 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-11-10 18:38
First a request:
Can someone think of a way to grab, say, 10 reeds in a row, upside down, from their base, and dip them halfway into a pool of water below, every...I don't know...2 hours or so? Such a machine might allow me to try the following reed break in method without having to babysit the process.
The background:
A prior question I raised about cane reed imbalance found Paul (thanks) answering in part with an anecdote about what I think--but am not certain---is this video:
https://youtu.be/XmTL_AOEOiQ?si=dbzzCKhDT0v43MKw
where it is suggested that Marcellus' Reed breaking method involved a slow process of wetting and drying new reeds many times and across many days, with quick play testing interspersed between such wettings.
The play testing part is purely for organizing the reeds for playability, and watching this order both change and stabilize over time: i.e. not an essential part I reason as nothing about playing the reeds would impede arriving at the same conclusions or the stabilization of their response providing the wetting protocol is still adhered to.
I thought I'd give this a try but I have serious reservations as the results are suppose to be maybe 1 or 2 playable reeds for a box, that albeit last a really long time.
Those reservations are purely economic, factoring the cost of reeds (which while not cheap, are not THAT expensive that making reeds last years is worth the time needed to follow this protocol) and my time, that find physical adjustment and realization of a greater number of playable reed out of a box, faster, albeit ones that may not last as long as reeds this method produces, to still be the better path.
But I'm open to testing....Thoughts?
TIA
Post Edited (2024-11-10 18:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2024-11-10 19:23
For years I have heard the proverbial stories of only a couple of good reeds per box. In my experience, most reeds need a slight bit of adjustment. Most of the time I find that a little bit of flattening of the back (I use a flat file) so the reed will sit flatly on the table of the mouthpiece and a slight bit of balancing or adjustment toward the tip get most of the reeds playing pretty well.
I do believe in breaking in through wetting/drying and playing them, generally increasing time over the break in period. I usually switch the reeds as I practice until they are stabilized and well broken in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-11-10 20:55
Ed wrote:
> For years I have heard the proverbial stories of only a couple
> of good reeds per box. In my experience, most reeds need a
> slight bit of adjustment. Most of the time I find that a little
> bit of flattening of the back (I use a flat file) so the reed
> will sit flatly on the table of the mouthpiece and a slight bit
> of balancing or adjustment toward the tip get most of the reeds
> playing pretty well.
>
> I do believe in breaking in through wetting/drying and playing
> them, generally increasing time over the break in period. I
> usually switch the reeds as I practice until they are
> stabilized and well broken in.
Me too. I get more than 1/2 the reeds of a box working.
I do adjust them, and I do try to break them in gradually, but this Marcellus technique appears extremely heavy on the breaking in process and longevity once a good reed is acquired, and minimal on the adjustment and percentage of good playing reeds in a box. 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2024-11-10 21:11
I have two or three mouthpieces of the same brand and model and a reed that doesn't work perfectly on one sometimes works on the other mouthpiece.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-11-10 21:45
ruben wrote:
> I have two or three mouthpieces of the same brand and model and
> a reed that doesn't work perfectly on one sometimes works on
> the other mouthpiece.
>
I completely get that.
I'm curious, as a control, and despite the limitations of synthetics, and want to know if that disparity in play when a cane reed that works well on one mouthpiece near fails when the mouthpiece is switched, is as pronounced for say a Legere where uniformity and quality control can overcome the inherent differences within a single cane reed (or across cane reeds) as introduced by mother nature.
Post Edited (2024-11-10 21:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Maestro_6
Date: 2024-11-10 22:21
I have an old friend who has created an automated reed-soaking machine that does just this. His dissertation during his DMA involved researching and developing this machine. Feel free to reach out to him as I'm sure he'll be able to give you more info about it:
Dr. Steven Christ
stevenichrist@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexey
Date: 2024-11-10 22:38
I tried this method—well, almost. I had several attempts. The first was with a couple of reeds, so it was not very representative. But I had all 28 days. On the next attempt, I had 10 reeds, and I gave up on day twenty-three or twenty-four or something like that.
The reason why I gave up is that I didn't find that it's really superior over another methods I tried.
Also, I have found that there are methods that are quicker and give me good enough results.
The best method for me so far is like this:
I play reed increasing time in the next progression - 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 8 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes. Sometimes I can repeat 10 minutes twice or/and 15 minutes twice. But in general, after reaching 15 minutes I consider the reed as broken in.
Also, I start adjusting reeds on day 4 or 5 depending on how stiff the reed is. I don't try to make the best reed in a single attempt but rather I want to make it a bit better.
I tried other methods when you play reed for 5 minutes or even more from day one and discovered that reeds tend to change more drastically in strength compared to methods when you play it for 1 or 2 minutes the first several days ( or 28 days).
Anyway, I will be happy to read and discuss any thoughts/insights on the original Marcellus method from anyone who tried it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2024-11-11 00:59
dear Secondtry: I don't use Legere reeds, so I wouldn't know. The great clarinetist Philippe Cuper told me that when he is having more and more trouble finding workable reeds, it might be because his mouthpiece has aged and its proportions have changed in some slight way. But he doesn't pay for his mouthpieces or his reeds!
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2024-11-11 02:14
A few general points: -
1. Reeds are better compared to Marcellus’ day and more consistent.
2. Mouthpieces likewise and the quality and consistency of the best mass-market models has reached a level such that even professional players use them.
3. Reed-friendly mouthpieces are now common so the partnering of these elements should be much better if the correct selections are made.
4. Few, professional players go through some kind of relentless regime - there simply isn’t time. If you feel you have to do this the issue may lie with the player rather than the equipment.
Life for the clarinetist decades ago was a lot more random and I do feel that harking back to some perceived golden era where certain players had some perfect regime is making a rod for your own back nowadays.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2024-11-11 04:14
symphony1010 wrote:
> A few general points: -
> 1. Reeds are better compared to Marcellus’ day and more
> consistent.
> 2. Mouthpieces likewise and the quality and consistency of the
> best mass-market models has reached a level such that even
> professional players use them.
> 3. Reed-friendly mouthpieces are now common so the partnering
> of these elements should be much better if the correct
> selections are made.
> 4. Few, professional players go through some kind of relentless
> regime - there simply isn’t time. If you feel you have to do
> this the issue may lie with the player rather than the
> equipment.
>
> Life for the clarinetist decades ago was a lot more random and
> I do feel that harking back to some perceived golden era where
> certain players had some perfect regime is making a rod for
> your own back nowadays.
I completely agree.
It might be one thing if nothing changed on reed making, cane and synthetic since Marcellus' days.
But in an age where it seems more professionals are transitioning to synthetic reeds that are perhaps 90%+ of good cane reed, because consistency trumps the effort spent finding that cane reed that not only beats the synthetic, but maintains that superior status for a big enough window of play time, it appears that (as Opperman said) time is your most precious asset.
And time taken finding reeds is time away from practice.
I think I get the theory of the Marcellus approach. Stabilize the cane, pick your best out of the box reeds and expect longer life given that you also haven't needed to remove (much?) material from them. But the few reeds this produces and the time taken to acquire them, not to mention the expense, may be too much for most.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2024-11-11 08:52
Ok, the most important correction is that the playing done (just a few notes mind you......VERY QUICK!) is NOT just for evaluation, it is to break in the fibers. I suggest you re-watch this video. The key is where he explains WHY you avoid the upper register (certainly you must eschew the altissimo for sure). Playing those notes on reeds not fully broken in cause the fibers to break internally since they are not reedy yet to spring back and forth that fast yet (high frequencies).
The other thing is the fallacy of this taking time. In fact it is much much quicker than playing a few minutes a day on each reed.......it is only a few notes.....then put the reed down. Don't confuse this with the 28 days of break-in. THAT time period just gets you started. He states that he never goes to any gig with less than 25 reeds. So if you have 25 great reeds and one or two start to get a little funky, you start another batch of reeds and you're still plugging along with at least 23 other reeds.........no wasted time at all!!!!! Also, you can start another batch of reeds just a day later (or any other interval) after the first, so you can always have newer reeds whenever you want.......once you get the process rolling.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2024-11-11 19:34
Quote:
Few, professional players go through some kind of relentless regime - there simply isn’t time. If you feel you have to do this the issue may lie with the player rather than the equipment.
It may depend on the player. I remember seeing videos of Mark Nuccio and some other top players discussing break in techniques. Whatever works and gets them to a level of comfort.
Some talk about Legere. In my experiences, they are different but not necessarily more consistent. It may be my playing, equipment or what I am look for, but I have had a few at a time and found them all to play somewhat differently. I also found that as I played or warmed up they changed slightly. For me, it did not seem that there were any real advantages and certainly some downsides.
Quote:
And time taken finding reeds is time away from practice.
I think the key is to incorporate reed break in into the practice time. There are different ways to approach this. When talking about reeds, Marcellus told me that perhaps it would be better to do your practicing and then reserve a little time at the end to go through reeds rather than have it disrupt practice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lydian
Date: 2024-11-11 19:50
This crazy break-in for unreal reed life sounds like complete hogwash to me. Materials will fatigue when they bend no matter how slowly you ease in. If these things really last 20 years it's because playing them 1 second per month results in 6 weeks of play time (the average life of my reeds) in 20 years. This is a completely unnecessary waste of time.
Post Edited (2024-11-11 20:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2024-11-12 11:00
Lydian: I fully agree with your rational explanation. Life is too short to be spent messing with our reeds, which only has psychological benefits.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2024-11-12 19:44
ruben wrote:
> Lydian: I fully agree with your rational explanation. Life is
> too short to be spent messing with our reeds, which only has
> psychological benefits.
>
If frustration is a psychological benefit, then I agree that it can be one "benefit" of reed adjustment.
Reed adjustment, if it's within limits, can result in a reed that plays better than it did out of the box. The truth is, though, that the more you try to adjust a reed, the more likely you'll ruin it. So, a small amount of time out of our short lives spent adjusting reeds can be worthwhile. A lot of time spent on reed adjustment most likely has no benefit at all, not even psychological.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2024-11-12 20:29
My understanding is that some players embrace a routine as a kind of personal assurance that things will then go well for them. Others might seem to fly by the seat of their pants but there is always some degree of preparation. It mostly tells you about how that person's brain works!
I do refer others to my earlier points here. I don't believe Marcellus' procedures are necessary for everyone and, indeed, I have seen an interview where he doesn't bring up this system when asked about reed prep.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2024-11-12 21:15
Karl: Of course, if we were oboists or bassoonists, we'd be singing a different song.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
