Nogt all people are equally credible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-03-27 21:30
Dano,
Your statement that "What Hank Lehrer said about 'if you don't have much more experience than HS don't comment about myths' " are not my words at all. Please do not imply that I said something by placing quotes marks around words that I did not write and then attributing them to me.
Now that's a myth!
HRL
PS Had your email address been available, I would have contacted you privately rather than posting the message above.
Post Edited (2005-03-27 23:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lllebret
Date: 2005-03-27 22:12
At the risk of being accused of piling on, I would like to state my agreement with Mark Charette's post- everyone is entitled to an opinion but not every opinion carries equal weight due to the expertise or non-expertise of the poster. The problem is trying to separate the wheat from the chaff! More on the original point, one should be careful of trying to play too covered or dark- as has been pointed out in a previous post, that dark sound that you love in the practice room might not project in playing situations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2005-03-28 00:24
Today is Easter
and churches do decree
(as did History channel on TV)
that you can not even locate
where the sepulchre may really be
So when it come to reeding
I doubt we can be heeding
how darkness we can generate
when even clerics cant tell us
which holy site to venerate
That subject sublime-Bright vs dark
always create Posts that snark
so spend your bucks
and with time...and luck
your sound may improve
or you will just stay stuck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-28 00:51
Verbal descriptions of clarinet sound always amuse me.
Is it dark? Is it bright?
Is it focused? Is it centered?
Is it full of life? Or lifeless?
Is it robust? Is it fat?
Is it full-throated? Is it full-bodied?
Is it responsive? Is it round?
Oh, and let's not forget deep, solid, youthful, liquid and clear.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!
You get the idea? An exercise in futility.
The adjectives used to describe clarinet tone are inadequate (and pointless) due to its subjective nature.
Don't get bogged down with words. Far better is to get a sound conception in your head and practice toward that goal ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-03-28 04:46
GBK I've never heard those words to describe a clarinet sound, I always prefer a quantic sound
I still stick with my suggestion, play with the lights off. If that doesn't darken your sound I can also suggest playing in middle of the night, or playing with your eyes closed. All methods verified by professional eye closers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-28 05:07
Dan Leeson once collected a number of marketing blurbs from different manufacturers. These included:
Eddie Daniels plays on a Leblanc France 2002S "Concerto II"
because of its "rich, expressive tone."
Larry Combs plays on a Leblanc France 1191S "Opus II" because of
"the rich, dark sound."
Pete Fountain plays on a Leblanc France 1607G/1612G "Big Easy"
because of its "famous 'fat' tone."
The Buffet Tosca Bb Clarinet, on the other hand enables a "rich and velvety tone."
The Buffet R13 Bb Clarinet has a "sweet and flexible" sound.
The Buffet R13 A Clarinets have a "centered tone."
The Buffet Vintage R13 Bb Clarinet has "a more fluid sound."
The Selmer 37 Bass Clarinet has "a big, focused sound."
The Selmer Artys Clarinet has a "deep resonant tone."
The Yamaha YCL650 Bb Clarinet "produces a consistant tone."
The Yamaha YCL-CSV Custom Wood Clarinet (like the Leblanc 1191S)
"offers a rich dark sound."
The Yamaha YCL-SEV Clarinet produces a "round and full" tone.
- and my personal favorite from the WW/BW web site:
"The Leblanc Infinite' boasts the same playing features as the Concerto but has a more youthful tone"
...GBK 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: claclaws
Date: 2005-03-28 14:01
The discussion above regarding relative credibility(or weight) that each posting has was so interesting.
A suggestion: could this Bboard system allow in any way put the 'categories' of the threads?
For example,
- 'just a novice' opinion'
- 'professional advice'
- 'music theory'.... and what not.
Of course, we have the powerful search function, but that doesn't tell what's hogwash and what's not.
Or how about a page dedicated to the most well written/ most accurate/ universally true postings?
Lucy Lee Jang
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2005-03-28 14:19
Wow--people have strong opinions about this to say the least. I think one of the things we are dealing with is the difference between this BB and a chat room. This BB is a community of musicians to be sure, but it is also an educational and informational resource. Some people's opinions do indeed carry more weight from the educational and informational angle. A chat room does not have this function.
I do look for certain members' posts about different issues because from previous reading I know they have the background and know what they are talking about. Also, given that music is an art form, some matters are simply more concrete and verifiable than others. Some discussions of less concrete matters on this board go to the heart of music making and some are mush. On the internet the reader has to decide which is which.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-03-28 14:21
claclaws wrote:
> For example,
> - 'just a novice' opinion'
> - 'professional advice'
> - 'music theory'.... and what not.
Let me look at adding a small section in the profile to add your experience. There's no guarantee that it's accurate, but the chances are better ....
> Or how about a page dedicated to the most well written/ most
> accurate/ universally true postings?
That's something that I most definitely want to do in the near future. The articles on www.woodwind.org need an extensive refreshing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-03-28 15:34
For me, Leblanc's hypesters' claim of "a more youthful tone" for the Infinite, always conjures up the image of an infant caterwalling in a crib -- probably not what they had in mind. And how does one get a "tone like chocolate" from a licorice stick?
Best regards,
jnk
who might prefer a smooth creamy dark tone, if he only knew what it was
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-28 16:49
in regards to the more descriptive words used to describe sound quality, I have the feeling these companies hired writers to describe what the clarinet sounds like to them. It's artistic! Some people may frown down upon it, but as a writer and poet...and aspiring to one day be published, I do not mind the more artfully written description of clarinet sound.
a whole different matter is concerning people who want to achieve that sound when it's simply a subjective artistic view and not necessarilly something to strive towards achieveing.
-Lindsie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-28 17:04
music_is_life wrote:
> I have the feeling these companies hired writers to
> describe what the clarinet sounds like to them.
No kidding...
The ads are mostly written by highly paid marketing firms who have no clue as to what they're talking about. Most probably never held a clarinet, let alone ever played one.
Thus, we get "youthful tone" and other such blather.
> It's artistic!
No... it's junior high school level writing which is superfluous, annoying and totally fictitious...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2005-03-28 17:59
Jack--I presume that creamy dark tone would be without chocolate chips. I am also amused by what people write when they are trying to market wine with words.
Clarinetwife, who once was on time to rehearsal, when the other clarinetist was late because the other clarinetist ordered Rocky Road.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-03-28 19:35
I'm not so sure. The creamiest chocolate I ever had was actually white chocolate. Aside from part of a bar of Baker's chocolate I once ate by mistake, (Yecch! I think I'd better throw "sweet" into the mix) though, the darkest chocolate I ever had was in chocolate chips. So maybe a "sweet creamy dark chocolate" sound is actually an oxymoron (or maybe two or three).
Right now, however, I'm excitedly experimenting with some of the new facts I've learned from this thread. I figure that if one mouthpiece patch will give me a darker sound (whatever that is, it must be something I want), imagine what two stuck together might accomplish. Or even a whole package! The only thing is... do I put them on the beak of the mouthpiece or on the back under the screw of my Rovner ligature? I guess that, to be on the safe side, I'd better do both.
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1995/03/000310.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1995/03/000329.txt
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1994/06/000037.txt
Turning out the lights and climbing under the covers with my A clarinet and my Rovner,
jnk
Post Edited (2005-03-28 21:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: music_is_life
Date: 2005-03-28 21:12
Quote:
Tom might be able to better clarify the conditions where he feels it's a better idea
alright my clarinet friends, here is Tom's response to my inquirey:
Quote:
First of all, the description of sound by using words like "dark" and
"warm" and "bright" is at best a questionable way of describing tone
quality. These are words that refer to light and temperature and actually
have nothing to do with sound per se. What I hear as "dark" may not be
what older clarinetists perceive as "dark". You can get a very
extensive discussion of this by logging on to the Klarinet listserve. It has
continuously been a topic of discussion for at least 10 years with nary
a resolution.
That having been said, I certainly don't have scientific explanation
for it, but my thinking is that the teeth on the top of the mouthpiece
will vibrate sympathetically with the mouthpiece. Because you have a
direct connection to the mouthpiece hard surface of the mouthpiece with
the hard surface of your teeth, your scull will actually vibrate with the
vibrations of the clarinet. With a rubber patch, the vibration will
not transfer as easily to your teeth and you will at least perceive the
tone as being "darker".
This also goes along with the proponents of the double lip embouchure.
This is the embouchure where you cushion your upper teeth with you
upper lip - your upper teeth do not touch the mouthpiece at all. There is
a school of clarinetistry that believes this gives a "warmer" sound. I
agree with this to a point. Even though I use a single lip embouchure,
my upper lip is exerting pressure on the mouthpiece providing minimal
support with the teeth. This give the benefit of option.
Does the patch actually "darken" the tone? Well, I'm not sure. It
seems to help, and certainly is more comfortable.
-Lindsie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-03-28 21:15
I'll add my cent and a half on the patch thing.
A large thick patch deadens the sound - it doesn't "darken it".
Dead is not dark, dead is dead - a thick patch muffles the vibrations
To darken your tone, it takes a good sounding reed, a good sounding mouthpiece, and a good sounding Clarinet - then it's up to you and your physiology to darken it.
The Ligature doesn't matter a diddly for dark or light sound much compared to the above.
Gigliotti was who said to me about not having a thick large patch as it deadens the sound.
But all the great equipment in the world won't give you a "dark" sound if you don't have a "dark" sound concept in your head and the ability to bring that concept to light....... (pun intended)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2005-03-28 22:57
I want to add a few comments to this already bulky post..a dark sound is one thing but a fine clarinetist must also be able to alter their sound in order to blend with oboes, strings horn and even a tuba.
There is alot of myth behind some the thinking about dark and bright becuase much of your sound is relative to the room you are playing in too.
You must adapt to the surroundings or become a victim of them!
Some of the most difficult sounds to blend with for any clarinet is a Piccolo..on top this numerous examples of this abound in orchestral literature. Shostakovich, Sibelius and yes good old Tchaikowsky in Symphony NO. 4.
The word dark is only useful if you understand its meaning in contenxt of what you are trying to produce. I have had conductors say oh your too dark here..more metallic and then I set about trying to achieve what he or she wants.
I most emphasize the ideal of trying to get your clarinet to tune as well as possible first and then going more into alter tonal colour and shadings of sound. Practicing scales with a good flute and oboe will do much to alter you concept of just how fine you play and sound....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2005-03-29 01:43
Amazingly, no one has mentioned Darth Vader.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-03-29 01:58
Okay. I've update my profile to include some of my experience and training.
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2005-03-29 10:26
>>>Amazingly, no one has mentioned Darth Vader.
I was just thinking of him. They've been showing the Star Wars trilogy on TV over the past 3 weekends, so he is in my head.
Maybe you could harness the dark side of the force?
Seriously, though, I find I get a better sound (which may or may not be dark) if I remember to keep my throat open when I play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2005-03-29 18:55
Just going back to what Claricat said..
A darker sound is only what one means by the concept of dark. As for the equipment Claricat is using a Hawkin mouthpiece is a fairly nice mouthpiece so much of his/her problems can be in the area of reeds and sound production rather than equipment.
As to Star Wars I did that recently with an orchestrra and really required ear plugs to prevent deafening
David Dow
Post Edited (2005-03-29 18:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
