 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DaphnisetChloe
Date: 2016-02-14 10:17
It seems that quite a few clarinetists are opting for a combination of hard reeds and open mouthpieces: for instance Alessandro Carbonare (Vandoren B40 & #4 reeds),
Olivier Patey (same as Carbonare) and Alain Damiens (Vandoren B45 lyre & #3.5 reeds). Other than increased projection and personal taste, what would be the benefits of playing on these quite resistant setups?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2016-02-14 18:59
That might be it.
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2016-02-14 20:33
I went this route for years ... wonder I didn't have a stroke at age 16! Open MP and #7 1/2 reeds and a bite like an alligator. I could play double super C. No one could get a sound out of my combo, but me. One lesson with visiting teacher that was a fine clarinetist and he tried to change me to a O'Brien crystal and 1 1/2 reeds. He thought I was crazy. Not crazy, just stupid and untrained.
When I quite playing for about 10 years, I came back to a more moderate setup and was enjoying it.
Studied briefly with a clarinet professor at local college and it was Deja Vu all over again with a very resistant Pyne MP and #5 reeds. I refused the change and kept playing my easy blowing arrangement. Now, the vessels in my brain are intact ... at least this week.
The professor had to quit playing a few years back ...
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-02-14 21:16
I would argue that projection is dependent on how many upper partials you have in your sound. Using harder reeds and more open mouthpieces only means you are pinching the reed down more with your embouchure.
A losing proposition.
I've said it before, just because YOU CAN get away with doing something wrong (if that is even the case with Carbonare) doesn't mean you SHOULD do it incorrectly.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2016-02-14 21:57
It's all dependent of an individuals physical make up and taste. Some people are just comfortable and get the result they're looking for with a more resistance set up while others are not. There's no rule. What's resistant to one person is not to another. I don't think it was anything to do with projection myself, If it's comfortable, you get the tone you're looking for and you can articulate easily chances are you will also get the projection you're satisfied with as well. It's a matter of being able to play ppp as well as fff and keep your tone focused and in tune.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fernie51296
Date: 2016-02-15 01:15
Olivier Patey has a fantastic tone. I use a fairly resistant setup (when considering what Vandoren recommends for Reed strength on my mouthpiece) but anything softer feels very uncomfortable. I think it has to do with the fact everyone is different.
Fernando
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-15 03:49
Paul Aviles wrote:
>
> A losing proposition.
>
>
Maybe not so much if the result is excellent. Whose loss is it?
>
> I've said it before, just because YOU CAN get away with doing
> something wrong (if that is even the case with Carbonare)
> doesn't mean you SHOULD do it incorrectly.
>
And each time you say this, it begs the question, what makes [insert "wrong" technique] wrong? Why is playing against more resistance, if the player sounds, or simply feels, better doing it, a losing proposition? Why doesn't the result justify the approach?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-02-15 04:05
More work equals..............more work.
Even the great Carbonare (if he in fact is using a B40 with #4 reeds.......and by the way he is notorious for switching mouthpieces in the middle of performances to achieve different things so I doubt he does anything particular for too long) could benefit from LESS WORK. I mean that physically.
The other reason I protest so much is that we have an awful lot of students reading here as well. I provide a counter argument to "if it feels good, do it," so that those sorts of pronouncements don't sound like gospel - which they are not.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-15 04:46
Paul Aviles wrote:
> More work equals..............more work.
More work isn't necessarily bad. It's pointlessly more work - extra work with no benefit - that's questionable.
> The other reason I protest so much is that we have an awful lot
> of students reading here as well. I provide a counter argument
> to "if it feels good, do it," so that those sorts of
> pronouncements don't sound like gospel - which they are not.
>
But the point is that no answer given here (or anywhere else) is gospel. You can get lots of dogma here. The one thing students reading here should realize is that there's more than one way to do anything.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2016-02-15 04:48
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Even the great Carbonare (if he in fact is using a B40 with #4
> reeds.......and by the way he is notorious for switching
> mouthpieces in the middle of performances to achieve different
> things so I doubt he does anything particular for too long)
> could benefit from LESS WORK. I mean physically
I'm sorry, Paul, but this is just so much BS. What works for you is great. No question. Other people experiment and come up with totally different setups than you can use and you try and say that it's a bad setup.
Shame on you. It's the result of empirical evidence FOR THAT PERSON, for ALESSANDRO. Not for you. You go tell Alessandro that you have all the solutions to what you think are his problems. He'd listen to you no doubt, maybe try them if he hasn't already (a dubious thought ... Alessandro is far from being dogmatic, as you pointed out) and would change if it made things better for him. But telling us you know how to help him from your seat - bs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2016-02-15 05:23
Mark,
Can you install a "like" button on the bboard, so I can like that post?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-02-15 06:43
I agree that a lot of top pro's have gone with stronger reeds. Here's my observations through the years. Major reed companies have changed how they grow cane and where they grow cane, then how the cane is cured. The cane now is generally softer now and doesn't last as long. It would take a long time to write about this. We are getting into cell and fiber construction under a microscope. I very much like the idea of playing on harder reeds. They don't seem to collapse on you in the upper register.
One guy that is kind of amazing is John Yeh, plays double lip, a B40 with a 5 strength reed! John is such a great guy! How can he play without his lips bleeding? There's plenty of others like him too. Julian Bliss using a very heavy reed with a short facing. I don't know how they do it. Even Ricardo with Philly uses a heavy plastic reed, probably equal to a 5 strength.
I play with a double lip, tip opening of around 1.04, and a 4 strength reed. I think this is kind of the normal, a somewhat average setup. Equal to about a Vandoren M15.
I have to agree with Eddie Palanker and the others that feel you should play what fits you best from ppp to fff. Finding the right mouthpiece facing is often the key to hitting the high notes at ppp without fear. Once you can do this you find the best reeds and reed strengths to support your mouthpiece.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-15 07:15
To get back to your original point, I don't know that this is particularly a trend. For one thing #3-1/2 (in a VD V.12 or 56 Rue lepic) is within VD's recommendation for B45 Lyre (and B40). A lot of players start with reeds that are harder than they prefer so they have room to adjust them to vibrate as they like.
I don't know that that's what's going on for any given player, just that using a higher strength on an open medium-long facing like a B40 may not be as arduous a haul as it sounds.
In any case I don't think it's a new trend.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DaphnisetChloe
Date: 2016-02-16 02:31
Karl, I just find it interesting when players do something different from the norm, which for clarinetists at least is playing on a fairly free-blowing setup. Certainly in Australia, where I come from, all the top professionals play on free blowing setups - generally #3-#3.5+ reeds with mouthpieces like the B40, M30, BDR and M15. But I am very interested in what goes on in the rest of the world, for OZ certainly isn't one of the great clarinet centres of the world!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-16 03:21
When I studied as a teenager, the almost universal norm among the Curtis-trained players who did most of the playing and teaching was a medium-length close-tipped facing, something similar to a Vandoren M13 Lyre (they were using mostly Kaspars and Chedevilles) with a #5 Vandoren reed - there was only one model then, what is now the "traditional" cut - V.12 was a long time down the road. I think even today people hear #5 reed on almost anything and they ask why anyone would need anything that hard.
But the actual fact was that everyone adjusted their reeds differently. I did play occasionally on Gigliotti's reeds on his mouthpiece - I remember once playing on the setup he had used the night before for a performance of the Beethoven 6th. I completely closed the thing up on my first attempt. It seemed so soft to me that I couldn't imagine how he had played all those solo passages on it. He had, and in a few seconds I was able to play on it, too, though still none too comfortably.
The point is that without actually knowing what a given player is doing, you can't be sure from the mouthpiece facing and reed strength that a player is using what exactly he is experiencing. Maybe Carbonare, Patey and Damiens are working really hard. Or maybe they know enough about reed and mouthpiece interaction to be able to get the advantages they find in stiffer heart wood without actually having to bite through their lower lips to get a response. I'm told that Morales uses a fairly resistant mouthpiece with (lately) fairly stiff Legeres. I can only take others' word for it. He doesn't look like he's working hard when he plays.
Individual players make their individual choices, I believe, based on what requires the least effort *to produce the result they want.* I don't really think that has changed in a very long time.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-16 03:33
DaphnisetChloe wrote:
> Certainly in Australia,
> where I come from, all the top professionals play on free
> blowing setups - generally #3-#3.5+ reeds with mouthpieces like
> the B40, M30, BDR and M15.
There is, of course a significant difference in blowing resistance between M15 and B40 or even M30 (I don't know what BDR is). So, I'm not sure that that reed strength range would produce a uniformly "free-blowing" response (or maybe I don't understand "fee-blowing" in the same way you do). But I've spent exactly 5 minutes playing on a B40 and never on a M30 or a BDR. I find M15, which I have used in the past, to be more in the line of the closer-tipped mouthpieces like M13 Lyre, easy-blowing (is that the same as "free-blowing"?) but needing the stiffer heart of a #3.5+ or even a #4 to produce any "ring."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DaphnisetChloe
Date: 2016-02-16 03:56
kdk wrote:
> There is, of course a significant difference in blowing resistance between M15 and > B40 or even M30
What I meant was that one professional player of the B40 in Sydney plays on #3s, and the M30 and M15 players that I know play on #3.5s. The lady in Queensland who plays on #3.5+ reeds plays a Lomax Classic mouthpiece. I don't know the tip opening of this.
I totally get your point about adjusting reeds though. What sort of reeds did Gigliotti play on?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-16 04:49
Once they were broken in, his reeds were very responsive and not heavy blowing. Of course, as the years passed and he got more involved in developing his own line of mouthpieces, the facing he played on got longer and the tip opening got smaller. The P facing he finally settled on had a tip opening of about .99 mm and a curve that measured 19 mm with a .0015" feeler gauge, so it was a very easy-blowing setup, almost too easy to close. He used #4-1/2 V.12s once they came out, taking a fair amount of cane out of the sides along the heart area. But he wasn't unique in the Philadelphia area.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2016-02-16 05:22
I remember seeing videos of Patey and Carbonare both talking about their setups and how they had to change to harder setups to play in larger hall and louder orchestras. Jessica Phillips also talk of needing to play a more resistant reed when she was acting principal at the MET
I think all these players know a thing or two about the clarinet and I trust that if they felt a change was needed in order to get the sound they wanted, that change was indeed needed.
Considering that all of them went to a more resistant setup, one might be tempted to think this isn't simply a coincidence...
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2016-02-16 07:06
Certainly not a coincidence. If the conditions they play in change, they may very well have needed to change their equipment to accommodate the new venue.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2016-02-16 17:28
Just one shot at rebuttal (and there is a lot to unpack above).
You can tweak up a strength on reed, OR (all else being equal) use a slightly more open mouthpiece, OR use a mouthpiece with a slightly shorter lay to get a bit more amplitude from your horn. That's not in dispute.
That may be the easiest transition for a conservative player who doesn't want to re-establish old habits. However, a mouthpiece with more overtones is probably the more effective route. I have heard a very well established player go through that. The "overtoney" mouthpiece made him feel as if he had "bees buzzing in his head." And he didn't mean that in a good way, and yet his sound was the same to everyone else except it was far more prevalent over the orchestra. And that was the opinion of others in the orchestra as well as me from the audience.
Lastly though I took this tack in response to RESISTANCE, not numbers. So I still contend that a more resistant set-up (one that is physically harder to use) might give you a worthwhile trade-off, but not one that cannot be achieved in a less destructive way.
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2016-02-16 19:18
I'm going to sort of come to Mr. Aviles rescue, or at least to some extent occupy his camp for a moment.
As Mark Nuccio has said, and I agree with, you should choose the weakest reed (I know this thread goes far beyond merely reeds affecting resistance) that otherwise doesn't compromise your artistry.
Now--with that said--is it possible that Carbonare and Damiens, the players cited by the OP, find something in their more resistant settings (contributed to by both more open mouthpieces and stronger reed) that makes the effort worth it for them--I don't doubt it. But, as they say, YMMV (your "mileage" might vary.)
But I am an advocate, like I believe Paul is, that the least amount of effort, that doesn't compromise your artistry, that your setup can offer you, the better. No surprise, I am of the camp that Karl describes of the Curtis school of his youth. And of course when it comes to mouthpieces, materials, rail width/length/curvature, tip opening, and shape (inside and out) all contribute, along with other factors, nameable and not to a mouthpiece's attributes
Playing's numerous physical attributes can have its toll on the player, particular over long pieces and practice sessions. Setups that requires embouchure bite that's so hard, that the inner lower gums are injured by the lower front teeth...and I've seen this...not good.
I'm also an advocate of the Richie Hawley camp that finds the resistance needed (and we all must have some resistance) best found in reed strength over mouthpiece (not of course that mouthpiece choice should be cast in stone.)
===
Still more to point, and one of my clarinet pet peeves is any attempts by players to resort to tactics that better resemble desperation than science and practicality in the equipment and methods we use to improve play.
Sure, our equipment matters, but emulating an artist's setup my not work for you (no disrespect to the OP for merely posing the question.) Buying a cryogenically frozen ligature, I almost guarantee, will not work for you.
So what will? Slow, methodically, finger and metronome diligent practice from the well known practice books of our craft. As it regards the OP's original question of what would be the benefits of playing on these quite resistant setups?
I can only say that if the added effort is exceeded by your personal belief that your artistry improves by even greater distances, then consider such more resistant setups.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
