 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-06-17 18:59
I feel myself partly to blame for not honing in on what I seek an answer to.
In my last post, where I asked why "the switch was made," I was unclear that the switch I was referring to was "double to single lip," not "reed on top of mouthpiece to below." Sorry.
I really hope I am not being a pest. Apologies if I am.
Fact: at some point a transition occurred where clarinet mouthpieces started featuring the reed in a place closer to the ground than sky.
We certainly can debate or justify why or even when this was done, and that would all be good, but away from my inquiry.
What we can't disagree on is that this change now allowed, but did not require the teeth to come in contact with the top of the mouthpiece, permitting a single lip embouchure that would have been impossible under a reed on top paradigm.
But this change to single lip embouchure, while now mechanically permissible, by no means was required. Clearly, double lip embouchure has always remained a viable approach before and after the mouthpiece/reed positioning switch.
What we also can't disagree on is that players switched to and new players adopted single lip embouchure in very large part.
Why? Does it have to do with the ease of controlling the instrument with single lip outweighed benefits often accrued to double lip play like improved harmonics?
Asking the question differently, granted he was one pedagogue, but Opperman had his students play double lip, switching to it need be, and felt strongly about it. Were/are all single lip players wrong? Was it just difference of opinion? Was it that double lip solved or prevented certain bad habits that a fair number of single lip players didn't have, and therefore didn't need to switch to double lip to solve?
Why did double lip lose its predominance?
I can understand why we don't go back to double lip. Teachers who don't play this way tend to not teach the technique, but why did the transition occur?
Again, Thanks in advance (TIA).
Post Edited (2023-06-17 19:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lydian
Date: 2023-06-17 21:40
My very uneducated guess is double lip was pretty much a requirement back in the day if you didn't want to ruin your wooden mouthpiece. The advent of harder materials made it possible to put one's teeth directly on the mouthpiece.
Remember that saxophone players faced the same dilemma back in the day. Similarly, nearly all played single lip from the early 20th century on.
Aside from the practical considerations (not chewing through your mouthpiece), single lip is simply easier and less painful, especially on the high end where considerable bite pressure is unavoidable (on both sax and clarinet).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-06-17 22:36
While the first mouthpieces were, supposedly, made of wood, other materials were also used very soon after - ivory, gold, silver, glass, marble(!) and even ebonite (likely as early as the 1850-60’s) so I would think protecting the wooden mouthpieces from the teeth was likely not a huge concern.
The “reed-on-top” originally (allegedly?) was due to the performance practice of the instrument at the time to mimic the human voice which would articulate via the breath (aka separate aspirations).
However, some genius recognized that placing the reed on the bottom presented the opportunity to articulate with the tongue, allowing a great possibility of more rapid articulation. It also (reed on bottom) further enabled the player the possibility of more control and flexibility (also allegedly - I may be a bit older than most here but I wasn’t around in the early days of the clarinet!).
Double lip - done correctly and learned over a bit of time - is not necessarily more difficult nor is it more painful (in the long run…at first..well….). I’m not sure what lydian means by “considerable bite pressure” for the “high end” but, IMO, it isn’t at all necessary for either single of double lip if you’re doing it right.
Whether one plays single lip or double lip is a personal decision. Plenty of very accomplished players use each - and several use both! Why one may be used by more than the other is a meaningless investigation. One is not necessarily better than the other. You do whatever it is to reach your own concepts of sound, keeping in mind that the goal of playing the clarinet (or any instrument, for that matter) is all about gaining control and flexibility in order to do the music justice. If you can reach your goals with single lip, fantastic…double lip, terrific. It doesn’t matter.
“If you know your musical path, it will solve your instrumental problems.”
Post Edited (2023-06-17 22:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2023-06-17 22:42
Second Try,
How do you know "where considerable bite pressure is unavoidable (on both sax and clarinet)?
And why is knowing when or why changes from single to double lip or vice versa occurred is important. I have been playing for well over 70 years in all sorts of settings and with several very fine teachers and cannot recall ever having the topic come up.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lydian
Date: 2023-06-17 22:58
The bite pressure comment was mine. As a big band musician for nearly 50 years, I consider myself fairly accomplished on sax and less so on clarinet, and extreme altissimo has always required more bite pressure than the low end of the horn. If you can manage it with voicing alone, kudos to you. But it's not my reality. Maybe I need some lessons to learn to play altissimo with a loose embouchure. But at my age, it will be very difficult to change. Regardless, using double lip up there would be quite painful for me, at least if I wanted to play in tune, no matter how much I practiced. I could easily play flat with double lip, however, which is what I hear my double lip playing peers do most of the time.
I agree the historical evidence for everybody starting on double lip way back when, then switching to single is lacking. Do we have instructional materials or accounts of double lip from hundreds of years ago? I have a saxophone method book that's over a hundred years old that teaches single lip.
Post Edited (2023-06-17 22:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-06-18 01:14
Hank Lehrer wrote:
> Second Try,
>
> How do you know "where considerable bite pressure is
> unavoidable (on both sax and clarinet)?
>
> And why is knowing when or why changes from single to double
> lip or vice versa occurred is important. I have been playing
> for well over 70 years in all sorts of settings and with
> several very fine teachers and cannot recall ever having the
> topic come up.
>
> HRL
Hi Hank:
As you must realize by now your first question was inspired by Lydian's thoughts and has been addressed by this poster.
As to your question on why the change from double to single lip (I really don't think it was in the other direction) is important to me is so that I can better appreciate what it is people gained from moving to single lip--what was the motivation---and what was lost in it that people like Opperman, as late as the turn of the century, still insisted on it?
I have my own theories. I just think its easier to grasp the instrument with your mouth when at least one lip (the upper) doesn't stand between those teeth and the mouthpieces, more so than any loss in tone production from single lip play, particular for players who incorporate some of the double lip mechanics into their single lip play.
Understanding why players switched embouchures better informs this player of the pros and cons of each method of snugging the mouthpiece. I've heard the double lip pros, and I'd like to hear what others have to say about the single lip pros, other than my beliefs above.
Sometimes in life people follow change in herd mentality like ways for little good reason. But given the vast move to single lip play once mouthpieces changes allowed it, I suspect that there are reasons related to play that can perhaps justify the paradigm shift, beyond simply following the trend.
I have no idea of there is a "chicken or the egg" type argument here that found mouthpieces switching to accommodate reeds on bottom because it allowed for desired single lip play, or whether single lip play was a product of, rather a motivation for the mouthpiece change. And at least within the scope of my focused inquiry the history doesn't interest me (although I appreciate a poster's comments on the mouthpiece change allowing for easier play using either embouchure.)
The question whose answer interests me is "once both embouchures became possible with mouthpiece changes, why did the vast majority of players make double lip play a thing of the past?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2023-06-18 01:42
Second Try,
Thank you for your response.
I would suggest that you use the Scientific Method to answer your question(s). Next, develop your hypothesis (null or research) which may be extremely hard to test since the data you collect will likely be qualitative.
Good luck.
HRL
.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-06-18 02:59
Hank, I'd have to quantify the "band wagon effect," if any, when people first started adopting and teaching single lip embouchure simply because others were doing so, to eliminate this factor's influence on the paradigm shift (which itself has nothing to do with advantages to clarinet play) and then visit the thoughts of the departed (maybe through not so easily attainable notes, if even memorialized) as to why these teachers both heard of, and themselves advocated for this embouchure transition at the time.
That's one tall order for me, so I thought that some of our older posters, with good understanding of the instrument's history, might have some handle on this.
Maybe there were a number of accomplished American players who made this transition, and taught their students this way, and so forth and so on. Maybe different schools of thought emerged in part because a change in mouthpiece design occurred as an ocean truly separated us from the French and their school of mouthpiece embouchure technique in ways that today's technology finds us bridging.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2023-06-18 12:19
I'm a bit confused as to what the point of this discussion is .
It strikes me as being like a discussion over chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.
Surely some people prefer chocolate and others vanilla while others like to alternate .....and that's all there really is to it ?
If there exist some significant nutritional differences that are relevant , then I can't see what they could possibly be , and again that strikes me as a matter for the individual.
If this is about music, then surely the artistic factors of individual tast and expression are just things to be freely celebrated and not subject to excessive analysis.
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-06-18 15:24
Bravo, Julian - you nailed it!
However, if I might comment on your ice cream analogy: in this case, I would prefer pistachio…
…’cause (like so much other commentary - IMO - on this BB) this is nuts!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2023-06-18 15:38
But that said , the answer to your question probably DOES lie largely in the "band wagon effect", as all periods tend to have their celebrities/ maestros whose personal choices influence the choice tendencies of others .
So your question is probably, essentially a sociology one, without a particularly satisfactory rational answer to it .
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lydian
Date: 2023-06-18 18:08
I disagree with the bandwagon effect. Single lip is objectively easier and more efficient for most people. It’s more popular because it’s better, not because everyone is following the herd. Take any novice player and have them attempt to play altissimo G using single and double. Then compare ease, intonation and comfort. Single will win on all counts.
I’m not one to follow the herd. I do the easiest and most efficient thing that achieves the best result, and that’s single lip on all my saxes and clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-06-18 18:40
Hey lydian,
Truth is, most “novice” players pretty much have little to no concept of what a good embouchure - whether single or double lip - is. Nor can the majority form one with any consistency. I can hardly think of more than two private students I’ve come across in my decades of teaching and coaching that had what I would refer to as an effective and efficient embouchure at the outset of their studies with me - and I had my pick of students, btw.
Furthermore, what novice student is playing an altissimo G anyway? Probably the last thing they should be doing, IMO. Much better to develop a consistent approach to the instrument (as a novice!) than to be “exploring” where they will, no doubt, do more harm than good.
Personally, I find little difference in what I am able to do whether I’m employing single or double lip. You may believe one is easier than the other. I don’t. Actually, as I have gotten older, I find that my control improves especially on the altissimo notes (up to “super” high D) with double lip.
But objectively? There’s little that’s objective in these choices we make, for whatever reason. It’s mostly all subjective. That’s why there are so many variants of tonal and musical concepts.
Keeps it interesting, eh?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-06-18 19:01
Hi SecondTry,
In the Battipaglia thesis (p13), the interview with Gino Cioffi states that following his move from Italy to the USA, he switched from reed uppermost to reed below. He says he did this just because it was hard to get paying jobs if he was playing in an unorthodox way, and not because he believed it confered any performance advantage.
I've heard people say so many times here that people buy Buffet clarinets because they are under pressure to do so in order to look like a serious contender for a professional job.
Is it possible that something happened at some point to make it become "the professional standard" to play single lip, without it being technically essential or superior?
Again, this is the same kind of thing that I've seen in photography. There are so many great small cameras these days. But I've seen people on professional photography forums saying that they have to buy the big DSLR, or else they wouldn't get hired for weddings.
Jen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-06-18 19:34
Julian ibiza wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused as to what the point of this discussion is
> .
>
> It strikes me as being like a discussion over chocolate vs
> vanilla ice cream.
> Surely some people prefer chocolate and others vanilla while
> others like to alternate .....and that's all there really is to
> it ?
>
> If there exist some significant nutritional differences that
> are relevant , then I can't see what they could possibly be ,
> and again that strikes me as a matter for the individual.
>
> If this is about music, then surely the artistic factors of
> individual tast and expression are just things to be freely
> celebrated and not subject to excessive analysis.
>
Hi Julian:
It may seem to you (or not) that I'm nitpicking a topic with minimal connection to improved clarinet play like one's personal preference in shirt color--which if your perception (I don't know) I could appreciate how that could be frustrating. I get the sense--again maybe I'm off--that such sentiments were also Hank's take on the matter.
Maybe (maybe not) you see each embouchure as a matter of personal preference where debate is as futile as two people of different opinions as to a piece of artwork, debating its merits.
Two things frustrate *me* to read on the board, neither which I wish to contribute to: debating the merits of highly nuanced aspects of play, like maybe some player more fixated on gear than advanced in play debating
"which plating works best on a ligature" in lieu of hitting the etude books (the only real way of advancing one's play) and people using the forum to share off topic life stories. So I appreciate bboard frustration and wish to apologize for any I've created trying to get a looming question answered.
That said, maybe some perspective is in order, albeit coming in a brief life story.
With nearly 50 years of play under my belt, I recently read a book about Kal Opperman and watched Youtube videos by Tom Ridenour (one of his students) that tout the benefits of double lip embouchure.
Over the last few months I've slowly tried adopting it, and have come to the conclusion, much as my work is not done and my findings are the purely anecdotal ones of one observer, that each embouchure has its pros and cons.
That's a conclusion that is entire possible to be wrong: seeking the help of my fellow forum members to set me straight.
Perhaps at a point of physical exhaustion in double lip play I came to ask myself, "if this technique is so darn good (and maybe it isn't--maybe it's just another technique) why did 'every clarinet player and his uncle' seem to gravitate away from it?"
With nothing but I'm sure good intentions Karl had suggested that my fatigue might be a result of my own play, my not disclosing what specific music lead to such exhaustion.
I've made sure to not take in too much mouthpiece, but I don't (and won't) rest the clarinet on anything but my mouth and right thumb, and the fatigue arose while taking on the arpeggios--if one is familiar--of Messager's Solo De Concurs Andante section.
https://youtu.be/Hzfkf7RzUYE?t=130
Present to me the best and lightest finger technique on the most responsive defect free clarinet setup: something neither I nor my clarinet have, and these runs, especially at tempo, are challenging not simply in their own right, but on a less than fully developed double lip embouchure like mine, as it absorbs the impact of keystrokes by the pinkies and side keys that despite the lightest fingering, still have tendency to move the clarinet to the side in the mouth or twist it--adding to this fatigue.
Could my fingers be lighter..? perhaps, even millimeters closer to the tone holes keys...? perhaps. Do I bang keys: no way. My problem is that the muscle in my mouth aren't fully formed yet to handle double lip play, not my fingers.
If I must only sit, worse, support the instrument on or between my legs this technique isn't for me, much as that would also be my limitation, not one of the embouchure as the linked passage is Giuffredi, a double lip player effecting same with grace, likely standing up in a live performance as he's been known to do.
All along my one question has been, "if the embouchure's so good why do so few continue to use it?"
To some extent I've had to ask this several times because I didn't make clear that the "switch" I was referring to was in embouchure style not a mouthpiece/reed on top/bottom design that allowed the embouchure change.
And to some extent, which I'm probably guilty of as well, contributors went on tangents regarding and debating the history of the mouthpiece change that while notworthy, had nothing to do with my original question.
Off soap box.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2023-06-18 21:54
“I've heard people say so many times here that people buy Buffet clarinets because they are under pressure to do so in order to look like a serious contender for a professional job.”
Think about that for a minute. Really now, how many people post on this BB that are actually professional performers and/or honestly know what goes on in the business other than the anecdotal nonsense that is accepted as gospel by the unknowing? Please don’t continue to spread this drivel. I, along with others who are/were in similar positions, have been on the other side of literally hundreds of auditions, trials, and the like. I’ve yet to either hear of anyone naming their instrument of choice on their resume or being asked about it in person. Especially nowadays, with auditions being held behind screens, all a committee is interested in is the quality and acceptability of one’s playing - not the brand of instrument, not the strength of reed, not the material of ligature, not whether they’re female or male, not whether they wear glasses or not.
“Is it possible that something happened at some point to make it become "the professional standard" to play single lip, without it being technically essential or superior?”
There is no other so-called professional standard other than musical and instrumental competence. One is not more essential or superior to the other - except, possibly, in one’s own mind. Again, nobody cares what kind of embouchure one employs. It’s the results that matter. If you’re happy and comfy with double lip AND it delivers whatever you’re hoping for, great - use it. The same for single lip. Do whatever works for you.
“Again, this is the same kind of thing that I've seen in photography. There are so many great small cameras these days. But I've seen people on professional photography forums saying that they have to buy the big DSLR, or else they wouldn't get hired for weddings.”
The same applies. My brother travels all over the world to shoot nature - bears in Alaska, all kinds of wildlife in Africa, underwater sea life in various oceans, and the like. He has very, very expensive camera equipment. I, on the other hand, take very, very fine travel photos with my iPhone 13. He likes his photos and I like mine.
Btw, I never asked which camera the photographer used for my daughter’s wedding - but the photos looked great!
Post Edited (2023-06-19 00:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2023-06-18 22:13
Hi SecondTry ,
Thank you for detailing your motives and relationship with the question you have posed in this topic, as that helps people offer more focused answers .
If your question all along has been.
< " if the embouchure's so good why do so few continue to use it?">
It seems to me that you are in search of an answer to validate a loading you have placed in the question.
I refer to the words " so good" .
Why is double lip " so good " ?....... Is anyone saying it's better than single lip ?
I haven't heard anybody make that claim as a generalization.
Is it possible that the real question in your mind is " Mastering this double lip is proving difficult for me and I'm not sure how much it's really worth it ."
My apologies for interpreting, but I'm just trying to understand .( And I doubt I'm alone in that ).
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-06-19 00:50
lmliberson: I think somewhere in your speech about gear, which wasn't much up for debate in this thread but I think inspired by some of SunnyDaze's thoughts , I have gleaned you trying to make the point that a player should do what's best for them, and not worry about what others think, not that those in the know much care about anything but the final product: the performance.
I tend to agree, much that when taken to the extreme (which I don't think you at all imply) it can have disastrous results. Clearly, we can't have players approaching the mouthpiece with the reed to the side.
This is why I wanted to factor out the bandwagon effect, if any, of why a paradigm shift in embouchures occurred, leaving reasons hopefully that had to do with more players perhaps having more success with single lip play thand ouble--much that accurately quantifying such bandwagon factors might be near impossible.
Julian:
He's one man, but Tom Ridenour has I think 8 videos on Youtube extolling the virtues of double lip play. In absence of getting him to answer the question, "why if it's so great, did so many players adopt single lip embouchures," I thought someone here might have an answer.
I didn't think my inquiry is loaded or leading because I'm not saying that the technique is so good or bad.
That said, your thoughts on "Mastering this double lip is proving difficult for me and I'm not sure how much it's really worth it," are spot on. But I'd probably ask the question of its benefits even if it was no harder for me than single lip in terms of "why change," and "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
In fairness to Mr. Ridenour's thoughts, he does say that to some players the benefit of double lip comes in merely incorporating some of what is learned doing it into the single lip play. I think he also recognizes that it is anatomically difficult for some players to do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-06-19 09:28
Hi lmliberson,
Thank you very much for correcting my wrong impression. I'm really happy to hear that it's okay to be different, because I'm doing everying in the non-standard way, so that is a great relief to hear.
Jennifer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2023-06-19 17:20
And SecondTry,
However you get on with double lip and come to feel about it's worth , I must say that I'm very impressed that you are breaking new ground at your time of life in such things .
Most commendable!
All the best . J
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2023-06-25 20:09
Double lip was the natural way for early adopters to play. If you've come from the oboe in 1720 then you do what comes naturally. Yes it works but the best players eventually went with single lip because double-lip can permit too much uncontrolled movement in the mouth due to finger movement. That is, it wobbles!
I notice you say this yourself so you've identified one of the main issues.
I'm afraid I find the Ridenour videos strange in the extreme and they make what should be quite a simple action ridiculously complex. I can't take them seriously on any level and I doubt you would find a pro player on my side of the pond who would observe differently. If you want to look at a top-end player with a straightforward approach then go with Nicolas Baldeyrou. There are plenty of wonderful players but some are a law unto themselves like Martin Frost or Steve Williamson. Great players but unique and they would probably be the first to say they do things differently.
Once you go down the rabbit hole of exploring these things I don't think you will find improvement. Most people use single lip for very good reasons and I know because I mistakenly started that way!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
