 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2022-08-22 03:35
In going down the rabbit hole of the singing styles of yesteryear, I came across the idea of squillo and how modern singers do not accurately achieve it. It occurred to me that today's clarinetists also have removed the squillo from their tones, instead preferring, IMO, a dull and boring tone that struggles to project. I'm curios to hear the opinions of this board on this idea.
It might be interesting to note that in the second link that my initial impression of the singers was positive and that only when compared to the "squillo" singers did it become more clear what was missing. I think this is due, in part, to my being more accustomed to the dull unfocused sounds of today's singers. Perhaps something similar is going on with today's clarinet players, e.g., our younger players would be somewhat horrified to produce a clear ringing (squillo) sound like that of Harold Wright and instead prefer the dullness of a more modern player.... trying my best to not name names!
What is squillo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKengo7y28U
Examples of singing with and without squillo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOWhBudlENQ
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2022-08-22 04:45
Interesting. Squillo continues to be well known and appreciated in modern singing, so I wonder if professionals sometimes lessen it for interpretive reasons. For example, singing Baroque chamber pieces instead of Verdi or Mozart (as in one of the examples of the 2nd video) could suggest a different, sweeter sound. I heard a professional contralto singing in a small room one time, and it was surprisingly disagreeable, not at all like hearing her voice on an operatic stage, so context matters.
The tendency for clarinet players to favor darker sounds is pursued more by orchestral players than soloists. This somewhat is generated by a larger desire for particular orchestral sounds. But there's a lot of variety out there, and a lot of modern experimentation with equipment. A cherished goal is to overlay a full dark core with a brilliant high-partials ring. Harold Wright managed a unique balance of those characteristics, and not only with his equipment choices.
I'm not sure how the emphasis specifically of chest register tonal support can be done on the clarinet, but I'm interested to try. There's a lot about the internal air column and its manipulation that I'd like to learn more about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2022-08-22 14:34
Thanks for raising an interesting topic - squillo is a new term to me. The general idea of finding the right harmonic mix to balance beauty of sound with projection is clearly a correct and important concept, but there will be plenty of scope for individual taste. For example, the linked video refers to Emma Kirkby as "thin and pinched", but frankly I would rather listen to her than to almost any other soprano.
And on the clarinet specifically, I was prompted to contrast Harold Wright's playing with a more modern alternative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hkMSl0BdKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nX77gmWElQ
Would you describe the 2nd one as "dull and boring"? To me, it displays a pleasing sophistication in the tonal beauty, which I find the Wright version lacks. I aspire to be able to play with the sort of liquid smoothness that Kohan achieves - and even if you think it would be boring to play like that all the time, it's surely highly desirable to be able to produce sounds like that when suitable. After all, the problem with the clarinet is that it too often sounds thinner than you want - so it's not so much a question of adding high harmonics as preventing there being too many of them. So I value players who have conquered the instrument in this respect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: anonrob
Date: 2022-08-22 17:25
I would love to think I could come close to either sound. They are both lovely and the performances are stunning. If I had to choose one, I prefer the Wright.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-08-22 17:54
The problem for us (clarinet), I believe, is a child of the recording process. I would bet all of us heard clarinet first through a recording. Devoted lovers of classical voice still attend the opera where you can HEAR what things sound like (and as pointed out, many more contemporary singers still have not internalized the difference).
Then recordings can present a false image of the sound. I spent a good amount of my Mid-Western formative years being unimpressed with the New York Philharmonic due to the thin sound of its principal clarinetist. Many years later I heard Stanley Drucker in person and was knocked over by the impressively warm an full sound he has.
Question: For those of you who’ve heard Anthony Gigliotti in person, how would you describe his sound?
………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-08-22 18:34
We will never resolve this issue because the classical clarinet can sound well in many different guises. I would celebrate diversity. The dark cushiony sound is in vogue now as both an ideal and a practice. But even German instrument players like Sabine Meyer and her husband have said they miss the diversity that came when French players still sounded French! I'd like to see a healthy mix of sounds whether national or individual.
The psychology and the physiology of dark and cushiony versus vibrant and focused are worth considering. Steve Williamson explores these in an interview he did for "The Candid Clarinetist" called "Projecting as Principal with Steve Williamson." Steve studied clarinet in Germany and always found his teacher's Oehler clarinet sound more weighty, deep, and compelling than the sound he typically got on a French Boehm and French mouthpiece. Following the lead of Ricardo Morales and Todd Levy, he switched to the more resistant Selmer Signature clarinet, moved up to #5 reeds, and worked with Jim Pyne to produce a mouthpiece that would match his sound ideal. Williamson developed the pulmonary capacity to handle this challenging set-up, and he believes it serves him well in the Chicago Symphony. He does not belittle the lighter, more vibrant sort of Harold Wright sound. He even admits that "it is easy to relax into the [beauty] of the Buffet" sound. But that's not what he wants.
The entire interview is illuminating: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=clarinet+projection+steve+williamson.
Post Edited (2022-08-22 18:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2022-08-22 21:10
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Question: For those of you who’ve heard Anthony Gigliotti in
> person, how would you describe his sound?
>
It depended on where I was hearing him from. Standing next to him he sounded pure, neither foggy nor brilliant. From the audience, his sound was muscular with a very strongly formed core and a kind of glitter on top. It wasn't quite as "ring-y" as Montanaro (the assistant and later associate principal who had been Gigliotti's student at Curtis). With Montanaro you could almost hear two separate sounds - one was the core and the other the ring.
Truthfully, Gigliotti on an off-night could sound thin and out of tune especially above D6. But when he was at his best the tone was firm, brilliant at FF, intense at PP and always audible in any texture. The contrast when Ricardo Morales arrived (after a few years of Montanaro and two of his students, Burt Hara and Sam Caveziel) took some getting used to.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-08-22 21:27
Thank you for that Karl. Gigliotti's recorded sound tended to the thin side for sure.
I have just started listening to the Podcast with Williamson. The interviewer said EXACTLY what went through my mind comparing the "UP CLOSE" sound of a given player with the "LISTENING DISTANCE." The sounds are two entirely different things. I recall Walter Wollwage (second with Chicago under Reiner and Solti) played an example at one of my lessons and I thought maybe he was off his game. The sound almost had a little air or moisture "popcorn" in it (white noise for you audio engineering types). But in the hall he always sounded great. I also had the privilege of sitting next to Paul Schaller (principal of the Detroit Symphony) for a student oriented gig. In the context of all the sound around, I just remember just how loud Shaller was. To me he was as loud as the rest of the orchestra put together!
now I go back to the podcast
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2022-08-22 21:37
;) Thank goodness Dave that Squillo isn' t found in any major orchestra today, to wit:
https://youtu.be/gN-SIrHaOK4?t=8
Oh wait, sorry, that's Squidward, not Squillo.
Joking aside, I've read that orchestral auditioners want to hear the pure clarinet sound void of things like vibrato----which I realize is world's apart from Squillo as vibrato rapidly fluctuates the dominant note, rather than tinkers with the partials as does Squillo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-08-22 22:17
Given the huge array of equipment available today, it might be feasible for a skillful, tonally aware player to change timbre significantly from one performance to another. For pieces that benefit from squillo you might use a Behn Epic or a Livengood personal model mouthpiece; for a creamier, more traditionally Viennese sound, you might use a Gleichweit mouthpiece. Doesn't Mitchell Estrin say somewhere in his bio of Drucker that Drucker switched to an old wooden mouthpiece when he recorded the Brahms Quintet, so he could get more of a German sound?
Players can be pigeonholed in ways that do not reflect the complexity of their artistic vocabulary. Harold Wright didn't always sound like (the idealized) Harold Wright. Even in his two different recordings of the Brahms Sonatas (with two different pianists) he doesn't sound the same. In one he has a rounder glossier sound; in the other a tighter, more pointed quality. In the Duo Concerto for clarinet and bassoon, Wright has a glowing, luminous quality that even he could seldom achieve. And really, no other player, no matter how much ring they had in the sound, has ever sounded exactly like Wright. So practically speaking, the rest of us can forget about sounding like Wright. If we work to add ring and expression to the sound, we will still sound like ourselves, hopefully with those qualities added.
For most performances, it may be that a blend of a little squillo and a little dark body makes the most appetizing brew. I rather like the sound Steve Cohen is getting on his YouTube video of Scriabin Op. 11.
Post Edited (2022-08-23 00:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-08-23 03:27
I don't have any reason to doubt the testimony of Stephen Williams' testimony on his own playing, but I find it more than a little bizarre. The point of using a technique to create more overtones is by nature a move to use LESS energy to create MORE results......as I am to understand it. When I finished the original "Squilo" video, one popped up with a female vocalist explaining how to achieve this chest resonance (opposed to nasal).
For clarinet it is of course an entirely different mechanism but one that should have the same results.....more projection out of less effort.
I recently found and posted a video from Dale Fedele with a host of interesting information. One of the key learning points was about the production of notes that have "ping," "vibrancy." To his ears, a key element is producing a note that begins with an attack (initial transient) that is sharp......which he says is "counter intuitive." Notes that begin with a low pitched transient or even right in tune tend to sound dull, lifeless.
Just one element
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk ★2017
Date: 2022-08-23 14:15
For a discussion of the use of upper partials, vibrato and the so-called formants (spectral peaks) by operatic singers from a technical/acoustical point of view, see chapter 19, subchapter 4 of Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics (A. Benade, Dover Publications).
Benade shows that an 'extra' formant at 2500 - 3000 Hz enables a singer to appear louder than a complete orchestra. Interestingly, the frequency of this 'singers formant' is independent of the lower formants and thus the apparent note.
Also interesting, this discussion from twenty years ago (including thoughtful posts by Gregory Smith): http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=80294&t=80096
Regards,
Luuk
Philips Symphonic Band
The Netherlands
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-08-23 15:57
Thank you Luuk! Lots of great comments from a bunch of folks in that thread. Just thought I'd put one of Greg Smith's here:
"No clarinetist that I've heard either sitting next to, in front of, or out in the concert hall ever sounded better because of any noise, garbage, etc. in one's sound. Quite the contrary. It's convienient in theory but realistically, the better one sounds up close, the better they will sound at a distance PROVIDED they know how to PROJECT their well developed, pure, and well shaped sound - one with an inherent beautiful sonority.
Which brings one back full circle to how to project the sound.
It all starts with the formation of the concept of a sound through extensive listening as D. Hattner and his distinguished teacher suggested and practiced himself. One hears and qualifies aesthetically in the mind an ideal concept that one shoots for on a constant and continuing basis. Without that, one is simply shooting at a moving target. It increasingly amazes me how less frequently students that I see in my studio have any clear idea of who they want to emulate (or more flabberghasting, mention two or three incongruous, disperate players that could not possibly be associated with having a distinguished sound by any standard that I'm aware of).
Then comes all of the physical apparatus one assembles to best produce the sound that one has to best reach that ideal. Finally, one has to apply some basic concepts to best project that ideal sound according to the situation at hand. These fundamentals mostly include the origin and shape of the wind but also the ability to listen to one's own self as objectively as is humanly possible - as if one were listening to themselves on stage while simultaneously sitting in the balcony.
Lots of experience playing in good ensembles will help one in deciphering what works and what doesn't. One cannot apply the fundamentals of projection in a practice studio.
I learned more about my own ability to project by far when listening to radio broadcasts of the San Francisco Symphony and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra that enabled myself to hear what I sounded like IN CONTEXT. I remeber my teacher, Robert Marcellus describing exactly the same learning process to me about playint in the Cleveland Orchestra when we talked about this subject during the last few lessons that I had with him. He told me that he had learned more about his own playing and made the most personal progress from that single, objective listening process alone.
Gregory Smith"
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2022-08-24 04:43
Thanks everybody for the comments! Fun stuff to think about...
First off, the Kohan linked above is very beautiful IMO and a very different sort of playing from the dull, boring clarinet playing I mentioned. Thanks for that link; I'll listen to more of it later.
I agree with Paul regarding the recording issues. I've thought for many years that today's younger players have mostly only listened to recordings and are doing an excellent job of reproducing those sounds. But I think that's the problem and it shows up when these players are trying to be heard in an ensemble or even alone in a dead hall. In fact, I'm certain that many of these players would be lost if it weren't for microphones. Yes, I've heard pros who favor this sort of sound both in front of orchestras and in recitals, and their sounds struggle to make it to the back of the halls or over the orchestra. On one hand it's amazing to hear the homogeneity of their sounds and the fluidity of their technique but I find myself thinking they no longer sound human but more like midi files. And this, I think, is why so many still turn to Harold Wright or someone from an older era, because they sound human... with slight flaws, with a touch of struggle perhaps... human and beautiful... full of life.
The thing about the squillo that I think applies to the clarinet is the resonance, that ping or slight buzz or that ringing overtone that is present when the tone is perfectly balanced. Today's players remove all of that. Reeds that are too hard and mouthpieces that are too open. It's a horrible combo and while it may sound interesting, in the end it just doesn't work. It's a one-color sound that is very boring. The thing is, and this was the surprising thing, is that singers are doing this also. And, it appears from the comments in the YouTube clips that some other instruments are experiencing this as well.
I've often wondered where we'd be if violinists took up this trend.. Imagine if they all moved to plastic strings to make their tones darker? Or if they stuffed their F holes with fabric to reduce the resonance? Flutes haven't done this.. yet... flutes still play with that resonant balanced tone... What I hear in these modern wind sections are muffled bassoons, absent clarinets, and normal sounding flutes. Oboes seem to be on the fence, but even they seem to be going down this road.
Is it possible that clarinet players have chased a dark tone to the point of losing what it was that makes the clarinet unique? I think so.
Oh... Drucker live, as mentioned above. Yeah... I hated his sound on the recordings. But I heard him live at Ravinia, and OMG it might have been the most beautiful sound I've ever heard. I went to the concert excited to hear Nuccio.. well, Nuccio sounded great, but like every other great clarinet player. Drucker sounded like some etherial beauty that I'd never heard before. Simply incredible.
In my studies with Larry Combs, we never, not once, ever talked about a "dark" sound. He would have never let me play really hard reeds as it would have made what he was requiring impossible. While he never used the term squillo, the concept of his approach to the sound was exactly the same as squillo. Combs insisted on a focused sound on each note and would take nothing less. This wasn't too hard, but when articulating, he would not budge. That focused, ringing clarinet sound was stressed in each lesson I had during my 5 years with him.
Sorry for the rambling post... This is a topic I've been thinking of for a long time and I confess, I probably don't convey my thoughts very well. This would be much easier to discuss in person. Who's up for a coffee and some clarinet nerd talk?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2022-08-24 05:08
Oh... one more thing. I've only noticed this weird obsession with a "dark" tone, one with no resonance, no squillo, from American clarinetists. The europeans that I know of, the names we're all familiar with, don't seem to be doing this. They've retained that beauty of the clarinet, the many colors available.
I hear this all the time in auditions. Where I work, the clarinet players have to audition in a very dead room. Behind the screen I can tell immediately they are playing a wide open mouthpiece, like a B40 and a heavy reed like a Vandoren 4-5. You can literally hear the struggle. Sure it's a dark sound, but it's small and won't fill the room. Sounds OK on Mozart or the Brahms Andante, but man.... when they try to articulate, especially up high, it all falls apart. They've lost the audition because they've insisted on a dark tone to the exclusion of everything else. The candidate probably doesn't realize that almost everyone who shows up has that same problem: a nice fat sound that causes intonation and articulation problems. The winner, inevitably, is the person with the balanced sound, the maneuverable sound, the colorful sound. If this were just a rare event then I'd hardly take notice of it, but I am literally hearing 100s of these clarinet players. I'd equate it to a mind virus that has taken hold of young players, this fear of resonance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2022-08-24 12:58
Dave: this is getting really interesting. I'm glad you agree that Kohan's playing has appealing attributes. So what term would you use to describe it? "Dark" is being used by you (and others) as a term of criticism, referring to a lack of resonance. For Kohan I would be tempted to say "smooth", "warm", "mellow". All of these are in part an attempt to capture the fact that Kohan succeeds in producing a tone that is not "edgy", "thin", or "buzzy". I guess the "dark" trend indeed focuses on eliminating these negatives - but it does Kohan a disservice to focus on what his playing is not, rather than on specific positive qualities.
In any case, the main point you emphasise so correctly is the need for variety. There's a great passage in Brymer's book where he discusses the very different sound you need for Brahms sonatas vs Heldenleben. So an ideal player would be able to deliver a Kohan-esque beauty in a chamber setting, but add a controlled amount of squillo "grit" to carry over an orchestra as required. The difficulty I have with players of the older generation, though, is that the squillo was always there. So I think one can say that things have improved and that the best modern players offer a refinement of tone that was not previously on offer (and this is true not just with clarinets: contrast modern oboe playing with the coarse sounds on a typical 1960s recording).
The challenge is to find equipment that permits this range, rather than confining you to one end of it. Like you, I dislike the B40. However, although you claim that "dark" is an American obsession, the B40 seems to be the standard-issue item for students coming out of British music colleges these days, so I think the disease is present here too (and actually getting worse, with growing use of the BD5).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2022-08-26 04:59
Kohan's tone to my ear is velvety but still retains the ring in the sound, or the higher overtones. It's clear that his reeds aren't the hardest ones available. I wouldn't be surprised if his reeds are of a medium strength, like a Vandoren 3.5. IMO, his tone is the right sort of "dark" rather than the dull and stuffy version that I hear these days from many American players.
The B40 is an excellent mouthpiece when paired with a proper reed like a Vandoren 3 or 3.5. It's when you slap a 4.5 or 5 on it that it begins to sound awful. Nicholas Baldeyrou used to play a B40 and had a lovely balanced sound. His beautiful tone is still retained on his BD5 and BD4, which he apparently plays now. Seems the europeans aren't obsessed with a so-called 'dark' sound and have fallen into the trap of playing innapropriate reeds.
That velvety sound I mentioned above results from the clarinetist selecting an appropriate reed and then using the airstream and embouchure, all in perfect balance. Slapping a really hard reed on the mouthpiece gives the inexperienced player the false sense of a 'dark tone' without ever learning to properly shape the sound with the airstream and embouchure. Maybe it could be better said as to "tame" the sound rather than "shape". In my original post I commented that the young player would be frightened if he were to produce a lively, resonant sound, and it's exactly this sort of sound that can be shaped to that velvety sound that Kohan is getting. See, you can always smooth out a vibrant sound, but you'd be hard pressed to create a ringing tone from a reed that's too hard. This is why it's critical to dissuade young players from really hard reeds; they never learn control. The reed does all their work. I liken it to driving a car that won't steer properly.
I've read so many stories on this board over the years about how this or that player's reeds were so free blowing, from Harold Wright to Karl Leister. I know that my teacher Larry Combs never played hard reeds; he played 3.5s or 4 V12s with his Larry Combs mouthpiece (LC1). The point I'm trying to make here is that these players, along with the best European players of today, the names we all know, are NOT playing super hard reeds and turning all red and purple with a failed attempt at getting a 'dark' tone that almost no one can hear.
Once in a lesson with Larry Combs I had an unresponsive reed that produced a somewhat muffled tone. Larry looked at me with his had over his mouth and began talking, which of course muddied up his voice. He was demonstrating that my setup that day was preventing me from making a clear, resonant tone.. squillo.
The older players, those taught by Bonade, etc. did have that squillo in their playing all the time and that is what made those tones so beautiful. Kohan also has that to some extent, where he allows the clarinet to brighten and ring in the higher register. I'm certain that in a recital that I could easily hear Kohan fill a room even at a pp dynamic. Contrast that with one of today's leading clarinet players, again a name that is worshiped, who I had the chance to hear play the Mozart Concerto in a small hall, and while played as perfectly as possible, he was all but inaudible. I guess his dark lovely tone is kept for himself and no one else?
I left a recital performed by another of today's greats and those many of us left shooting sideward glances to one another and ultimately agreeing that it was perfect, but... um... where was the tone? Can he play above mp?
Or once I was driving my car and heard Shostakovich 5 playing, the slow movement, or maybe the first movement... heard the low clarinet duet... listened carefully while the principal clarinet was nearly inaudible and the second was ringing through clear as a bell. Stayed to the end and was unsurprised at the performer, a name I knew well. Wish I knew who that 2nd player was who played so beautifully.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Eichler
Date: 2024-04-07 07:22
"No clarinetist that I've heard either sitting next to, in front of, or out in the concert hall ever sounded better because of any noise, garbage, etc. in one's sound. Quite the contrary. It's convienient in theory but realistically, the better one sounds up close, the better they will sound at a distance PROVIDED they know how to PROJECT their well developed, pure, and well shaped sound - one with an inherent beautiful sonority."
A former teacher of mine, a member of the Hartford Symphony and a former student of Russianoff, told me exactly the opposite and used Harold Wright as an example of this. He told me that Wright had that sort of "noise," "garbage," or whatever, in his sound up close, but sounded marvelous further away. Or, as I believe Bonade is reported to have said, you are not playing to impress your second clarinetist. He is after your job anyway.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2024-04-07 10:26
Due to COVID I had been away from ensembles for a few years (as I suspect other have experienced too) and found myself noticing the "distance effect" with a rather fine player who had been seated next to me only to move later in rehearsal and have a solo (at a distance). I would describe the experience much the way I felt about hearing my teacher (second chair with the Chicago Symphony) play a few quick phrases during my lesson. The sound up close was "nothing to write home about." I wouldn't say noisy or anything like that, just not impressive. However, the solo my colleague had sitting halfway across the ensemble (with accompaniment from other sections) was actually quite stunning (made all the more jarring by my NOT having been exposed to ensemble sounds for almost two years).
If any one else out there has similar stories, PLEASE share!
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexey
Date: 2024-04-09 19:46
There is a good video on the topic and related to clarinet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN1M19703LE
In short, it's "listen to the twelves"
"No clarinetist that I've heard either sitting next to, in front of, or out in the concert hall ever sounded better because of any noise, garbage, etc. in one's sound. Quite the contrary. It's convienient in theory but realistically, the better one sounds up close, the better they will sound at a distance PROVIDED they know how to PROJECT their well developed, pure, and well shaped sound - one with an inherent beautiful sonority."
I tend to agree with that. I like to think that the sound has fundamental tone and overtones, but they should be blended and sound should be homogenious. The high-pitched noise in the clarinet sound is not a squillo. Hissing air because the reed is too strong is not mellowness.
Ideally sound should be very clear and projecting but without a lack of depth or really noticeable high pitched noise.
However, I noticed that sometimes good sound at close distance in a small room can be a bit hard and edgy (I am not sure if I used correct and understandable words lol)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2024-04-09 23:23
I put myself in the camp of the video - Sound first, technique comes after.
The Gulper exercise to train yourself to hear the twelfth of the chalumeau note and then play through to it and back down is GREAT. I wish I had heard of that years ago!
................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2024-04-10 02:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
