 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: LgClarinet
Date: 2010-01-12 00:26
Hello,
I'm in a predicament. I have a tone modeled after Daniel Bonade, which can be summed down to a sentence: it sounds very nice from far away, but terrible up close. This is great for orchestra, but I also play in wind bands.
I wanted to know if there is a different tone that I should try for in band vs. orchestra.
Now, another problem is what I do when I audition for chair placement (in honor bands or for judges) when the judges are 5 feet in front of me. I don't believe that is enough distance for the bonade sound to gain its pureness, so should I look into have an audition reed that plays with a pure, non-vibrating sound, up close (which consequently sounds dull at a distance)?
Any help would be appreciated, as I may not even know what I'm talking. I'm only a student.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-01-12 00:40
I never heard Bonade play in person up close but I doubt he sounded "terrible". I've heard that he had some extraneous noise in his sound up close so it would carry pure and full but "terrible", probably not. A good sound is a good sound is a good sound but if you are playing for judges that are sitting very close you should probably try to find a reed that doesn't have too much "extraneous" sound for that occasion. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LgClarinet
Date: 2010-01-12 00:44
Ah, thanks.
I suppose 'terrible' is a wrong choicing, but you hit the nail. The reed vibrates quite a bit, and you can hear that 'extraneous' sound up to a point.
Perhaps I should play on a thicker reed with sides that aren't as free to vibrate then?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-01-12 18:14
A few thoughts:
First of all, I would forget about having a "Bonade" sound. If you did, noise or not, you wouldn't need to worry about what the judges for honors band at school think of it. And if you've "modeled" your sound on Bonade's, you must have used recorded examples, in which I've never heard him sound anything but focused, colorful and very flexible. Maybe we've heard different recordings.
Even players whose sounds include some slight reed or air noise when playing softly (this isn't a feature of any really good player's mezzo-forte or louder that I've ever heard up close) sound clean over a fairly short distance - say, the distance to the conductor.
My advice, for what it's worth, is to develop the sound you find the most effective for getting the musical result you want. That necessarily implies deciding on a reed style and strength that you feel comfortable blowing. Different music sometimes demands different sound qualities, and you need to develop the flexibility to change as the musical context demands, but you only postpone the choices involved when you try to sound one way for the concert, another for an audition, a different way when you play in a band section, etc... Find a general sound you consider musical, and then you can learn to vary it to fit specific needs.
If the judges are *really* only 5 feet away, they're not hearing anyone at his or her best. Anytime I've been involved as an audition judge, we've always sat at least at opposite ends of a classroom - 10 or 15 feet is enough to lose most noise players may have in their soft dynamics. If your sound is a musical one, and the extraneous noise isn't loud enough to distract from it, slight noise shouldn't hurt you if the judges are not hovering over your music stand listening for it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-01-12 18:33
As for the quality of the sound, I don't think one should differenciate between band (wind ensemble) or orchestra. If your sound is good, it should suffice for all playing venues--and that would include jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-01-12 22:16
William wrote:
> As for the quality of the sound, I don't think one should
> differenciate between band (wind ensemble) or orchestra. If
> your sound is good, it should suffice for all playing
> venues--and that would include jazz.
With the caveat that in a symphonic band you spend lots of time blending with other clarinetists, while is an orchestral setting you are adjusting to playing with the French horns versus the violins versus the oboe. So, the way in which you want to be heard varies more in an orchestral setting, in my opinion. Sometimes you just want to color the strings, sometimes you want a gorgeous, full solo sound, sometimes you are a horn with a reed.
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-01-12 22:37
clarinetwife wrote:
> With the caveat that in a symphonic band you spend lots of time
> blending with other clarinetists, while is an orchestral
> setting you are adjusting to playing with the French horns
> versus the violins versus the oboe. So, the way in which you
> want to be heard varies more in an orchestral setting, in my
> opinion. Sometimes you just want to color the strings,
> sometimes you want a gorgeous, full solo sound, sometimes you
> are a horn with a reed.
>
Well, up to a point. But a clarinetist playing in a band should, if he's producing a characteristic clarinet sound, shouldn't have a problem blending with others who are producing similar tones. It's the players who think they need to play louder or "brighter" or "anything-else-er" who, especially if they can't play in tune, tend to stick out. And composers use the clarinet in all those orchestral combinations because it sounds like a clarinet, not because they expect the player, chameleon-like, to change from sounding like a string instrument to sounding like a French horn. If Franck had wanted a pure French horn sound in those spots in the D minor symphony, he wouldn't have added the clarinet in the first place. He's interested in the sound that results from adding a clarinet sound to a French horn.
The player needs to be aware of the expressive context and color his/her sound accordingly, not so much because of who he's playing with (though that's part of the context) but because of what he's playing and what it means in its expressive context.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-01-12 22:47
kdk wrote:
>
But a clarinetist playing in a band
> should, if he's producing a characteristic clarinet sound,
> shouldn't have a problem blending with others who are producing
> similar tones. It's the players who think they need to play
> louder or "brighter" or "anything-else-er" who, especially if
> they can't play in tune, tend to stick out.
>
Boy, do I ever agree with that. A fine section sound in a symphonic band is a lovely thing to hear.
kdk also wrote: The player needs to be aware of the expressive context and
> color his/her sound accordingly, not so much because of who
> he's playing with (though that's part of the context) but
> because of what he's playing and what it means in its
> expressive context.
I agree with your Franck example, but the expressive context in this case for the clarinetist includes the fact that you are a clarinet added to the horn. I probably overstated a bit, though, and I think if we sat down over our favorite beverage talking music that we would find quite a bit of common ground.
Barb
Post Edited (2010-01-12 22:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2010-01-12 23:11
I believe that in wind band playing there is some argument in favour of using a more homogonous tone quality, especially if you are not the first chair soloist,
In much of the traditional band repertoire the clarinet section is replacing the equivalent string band of the orchestra and it very important that no individual voices "stick out".
In the orchestra the first clarinet is often much more of a soloist and tone is adapted to suit the style and nationality of the piece being played at any one moment. And even here of course the second and other players need to match the principal in tone quality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2010-01-13 22:50
When Bonade would grab my clarinet to test reed or instrument or to demonstrate proper articulation length (those were the salad days before we were all paranoid about disease transmission) he sounded wonderful -- even at point blank range. And this was after he was more or less retired from professional clarinet playing! I don't know where the canard about him sounding terrible close up came from, but I can testify that is wasn't so.
I totally agree with William -- a good sound is a beautiful sound, band, orchestra, chamber or solo!
Post Edited (2010-01-14 17:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2010-01-14 10:07
I think it's worth adding here that I consider myself mainly an orchestral player however I recently tried out with a military band, and they must have liked what they heard because they asked me to join them for their next concert. I didn't change my sound at all; I used the exact same equipment, attitude and sound that I would use in an orchestra during the trial with the band. I blended just fine!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-01-14 12:44
But there are some band vs. orchestra circumstances where a clarinet player might need different equipment to get the right sound for that ensemble. In a now-defunct saxophone newsgroup (ClassicSax), we used to refer to "the Black & Decker Section-Wrecker" -- the instrument with the piercing, shrill, loud tone for cutting through the trumpets and trombones, along with the ability to bend the pitch all over the place with the greatest of ease. (I'm thinking of the type of band used for the terrific theme music for the late lamented "Nero Wolfe" TV series with Timothy Hutton, where, for instance, the clarinet lets out a magnificently spine-chilling rising wail during the opening credits.) In a big band playing jazz, a clarinet player might need that type of instrument -- or, more likely, that type of reed and mouthpiece setup, with a lower-numbered reed and a more open facing than might produce the best tone in a classical orchestra or a mellower band.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-01-14 13:09
No doubt all true, but the OP wasn't talking about a commercial band. He(she?) was concerned, I think, about a school band, which would be in general more of a concert ensemble. I recently played in an orchestra behind the group Kansas. If I were going to be doing any more than that single concert, I'd have to change my setup. But I only do that kind of gig once or twice in a decade. For any concert band playing I've done, my orchestra setup has worked well.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2010-01-14 16:35
Hi,
Interesting thoughts above. I have never played in an orchestra with strings but have many, many years experience in wind ensembles, pits, chamber groups, and jazz settings (combo & big band) on clarinet. I use the same setup for all of the groups. But my most important pieces of equipment are a good set of ears. It's all about blending and style. You have to listen and then make your tone fit.
Now sax is a different thing for equipment. I use very different setups for wind ensemble and small groups than I do for jazz as well as show gigs. But the same type ears are still needed.
HRL
Post Edited (2010-01-14 20:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LgClarinet
Date: 2010-01-16 05:26
Hi all:
I'm sorry I haven't been up-to-date with the topic.
I appreciate all of the comments. I've learned quite a bit. And I believe I made an error. It is not Bonade's sound that I believe I am trying to emulate.
I took from Chris Sereque, of the Seattle Symphony, who took from Robert Marcellus. It was Chris' sound that I was trying to come by, whom I believe took from Marcellus. After all, who wouldn't want to sound like Marcellus...
The sound I have now has the reed vibrating quite a bit. I'm playing on a B45, refaced by Chris, and it is rather open. When Chris played near me, the sound that came from him was enormous! But, it wasn't the prestine, pure sound that I'd hear from the audience. It was loud, reedy, and very powerful, but it didn't share the sweetness of his sound from a distance.
I was wrong in terming is 'terrible', but I don't really know how else to describe it. It may not sound bad, but to come up with a word is very hard.
Hopefully, some of you may understand what I'm saying.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-01-16 14:50
Way back in college (1960's), an upper classmate clarinetist made the observation that a clarinet that sounds thin and "reedy" up close will often sound wonderful far away, as to the audience. After graduation, she did considerable subbing with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra with that "sound concept". I also had a similar related experiance while subbing with the Green Bay Symphony. The principal clarinetist's sound, during rehearsal, quite "reedy" and thin from two chairs away, but during the performance--on a piece for which I was not needed--he sounded absolutly mavelous with a big, resonant and expressive sound that soared over the 90 piece orchestra. I latter complimented him on his sound and his response was, "I have a Kaspar mouthpiece". But my basic point here is that a clarinet sound will often sound better farther away from the source that it does "up close".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-01-17 17:10
>>Way back in college (1960's), an upper classmate clarinetist made the observation that a clarinet that sounds thin and "reedy" up close will often sound wonderful far away, as to the audience.>>
Sometimes, too, somebody's trying to trot the Emperor past and sell you something. I heard an example just yesterday, at the International Saxophone Symposium (George Mason U. Patriot Center for the Arts, Fairfax, Virginia). Selmer helped the Navy sponsor the festival. Selmer persuaded quite a lot of people to sit through an hour-long live infomercial, in the main auditorium (very live acoustics with only a small audience) by raffling off a new sax at the end of the hour. The Selmer rep asked visiting artist Philippe Geiss to play one of his own saxes, a current-issue Selmer alto, with about eight different new necks, each with a different finish. We in the audience were supposed to hear differences between the silver plate, the clear-lacquered brass, the red-lacquered brass, the gold plate, the solid silver and I forget what else. I guess we were supposed to come out of there eager to buy alternate (expensive...) necks for different kinds of music. Well, Geiss tried hard, very hard, maybe a little too hard, to come up with differences he could describe between all these necks, but to me, funny thing, they all sounded like ... Philippe Geiss. And he sounded superb, as usual -- but I'm not going to go all neck-obsessive after this little demo....
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-01-17 18:11
It depends a lot on what one calls "thin and 'reedy'" and whether it's actually a tone others might describe differently. There is no doubt at all that players sound different at a distance, particularly in a good hall, from the way they sound up close (as a student would hear a teacher at a lesson or another player might hear a section mate in an orchestra). But in many cases a sound that's "thin and 'reedy'" to one person may be "focused and colorful" to another, and the favorite whipping-post of descriptors "dark and round" is for others "dull and colorless."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LgClarinet
Date: 2010-01-17 19:13
Okay, we have established the "thin-and-reedy-sounds-great-far-away" premise, which is what I meant at the beginning.
But how should I prepare an audition then? For a solo competition I have coming up, along with the majority of the placement auditions I have, the judges are less than 10 feet away. A recent audition had them placed at 5 feet!
Many aren't going to think, "this thin sounding clarinetist is going to sound fantastic out in the hall".
That's what I'm concerned about...
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-01-17 19:32
Lelia, equipment is magic. Spend, Lelia, spend. ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
LgClarinet wrote:
>
> Many aren't going to think, "this thin sounding clarinetist is
> going to sound fantastic out in the hall".
>
I would certainly agree with that. In band, pit orchestras, chamber groups, etc. most of us have probably been pretty close to other players and conductors from time to time, so I think how we sound relatively close is relevant. However, I wouldn't want to be five feet away as either player or judge. Dan, are you expressing what you hear or the feedback from others who have listened up close?
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-01-17 19:42
With all respect, I still think you're barking up the wrong tree. First, the "thin and 'reedy'" premise isn't so well established - see my reply to William above. Second, I think (this is pure opinion, which you're obviously free to completely disregard) that trying to tailor your "sound" to what some unknown judges may like or, more unpredictably, what they may think will sound effective in a hall, is largely a waste of energy and ultimately self-defeating if your goal is to become an excellent player. Somewhere along the line you have to find a sound you enjoy hearing when you perform and when you practice. You need to develop a sound (or more accurately, a range of sounds) that let you express yourself musically and confidently. Gigliotti, Marcellus, Combs, Cohen and Morales (to stick to American principal players) all sound(ed) very different from each other, and I'm quite certain they all sounded as different close up as they did in performance out in the halls they played in. There's not one sound from close up that sounds good far away. There are lots of them.
You need to be the most important judge of your own sound. The other judges you play for will value your musicality, your accuracy and the sense of conviction you convey far more than what they _think_ you will sound like in the seats farthest from the stage.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LgClarinet
Date: 2010-01-17 19:42
I'm taking my views from a couple angles. One, the majrotiy of players I play with have an M30, M15, M13, or, in general, a sound that sounds moderately good up close. Chris Sereque actually talked to me about this. It sounds decent up close, but rather dull in the hall. His facing, and subsequently his sound, sound marvelous out in the hall.
I owned and played an M30 for nearly a year, and I gave my B45 to Chris to reface. When I started to play the B45 again, I couldn't stand it! I thought it was the most disgusting thing! He had shown me how to properly adjust my reeds, and gave me a few 'good' reeds. I thought it was terrible! My sound was so thin!
But, upon months of playing with it, I have gotten used to my sound, and I have understood that it will sound dramatically different out in the hall.
I'm just thinking that if it took months of getting used to, and a complete change in thought of what it meant to sound good, than there's a great chance that the players that I sit next to won't have had the same revalation. Even my current teacher doesn't share my sound.
So, that's what I'm basing it on. My knowledge... I have been told that I sound good from the hall, and I have been told that I sound bad up close... If that answers your question...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LgClarinet
Date: 2010-01-17 19:47
Responding the Karl's post.
I appreciate what you're saying. I really do... I'm always in a fight to find a good sound, because I want to sound like those great players, but I can never find my way up to that point.
You have certainly helped.
And thanks to everyone for their help. I'll take the advice and just play with my own sound. I'll stop trying to "tailor [my] "sound" to what some unknown judges may like", as put by Karl.
Thanks again...
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2010-01-17 19:52
I had the same problem. The resistance in my R-13 Prestige was more than in either in my R-13 Prestige Bb(Now a backup) or my Festival Bb,the intonation in the throat tones were tricky and it just felt a bit lifeless although it's was made around the same time as the Prestige Bb and bought together and obviously used a lot less. Then I tried a couple of Chadash barrels and it just felt like it was almost new,the intonation in the throat tones became much more easier to control and the resistance feel is now more similar to the Festival Bb and somewhere between my Festival and the R-13 Bb clarinets. All in all I get a bigger sound on the A with the Chadash than on the stock barrel.
Long life Chadash.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-01-17 21:50
Dan, I think you answered these recent posts forthrightly and are on your way. Without having heard you play, I can say that I personally would not stick with something that isn't pleasing at a personal level in search of a sound "out there". I think a good sound is a good sound. My teachers talked with me astonishingly little about setup, like hardly at all except when I was choosing my instrument. In my own experimentation I have not stayed with something so resistive (or with other characteristics) that I wasn't enjoying what I was hearing day to day or that I worried about playing in more intimate settings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TPeterson
Date: 2010-01-18 02:32
Lgclarinet, I understand what you mean about sound, and I would challenge you to find a happy medium. One of the best investments I have made in the last year for the groups I conduct and for my own playing was a quality digital recorder. As I have tried different mouthpieces and experimented with different reeds, I record myself, both up close and at a distance (at least 10 feet). I am often amazed that qualities I found to be dramatically different from my perspective became subtle nuances the farther away the recorder was placed from me. In the end, I must conclude that for my own playing I lean toward finding a comfortable mouthpiece/reed combination that is only minimally different to my own ear. My learning experiences as a player reflect this conclusion.
One thing one of my teachers said has always resonated with me and that was that one should, "be happy with your playing, just don't be satisfied." What you sound like to yourself is a huge part of enjoying making music on an instrument. After all, if you don't enjoy your own music making-- what's the point?
Tim Peterson
Band Director & Clarinetist
Ionia, MI
Post Edited (2013-04-13 23:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2010-01-18 17:31
Harold Wright sounded great up close and at at the back of symphony hall. I think you sound good if you play nicely and have have a decent technique. Seems like this thinking you have to sound bad up close is a bit backwards.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
