 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: QuickStart Clarinet
Date: 2018-10-18 17:27
I have a student playing on a BD5 and the upper joint notes are all quite flat, especially the throat tones all the way down to chalumaeu written E, and D a bit (clarion A-C aren't great as well).
We tried different reeds and different clarinets and I'm pretty sure it is the mouthpiece. Has anybody else experienced issues with the BD5, does anybody have any solutions (reeds, ligatures, etc.)?
Josh Goo
QuickStart Clarinet Founder
www.quickstartclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2018-10-18 18:31
Attachment: Baffle comparison.jpg (652k)
Hello Josh,
One of the reasons your student might be having problems on the BD5 in these registers (upper clarion and throat tones) is the deep baffle of the BD5. This design feature of the BD5, which gives the mpc its warmer, arguably larger sound, is the same design feature which can lead to those registers sagging in pitch if the player is not aware of the tendencies of a deep-baffled mpc. (Those tendencies are exacerbated on a series-13 incarnation of the same mpc, as the baffle is even deeper in a series 13 mpc.)
My orchestra has started recording a Sibelius symphony cycle. For the recordings I switched back to one of my BD5s (from a BD40Lyre) for its larger, warmer sound. Every time I return to a BD5 I am reminded how high voicing, higher pitch and French ping is more intrinsic and "built-in" in a mpc with a shallower baffle (e.g. B40, M30, M15).
I have attached a photo of the interior of two mpcs. On the left is an BD5 (non-series 13) and on the right is an M30. You will notice how the BD5 has an appreciably deeper baffle.
What I mention above is very general. There can be other factors at play which lead to lower pitch (eg. bore of the mpc's chamber) but the deeper baffle, especially when not designed well, can disproportionately lower the upper clarion and throat tones.
With my students that play BD5s, I have noticed that when the reed dips below a certain softness threshold, the student needs to be reminded to "voice up" the upper clarion (eg. with a higher tongue) as it is the first register to sag.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: QuickStart Clarinet
Date: 2018-10-18 18:50
Ahhh, I see, this is very helpful thanks! What reed would you recommend to go with the BD5?
Josh Goo
QuickStart Clarinet Founder
www.quickstartclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-18 19:00
Simon is right on, the depth of the baffle can lead to intonation issues (flat) in the short tube notes.
This increased depth does have benefits, as Simon mentioned. The increase in overall internal space does allow more air to flow through, which for some is an advantage. A broader soundscape and increased emphasis on the lower parts of the sound can also be advantageous.
Like anything with mouthpiece design, an improvement taken too far will lead to diminishing returns. The 13 series of their standard lineup seem to be a little bit less problematic in this way than the 13 series of the BD5, but the problem still exists (and has been frequently discussed). The BD5 already has a very deep baffle in its standard version, so it's not hard to imagine that the 13 series will be flatter than a pancake.
A great mouthpiece that doesn't tune well (issues that aren't easily solved like choosing a slightly longer or shorter barrel) is not a great mouthpiece.
The inherent problem with such a deep baffle, particularly for students still forming their fundamentals, is that it REQUIRES a higher voicing in order to get a reasonable sound. In other words, it requires more work to get it to have a clear and resonant voice.
Brad Behn often speaks of "auto-focus". A mouthpiece, and setup in general, should WANT to focus and should naturally create a desirable sound through the way it is voiced. If you form just enough of an embouchure to seal around the mouthpiece (much looser than normal), it should be at least 80% of what you want the sound to be. Most of the mouthpieces I've tried that have such deep baffles are less likely to have this "auto-focus" and generally require more work for basic function in keeping a clear, focused, and resonant sound.
In short- yes, it is the mouthpiece causing (or at least exacerbating) the issue you describe. If it's a 13 series, have them try the standard version. If it's already the standard version, I would recommend trying the D'Addario X0 or X5, as their internal dimensions are more conservative and generally make a great sound easier to attain.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-20 08:17
Where is the baffle information coming from? Maybe the Vandoren site says this but it isn't true.
I've measured them and tend to disagree. The measuring tool I use is accurate within 0.0005", a 1/2 thousandth of an inch however the Vandoren mouthpieces don't measure consistently, meaning they can all vary a lot. For example the tip opening should be around 1.13mm's but I've measured some at 1.20mm's on the BD5's.
If the student is not that good of a player he may be playing flat because the tip opening is too open and his embouchure will never adjust, causing biting to play in tune. Maybe he needs it to be refaced to around 1.05mm's or so.
I think there is probably an embouchure problem and would strongly suggest refacing it or getting rid of it. As in past posts all M Vandoren mouthpieces are too long in length and go flat above high C. So I don't like Vandoren's for this reason and they drop to 438 or 437 in the upper registers. Take your tuners folks when buying mouthpieces.
There is also the BD5 442 that tunes to 442. But again I discourage open mouthpieces for students and even gifted pros.
We have Eddie Daniels a jazz player who went from a 1.10mm mouthpiece down to a 1.03mm's.
So here we have examples of companies shoving mouthpieces at us which really don't work.
More open mouthpieces doesn't always equal bigger sounds. I think the limit is around 1.10mm's.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-22 00:20
Oh, I'm not sure about barrels right now. Yes they can make huge differences. But the key words here are Right Now. I still think there are other causes. I would hate to see you spend a lot of money on barrels and find one that tunes well in the upper register, but throws off other notes. So be careful here. Barrels will do this. Needless to say mouthpieces do this too, the bore taper of mouthpieces can cause the horns to play out of tune. Most bores on mouthpieces are too small as the bores on clarinets have gotten bigger/larger. Folks we have to remember this. I'll repeat it. Mouthpiece bores are too small in relation to the larger bores of the newer clarinets. This is why there are so many barrels being made, but the problem is actually the bore of your mouthpieces being too small!
The only mouthpiece being made right now that is close to correct is the Selmer Concept. But the rubber is a tad bit soft. For now that's OK. The Concept also is a tad too open so it needs to be refaced, and the results are usually excellent. There is another problem with them which I fix but that is a secret. I can't tell all of the refacers my secrets! Sorry guys. No hard feelings. If you only reface the mouthpiece it will most likely be stuffy.
I would rather see you get the BD5 mouthpiece refaced or buy a different mouthpiece, then see if your problems improve. As I said it takes a strong embouchure, something like Jaws the shark to handle anything over 1.10mm's. Hope this helps.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2018-10-22 19:45
Bob, did you look at the photo of the two baffles? Pretty extreme difference shown by eye.
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gatto
Date: 2018-10-22 19:55
>>As I said it takes a strong embouchure, something like Jaws the shark to handle anything over 1.10mm's.
Bob, then maybe most european Boehm system players are sharks? I havn't made a scientific survey, but just from internet publications I have the impression that the most popular mouthpieces in Europe are Vandoren B45, B45dot, B40, B40L, and recently the BD5 became popular very quickly. With 1,13 mm the BD5 is even the closest in this set, the B45 having 1,195 mm. Of course, one should not play them with a V12 #5 reed. --- For the BD5 I use V21 #3.5 reeds.
One prominent exception is the french clarinetist Paul Meyer, who uses Vandoren 5RV and 5RVL.
Post Edited (2018-10-22 20:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-23 00:36
Bob,
Just look at the photo Simon posted. As Mojo pointed out, the differences are obvious and plentiful. No measurement tool needed to see the basic differences.
"I've measured them and tend to disagree." I'm not clear on what you're disagreeing with.
There are more than a few issues with the Selmer Focus/Concept aside from the facing curve/tip opening. Some of them are issues you can see with the naked eye, like the rails being shaped like bricks and wide enough to land a small plane on. A stock vandoren looks much better in that regard than a stock selmer focus/concept and definitely has a better curve than the Selmer (Selmers being a few mm longer than the point of diminishing returns).
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "correct", but perhaps you left it sufficiently vague for a reason. I also am going to assume that you're including your own pieces in the "correct" category?
"As in past posts all M Vandoren mouthpieces are too long in length and go flat above high C." To be clear, you're referring to 13 series vandorens and not just the models that start with M?
"This is why there are so many barrels being made". I guess it has nothing to do with the copious design and material differences from barrel makers that offer a unique sound and feel.
"As I said it takes a strong embouchure, something like Jaws the shark to handle anything over 1.10mm's". I do agree that the benefits from a more open tip stop being worthwhile over 1.10mm much of the time (although it depends largely on the blank in question). I don't think it's impossible to make a mouthpiece over 1.10mm that plays comfortably with a non-aggressive bite pressure, especially when matched with the appropriate reed strength.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-23 01:27
Actually no fellow players, in comparison the deepest to the baffles I just used the 2 models mentioned and did not talk about mine. I would have stated that.
The deepest baffles by far are the Zinner's, then the Pomarico models both the crystal and the rubber mouthpieces. But sadly the bores are too small.
If you want exact measurements email me and I'd be most happy to give them to you. But remember Vandoren mouthpieces are not very accurate, but these will surely be guides, and within about the thickness of a few human hairs.
Unless you are using magnifying glasses or something like that it is my guess most people can't see the differences between a few thousandths of an inch. For example can you tell what the thickness of the tip of a reed is by looking at it? I can't. But I know the Mitchell Lurie reeds tips were 5 to 5 1/2 thousandths of an inch thick and the Grand Concert reeds I designed were 6 to 6 1/2 thousandths thick. Then the tenor sax Hemke reeds were also only about 5 thousandths of an inch think. Yes I was part of all of those designs. I don't think anyone could see the difference. So my feelings are the same with the mouthpieces. We are looking at just a few thousandths difference, nt a 1/2 inch or something. Thus why I made 2 special baffle gauges to avoid conflicts such as this. Eyes play trick of all of us. So how did I make these gauges? I went to California Institute of Technology. Yes I never said this before. I do have secrets just like everyone. I don't want to give anyone the idea that I'm smarter than someone else. Let's just say I like solving puzzles. I'm still that same musician with a great sound who understands sound and measurements.
Again my offer stands. If you want to know the measurements I'll be happy to email them. In fact if you want your own personal mouthpiece measured I'll do that at no cost; you just pay $3.50 for shipping.
Oh, one last thing, the old Chedeville and Kaspar mouthpieces from Cicero and some from Chicago had the same baffle and they were actually a shade deeper than the BD5's and the M series and not as deep as the Zinner's. But very close to the Selmer Concepts. However the Concept mouthpieces suck unless you know how to fix them. My conclusion is a lot of the early Kaspar mouthpieces were Chedeville blanks. The bores were exact too. They had the exact taper. But we know the Kaspar's did use other mouthpieces after the Chedeville's were no longer available. Most of them came from Babbitt. People often say Kaspars used Buffet mouthpieces. Not true, they just don't measure right.
It's fine to argue but maybe make the tools to back it up first. Like I said eyes play tricks on you and I'm happy to share my findings evening with mouthpiece refacers and mouthpiece makers, because you still need to make the gauges.
Cheers!
Bob
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-23 01:38
Oh, as for tip openings I am not up on european players. I do know that German players hardly ever go over 1mm. I've sold mouthpieces to Russia, Australia, Italy and Denmark and they are both around 1.05mm to 108 mm's. Sorry I don't know about other countries. I did sell one to England and it was a 1.13 but a very long facing. 20mm's. Kind of like the old Gigliotti long facings, but that was the only one. For those that don't know I usually put on a 17 to 18mm facing length.
However I am still sticking to my beliefs that less open tip openings produce better embouchures.
Forgot about this. I send a member here 3, Eb mouthpieces and one was designed by someone for Kaspar. I sent this person the complete measurements of the baffles of all 3 mouthpiece and they were all very close. But he picked the Kaspar model. It wasn't deeper in all of the areas but deeper where it counted to make that Eb mouthpiece ping. All 3 mouthpieces had pretty much the same facings. As close to each other as I felt was correct. This player is a top player and it was fun working with him.
So the curve of the baffle is also very important. They don't have to be deep like the Zinner's and lack that ping.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2018-10-23 02:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2018-10-23 02:06
I have searched the Internet extensively and could not find anything written which stated that changing the baffle shape affects intonation.
What I did find is that changing the baffle shape changes the tone from bright to dark or vise versa.
Yes, the BD5 baffle is extremely deep, however, according to my research, the shape of the baffle does not change the intonation.
Therefore, I believe, Bob Bernardo is absolutely correct in his assertion.
If someone still thinks Bob is wrong, please provide documented proof.
Thank you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-23 02:57
The shape of the baffle can alter the intonation tendencies of a mouthpiece for the following reasons (but not limited to):
1) Increasing depth of the baffle increases overall internal volume of the mouthpiece, moving pitch lower.
2) A very deep baffle can cause players to use more jaw pressure to get focus and clarity to the sound, which in effect raises the pitch.
3) Anything that can effect a player's approach regarding embouchure pressure, tongue position, or even reed choice (a mouthpiece needing a much harder reed can be higher in pitch, given the extra pressure needed as well as the limited flexibility).
4) A mouthpiece that is overly flexible (which could be caused by a number of things) will tend to be lower in pitch for those with underdeveloped embouchures since it needs more embouchure maintenance to focus. A mouthpiece that has more hold and stability will have a better pitch center, generally (and relatively) speaking.
Intonation is a bit of a can of worms, it can be very difficult to find the root cause of a particular tuning issue and rarely does it involve one isolated aspect of the player's approach or equipment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2018-10-23 03:56
Hi Nathan,
I agree with reason #1. However, this lowered pitch, I believe, should be uniform and not affect just certain notes.
Reasons 2-4 appear to be, more or less, completely dependent on the player's ability, not the mouthpiece. I say this because I have not read of other players having this same, particular, flatness problem with the BD5.
I just reread the OP. Since it's not explicitly stated, it appears that the student was the individual doing the playing. It would have been nice if Josh noted that he played the BD5 and observed the same results.
I'm beginning to believe that this particular mouthpiece is not properly "matched" to the instrument and the player. To me, all of the elements involved...the instrument, the barrel, the mouthpiece, reed, ligature, and the player have to be properly matched for best results.
If Josh is reading this, please let us know if you played the BD5 and noted the same results.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-23 07:32
If an aspect of a mouthpiece alters the players' approach in ways that change intonation, I would count that as an intonation deficiency of the mouthpiece despite the indirect nature of cause and effect in this case.
It should be fairly obvious at this point that Mr. Bernardo has chosen the 13 series vandorens/zinners as a soap-box issue. Considering the thousands of players who've used these mouthpieces successfully, I would hesitate to say they're all terrible. I don't think either the zinner A blank or 13 series vandoren are ideal, but if they're finished well they can be good players.
I think Bob and I can agree on the idea that both these mouthpieces are not ideal, that there's better quality pieces out there. As to what is better, our opinions may be different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2018-10-23 08:18
Nathan wrote:
"If an aspect of a mouthpiece alters the players' approach in ways that change intonation, I would count that as an intonation deficiency of the mouthpiece despite the indirect nature of cause and effect in this case."
I think what you are saying is true and even Phil Pedler of clarinet.net basically says the same thing.
For Phil, the BD5 played flat, especially in the throat tone range, however, he blamed it on the use of Legere reeds. He states that a player using cane reeds and a tighter embouchure would bring the pitch up to normal.
I believe that "changing to a tighter embouchure and using cane reeds" is "altering a players' approach".
To see Phil's comments: http://clarinetpages.info/smf/index.php?topic=1247.0 (Scroll down to where he says: "I have a slight amendment to what I wrote:"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-25 06:11
Just a very short update. Several people asked for the baffle and bore measurements. then a few asked some very intelligent questions once they saw the measurements. I think it makes sense now to a lot of the players as I also added the measurements of Cicero Kaspar's. seems like a light went off for some of them.
Yes I express strong opinions about some mouthpieces which are just made wrong and some of the models such as the M series are too long in length and yet Vandoren doesn't fix them. Here is the thing. I write to Vandoren and offered to fix them from going flat. They ignored me completely. I tried folks.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-25 19:33
"Here is the thing. I write to Vandoren and offered to fix them from going flat. They ignored me completely. I tried folks."
Considering they've made and sold more of these mouthpieces than the rest of us will ever touch, I'm not surprised they're ignoring unsolicited assistance, particularly from Americans.
"models such as the M series"
Again, I think you're trying to refer to the 13 series/440 versions of their mouthpieces. Since some of the M series are available in standard pitch and other models are available in 13 series, it's best to be clear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2018-10-25 22:56
Maybe that’s why Vandoren didn’t respond. That’s got to be it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-26 04:43
Yes I considered that about Vandoren outselling everyone and I did say that in my email to Vandoren. I also played and demonstrated on different horns and assorted NAME brand mouthpieces. Needless to say they don't care. It is sort of like beginners learning to play the clarinet. The band teacher tells the students to go buy a 1 1/2 Rico reed which are POISON and full of pesticides. The band teacher was a brass player and surely doesn't know a thing.
I think, just a thought here, that they realized their mistakes and this is why they do things such as offer the BD5 in 2 models, the regular and the 442 which tunes higher of course. But they are still shoving their mistakes down our throats with the M series. We have to buy shorter barrels which can cause the lower notes to play sharp, the 12's to play out of tune. They simply screwed up. Don't believe me, check your tuners folks. It's time to sell those M series mouthpieces. Above high C plan on biting and getting bloody lips.
Some of the European orchestras tune to 445. We know that. It's not a secret so they surely can't be playing on Buffet's and Vandoren mouthpieces. Maybe people here that have seen orchestras tune higher can offer all of us some information to what these players are using.
Part of the problem might have to do with companies hiring sub par musicians. For example Selmer hires really top notch musicians, Leblanc has of course Julian Bliss designing new horns, Buffet hires players and people that can't put on a pad correctly so pretty much all of their horns leak. I am not a repairman but I can put a very difficult cork pad on and get a 1 minute seal.
Now we have Yamaha. Did you know that Yamaha field tests their horns for 4 or 5 years, sometimes longer before the USA ever sees the new models come out. Then when you play the new model it's a very nice horn. The very first horn you pick up plays great. No leaking pads. It's a joy! No the horns aren't perfect but we are seeing more and more major symphony pros using them. Soon Yamaha may be the number one horn in the world. Added the mouthpieces are too open. Around 1.25mm's plus. But I refaced a few since I'm a Yamaha Artist I get them for free and after working on them for hours they play like Chedeville's. Yep I'm not kidding. Too bad they don't listen to me either. I wrote to them too. Gave a demonstration, but no response. So the mouthpieces need to be played on with 2 strength reeds. Just wrong.
So it's sad that we are stuck here in this world where companies don't HEAR what the players want. But if all of us write and complain enough maybe something will change? Until then we have to put up with trash that companies throw at us. There are a few people that won't put up with it, such as Guy Chadash who makes the old 1960 style Buffet's. If they didn't cost $5500 each I'd own one.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wkleung
Date: 2018-10-26 06:06
Sorry for my ignorance: which European orchestras tune to 445?
Bob Bernardo wrote:
> Some of the European orchestras tune to 445. We know that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-10-26 06:40
Berlin Philharmonic, and most German orchestras
Vienna Philharmonic, and most if not all Austrian orchestras
They use clarinets made to play higher pitch. Karl Leister (for example) plays two separate sets of instruments. One for "home use" and the other set when he tours/plays outside Germany.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wkleung
Date: 2018-10-26 06:55
I have studied with/taken a lesson with the principal oboe of both the Berlin Phil and the Vienna Phil, and they both told me their orchestras tuned to 443.
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Berlin Philharmonic, and most German orchestras
>
>
> Vienna Philharmonic, and most if not all Austrian orchestras
>
>
> They use clarinets made to play higher pitch. Karl Leister
> (for example) plays two separate sets of instruments. One for
> "home use" and the other set when he tours/plays outside
> Germany.
>
>
> ................Paul Aviles
>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2018-10-26 09:34
wkleung is right- no German orchestras tune above 443 anymore. And most orchestras outside of Germany and Austria tune to 442 (except in the UK where it's 440 or 441).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2018-10-26 12:38
Agreed re German pitch- though I'm told that piano tuners still tune pianos higher than 443 as (apparently) "everybody goes a bit sharp". I can't know how accurate this information is, but the only concerts I did in Germany (about 16 years ago) all involved pianos tuned to 445! Many orchestra worldwide play with tuned percussion that is at 442/443, which introduces another reason that pitch may rise during performance regardless of whether the oboe tuned at 440...
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-10-26 16:01
Ok, my information is based on the mid to late '80s. However, as recently as three years ago I had the opportunity to play a Uebel Oehler system horn that was clearly not engineered to play anywhere near 440.....it was comfortable much higher. So I wonder what current manufacturer's such as Wurlitzer, Hammerschmidt and Gerold claim as their current tuning standard?
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wkleung
Date: 2018-10-26 16:49
Berlin Phil indeed tuned to A-445 decades ago. Jame Galway had to buy a new flute when he joined them. Such radical departure from A-440 wouldn’t be possible with the mouthpiece alone. But they have been tuning to A-443 for at least a quarter of a century now.
The A-445 or even A-443 instruments are built shorter than their A-440 counterparts, at least in the case of the Viennese oboe.
Sincerely,
Wai Kit Leung
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-26 19:28
1) "But they are still shoving their mistakes down our throats with the M series."
For the 10th time, let's call an apple an apple. M series isn't necessarily 13 series/440 and vice versa. "Above high C plan on biting and getting bloody lips.". I have never met someone who literally bled due to a 13 series vandoren, but I guess someone has?
2) "I think, just a thought here, that they realized their mistakes and this is why they do things such as offer the BD5 in 2 models"
Seems like there's plenty of precedent for offering a 440 and 442 option, considering the M15, M30 for the last few decades has been offered in both. Currently, they offer the M15, 5RV, 5RV Lyre, M30 Lyre, M30, B40 Lyre, B40, and B45 in both standard and 440 pitch.
A more apt criticism of Vandoren would be to say that they have only two blanks, 442 and 440, which they put different curves on to create most all of their offerings. While I don't much like the BD5 or Masters, at least they were trying something different. It would have been great if the black diamond played like a good Diamond Perfecta.
3) "after working on them for hours they play like Chedeville's"
I guess you can turn a Kia into a Porsche.
4) "Part of the problem might have to do with companies hiring sub par musicians"
Paul Meyer was behind the Buffet Divine.
5) "Leblanc has of course Julian Bliss designing new horns"
He's with Conn/Selmer now.
6) "Guy Chadash who makes the old 1960 style Buffet's. If they didn't cost $5500 each I'd own one."
Indeed, he makes quality instruments. Isn't the price pretty much on par with Yamaha/Buffet/Selmer though? Considering he's essentially a one man show, his price is pretty fair.
7) "Did you know that Yamaha field tests their horns for 4 or 5 years, sometimes longer before the USA ever sees the new models come out"
Paul Meyer had a late prototype of the Devine in 2009 (probably had been using it for a while, 2009 is the earliest I can verify), 3 years before release. It's not really fair to say that they make instruments hastily for sub-par musicians, it's just not true. I don't have exact information for the R&D for Selmer, but it doesn't seem like their pro models were rushed for mediocre players either.
8) "1 1/2 Rico reed which are POISON and full of pesticides"
I know we've been down this rabbit hole on the bboard before, but some proof for an accusation of such a serious nature would be appreciated.
9) "Until then we have to put up with trash that companies throw at us"
Buffet/Selmer/Yamaha/Backun/Rossi/Uebel/etc. are all offering professional level instruments. While I don't like every one, we have many more professionally acceptable instruments now than ever. Just in the last 20 years, options have increased dramatically (along with aftermarket accessories) and are used in bands/orchestras/universities across the globe.
While arguments can easily be made about certain brands/models having too many negative qualities to be worth switching to, it's pointless to say they're all trash. No one is going to be convinced of anything with arguments like this, it simply makes people less likely to pay attention to any legitimate arguments you want to make. On a more fundamental level, it breeds negativity which isn't helping anyone. This qualifies more under "locker room talk"- things you might say to a close friend or colleague who you know agrees with you but serves no real purpose in convincing others.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gatto
Date: 2018-10-26 19:41
I guess, probably all serious symphony orchestras in Austria and Germany now tune to A-443. It seems that the orchestras are not very transparent to provide this kind of information. In wind/brass orchestra it can be also A-442 or even lower.
I think under Karajan the Berlin Philharmonic tuned to A-445, and similarly high tuned was also the Vienna Philharmonic. (Karl Leister played under Karajan.)
I just had a look onto the webpage of german Schreiber clarinets. They write, the pitch is 443/445. I guess, nowadays 445 is too high in any orchestra. I would guess that the top clarinet makers in Austria and Germany tune their clarinets at 443 as a standard.
On my RC Prestige clarinets (B40L / BD5) I myself have no problem to play A-443. (But I do not play in any orchestra, so far.)
Elsewhere in Europe (outside UK) A-442 seems to be standard. Interestingly the french clarinetist Philippe Cuper (Opera National de Paris Orchestra) prefers to use a B40-13 mouthpiece. (There is a promotion video in the web.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2018-10-26 21:02
I was all prepared to write a long post taking apart Bob Bernardo’s arguments, but Nathan has done a good job. He just continues to throw out stuff that isn’t true and not respond when he’s confronted on it.
I’ll just say that Vandoren is pretty dominant in Europe, so the argument that they’re not using the mouthpieces over there is garbage. Same with Buffet instruments.
And yes, this type of market share matters when we’re forced to weigh the experience and choices of professionals world-wide against a heretofore unknown guy named Bob Bernardo, ranting on the BBoard and getting basic facts wrong.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-10-27 01:55
I only got one response back so far but thought I'd throw this out there from Gerold Angerer of Gerold Klarinetten (Austria):
"The pitch standard in Germany is about 442. Here in Austria (Vienna) its about 443 to 444, depending on the orchestra. But 445 is not common anymore."
And this is why I appreciate this forum. We who "know stuff" eventually learn from the rest of the community that knowledge is fluid.
Thank you everybody!!!!!
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2018-10-27 02:12
Paul Aviles wrote:
>> And this is why I appreciate this forum. We who "know stuff" eventually learn from the rest of the community that knowledge is fluid. >>
Crap. As I said on a previous occasion, who is this 'we'? – unless you've got a mouse in your pocket. And knowledge isn't fluid, just badly represented.
You are not one of those who knows stuff. Those who know stuff refrain from posting rubbish about what they don't know.
You, and several others, unfortunately, don't.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-10-27 03:08
I only mean there is room to learn.
Someone seems to think tongue position changes intonation but I don't see any attempt on his part to challenge his misconceptions......too bad.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-10-27 03:20
Ah, and a response from Wulitzer in Neustadt on the current pitching of their clarinets:
Bernd Wurlitzer <info@wurlitzerklarinetten.de> Today at 6:09 PM
To
Paul Aviles
hello
for our clarinets we have 443
kind regards
Bernd
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2018-10-27 08:40
As for pesticides, call Rico and see if they lie! There are others that have filed lawsuits.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-11-01 01:02
Bob,
Accusing a company of poisoning people is a serious allegation. If I were to call D'addario as you suggested and ask them if they were poisoning us with their reeds, they'd probably be asking where I was getting this information and what I had to back up such a serious accusation. I would have no response, since you've provided nothing but hearsay. Hearsay is a slippery slope to slander.
It's like when people are trying to convince you of something and they keep repeating "believe me" and "it's true". If it's a truth to be believed, we should spend more time providing evidence as to why we should be believed rather than getting angry when people doubt a completely unsubstantiated accusation.
When/if you do have evidence of this, please do start a new thread on the topic and let everyone know. Until then, I'd say there's no good reason to repeat something like this that cannot be backed up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2018-11-01 17:04
>> Someone seems to think tongue position changes intonation but I don't see any attempt on his part to challenge his misconceptions......too bad.>>
Can you conceivably be referring to this thread??
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=323313&t=323313&v=f
In it, it's made abundantly clear, contra you, that tongue position has a large effect.
Of course, if you think 'tongue' simply means 'what you move when you lick an ice-cream' then you won't get the point. (In THAT sense, 'tongue position' has only a small effect on the vowels we produce in speech, as you can see if you say 'Aaah' whilst waggling your tongue about.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-01 21:59
I would like to apologize for my snarky tone of 27 October. Sometimes I get overheated.
I do have a decent glissando WITHOUT fingers so I think I know to what you refer concerning the tongue. It is also stated by MANY that it is the tongue that allows a dip of up to a fifth (maybe) from the C two ledgers above the staff. However, as I assiduously hold embouchure and jaw in one strict position, I can "AWW" and "YEEE" all day long with the back of the tongue and not move pitch at all.
There seems to be a very primitively developed connection of tongue, lip and jaw from infancy that tricks us into thinking that our tongue alone is doing something that it is not. We spoke of the Bernoulli Principle being behind what makes the reed vibrate in the first place. So the number of vibrations (PITCH) begins and ends at the reed........the oral cavity not withstanding.
But if there is some way to illustrate otherwise I would be open to hearing this argument.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2018-11-02 03:49
< Intelligence isn't the same thing as knowledge.
True. I agree. I never specifically stated that Intelligence and Knowledge were the same thing.
However, per the clickable article provided above, "Crystallized intelligence refers to the accumulation of knowledge, facts, and skills that are acquired throughout life."
As to knowledge or crystallized intelligence being fluid, from the following article, "Knowledge is wonderful, but it fades as techniques and technologies come and go." I look upon this "fading" as actually being "fluidity", however, that is simply my interpretation.
https://alistapart.com/blog/post/knowledge-vs-intelligence
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-11-02 21:52
Bob Bernardo wrote:
"So it's sad that we are stuck here in this world where companies don't HEAR what the players want. But if all of us write and complain enough maybe something will change? Until then we have to put up with trash that companies throw at us."
Figure the most probable option...
1. Market economy doesn't work.
2. You're wrong.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-02 23:55
As for the market economy...... it doesn't always mean better. My favorite example is the war between Beta and VHS for the title of video format. Beta was indeed the technically superior format in that it was the most efficient transport mechanism and had the best specifications (as witnessed by the brief success of DAT for audio which was just a mini Beta machine). VHS won that battle not as a triumph of market economy, but because VHS was the format of the porn industry.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-11-03 17:00
Paul, product standards is a subject on its own with so called network effects, but nothing in the world would prevent a competitor of Vandoren or D'Addario to grow big if they didn't produce mouthpieces that customers were satisfied with. People who think that market leaders make bad products are silly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-03 22:16
Just trying to illustrate it is not always "the fittest" that survive. I personally have no issue with Vandoren and Rico. I own a bunch of them that are perfectly lovely.
.............Paul Aviles.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-03 22:28
Dear Mr. Pay,
Again, thank you for the wonderful resource on the science behind the clarinet. I do admit some impatience with it when I get to a phrase such as, "these diagrams do not take into consideration bite force " We might get to a perfect theoretical explanation that is rendered moot by an asterisk.
I learned a great deal from your illumination on the subject of "system under pressure." Perhaps a similar condensation of the website would be in order to show how the tongue
(front or back) influences pitch.
.................Paul Aviles.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-04 02:20
Ok, you have three professional clarinet players who bend pitch "using their tongues, " Then you base your study upon that information. That doesn't make it correct.
I contend, however that you can hold your embouchure steady (doing this with just the mouthpiece may make it easier) and proceed to do all the prescribed manifestations of tongue positions WITHOUT making any discernible change in pitch. If the tongue position was directly responsible for pitch as this study says, then it would be impossible to hold pitch while changing the forward and rearward posture of the tongue as a whole.
Though much much harder, if you can hold your tongue position firm, just the slightest (almost imperceptible) change in the lips will greatly alter the pitch. So what causation is then more likely?
...............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2018-11-04 02:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2018-11-04 06:02
Well, it certainly seems as if you have your mind made up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2018-11-04 06:16
Hi Paul,
Because I consider myself on the beginner level, I was hesitant to enter this rather intense discussion, however, I decided to do a little experiment.
I put my mouthpiece and reed combination on my barrel and blew a note somewhere around concert F#. My throat was in a relaxed position and as I arched the back of my tongue, the pitch went up. I did this several times and got the same result until I noticed that arching the back of my tongue while continuing to produce a tone was actually changing my embouchure tension on the bottom of the reed.
After I realized this, I set my embouchure, relaxed my throat in an "ah" position and blew a note and stopped. I then arched my throat in an "EEE" position, reset my embouchure where it was for my first test, and...the pitch of the tone did not change for me. I also did this simple test a few times just to make sure of my results.
So, I concur with your response above.
Since I look upon myself as just a hobbyist, please take that into consideration.
Thanks.
Post Edited (2018-11-06 20:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2018-11-04 12:48
Paul,
You say:
"it is not always "the fittest" that survive"
But mean:
it is not always what I believe are "the fittest" that survive"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2018-11-04 20:09
It seems to me that a couple of things are true here.
(1) You have no personal experience of tongue position, or vocal tract, controlling pitch.
I assert that in order to have such an experience there need to be other things that are true: the note that you're playing needs to be quite high, or at any rate generated by a SHORT tube; your tongue position needs to be of a particular sort; and (perhaps) you need to be blowing with an almost closed glottis. (The glottis is what controls the gap between the vocal folds, and that gap can vary in size. In some dialects of English there is what is called a 'glottal stop', in which two syllables are separated by a silence not created by the front of the tongue, as in 't' and 'd'. The silence is instead created by closing the glottis, so instead of saying the word as 'glottal' you would say the word as, 'glo_al'.
More on that later.)
I can say this because I DO have personal experience of tongue position controlling pitch; but I do remember what it was like not to have that experience.
When I first joined the National Youth Orchestra at 12 I met a clarinettist who could swoop about in the upper register in a way I found inexplicable – until I found out how to do it myself by constant experiment.
Compare learning to whistle: "You just put your lips together and BLOW" – but it takes time to find out what to do with your tongue.
But there is another ramification:
(2) Your mental model of how clarinet playing works doesn't include that pitch control by the vocal tract as a possibility.
Perhaps that's where the webpage may help.
About a couple of screens down, there's a picture of a compression wave being reflected from the OPEN end of a tube and returning as a rarefaction, under the heading 'The clarinet is a 'closed' pipe'.
This is a simplified version of how a clarinet works, and I'd say it's initially counterintuitive. How can an open end reflect anything? But waves are funny things – as we said in another thread, a wave can 'get through' a wall too.
A clarinet works, not because air or sound 'travels down it' but because its aircolumn vibrates in this way in co-operation with the reed, whose vibrations, driven by the excess pressure in your mouth, match the frequency of the wave in the aircolumn, determined by its length.
Looked at in this way, you can see that the (much weaker) vibrations of the space BEHIND the reed might have an effect too, under the right circumstances. And that effect could be modulated by the SHAPE of the space behind the reed – the shape of the vocal tract, ie tongue position.
There's a linked paper on the website:
https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/reprints/Fritz&Wolfe2005.pdf
...called 'How do clarinet players adjust the resonances of their vocal
tracts for different playing effects?' that discusses how it may be that the glottis, when sufficiently closed, provides an efficient reflector at the back of the vocal tract. I found it suggestive.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fernie121
Date: 2018-11-05 04:01
Tongue position can effect your tuning. I think Brad behn mentioned this in an interview on YouTube how different vowels/tongue positions (high or low) effects pitch. Along with jaw pressure, speed of air and even type and strength of reed used. All that being said, it doesn’t take but a moment of playing with tongue position to realize it can slightly change intonation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-05 16:55
Dear Mr. Nilsson,
Actually I believe even biologist say that it is not the fittest that survive.....all the time. But in a "free market economy" you're only limited by your imagination and the vagaries of what is "in" at the moment.
Dear fernie121,
Brad Behn said to me that I tended to play with a bit of "biting" with my #4 Vandorens. He suggested I play more relaxed with a #3 1/2 start off where I end up with the #4 using a more closed mouthpiece.
And that brings me to.............compliance.
Dear Mr. Pay,
I see a tendency of the scientific paper to arrive at a conclusion for which they where looking.
EVIDENCE:
The chart shown on page 1517 is rather scattered. If there were a direct correlation of vocal tract resonance and pitch, the correlation should be more direct. There is also mention of there being 160dB of sound pressure generated within the mouthpiece itself......that's a lot! Perhaps a more relaxed posture of the tongue allows for vocal tract resonance (resonance being imparted on the vocal tract, not the other way around......though I realize it is both within the clarinet itself).
Then there is the paper's own disappointment on lack of corroboration. They state that in "regular playing conditions" (opposed to glissandi) there is less interactivity and less that corresponds as they expect.
"The results for normal playing gray symbols in Fig. 7 are more complicated.
Nevertheless, even though the players are not tuning their vocal tract to the note produced, they are adjusting it as a function of the note produced. Why might this be?"
And finally, these two quotes
"Why is it easier to bend pitch down rather than up?"
"A soft reed or a more relaxed embouchure will produce a larger compliance C, a decrease in Xreed, and consequently a decrease in sounding frequency."
I only point out that the scientific paper itself cannot fully substantiate its own claims.
Of course doctorate degrees in music do require written papers........I understand that part.
.....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2018-11-05 17:10
I was just trying to help you with your frustration at being unable to do what many others can do. Also to motivate you by giving you some sort of intellectual reason why you might find it possible in the future.
But clearly it's a lost cause. Please, people, don't take ....................Paul Aviles seriously on this list.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2018-11-05 19:15
Quote:
I set my embouchure, relaxed my throat in an "ah" position and blew a note and stopped. I then arched my throat in an "EEE" position, reset my embouchure where it was for my first test, and...the pitch of the tone did not change for me. I also did this simple test a few times just to make sure of my results.
So, I concur with your response above.
FWIW- I had very different results from yours.
Post Edited (2018-11-05 19:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
