 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-06-30 09:20
I did a search, but didn't really find what I was looking for, or maybe I just didn't use the right query. Or I missed something that was said in a long post. In any case. (Sorry, long-ish, but trying to be thorough)
My question is re: accessing the higher altissimo. Mainly, 4th register B and above (A6 and higher, in concert pitch notation). Does the reed need a certain amount of stiffness/resistance to get these notes out, or is accessing these notes purely voicing/air? I'm aware there's a general "minimum" resistance for a reed to be able to sustain altissimo, but I've found that threshold to be surprisingly high (in other words, it's surprising how soft a reed one can actually go before these notes no longer play).
My "normal" range (scales, chromatics, arpeggios) seems limited to Ab6 (Bb6)...which certainly for most musical circumstances is "high enough". The only reason I wish to go higher is mostly for personal reasons...the Prokofiev Flute Sonata requires at least a D7(E7) concert to be able to play the whole thing in the right range. Kind of a personal project "for fun" so to speak. Also, it would be nice to get that CMaj arpeggio in Baermann III...
Anyway, I've only managed to get A6 and Bb6 (B6 and C7) if I bite. And I mean actually biting the reed (with the embouchure, not the teeth!). Using voicing alone, the notes just don't come out...I hit either undertones or split harmonics.
When my reed feels balanced, or even if it's just OK, I get feedback in my mouth when I play in the altissimo register. I can't really explain it correctly...the air just feels right and the pressure inside my oral cavity feels a certain way. As I progress up the chromatic scale, it changes, and you can feel if the note is going to be stable or not. When I try to hit A6...it goes away...it's like the reed won't vibrate.
Anyway, I'll see if I have time to post a clip of a chromatic scale so you can hear where it chokes up, but if anyone has ideas on reeds/voicing/exercises etc...it'd be appreciated.
Minor details:
I'm currently using a Fobes Cicero 13, V12 3.5 reeds.
I voice with a high tongue position.
I don't play double lip, BUT try to play as open as possible, as if I were.
I don't voice with my throat (as far as I can tell anyway)...it feels like it's all done via tongue position.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-06-30 16:01
Lorenzo,
I don't have any specifics to offer in terms of advice beyond what I posted in another thread. My own altissimo came together pretty easily when I was young, and because of that, I'm not sure what other folks' hurdles might be--though I tend to not be interested in anything over Double C for my style (anything beyond seems gimmicky and unnatural to my ear--just my take).
I CAN debunk some things based off my own experience...here are some points:
1. I've played strong, flexible altissimo on both French (Selmer) and German (Wurlitzer) instruments, using a variety of mouthpieces and a variety of reed strengths. My German setup was very light---#2 Legeres on either Viotto N1 mp or Zinner/Pieterson model. On a Selmer CT or 10S I've had success with anything from a 2.5--3.5 Legere and the equivilant Vandorens, though it's been a long time since I used those regularly.
I use pretty normal mouthpieces on my Selmers: Anything from Vandoren B40 or B45, to Pomarico Crystals to Selmer C85 series mps.
2. It's a misconception that hard reeds are needed--in fact, they can get in the way. Ed Palanker mentioned a whole bunch of variables in another thread. Experimentation is needed.
Once a rather famous clarinet prof told me I'd need harder reeds if I wanted to play up high. He didn't know how many times I'd played the Artie Shaw concerto before saying it! I tooted some notes and dispelled his concerns.
3. Abs of steel and super fast air stream are not needed, though beginners might need to do those things at first, until the find the "sweet spot" on the horn.
4. Check out Artie Shaw and Pete Fountain--two different concepts for a full, beautiful sounding altissimo, and neither of them struggles or needs to do super-human bodily tasks to get it. Youtube footage of them might help you--I found, as a kid, that watching Second Chorus actually helped me play better--seeing Artie's posture showed me how to relax into the sound better.
Good luck!
Eric
PS. I've played decent altissimo on Buffets too, though of the brands, it was the toughest--the notes were much more uneven and stuffy. The best instruments for altisso (for my style) have always been Selmers--though I'd love to try a Leblanc Big Easy or Dynamic H someday. My bet is that all the major brands can play well up there with enough work.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2012-06-30 18:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2012-06-30 16:53
One factor regarding the ability to effortlessly produce very high notes is the shallowness of the mouthpiece's baffle.
Of course there are other factors in a mouthpiece's internal design that affect high note production, but a shallow baffle is one of the most important aspects in getting effortless high notes.
Mouthpiece makers say that a shallow baffle accentuates high overtones, which is why high notes come out more easily on a mpc with a shallow baffle and is why jazz mouthpieces have such relatively shallow baffles.
I have colleagues/former teachers that switch to a mouthpiece with a shallow baffle to play concertos that stay in the very high altissimo for long periods (eg Corigliano).
I do the same thing. When I played La Chute d'Icare by Brian Ferneyhough (which is very high) I played it on one of my old Kaspars that gives up very high notes. When I play a concerto written for me by Robin deRaaff, which is very high, I use a shallow-baffled M15.
In fact, when I played the deRaaff, I went to my local music store and tried all their shallow-baffled mouthpieces and picked an M15 solely on its intrinsic capacity to "give up" very high notes. The mpc did not sound good in the lower registers, but the only criteria in judging the mpc was its intrinsic very high register.
I have experienced that the down-side of a shallow baffle is that the sound can be glassy, shallow or strident.
When I finish playing whatever "high-note concerto" it was I played, and I return to my regular mpc, chosen for its sound quality, pitch and playability in conventional orchestral and chamber settings, I am greatly relieved and can not imagine playing those particular high-note mpcs in a normal setting.
I suppose it is up to the player to judge whether the tradeoff, being able to produce high notes by simply fingering them, is worth it.
One of the factors in judging if the tradeoff is worth it, is preparation time.
I received the deRaaff two weeks before the premier. It is a long 5-movement work and I could see I was going to bite through my lower lip practicing the high passages on my Zinner-blank mpc (deep baffle).
Sometimes set-up choices (temporary or permanent) are made out of self-preservation!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-06-30 18:58
Keep in mind too, that there are tons of fingerings for the different notes up there. And some fingerings work MUCH better than others as far as dependability and getting the note to pop out correctly every time.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-07-01 17:29
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I guess I'll just have to go through the Opperman and Ridenour fingerings books again and figure it out. I just recently switched mouthpieces too, and it seems to facilitate high register playing much easier...almost too easy. Part of it being that it has a much higher (or "shallower" as Simon calls it) baffle than anything I've ever played before.
It seems as long as the reed is hard enough to support the player's particular blowing style, and that it is able to vibrate unrestricted, that it should be strong enough for these notes.
It's a bit annoying to be 2 half steps away from the Baermann III full range though, ha.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-01 17:52
"It's a bit annoying to be 2 half steps away from the Baermann III full range though, ha."
Ah, but at least you care enough to work on it, Lorenzo! That's really half the battle. you wouldn't believe the number of "professors" who allow their strudents to work through Baermann III without even attempting the full range.
Here's a helpful hint for the arpeggios in the scale section at the beginning of Baermann III:
Sometimes it's not the highest note's fingering that is the problem--but the "set-up" G or A. Experiment not only with fingerings for the highest notes in those passages, but with the others. You might be surprised.
Good luck!
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-07-01 18:14
Thanks Eric. It's been many years since I've been in school, and I've just started back up practicing the clarinet as much as I can. I was a classical major for only two years then, but was able to easily play to that concert Ab. For years (until I stopped playing clarinet full-time to focus on other things I wanted to do) it was "good enough". I suppose for most normal things, it's still good enough....I mean, Francaix and Weber only go up to Ab....
but taking it back up and trying to be serious about it, and hearing on youtube and other places the standard of clarinet players these days. It's both inspiring and defeating, ha. The standard is much higher.
And this is why I care. The standard is higher, so my personal standard should be as well. Even if ultimately this is just an amateur pursuit, I want to be able to have as few limitations as possible. Right now, I have time to work on it...I may not have time later on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-07-01 18:22
and I don't know if it was the same anywhere else, but when I was in school (2000's) above high G (F6) was considered "extra" and not really "standard" of the range. At least as an undergrad. Even of the grad students, I'm not sure if I heard many of them playing pieces requiring double high C's.
But maybe I wasn't really paying attention. I was really starting to be more focused on playing the saxophone (jazz) instead...ha.
----
added: I should probably add, most of the undergrads were education majors, though in principle I wouldn't think that should matter.
Post Edited (2012-07-02 10:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-07-01 19:42
Very interesting comments by Simon Aldrich about the effect of different mouthpieces on altissimo. From trying many different mouthpieces, I'd reached a related conclusion: the mouthpieces that give you the best sound for general playing make altissimo more difficult. But I'd guessed that this might be to do with tip opening, with too close a facing making super-high notes easier. Simon: do you find tip opening to have much of an effect, compared to baffle depth?
The trouble is, making a nice sound throughout the bulk of the registers is hard to remove as a priority. We all spend much of our time wanting to sound better, and I'd just find it too depressing to play on a mouthpiece that I could feel was spoiling the basic sound all the time. Thus I've resigned myself to the fact that super-altissimo and I are never going to be the best of friends. It's really just B and C that seem a big step up in difficulty - with the long fingering, Bb pops out easily. I wish I knew fingerings for B/C that worked as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2012-07-01 19:53
Simon, what do you mean by a low baffle? I'm guessing that you mean that the roof of the mouthpiece lies closer to the reed.
Right?
Thank you.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-07-01 20:10
I'm guessing by "shallow" baffle, Simon means "high" baffle. In the U.S., anyway, low baffle has less material on the roof and high baffle has more.
After speaking with Chris Hill, he mentioned that the Chedevilles he's worked with have all had higher baffles than most mouthpieces today, and in general just have more material there. I just got a Fobes Cicero a week or so ago, and also noticed it has a higher baffle than most other popular mouthpieces. Even in comparison to other Zinner pieces. I haven't gotten my trial pieces yet, but Chris mentioned his pieces do have higher baffles than others.
It's not just ease of alitissimo...I noticed a fair amount of additional ring to my sound, and additional clarity in staccato and shorter articulations. The tradeoff is the higher baffle in this Fobes DOES add more edge...but from 10 or more feet away, I think it adds more presence and clarity to the sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2012-07-03 06:19
John Peacock wrote: "From trying many different mouthpieces, I'd reached a related conclusion: the mouthpieces that give you the best sound for general playing make altissimo more difficult."
I have found that to be the case as well, generally speaking, particularly these days with the popularity of deep-baffled mouthpieces like those made on Zinner blanks. That is not a criticism of Zinner blanks but rather a compliment.
John continued: "The trouble is, making a nice sound throughout the bulk of the registers is hard to remove as a priority."
This is not only a very good point but also a point I intentionally skirted in my original post, since it was not entirely relevant to the original poster's question and because it might open a can of worms. But it is an important point because it touches on the tradeoff that many contemporary players make.
Some of my colleagues don't want their students to play contemporary music because they feel that doing so gives the student a bad sound. I used to think this was closed-minded but I have, through direct experience, learned that there is a grain of truth to this position. If the player wants to play with less difficulty in the extreme high register (often for long stretches of time), often he finds this more possible on a mpc that has a shallower baffle and perhaps thinner rails (both qualities that produce higher overtones). In doing so he often trades quality of sound for ease of high register. In contemporary music this might seem a good trade-off, since beauty of tone is often not a requirement.
The intrinsic sound quality of the easy-high-register mpc becomes apparent however when the player plays something like a Brahms symphony or sonata.
Lorenzo found the same thing: "The tradeoff is the higher baffle in this Fobes DOES add more edge".
They used to sell inserts you could stick to the baffle of your mouthpiece (making the baffle shallower or "higher") that put more zing into your sound.
"do you find tip opening to have much of an effect, compared to baffle depth?"
A more open tip produces increased resistance and increased resistance helps out high notes. Add a shallow baffle to an open tip and you start to approach something like the design of a jazz mouthpiece - great for playing high and loud, not great for playing softly nor with warmth and width in the sound.
I presume this is what led Benny Goodman to ask Copland to rewrite the high passages in his concerto. Goodman played up to high C on his recordings and Copland heard those recordings so thought he could write that high. But Goodman said he was uncomfortable playing that high in "classical" music. Was that because he used a jazz mpc for jazz, a mpc that easily produced very high notes, but felt compelled to use a different mpc for classical, a mpc that didn't produce very high notes as easily? Just a theory. While I'm on that theory, ever notice that the jazz clarinetist with one of the nicest, warmest sounds, Ken Peplowski, does not play extremely high. The players that come to mind that play(ed) high effortlessly (Goodman, Don Byron, Buddy DeFranco) all had arguably narrower, shallower sounds.
Bob asked:"Simon, what do you mean by a low baffle? I'm guessing that you mean that the roof of the mouthpiece lies closer to the reed."
In the case where the ceiling of the mpc (the baffle) is closer to the reed, I have always heard mpc makers and refacers refer to this as a shallow baffle, or more recently, a high baffle. In a mpc with a shallow baffle there is less scoop out of the baffle than a mpc with a deep baffle.
I find "shallow" and "deep" intuitive terms when it comes to mpc baffles, "high" and "low" counter-intuitive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-03 12:56
I think Simon Aldrich & John Peacock approach the altissimo from a different angle, and we probably have irreconcilable differences regarding what constitutes good sound in all registers, so it is with tenderness that I tread into this part of the discussion, but I felt there ought to be an alternative perspective:
1. Zinners will yeild a full altissimo just fine. I've played on them for more than a decade---a Richard Hawkins from 2001, Zinner/Pieterson model German mouthpiece, and several Viottos. None of them has been tricked out into a special "jazz" mouthpiece. Other than a Morgan from the 1980s that I have never used (and can't remember why I bought), I don't even own a "jazz" mouthpiece. I firmly believe this baffle business is a red herring.
2. Benny's altissimo was never as strong as Artie Shaw's or Pete Fountain's. Copland certainly did hear Benny get to Double C, but he didn't take into account HOW he got there--usually timidly (like most, but not all, classical players then and today). If memory serves me, the most famous Double C from Benny comes at the end of a decrescendo in the 1938 Carnegie Hall performance of "Sing Sing Sing" (which Copland would most likely not have heard, as the recordings hadn't been released when he was writing the Concerto). This is a masterful solo, really one of the greatest ever, but it doesn't showcase the type of full flexibility that Artie displayed constantly, nor the type that you'll hear listening to many old Pete Fountain recordings--check out "The Blues" (1959), "Live in Santa Monica" (1961) and several others from that era.
I believe when Benny revised the Concerto, he mentioned this to Copland: he could reach those notes, but the context had to be right. To nail a Double C at fortissimo was Artie Shaw territory, not Goodman.
3. For me personally, a clarinetist's sound isn't good or even competent if it lacks consistency in all registers--including altissimo. So much of what is called "great sound" feels to my ear stuffy and restrictive, and then is proven to be so when the player goes above a clarion C. I tend to think that much of what passes for "legendary" classical sound is really very restrictive and unneccessary...like making women wear corsets.
I hope this doesn't offend the other gentlement posting: it is only intended to provide a different perspective.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-07-03 14:17
The Fobes I am currently using does have more edge, per se, but it's not a "jazz" mouthpiece or tricked out by any means. I am in agreement with Eric here...a lot of sounds (at least recently) are to my mind a bit restricted. To me, the clarinet needs to have some vibrance and ring...but to each his own. You can have a darker sound with some vibrance.
I don't believe you NEED a high baffle to play altissimo up there...it may make it easier (as it does in fact speed up the air flow easier and allows for the reed to vibrate more easily) but I can play my current highest note cold on any mouthpiece...and it has the same ease and fullness.
My favorite Jazz mouthpiece has been the Brilhart Tonalin for clarinet....I believe Artie Shaw used one too. It does NOT have a high baffle, and it doesn't have a gigantic facing...the Vandoren B45 is actually a bigger mouthpiece than the Tonalin I used to use! I have a Fobes Jazz with a pretty sizable baffle...but I only use it when I need to play louder than trumpets... Actually, most jazz clarinet players I know do NOT use high baffle mouthpieces (and use regular mouthpieces...maybe in slightly open facings)...I'm not sure where the misconception came from that this is what one uses to get a "jazz sound".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-03 16:22
I'm glad you posted the points you did, Lorenzo...
Some other things to consider:
Many "contemporary" composers who write high altissimo are doing so because their first exposure to clarinet solo was either Goodman, Shaw, or another jazzer like Pete Fountain. Many of them simply assume that's what clarinet players do, and they're disappointed when a classical player will sound stuffy, or not be able to play up there. Any composer born between 1920-1960 was probably exposed, heavily, to swing clarinetists--and that's the concept they'reoften looking for.
I played for one "contemporary" composer who told me his chamber piece was written with the Benny Goodman Sextet in mind.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2012-07-03 18:31
>I think Simon Aldrich & John Peacock approach the altissimo from a different >angle, and we probably have irreconcilable differences regarding what >constitutes good sound in all registers
Eric - I should not have digressed from my intended point by bringing up jazz mouthpieces and muddying the waters.
I don't think we have differences regarding what constitutes good sound in all registers. In fact I agree with all the points you and Lorenzo make.
- "Zinners will yeild a full altissimo just fine." Agreed. Like you I have played a Zinner-blank mpc (Hawkins and Smith) for a long time, for all music types including contemporary. Those mpcs have an excellent altissimo.
- "For me personally, a clarinetist's sound isn't good or even competent if it lacks consistency in all registers--including altissimo." Agreed. If the altissimo is not good, there will usually be something faulty in the other registers.
- (Lorenzo) "I don't believe you NEED a high baffle to play altissimo up there...it may make it easier". Agreed.
But keep in mind my original point was not regarding regular altissimo playing, but sustained, super-high playing (often sustained super-loud).
With respect, I believe 99.99% of clarinet players are lucky enough not to have had to play some of the ridiculously high parts I have had to play in the 20 years with my contemporary ensemble (in which we often play over 100 new pieces a year).
From time-to-time there are pieces that are so high and high/loud, that to learn them and play them reliably, it takes an aberrant mpc, one that plays freakishly easily in the super-high register. When I have the misfortune of having to play a piece like that, the mouthpiece I turn to has a shallow baffle and often thin rails. All other mpc issues and considerations (good sound, quality of attack, intonation) go out the window in favor of simply getting through the piece without your lower teeth perforating you lower lip.
What I was doing in my original post was relaying my experience in finding that aberrant mpc and the qualities those mpcs shared.
My main job is as principal clarinet in an orchestra. Like many other players in that position, I have boxes of mpcs and have tried countless mpcs in professional settings. At a point, after decades of using different mpcs, one starts to see common playing traits in mpcs that share the same designs (eg, shallow baffle, deep baffle, thick rails, thin rails, baffles that stay deep into the mpc bore, baffles that "return" somewhat before entering the mpc bore, etc.).
If it is true, that "this baffle business is a red herring", my eyes and ears have been deceiving me lo these many years
Perhaps I should have prefaced my opinion by qualifying it to French mpcs on French-bore instruments. I play a lot of classical-period instruments and I have yet to see an original or reproduction German or Viennese classical period mpc with a shallow baffle. They all have relatively deep baffles and wide A throats (to varying degrees). Yet those Viennese and German instruments (Lotz, Griesbacher and Grenser copies) play in the very high range much more effortlessly than their modern French counterparts, despite the deep baffles of the old instruments' mpcs. (The Beethoven 8 trio high G is a piece of cake on an original instrument, even with a bad reed.)
So maybe high-note ease is partially an issue of the instrument's bore. My modern instrument reference is French bore and I believe Eric's is German bore.
But overall, keep in mind I am talking about exceptional, largely repellant circumstances (painful, unrelenting extreme high-register playing), not commonly-accepted "bel canto" playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-03 18:57
Simon,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify further. You're right: we are much closer than I thought.
Just to trade notes, how many of the contemporary "screamin high" pieces that you've run into call for a lot of playing above double C? That was one of my caveats regarding my own playing--I really don't like going about Double C, as it seems to me the end of the "natural" range of the horn (subjective, to be sure, but the idea has some provenance earlier than me at least--fingering charts dating way back to c. 1800 seem to suggest other clarinetists felt a similar way). I wonder how many contemporary composers are going beyond that regularly, and you're in a much better position to answer that than I am.
Though I'm probably best known on this Bboard for playing German instruments, my main horn is now a 1955 Selmer CT, so I'm using a French instrument/mp, but a large bore.
Your point about range of older instruments was interesting, and I think right on: Those older German/Austrian instruments generally had large bores and popped out altissimo notes much easier. In many ways, they were closer to the CT than they are like modern polycylindrical bores. I'd ALMOST be tempted to go on a large bore propaganda rant (as I am inclined to do anyway), except for one salient point: I own a Selmer 10S, which is hardly a large bore, and yet the altissimo is almost identical in behavior to the CT. Go figure.
Eric
[Edite/Note: For others reading this thread, though I used to play in symphony orchestras professionally, I am now basically a jazz clarinetists whose approach is dictated by that type of playing. One of the benefits of a thread like this, for me at least, is to hear what someone like Simon does on his end of the profession].
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2012-07-03 19:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2012-07-04 03:17
>I'd ALMOST be tempted to go on a large bore propaganda rant
Please do. It would function as a public service reminder. I feel a lot of students (and professionals) would be happier on German instruments, such is the sound they have in their heads and to which they aspire. It seems so much of what a student is trying *not* not sound like is intrinsic in a modern French-bore instrument. At a certain point we have to let the instrument play the way it "wants" to play (as with period instruments) and not persist in pushing a round peg in a square hole.
I remember Guy Chadash asking a student who was playing the Debussy Rhapsodie on an impossibly heavy, dark setup, why he was playing a French piece on a French clarinet with a French mouthpiece with a French ligature with a French reed, if he wanted to sound like a German tuba. Likewise I was in a masterclass with Frank Cohen and he said he did not like the sound of the clarinet. His ideal sound was a combination of a French horn and a classical boxwood clarinet, instruments whose sounds approach you less "on a point". That could be seen as fighting the inherent qualities of one's French-bore clarinets.
The more I play period instruments, when I return to my modern French-bore instruments, I find their small-bore "congenital" weaknesses mystifying (thin throat tones, tight, resistant altissimo, narrow, overly-focused, unvocal tone). Sure, good players overcome these built-in problems, but why not avoid those problems altogether and work with the instrument rather than against it?
There - I took care of your large-bore rant for you.
>how many of the contemporary "screamin high" pieces that you've run into >call for a lot of playing above double C?
A couple every year, but the crux of the issue is not the playing above double C.
Since one does not often play fast passage work between high G and double C, pieces that have solo passage work up to and around double C take a long time to learn (to get the fast passages into the fingers) since the fingerings are not really in our fingers. So you spend untold hours practicing the high passages and killing your mouth. It is more for the *practicing* that one needs the aberrant high-note mouthpiece for those particular pieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-04 14:25
Simon,
For what it's worth, I think your last post qualifies as a "keeper." I'd take it further, but it would take us horribly off topic, and would end up being perhaps too savage for other BBoarders.
The Chadash and Cohen quotes were classic. In many ways I think American conservatories do a silly type of training. I call it "super model" clarinet: everyone is made to play in the same anorexic way (to walk the excerpt runway), then we use copious "plastic surgery" (equipment) to enhance the more obviously deficient parts of our playing. Why not start with something more healthy? But then, before scholarships and gigs got in the way, I was a self-taught jazzer who never fit the mold down here. Some brier patches are meant to be returned to. Somebody must like the way those anorexic models look, or they wouldn't keep employing them, eh? Count me out though--and I'd better stop before this gets even more savage.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lorenzo_M
Date: 2012-07-05 15:54
interesting comments, though decidedly a bit off-topic (I don't really mind...but I'm sure someone will).
I also reached the same conclusions as Simon re: equipment, but only after I had spent several years NOT studying the instrument in an academic setting and returning to it again, with a different perspective. I too was guilty of trying to achieve some mythical "dark" sound with my French clarinet (Leblanc Concerto) and eventually got to the point where I was too frustrated to practice properly. Sound to me is the MOST important thing in every instrument I play, and the thing people generally recognize me for (if they do at all).
Yes, the sound concept comes from within and all of that...but to make a French Clarinet sound like a German one (at the time, I worshipped Karl Leister)...it creates an interesting paradox. To do this, you need to basically try and diminish all of the basic qualities of the French clarinet that it becomes something else. And, I think this is what we're seeing with the Backun thing (here come the pitchforks...).
French Small Bore clarinets are designed to be colorful and have a more penetrating, focused sound. I noticed (and I did this for a while) that most people, in trying to get a "dark" altissimo start to try to voice the French clarinet in a way that counters its natural vibrance. This usually results in low-sounding intonation (which I hear even at the "professor" level), and often less responsiveness.
In my return to the instrument, my high register playing has never been better, actually. It is no longer as thin, and I'm able to get better legato. It took a few months though, as I instantly went back to old habits at first. The trick has been to allow the clarinet to resonate the way it wants to, and to not be afraid of a little edge. Also, to trust the feedback I get in my mouth re: the airstream and match the specific feeling to the recorded sound. In quick recordings I've made, the edge contributes beautifully to the clarity of sound from far away. These days, I would rather have people hear what notes I'm individually playing than have a super dark mush of sound that only sounds good from under 10 feet away.
(and I'm only talking about the so-called "dark" french clarinet, as obviously German clarinets have a tendency for a "dark" sound while still retaining clarity)
There is a point when one has to make concessions in sound re: what the equipment wants to do naturally. This is the reason I only play American, large-bore vintage saxophones instead of small-bore designs....it's not possible to achieve the things I want in my sound with a french small-bore.
---
as another aside, I've also been thinking about getting a large-bore clarinet (or two) as an alternative to my small-bore ones. the comments on that topic so far have just convinced me some more it would be worth having a set.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
