 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2024-09-01 12:58
Very first though, what do I mean with "full"? I mean such as "mellow", "dense" and "compact" - and as opposed to such as "thin", "spread out" or "shrill". Also a more general and typical "German" than "French" sound, with the physical difference of weaker/less pronounced overtones of the former compared to the latter (or a smoother, less "rugged" diagram of harmonics/partials, if you like). Also the term "dark" is often used in this sense, but since it's less descriptive and there also seem to be some confusion about its meaning, I prefer "full".
So, what then about the question itself? When searching for an answer myself already years ago, I found conflicting ideas. While some advocated a large, "Viennese" bore (typically 15.0-15.25mm at the top joint bottom end), others did the exact opposite - with the smallest practically possible bore for a fullest possible tone.
Since I thus had to try to find out myself, I will now share my findings - so far. This has actually been a long journey of about two decades, trying out not only different bore sizes and designs, but also combining those with other gear. Along it, there has been certain "steps" of insight, including the following:
1) A major one was when Wolfgang Lohff (from Lohff & Pfeiffer) ones told me that this isn't about a large, Viennese bore itself, but the combination of such a bore with a Viennese mouthpiece - with its very close and very long facing (this way also the resistance felt by the player doesn't necessarily vary too much between a large bore/closed mouthpiece Viennese setup, compared to a smaller bore/more open mouthpiece French setup). My own later interpretation - enhanced by personal experiences - has also been that on a Viennese setup, the closed mouthpiece is actually compensating for what otherwise could be a rather hollow instead of a full tone - from the large bore alone. So, obviously this subject is getting complicated, already here.
2) Another major step was when I for the first time play-tested the then just released Buffet Tradition, paired with a Playnick Puccini Tosca mouthpiece. I was almost chocked about the "German" sound I got, at first even concluding this clarinet had a German bore. Well, after checking it hasn't, but the bore size is smaller than usual for a French system clarinet (14.55mm at the upper joint lower end for a Tradition I Bb I measured, and 14.59mm for another Tradition II Bb). I also found that I only got this "German" sound with that specific mouthpiece, not with the others I tried (a Selmer C85 120, a Verdi Traviata, a Mozart KV622, and a Nommos B2 French - and despite these two latter ones also are Playnick B2 "derivatives", as the Puccini Tosca).
Then I tried the Puccini Tosca also on a RC Prestige and a Yamaha SE Artist, but without getting the "German" sound I got on the Tradition.
Thus also here, not the clarinet bore alone or the mouthpiece alone, but a certain combination. Also, not a specific mouthpiece tip opening or lay length itself, but also other aspects of mouthpiece design.
Would you then get the same results, with the same setup? Not necessarily, since also the player is a crucial part of the equation (your embouchure, voicing, anatomy, etc).
3) Along this route I've play-tested a whole bunch of mainly Reform Boehm clarinets, but also some German and Austrian ones, as well as French ones. For a long time the single most full sounding of all (to me) was a Martin Foag very large Austrian bore clarinet (15.25mm at the upper joint lower end) paired with an Austrian facing mouthpiece (a Playnick A'). However, a recent Maxton Alban (and still later also a Clara) with my "regular" Reform Boehm bore clarinets (upper joint lower end 14.67mm) has given me a lot more of the "fullness" I'm after, than any previous setup.
Interestingly, when now making a direct comparison of this latter setup to that previous Foag/Playnick A' combo, I'm actually hearing an element of hollowness in that previous favourite of mine! I've not tried the Foag with an Alban/Clara (I don't own the Foag, just have saved recordings of it), so can't say for sure how that would sound - but as related above, a mouthpiece "just right" for one particular clarinet (and player) probably isn't that right for another one.
As just a side-note, it's fascinating to me both how complex an instrumental sound is, and how as a player it's possible to discern and hear different "ingredients" in it (and also to train ones ears to do so) - but also how revealing a tone-by-tone, side-by-side comparison can be. I don't think I would ever had noticed any hollowness in that previous experience, if it hadn't been for that later setup "outplaying" the former.
Conclusions?
I'm afraid all this is boiling down to that awful "it depends", as an answer. I.e., it can't just be established that this or that size or kind of bore alone would give the fullest possible tone (or for that matter, any other kind of "ideal" tone), but it depends largely also on the mouthpiece (probably more than the clarinet bore alone) and the player - and thus the combination of these (this in itself would also explain why there are conflicting ideas out there about the bore size itself).
However, at least so far, I myself am leaning towards a moderate bore size (not too large, not too small) paired with the "right" type of mouthpiece - for the fullest possible tone. Considering also other aspects of bore design than pure size, I'm leaning rather towards German or Reform Boehm type designs, than French.
Thus also here, as with any other clarinet gear, trying out as many alternatives and combinations as possible for yourself is probably the only way to really find out.
Sorry for a lengthy writing, but I hope it could benefit someone else in a similar quest.
Comments are welcome.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexey
Date: 2024-09-01 23:03
I am not arguing, but to make things even more complicated.
It's not only a bore size but a bore shape as well contributing to the sound.
As for the mouthpiece, it's not only how it's closed or open and how long facing is. But also the curve of the facing, design of rails, baffle, and throat.
And last but not least I still don't know what is full tone. Because my ears, my experience, and my understanding of words are different.
So I guess the bottom line is like this:
We should try as much as we can different equipment to find ones that help with our ideal tone as closely as possible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2024-09-01 23:09
It's down to the individual player rather than the instrument - one player can sound full and rich, whereas another player can sound like fingernails down a blackboard when playing on exactly the same instrument and mouthpiece/reed combo.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2024-09-02 16:30
tonehole size/placement and profile matter way way way more than bore
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ghoulcaster
Date: 2024-09-03 11:38
I agree with Donald.
People go on and on about bore size, but the tonehole sizes and placements vary so much more in comparison.
Old “large bore” Selmers don’t sound and feel so different because of a 3% or whatever larger bore. It is because they have huge toneholes without undercutting on most of them.
Leblanc LLs have small undercut toneholes, and have a light flutey sound because of it, despite having a bigger bore than Buffets (which have smaller bores but noticeably larger tone holes).
Even on the extreme end, the Viennese 15.25 is only like 5% larger than the 14.55 Buffet Tradition.
Tone hole positions, and particularly sizes simply vary WAY WAY more than 5%. Undercutting amounts and profiles (if there even is any at all!) also vary WAY more than 5%.
The thickness of the walls matters and can vary a lot too between models, the Selmer Recital being an extreme example.
Looking at pictures on google, a lot of reform boehms have tiny tone holes. One reason of course is all the extra venting, so notes have more tone holes than usual. That surely changes the sound a lot too.
Having the extra D/G vent is going to change the character of that fingering way more than any bore size difference.
Post Edited (2024-09-03 11:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2024-09-04 00:08
I've got a set of Leblanc LL clarinets in for a full overhaul and many of the LL's top joint tonehoes and especially the throat A tonehole are massive and placed differently compared to a Normandy. Even a Selmer CT with its large bore doesn't have its throat A tonehole anywhere near that diameter.
Both Bb and A LL clarinets have this large throat A tonehole, although the speaker tube is around 3mm and the thumb tube is 7.5mm on both Bb and A, so both pitches share some same parts when some other makes have different speaker tubes and thumb bushes.
I didn't realise there would be that significant a difference between them seeing as they're both from the same company as far as tonehole sizes went and thought it was more down to tapering and undercutting as well as a different bore style.
I don't tend to have instruments around to do direct comparisons with, so noticing the LL's tonehole sizes made me compare it to a Normandy which I've got in pieces awaiting a full rebuild (which was my cousin's clarinet he had from school over in the US).
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Reformed
Date: 2024-09-07 14:23
Micke, thanks for the definition of "full" which I agree with. "Dark" has too many inherent associations for me. However the opposites of "full" and "dark" are maybe "light" and "thin", both of which seem to have negative connotations to me.
Anyway, I would like to share my own experiences in search for a full sound.
I started out as a B&H 1010 player. The term commonly used in Britain was the "big" 1010 sound. Certainly the best 1010 players (e.g. de Peyer, Brymer, Bradbury, et al.) had big and also beautiful sound. However, while I occasionally got there, I always found the I lost the "beautiful" aspect after a few days or weeks and changed my setup, getting better for a while only. I am really not sure if my perception of the sound was real or simply my ear became tired of the sound.
My ideal was (and still is!) the sound of Bernard Walton who played on Schmidt Kolbe clarinets, i.e. early larger bore reform Boehms. See http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=304563&t=303952 for Ramon Wodowski's information on Walton's clarinets. Leopold Wlach is up there as well.
When I was about 15. I went to the Dartington summer music school and festival when the Netherlands Wind Ensemble were present with George Pieterson as 1st clarinet. Hearing the reform Boehm clarinet in the ensemble, convinced me that German clarinets were superior for wind ensemble. The NWE Mozart performances were fabulous.
Several years later, I acquired some Peter Eaton Elites. Although tapered bore, they share the basic 1010 bore of 15.24mm/0.600", particularly in the mouthpiece and barrel, i.e. there is no mouthpiece or barrel taper. This parallel 0.600" mouthpiece bore had been a design kept since Boosey & Co. in the late 1800s.
I bought a wooden Zinner German 3M mouthpiece as a curiosity and had Peter re-bore it to the 1010 specifications. The results were OK but not life changing.
Later I was in Vienna for a few weeks business and went into a woodwind shop, whose name I have unfortunately lost. The staff were very keen for me to try the Otmar Hammerschmidt student Oehler clarinet. Of course, I struggled with the Oehler fingering but the mouthpiece was spectacular and I convinced them to let me buy the mouthpiece alone. This was the Viennese bore (15.40mm) at the bottom with less taper than either German or French mouthpieces.
When re-bored to the 1010 cylindrical mouthpiece bore, the Hammerschmidt was great but still had my perception that the sound went off after a while.
Shortly after that I was in Tokyo on business and selected a pair of the Yamaha German Boehms, i.e. the simplest form of reform Boehm with a German bore of 14.75mm at the bottom of the upper joint.
I am currently using Leitner & Krauss P+4 mouthpieces on both the Yamahas and the Peter Eatons - with one re-bored to 1010 specifications for the Eatons.
Having now had several German and Austrian mouthpieces re-bored from a taper to cylinder, I notice that the sound becomes significantly brighter after the re-bore. I confirmed this to myself recently, and unintentionally, when I put the German L&K bore mouthpiece on the Eatons. I thought "this is sounding good but why is the tuning so bad?"!
My sound preference is now the German Boehms but I do sometimes get frustrated with tuning. This may be the Yamaha model which I think is based on early Wurlitzer designs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2024-09-07 23:11
That’s very interesting, Reformed.
It’s often said that Brymer, de Peyer, Bradbury, Hill, and others, played with the 1010 sound, but it’s as much the taste in tonal concepts that caused the sound as anything inherent in the design of the instrument. The initiator of that model’s popularity was Thurston, who always played in a constrained and compact tonal style. He might have moved to 1010s from Hawkes Martels to broaden out, or hoping it would allow him to play louder, but it made little difference given the very close facing of his mouthpiece and his desire to produce a firm, rather than louche, sound.
The typical British sound envelope bloated significantly between around 1955 and 1980. Early de Peyer was worlds away from what he turned into by 1980. I attended a de Peyer recital in Sevenoaks, England, in 1980, in which the tone had reached such an extremity of tastelessness that it was painful. Brymer migrated less obviously, but did to quite an extent, but without the tendency to overdo the change. Sidney Fell also shifted (listen to his early 50s performance in the movie, The Card, compared with his late 60s movie, Ring of Bright Water). And the same happened to Walton on his German instrument. They must have moved to more open facing mouthpieces, but whatever was the cause, it was their approach, much more than the instruments.
I have an Eaton mouthpiece which is very open in the facing, but has other design features which focus the tone. On my 1955 1010 it gives bright focussed sound.
The style of the Dutch reformed Boehm players took things in a different direction, and a delightful one at that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2024-09-10 12:55
Attachment: Selmer C85 vs Maxton Clara.mp3 (1816k)
Alexey wrote:
Quote:
And last but not least I still don't know what is full tone.
I agree that any words describing tone are tricky - so I made the attached sound file for you (and for that matter, for anyone else not quite sure about what I mean with "full", as opposed to "thin" and "spread out").
The attached file has two separate recordings of the chromatic scale combined (from low E to D# above the staff), divided into a number of "rounds" where three successive notes are played first on a "thin" and "spread out" setup, immediately followed by the same notes on a "full" setup. Thus, from the beginning, low E-F-F# as "thin", then the same notes as "full", next low G-G#-A as "thin", then as "full", etc (the reason for only three notes in a row is that at least my own "tonal memory" is about that short  ). Thus, always the "thin" version first, followed by the "full" - before going to the next level of the scale.
I made both recordings with the same clarinet (a Wurlitzer Reform Boehm), but with two different mouthpieces/reeds: 1) The "thin" and "spread out" tone with a Selmer C85 120/Legere Euro cut 3.5 (and a Luyben ligature), and 2) the "full" tone with a Maxton Clara/Pilgerstorfer Vienna 3.5 (and the Vandoren "Klassik" ligature).
In his PhD-paper Ed Pillinger describes the Selmer C85/120 as "bright toned", and the "Reed personality" assessment by Legere for their Euro cut is closer to "bright" than "dark". While I agree with these, I would hasten to say that I'm definitely not equalling every "bright" tone with a "thin" or "spread out" tone. In my experience, also a rather "bright" than "dark" tone can still be "dense" and "compact" (while perhaps not as "full" or "mellow"...) - but for the purpose of this comparison, the tone I get from this particular mouthpiece/reed combo is "thin" and "spread out" (with my embouchure, anatomy, etc).
Also, I'm of course not judging anyone's taste here - so if someone actually prefers my "thin" rather than my "full" tone, then that's just fine - but hopefully this makes at least my use of these words clearer.
As always with recordings, good quality speakers or headphones (from about $100 up) are required - otherwise everything will sound more or less the same.
Post Edited (2024-09-10 13:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
