 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Lisa
Date: 2004-03-24 00:42
OK, I'm thinking that I might get blasted for this, but here goes:
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that most flute sections in bands (ranging from elementary on up to college and semi-pro community band calibre) are more proficient than clarinet sections in the same ensembles? If so, why do you think this is? Here's my possible thoughts...
1. Beginning flautists can get a "nicer" tone from their instrument than beginning clarinetists. (LOL)
2. It also probably has something to do with the reed, huh? 
3. If a player with mediocre flute tone is taught proper vibrato technique, they automatically sound way better than their clarinet counterparts. (Speaking for myself, I'm by no means a "real flute player," but to nonflute players, I sound pretty darn good, probably because I really try to play with a round tone and vibrato.
4. Flute players are all expected to learn (and use) that third octave more than clarinetists, so they sound better in all registers. Even 2nd flute parts have passages up there, in unison with the 1st part. When are 2nd or 3rd clarinet parts written up high like that?
5. As for tonguing speed, can you say "double tongue?" How about triple tongue? I know it's possible for a clarinet player to double or triple tongue, but I can't do it, and that's my primary instrument. I have no trouble cheating on flute with double/triple tonguing, btw.
6. There honestly just doesn't seem to be much dead weight in flute sections ever. Even the last chair flute players usually seem to have a certain high ability to me, anyway. I think we've all heard "really bad" last chair clarinet players, whether in elemtary school or community band as adults. (I mean no ill will to ANYBODY who may be reading this opinion of mine. Third clarinetists are people, too. I know--I used to be one of them in college wind ensemble, and relaly enjoyed playing the part, too.)
OK, I'll end with the whole reason that I started this thread. Every time any organization I've played with performs "Irish Washerwoman" I observe how much better the flute section sounds than the clarinet section in the soli unison passages. The flutes all sound as one, calm player, and the clarinet section sounds like we're all trying too hard to play it at that fast tempo--bad intonation, tonguing too hard, fingers getting caught up in technique difficulties, whatever--and the flute players just sit back and PLAY. And they always sound good, minus an occasional mishap here or there.
**Is playing the flute well just easier than playing the clarinet well???
Now, I'm sure a person who's primarily a flautist and then clarinetist second might come on here and just totally disagree with everything I've said, since they've probably know their fair share of "bad" flute players in their day...
Post Edited (2006-11-15 10:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-03-24 04:15
As someone who's played both (I started on flute, but am better on clarinet), where i find clarinet a more challenging beast...
- Vibrato covers minor intonation problems. Clarinets have no such luxury.
- Flutes have far fewer parts in need of constant maintenance
- Tonguing is indeed more difficult on clarinet.
- A lesser clarinetist will see much broader pitch discrepancies due to either biting or not having enough pressure on the reed.
- Different registers don't need nearly as much significant concentration on flute than clarinet.
- Due to the higher pitch, a lack of potentially stuffy reeds, and the nature of the sound (and positioning in the ensemble, often), a less-experienced flute player can still be heard over an ensemble much more than a less-experienced clarinet player, who often is just absorbed into the sound.
- The fact that a clarinet goes down, whereas a flute goes across, has an impact as well. On clarinet, players tend to tighten up, and pull upwards, when the notes go up, thus resonating less of the airstream through the instrument. On flute, a high note is just more or less fingers down, and you actually push forward a bit more (you can't pull back too much or you'll lose the mouthpiece). For example, tell me the last time an elementary school clarinetist went for a high note by attacking it head on, rather than being afraid of whether it will come out.
- On flute, while a good airstream is definitely necessary, only the small mouthpiece needs actually receive the airstream, after which the vibrations are carried throughout. On clarinet, the airstream will ideally be pushed a good couple feet to resonate the entire cylinder. Any discrepancy in airstream quality is magnified on a clarinet.
- A lower-quality flute, I'd argue, is easier to get a decent sound out of than a lower-quality clarinet.
I'm not saying flute is easy... far from it, and I'd say they are similarly difficult. However, gaps in technique are far more evident on clarinet to the average listener due to the nature of the instrument.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-03-24 05:05
As one who has taught both beginning clarinetists and flutists in the public schools, I would definitely agree that flute students (and, for that matter, saxophone students) advance at a much quicker rate than clarinet students.
A big reason has to do with the fingering layout. As the flute overblows the octave, flutists have far fewer fingerings to learn at an earlier stage. Within a short amount of time, flute players are comfortably playing in 2 or 3 different octaves. Once the initial sound is obtained, flute players invariably have the most proficient technique in the band.
Clarinetists often get bogged down with first going over the break and then having to learn an entire set of new fingerings, due to the clarinet overblowing a 12th. Add the problems of left and right pinky switching, the variability of the reed/mouthpiece, the task of accurately covering holes and you see the problems arise.
Sometimes it's a wonder anyone ever learns to play the clarinet...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-03-24 10:14
I was a proficient flute player when I started doubling on clarinet and sax.
Apart from tonguing being more challenging on a clarinet, I think I disagree with pretty well everything EEBaum wrote.
(Of course 'the break' is a fingering challenge difficult to match on the flute.)
There are many flute players who become capable doublers on clarinet (and sax), but it seems to be seldom that a clarinetist masters the flute well.
By 'masters well' I simply mean the basics of getting good control of tone, volume and pitch in the flutes's third octave.
BTW the top notes on flute involve far more complex finger changes than the high notes on a calrinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ebasta
Date: 2004-03-24 13:56
on the flute i miss both the register key and the redundant keys on the clarinet. also, it seems to have taken longer to learn how to get notes out of the flute. ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2004-03-24 15:21
I think that the main reason beginning flute students progress more quickly than beginning clarinetists is that the flute is basically a more simple instrument than the clarinet. No reed to mess with--just blow across an open tone hole. Much less fingering choices than clarinet--compare just the little finger keys on flute versus that of the flute. And the similarity of octave fingerings on the flute versus the clarinets confusing (and inherently out of tune) system of overblown 12ths. Yikes!!! And the challenge of the clarinets register key--how to keep the thumb hole covered at the same time, etc--versus a simple lip sift for the flutist to "get the high notes". And, most beginning flute models have pads which cover the tone holes while on the clarinet you not only have to learn where to put the finger, you have to cover an open hole as well. And if you don't, the darn thing won't play.
Now, having said all of this, I have had good success in closing the progress gap between the clarinetists and the "rest of the band" by having my beginning clarinetist learn "early on" (almost as soon as they are able to produce an E4) a decending concert Eb scale to F3. Most of my beginners this year accomplished this task after only 7 once a week clarinet sectional lessons (plus regular band classes, 45 min. 3x/2x alternating weekly) As soon as they can do this (tone quality is not important at this point) I have them depress the "long key" in back and play a "different" set of notes. I don't even tell them what the names are or that they are "difficult". I simply say, "Just do it" for fun and to drive their neighbors dog nuts. And most of this years beginners could immediantly play up to A5 by week 10 and all 25 could reach C6 before Christmas--and without knowing what the note are named or how they are written. Their large group band book was still teaching them the "low notes" but they are experimenting with the "high" notes as "fun sounds". Later, when the band method finally did get around to teaching the "high notes" to the clarinets, it was an easy task for all concerned--the students and the teacher. So, I recommend that as soon as your beginning clarinetists can play E4, also have them experiment playing a decsending Eb concert scale (F4 to F3). You may be surprized how quickly they can learn to make this notes sound without even knowing their names or how they look on the page. And from then on, how easily the can accomplish the dreaded "high "notes without ever hearing about the "break". If students realize success, quality follows naturally (with the teachers careful guidance, of course).
BTW--for those of you who know me, I still am a retired teacher (5th year). but for the current 2003-04 school year, I have been under "temporary contract" with my old school district--where I spent 30 great yrs--to teach 6th grade like-instrument beginning band lessons at a middle school on an every other afternoon schedule (M_W_F/T_TR, etc). This afternnon, I will be doing trumpet sectionals and on Friday, its the low brass. The good news is, I still keep my retired teachers pension and social security, but also receive some extra $$s from the school system and--best of all--work with some wonderful young beginning musicians on part-time basis. Absolutely the "best of both worlds" (for me, anyhow).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ron Jr.
Date: 2004-03-24 15:25
I am not an expert here so I consulted a friend who plays the oboe, clarinet and flute. She is also an excellent soprano. At her high level, the distinctness of each instrument involves the breath involved much more than the technique of each instrument.
The flute requires the most breath, and the oboe the least, with the clarinet in the middle. She says that the breath involved in singing most closely resembles the type of breathing involved in clarinet playing. The flute requires more rests and for a singer the musical lines are therefore shorter. For the oboe the musical lines often require the expelling of air and as a result feels very unnatural for a singer. So for her, the breath involved in clarinet playing most closely matches the way she sings. In this regard only she says that the clarinet is "Easier".
She, however, uses the term "Natural."
Ron Jr.
Take care,
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-03-24 16:15
So is this the reason that people look at the clarinet as good instrument to "start on" before moving to another? Cause everything else, when compared to clarinet, can be conceptually 'easier'?
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-03-24 17:37
Not at all. In fact, when I switched to the clarinet, I found it easier than the flute. Why did it seem easier? I'm not quite sure, but it did. Probably because it takes less air to "get a note out" and sustain it for a longer time. The point I was making is that, to the <<average>> listener, shortcomings on clarinet are far more noticeable.
On flute, for example, when starting out there are a few initial plateaus of "good-soundingness" that are relatively easy to achieve. The same plateaus on clarinet are a bit further up the line (further yet on double-reeds I'd imagine). However, after that, further progress on flute is significantly more difficult, which is what I think Gordon was alluding to.
Or perhaps flautists just practice more? I've noticed that too.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Schwab
Date: 2004-03-25 21:10
Ron Jr.,
Your friend's comment, "She says that the breath involved in singing most closely resembles the type of breathing involved in clarinet playing" makes a lot of sense. I noticed quite unexpectedly that when I took up the clarinet a couple years ago my singing voice improved drastically.
An interesting aside, the far majority of clarinet players in my church's humble orchestra were choir members (like all). That is, when my church had a choir. It was disbanded for a number of reasons I'll not go into here. Still a sore subject.
I also remember mentioning my improved singing voice after taking up the clarinet to an acquaintance who teaches voice at the University at Buffalo. She told me that she often had difficulty with students who played oboe. I think it had something to do with throat pressure or something like that.
Funny what you’ll learn.
Bob Schwab
Post Edited (2004-03-25 21:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom A
Date: 2004-03-26 03:10
This is a bit off the original question, but I'll endorse William's method for early training on clarinet. In the last 2 years, I have spent the first few lessons for each child producing long tones first, usually on E4, then extending the range a little, until they are comfortable playing from the low G to the throat A in both long notes and quarters. When they're able to play from C4 to open G is when I start them on their book, which begins on E and goes first down to C, then up to A. I have them playing notes several lessons ahead of learning that note on the page.
In that 2 years, especially with some small group teaching I've been doing, the progress has been considerably faster than in previous years. Progress varies from year to year, of course, but there was too much difference, two years in a row, for it to have been coincidence.
I think the psychology behind it is that, when they come to learn the written note, they're learning only one new element, rather than the two they'd have to remember if learning the note AND its fingering. In my last year at university (1993), my research took me to articles in a number of periodicals in which the success of this approach was borne out. It seems that children's minds work more efficiently dealing purely with producing and hearing the sounds, before associating each note with a visual symbol ("ikons" is what they are called in ed. psych. terminology).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marcia
Date: 2004-03-26 18:01
Contrary to what most have said I found the opposite to be true. Most of the clarinets were passable with some good, while flutes generally rather poor. This was especially true in high school. What little sound was audible was very airy, vibrato did not exist. This was also the case with community bands with a couple of notable exceptions. I knew a person who tried for months to get a sound out of a flute. He did not ever succeed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-03-27 11:49
I wonder if it has more to do with the charts being played?
In traditional SATB vocal arrangements, the Soprano line carries melody.
If you've heard the tune, there are few surprises in store.
The Boehm reform made 'lift a finger, go up a note' possible on the modern flute... it's a good design.
My LeBlanc saxophones have similar key layout, and the mechanism is surprisingly complicated... the refinement of flute linkages is sublime.
That said, if I never have to face down a room full of pre-teen girls carrying Gemeinharts (for five chairs) and go begging for Tubas, it will be too soon!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meri
Date: 2004-03-27 20:01
I, too, find that flute sections tend to be somewhat better overall than clarinet sections. There doesn't seem to be as much discrepency in the playing level. On the other hand, Ted Oien once said at a masterclass that "the clarinet can be the most beautiful-sounding instrument in the world; it can also be the most wretched." The worst flute sound probably comes nowhere near the horrendous clarinet sound that I've so often heard--and not just from young beginners, even from high school/college students and adults.
Meri
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-03-27 21:18
Hehe. When a flute sound gets really bad it just stops sounding. Are there any other instruments with that built-in protection for the listener?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joeyscl
Date: 2006-11-14 23:47
It's MUCH MUCH harder to squeak a Flute (In fact, does a Flute even squeak?)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-11-15 09:06
Intersting re-discovered thread. I agree, beginner clarinet sections often sound naff. I imagine it could be a real problem for uptake of the instrument! It's something that really needs solving... some thoughts:
(1) Poor clarinet tone really sounds bad, much worse than flute. But it can be hard to find one's way to the 'right' tone. I'm sure teachers can help with this... when tone finally 'clicks', the instrument becomes a joy to play, and practicing becomes easier, and everything else follows.
(2) Two clarinets playing the same high note will clash with the slightest tuning error and sound like three cats. The flute (along with most other instruments) is less prone to this. Tuning the high notes is critical. Once into the altissimo, all the alternative fingerings must be explored... I once played in a section where every player had to play the altissimo differently to be in tune.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: YoungFlarinet
Date: 2006-11-15 22:36
Even though this is old, I suppose I will put a little input.
I play both clarinet and flute well, and I'm learning the trumpet (I self taught everything except the clarinet). Here is where I find the most difficult differences. The clarinet takes the most emboucher muscle, using the muscles around the upper and lower lips as well as the corners and slightly up the cheek. The flute on the other hand uses the least requiring only a fraction of the corners and a little around the edges of the lips to be used. The trumpet is slightly in between, needing to "draw" the top and bottom lips tight-ish and using the corners.
It took me a total of seven hours to learn the flute where it took me three weeks to even sound slightly good on the clarinet. I've currently been trying to teach myself trumpet for two months.
Contrary to what some have said, I find that it takes more muscle in the lungs to play clarinet than flute even though it takes more breath to play flute.
Then again, I'm not a professional, and I learned faster than the entire thirty other clarinets that were in my class. So, listening to me isn't necessary.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClariTone
Date: 2006-11-15 23:20
The sheer number of players is also a factor. In a properly balanced wind ensemble or band, you will (SHOULD!!!) have many more clarinetists than flautists. Due to the sheer number of people involved it is only practical to assume that not everyone will be the strongest player (hence the aforementioned third-clarinetist remark). This puts the clarinet section at a disadvantage due to the numbers of individuals involved coupled with the unique quirks of the instrument itself.
Clayton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2006-11-15 23:31
It may just be a local thing...but the current flute section in the school's Wind Ensemble, along with the flutes in the Junior Symphony I play in are some of the most incompetent and dysfunctional sections I've ever played with.
Post Edited (2006-11-15 23:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-11-16 13:47
Is it possible that a "flute type" mouthpiece could work on a clarinet?
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-11-16 14:42
The Denner boys beat you to the punch there, Bob. They were the ones who took the fipple flute (aka "recorder"), slapped the reed on it and turned it into the original clarinet-like chalmeau. Let's not start a retrograde trend here...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.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}
