 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BaconLord
Date: 2020-02-22 22:30
As I’m continuing my clarinet studies I’ve been focusing more and more on tone production. One of the most mentioned comments throughout masterclasses and lessons I’ve taken with the best clarinetists today is that my tone “is not focused.”
One clarinetist I look up to is Ricardo Morales. To me, he has a really centered tone with a nice balance of overtones (maybe sliding towards the more brighter side). Doesn’t sound spread at all.
Then there are players like Frank Cohen. To me, at first glance of listening to him, obviously it sounds way different and bigger. At first I thought his sound was unfocused, but then I start thinking. If he has an unfocused sound then he wouldn’t project in orchestra. But he does, so his sound has to be focused.
I always try to think of the vowel “EEE” when playing. I also think of playing like a cat hiss, so that the back of the tongue goes higher. But I’m still not fully satisfied.
What should I look for in the sound when trying to make it focused?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2020-02-22 22:47
My H.S. teacher (Jerome Sala) always aimed for a "round" sound.
In college, I asked Russianoff about tone. In a nutshell, he said your tone is good if you play in tune. He had what was probably leading edge 1970s technology for testing each note for being in tune (to 440, I suppose).
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
Post Edited (2020-02-22 22:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-02-23 07:35
I think it may be helpful to think of it by a different term. I would say that the ideal sound is a RESONANT sound.
The the sound of a violin is created by the vibration of a string. The rest of the instrument is basically the amplifier. The sound we hear from the clarinet is created by the vibrating air column within the instrument. So ideally whatever we do to energize that vibrating column of air makes the sound more present (the sound projects more).
The most important component is to ensure that you have a good pressure level built up within the oral cavity (relative to dynamic and therefore in combination with embouchure energy around the reed/mouthpiece). If there is poor pressure created in your mouth (pressure is created by actively pushing air) then the air column within the instrument does NOT get properly energized and you get a "diffuse" sound.
There are many factors that can aid going about achieving a good pressure differential with the air colmun in the horn, not all being the most efficient. Many of us choose hard reeds, or more open mouthpiece to achieve more "force." Though this works, you can use closed mouthpieces with quite soft reeds and achieve the same wonderful sound, using the proper technique (the balance between the active pushing of air and emboucher control).
And having a meaningful "pow-wow" with your teacher on this issue is pretty important.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2020-02-23 08:00
The sound EEE and that cat thing is pretty much old school. In fact a lot of players who still use this approach leak air out of the sides of their mouths. If we call this old school? Frank and Ricardo have totally different sounds and setups. So for me I can't help you pick a player to emulate. Needless to say, both players are very good.
Ricardo had, I repeat because this is very important. Had a smaller sound. Part of the problem is his use of a deep baffle, deep chambered mouthpiece. He's ditched that setup. So I don't know what you may have listened to, if it was from years ago or recent. I'm very much into the projection of ones sound. When the baffles/chambers are too deep we lose the overtones, so the sound can go dead.
A lot of voicing comes from your throat, tongue position first, and then your embouchure setup. To get rid of that EEE sound, maybe try doing long tones as warm ups. Playing these long tones with a double lip embouchure surely will lead you in the right direction.
Lee Morgan has a very good youtube lesson. He went to Interlochen Arts Academy and the Cleveland Institute. Studied with Fred Ormand and Robert Marcellus. Just a super nice guy. He takes students I think. Via youtube. I'm not sure.
https://www.playwithapro.com/live/Lee-Morgan/
Let me know what you find out and what your approach is to validate a decent sound through voicing.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2020-02-23 08:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2020-02-23 13:11
Well, here's my 10c (which I don't intend to contradict what's written above, it's just a different way of describing it).
I tell my students to think of a CONCENTRATION of sound, rather than using the term focus.
This helps them link the SOUND with what they are doing with the AIR.
Concentrating the air into the centre of the mouth, putting the air under pressure and so that it moves fast...
Say the word "wore" (as in, "I wore my favourite hat"). The vowel sound is slow air (that will result in an unfocused sound)
Now say "shoes", the "shhhhh" sound concentrates the air in the front of the mouth and makes fast air WITHOUT tightening your throat up.
This creates a focused sound without making the sound also thin.
All the energy is in the air and this creates a concentrated sound that can also be described as focused. The resonance that Paul describes will be messed up by having the throat tight so avoid that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2020-02-23 18:20
Interesting you mentioned three names I'm very familiar with. I studied with Russianoff, when I asked him who I should try to sound like he said, like Eddie Palanker. We did a lot of mouthpiece searching. Never mentioned ned the EEE or very high tongue position. As a matter of fact I'm against both. EEE closes, taughts, the throat and to me helps produce a smaller brighter tone and placing the tongue too high limits the volume of air but as one goes in the upper register it's often helpful to rise it some what. I'm not suggestioning the tongue be low either. I taught Morales for five summers, he's a natural talent and his tone has evolved a bit over the years but I would not call it bright at all, a bit brighter than earlier for projection perhaps. I played with Cohen for some time when he was principal in the BSO with me. He got an extremely dark tone that sounded rather dead and dull close up but carried very full. At the time he had a lot of extraneous sound and air up close. That was a long time ago, late 60s, early 70s, so I don't know if that was elleviated in time. A good tone is the tone you hear in your inner air and try to produce that is focused and in tune. And unfocused tone can be caused by the tongue being to low and that will also contribute to the throat tones being flat. Find your comfort lever, experiment because no two players are alike. Check out some of my articles on my website for some suggestions.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Late_returner
Date: 2020-02-24 04:25
Just out of interest, do we have a good idea of the "quality" ( in terms of this focus question) of sound that so excited Mozart when he first heard clarinets , where i assume the players put the reeds on the upper side of the mp.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2020-02-24 07:29
To me, a focused sound is a narrow tone with great density.
Now, how to achieve it...
After reading all of the above, I’m rather surprised that no one has mentioned anything about reeds, mouthpieces, clarinets (specifically bore dimensions) or barrels.
I realize that I’m a non-playing enthusiast, however, I do read a lot and enjoy doing research on various topics. So my opinions may not even be worth 2 cents or 2 euros.
First, let me talk about clarinet bore size. Can you get as focused a sound on a 0.590 diameter clarinet as easily as on a 0.575? I honestly don’t think so. A month or two ago, I tried out a very closed mpc on my 0.575 Vito 7242 Classic clarinet and I was able to produce a very compact, dense, and to my ears, a very focused sound. Even though the tone hole sizes of a 0.590 are incrementally larger, I don’t think I would be able to achieve the same dense, focused tonal sound on a 0.590 as on a 0.575. So, IMHO, bore size which determines tone hole sizes affects the tone focus.
Second, let’s look at mouthpieces. Does anyone really believe they can achieve a clear, radiant, dense, focused sound with a mpc that has a wide “A” frame throat design? Again, I don’t think so, but, I could be wrong. The same goes for a slightly wider “H” frame throat design. I have read many times that just slightly increasing the “H” frame dimensional width broadens the tone sound output which results in a less dense (even slightly airy) tonal output.
As many of you probably already know, Selmer has introduced their Focus and Concept mouthpieces which, according to their ads, “has a new throat design to bring greater focus to the air flow and allowing greater density of sound for the player.” https://www.conn-selmer.com/en-us/instruments/accessories/henri-selmer-paris-mouthpiece (Scroll down to the Bb Concept clarinet mouthpiece.)
Paul Aviles mentioned “resonance”. Again, as many of you may already know, Brad Behn designs his mouthpieces with an emphasis on “Maximal Resonance – Minimal Effort”. https://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
Now, let have a look at reeds. According to Legere, the construction of their Signature series offers a more focused sound. https://www.legere.com/products/clarinet-reeds/ Because the European series is more flexible and therefore not as stiff as the Signature, no mention of a more focused sound is listed.
Lastly, how about barrels? According to this ad for Buffet Moenning barrels, “the unique hourglass shaped bore of the Moennig clarinet barrel allows for improved tonal focus...” https://www.musiciansfriend.com/woodwinds/buffet-crampon-moennig-clarinet-barrels/468479000940000
So, yes, correct embouchure, tongue position, and proper air support are important, however, I believe there are other things which can certainly help to achieve a focused sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-02-24 15:32
I'm glad that we bring up equipment. It is a factor. There certainly have been times when august instrument makers have dabbled in configurations that have riled their biggest fans, but even with that, the players themselves may have been less then happy with the current horn from their favorite maker they sounded closer to themselves than not like themselves on those horns.
If there is a general tendency to sound "diffuse," you can't buy your way out of that problem. At least that should be your last resort.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2020-02-24 23:34
We? Who's the we? Can't I get at least a little recognition?
Paul, I like you guy, however, I couldn't disagree with you more. IMHO, equipment should be your FIRST resort.
If a skier is going too slow down a ramp, should he or she work on strengthening their arms more or should they consider the possibility that their "equipment" is really what is slowing them down?
Just my opinion...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2020-02-24 23:43
Dan Shusta wrote:
> If a skier is going too slow down a ramp, should he or she work
> on strengthening their arms more or should they consider the
> possibility that their "equipment" is really what is slowing
> them down?
>
Actually, let's be more specific - first reeds, then the mouthpiece. A stuffy reed cannot produce a resonant sound. If no reed can be found (or adjusted) to improve things, then perhaps the facing is at fault.
Often embouchure problems come from trying to play on crummy reeds and can't be fixed until the reed is vibrant and responsive.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2020-02-25 02:35
Karl, I have a lot of respect for you because I've learned a lot from your responses. However, I feel the need to disagree with you about the reed then the mouthpiece scenario.
Are you saying that a well balanced reed on a perfectly faced mouthpiece with a wide "A" or "H" frame is going to give you a focused sound?
I'm probably wrong but I don't think so. I believe mouthpiece internal geometry has a lot to do with a focused sound. Otherwise, Selmer wouldn't have felt the need or sensed the financial opportunity to come out with their new Focus/Concept line of mouthpieces, which, as I understand it, is being well received in the clarinet community.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2020-02-25 06:56
Would you say that open mouthpieces generally produce a broader less focused sound?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2020-02-25 07:39
Dan Shusta wrote:
> Are you saying that a well balanced reed on a perfectly faced
> mouthpiece with a wide "A" or "H" frame is going to give you a
> focused sound?
>
Well, the problem goes back to the original post. What *is* a focused sound. Those A frame and H frame (I'm not sure what that is) mouthpieces aren't being made deliberately to produce a spread (unfocused) sound. Players who use them almost certainly think they're producing a focused tone. That there are other players who find those players' sounds spread or diffuse or lacking resonance illustrates why we can't really use any of these words meaningfully that are borrowed (hijacked?) from the visual arts and sciences.
I think an unbalanced or too heavy or poorly profiled reed is far more likely to be directly responsible for dullness, lack of vibrancy or lack of projection. I didn't say, after all, that the mouthpiece *can't* be responsible (or tongue position or embouchure formation), only that the reed should be the *first* suspect.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-02-25 08:30
German clarinets utilize an A-frame design (at least for sure through the '80s, and Karl Leister had a wonderfully projecting, resonant, and dare I say focused sound with A-frame mouthpieces (as you look up into the bore you'll see a pronounces "V" shape exiting into the tone chamber). In fact the German mouthpiece has such a wide tone chamber transition into the bore that it almost has no transition at all!
So from the original post I thought the situation was that several master class instructors had said the poster did NOT have a focused sound. I would assume he had at least a decent mouthpiece and knew enough to show up for a form of adjudication with a decent reed.
Here I have to tell a story. I had a student who was particularly recalcitrant. By the end of a half hour's lesson, we had achieved a decent sound (yes, we......he may not want the credit) and I would say, "GREAT! Now just continue to play like that (we both heard the results)." The next week he'd show up playing with the same stuffy, unresponsive, diffuse sound as usual. There were a combination of factors. Maybe he didn't fully trust me, maybe he still had too much contact with his previous teacher who did nothing to change this substandard sound, maybe he didn't like sounding better, maybe he couldn't hear the difference.
Point being I even violated the most basic creed for the nouveau teachers, and played his set up (after asking permission and being so frustrated not knowing if it was even possible to get a decent sound on his set-up. Sure enough, I sounded like me and would proceed to try again to get things to "stick" with him. Within a years time I am sorry to report that I failed as his teacher. I still think he has to take some responsibility for that though.
Equipment was NOT his problem.
Now the poster may have many MANY issues from reeds to bad mouthpiece (like a Yamaha 4C.......I never liked those!) but if he is using a good technique, this will get him 90% there.
Trust me.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2020-02-25 11:28
BaconLord,
You mentioned that you admired the sound of Ricardo Morales. You also mentioned how "centered his sound was with a nice balance of overtones (maybe sliding towards the more brighter side). Doesn’t sound spread at all."
IMO, you actually answered your own question as to what you should look for in your own sound..."centered with a nice balance of overtones".
There have been many discussions on this BB as to the importance of upper partial overtones or harmonics. It's the upper partials that actually carry the tone for a long distance and will also give you the "power" to "stand out and be heard" in an orchestra. That's what the "brighter side" that you heard is all about.
To me, centered means the "H" frame in the mouthpiece is precisely the exact, spaced, dimension it should be. Any narrower and the tone sounds thin...any wider and the tone begins to sound slightly washed out.
As to the upper partials, this, again, IMO, has specific reference to how the baffle is formed. Too deep and the sound can be very dark and "muddy". Too shallow and the brightness of the sound can negate the depth that is so necessary.
Now as to the reed, this is where I believe Karl is very close in its importance. Yes, it must be balanced. However, different reed thicknesses, strength levels, and the different cuts involved will, IMO, definitely affect the necessary upper partial harmonic content that is so necessary. I believe the right matching reed, correctly balanced, will, indeed, yield the radiant sound of fluidity which is necessary for a truly "centered and focused" sound.
Arnoldstand, first, I believe, we would have to have an agreed upon definition as to what is an "open" mouthpiece. If the mouthpiece is 1.15 and above, I believe the sound will indeed be louder, have a "sense" of being broader probably due to the intensity of the sound level, and, again, depending upon the throat design, be focused. Now remember, large tip openings coupled with medium to short facings, usually require a soft reed. From my readings, softer reeds have greater difficulty with creating the necessary upper partial harmonic content because the softness of the reed has a more difficult (if not impossible) time producing this harmonic content. This is why soft reeds (2 to 2.5) with a medium facing length, rarely work in the altissimo range. Their inherent, internal vibrating frequency is too low. Increasing the reed strength means using a harder reed which has a higher internal vibrating frequency making altissimo range notes more accessible.
My usual disclaimer...all of the above are just my opinions...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2020-02-25 12:49
Thanks, Paul. I appreciate your informative response.
Brad Behn tells the differences between the "A" and "H" throat designs:
https://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com/mouthpiece-nomenclature-guide
Scroll down to THROAT
I find it interesting that he states: "The concept of A-framing a throat is to combine tonal concentration with freedom and flexibility." However, there is no mention of focus.
So... what can we possibly have here? A narrow focus, a wide focus, etc.?
Is any tonal concentrated sound a focused sound?
Is any tonal concentrated sound without the partials a truly desired "focused sound"?
In my writings above, I didn't use Brad Behn's information. I just found out that I unfortunately used a rather highly anti-Zinner biased source. (Sorry about that!)
So, again, are there numerous focused sounds? Narrow, wide, medium?
Is it simply the tonal concentration of the sound regardless of width?
I don't know...but this sure is interesting!
p.s. Ya know, the more I think about it...Karl is right. If you've got a bad reed, everything else could be perfect and you'll still have a "dud" sound in the output.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2020-02-26 02:00
Thanks for the sax link, which has a decent try at giving a more precise meaning to some of these commonly used words. But even so, I don't find it satisfactory. I suggest that threads like this will basically go round in circles forever until we actually put up some specific sounds. And this shouldn't be hard with the sheer quantity of recordings on youtube. All we need to do is post a pair of recordings and say "I think A is more focused/bright/dark/airy/spread/thin/warm than B" - possibly followed by "and I prefer A to B in this regard". Let me start:
A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwBMreKT49k&t=435s
B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1yGgC3IIFY
I think B is a warmer sound than A, and I prefer B to A in this regard.
If people can post similar examples for focused/unfocused, I would find it really informative as I've never really felt I knew quite what's meant when this term is used.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2020-02-26 02:42
John Peacock wrote:
> Thanks for the sax link, which has a decent try at giving a
> more precise meaning to some of these commonly used words. But
> even so, I don't find it satisfactory. I suggest that threads
> like this will basically go round in circles forever until we
> actually put up some specific sounds. And this shouldn't be
> hard with the sheer quantity of recordings on youtube. All we
> need to do is post a pair of recordings and say "I think A is
> more focused/bright/dark/airy/spread/thin/warm than B" -
> possibly followed by "and I prefer A to B in this regard".
I don't think this will be of any help. For two reasons:
(1) You'd be taking an opinion poll among a sample of people whose opinions may simply differ. The only way this would accomplish much is if everyone subscribing to this BB committed to abiding by the majority opinion (along with any shades of gray you managed to quantify) and to using the specific terms in discussions here only according to the meaning the poll results sanction. It seems easier just to avoid using the words.
(2) We don't, as you yourself observe, lack recorded examples of nearly infinitely various tone qualities (sometimes recorded by the same players in different musical contexts). But when we listen to recorded examples many of us do lack playback equipment with real fidelity to live sound.
I think it would be more realistic simply to end your sentence "I suggest that threads like this will basically go round in circles forever..." right there.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2020-02-26 02:46
BTW, I think it's ironic that we'd be including a discussion of sax sound. For most clarinetists, describing another clarinetist's sound as sax-like pretty much implies his sound is "spread." ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2020-02-26 03:04
Karl,
I think you meant dead
The definition of a gentleman is one who knows how to play the saxophone, but doesn't.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2020-02-26 05:16
Two things come to my mind which makes it difficult to define "focused".
1) No two people have the exact hearing parameters.
2) Even if you had two such individuals, their interpretations would most likely differ.
Hence, no possible agreement.
I posted the sax link because I found it interesting that some responders described a good focused sound as one which had a fairly strong harmonic component. This is the same thing that the original poster of this thread described in Ricardo Morales' sound. So, I thought the similarity might be interesting to some people.
I asked quite a few questions as to narrow, medium, and large focused sounds. Did they exist... Well, this morning, I came to the conclusion that, yes, they do. However, not from the same reed instrument.
For example, I consider the oboe as being able to produce a very narrow, focused sound.
I consider the clarinet as being able to produce a medium width focused sound.
And, lastly, I consider the sax as being able to produce a broad, focused sound.
These are just my opinions.
Paul, I remember reading on this BB a story about two clarinetists who sat next to each other. One remarked how beautiful his companion's tone sounded and asked if he could try out his friend's clarinet. To his utter surprise, he couldn't make a sound come out of it! Purpose of the story...When you tried out the clarinet of your student who was having problems, it played just great for you. I surmise that your student's clarinet setup was more in alignment with your physical characteristics than the student's. Anyway, I look upon it as a possibility.
Yesterday, I listened to a YouTube clarinet lesson which was supposed to show the difference in sound between an EEEE tongue position and an open or Ahhh tongue position. The young lady went from E3 to C6 twice using the different tongue positions. In both tests, the young gal produced a very pleasant tone and I was actually rather surprised that the quality of the tone of both tests sounded exactly the same. I'm sure the pitch was slightly different, but, the quality of the tone sounded exactly the same to me.
Shall we end with Duke Ellington's expression:"If it sounds good, it is good?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
