 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-01-29 02:03
Hi everybody. I would like to know which clarinet/mpc combination produces what I believe is termed a "liquid" tone, i.e., a very narrow, hard (total absence of any airy sound), deep (rich textured), sound with a rather piercing quality, yet, not thin by any means. Almost akin to a trumpet sound. (I'm doing the best I can to describe it.) I love this unique tone quality a lot but haven't a clue as to how to obtain it.
Any comments would be much appreciated.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: anony
Date: 2003-01-29 02:31
I'd say to master such a sound one needs the following equipment:
Lips that can form a Strong but not pinching embouchure
A tongue that can sit in a high relaxed position in the mouth, voicing the sound of a german umlaut to produce a nice focused sound.
A decent working clarinet that allows you to play many years of long tones.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2003-01-29 04:12
Practise
Get a good teacher
Practise
Listen carefully
Practise
Good reeds
Practise
Well-maintained instrument
Practise
Suitable mpc
.......Talent helps too
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-01-29 05:17
Verbal descriptions of clarinet sound always amuse me.
Is it dark? Is it bright?
Is it focused? Is it centered?
Is it full of life? Or lifeless?
Or, is it robust? Is it full-throated?
Is it fat? Is it full-bodied?
Is it responsive? Is it round?
Oh, and let's not forget deep, solid, youthful, liquid and clear.
You get the idea? An exercise in futility.
The adjectives used to describe clarinet tone are inadequate (and pointless) due to its subjective nature.
Read Dan Leeson's insightful take on "terminology"
http://www.ocr.woodwind.org/articles/Leeson/leeson3.html
Don't get bogged down with words. Far better to get a sound conception in your head and practice toward that goal ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2003-01-29 06:28
yeah- i agree, but he wanted (needed?) to describe a sound to us and had a go, i can't help thinking he could have done a better job... if he needs to ask a question like that on the internet it's probably because he's not surrounded by great clarinet players who would make the answer obvious......
(ok, "practise man, practise" and study with the best teacher you can find. every time you hear playing you like, find out as much as possible about it/the player)
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Rasmussen
Date: 2003-01-29 07:16
I think he means like Sidney Bechet. To make that sound, you buy a pawn shop horn, throw the case away and carry the horn in your pocket, whittle reeds out of whatever scrap lumber comes your way, and spend the money you save on equipment on alcohol. Just kidding. (and I like Sidney Bechet) (I just can't tell when he's playing clarinet, and when he's playing soprano saxophone.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack
Date: 2003-01-29 08:14
Hey Dan,
To get that "liquid" tone, "all" you would have to do is to simply emulate the sound of jazz almost great, Irving Fazola. Ken R.: Surely you are jesting when you say you cannot discern between Sidney Bechet on clarinet vs soprano sax? Note that Sidney's clarinet sound was anything but liquid.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-01-29 08:35
"A tongue that can sit in a high relaxed position in the mouth, voicing the sound of a german umlaut to produce a nice focused sound"
Would that be ä, ö, or ü??? ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-01-29 10:19
Hiya Dan,
I suppose you can achieve this with pretty much any mouthpiece and a decent reed. You're trotting down a well-worn path, assuming that the gear makes a difference.
This is the same mistake golfers make - drop a thousand on clubs and never visit the driving range or take a lesson; then complain that the clubs are at fault.
You really must do the work.
Make certain your practice room is a little 'dull' and unresponsive.
That way, when you're in a concert setting, your sound will 'bloom'.
Sorry to say, there aren't any shortcuts.
Guys like Pacquito and Pete, they may not practice so much, but they DO play 5-7 hours EVERY day.... and they listen closely to the sound coming out of their instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-01-29 12:54
Perhaps Jbutler is correct...this is a futile posting. I'm waiting for a response from Dr. Jazz. It's his tone that I'd like to emulate. IMO, equipment matters quite a bit. A large bore "spreads" the sound and various mpcs can be designed to favor the altissimo region, etc.
I sincerely believe that practicing with the wrong equipment won't get me the sound I'd like to achieve. Otherwise, we would all be playing the same clarinet with the exact same mpc. (IMO)
Thanks anyway, everyone.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2003-01-29 14:06
when my tone gets liquid I usually swab out..... ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2003-01-29 14:38
Dan,
I hope you aren't going to take any of the advice in this thread. If you do, your sound may go from being solid to "being liquid".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael Blinn
Date: 2003-01-29 15:21
Hi Dan,
Try Mitchell Lurie Deluxe reeds. Unlike many supposedly "superior" reeds like Vandoren and Gonzalez, there is a total lack of airy sound with these. They play great out of the box, with immediate response and wonderful ease. (I play their 3 1/2).
On the down side: The timbre is not as good as the others I mentioned, nor do they last anywhere as long. I also find it much harder to play in the altissimo register with the Mitchell Lurie reeds, while I have no problem with a Gonzalez 3 1/2.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2003-01-29 15:32
Because the tone that is perceived is the result of so many variables maybe only some people can achieve the tone you are after....due to personal characteristics you can never duplicate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bazzer the Jazzer
Date: 2003-01-29 15:42
'Irving Fazola', a great hero of mine, his recording of Spain with the Bob cats is in my top ten.
Barrie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2003-01-29 15:43
I like to talk about tone.
As GBK pointed out there is no clear definition of what a dark sound is and what is not. I wish we always had spectrometers at hand.
You would go to a shop, try a new mouthpiece, check which harmonics are missing or which one are to prominent, and settle for the one that gives such a great spectrogram.
Or in the practice room, trying reeds, you would adjust them and scrape here and there to bring out the 7th partial a bit more...
And I am sure that if you actually do experiments with one individual, and several reed/mouthpiece/clarinet combinations you can SEE differences.
But to me it's just like tuning, when you play you can't use a tuner, you have to use your EARS. The same goes with sound, I'm sure we could come up with a device that would tell you if your darker or brighter, however it will not change the fact given the context of the music, the style you are playing you need to adapt and color the sound appropriately. The best players are not the ones who have that one amazing sounds, but the ones that can produce any type of sound.
H. Wright recording of the brahms sonatas is an excellent example of this. His tone color is ever changing along the piece. I have the chance to attend the Montreal symphony concerts regularly and when you hear Bob Crowley (cl) and Tim Hutchins (fl) exchange solos you sometimes wonder if they don't play the same instrument.
To come back to your original question Dan, I think you need to ask your teacher if you have one about sound and trust him/her. The answer will most likely be to improve on your embouchure, when you feel you have this set properly, go to a shop try a few mouthpiece. I have the feeling that you should try something slightly open. Try a few vandorens, in order of openness (open to close)
B45, B40, 5RV Lyre, 5RV, M13 Lyre, M15.
If you find one that seems to suit you best you can ask your shop for other brands with similar characteristics.
This is a long process and one that often never ends. Many pros sound amazing on basically anything, yet they still look for that holy rail mouthpiece. My personal view is to find a mouthpiece that works, i.e. is flexible enough and does not have intonation problems, and stick to it.
Good luck,
-Sylvain
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vic
Date: 2003-01-29 15:47
When I think of "liquid" tone, I think of Artie Shaw. Especially on Begin the Beguine. And David Shifren's K622. Hard to describe, but I "know it when I hear it."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Sapadin
Date: 2003-01-29 18:15
Hi all,
I am not sure I agree that you cant describe a clarinet
sound. When we teach we have to be able to explain what
one is. And saying to someone that they need to be focused
and centered is probably the best advice you can give to
anyone on any instrument especially the clarinet. I think
the best advice on how to get a liquidy type tone is to
support. Make sure you are using your air the right way.
Its not all about the quantity but on the quality of the
air stream. Then after that its about finding a mouthpiece
that has the right feel and sound for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2003-01-29 20:43
i like the advice from David Sapadin- we SHOULD be able to describe sound, only the reality is that it is quite complicated and it often creates confusion...
back to Dan- work on your legato and evenness of sound, work on a tounging style that doesn't disrupt the quality of the tone or intonation (high tounge position, move only the tip of the tounge), keep the throat and airflow relaxed. i consider these to be fundamentals to a "liquid tone", more so than the type of reed mouthpiece etc
i hope this was more helpful than my earlier posting
oh yeah, and practise
donald
(who uses V12/Gonzalez or Mozart reeds 3.5 with a Zinner mouthpiece refaced to aprox 1.08mm/36 long, a moenig barrel with a Yamaha Custom A clarinet and a Yan barrel with an R13 B flat and tries to sound liquid, clear and with a centre to the sound that is "sweet" rather than "fat", ie i want to sound bright without sounding "hard" or "piercing"..... if that helps
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-01-29 23:32
Hello again. I really didn't expect any more responses, but am very glad to hear everyone's opinions on the subject. I think it would be almost a major accomplishment, if, through this thread, we could come up with a consensus as to what "liquid" means. Hopefully, we won't be beating a dead horse into the ground, so to speak. I'm beginning to believe that because we all, to a greater or lessor extent, interpret or perceive sound differently, this may not be possible.
To nzdonald: In your last response, I believe you gave a rather concise interpretation to liquid. Certainly the sound is clear and by this I mean it is devoid of any airy quality. It is well centered. (To me this means very focused, not spread out.) I had a little difficulty is agreeing to "bright", but after much thought, I came to the conclusion that this term is needed. (I pictured myself with an amplifier with a volume control, a bass control, and a treble control. When I finally figured out that the bass would probably be mid-way while the treble would be maxed out, I sensed that the term"bright" was probably correct.) I don't understand
"sweet vs fat". To me the opposite of a big, fat tone is a thin tone of piercing quality. I also don't understand how you can have a "bright, clear" tone without it being "hard". If you would elaborate a bit on this, I would apprecitate it.
To Vic: Interesting...when I think of Artie Shaw, to me, his tone is anything but liquid. To my ears, his sound is very "woody"... and I do enjoy is tonal quality and style of playing.
To GBK: To me, determining a dark or a bright sound is not very difficult. If you take any pitch, and produce an "eeeeee" sound, to me, this represents an edgy, bright sound. Using the same pitch and producing an "ooooo" sound (as in the word "boom"), to me, this represents a dark sound. This may sound rather simplistic, but it works for me.
To Bob: You are, of course, absolutely correct about the countless variables that come in to play. I believe some of them can be dealt with and some can't. I believe some variables can be compensated for to achieve somewhat similar results.
I think Vic's response was quite revealing. What may seem "liquid" to one may not seem "liquid" at all to another. So, as much as I would like to see progress made toward a consensus, I believe GBK (and not jbutler as I mentioned in my last response) is correct... this again appears to be an exercise in futility.
I received an email response from Dr. Jazz. The thing that I found quite interesting is that his barrel appears to be a custom designed model by a manufacturer that I've never heard of. Continuing with barrels, I noticed that nzdonald also uses a custom barrel in his striving for that "liquid" sound. I'm beginning to sense that the barrel has almost as much influence on the total sound quality as the mpc/reed/ligature combination.
This may have been an exercise in futility...but I sure learned a lot.
Thanks everyone.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2003-01-30 02:21
I wish someone would put together a set of sound bites with someone playing different clarinets, mouthpieces, ligatures etc. Include descriptions and direct comparisons. It would make for a very interesting library for Mark to catalog. Granted, it wouldn't be perfect but it may help push this discussion of dark vs. bright vs. throaty vs. liquid along to a more consistent vocabulary.
Dave
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John O'Janpa
Date: 2003-01-30 09:35
I like the sound bite idea, but then of course you are relying on your speakers, or earphones, amplifiers etc. to ultimately convey the sounds to your ears. Audiophiles argue the qualities of sound reproduction equipment in much the same way that clarinetists discuss the sounds produced by clarinets.
Analog vs, digital? Tubes vs. transistors? Bose vs. Altec Lansing?
Stero vs. surround sound? Do we listen in a room with egg cartons covering the walls? What equalizer settings should be used? What microphone set up was used for the recording? Were effects used? Was the recording done in a concert hall or in an anechoic chamber?
The bottom line will always be "If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, try something else."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2003-01-30 10:23
As well as trying Michel Luries, try Vintage Australia. Very clear and focussed. Andrew Marriner uses them. He has a liquid sound (to my mind). I prefer something more complex myself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2003-01-30 11:17
"sweet vrs fat".... my post was a little careless as i don't think of these two as opposites, but definately strive for one not the other. Ummmm, ok- i think the secret to "sweetness" without stridency, for me, lies in having "ring" in my sound (play a low register C so that you can hear the G, a 12th above it, "inside" the low note- make sure you do this without tightening your throat)..... now (i'm having to think hard about this)....the thing is that any "size" i have in my sound i try to build around that harmonic, so it's like the middle/upper knobs on the graphic equaliser are up, while the bass one is only at halfway.
also essential is making sure that each note is "going somewhere"- each note is alive and either growing or diminishing, but never just staying put, never "sterile" (i'll bet you've never heard a note described as sterile before!). i find this really alters peoples perception of sound
imagine a flute player who plays with a really strong sound, maybe Galway- imagine how they can play the notes that start the Prelude to Afternoon of a Faun, but with a really centred flute sound (instead of the usual more artistic way of playing this solo... and saving breath). i heard a flute player (Tony Ferner) play with this sound once and i said to him this was the sound i wanted in my upper register.... and he laughed at me (as did the English trained 1st clarinet and Bassoon section) and said that a clarinet was suposed to sound "fat and mellow".
as i write this i am listening to a CD of my own performance of the John Ritchie Clarinet Concertino, and i don't sound like this idea most of the time.... i am fighting the battle between playing over an insensitive string section vrs playing flat as i get louder, i have to blast out one favourite MP passage despite asking the conductor for it to be played softer, they don't let me "sing"... my reed is too soft, it sounds hard if i play louder than Forte... the audience still claps- they don't hear that i've failed this time, and the reviewer commented on my nice tone. i feel like i failed, but still smiled and took the bows 'cause "thems the breaks".
so for next time? i'll practise more- make sure my embochure isn't so tired from last minute stressful overpractise AND make sure i do more work on reeds (having a good selection to chose from). PRACTISE / TIME / and yes, EQUIPMENT
keep playing the good tunes
donal
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-01-30 16:34
To nzdonald: Thank you for taking the time to explain several things I did not know. I have heard several people talk about "the ring" affect in the clarinet sound. I didn't know what they were referring to and just kept hoping that somewhere, someone would describe "the ring" affect in a way that I could understand. Thanks again.
I also liked your description of "sterile". When GBK said: "Is it full of life? Or lifeless?", I, again, wasn't fully sure what he was referring to. When I read in your last post: "also essential is making sure that each note is "going somewhere"- each note is alive and either growing or diminishing, but never just staying put, never "sterile". Well said.
What I also found very interesting was what non-clarinetists thought of "how a clarinet should sound". That was quite an enlightening comment.
Even though I have now a pretty good idea of what that "ring" sound should be like, unfortunately, I won't be able to enjoy it. My being almost tone deaf above 3,000 HZ has taken a lot of enjoyment out of my listening to music. Maybe someday, when I'm a bit better off financially, I'll get some upper frequency enhancing hearing aids and once again, enjoy what I've been missing for a long time.
Thanks.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2003-01-31 02:44
I would be happy with a solid tone, I fear mine is gaseous today.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2003-01-31 15:49
Really great discussion. What I hear when I play is not what I hear when I listen to my recorded sound....or what others hear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
