 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Exiawolf
Date: 2014-08-04 05:38
Greetings!
Whenever I preactice my clarinet at home in my room, the sound just doesn't ring, as the room doesn't echo AT ALL. This can be discouraging and annoying not knowing what you'll sound like in a nice concert hall. I was wondering do any of you experience this as well?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-08-04 05:46
I enjoy the fact that I must work harder to sound better in a dead practice room because it pays off in the concert hall. I like to find a resonant room sometimes, but practicing where everything you play is completely transparent helps make you be more picky about how you play. I wouldn't know how to fix it without removing carpet though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-08-04 05:50
When I studied with Anthony Gigliotti, he taught (and, as far as I know, practiced) in a studio on the second floor of his house that was, by reputation among his students, notoriously dead and unresonant. He called it "honest." Whenever we complained about it, he said that if you could sound good in his studio, you would sound good anywhere else.
You can be better off doing your practicing without help from the room acoustics. Think of the pleasing sensation when you get into a bigger hall with all the enhancement that its ambiance can provide.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Exiawolf
Date: 2014-08-04 05:57
I believe I completely agree with you two about this. Playing in dead rooms has made me more picky and probably brought me to where I am, however it still feels discouraging (Especially during summer months, as I listen to recordings and attempt to recreate the tone only to find that my dead room leads to a not as beautiful sound.). It's one of those cases where your sure you could sound much better but you can't hear it. It's annoying really :b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-08-04 06:16
I think trying to imitate the tone quality heard on recordings is a sure road to frustration anyway. Not only are you hearing a sound enhanced by hall acoustics, but also one enhanced often by electronic means. You get a more approachable model when you listen to a good player in a good hall playing live. But even then, if you were to sit next to the player he (she) wouldn't sound the same, either.
The clearest model is a teacher who demonstrates during your lesson or, if you are playing in an ensemble, a colleague whom you can get to hear up close.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-08-04 07:04
Sorry, I'm in the other camp, sue me.
A bit of background. I've been a keyboard guy most of my musical life- that is, mainly piano and some serious sequencing and synth work. And organ too- all of this on the pop and gospel side. I learned at age 14 (1967) what "reverb" meant as an organ tab, or later as an amplifier knob- and I knew I disliked what any instrument sounded like without it.
Man this story is hard to keep brief. Fast forward to 1989- I got my first decent digital piano, a Roland MKS20 MIDI module. And I suffered with dry no reverb piano for a year or more until I sprung for an Alesis Microverb. Night and day difference in my headphones. Was I supposed to learn more disciplined play without echo? Ugh, no thanks.
In 2010 I picked up clarinet again after 38 years off, with a particular set of goals that I could share here if anyone cares. And since we lived in a condo and I had no idea how much clarinet sound would carry (found out later- not much)... I did all my early sessions in our empty church auditorium, which has a nice reverb balance, not too much, but enough.
Later I did move my practice home... what an ugly difference.
So that's how I got going with barrel mics. I've shared on other threads here how I make my own from earpieces, and how they can be lots of trouble to keep operating. But I get 2 benefits from them. 1) I can record cleanly at any time- nice sound with no pickup of ambient noise. Try that with your $2000 instrument mic setup. And EVEN MORE IMPORTANT #2) I run some reverb from the mic into my practice room, and voila I am back in a big auditorium. I play that way about 80% of the time. And I would not have it any other way. Anybody wants details how I do this, just ask.
I cannot say whether this would hinder or help the long term development of, say, a masters clarinet performance major. I would venture that it would be the same as almost always practicing in a nice auditorium, be that good or bad.
Should an NFL team always practice in a muddy barnyard just so they'll maybe do better on the actual nice turf? I could draw other analogies, but I think I'm unlikely to sway the purists among you.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-04 15:39
I recall with great dread the studio that was my first good teacher's. Walter Wollwage used a den as his studio replete with carpets and wall hangings to deaden the sound and strobe tuner against the far wall that was ALWAYS ON. It was beyond dead and I hated it with a passion. He would be so proud of me now, as I enter these fancy Wenger modules with all the digital reverb options and promptly turn them off.
If you think about it, the reverb ADDS decay. This makes the sound more euphonic, but it means that YOU are not making the sound more euphonic. An acoustically dead space is not meant to be an instrument of torture, it is merely a tool to use so that you can fill it with.......music.
What do you folks who play in echoey rooms do when you have to play outside?
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-04 19:35
Since we have to PLAY in different acoustics, it makes sense to get into the habit of practising in different acoustics, if possible. That's because what you need to do to make the music 'work' differs from one acoustic to another. It's particularly true of ensemble music, but it also applies to solo clarinet music.
That having been said, a dry acoustic may be more revealing of technical blemishes that a resonant acoustic conceals; so the bathroom may fool you.
I remember coaching on a chamber music course in Spain. There was a choice of venue for a student string concert: cathedral versus school lecture room. All the students wanted to play in the cathedral.
But the fact was, no matter WHAT you did, you couldn't hear the music in the cathedral, even in the front row. All you could hear was the noise it made. I thought the correct decision would have been to play in the schoolroom, even though it was uncomfortable, because MAKING THE MUSIC CLEAR is what our job is.
That was at least POSSIBLE in the schoolroom.
The string coach, though – someone whom I later came to think of as a bit of an ass – thought it more important that the students 'had a good experience'.
So it goes.
If you're just playing for yourself, of course, you can...well...please yourself:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2014-08-04 20:06
Quote:
Since we have to PLAY in different acoustics, it makes sense to get into the habit of practising in different acoustics, if possible. That's because what you need to do to make the music 'work' differs from one acoustic to another. It's particularly true of ensemble music, but it also applies to solo clarinet music.[\quote]
Yup.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-08-05 00:11
I concur with the first 2 responses. I can recall early experiences of playing live in unsympathetic acoustics including outdoors on grass and the uncomfortable feeling as every vestige of tone seemed to evaporate.
Practising in a fairly dull acoustic (not an anechoic chamber though) not only allows one to hear all aspects of tone and technique clearly but is great preparation for anything you are likely to be called upon to play in during live performance - One is highly unlikely to meet anything worse.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-08-05 00:41
The worst I ever sounded to myself was when playing outdoors.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-08-05 09:05
In French, we say say: "une acoustique flatteuse"; I'm not sure how you would translate that into English, but the idea is that everybody that sings in the bathroom sounds like Placido Domingo, to himself at least. It's like those mirrors in clothing shops that make you look like Brad Pitt. I agree: dry acoustics that show your blemishes: warts and all, is what is called for if you are to make progress.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-08-05 13:49
I would just like to add that, by and large, churches--especially echoey cathedrals-are not good venues for concerts. As a concert-goer, I don't like to spend my hard-earned and rarely-earned euros on concerts where I can neither see nor hear! There are exceptions. Bruckner symphonies sound quite good in large cathedrals. Maybe the composer had the sound of his organ at the priory of St. Florian in mind when he wrote this music.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-08-05 20:21
Well, if your apartment never has enough hot water, you can find 50 reasons cold showers are good for you. And there are folks who choose cold showers even when there's plenty of hot water. And some of them probably get some benefit from it.
But it's not generally how I choose to live life.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2014-08-05 21:16
"more revealing of technical blemishes"
yup, exactly.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-08-05 21:43
The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is known for its illustrious, rich, and full sound when touring and at home. Immediately after Symphony Center's Orchestra Hall was constructed the symphony looked for another architect to fix their terrible acoustics... he told them to invest in some dynamite.
The orchestra members will tell you they have had to work harder to overcome Sycmphony Center's acoustically impotent hall, but they are all better musicians for it. If you have ever played on that stage you'd know why. I think it's a pretty compelling argument for any musician poo-pooing a dead room and glorifying a resonant practice space.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-08-05 22:25
Local professional teacher told me, to get their attention, he would recommend to his students that they practice in a clothes closet
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-06 01:10
"Back-in-the-day" (the golden Solti years) the Chicago Symphony used to do many of their more famous recordings in what was Medina Temple (now a Macy's department store). Orchestra Hall (as it used to be known) did NOT have poor acoustics, it was just a little less forgiving than other halls. It was not until the 'renovation' that there was any call for 'dynamite.' In fact, all the students in-the-know used to scramble for the upper balcony seats which had about the best sound from the audience perspective. From the stage it was a more analytical sound which may be just as responsible for the orchestra's legendary sound as having gone through all those years under Fritz Reiner.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-06 01:46
What some people seem to be missing here is that PERFORMANCE is the presentation of the music to...the people listening.
So, if the acoustic is difficult, you need to play in a way that overcomes that acoustic, to the greatest extent possible.
You may need, in a very resonant acoustic, to play 'not sostentuto', and 'not nuanced'. You may even need to drastically shorten notes.
In a 'dry' acoustic, on the other hand, you may need to play MORE sostenuto, MORE nuanced...and less 'bright'.
In either case, what you find 'pleasant to YOU' is largely irrelevant.
'Doing the job' means: finding 'what works'.
And that takes practice.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-08-06 02:25
The Philadelphia Orchestra has had in some ways the opposite problem. Ever since their new home, Verizon Center in the Kimmel Center opened, the complaint has been that the sound on the stage is too muddy and echo-y and the musicians have trouble hearing each other. After many attempts to fix the problem, things are apparently better, but still not, I think, what the players would like. On the other hand, the reputation of their old home, the Academy of Music a block north of Kimmel Center (and still serving as a busy concert hall and theater), was that the acoustic was dry but clear. The musicians could hear everything that happened anywhere on the stage from anywhere else on the stage (something I can attest, having played there a number of times). So, too, from the audience details were audible in the Academy that are much harder to hear, even when you listen for them, in Verizon Hall.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-08-06 04:24
Even in a studio mix where you have (in theory) every instrument perfectly isolated, and you can blend / eq/ reverb / delay / ad nauseum each track to your heart's content... it is a black art to put it all together into a pleasing whole that is clear. Some techs are much better at it than others.
By the time I was age 10 or 12 I was carefully listening to Elvis and other pop recordings with headphones, trying to hear individual instruments in the backgrounds. That's much easier on some recordings than others, and it has little to do with relative volume levels, or even the amount of overall echo (which in those days, for RCA at least, was an echoey stairwell, LOL). There may not be another person on the planet who likes the studio backing musician track behind Patsy Cline's "Crazy" (Floyd Cramer and crowd) any more than I do.
In a building you either have a physical design that works or you don't. Fixing it later is pretty tough. I bet even today there are places nobody can rigorously and technically explain why they sound good, or don't.
Do any of you know of any venue that was "fixed" by the addition or removal of reflective or absorbtive (sp?) materials, after the fact?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-08-06 04:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2014-08-06 06:26
Paul, I have heard the dynamite anecdote from Henry Fogel and two other CSO organization members, beyond which they each have talked and referenced Orchestra Hall's historically bad acoustics as since its opening. Orchestra Hall also is still called Orchestra Hall... which has had many renovations, the installation of the "space ship" acoustical shell having improved life for the musicians the most do far.
And the current students now seem to prefer first balcony to be the best sounding seats, with orchestra floor stage left to be absolutely terrible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-06 11:23
"Fixing a hall?" Yeah, I don't think it's possible. You'r always going to create some other effect with an addition. The question is: are there still ANY acoustic architects worth their salt out there? Good halls are NOT an accident. But with today's real world economic limitations and the pressure to design spaces that "appeal" on a visual level (as well as comfort), I don't even know if it's possible to build a hall that has wonderful acoustics.
I'm willing to wait until society has money to throw away before even beginning to hold my breath for a decent new hall.
Wow, sorry to hear of the woes in Philadelphia! I thought spending the endowment was the only problem.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-08-07 19:50
RCA's Studio B in Nashville recorded scads of major artists and hits for years, but it had acoustic issues also. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_Studio_B paragraph beginning with "The first chief engineer was Bob Ferris...". Maybe some of your classical performance venues also need some $60 "Porter Pyramids".
And like in Studio B, I also wonder about X's on the floor (real or imaginary) marking good or bad spots to play from in concert halls, same as you've already mentioned good or bad seats to listen from. But the flavor of this whole thread is that you'd be a better player to always play from the BAD spots, LOL. And while we're at it, why not insist on LISTENING from bad seats, to better train your ears?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-08-07 20:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-07 21:11
I think Tony Pay spoke best for himself, but I think the main idea is that you should be ABLE to produce the proper sound for WHATEVER acoustic in which you find yourself. If you only play in X circumstance, you may not be ready or able to give the best performance when put in Y.
Having just done two outdoor venues I can say that not having tapered notes in my hip pocket would have been very bad.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-08-07 21:22
fskelley wrote:
> But the flavor of this whole thread is
> that you'd be a better player to always play from the BAD
> spots, LOL.
No, we're talking (or were at the beginning of this thread) about *practicing* in unflattering acoustics. Those of us in that camp don't want to be flattered into believing we sound better than we actually do. Of course, for the performance, enhancement from the hall's ambiance is gratefully accepted.
Which led into a side issue about halls that, either because of dead or too-live acoustics make accurate ensemble work more difficult. It seems many architects, to the extent that they actually can predict the acoustical consequences of their concert hall designs, think we all sound better in the acoustics of a subway station. But the architects don't think of the problems an ensemble player deals with in trying to hear the other players on the stage.
Karl
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-08-07 23:13
I really do understand what all of you are saying. And to some extent I'm just yanking your chains because that's fun.
I agree that there's benefit in OCCASIONALLY practicing in poor acoustics, same as its a good thing for the Indy Colts to OCCASIONALLY practice in frozen mud- they have to play on it once in a blue moon. But to suggest that a regular routine of unfavorable conditions is preferable... that's where our opinions appear to diverge. I choose to practice 80%+ of the time in what I expect to be identical (good!) conditions to what I'll perform in. 1 because it's more enjoyable- and that increases my motivation to play longer and with higher mojo (is that a fair use of the word?). And 2 it will make me adapt my playing to my most likely performance environment.
It's a bit like in the bridge world, if you always play for trumps held by your opponents to break 5 and 0, you might lose all the hands where they actually break 3 and 2- how unlucky! Man it's been way too long since my last bridge game. :-( Actually, a better way to say this is- if you have a computer bridge program you use for practice, and you have it always give you the 5-0 unlikely scenarios so you can learn to beat them- you may end up less able to defeat the much more common 3-2 or 4-1 distributions. And that's just silly. Even if that means you're better able to win the 5-0 hands.
It would be a very boring world if all of us agreed on everything.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-08-07 23:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-07 23:35
Maybe the Colts would do better if they practiced in a Wenger module.
:-)
..........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
