 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: oca
Date: 2012-03-25 20:20
The mouthpiece does have the greatest effect on sound, but how does changing the body of the clarinet while the mouthpiece is constant affect sound (besides tuning of notes)?
People usually have a permanent body, and experiment with different mouthpieces; is there logic in having a permanent mouthpiece and experimenting with different bodies?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-03-25 23:52
Funny, I always thought the player had the greatest effect on sound. Shows how much I know. I will say though that, if I had a body 30-40 years younger than the one I have, it would affect my sound. I would sound a lot happier.
Post Edited (2012-03-26 01:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2012-03-26 03:22
Body as in the upper and lower joint of the clarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2012-03-26 07:09
Well...if the body had no effect on the sound, why would there be different makes or models, undercut or straight, plastic or wood?
I think one reason people juggle with mouthpieces rather than bodies is that the former are (in most cases) cheaper.
But when one tries out a new instrument, in many cases one does so with one's favourite mouthpiece.
But I agree with Jack - you'll sound like you rather independently of your setup.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-03-26 12:35
I laid out my six best mouthpieces on a table and, to echo Jascha Heifitz, I didn't hear a thing. FWIW, the reason I would like to try a younger body is that I'd like to see if the upper and lower joints ache a little less.
But it also occurs to me that if your mouthpiece doesn't work, you could wind up IN the joint. (Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-03-26 16:37
Who ever claimed the mp had the greatest effect on the sound?
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-03-27 02:02
I had an interesting experience along these lines about a year ago during a sax lesson, and until it happened, I had never thought about this. The setup on my alto is free-blowing, and it really works for me. I wanted to try a student's horn (which was in excellent condition), and I put my mouthpiece on it. Suddenly, this great mouthpiece-reed combo was a dud, a poor match for this other sax. As soon as I put it back on my alto, though, everything was fine again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-03-27 03:44
Considering the impedance created by the mouthpiece, the mouthpiece has a lesser affect on the resultant sound than would be expected.
Though this post's Genesis is a bit of a thought experiment if I understand it correctly, I can think of 2 caveats:
***The response of the sound is greatly affected by the facing (and to a lesser extent the chamber, and bore); and of course a good reed.
***The influence of the mouthpiece becomes much stronger when the reed's vibrational frequency (coupled with the commensurate vocal tract tuning) to exert an affect on the sound produced; even to the extent that the standing wave inside the bore jumps between between differing harmonics (or what some incorrectly term a "squeak.")
All that being said, the subjective interpretation of the effects of the clarinet body itself is a discussion somewhat akin to running across a firing squad; without the proper Kevlar body-armor.
i.e. I'll refrain, save one quip: I was playing a back-up clarinet for an outdoor concert (with Placido Domingo, not to name drop.... O.K. just a little) and the second clarinetist (whom knows my playing quite well) was surprised that it was not my "top-shelf" instrument upon listening at a distance. At first I was a bit insulted--- Then I actually thought to myself "well, I am working more to make this secondary clarinet sound how I wish, but a difference was not noticed by ears that I trusted."
You sound like you sound, it's just how you accomplish it: "higher-end" equipment simply can make that easier if you find something that is a bit more tailored to your body. Human body that is.......... but you still have to play the inert thing
-Jason
[edited for clarity]
Post Edited (2012-03-27 18:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-03-27 03:47
Also, strictly on a pragmatic level, experimenting with differing mouthpieces is a tad cheaper than rummaging through much more expensive clarinets to match said mouthpieces.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2012-03-27 03:58
The ads from some clarinet manufacturers seem to suggest that a smaller bore may result in a "darker" sound while a larger bore may create a "brighter" sound. I'm sure they would not mislead us.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-03-27 05:06
Hans,
surely ad men would never lead us astray?!?!?!? ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
-----------------------------------------------------
Actually it is more complicated than that (Benade (R.I.P.), and Stephen Fox could speak with far more authority than me.)
The size of the bore has less to do with tone color than where the modes of resonance are located; or the bore shape. (Though the bore size can allow these modes to be slightly adjusted.) The stronger the lower frequency modes- the "darker" the sound; the greater presence of higher frequency modes- the "brighter" the sound.
However, cut-off frequencies also play a larger part in the equation; both at the tone-holes, coupled with bore shape variances, and even the bell-taper (hence Backun's "voicing groove" I imagine- though I have never tested one.) The bell itself even serves to lengthen the tube and weaken the higher resonance modes a bit. (A clarinet without a bell will sound much "brighter" in the lower chalumeau and clarion as the higher frequency modes are less weakened.) Tone-holes (and their under-cutting) affect cut-off frequencies (simply think that they send some of the acoustic waves back upward towards the acoustic impediance of mouthpiece,) which will change the resultant sound. (and pitch.....)
Tuning can be compensated with tone hole location/ undercutting- but that would skew the location of resonance modes and tone-color via cut-off frequencies. (A vicious and cost-prohibitive snowball effect.)
Matching the resonance modes of the clarinet bore to the standing-wave generated by the mouthpiece/reed combination holds some merit, but it would need to be different for each specific player, playing at a constant dynamic, and even to some effect the reed strength itself. If the dynamic level is changed, the volume of the mouthpiece chamber is slightly altered (the reed is vibrating through a differing range of motion, changing the volume of the mouthpiece chamber) which would slightly skew all the precise adjustments. Playing at a louder dynamic would also produce a higher presence of high-frequency modes in the resultant sound. Finally, a more resistant reed will naturally have a stronger presence of high frequencies in the tone (every notice how it can be much easier to "squeak" on a stiffer reed; you're simply playing a higher frequency mode of resonance.)
All-in-all, I am not trying to be defeatist and say it can never be accomplished, though the path is hidden to me at least. But if one can develop such an instrument, I'd be first in line--- even though the cost would far exceed the artistically beautiful clarinets Backun is currently producing (which I also have not had the fortune to play and am in no way affiliated with.)
-----------------------------------
At the end, find the mouthpiece that fits you best, a good reed, and a clarinet that has the compromises in the most comfortable places for you personally.
-Jason
[edited for clarity]
Post Edited (2012-03-27 05:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-03-27 05:27
A lot of people DO try different bodies (clarinet bodies that is). It's called choosing a clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2012-03-27 09:06
Buster, in what order should a player find his/her equipment?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-03-27 14:35
IMO, there is a problem with this question, too. Though I don't think it's silly like the original one. IMO, it's the wrong question. Again, IMO, the question shouldn't be "in what order," it should be "by what process."
Another, in some ways simpler, way to say what Jason is saying is to note that a clarinet and its player are a system, a set of coordinated parts. This system takes inputs provided by the player (e.g., airstream, finger movement, change in the oral cavity and a lot of other things the player can do, some of which composers probably haven't figured out yet), and provided by the environment (e.g., temperature, humidity, air pressure, and who knows what else). It processes these inputs to achieve an objective. In its broadest form, we might identify the objective as producing "music" as an output. At a somewhat lower (more specific) level, we might identify the objective as generating outputs that together form a "sound" that we hear. This "sound" itself has a number of parameters, including, e.g., pitch, tone color, volume. Different components of the system may have their primary effects on different aspects of the sound but they may also have secondary effects and interactive effects. But remove any part of the system (if we consider the barrel, body and bell to be a single part) and there is no music.
So I would say the answer to your question is that one doesn't choose parts in a particular order, ideally one chooses them simultaneously. The player defines the system's objective, i.e., the nature of the sound the system should produce (which may or may not vary over time). The player is also an integral part of the system. So the player's objectives and physical characteristics determine what set of equipment (the clarinet) will be optimal. In this case, the most efficient approach is to determine which components, including clarinet body, bell, barrel, mouthpiece, reed and ligature, have the greatest probability of being optimal IN COMBINATION to achieve the desired objective given the clarinetist's physical characteristics. A starting point is research but, given the information out there, that can only take you so far. Eventually, you have to settle on an initial set, obtain the desired equipment and then see if it works. If it doesn't work, then you have to ask "what doesn't work about it?" Then, do more research to find out which component part(s) you need to replace to solve your specific problem. Too much resistance? Try a softer reed or a different brand of reed. If that doesn't work, try a different mouthpiece or a different reed/mouthpiece combination and so on.
Here's a simple example. Consider a child just starting out. The objective is for the child to be able to learn fundamentals and make simple music without having to struggle. (I'm simplifying here. Given more time, I should probably be able to come up with a better statement of objective. The point is that the starting point should be identifying the objective.) Once I have my objective, I look at the child's physical characteristics (and, perhaps, personality characteristics) and try to decide what equipment has the greatest likelihood of helping achieve the objective. This depends on the child but here are some characteristics that might make sense to consider: (1) the clarinet shouldn't be too heavy, (2) the mouthpiece/reed (interactive effect here) shouldn't be very resistant, (3) the finger spread shouldn't be too great, (4) the clarinet should be of solid construction, (5) the pads should seal well, (6) there should not be any mechanical defects. You can probably think of others but perhaps you see my point. We identify the characteristics we want in a clarinet to achieve our objectives and then select the equipment that is most likely to meet those objectives. (And, in the case of our child, we hope the person selecting the equipment knows a lot about selecting equipment for novices.) In the case of our child, we might decide on a new plastic clarinet from a major manufacturer with a good-quality (targeted) student mouthpiece and a decent-quality, relatively light reed, maybe a Rico Royal #2. The ligature probably doesn't matter as long as it's easy to use and holds the reed on firmly so we can use the one that comes with the clarinet or buy an inexpensive one, perhaps a Luyben. The point is, we need to choose all the components carefully because, if even one fails, the system fails. Buy a child a new R13 with a Fobes Debut mouthpiece, an appropriate ligature, good reeds and a Backun bell and fatboy barrel and the system may fail if it's too heavy for the child to handle comfortably. Buy a great student clarinet but give the kid a mouthpiece that's too resistant (or warped) and the system will probably fail. Saying "I'll get a good clarinet (mouthpiece) now and worry about the mouthpiece (clarinet) later doesn't work.
Once you have the system assembled, you monitor it for effectiveness and efficiency and tweak it where necessary. In the case of the child, hopefully sooner rather than later.
MOO,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-03-27 19:40
oca,
Though I have little I can add to Jack's well-reasoned reply, (which is far more pragmatic than my generically-scientific answer to Hans' question.).......
***With a promise that I am genuinely not trying be obtuse, I would say that I "found" my equipment in the order that I found it.
------------------------------------------
Through all of this meandering though, the "key" question has ultimately arisen: "Whom is doing the finding of equipment?"
1). With a beginner (that has little idea as to what they should be searching for), the instructor should be the guide. Let's simply pray that instructor is knowledgeable and honest.
2). With an advancing (let's say junior-high/high-school) student, whose ears have grown along with their physical abilities, they may interject something into the equation that spurs the need for some differing equipment. The instructor should still guide, but allow the student to perhaps "select" from the best given options.
3). As a musician advances onward through their education (perhaps at the collegiate level?), the role of the instructor as an "equipment guide" diminishes and the ability of the student to effectively choose grows. Obviously, if a student shows up with some "Golden Lorelei" or "Cardboard Valhalla", some remedial equipment guidance from the instructor needs to be interjected.
4). As a professional (whom still does make equipment changes, though far less than many assume), one is left to their own devices in choosing. When I was actively playing in the orchestra, I handled my few equipment alterations quite carefully.
-Firstly, I had to make sure I was comfortable enough to do what I needed to perform my job (which was accomplished at home.)
-Secondly, I had to truly decide if what the "positive" change elicited was truly an audible one, or more a tactile change. (Sometimes the answer may surprise you.)
-Thirdly, once comfortable at home, I would go to rehearsal and see if anybody noticed a difference with the change (either positive or negative.) Then I would flat-out ask the wind principals (in particular the bassoon, oboe, flute, and french-horn) at break if they found any difficulties in pitch, blend etc.... if none were noted, then I could be assured that what I had changed was acceptable. (If the conductor raised an eye-brow I guess that would be a clue as well; fortunately it never came to that.)
Reliability, and constancy (if only for the sake of one's peers) are of paramount importance....
1. Response/pitch
2. Tone quality/ ability for coloration
3. Dynamic range: in particular the ability to hold the sound and pitch at soft dynamics. (No-one really needs to hear a Schumann Symphony with constant clarinet obbligato.)
---------------------------------------------
To answer the initial question: my reply to Hans' fits the bill the best I can muster currently.
As for an answer to the second question: that is the way I have preceded re. my equipment progression oca (sorry I do not know your first name). Perhaps others paths may have differed, but I cannot speak for any but myself.
If you are truly interested in the specific equipment changes I have made then I will gladly oblige, but I do think the intelligence behind why is of far more importance for anyone else following this to read.
to butcher a brilliant quote from Bobby Jones "Golf (and music) is played on a 5 and a 1/2 inch space.... the space between your ears."
the effect of that "body part" is the most influential of all..............
Best regards,
-Jason
[edited for errors]
Post Edited (2012-03-27 19:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2012-03-27 23:58
Thank you all for such wonderful responses, I have learned more than I had hoped for
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
