 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: AS
Date: 2008-03-21 19:28
When reading clarinet forums I often come across several specific terms that clarinet players are using to describe the sound or the playing. Some of them are easy. I guess that two sensible people wouldn’t ever fight over an issue of mouthpiece being „closed” or „open” because the difference can be quantified in millimeters or inches. Even about „resistant” and „free blowing” mouthpiece two players will find an understanding. But terms like "dark sound", "projection" etc. that cannot be measured in millimeters and defined as precise as, for example, facinng. I wonder if there is an agreement about the meaning of those words in the world of clarinet players. Or, is it at all possible to have the "dark sound" defined so that there is no misunderstanding about the meaning of the term?
So I thought it would be interesting to throw this question in here and see what happens.
Can anybody try to define:
Airy
Stuffy (what’s the difference from “Airy” or “Resistant”)
Dark (sound)
Bright (sound)
Chirp/Squeal (what’s the diference?)
Projection
Control (such as „easy/hard to control”)
Mellow (sound)
Response
Focused (sound)
Tone and intonation
I must have missed few, so please fill in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CWH
Date: 2008-03-21 19:34
Here is a great place to start, if you can pick yourself up a copy of
"The Clarinet and Clarinet Playing" by David Pino
Or older and less available
"The Clarinet and Clarinet Playing" by Robert Willaman
both of which can be found on your favorite booksellers web page. Both are excellet resources.
Study, Practice, Play and Enjoy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2008-03-22 00:24
? Can the many "subjective terminologies" be made "objective" ? I doubt it, but one can try, and prob. fail. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: timg
Date: 2008-03-22 01:59
I'll have a go at a few of the words in the list. Most of the terms cover more than one cause or effect, so I'm probably simplifying quite a bit. And of course people use the language differently, depending on their own experience.
> Stuffy (what’s the difference from “Airy” or “Resistant”)
Some reeds feel as if they don't "want" to resonate. It's not that they're too stiff, but perhaps not as springy as a good reed. The note still comes out, but it's less well defined. Biting the reed or using insufficient air has a similar effect.
> Dark (sound)
> Bright (sound)
The relative proportions of higher harmonics in the tone. Can be seen very clearly in the sound spectrum. If you have a PC with a microphone, you can use this and this to visualise changes in tone.
> Chirp/Squeal (what’s the diference?)
Getting the embouchure or air-support wrong can cause the clarinet to sound a higher harmonic than the one required. The surprised reaction of the player upon hearing the wrong note can affect the pitch of the note and makes it sound like a squeak or squeal. The exact sound depends on what mistake the player makes and what his/her reaction is.
Bad reeds can create a whistling sound which is distinct from a squeak, and much higher pitched. The degree of whistling can be controlled with effort. A worn reed may need extra pressure from the embouchure to avoid sounding flat, which makes a squeak more likely.
> Projection
With good embouchure and air support, notes have a faster attack and a better defined in pitch. To the listener the melody and rhythm sounds clearer more deliberate.
It has been shown that good saxophone players tune their throats to the pitch of the note, and I expect this is true of clarinet players too. My teacher often tells me to "sing" into the clarinet, and it certainly improves the tone and projection.
-Tim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-03-22 02:18
We all generally agree what a word 'means' but we disagree on what it 'is'. We all have different ears, which means the sound I hear may be totally different than the sound you hear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: AS
Date: 2008-03-22 09:59
Thanks everybody for the great input. Perhaps some of my understanding problems are due to English not being my native tongue. Particularly Tim’s reply cleared out quite a few things for me. I will get to the references given by others as well.
Before Tim’s answer I thought that „resistant” and „stuffy” are essentially the same. Now it seems to me that they are not. Now it appears that a mouthpiece can be free blowing but stuffy at the same time. If I have understood correctly, „stuffy” means efficiency of a mouthpiece/reed combination in transformation of air flow into sound. More air wasted – less efficiency – more stuffy. Right? Whereas “resistance” is another thing, probably meaning something like how much air you can get through the mouthpiece at a given pressure within a given period of time, which in general has nothing to do with efficiency. Consequently that should mean that stuffiness is a bad thing in general, whereas resistance is more a matter of personal preference. Still wondering though where the “response” comes into this picture… ![[huh]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie11.gif)
The difference between “projection” and “focus” is still a puzzle. Reading posts I saw that one is saying that “if you have focus, you’ll have projection” whereas another one – that “the more focus, the less projection”. Great, isn’t it? 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-03-22 12:12
I'd say 'response' is the efficiency of the whole instrument and determines the immediacy of playability on an instrument in it's best condition - so that's an instrument which is completely leak-free with every pad seating as perfectly as is humanly possible.
Compared with a clarinet of the same model which is leaking but still playable to an extent (in that it is possible to get the full range, but you can feel there's more effort needed when using the same mouthpiece on both), you'll find it won't respond as well as one in top form, and some large intervals and slurs may be more difficult to near impossible.
So if you can get two identical clarinets (eg. two Buffet B12s as plastic clarinets should in theory be identical in their composition) and tweak one so it's absolutely bottle tight when tested (and as near to a 0 reading as you can get on a Mag machine), and another that you've doctored so neither of the joints is airtight (giving a reading above 3 on the Mag machine), play them both with the same set-up and you'll see which one responds better to your playing demands.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-03-22 15:24
Ken...your references are priceless.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-03-22 16:18
Some more words to describe a variety of tonal and playing characteristics in no particular order of preferrence:
Thin, thick, shrill, weak, supported, unsupported, uncontrolled, throaty, brassy, flutey, weighty, heavy, choppy, wheezy, lumpy, bulgy, spongy, dull, wishy-washy, insipid, full, roomy, expansive, sparkly, spiky, bitty, fruity, chocolaty, gritty, oily, flabby, slack-jawed, brutal, brash, buzzy, fuzzy, stodgy, muddy, glassy, farty, lifeless, flexible, dead, metallic, woody, warm, fragile, brittle, robust, bold, open, introverted, timid, voluptuous, blooming, mature, primal, tasteless, sweet, earthy, etherial, hypnotic, boring, effortless, breezy, edgy, cheap, educated, considerate, puny, cheesy, cold, reedy, toneless, watery, wet, ripe, stale, grating, windy, indifferent, uninspired, inspiring, authorititive, narrative, progressive, laid-back, compelling, basic, academic, pastoral, rustic, folky, charming, commercial, unsympathetic, disturbing, thoughtful, restrained, chewy, bity, energetic, lethargic, treacle, sugary, high-octane, light, straight, metronomic, robotic, measured, scatty, blunt, wobbly, erratic, accessable, defined, full-blooded, fragmented, iffy, ...
Feel free to step in at any time!
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2008-03-22 16:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2008-03-22 21:02
Chris... you forgot "fluffy." ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-03-22 22:40
Cheers!
And there's also 'orchestral' and 'military'.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-03-24 02:41
This is very interesting because the same term often means one thing to one person and something else to another. Usually my students know and agree with me if I tell them their tone is bright, dark, stuffy or anything else but I did have one very good student years ago that was different. No name but he plays in one of our major orchestras today, no, not Ricardo Morales. He insisted that his tone was the dark tone and mine the bright tone. I don’t think so; on any given day his sound could cut glass. He studied with me for three summers back in the 80s so I used the example of Frank Cohen getting a very dark tone and Anthony Gigliotti getting a much brighter tone, he disagreed with me and said it was the opposite. I rest my case. He went on to Curtis and did study with Gigliotti but the last time I heard him he still sounded very bright, and everyone I know agreed with me, oh sorry, it must have been dark. It sure is fun, confusing, sometimes. ESP, www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-03-24 02:53
Gigliotti's tone for a really long time was BRIGHT to me, big time. In his later days (post 1977) it got much darker possibly due to his setup improving (clarinets as well as his mouthpieces). Towards the end I didn't consider his tone to be bright, but on those earlier recordings my gosh could it peel paint off of the wall.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2008-03-24 04:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-03-24 13:54
David, Gigliotti's tone may have gotten a bit darker but I was comparing it to Frank Cohen’s tone that I have always considered to be dark. I never considered Gigliotti's tone to be dark, though perhaps he did get a bit "less" bright in his later years. That's your call. We all have our opinions of what dark and bright are; perhaps we need another clarinet term to describe it. ESP
www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cass Tech
Date: 2008-03-24 17:48
Here goes!
Dark:
Like chocolate mousse, the Stygian Caves, Michelangelo's David sculpted of licorice, a block of ebony (wood or gem stone), a hellish black night, the Black Hole of Calcutta, the bottom of the multitudinous sea,
turtle black bean soup, The Black Velvetine Rabbit and Ava Gardner's raven black hair, etc. (I'm getting hungry, it's lunchtime.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
