 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-11-21 01:34
Traditionally there has been a lot of discussion on this bulletin board about clarinet set ups ranging from what one thinks about this or that mouthpiece, clarinet, reed, etc. to the adjustment of or modification of that set up. I thought therefore it would perhaps be amusing to relate the following in an attempt to provide some perspective about the relative importance of equipment.
There was a wonderful description given by the famous teacher Stanley Hasty (now Professor Emeritus - Eastman School of Music) concerning the subject of the clarinetist's equipment and it's effect on how one ultimately sounds.
To paraphrase, "The further away from you brain, the less important the equipment". This was of course intended to actually include the brain, then the oral cavity, then embouchure, then mthcpc/reed/lig combo, then barrel, etc. and on down the line.
The most revealing truism about Hasty's remark is that the brain and one's physical structure, choice of tongue position, embouchure style, etc, effects a good 90% or more of how someone ultimately sounds. The rest is just icing on the cake - a megaphone of sorts - only facilitating or enhancing how one naturally sounds anyway.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2001-11-21 01:59
Greg...Thanks, but I seriously wonder if that view is shared by some of the custom barrel makers (Chadash, Fobes, Pyne, etc...), or their clients?...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pam
Date: 2001-11-21 02:16
It's probably a good perspective to have though, considering how much tweeking of horns there appears to be going on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-11-21 02:48
I'm not sure Greg Smith meant that the aditional trinkets may not eventually play an important part.
My understanding of his interpretatioin of Stanley Hasty's description is that the equipment will ultimately only enhance what you may have to put forth.
If you don't have proper control of the physical attributes which make up your basic playing abilities, the best of equipment, in the best of conditions may not necessarily carry you very much further.
While if you have successfuly worked at perfecting those physical attributes which make up your basic playing abilities, then the quality, condition and component compatibility of the equipment you use will make a difference, but only as an enhancement of your already excellent (or whatever) capabilities.
It makes sense. It does also in most other walks of life, as well. A person who can't hold a rifle steady won't hit a target with the best of equipment, while an expert shot will do so with mediocre equipment and do so most accurately with the best of equipment.
Everything starts with what you are willing to put into it, personally, barring any insurmountable difficulties as some possible handicaps.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-11-21 04:42
GBK said:
'"Greg...Thanks, but I seriously wonder if that view is shared by some of the custom barrel makers (Chadash, Fobes, Pyne, etc...), or their clients?"
====================================================
Since they are experienced clarinetists to begin with, I seriously doubt that Hasty's point would be lost on them. I suppose that my post was addressed to some of their clients as you say....my own clients for that matter!
Peter (above) observes that, "...Stanley Hasty's description is that the equipment will ultimately only enhance what you may have to put forth." This is of course the entire point of Hasty's assertion.
The point of starting this thread and as I futher elaborated was that the part that YOU put forth accounts for a vast majority - perhaps 90% or more of what is identifiable to the objective listener as YOU - your musical abilities and personality as expressed through the clarinet.
In my opinion, listening to Marcellus (and applying his methods), MacLane, Wright, Marc Lifschey (oboe), Julius Baker (flute), Dale Clevenger or David Krehbeil (horn) or playing in the Chicago Symphony in a hall like Orchestra Hall Chicago has had, and continues to be, a much more profound influence on what I sound like than any piece of equipment I've ever played.
Of course the remaining part of the equation is having superb guidence along with some instinctual abilities to make good choices as to what equipment will enhance one's playing.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2001-11-21 05:21
There was an album of clarinet contest music which was recorded many years ago by Donald McGinnis. On side one, he performed a number of works on a Bundy Resonite clarinet. On the second side of the album, McGinnis performed other works on a Selmer pro model clarinet.
Guess what? There was no difference in his sound....
Hasty is correct. Everyone has a basic sound - whether achieved from aural experience or physical capabilities. Given a little time to adjust to new equipment, you will still always sound just like "you".
Thanks Greg, for reminding us of this important point...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2001-11-21 06:04
There is a new theory recently some people start to say. Molecular distribution.
They say the more an instrument played, the better it sounds since (provably) inside molecular distribution is arranged to be suitable for music. This is certainly ??? to many. However, a Japanese insrument dealer - Dolce Gakki at Osaka, proposes 'EXT treatment', which makes new instuments sound like an old, very much broken in, resonant instrument for both woodwind and brasswind. In brass world cryogenic treatment is famous and Yamaha applied their own technology of treating brass to their new Xeno series. I recently obtained a Yamaha Xeno 8335RGS and astonished by its easiness to blow. (I guess Mr.Hagstrom of CSO already tried this horn and know its superbness. )
So, although Mr.Hasty's opinion may be shared by many professionals ( I remember Frederick Thurston wrote the same thing in his Oxford book), instruments proper seem to matter. Technology develops. I as an amater appreciate that.
A more interesting story by Denis Wick in his Oxford book on trombone. He strongly "recommends" readers to pour rotten milk into a new trombone. Provably to make a corroded-like inside surface to get mellower tone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: A David Peacham
Date: 2001-11-21 10:48
GBK writes:
> There was an album of clarinet contest music which was recorded many years > ago by Donald McGinnis. On side one, he performed a number of works on a > > Bundy Resonite clarinet. On the second side of the album, McGinnis performed > other works on a Selmer pro model clarinet.
> Guess what? There was no difference in his sound....
But this doesn't prove that the equipment makes no difference. It just proves that a _pro_ can sound the same on anything. We don't know how hard McGinnis had to work to make the Bundy sound like the pro clarinet.
A pro will always want to play a pro clarinet anyway. A more interesting question is, how much the amateurs amongst us should worry about equipment. With a mere seven months' clarinet experience, am I likely to get a better tone or play better in tune if I trade up my plastic Yamaha for $2000 worth of grenadilla? Should I spend a couple of days in the music shop trying out every mouthpiece, barrel and ligature they have in stock? Or should I just practise, practise, practise on the equipment I've got?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MsRoboto
Date: 2001-11-21 11:20
Do both...bring your practice material and spend a couple days in the shop testing / practicing. I bet after 2 intense days of practice you sound better whether or not you find the elusive combo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-21 13:27
The importance of a proper mind set for all activities requiring peak performance is now well understood. Visualisation and imaging are used routinely in all walks of life in order to enable a top delivery, especially in a context with potential stress.
In music, we often talk about having mental models of the tonal objective we are trying to reach, or capturing the overall structure of a piece, or visualising ourselves in performance, etc. Yes, indeed the brain is the most important piece of equipment we have.
However, peripheral issues can get in the way of the brain. This is why I advocate being "well-equipped" to all amateurs, whatever the activity is. Once you know you set-up is flawless, you can stop getting frustrated on equipment issues. You have no excuse...
As you develop advanced skills, the "relative" importance of equipment diminishes. However, its "absolute" importance continues to grow. Yes, we all have heard of outstanding musicians (or another other kind of top-performer) who can deliver no matter what. But serious performers do not dismiss their equipment off-hand.
Get yourself the best set-up you are willing to pay for, and put your brain back at the fore of your studies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-11-21 14:22
Greg, it's funny that I just read in Pamela Weston's book ("Famous Clarinetists of Today") that Wright's training with McLane involved so much experimenting with the effect of equipment on tone. But it is so true that the sound begins (he points to head) "in here." I do think sometimes equipment can <b>frustrate</b> the achievement of your tone and performance ideas. --Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2001-11-21 15:03
I always found that the more advanced the player, the more obsessed by equipment.
When I talk to my friend who are studying clarinet in college or my teacher, they really look for equipment which is comfortable even more so than one that sounds good.
I agree with Mario, that the equipment can get in the way of your playing ability.
A bad reed, will make you work so much harder to soud good than a good one.
Yes, spending my day on ebay looking for the perfect mouthpiece is a waste of time, having my clarinet adjusted properly to play in tune is not.
Which leads me to the most frustration I've ever had and I am sure many of you share it.
Reeds!
I think it is safe to say you can go out today in a music store try 5 clarinets, 5 mouthpieces and 5 barrels and come up with a combination which will let you play comfortably. But reeds, you can try 50 and have none that play!
We need to have somebody to put some serious research into this. The legere reeds are very good but don't quite feel the same yet, and I have not had success with reed adjusters.
Do we really need to make outr own reeds to be satisfied?
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2001-11-21 15:08
Sylvain said: "Do we really need to make our own reeds to be satisfied?"
YES! - Ask any double reed player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2001-11-21 15:14
Prof. Hasty is right---the best equipment in the world is not going to make a poor player sound good.
A good player can sound good on almost anything.
The one exceptions is whatever is being used must be in proper working order.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-11-21 15:38
The "equipment vs. who you are" idea works both ways.
I have a CD of Szell and Cleveland playing Wagner, which is full of clarinet solos. Marcellus made the prototypical "German" sound -- thick, warm and creamy, and very unlike his usual sound. When I heard it once on the radio, I was certain a German player was playing a German instrument. Marcellus could make any sound he liked, without changing equipment. (Sabine Meyer can do the same, sounding perfectly French on her Wurlitzers.)
Equipment is hardly irrelevant, though. At the least, it can let you make your own sound more easily. Kalmen Opperman recently made a barrel for my A clarinet that simply transformed the way it played, making the tone more coherent and the instrument more responsive.
Even the best players appreciate a good mouthiece and barrel. For the rest of us, it makes a big difference in the way we sound.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-11-21 15:39
To springboard on Sylvain's post, I was afraid to mention the dreaded word: "reed" since this is a topic that has one zillion threads already. But we have to admit that this one is still a headache for most.
In an interview on TV a couple of years back, Bennie Goodman's daugther was asked to relate rememberances about her father. Bennie was a fanatic perfectionist and practiced 10 hours per day. With Bennie, nothing was left to chance and sloppy work was simply not acceptable. His equipment had to be flawless.
Her daugher saw him practicing at home a lot. The story that the TV folks decided to share with us was a ** reed ** story. Bennie (a wealthy man) ran through reeds like crazy. He could discard boxes full of them simply by throwing them on the floor. His music room could have hundred of them on the floor waiting to be picked-up. Here daughter remembered vividly Bennie surrounded by this "graveyard of reeds" (her words). We can only imagine Bennie's utter frustration.
Things never change.
A few words on the Legere (I am an enthusiastic user). The Legere reed which are the most know are the original cut of the reed. About 1 year ago, Guy started experimenting with a new cut (more heart, thinner tips) (he actually calls this new cut * the Quebec cut *). This new cut is much better than the old one (more pop overall, better response a high volume especially in the chalumeau a solid feel throughout). There only drawback is that they soften up quickly because the tip is thin. So, you need many in rotation (one hour max and you loose the equivalent of .5 Vandoren measurement - say start with 3.5, end up with 3). I had strength problems with my reeds during last Summer when temperature got higher. I might need a hot weather set to carry me through July and August.
As well, Legere reeds wear out and loose their pop permamently after a few months (pop is a word I learned from G. Smith describing the ability of a reed to respond cleanly, especially in long tube notes). So, you need to buy a new batch regularly. Unfortunatly, the Quebec cut is not yet readily available (at least in my community) and I get them special orders. As a matter of fact, I am getting ready for a fresh batch.
So, those who buy Legere are not out of the wood year. A Legere is reliable. But they have to be well-chosen, they have to be rotated and they eventually have to be changed. But while they last they are simply superb and thrustworthy. I can live happily ever after with the notion that I need 10 new reeds (at $20.00 CDN each) each year.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2001-11-21 16:01
Regardless of which clarinet I am playing, or how many mouthpieces I try, or whose ligiture or brand of reed I am using, according to most people whom I play for, I still sound like me. No one seems to notice when I am using new equipment, even though to my ears, there is often a "big difference." It seems that we all want to "sound like" someone else--Pete Fountain, Harold Wright, Eddie Daniels, Larry Combs, etc. Therefore, we musicians, perhaps, are becoming--in this "modern" age of technolgy--too gimmick minded and prone to the "easy" or "let somebody else do it for me" solution to problems we find in our playing and have become easy financial targets for those entrepreneurs who develope the newest ligiture, thumb rest, cut of reed or instrument design. Rather, what we should to be doing is listening and practicing to improve our own personal skills and be content to sound the "best that we can be." No new mouthpiece or clarinet in this world is going to make me sound like Larry Combs--but, I am also content to believe that no brand of instrument or reed could make Larry sound like me. My sound and personal style of performance come from within--mental concepts and knowledge based upon years of personal experiance and certain attitudes or aptitudes that I may have been born with, that Mr. Combs could only obtain if Spock were to perform a Vulcan mindmeld between the two of us. Mr. Hasty's statement regarding the importance of mental concept, personal skills and aptitudes over external equipment, is quite true--and amusing. Thanks, Greg. By the way, I still prefer your mouthpieces, not because they make me sound like you, but that they make it much easier to sound like me!!! Good Clarineting!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-11-22 04:16
As usual, Greg Smith provides a welcome perspective.
Every hour spent trying equipment is an hour that could be spent practicing. Over a long period of time, that can add up.
My attitude is, if it plays in tune, keep it. If it sounds great and plays out of tune, chuck it immediately.
In the real world, intonation is everything (concerning equipment).
Everything else important you'll need to be a good professional comes from you: Technique (including articulation), sound, breathing, brains and RHYTHM RHYTHM RHYTHM.
Worrying about reeds is a waste of time. They will do what they will do. Hopefully you will have a good one when it counts. If you don't, you'll just need to try harder.
-David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2001-11-22 05:38
I had Selmer 10S, 10G, Buffet RC, Buffet RC Prestige, and now Selmer 10SII*.
All sounded diffenrent. Resitances were different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-11-22 14:46
Good playing for me is 90% a head game and the rest motor skills--all associated with--guess what--the head! So, I see Greg's point and have to agree. The next best thing one can do to enhance his/her sound is get a good mouthpiece, ligature, reed and barrel set up on whatever instrument you play. Even a bad instrument can sound good in the hands of one who is skilled and has his/her head in the game!
Thanks Greg! Still love my wood mouthpiece!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Emms
Date: 2001-11-22 16:48
Doesn't the psychological effect of 'buying a new piece of equipment' do us some good too? I'm sure most of us have felt good that we have 'upgraded' our instrument in some way and given our playing a new lease of life. Sometimes, we can plod on trying to improve a certain aspect of our playing, without much luck and our enthusiasm can be drained slightly. Buying, for example a new barrel could relight the enthusiasm and even if the barrel itself doesn't improve our playing to other peoples ears, it may make a world of difference to us.
I have played different clarinets and got a different sound out of each one. I've also heard others try my clarinet and their sound id different. Maybe more experienced players get used to one sound and learn to be able to adjust embouchures etc to get the same sound. Less experienced players will not be able to do this.
Using the example above of rifle shooting, a pro would learn quickly to adjust the shots of a bad rifle and still shoot reasonably well, a beginner will probably shoot off target most of the time whether using a good or bad rifle, but an average shooter will get more shots on target with a good rifle than a bad one.
We must not, however, just rely on new equipment to improve our playing.
A few quotes above comment on recordings of people playing on different clarinets, but sounding the same. Don't forget recording equipment isn't perfect. It will not be the same as hearing this live.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-11-22 18:25
Of course if you try difference equipment, you will 'sound different' to yourself.
But it is likely that someone else listening TO you (particularly if not another clarinet player) will barely notice anything.
Unless we are talking about a radical change. And most people don't make radical changes.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-11-22 19:43
Emms makes some very good points, but I don't think it's necessarily the equipment itself that actually gives your sound a "new lease on life."
From a practical psychology perspective, anything you newly acquire and which excites you, will also encourage you to spend more time using it, and/or whatever it is that you attached it to.
Consequently, if you purchase a new barrel and you think it makes you sound better, then you are prone to spend more time using it on your instrument, which means you will play (practice) more, and consequently (hopefully,) sound better in the end.
However, it's been my experience that most instruments sound differently from either end. When you are playing, your own psyche has a habit of assigning certain attributes to your sound, good or bad, which may or may not be there, were you dis-interestedly listening to yourself from the bell end.
(Listening to yourself from the mouthpiece end: If you want to sound like Robert Marcellus and don't really hear yourself doing it, you may judge your sound as bad, whether it really is or not. If you like what you hear yourself sound like, you may judge your sound to be good, whether it really is or not.)
That doesn't mean you can't get to be a somewhat accurate, just that it's not likely that you'll be as accurate a judge of your own sound, from the mouthpiece end, as you may want to be, or the real truth may warrant it.
Of course, by way of all the many hours (years) spent practicing and playing for/with others who may be good judges, professionals develop a better ear for it after playing for a long time. Also by way of listening to others play and liking their sound or not.
But their judgement of their own sound (from the mouthpiece end) is often an educated comparison of what sound pleases an audience most often, or was more compatible with the rest of an orchestra with which they played, perhaps illicited more praise from their teachers, what sounds they may have heard and liked, what their professional recordings may have sounded like, etc.
It becomes a partially subconscious thing.
This is one of the reasons that professional amplification equipment has speakers which point back at the musicians as they are playing, so they can hear their own sound as the audience hears them.
Now-a-days the use of earphone/microphone headsets has also become very popular on stage. Headsets have been popular in the studio for many years, with and without microphones attached. Sometimes to hear other, pre-recorded tracks as the musician/singer does their piece, others as a way for them to hear what the overall effect is at the time.
That's one advantage musicians who use amplified music may have over those who don't, they can actually turn the end result around to hear themselves, even as they play, because the sound that comes out of the speakers is their end result anyway.
Of course, it also helps them tremendously if they happen to have an excellent sound engineer working with them.
I record myself regularly so I can hear what I'm doing. I don't own the best recording equipment and I know that what I am hearing back may not be a perfect reproduction of my sound, but it does help me to better judge other aspects like intonation, rythm, articulation, etc.
The thing is, that the people who hear you play can't describe for you, in a way that will enable you to hear yourself, what you sound like to them, so, unless you go out and have professional quality recordings made of yourself playing, you may never really know what you really sound like. And even then...?
In photography (and art in general,) the worst thing a photographer can do is try to put together their own portfolios and/or choose prints for exhibition. Their egos and phyche often get in the way of their making truly wise choices. There are people who make a living editing photos for such professionals, and most really top of the line photographers use them to their best advantage.
Sooo, my personal philosophy is that, depending on what level of expertise you would like to reach, and regardless of what equipment you choose to use:
Practice intelligently as many hours as you can and, through your practice, try hard to achieve the sound you think you want to have. Then let those who either want to hear you or not be the judges of how you ultimately sound.
This was already too long, I'm trying to catch up some pending work. Hope I made sense.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-11-22 20:13
One last thing I just thought of as I got back to work.
I am an engineer in radio-frequency communications, and sometimes when I'm standing in front of a large satellite dish talking to someone while looking in the direction of the dish, our voices come back to us, instantaneously, as if we were speaking through the parabola.
I wonder what effect that could have on a clarinetist listening to himself play?
The parabola has a single, specific focal point. So if the bell of the clarinet was pointed at the dish and the player's ears were at the focal point, would he not be able to hear his own sound as emitted from the bell end?
How accurate could the acoustics be? I always thought I sounded like myself and others sounded like themselves when this happened. Is that the psychological result of knowing who is talking at that time, or do I really recognize the voice as bounced off the dish?
When you receive sound satellite transmissions (audio conferencing communications, stock market reports, radio programming, music as in Muzak or otherwise, or television) which are bounced off a dish onto an electronic "feed," the sound that comes out of the speakers (or video on a screen) is a fair reproduction of the sound made by (or looks of) the sound's initiator(s,) etc., and transmitted over the air-waves.
It may be a subject for further thought and/or experimentation for me (and others of us) in the future. Maybe?
Has anyone else thought of this? Tried it? I'm I the only real whacko in this group?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2001-11-23 05:39
Peter --
If security concerns and company rules permit, maybe you could find another clarinet player and do some experiments playing into the dish. Or maybe do some playing by yourself and then do a comparison (admittedly subjective) between your sound from the dish and your sound in your usual playing situs.
Are you aware that a player's perception of his or her own sound typically has a significant component attributable to bone conduction, mainly through the upper teeth but with some contribution through the lower teeth? (Reason #79 to learn to play double lip!)
If you are able to do any such experiments, please share the results with us here. Nice to have players with scientific backgrounds contributing to this site.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-11-23 15:46
Peter -
I once played in an outdoor parabolic band shell in Daytona Beach. It was hell to play in. Each spot in the shell had several other spots that were a "whispering gallery." For the people sitting in those spots, it was if you had the other person/people blasting in your ears. Our oboist played a concerto movement and got into a spot where she was focused on herself. She said it was the most disconcerting thing that ever happened to her, and she practically had to stop, because she couldn't hear anything else, until she moved a couple of feet to the side.
There's a similar shell at the concert hall at Rockefeller University in New York, which is so perfect at throwing the sound outward that the people on the stage can't hear themselves at all. Fortunately, the stage had steps all the way across the front, and we to move practically down into the audience before we could hear enough to hold our sense of ensemble.
You can stand facing into the corner of a room and have the sound reflected back to you. Keith Stein showed this to me and recommended doing it while learning to keep your sound centered by bringing out the higher overtones. A singing teacher I know takes 3 LP record albums and puts 2 in a standing "V" shape with the third on top to get the same effect.
As a learning and teaching device, it's very useful, but it's like singing in the shower. You have to learn to sound good in less flattering environments, too.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-11-24 05:42
Hello John Scorgie and Ken,
Security and company rules are no problem. It's my company. No security to speak of and I usually make up the rules as I go along! The second clarinetist could be my son, Daniel.
The biggest problem is time in which to do it, but now that I've brought it up, I'll probably apply the "tar baby theory" to myself, eventually (Lord knows I apply it to everyone else around me!)
As to the thing about "listening" through the teeth, yes. Thomas Edison was nearly stone deaf when he invented the phonograph and sound recordings.
His personal phonograph is on display at his home and laboratory in Fort Myers, Florida. The wooden frame that surrounds it (as opposed to encases it) bears his tooth-marks where he used to listen to it through his teeth.
One of my most favorite quotations comes from him: "All good things come to those who hustle while they wait."
I have always been in awe of that man and his resourcefulness. We owe him a great deal! He and his life-long buddy, Henry Ford.
As for playing inside a parabola like that, I don't know how efficient that would be for an orchestra, and the engineering involved for it to really work would be absolutely major.
The thing about a true parabola, as opposed to a partial circle, is that it has a defined focal point. Every refracted sound (or signal) will reflect to that focal point. (Of course that last statement is very simplistic, as the angle of refraction also has to complement the projected angle of reflection for it to work properly.)
If you are not aiming the "transmission" at the parabola at the correct angle, or are not at the specific focal point to hear it reflect off of it, you won't hear all, if many of the sounds bouncing off of it.
However, if you are in a position where the incoming sound is in line with the correct angle of refraction for that particular parabola, and within the path of the reflection of that sound, you could, conceivably be blasted out of your shoes.
That's why the "feed" (the "nose" on a dish) has to be in the exact, right spot and angle to the parabola for it to work, and satellite dishes have to be "aimed" to catch the incoming signal at just the correct angle.
I would imagine it would be a heck of a job to position an entire orchestra in the proper place for all it's musicians' instrumental voices to be equally refracted from a parabolic surface. I would imagine it would be a worse job to position a group the size and shape of an audience to properly hear all the sounds (and nuances thereof) of that orchestra. Never mind all the musicians hearing themselves (and each other) evenly and well.
So, in this case, the clarinetist would have to position the clarinet to play "at" the dish, at the proper angle, and have his ears at the correct focal point of the dish in order to properly hear himself play. As John pointed out, a double embouchure would also be advisable.
For a single clarinetist to hear him/herself, which would really be the point of doing this at all, would require a symmetrical dish (with the feed point directly in the center of the parabola and pointing towards it at a right angle) large enough for the focal point to be far enough away from the dish surface so he/she would be able to hold the clarinet between him/herself and the dish surface with enough room for his/her ears to be situated at the focal point of the dish, or as close to it as possible.
Possibly about a four-foot (1.8 meter) or slightly larger dish.
I probably will eventually try all this, just for the heck of it, if nothing else. But for the average person, the corner of the room idea would probably be best. if it works that well. Not everyone is going to go out and buy a parabolic dish just to hear themselves play.
Again, this was all a pretty simplistic view.
Ken, do you still play in Florida?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2001-11-24 13:52
I really like Roger's contribution to this great thread. I believe that as an amateur, I put up with far more equipment problems than a pro would . . . and far less than a beginner would. So my point . . . along with Roger . . . is that equipment maintenance might be a greater factor than equipment choice. That being said, I perceive (hear/feel?) enough differences between my three top clarinets that I would be willing to part with two of them but would fight over the third.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette,
Date: 2001-11-24 16:24
Personally I'd get a good microphone and headset and do away with all the other stuff.
And, in fact, that's what I've done. There's still bone conduction and all the other effects, though. The only real way to hear yourself is listen to a relly good recording <b>after</b> you've played. Real-time listening by the player will never be the same as what a listener in the audience hears due to lots of effects. An, of course, due to room acoustics each listener hears something a very slight bit different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
