 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-06-02 13:39
It seems hard to believe that such a wide variety of tonal qualities can occur just because of just breath and embrasure. I will admit that my throat tones deteriorate markedly as my embrasure weakens in a long practice session. It seems that my open G, for example, goes from quite acceptable to quite kazoo-like. That detioration I can accept, but even at my best, the open G doesn't sound like liquid honey. I can not imagine what someone can ever do to take that ordinary G and eventually develp it into a rich, round, magical sound. How many different things can one do to produce a proper sound? How different could my embrasure and breath support be from a great musician's to account for such a noticeable difference in final tone. Bear in mind that I'm not talking about musicality, finger coordination, expression or dynamics. This is just an issue of one sustained note. My tone has certainly improved but i still wonder what I should be thinking of to achieve the next level of improvement.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-06-02 14:08
It is ALL about AIR !!!!!!
You need a swift, focused stream of air to produce a tone that actually (and I mean literally) makes your clarinet vibrate under your fingers (which indicates that you are doing this properly).
Leon Russianoff used to have you take a 6"x 6" piece of notebook paper and while standing about a foot from the wall, hold that paper against the wall without it moving with your breath as long as you can. This gives you some idea where to start.
Robert Marcellus used to say that you should think of the sort of breath you would use to cool off a hot cup of coffee (as opposed to how you blow on your hands to warm them coming in out of the cold).
I say just keep your tongue in a natural, at rest position (or think the syllable "EEEEE"). While blowing, make sure you are 'pressing' with your midriff, that is KEEP YOUR STOMACH OUT. This really keeps the air STEADY which is key.
All the talk about diaphragm makes me want to heave.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-02 14:42
Paul makes some very good points but I disagree with him on a few issues. One is that I don't believe in keeping the tongue in an EEEEE position, that makes it high and can close off the air flow. I believe through years of teaching, that often produces a birght and choked sounding tone. I'm not suggesting you keep it low, that will produce a flat tone and pitch. You need to find the placement for you depending on the size and thickness of your tongue, experiment and be comfortable. Also, keeping your stomach out only works if it's done with air support. If you simply "push" your stomach out using tension or pressure and it will have an ill effect. Anyone can "push" out their stomach without even taking a breath.
Yes, you need to keep a firm, but not tight, embouchure and good breath support but because the throat tones have so little resistance it is very easy to get an unfocused tone for a non professional. You should experiment with adding some fingers down closing some of the tone holes in either or both hands to create some resistance so you have something to push against like you do on the other notes.
You also have to control the use of your throat, not using that by closing or tension to control the exhaling of the air. The throat needs to be free of tension and obstruction. Getting a good tone on your throat tones is a combination of many things. Not to be lost too is that using too soft reed will also produce the type of bad tone you discribe because there's not enough resistance to "push" against.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-02 16:24
"All the talk about diaphragm makes me want to heave."
Me too, particularly when it's the incorrect information being offered.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-06-02 17:29
The stomach thing was discussed between Brody and Marcellus back in the day. Marcellus asked Brody if his stomach remained OUT as he expelled air or if it collapses. Brody said he'd get back to him. Later that day Brody sticks his head in Marcellus' office and says, "Out," and shuts the door.
The tongue thing for me is to avoid sticking the back of the tongue down your throat which DOES choke off the flow of air as in the "AHHHH" position.
And finally: the diaphragm is a single muscle. Muscles only do one thing which is to contract. If you think of your forearm moving up and down, this happens because we have two sets of muscles to move it up (biceps), and three sets to move it down (triceps) working in opposition. When your single muscle called the diaphragm contracts, all it does is make the thoracic cavity bigger....... it's not even connected to your lungs by the way. In fact if you had a hole in your thorax (known as sucking chest wound) the contraction of the diaphragm wouldn't make the lungs expand at all.
So, draw in air all you want, but that alone is not going to produce a good sound on the clarinet.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-02 19:59
Paul Aviles wrote:
> So, draw in air all you want, but that alone is not going to
> produce a good sound on the clarinet.
On that count we whole-heartedly agree.
But what happens if the diaphragm is still contracted, to some degree, while exhalation is occurring?
That would seem to set up a muscular opposition akin to what you wrote of.
....And couldn't that particular opposition also be utilized for specific means?
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-06-03 02:31
So what again is what some people sound so good on the clarinet? Air? lips? Tongue? Magic? Blessed by gods?
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-06-03 03:08
So this guy climbs one of the highest peaks of the Himalayas to meet a Tibetan monk known to have the answer to the mysteries of the universe. After weeks of scouring every crevasse, he stumbles upon a secluded shack in which said monk resides. The man rushes in and asks, "Dear Master, what is the secret of the universe ?!!!?" After almost five full minutes of silent contemplation the monk responds in a slow thoughtful whisper, "The secret of the universe is LOVE."
"WHAT ?!!?," the man replies. "I came all this way, nearly died three times to get here and all you tell me is that the secret of the universe is LOVE?"
The monk replies, "You mean the secret of the universe isn't love?"
.................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2012-06-03 03:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2012-06-03 13:10
A while back we had a an in depth discussion on 'voicing'. The tongue position in different registers was touched upon. This can all be accessed using the search function. I think even expert players need to be aware that what their brain tells them is going on may not be quite accurate. With x-rays and other scans there is now quantifiable evidence about what is happening. I urge all teachers and expert players to become familiar with this before giving advice.
Chris.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-06-03 14:53
I don't have the computer wherewithal to point back to that quantifiable x-ray evidence (please, PLEASE someone put that link in this thread) but I'd hasten to point out as you watch it where the lower teeth go relative to the length of the reed as the player goes from "HEEE" back to "YAHHH" and back again. His jaw is all over the place. So if you want to quantify anything you had better get someone to go through their syllables without adding or subtracting anything else.
...........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-03 15:25
Bottom line is this. Everyone has their own voice. That's one of the things my teacher , Leon Russianloff. use to say to me and what made him one of the great teachers. Not trying to make clones. Singers can not sound like other singers because their physicial traits are all different. The same thing applies to clarinetists. The "correct" tongue position may work well for most players but not for some others, some players have thicker, longer, smaller etc. tongues than others. The same thing with lips, thicker, fatter, wider etc. These things apply to all parts of the body. Lungs, throat, teeth and whatever else is envolved in producing a tone on the clarinet. You can't make a rule and say "This is how it has to be done" I've always took pride in helping my students find the best way to produce as good a tone as they can possibly acheive with the body they came in with. That applied to articulation and finding the proper equipment for them as well. You have your voice, you can improve on it, make it more stable and focused but it will always be your voice. You will always sound like you, for better or for worse, but it can always be better if you find what works best for you and not what's best for your teacher or some great player who may not even know what they do to get 'their" voice. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-03 19:39
Paul,
Your continued reliance on that one video belies your complete misunderstanding of the subject. The video does show a mediocre clarinetist at best, thus explaining the copious jaw movement you endlessly harp about; Yet, conclusions can still be drawn.
However, more accurate and recent evidence has been gathered that still supports the conclusions drawn from that video you despise so. That evidence, and the findings, have been presented here for all to read. You continue to ignore them as they lay bare your faulty understanding.
Further, with the baggage you bring to the situation, I doubt if anyone with a hint of knowledge about the subject has the intestinal wherewithal to engage in another "discussion" with you. I surely have no interest in attempting once again.
An actual digestion of all evidence is in order, not a mere surface skimming, misinterpreting 4 or 5 words here or there to weakly support already held beliefs. And opinions.
Until that is done, opinions should really be kept out of public circulation as they can be quite dangerous.
In the words of another: "You cause harm."
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-03 20:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-06-03 22:32
I would like to point out that the original intent of this series of replies was meant to address achieving a better sound on 'open G.' I doubt anything I could have said would have endangered "Garth" in this attempt.
As for the "x-ray" video, "Phurster" brought this up as the pitch forks and flaming torches started to come out.
I would also hasten to add that if thinking "syllables" turns out not to be necessary to change air speed, perhaps THAT insistence could be dangerous as well.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-06-03 23:24
One thing I'd like to point out too, is that I've noticed tonal quality seems to vary a little based on how far you are listening to it.
For example, I went to a masterclass during a clarinetfest with Larry Combs. Place was packed because, well, it's Larry Combs! I've never attended any concerts or heard him play, so was shocked with his tone during the masterclass. It was (IMO) horrible when he picked up to show a quick passage, alternate fingering, whatever. That night, he had a concert for clarinetfest so I attended it, and he sounded beautiful!!!
I think the proximity and acoustics of where the masterclass was, just wasn't what larry combs had tailored his sound for. But in a large recital hall, it sounded great.
As far as tonal quality goes, I wouldn't rely on my own ears for my own sound. I'm RIGHT next to the clarinet, and I have the headsound (vibration through the teeth and skull) to compete with. I'd ask a musician that I respect and whose tone quality I like to stand about 10 or 20 feet away and get THEIR opinion. To me, that's the truest opinion you can get. Even recording equipment can make a difference unless you have some very good microphones and speakers to listen through (I wouldn't trust a 20 dollar USB microphone, and play it back through my laptop speakers and say that that's what I sound like)
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-04 00:43
Paul,
> As for the "x-ray" video, "Phurster" brought this up as the
> pitch forks and flaming torches started to come out.
I do believe that the research of "x-rays and other scans" was urged by Chris, not the mere harping on about the Wheeler video that you brought to light once again. There is far more to examine than that one study.
And if I may be so bold as to speak for him for a moment, it would seem that he was politely suggesting that all actually research, read, and think about matters. Just maybe the advice previously offered is not even applicable to the situation at hand.
I ask his forgiveness if I have spoken out of turn.
> I would also hasten to add that if thinking "syllables" turns
> out not to be necessary to change air speed,
> perhaps THAT insistence could be dangerous as well.
Where did I actually insist that "thinking" anything was improper or not necessary. If thinking something to yourself works for you, then by all means do so!
A problem arises however when what one "thinks while playing" is offered as a solution for another. Particularly when it can be proven to be incorrect, or at least an incomplete portion of the picture.
There are components of the playing experience that we cannot sense, but still must allow to occur if any success is to be garnered. Only when those acts are violated (we hear an error) are we aware that something wrong has occurred. We must learn not to get in the way of certain matters, and this can only be learned though personal study, not from outside advice, in many cases.
But, in the case of all this supposed "Voicing Crock", we can point to certain studies that speak truthfully of the reality of things. One must read to learn for themselves the "truth", and learn that concretely telling another what to do is irresponsible. So yes, I do insist THAT practice is wholly necessary in this case.
Further, I never suggested that using syllables/vowels was either correct nor incorrect. Indeed, using those devices is often incomplete and perhaps not even applicable to the situation at hand. An actual study of all the information offered to us will bear out why.
The so called "pitch forks and flaming torches" have come out in my case, not to see my own name on the BBoard, but rather to stop someone else that can be proven to be wrong from actually trying to offer advice and opinions.
As we are now trying to be truthful, I would say that I find what you have offered in this post to be quite suspect, self-contradictory and perhaps incapable of actually helping the original poster. The naming of other noted performers and "pedagogues" does not actually give any support to what is written.
In fact, I could often care less what those noted performers and teachers, some of which I myself studied with, actually say or think. In stepping away from being a stupid student, I could actually see that they often had a misunderstanding of the truth, and played "well" in spite of having incorrect ideas. Or an empty "Book of Knowledge."
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-04 02:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-04 01:25
Garth, If you have a tuner please check the pitch of your open G and get back to us. Many times people are fighting pitch and that causes tonal issues.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-06-04 14:01
Garth -
Please read the other string at http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=372344&t=372344. As I wrote there, "How to do it" instructions are nearly meaningless. Just learn to do it. Listen to as many classical and jazz players as you can. When you hear an interesting sound, put the player on Pause and find a way to make it yourself.
Take a familiar tune and play it in many ways -- classical, sweet, angry, contemplative, nasty, lullaby, New-Orleans-down-and-dirty, runaway-freight-train, to-get-someone-to-go-to-bed-with-you. What's important is the mental image. Avoid thinking "how." Think "what" and your body will find a way.
The source of wisdom on this is Arnold Jacobs. Go to http://www.windsongpress.com/jacobs/jacobs.htm and read the everything.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-06-04 14:38
My hope as I re-establish my clarinet practice after a 40 year lay off is to get the tone quality right. I'm convinced that I can eventually get relatively fast and accurate fingers but if you don't sound good on a single long tone you might as well lay the horn back in the case and not pick it up for another 40 years. I want that special sound. I feel I can get it for two reasons. One is that I used to sound much better all those years ago. Two is that my brother who must have much of the same genetic qualities had that kind of sound that makes one appreciate just the beauty of a single note. I listen to opera. I really don't care about feeling, timing, range or enunciation if the singer doesn't produce quality in a single note, I'm immediately disinterested in hearing more. What could is an effortless arpeggio if the notes themselves are not enticing?
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-06-04 14:52
Axeli brings up a very important point. It is said that Daniel Bonade said he does not play, "tone wise, for the second clarinet player who probably wants his job anyway, he plays to the conductor and the audience. I've heard many players that have a little hiss or air or fuzz in their sound when you're up close to them but have a full clear sound when you hear them in a recital or concert hall. As a matter of fact I will say that almost every player I've ever heard that sounded clean and pure up close usually sounded smaller and thinner in the middle of a large concert hall.
Frank Cohen is a prime example in my career. When he played principal on the BSO with me many years ago he often sounded fussy and noisey tone wise in the section, all kinds of "stuff" in his tone. I don't know if that's still the case in Cleveland. But when I listened to him in the concert hall it was full, warm and dark without any "stuff" in the sound at all. When I hear him today on recordings it's wonderful.
When I work on tone quality with a student I usually step as far back in the room as I can to listen because sitting two feet away they sound different from twenty. I'm not advocation putting noise in your tone, I'm just saying. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2012-06-04 19:58
Walter Thalin, the first clarinet of the Minneapolis Symphony in the 40s and 50s, was perhaps the greatest sounding clarinetist I've heard in a hall. Up close, he was hissing so much air that it was very distracting. He probably did not play much chamber music on his Selmers. Reportedly very grouchy, he retired to go to Long Beach, CA where he played in the municipal band.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-04 20:37
Garth isn't talking to me! Hi Garth. I asked how the tuning is on your throat G. Do you have a tuner? There is a relationship between pitch and tone. All the best,
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-04 21:25
John,
As Garth has not responded to you, I will be bold and assume his role....
When the quality of my G is acceptable I am flat.
-or-
When the quality of my G is acceptable I am sharp.
What can be done in either of these cases to remedy matters and improve the quality of my G?
Further
When the quality of my G deteriorates, the pitch drops. What can I do?
-or-
When the quality of my G deteriorates, the pitch rises. What can I do?
That should provide an ample base for any solutions prescribed to rest upon.....
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-06-05 05:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-05 05:03
An addendum:
2 quite obvious cases that I completely forgot to post.
When the quality of my G is acceptable, but can still be "improved" upon, and is in tune, what more can I do?
-or-
When the quality of my G deteriorates, but is in tune, what can I do?
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-06 01:45
Are we descending to the depths of not offering our presumptive help, whether the o.p. has checked out or not?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-06-06 02:41
The issue is not primarily pitch but nasality, buzz, waver, lack of roundness and lack of depth. Think thin, nasal and edgy like a kazoo or round, deep, woody like a fine clarinet. As I get towards the end of my session, the tone thins and gets aggressive instead of mellow and warm. I have started to lay on my back while resting my head on a pillow when this happens. This way I can refocus on what a proper tone requires. In some ways laying on the back makes it harder but it also relaxes me and enables me to calmly search for the sound I'm looking for. When it returns I'm good for another little while before the crudiness creeps back in. Pitch for me is always a problem but if the sound is bad I really don't care if it's in tune. Kazoos can have perfect intonation but still be repulsive.
Thanks to all.
Garth
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-06-06 03:05
Garth Libre wrote:
> The issue is not primarily pitch but nasality, buzz, waver,
> lack of roundness and lack of depth. Think thin, nasal and edgy
> like a kazoo or round, deep, woody like a fine clarinet. As I
> get towards the end of my session, the tone thins and gets
> aggressive instead of mellow and warm. .....
>
> Garth
>
Garth, have you tried using a SLIGHTLY softer reed than normal? I found that although I CAN play size "x" (whatever it might be for that mouthpiece) and have the "dark" sound, the "dark" sound to me, is really just a little more muffled and covers up the highs. I found that if I used a reed 1/4 to 1/2 strength softer than what I "can" use on a mouthpiece, it plays easily. But with a loose (aka not biting, very little pressure) embouchure, it sounds really nice, gives me more selection for sounds, and makes it seem more versatile. Plus, it's easier, so my practice/playing sessions can last longer.
Just curious. Wouldn't hurt to try. All it would cost you is one reed. Just take a little more off of a reed that doesn't quite make it to the end of your session, and see how that works for next time. Just a thought.
Alexi
Retired, playing more sax than clarinet, but still playing clarinet and still loving it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-06 03:31
Thanks Garth, You seem now to be talking about your tone on the entire instrument. I don't wish to overstate the value of equipment but it is extremely important in my mind. Reed, mouthpiece, ligature... They must compliment each other and the player. The chances of you producing a wonderful clarinet sound without great equipment is low. What is your equipment?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-06-06 08:53
My current equipment is Vandoren B46 mpc, Rovner Dark ligature, 2.5 or 2.75 Legere reed, un-stenciled recently overhauled clarinet from the 60's, most likely the French Malverne sold by Charles Ponte in those days. With the cane reeds I use a 3 strength or a little softer but with the Legere if I bite at all in the upper register, sometimes the sound cuts off completely as the reed is forced onto the lay of the mpc. Hence the use of a 2.75 Legere rather than the 2.5 (they do get softer as they break in).
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2012-06-06 15:12
Hi Garth, I also play Legere reeds. I have gone back and forth several times from synthetic to cane. With the Legere I tried many....Ontario, Quebec, Regular, and Signature.. On my mouthpiece the Quebec cut was the best and I still had to find the best strength. There are big tonal differences in all these different Legeres. It is so confusing I enlisted the help of another clarinetist who I respect to be an extra set of ears. I would have probably come to the same conclusion but it just saved time and brain energy. The point of my rambling here is that reed selectiion is still a fussy area with legere reeds. If you don't have the optimum choice of Legere strength and style you will have tonal issues. You still seem to have tone issues so the reed might not be quite right for you.
The B46 in my mind is a jobbing musician's mouthpiece. Of course they are not created equal but it does fall on the rather open side of mouthpieces. If you have been away from clarinet for 40 years this mouthpiece might give you endurance problems. You will be fatiqued after playing after a short period of time if the reed isn't doing the work for you.
So in a nutshell.....I really do question your choice of equipment for YOU... I would recommend taking a refresher lesson from the best teacher you can find....one who is in sync with you. Going back to your original post....I think you were right when you couldn't imagine what you could do with embouchure or air to produce a beautiful, liguid, woody, etc tone. I can't imagine either.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2012-06-07 00:09
Ed Palanker said:
"Not trying to make clones. Singers can not sound like other singers because their physicial traits are all different. The same thing applies to clarinetists. The "correct" tongue position may work well for most players but not for some others, some players have thicker, longer, smaller etc. tongues than others."
and In one sense he is absolutely right. Find a solution that sounds right and you are doing it the 'right' way. However, what I was alluding to is that many studies have shown a pattern to the movement of the back of the tongue as the clarinet plays notes of differing pitches. This is not a case of 'find what works for you' more a case of 'this is what is happening, despite what you may think you are doing.' The reasons why it does this have been explained by Tony Pay and others.
The sites that were mentioned in previous discussions on 'voicing' hold a huge amount of hard earned knowledge. It does, however, take a fair amount of effort and time to read and understand them. And, as Buster pointed out, the way our brain functions means that personal sensory data may not be an accurate reflection about what is happening.
I don't think much of this may affect any artistic goals, but as a teacher, I would like what we say to aspire to some degree of intellectual integrity. It is a bit disheartening when after much evidence and discussion some one pipes up again and says: "the correct vowel sound when playing is 'e'"...
this nonsense was recently pronounced by an 'expert' at a tertiary institution here, to my further irritation a number of my former students attending the class nodded in solemn agreement as if a profound lesson had been learnt. Showing they either didn't understand what I had been saying or they felt this new 'wisdom' superseded it.
Chris Ondaatje.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2012-06-07 21:19
Hi Garth,
I'd love to offer a solution, but there are so many variables here, it's difficult to. You say that you can't understand how different your embouchure and breath support could be so different from a great musician, but clearly, something isn't working! Sometimes that might be a very small thing, or a very large, fundamental problem, which isn't obvious because you don't know the alternative.
The problem that occurs over time *might be* an embouchure/blowing problem with an inbuilt tension or instability, which is not obvious to you because you have been doing it that way for some time. (When our energy is focussed on playing, reflection is often a little bit skewed). Might be, because I've never seen or heard you play.
In an earlier edition of this post, I wrote here that your reed may be too soft. And it could be. But, on reflection, I can't give you that advice with any authority because I don't actually know what is wrong, no matter how clearly you write about it. If it works immediately, great! But if it doesn't, then I am not in a position to follow up, or take responsibility for it.
I'm sure you know this, but it is really worth while to speak to someone you really respect musically and clarinet wise about your problem. You know the symptoms, and you know the end goal. You need someone to give you tailored guidance, who has the same end goal as you, in the way they play.
Maybe you'll get lucky on here, but its risky business...
Edited to add qualifications to advice contained within.
Post Edited (2012-06-08 00:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-07 22:10
Alexis wrote (in part):
> I'd love to offer a solution,.....
> Maybe you'll get lucky on here, but its risky business...
Absolute so.
On a very important level there is a lack of "intellectual integrity" as Chris has pointed out. Also lacking is accountability.
On a differing level, attempting to guide another here as to an actual improvement of tone quality, without cognizance that deciphering how they truly "sound", is impossible.
And ignored is the fact that sound can only be spoken of in comparative terms, often wrongly divorced from an actual real-world situation where it must be applied.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-06-07 22:14
Chris,
Thank you for your second post. I felt as I was over-stepping my bounds speaking for you; or in your name.
That we can all hold ourselves to the standards you wrote of.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Legend in my Spare Time
Date: 2012-07-03 23:15
Yes - - Walter Thalin was a great clarinetist. He had a Selmer clarinet similar to the one Benny Goodman had. I always hated my stuffy R13 Buffet. I really can't believe how the Internet has brought his name back to me. I studied with Walter in the year of his death 1969 when I was 17yrs old. He did leak air around his embouchure. He told me a story about the legendary flutist William Kincaid, that Kincaid always had a flask of hootch, even at the concerts which he regularly took belts off of. I don't remember which orch. he was in at the time, I believe it was the Minneapolis w/Dimitri Metropolis conducting. Anyway, Walt was new to the group and Bill kept turning around(the flutes are in front of the clar.) and glaring at him and criticising his every move. Finally, Walter Thalin leaned forward and to the great William Kincaid(considered the greatest of all time, then) he said, "outside of being a great flute player, you don't mean a whole helluva lot to me". Well, Kincaid was very famous and wielded great power within the worldwide artistic community. He grumbled and squirmed, because, really, no one ever spoke back to him and he was conceited. Later, Kincaid related this to Walt, they became best of friends, and he gained a parity of mutual respect that day with the greatest flutist in the world. A true story.
Post Edited (2012-07-03 23:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-07-04 11:26
Philadelphia Orchestra members have told me that Kincaid was a hopeless alcoholic. He stayed sober through concerts, but more than made up for it afterward and needed to have a companion with him to keep him from harm.
I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra around 1959, shortly before he retired. His face was the crimson color you see in late-stage alcoholics.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Legend in my Spare Time
Date: 2012-07-04 22:27
-----Original Message-----
From: kevinchristie9 <kevinchristie9@aol.com>
To: nowhere <nowhere@woodwind.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Tonal quality [1:372370:373770]
Hi Ken............ Good to hear from you!!!!! Yeah, well, Walt Thalin referred to him as Bill and said everywhere he went he had that flask. Sorry my story was perhaps not placed in the correct section of the website. I was replying to another person's blog and appearantly the web designer has limited capabilities. How's your lip? Ha Ha. Clarinet is a mean motor scooter. I have seen quite a few world players with that rumpled chin underbite type of (lack of) embouchure. They seem to get along fine how they are. I know when I matured in my 20's - 40's, I no longer had that tight classic embouchure, didn't play a Buffet R13 anymore, and had several mouthpiece changes. To produce a beautiful tone is not relyant on those accepted beliefs. Goodman and Herman (and Thalin) played Selmer. For Fountain and many others, especially now, it's Leblanc. When I was young it "had to be" Buffet. I've known for years not to waste my money or that of ignorant students on the stuffy, resistant R13. Free-blowing is where it's at. I just heard the YouTube video of the much over-rated Stanley Drucker playing the Concertino (vWeber). He sounded like crap. I was a better clarinetist in every way in HIGH SCHOOL. Of course, I can't say that about most anybody else. I don't care for Martin Frost, either. Most of your world rated players are all technique which amounts to nothing more than the physical coordination involved. This says nothing musically. Eddie Daniels has fabulous technique, albeit, executed in a monotone sound without much phrasing or dynamic range. I've known a whole lot of players who have a "set-up" geared to just flail away on the keys without ever having to usurp or alter their set embouchure. This is akin to how we are taught classically on the clarinet to never use any vibrato. They just hold their mouth the same all the time no matter what. Like, what a joke. Dynamics can be manipulated in such a way as to create a pseudo-vibrato-like effect at about one fourth to one eighth the frequency of a true vibrato, to add a more lyrical sense to a phrase. However, I cannot accept or tolerate Martin Frost's use of a real vibrato in the Mozart A adagio movement. What poor taste he has. He is another pretender with a wheelbarrow full of technique. The truly great musicians are judged by their interpretation, where phrasing and dynamic range are the most important element, and that followed by a very close second, the beauty of their tone and tonal coloring. You can't have any tonal variation when you don't move your mouth. Drucker tries to add musical inflection by waving and bobbing his clarinet around which is most irritating to watch and indicates that he has no concept of microphone techniques. You can't move closer and further away to a mic. There is always that sweet spot. The phrasing and coloring is done with embouchure and diaphragmatic support control. You don't wave your clarinet around unless you play jazz, blues, or dixieland. That used to be the knock on Jaqueline Du Pre, bless her soul, was her physicallity during performances. Hey, there is a giant difference in attacking a cello to get the desired nuance or effect, compared to a clarinet. She was twice or even more the musician than YoYo Ma is. She had the greatest gifts. He constantly plays flat in the middle of his phrases and there's no life to his playing. I just don't understand - - his ratings must come from people unfamiliar with Du Pre, Julian LLoyd Weber and others. It is entirely about beauty. This comes from within................
I have mastered the Clarinet, Flute, the Saxophones and am quite a Lead Guitarist as well. I used to search and search for the secrets to Stevie Ray Vaughn's sound (tone). It comes down to this: To sound just like Stevie Ray you have to BE Stevie Ray. Bring it from within you. Also, check out Claudio Barile on Paganini's Moto Perpetuo. He never breathes throughout the piece. It's on YouTube. bye for now............kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Shaw <TheBBoard@woodwind.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 4:26 am
Subject: Re: Tonal quality [1:372370:373770]
This message was sent from: The Clarinet BBoard.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=373770&t=372370
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Orchestra members have told me that Kincaid was a hopeless
alcoholic. He stayed sober through concerts, but more than made up for it
afterward and needed to have a companion with him to keep him from harm.
I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra around 1959, shortly before he retired.
His face was the crimson color you see in late-stage alcoholics.
Ken Shaw
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sent using Phorum software version 3.4.2 http://phorum.org
Post Edited (2012-07-04 22:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
