 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: anonymous
Date: 2002-06-07 03:39
How can I improve the projection of my sound into the audience for say a solo?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-06-07 04:22
Hmm,
I find "aiming" my sound at the back of the hall helps. It totally depends on the size of the venue and your ability to control and focus your sound - IMHO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim L.
Date: 2002-06-07 05:12
It also depends on the mouthpiece your using. If you're using the mouthpiece that came with the clarinet, then...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-06-07 05:32
The comment I've heard most often to this, is what you say, Diz - you project by "aiming" your sound toward the far reaches.
It helps me to think it there. I'm talking about playing solo, as part of an ensemble or as a soloist. You want to reach out to the person farthest away, no more, no less. You don't need to be loud to project. You can reach the farthest corner with a pianissimo, a whisper, with almost no effort if your frame of mind is right and your air support is adequate - and it will be if you stay relaxed.
An additional benefit I 'discovered', is that the more I think about *my* audience the more I forget about myself and all the butterflies settle down to enjoy the experience. I found the idea of "aiming" my sound did more than anything else to help me overcome stagefright. I'm sure countless others have made this discovery as well.
I agree also, Diz, that some halls are nearly impossible due to structural/acoustical conditions. In that case, if at all possible, setting up near a more central point improves things somewhat.
If you find yourself in conditions like this do the best you can... then don't go back
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-06-07 05:56
Some halls are, indeed, lousy - The Sydney Opera House Concert Hall is a classic example of a badly design hall - fan shaps just don't seem to work, and having an incredibly tall area above a perforamnce area is a worry - hence Sydney's "acoustic donuts".
Think Symphony Hall Boston, The Concertgebouw in Amsterdam to name just a couple and they are "shoe box" shaped. A perfect shape for a resonant, vibrant and warm acoustic.
Very fortunately, however, the NSW Government as set aside $67 million to upgrate "The House" - not before time, and Joern Utzon will be one of the guys working on the revamp, thank goodness. Finally the Opera Theatre will get a pit big enough to hold 110, not 70 - and it will get an acoustic revamp, which will make life for everyone in there (except the brass) more livable. Can't wait.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2002-06-07 11:54
Another way might be to "capture" and take "command" over your audience musically, emotionally and philosophically. Win the audiences' minds and undivided attention and a performer doesn't have to worry about nuts and bolts, just sing to them and entertain.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-06-07 13:51
A couple of things. . .
Talk to the conductor about lowering the volume of the rest of the orchestra. He/She should be doing it automatically to help you out, but there are plenty who are just not smart enough to figure that out.
Listen to recordings of the great orchestral clarinetists:
Robert Marcellus (Szell/Cleveland Orchestra)
Harold Wright (Boston Symphony post 1970)
Clark Brody (Reiner/Martinon Chicago Symphony)
Larry Combs (Solti/Barenboim, etc. Chicago Symphony)
Karl Leister (Berlin Phil)
these are a good start.
Try to hear what's going on in their sound that gets it to the back of the hall.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2002-06-07 14:31
The tone needs ring and focus to project. A tone that will carry out into the audience needs not be loud (as already stated) but instead one that is concentrated and focussed. Among other things, the common thread in David's post is that all of these players have/had a great tone that carries. If a tone is too diffuse, it will not carry.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-06-07 14:43
One of the defining atributes of any great musical ensemble that plays predominately accoustically, is their ability to play softly and still maintain a focused sound. It is simply a matter of creating more decibel room for contrasting volume and expression. Playing softer makes the "louds" sound louder, without having to overblow and, in doing so, lose ensemble tonal control. The great dance bands of the 1930's and 40's--who played mostly without mikes and amplifier--knew this. They were able to play quite softly with all sections in perfect balance. That is why Benny and Artie could play solo's above those groups and be heard. Same with large symphony orchestras. As an example, when Larry Combs plays a solo with the CSO, he projects beautifully and can be heard, even if playing a softer solo passage. However, a few years ago when he was the featured soloist with our local university orchestra (to premire the work of a local composer) his clarinet was often coverd by the student ensemble and many segments of the solo could not be heard. The orchestra was simply playing too loud and "out of control" for Larry's clarinet sound to project. Bottom line: Want to sound louder?? Learn to play softer!!! Heed the old saying, "Less is More."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2002-06-07 18:11
Even in good orcestras, we can hear some players conspicuously than others even when they play in pp. All players do not seem to be created equal.
I hope someone issue an exercize book for tonal control for clarinet such as Marcel Moyse's 'Sonorite'(issued by Alphonse Leduc. Paris) for flute. This book seems worth reading for serious wind players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-06-07 18:30
Congratulations are in order, so few of us get into your position!
If you have got yourself into this predicament, you MUST be doing some things right - already. Your director has almost as much interest in your success as do you.
Three years ago, my teacher sent me to hear Anthony Gigliotti play at the Garden State Ampitheater near Cherry Hill, NJ.
Dr. G was gratious enough to entertain a hopeless amateur like myself and was willing to demonstrate some of his technique between sets... up close the sound had so much bite and edge as to be unpleasant. Out in the 'cheap seats' the tone mellowed.
While he may not have been every player's favorite, he was certainly successful and I have taken that lesson to heart.
May I suggest you pick out ONE person in the audience, and play your solo for that one seat. Everybody else can listen in.
Break a leg!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-06-08 03:36
The concept of 'aiming;' is merely a psychological prop that the player either BELIEVES (incorrectly) has an effect, or a prop that the player associates, perhaps subconsciously, with some change that he actually makes in the way he is playing.
Fortunately Ken has pointed to what a player may actually do. I agree with making the lower lip 'cushion' thinner, freeing the reed to vibrate in more complex ways, producing more upper harmonics to enrich notes.
I don't think good projection is EVER achieved without strong air pressure. Give plenty of air support, i.e. blow 'hard', as if you are blowing a difficult balloon, even for softer passages. The volume is controlled with the embouchure rather than by blowing more gently.
I stand to be corrected by more experienced players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brandon
Date: 2002-06-08 09:11
What has been said so far is good, but may not help you. Ken and a few others have pointed out the bottom lip idea. Yes, you should have very little bottom lip touching the reed. If you have a lot of bottom lip touching the reed, then you are killing the vibrations. Second, perhaps you don't have enough of the reed/mpc in your mouth. This could also kill the vibrations if you do not have enough reed/mpc in your mouth. Experiment with this. It may be uncomfortable at first, but changing bad habits can be difficult. Also, the reed may be too hard. Without hearing you, these are just a few of the things that could possibly be the problem. As far as listening to the great clarinetists, Marcellus, Leister, etc., listening to them will NOT improve your projection. Without proper instruction, you would have no idea how they were doing what they were doing. But try those three things out...bottom lip, more mpc/reed in the mouth, and perhaps a softer reed. See if those things will help. And the one fundamental thing of playing a wind instrument...AIR! Perhaps you are not supporting the sound...
Brandon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-06-08 18:45
Hate to disagree Brandon, but listening to recordings is a great way to improve your projection, because improving one's sound focus, etc. does help.
You don't need to know how the big boys did it to learn from their playing. Marcellus always used to say that listening to recordings (and live performances, of course) of a great sound would help get that sound in your ear so that you could try to reproduce it.
David Hattner, NYC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brandon
Date: 2002-06-08 19:11
Sorry HAT, I was out last night and came back and wrote that after kickin back a few. Yes, I certainly listen to Marcellus(my teacher certainly insists!), but I think the point I was attempting to make was more along the lines that SIMPLY listening to a recording will not improve projection, IMHO. There probably has to be a physical reason the sound is not projecting. A novice who does not have the proper instruction may not know what that physical reason is. Anonymous may not realize that he/she may have too much lower lip, too hard of a reed, not enough reed/mpc in the mouth, and a defecient air supply. One does have the ability to pick up on phrasing issues, musical nuances, etc. from listening to recordings. But I really believe that there is a physical defect here, and was disappionted that very few had mentioned it.
Brandon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2002-06-08 19:27
FYI.
In a book written by Guy Dunguin and translated into Japanese, I found he recommended followings to add projection.
1)Practice more often with A clarinet, which is longer than B flat
clarinet and automatically makes player's exhaling air column
(colon d'air in French) longer.
2)Use thicker heel reed at least 2.8 mm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-06-08 21:22
One has to remember above all that the quality, not the quantity of the sound is what projects. How many top professional clarinetists does one have to listen to as of recent that play a half to a full dynamic level above what the composer printed simply because of the lack of shape, glow (which is what really projects at any dynamic level), or beauty of sonority in their sound.
Also, everything being relative, one has to be part of an ensemble that "yeilds" dynamically speaking to the solo line being played (strings taking less bow, winds playing only as loud as necessary to clearly hear the solo line, etc.)
I remember many years back playing the solo from the Rach. 2nd Symphony for Marcellus in his studio (and in the orchestra he conducted at Northwestern University at the time) where he commented completely aside from the issue of the quality of the sound: "In a good orchestra you can play the composer's printed dynamic - in a bad one, it will by necessity have to be more."
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk
Date: 2002-06-08 21:53
Sorry to disagree with you, Hat, but I think that you are wrong when you suggest listening to recordings to get an idea of what it is like to project.
I have heard Marcellus, Wright, Morales, Stolzman, et al. up close, and I don't think they sound(ed) anything like what they do on recordings.
There's a certain amount of what Russianoff used to call "garbage" that you have to get in the sound in order for it to project. This consists mostly of high frequencies and (IMO) works similar to carrier frequency in FM radio transmission.
So up close, the sound is often a bit thin or rough, but comes across beautifully in the hall. The bass clarinettist in the orchestra I play in is a great example of this. Sitting next to him, the sound is awful, but when I listen to recordings, I can't believe how gorgeous his tone is (and, it projects).
Another aspect that is difficult to hear on recordings (unless you have a spectacular sound system) is the "air" around the sound that all good players get. This may also be called resonance or warmth.
My recommendation is (besides studying with a teacher who knows how to teach this) is to go to as many concerts as you can, and try to listen to the clarinet section up close as well as further out in the hall.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-06-09 03:35
To continue what Mr. Smith says, if you have a great sound, it will project better than a lousy one. One of the best ways to develop such a sound is to study other players who have or have had such a sound. You can do this live or on recordings. Marcellus constantly talked about recordings of beautiful sounds to try to get us interested in hearing those recordings.
The only way to produce a great sound is to find out what it is you consider a great sound and absorb it.
It was my feeling that this would help projection more than anything that could be taught over a bulletin board. OBVIOUSLY one would need to study with a teacher knowledgeable about orchestral playing, etc. to find the physical ways of helping this occur. But you have to 'hear' it first.
If you want to develop garbage in your sound, be my guest.
David Hattner, NYC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-06-09 04:55
rmk stated (in part):
"There's a certain amount of......"garbage" that you have to get in the sound in order for it to project. This consists mostly of high frequencies and (IMO) works similar to carrier frequency in FM radio transmission. So up close, the sound is often a bit thin or rough, but comes across beautifully in the hall.
===============================================================
I have heard of this school of thought but my experience tells me that the basis of it's theory is highly implausible.
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
<www.gregory-smith.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-06-09 13:58
I wonder if projection has anything to do with getting the overtones of any particular note either in or slightly out of tune with the fundamental - which ones and holw much? These are pretty serious issues in designing a good piano string.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-06-09 14:37
A final few thoughts:
Permanent aural memories are stored for me of Marcellus's playing in lessons. I sat 3 feet from him and that sound was, well, I can't describe it in words. When I was a freshman he played the triplet arpeggios from the 3rd movement of Brahms 1st to try to get me to lighten up my articulation. I just sat there with my jaw wide open. If he could have seen the look on my face! I had never (and still have never) heard anything like it (although Leister playing Beethoven 6 excerpts was also a revelation when he did a masterclass at NU).
Sometimes when I am practicing I will try to channel that triplet passage and play it over and over again. It does help.
Once, Clark Brody picked up a friend's clarinet (my friend had just gotten a Kaspar) and played the Don Juan solo. The ease with which he slurred up to that high 'e' remains with me as well. I also remember being surprised at how natural such a huge man looked playing the clarinet! And also amazed that someone who had been retired 10 years could do something I couldn't do with such ease.
Neither sound was filled with 'garbage' by the way. I will concede that some wonderful players do have some extraneous stuff in their sound, but that is not what makes them great.
What does this have to do with projection? Besides what was stated already, I think it is obvious that the ear is simply drawn to a beautiful sound, thus helping it 'project' more.
As someone once said of Harold Wright: "He steals sound from silence."
David Hattner, NYC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-06-09 14:38
OOPS!!! Forgot to mention my most important final point.
PLAY IT IN TUNE! That will most certainly help.
Don't play sharp on purpose, it doesn't work and it pisses EVERYONE off.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk
Date: 2002-06-09 15:40
I'm afraid my description of "garbage" may have been a bit misleading. It is not unnecessarily unpleasant, but it does sound different up close than in the hall. I think Mr. Smith makes my point when he states that:
"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 remember hearing Marcellus warming up in a large hall where I was sitting in the second balcony. It felt like he was right next to me. Notice I say felt and not sounded. His sound had a visceral impact unlike any other I have ever heard.
My point is that a projecting sound will always sound different up close than in the hall. If you have ever been close to an actor on stage, you will notice that they don't speak as if in conversation. It's the same idea. I find that a good sound will actually seem to get louder when you get about 15 feet or so away from it.
I don't mean to be argumentative. I just don't think you can get a good idea of projection by listening to a 40 year old recording on your Walkman. Notice that most of the examples of a good sound mentioned in the posts above were experienced live.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2002-06-09 19:05
Just an impression of reading these discussions:
To me, the 'garbage' by rmk seems equal to 'ring' by Ed. I thought also the good sound's images seem almost the same among Ed,Hat,rmk,and Greg, which includes adequate brilliance and core. This will be the dark sound by its real meaning,not the dull one often misunderstood by many as 'dark'. Ex-Vienna Prinz has Selmer 10Gs because he think their sound resemble Ottomar-Hammerschmidts. I think of Gigliotti's (nearly)lament about the misunderstandings of darkness by many players. (10G was made based on his Moennig tuned Buffet.)
Practicing in p or pp(i.e. soft) is very understandable to enhance one's tonal control ability since it needs utmost contron of mucle although playing 'soft' is often misunderstood by amateurs as dull or lacking in intensity.
By the way, Trevor Wye wrote in one of his book that he had a same kind of experience with Marcel Moyse that rmk had with Marcellus.
(He listened to Moyse's playing outside of a practice room.)
When I listen to a record of Bach Brandenburg Concertos conducted by Adolf Bush, I understand what a flute with much projection, i.e. Marcel Moyse's, sounds like 'after' having knowing he has a superb projection. Yes his tone has utmost ring and focus.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-06-09 23:46
rmk summarized:
"I just don't think you can get a good idea of projection by listening to a 40 year old recording on your Walkman."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps.
Your experience of hearing RM's sound as if it were amplified when sitting in the balcony is a good one. Many often described it as emanating not from one point on stage, but from everywhere at once - a supreme acoustical accomplishment rarely achieved by the creator of a single voice.
I believe though that one can get a very good idea about sound quality as it relates to projection through recorded examples - perhaps not as well as with the three-dimensional perspective that you describe - but close enough to serve as a good illustrator of what it is inherent in a sound (other than volume) that provides illumination or projective qualities to that sound.
I had a half dozen years studying every recording that I could get my hands on of his before coming to RM's studio. Recordings weren't the real thing but in my experience, a very instructive close second. They served me very well and a good primer for my studies with him.
My experience was that listening to RM in studio close up enabled me to determine that his sound had all of the recognizable qualities inherently needed for projection...without benefit of hearing him from a distance. The quality of his live examples close up in his studio coupled with the craft he taught that always cultivated projection were inseperable. He referenced singers and "head resonances" along with the flexing of the oral cavity's soft upper palate constantly as an indicator of ring in the sound - the type of ring or glow that projects. He also referenced the shape, size (a small and concentrated stream), and intensity of the air column as absolutely essential in creating that resonance.
How one goes about determining for themselves what it is about a sound that enables it to project is probably the result of a combination of both recorded and live examples. It certainly was for me.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-06-10 00:04
I remember also in high school (at Interlochen) my teacher would be able to tell if I had been listening to a lot of Harold Wright recordings any given week. I worshiped those recordings and when I heard them my sound went in that direction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow Symphonia nb
Date: 2002-06-12 13:07
Try listening to the following solists to give an idea of bite and focus on the sound Michael Collins on Weber 1st Concerto finale, Pascal Moragues Stravinsky Histoire du Soldat(Harmonia mundi) or one of his records with Orchestre de Paris, try Alessandro Carbonare in the Orchestre Nat. de France under Mazur in Shumann or Ravel, try the recordings of George Petersen in the Concertgebouw in Debussy Rhaphsody under Haitink and of course go strainght to Karl Leister in the Beethoven Symphonies Karajan 1963 for a definitive idea of projection and blending. When I studied with Harold Wright he said that voicing the sound through the use of focusing the embouchure with control is the only way to project, I also feel a centered sound projects far better than a hashy unfoucsed tone!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dAVID DOW
Date: 2002-06-12 23:04
Again without seeming contrived the experience of playing orchestrally is quite differnet from a band or solo recital playing. It has been proven time and again that intonation and diaphramic support do much to give the sound edge and sonority. I think the idea of just playing loudly without focus is relevant to younger players, because they lack the experience it requires to send a solo out there into the blacony with a packed house. Factors such as tonal quality are highly controversial becuase each individuol is differnet and if we all sounded exactly the same this would be a strange world. Second..if the quality of sound produced is defined and full, but if we are too dark there is a tendency towards dull sound and if we are too bright there is a tendency towards thinness and air in the tone. the danger of projection with an overly dark sound is pushing the instrument towards flattness, and this in tune concept is where the note lies exactly in the centre of pitch..... alot of theory yet no concrete examples of how we can talk alot yet not define what an ideal projectile sound is...but one thing is ,it has to have dynamics!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dAVID DOW
Date: 2002-06-12 23:15
My teacher in France Robert Fontaine always said that " volubility at the expense of quality is a no no", and a sound has to to have ring and focus without disturbing the fundamental series, and therefore proper focus for each note. when everynote has the correct focus and support then the embouchure is free to assist in creating the proper pitch and colour on the sound. Players unable to change tone color are therefore unimaginative, and, by always playing the same note with the same color the music becomes vapid meaningless and hum drum, so, therefore, full expressive playing means sonority and fullness and nourishment of the sound. In other word the sound has to be supple full- bodied and, at times capable of great projection. The means to this end is the enervation of the air by whatever means at our disposal, through voicings of the throat cavity and the correct speed of air and its subtle usage. that being said the correct use of diaphramic breathing and embouchure will go miles in helping a soloist with whatever mouthpiece he or she has in developing a fuller projectile sound capable also of nuance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-06-16 23:02
I must admit that I heard Harold Wright up close a good deal and that was amazing! His control of tone and focus was awe inspiring...he allso said focus happens to project better than an open airy sound and one must put a ring on the note.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
