 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jacoblikesmusic
Date: 2010-03-11 02:21
In you opinion how much of a role does each part of the clarinet and clarinestist play in tone quality?
Ex:
__% Player
__% Mouthpiece
__% Ligature
__% Reed
__% Barrel
__% Bell
__% Upper, lower joints, any other factors
Post Edited (2010-03-11 02:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2010-03-11 02:29
95 % Player
3% Mouthpiece
0% Ligature
2% Reed
0 Barrel
0 Bell
0 Instrument
Bells, Barrels, mouthpieces might make a slight change but the player will still end up sounding like himself for the most part. In my opinion, those things only help a player by making them more comfortable or by making things easier. There is no substitute for hard work, lots of listening, and a clear concept you feel confident in when it comes to tone quality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2010-03-11 02:44
Ryan is right. I would also ad that mouthpiece or just any other equipment should make your life easier for you to reach the musical goal you are after. The player will always have the most affect 95% or whatever it's all about if it's either a 95% player that has to strive hard to get his musical goal or a 95% player that does not have to strive very hard to get his musical goal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-11 03:18
I was hoping for a long time that a question like this would come up.
Unfortunately, my viewpoint is entirely different from the above 2 responses.
IMHO, if the player represented 95% of the tone, why in the world would people spend thousands of $$$$$ on R13 clarinets???????? Why not just get a well made plastic clarinet along with a plastic mouthpiece, after all, that represents just 3% of the tone, right? Sorry, I just don't agree with that. (No, I really don't want to get into a wood vs plastic discussion.)
A fellow board member told me around 8 years ago that the first 6 inches of the clarinet make up most of the tone. I still believe that to this day.
So here's my numbers:
85% Mouthpiece
4% Reed
1% Ligature
5% Barrel
0% Bell
5% Instrument
As for the player, IMHO, all that is required is a correct embouchure and proper air support for tonal production produced by the first 6 inches of the instrument.
Just my $0.02 worth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2010-03-11 03:30
So Dan according to you a one year old student would sound as good as Ricardo Morales if he only would play on his setup. That's a none sense.
Ricardo Morales could probably sound well on the student's setup but he would have to strive much harder and the end result would not be as good.
Who do you think would play better?
A one year old student on a Backun Legacy clarinet with a Backun mouthpiece or Ricardo Morales,Larry Combs or just any other professional clarinetist on a Buffet B-12 plastic clarinet with a Buffet plastic mouthpiece?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-11 03:52
Iceland clarinet stated:
"Who do you think would play better?" Sorry, but that's not the question. The post was about "TONE".
You also stated: "Ricardo Morales could probably sound well on the student's setup but he would have to strive much harder and the end result would not be as good."
What "end result"????? Tone or playability? Hmmmm...it appears that that 3% is far more important than 3%.
The above is simply my opinion which everyone may disagree with. That's perfectly alright with me. I respect everyone's opinion. I may not agree with others' opinions, but I respect them just the same.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-03-11 05:00
While we're on this topic, what does everyone think about oil painting? What percentage of the beauty of a painting is attributable to the following components:
__% brush
__% palette knife
__% canvas
__% paint
__% linseed oil
__% turpentine
I left off the painter intentionally, because all he has to do is hold the brush correctly and put the paint in the right place. In the end, it's the equipment that makes the most difference.
Post Edited (2010-03-11 05:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-11 05:17
mrn:
If Ricardo Morales were given a hard rubber Beechler mouthpiece, would he still sound "like himself"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jacoblikesmusic
Date: 2010-03-11 05:33
Even if equipment was all that mattered (which I highly doubt), mrn, people pay multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for GOOD painters, not GOOD brushes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-11 05:48
jocoblikesmusic:
With all due respect, I think we're getting far off the "real" topic.
The topic, I believe, is simply one thing: quality of tone. It is not about artistic ability.
I believe that once a student is capable of forming a correct embouchure with proper air support, he/she will produce a "tone", the quality of which, IMHO, is far more determined by the equipment than the player.
For example, let us use just one note...open "G". No fingers involved. We're not talking about articulation or phrasing, just the production of one note.
On another thread, a player purchased 2, that's TWO, Brad Behn Vintage clarinet mouthpieces. That 3% means a $1000.00 to him.
IMHO, as far as the quality of the tone alone is concerned, equipment matters more than the player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RoBass
Date: 2010-03-11 06:39
75% Player
15% Mouthpiece
2% Ligature
5% Reed
2% Barrel
1% Bell
0% Upper, lower joints, any other factors
If you experiment with ligatures and bells, you'll see, that same clarinet in your mouth gets another voice ;-) That's in fact more than 0% like given above... And now change the MPC and/or reed! There's more than only a small difference.
But the main key stays the player behind the pipe.
kindly
Roman
PS: Please record your sound with different equipments installed! And then inspect the recording detailed. You'll hear and see (FFT f.i.), that there's no equality. You think so (subjective ear), but it isn't objective ;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TianL
Date: 2010-03-11 06:41
my opinion:
50% player
15% reed
15% mouthpiece
10% upper, lower joints
5% barrel
3% ligature
2% bell
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-03-11 12:23
Alex! What edition of that game are you playing!?!?!?!
LOL!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-03-11 16:29
James: I'll have to ask, I'm not the DM on this. I do know that I've been allowed to roll a saving throw against tonehole water, and have been allocated +2 to tone quality for well-aged reeds. The big downside is that the party size it allows is enormous... before I can even enter the room, 38 powerleveled noobs have slain the audition committee. Also, do you know how frustrating it is to be in a group with 73 bards?
I'm chaotic good, fwiw.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-03-11 16:37
jacoblikesmusic wrote:
Quote:
Even if equipment was all that mattered (which I highly doubt), mrn, people pay multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for GOOD painters, not GOOD brushes.
Exactly. I was actually being a bit facetious in my previous post in order to demonstrate that point.
The most critical ingredients to good tone quality are all mental. You need to have a well-developed ability to perceive the nature of musical sounds/timbres. (i.e., a good ear for sound) You have to have sufficient familiarity with the instrument and how it will behave in response to what you do physically (such familiarity can only come from practice--that is, experience playing the instrument). Finally, you need to have a well-developed ability to translate tonal ideas from an internal mental image of the sound into physical actions that will produce that sound, based on your familiarity with the instrument.
Aside from the limitations the equipment you use imposes on you in realizing the tonal ideas in your head, the equipment itself doesn't really matter that much. (And even then, a good player's skill in overcoming those limitations can often offset their effect.)
Same thing applies for visual artists. Having a good quality paintbrush of the right size for the level of detail you are trying to achieve will make it easier for you to get the best results, but ultimately the results you get are entirely dependent on your skills in visual perception and in translating the idea in your head into something tangible by way of manipulating the brush.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-03-11 17:17
Dan Shusta wrote:
Quote:
If Ricardo Morales were given a hard rubber Beechler mouthpiece, would he still sound "like himself"?
More than likely, especially given his level of skill. In fact, from what I have read here on the BBoard, he's apparently a real equipment geek and constantly trying out new setups. The fact that people talk about HIS sound as if it were a constant thing, rather than the sounds of his various equipment choices over the years, suggests that he always sounds "like himself," even if little subtle differences exist between the results he produces on different setups.
On a related note, I play on an Eddie Daniels mouthpiece (which is supposedly pretty close to what Eddie Daniels himself actually plays on). Even though I found it to be an improvement over my previous mouthpiece, it doesn't make me sound like Eddie Daniels--I still sound like myself.
Now I COULD, if I wanted to, make myself sound a little more like Eddie Daniels, because I can hear some of what he does when he plays and I know how to make my clarinet do some of those things (with oral cavity resonances/voicing), but I could have done that on my old mouthpiece, too. It's really the variety of voicings he uses that are his tonal trademark, not the mouthpiece he plays on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-03-11 17:29
Good question but I can't really put a percentage on them. I think the player has the most influence to their sound by a long shot though that is in combination with the mouthpiece and the reed that they use. After that, all the other items help produce that quality the player is looking for but at a much smaller percentage. In some cases only the player will be able to tell a difference, in others one may notice a slight difference. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-11 18:00
mrn wrote:
"The most critical ingredients to good tone quality are all mental."
Agreed. However, first, the concept of "good tone quality" is, IMHO, going to be different from player to player. Second, even with a "good tone quality mental image", without the proper "equipment", I really don't believe that a professional player can overcome equipment know to produce opposite results, such as a Beechler mpc or Rico Plasticover reeds producing a bright sound when a darker sound is in their "mind". So, IMO, equipment certainly does matter to quite an extent in "helping" a player to achieve their desired "good quality sound".
Now, referring to your analogy, an artist may, indeed, have a solid, quality pictorial image in his or her mind, but if the appropriate "paint colors" and "brushes" are not available, the painting "in his or her mind" will never really be fully realized. The artist, IMO, will continue to search for the appropriate "equipment" that he or she needs because of the mismatch between the "pictorial mental image" and the final physical results.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jacoblikesmusic
Date: 2010-03-12 01:47
I see that many that have commented feel the barrel has little affect on tone quality. But yet people spend hundreds on barrels. So is the barrel actually more important than 5%, does the barrel contribute to something other than tone, or is 5% extremely important?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-03-12 01:57
I think that percentages are a somewhat poor way of approaching the issue. Putting a highly dysfunctional barrel on your instrument will make much more than a -5% difference. Someone that insists that it's 95% player would probably think differently if playing on a balsa wood clarinet with a chipped mouthpiece and size 0.5 reeds, held on by scotch tape. I'd say all the factors might be more reasonably described as multipliers or modifiers on a base value of the player.
Taking my RPG references a couple steps further, it's often the combination of complementary components that makes a particularly nice tone... an epic item set, if you will.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bartmann
Date: 2010-03-12 16:43
This is an interesting discussion.
If we think of a piano, Rubenstein hitting middle c and an amateur hitting middle c would sound almost identical. So in this case 99% of the sound comes from the equipment. However once you start comparing the artistry, then the difference between the amateur and the pro becomes huge.
Wind players, like string players have to develop their tone while percussion players, piano included, have their basic sound already there. Pianists, harpsicordists, percussionists, don't play a single note over and over like wind players with their long tones.
Here is a list, starting with equipment dominated instruments to player dominated instruments in terms of pure tone generation
Harpsicord - Most dependent on equipment
Piano
Timpani
Brass
Recorder
Clarinet
Sax
Bassoon
Oboe
Flute
Strings - Most dependent on player
In general percussion instruments have the least control of sound creation while string players have the most control.
I listed Brass above woodwinds because they more out door instruments, and seem to be more about volume than control.
You'll notice the order of Recorder and Clarinet. I kept these together because they don't often employ vibrato, which is another layer of player control of sound generation.
Sax because it often uses vibrato is even more dependent on the player.
The double reeds are more dependent on the player because they are more difficult to handle than a single reed; it takes them longer to develop their sound.
The flute is more dependent on the player because they shape a column of air through their lips and direct it at different parts of the embouchure hole, and at different speeds. A vibrating stream of air is more player dependent than a vibrating reed.
And finally strings are the most dependent on the player because they have the combination of bowing with one hand and vibrato with the other, all this at various speeds.
Here is my breakdown for the clarinet in particular:
60% Player
20% Mouthpiece
15% Reed
2% Upper, lower joints
1% Ligature
1% Barrel
1% Bell
Bartmann
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2010-03-12 19:26
Dan, this is two times in two threads you have personally attacked me. Please stop or I will report you. This is known as trolling. I was making a comment about an analogy to video games, was I offending anyone? I don't think so. So lay off please, k? thx.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-03-13 02:29
[Disclaimer- I make and sell mouthpieces ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif) ]
2% Player
2% Ligature
2% Reed
1% Barrel
1% Bell
2% Upper, lower joints, any other factors
90% Mouthpiece
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-13 02:45
I think a tonal concept 100% guides what a player will sound like.
If someone were forcing me to put these items in order of importance of my current setup that results in my overall sound, i would say:
Mouthpiece
Reed
Instrument (including bell and barrel)
Ligature
Basically. If you say " you can only have two items of your current setup, and we'll give you a random professional everything else", I'd take the reed\mouthpiece every time.
All things guided by MY tonal concept, I would be most able to get my sound out if I had my mouthpiece and reed setup (and ideally, my preferred ligature...that being less important).
For what it's worth- I think this question is kind of pointless in the sense that it pigeonholes people.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-03-13 15:31
"I see that many that have commented feel the barrel has little affect on tone quality. But yet people spend hundreds on barrels. So is the barrel actually more important than 5%, does the barrel contribute to something other than tone, or is 5% extremely important?"
The reason that people are willing to spend so much on a new barrel, or bell for that matter, is that in many cases it helps improve intonation in one way or another. In some cases it makes the clarinet feel better in terms of resistance. And one of the other reasons that people change barrels is to improve their tone quality even if it's only 2 or 5 or 7 percent. Really good fussy players are always looking to improve their tone quality, even by only one percent, so if a different barrel does just that then it's worth the money to that player. The same can be said about ligatures, though they don't cost as much. It's just a matter of always striving for perfection and every little bit can help.
I think you will find that some barrels will really sound different, for the good or the bad, and some will only make a very slight difference so it depends on the player, the instrument and their set up. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2010-03-13 17:10
My problem with the original question, is that, IMO, it tries to divide the indivisible and attribute specific incremental contributions to interrelated components of a system (where, again IMO, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts). Remove the player from the system and what do you have? Does that mean the player contributes 100%. Then how much do the other parts contribute? But wait. Remove the reed from the system and what do you have? So perhaps the reed contributes 100%? Remove the mouthpiece from the system and what do you have? Even the bell probably contributes more than half the system's tone quality if you are interested in the tone quality of low E (on a standard Boehm).
Replace a 4th grader who has just picked up a clarinet for the first time with Ricardo Morales and how much improvement in tone quality do you get?
Change the barrel on that 4th grader's clarinet from the stock barrel to a Bakun and how much improvement do you get? Make the same change in barrel on an intermediate/advanced amateur's instrument and you may get a much more noticeable improvement. Make the same change in with Ricardo playing and you probably get more improvement than the 4th grader but less improvement than the intermediate/advanced amateur.
But, how does one measure tone quality, anyway? Seems to me it would be, at best, subjective placement on an ordinal scale.
MOO,
jnk
(Also chaotic good. Or at least I was until I was killed! ![[frown]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie2.gif) )
Post Edited (2010-03-13 17:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-03-13 17:14
It's not a percentage game. You start out with a "sound," of some ilk and then you decide to tweak something with a different piece of equipment. But I think the "sound" that you want should be there to start (given good fundamentals and a decent horn).
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Connor
Date: 2010-03-13 18:36
49.5% player
49.5% reed
1%-everything else
Ultimately, its not the clarinet that makes the sound, its the interaction between the player and the reed. Without a good reed, the best equipment in the world is worthless and without good fundamentals, the best reed in the world is useless.
More or less, playing the clarinet is really just playing a reed with an expensive tube attached.
MM. Clarinet Performance University of Texas at Austin (2012).
BM. Clarinet Performance University of Northern Colorado (2010).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-03-13 19:13
What a lot of this discussion fails to include is that a really good player's 'tone' is not something that they 'have', and 'use'.
It's rather something that WE assign to them in our hearing experience of their playing.
Just like the 'sound of my voice', the 'sound of my clarinet' includes many things.
Consider: what is the 'sound of my voice'? Well, it includes noises like 'sh', 't' and 'th', but also really weird, nasal vowels and diphthongs, that occur momentarily and yield to other sounds.
And the same is true of my clarinet playing.
Good clarinet playing embodies all of those sounds, and integrates them seamlessly into a musical experience. We need a fundamentally healthy sound, true; but we also need a 'strained sound', and a 'repressed sound', and an 'inconsequential sound' -- as well as (sometimes) the 'noises'.
Y'all underestimate both the subtlety of good playing, and the subtlety of your ear/brain processing systems.
But don't be worried; even great players underestimate it too. (They do it, but aren't conscious of the fact of their doing it:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-03-13 20:48
Back from the metaphyical to the question at hand. 1. Player 2. Reed 3. mouthpiece 4. instrument 5. ligature etc. The first four are very significant ....probably almost equal and of course influence one another just like a recipe.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-03-13 21:11
Arnoldstang wrote:
>> Back from the metaphyical to the question at hand.>>
I'm fed up with this man. Why does this supposedly rational community let him post rubbish here without significant comment?
I had a long 'discussion' with him about support -- see the 'Keepers' section -- in which he demonstrated conclusively that he has an opinion of himself that is so at odds with rational discourse as to defy belief.
Having taken him seriously for what I now see was an unreasonable length of time, I'm now going on the offensive.
Who will join me? I need to know.
I think HE needs to know.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2010-03-13 21:26
-- The reason that people are willing to spend so much on a new barrel, or bell for that matter, is that in many cases it helps improve intonation in one way or another. In some cases it makes the clarinet feel better in terms of resistance. --
Yes, I think you're absolutely right. A different barrel can redirect the air so much that the clarinet responds very differently.
I'm not so sure about the bell though. Surely that will only alter the lowest note?
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: whole note
Date: 2010-03-13 21:41
This is a really fun question. Here is the opinion of a serious amateur.
15% IQ/general brain power
20% ear (ability to hear what you are after, and taking time to listen and watch a lot of good players, also taping and critiquing yourself)
20% toned mouth muscles from consistent practice, and general good physical shape for air supply
15% mouthpiece
15% reed
10% clarinet
4.5% barrels and bells
.5% ligature--but every .5% helps...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-03-13 21:48
Tony Pay wrote:
> Arnoldstang wrote:
>
> >> Back from the metaphyical to the question at hand.>>
>
> I'm fed up with this man. Why does this supposedly rational
> community let him post rubbish here without significant
> comment?
I thought the whole thread rather strange, trying to assign percentages to something that would, at least to me, be best answered as 'it depends, and I'm wrong as soon as I say it ...'
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-03-13 21:50
If someone wants to post crap, that's their problem. All you can do is take care of your own posts.
That being said, I don't think anything Tony just said comes from some abstract realm; it's very relevant to the discussion. He's dead right about good players to not having just one "sound," like good tone is something you turn on and off. To answer the question, the sound in your head dictates your tone(s) more than anything else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-03-14 03:18
"If someone wants to post crap, that's their problem. All you can do is take care of your own posts"......I think that's what I do. I do my best. I may not suffer genius well but so be it. (no obsequiousness intended) I think good players do have one good sound. It is the sound that identifies them. It is their sound. Marcellus, Leister, Goodman, Shaw, It is not this incredible hyperbolic palate of tonal colours. It is the beauty of oneness. Sure you can argue that there is so much detail in the makeup of anything just as I would argue for the simplicity. My preference here is based on what I come away with after hearing a performance or recording....my experience. This boils down to one sound that can be emulated . It isn't 1000 different tonal colours.......just one. That's why I argue for simplicity in this case.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-03-14 04:13
Of course Robert Marcellus is identifiable because he sounds like Robert Marcellus, but Robert Marcellus did not have only one sound. If you think so, you "have potatoes in your ears." His Ginastera sounds different than his Brahms which sounds different than his Ravel which sounds different than his Tchaikovsky. Ever heard his Sibelius or Liszt?
Karl Leister did not have one "sound." Karajan wouldn't have stood for it. In my opinion, the amazing thing about the Berlin Philharmonic woodwind section is its ability to blend and still maintain a beautiful characteristic sound of each particular instrument- you can not do this with one sound.
I'm all for simplicity, but how YOU feel when you hear a great clarinetist- "the beauty of oneness" has nothing to do with how the sound is actually produced.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Its_Michael
Date: 2010-03-14 05:03
I'd like to jump in on this discussion.
It seems to me that the bell and the two joints are mostly responsible for the quality of the sound, or the purity of the sound produced. The barrel begins to affect the color of the tone a little, but the biggest difference in color is created by the mouthpiece, reed, ligature, and the player. People spend money on equipment both to improve the quality of their sound and to adjust tone color. Both are important for a good sound.
I would say the purity and cleanness of as player's sound is part of what distinguishes a great clarinetist, like Marcellus, while their color shows their preference of sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2010-03-14 05:17
Tony wrote:
Who will join me? I need to know.
Tony,
Try the Israeli way: Follow Me !
:-)
Mark wrote:
I thought the whole thread rather strange....
Yes, even a little embarrassing .
Sarah
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kiseoglee
Date: 2010-03-14 09:55
I think... this question has some contradiction..
No instrument sounds without player... The palyer might be whole.
The question should be, how much does each part of instrument contribute to good sound by single player?
In my opinion,
Mouthpiece : 30%
Reed: 30%
Barrel: 10%
LIgature: trivial
Upper, lower joints and bells: 30%
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexandre
Date: 2010-03-14 13:12
Well, in Tone Quality I think it is:
60% Player
20% Mouthpiece
5% Ligature
10% Reed
2.5% Barrel
2.5% Bell
0% Upper, lower joints, any other factors
Why? We all know that the player is the most important factor, but the mouthpiece and the reed are really important too.
That's why people spent thousands of dollars/euros in new mouthpieces and reeds.
The ligature makes a tiny difference, sometimes I test few ligatures and the sound changes a little.
The barrel and the bell don't almost make a difference. But a good barrel and bell is has good has a nice ligature.
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-03-14 20:32
vin wrote:
Quote:
If you think so, you "have potatoes in your ears." His Ginastera sounds different than his Brahms which sounds different than his Ravel which sounds different than his Tchaikovsky.
And even that's an oversimplification of things. There are a lot of different ways to use tone/timbre as an expressive device. Even in the same piece, a good player will often vary what he/she is doing tonally to fit the character of the music at that point in time. As Tony pointed out, they may not be fully aware that that's what they are doing, but that is what they do.
Moreover, a lot of those things that we might consider to be characteristic of a particular player are not static, but are things that vary with time--much like a person's speaking voice or accent, which is made up of lots of different combinations of sounds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-03-14 23:25
In response to Vin , if you don't hear the essence of Marcellus throughout all his playing then you have potatoes in your ears. I'm speaking of "your" personal sound. All great players have it......James Galway, Rampal, Nat King Cole(vocally) David Sanborn, Albrecht Mayer. They all have a sound concept. It has variety but it has what I called "oneness" to it. After establishing this "essence" or concept of sound we can then modify it for various situations.
On further thought I guess what i'm getting to is what you would get if you asked Robert Marcellus to play a relatively slow scale up and down. I'm sure he would have obliged with a beautiful sounding scale without having to ask whether you wanted it a la Brahms or any other composer. It would be Marcellus tone.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2010-03-15 02:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Its_Michael
Date: 2010-03-15 05:16
I mostly agree. Players typically have a sound that is uniquely theirs, although some aspects of tone may vary over time and for different moods.
However, when playing a drastically different style, the same player's tone may be very different. Eddie Daniels, for example, has such a distinct jazz tone, but when he plays classical, he has an entirely separate sound. This is due to both setup and playing style, but he chooses very different tones depending on what he is playing. I don't think there is one 'essence' that links these two sounds. Maybe each player has their own unique sound in each style of music?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RoBass
Date: 2010-03-15 06:37
Hi Folks,
the sound of the player itself was not the question ;-) Was the question, if you feel any influences fromamaterial and what proportion it is ;-)
kindly
Roman
PS: If no influences from diffrent materials are given (see some statements above), why we discuss about reeds, manufacturing quality and MPCs endless? Then it's only a problem of the player... **ggg**
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-03-15 08:12
A related question:
On a front door security system, which is the most important, the lock mechanism or the key?
And, what percentage of each?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-03-15 08:49
Why guess...? I can calculate the % exactly by using a formula. Sorry, I will not post it here, I'm considering a patent.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sarah Elbaz
Date: 2010-03-15 09:23
"A related question:
On a front door security system, which is the most important, the lock mechanism or the key?
And, what percentage of each?"
Tony
Most important is the person who shouldn't forget to lock the door...:-)
Sarah
Post Edited (2010-03-15 09:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-03-15 14:09
There is a recording of a masterclass with Robert Marcellus where he demonstrates what happens if he plays with what he calls the same exact tongue/oral cavity position all the way into the altissimo. He demonstrates, and in the altissimo, it doesn't sound like Robert Marcellus; it sounds bad. He then demonstrates with what he calls a slight change in the tongue position; it sounds homogenous and beautiful- like we're used to from Robert Marcellus.
You have to do many different things to produce great phrasing and a beautiful sound. What sounds like "oneness" is actually many small components linked together to create the illusion of oneness.
Post Edited (2010-03-15 14:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-03-15 15:38
Dear vin,
PLEASE provide some means to obtain this recording. This is JUST what I'm presently working on and have approached one of his students about this recently.
Your help would be GREATLY appreciated !!!!
.............thank you in advance,
..........................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-03-15 15:54
I would ask one of his students- Guy Chadash or Dennis Nygren come to mind.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-03-15 17:30
Dear vin,
So, you've heard the recording, or were at the "said" masterclass?
Either way, I am a six hour's drive from Northwestern and would happily jump in my car stat if I knew the recording was available at a standard listening carol at the library (lovely campus).
...................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2010-03-15 18:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-03-16 00:41
I was not at the class, but I've heard the recording many times. It's not commercially available; it was someone's private recording of the class. I forget where it's from- Banff, perhaps? Like I said, try contacting the two I mentioned earlier or another of his students.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-03-16 01:20
Dear vin,
Thank you; I'm on it. Guy is looking for the copy as we speak.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ElisaUK
Date: 2010-03-26 18:31
Oh! Hallo! I don't know if this is the best thread to try but I think my problem may be relevant here (unless someone knows of another more suitable thread). I am having such problems with the starting of notes, which of course affects the subsequent tone. As I start to blow a note I either get a bit of a 'bump' or - worse still - that awful 'blowing nose' sort of groaning sound before the note comes out. Horrible! What am I doing wrong? How can I sort this? Any advice most gratefully received.
Elisabeth
Elisabeth
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-03-28 14:11
Elisabeth, the start of a note is challenging for everyone. It is called the "attack". Many people don't think it is an appropriate label as it is sometimes very gentle. I would suggest you try to separate the results you are getting and focus on the techniques. I say this as the reed itself will affect the results so much. Beginners will try to make any reed function and in doing so will contort their mouths any way they can to produce results. More experienced players will just blame the reed and adjust it or throw it out.
Here are some things your might try. Form your embouchure and blow through the instrument very softly without creating a sound. You should just be moving air slowly. Snug the mouthpiece in your mouth by exerting some upward pressure with the right thumb. This will stabilize the instrument while playing. Increase the air speed gradually until sound is produced. Do this many times to determine when the sound starts. It is important that you form your embouchure before blowing. If you form your embouchure simultaneously with blowing there is more chance you will choke the sound off and generally you will have less control of when the note will start and the tone quality of the note.
If you compare the start of a note to the golf swing you would have a backswing (inhale) and the swing (exhale). It is a package for many people. If you think of the "attack" as part of a pendulum like process breathing in ....changing direction and then blowing it can make the start of the note more controlled. There is a youtube video of a trumpet teaching focusing on this pendulum start to a note . The result is the beginning of the note will sound better. If you are playing a whole note it should sound nice instantly after the note starts not two beats in.
I will leave this topic at this point. Maybe someone else will help continue with it. Using the tongue with the attack is the next step.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ElisaUK
Date: 2010-03-29 22:28
Thank you, Arnold for all the trouble you have taken explaining to me about the golf swing method of "attack". I have copied and typed out your message and pinned it to my music stand so that I can look at it while I am practising! I sometimes achieve the gentle "attack" you mention but it's still a bit hit and miss. But I know if I persevere it will help with my tone production. Also, I must get some new reeds. I have been playing with my old ones for far too long.
I haven't yet managed to find the YouTube video you mention about trumpet playing, but I will persevere.
I am slightly puzzled about your last comment "Using the tongue with the attack is the next step". With my last two teachers we always did tonguing, but my latest teacher (who is only 21) is totally against tonguing except in very fast passages. She says it should all come from the diaphragm. Maybe there are different schools of thought about tonguing.
Thank you again so much for your help.
Elisabeth
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-03-30 23:46
It might be best to just email me directly regarding this. Just click on my name for my email address. thanks
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2010-04-01 10:13
The golf-swing analogy (or pendulum analogy) gives a slowish beginning to the note. Sometimes that's what's required; but very often the sound needs to begin more immediately, and at a precise moment in the music.
There are two ways to achieve this. The first is to delay the vibration of the reed by resting your tongue very gently on the reed for a moment and then removing it when the air pressure has built up -- ie, a bit later in the club or pendulum swing.
In this method a common mistake is to think that the sound begins with the placing of the tongue on the reed -- whereas of course, the sound begins with the REMOVAL of the tongue from the reed. You can see that the tongue action needs to be very delicate and precise, especially in the upper register.
The other way, and the way that your teacher is probably looking to have you follow, is to delay the effect of your blowing muscles (a combination of your abdominal and back muscles) not at the reed, but by using your diaphragm muscle. This is more analogous to the process of shooting an arrow from a bow than the process of swinging a golf club.
You set up the system (draw the bow) by (1) taking a breath whilst making yourself as 'fat' as possible (ie not pulling your belly in); and then (2) activating your abdominal and back muscles, as though to protect yourself against a gentle punch to your midriff. You'll find you can do this without (yet) playing, and the reason that's possible is that you are using your diaphragm muscle to hold back the action of your blowing muscles, even though you can't feel the diaphragm directly (it contains no sensory nerves).
Your diaphragm muscle then relaxes -- whenever you want -- allowing the note to begin. It's just like shooting the arrow.
This method creates a more direct beginning to the note. Your tongue need not be involved.
I do sometimes myself use a combination of both methods, in which the tongue, used hardly at all, has what we might call a 'cosmetic' role to play, making the beginning of the note just that little bit more precise.
You might find the following reference useful:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=316748&t=316712&v=t
Tony
Post Edited (2010-04-01 10:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-04-01 17:48
Tony's remarks are great. If you use a "golf swing" like approach occasionally then watch this video.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tx3dxOAQo
On further thought I think there should always be a swing like approach to inhale/exhale process. it can be quick or slow depending on the situation. Even if you have the embouchure set and the tongue on the reed ready to go you can visualize a swing or make a small physical gesture to prepare the start of the note. Somehow it seems better to me to visualize the swing rather than just use a static start. When working with a conductor it is linked of course to his/her preparatory beat.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2010-04-02 14:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2010-04-02 15:37
For what it's worth, heres my pennyworth.
Player 75%
Mouthpiece 8%
Reed/ligature 5%
Barrel 5%
Bell 3%
All other factors, instrument, phases of the moon, etc, 4%
These make the assumption that the player is playing an instrument suited to their level of skill and experience and in good condition. A novice will not get the most benefit from a professional instrument, while a professional may well get a good result from a student instrument. For this reason I've rated the instrument quite low on the scale. A good player will get the best possible result out of whatever they are playing. Mouthpiece, reed, ligature, etc are largely a matter of personal preference and even if there is no definable reason for the difference they make, the very fact that they are present means that they will make a difference.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
