 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: moolatte
Date: 2026-10-03 07:07
Hello everyone.
These days I am a hobbyist clarinetist performing in community groups, and although I don't necessarily expect to play professionally I am still interested in perfecting my tone quality, articulation, and technique to be as professional as possible.
Of those three, tone quality is the one that I understand the least. The typical preference for groups I've performed in prefers dark tone quality over bright, but I don't think I really understand what "bright" over "dark" really means.
I tried to read about this concept by reading existing threads, but from the dozen or so threads that came up it didn't seem like there was a good "consensus" about what is bright and what is dark tone quality:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=357027&t=356832
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=427218&t=427218
I don't have a professional lesson teacher at this time, but I don't think it is worth engaging a lesson teacher's time on a regular basis to work solely on tone quality.
Explicit asks:
Even though it didn't seem like the consensus was good in these previous discussions, I figure I would ask more explicitly.
- Can you provide links to YouTube videos that demonstrate bright tone and dark tone? Preferably no accompaniment so that I can hear *just* the clarinet.
- What attribute of a mouthpiece affects the tone quality for bright vs. dark sound? Is it tip opening? If yes, what values typically give bright vs. dark tone? If not, what does tip opening affect exactly?
I tried looking this up on YouTube and Reddit already, but the results I find typically have players with a somewhat spread sound in one or more registers, or less-than-stellar audio quality which makes it difficult to understand what I'm listening for.
Any help would certainly be appreciated!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2026-10-03 13:46
In different languages, different terms are used. In French: "un timbre clair" means a bright sound: a sound with a lot of high harmonics, I suppose. At any rate, a very distinctive sound that can be heard in the older school of clarinet playing: Jacques Lancelot for example. I would call that a "reedy" tone, but that's rather derogatory. Instead of a dark sound, I prefer to think -and search for- a round sound. A very dark sound can sound dead and thuddy. The latter is usually achieved with very open mouthpieces and reeds of a high strength (4 and onwards).
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2026-10-03 17:38
Moolatte,
Others will differ, but I'm of the opinion that it's really hard to hear unless in person.
I believe it can also be heard in "dead" recordings where you hear the clarinet as if you were standing in the practice room with the other clarinetist, no audio manipulation, no echo, etc. Those recordings are very few and far between in today's world.
The terms also mean something slightly different to each of us. I believe they are basically "ballpark" terms, and I generally don't find them particularly useful in a technical way.
"Tinny" or "full" or "round" etc. are similar. You could use the term "pinched" or "tight" too.
Really, I wouldn't recommend trying to go for a "dark" or "bright" sound - I'd just focus on the sound you like...what sounds good to you, and develop that sound. This might mean trying to emulate someone's tone that you admire. Having a clear concept of what you consider to be a good sound/tone is the most important part, so that you have a target, and know when you've achieved it.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2026-10-03 18:09
moolatte wrote:
> Of those three, tone quality is the one that I understand the
> least. The typical preference for groups I've performed in
> prefers dark tone quality over bright, but I don't think I
> really understand what "bright" over "dark" really means.
> ... it didn't seem
> like there was a good "consensus" about what is bright and what
> is dark tone quality:
>
No there isn't a strong consensus. It's a highly subjective concept.
> I tried looking this up on YouTube and Reddit already, but the
> results I find typically have players with a somewhat spread
> sound in one or more registers
For some people that's one definition of a "dark" sound. Really, the term itself ought to connote "colorless."
You're much better off ditching the dark-bright terminology and concentrating on more objective sound attributes. Is the sound clear or fuzzy (extra noise, airy)? Does the sound tune to other players easily, and is tuning to it easy for other players? Is the sound strident? Does it carry (project) when needed? Does it sound muffled? There are other characteristics that can be pursued by a player trying to improve his/her sound quality.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2026-10-03 20:34
The baffle design probably exerts the greatest influence, as implied in this extract from a mouthpiece maker’s website referring to one of four base mp designs (to which facings are applied according to taste): “ F1 Classic style with a deep concave baffle and large slightly A-frame throat.. Strong dark tone.”
However, rail dimensions may also affect this outcome, with wide rails seeming smooth and possibly dark.
But overall it’s the “recipe” of all the design aspects and then the interplay with the reed, instrument, ligature, player.
And “dark” often doesn’t project, so it’s not a sure fire benefit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2026-10-03 23:36
Don't worry about dark vs bright: it's a waste of time and energy. Aim for focus, clarity, roundness (i.e. not tight), uniformity throughout the registers, in-tuneness, etc. All those things are actionable goals, e.g., by increasing the speed of air, flexing of the lips, and so forth you can remove extraneous noise in the tone and therefore "focus" the sound.
How do you darken the sound? Who knows or cares (other than high school students and some amateurs).
If you want to hear differences in tone colors, though, I would listen to a bunch of clarinet recordings and preferably older ones, from a period of time when people played very different equipment from one another, had different approaches to technique and musicianship, etc.
At any rate, working on tone separate from the other aspects of clarinet playing, such as intonation, legato, and expression, as it's own conceptual category is a fools errand.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2026-10-04 09:53
brycon: my first clarinet teacher was obsessed with darkness of tone. But, he himself played almost exclusively avant-garde "music".
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bog_Roll
Date: 2026-10-04 12:26
moolatte wrote:
> although I don't necessarily expect to play professionally I am still interested in perfecting my tone quality, articulation, and technique to be as professional as possible.
I admire your attitude!
> what does tip opening affect exactly?
IMO, a wider tip opening gives more volume and projection, because you can push more air through the horn.
And wider tips allow a more flexible pitch, necessary for the swoops, slides, and glisses in certain styles.
Vandoren's widest tip mouthpiece is the 7JB at 1.7mm or .067", but the JodyJazz HR* goes all the way up to 2.16mm or .085" -- yes, this is for Bb clarinet!
When the Rico Metalite first came out in the late 1980s, there was a clarinet version, in tips from 50 to 65 thou. An interesting piece, with a step baffle!
This gives a certain loudness, without being brash; and a certain fullness, right into altissimo, without being brittle or overly bright.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2026-10-04 13:10
Bog Roll: very informative! Thank you.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2026-10-04 22:49
SecondTry wrote:
> moolatte:
>
> I've always (of course others may disagree) considered Gervase
> de Peyer's tone more on the bright side e.g.
> https://youtu.be/XJDmst7cq8s?si=3RKYyNWJxz88k18p&t=120
> and Jon Manasse's more on the darker side
> https://youtu.be/lNIfHvG4Rhk?si=aDq8In7z1HF0yVbK&t=112.
>
Actually, I find de Peyer's tone, particularly in the chalumeau, unpleasant - it's at times rasping, almost forced-sounding. But in fairness, this must be an early recording of his, given the label. I heard him play live much more recently (late 1990s or maybe even very early aughts) than I suspect this record was made, and I remember his tone quality as being quite different, much more soothing and smoother with a much smoother vibrato. The trouble is that you may be judging the recording as much as the playing when you try to do comparisons like that.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2026-10-05 00:04
Karl: I heard Gervae de Peyer in person..and his tone was nothing to write home about. The old Boosey 1010 sound. That said, tastes change over the years. Listen to the violinists of the 1920s and their constant portamenti, for example. Nobody plays that way anymore.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: moolatte
Date: 2026-10-05 02:32
Alright, so those two examples are what I generally have interpreted as bright and dark tone color respectively. When I used to audition for all-state many years ago, the top-tier players would sound like the first recording with Gervase de Peyer, and I NEVER understood how they did it. I would be incredibly envious, and have always wanted *that* kind of sound.
Back then, I played on a Vandoren M13L mouthpiece which when I listen to recordings of myself, my tone quality sounded more like the second recording with Jon Manasse. Side point, but I HATED the M13L mouthpiece because it always played flat even when all my joints were pushed in completely. Additionally, I had trouble with notes cracking upon articulation which I'm assuming is due to the much more closed tip opening.
Nowadays I play a custom mouthpiece with a more open tip size, and those problems have basically resolved. I'm able to match the Gervase de Peyer tone color I've always wanted, but I was never certain if it was *actually* the kind of sound professionals want. For me, it seems to be the one that gives me the best success as a player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Eichler
Date: 2026-10-05 04:16
So, let me name a few clarinetists, currently active and past ones. I would like to hear peoples' impressions of their tonal quality on the dark-bright axis. But I would also like to hear impressions about the tonal body and focus, since I think these all go together.
Marcellus
Wright
Drucker
Shifrin
Corrado Giufreddi
Nicholas Baldeyrou
Karl Leister
Sabine Meyer
Jack Brymer
I hesitate to go further back to older players because recording quality might not represent the tonal qualities that well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
