 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-01 13:02
While I was listening to recordings played by Frederick Thurston, Reginald Kell, Louis Cahuzac, I started to think about reed strength used by great old masters and used nowdays. I simlpy can't imagine they used harder reeds than a Vandoren 3 or 2.5.
Perhaps stronger reeds become more popular when more and more difficult pieces started to appear, and clarinettists had to choose between tonal beauty, purity and stability.
I know many clarinettist can make very good quality sound with strength 4 and above, but I doubt they can play a Brahms sonata or Quintet with such fluent elegance and beauty like the ones I mentioned above.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-01 15:33
Mark, you've based a couple of conclusions on premises that are questionable.
First, you can only guess - you don't know - what reeds all of those early 20th century players were using. You "can't imagine" that they were using anything harder than a VD3 because you know how anything harder feels on your equipment, especially your mouthpiece. But their equipment may well have been different. The reed and the mouthpiece are completely interdependent. To some extent the instrument also contributes to the level of functional resistance. Responsiveness isn't a function only of the reed.
I don't know whether stronger reeds became more popular at some given point or not. I know that the players who came from the Bonade-Curtis school here in Philadelphia played in general on close (somewhere within a narrow range of 1.00 mm), medium long facings with, generally, #4-#5 Vandoren reeds (there were only the thin blank "traditional" cut ones then). When Vandoren became periodically difficult to get they would all scurry for something similar until the shortage abated. Of the ones in this line of players whose reed habits were fairly well known, only Marcellus went in a different direction - to the thicker and more resistant Morre reeds that V12, Rue Lepic and the other thick-blank reeds of today were meant to emulate. But the main point in all of this is that I can't hear in the recordings of the period (1950s-90s) any evidence at all that the setups those mid-20th century players (the generation after the ones you were listening to) were using were in any way less responsive than those of earlier players. Mouthpieces and reeds changed together. To be sure there were subtle characteristics in the sound that each player was looking for, but responsiveness and tonal beauty were not among the sacrifices they were willing, as a rule, to make.
In any case, your account of the choice later clarinetists made among "tonal beauty, purity and stability" puzzles me. I don't myself hear that any of the three were systematically sacrificed and I'm not sure why any of those qualities is mutually exclusive of any other of them. In fact, I'm not sure in reading your post which are the alternatives to which.
When you say "I doubt they can play a Brahms sonata or Quintet with such fluent elegance and beauty like the ones I mentioned above," you're first of all expressing a simple opinion. But by saying "I doubt," you're also suggesting that you haven't listened to many contemporary players' performances of these pieces. One of the most refined, controlled, fluently elegant and beautiful performances I've heard of the Brahms F minor Sonata was given by Ricardo Morales in an after-concert mini-recital during his first season as Philadelphia's principal clarinetist. Morales is reputed locally (I'm not close to him and don't know personally) to use very resistant reeds on a more resistant mouthpiece facing than was ever popular here before his arrival.
You're certainly entitled to have opinions about all the performers you've listened to past and present. I think that the connection between reed strength and sound quality that you chose as a thread title is much more involved than your post recognizes and, if you're looking for useful conclusions about this connection, your thoughts may be going down an unproductive path.
My 2-cents' worth,
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-01 19:05
Well dear Karl,
I think I must have offended you with something. If yes, I apologise. If not, I don't see any reason why you should insult me and saying I don't know recordings and I'm on a wrong way whatever you think to be the good one.
First of all, I'm open minded for different sound conceptions. I have mouthpieces with different lays and tip openings from 1.05 to 1.27. Both of them has a certain quality and I like all of them. Of course I know I have to use different type of reeds on them. Thanks for this useful piece of information...
I didn't stated the opposit most of your statements. I didn't confute that you can produce good sound with hard reeds. It would be a silly thing to do.
If I say 'I can't imagine something' that doesn't mean that it couldn't be that way. It just means I'm ignorant and lacking imagination...
I didn't make any logical conclusion, it was a guess.
Of course stability-flexibility purity-complexity are not excuding each oder completely when talking about sound. And beauty is a highly subjective factor.
You're certainly entitled to have opinions about all of I said.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-01-01 19:38
I like this topic. Karl's two cents was a lot for the money. Perhaps a quarter penny at a time would have opened the dialogue in a smoother fashion. I'm not so sure Mark is so off the mark so to speak.
Firstly does anyone have information about the reed strengths that the artists in question actually used? I guess(sorry for that) that reeds were not marked at the time?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BartHx
Date: 2011-01-01 20:03
It may have just been a local condition, but when I was first learning in the late 50s and early 60s, I don't ever recall any of the local music stores stocking anything harder than a 3.5 and brand selection was quite limited (Rico, Vandoren, and maybe one or two others). I suppose I could mark it up to lack of demand, but there were at least a couple of clarinet teachers in town who played for the San Francisco Symphony and used the old style Vandoren 3.0 to 3.5.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-01 20:36
I'm sorry I know my English is not so good, can you describe what do you mean by this? <I'm not so sure Mark is so off the mark so to speak>?
What I've read about Kell is he always told to his students to use the softest reed they can. I don't know exactly what was that strength. As far as I know the English sound concept was about to imitate the voice of a singer or a violin's vibrating sound. Of course this is too general and everybody had his own solution.
Here in Hungary as my teachers told me there were strength 2 and 3 Vandoren (purple paper and plastic box) at the 60's. Of course this was not a part of a concept, rather just the narrow choice of the market.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-01 21:35
sonicbang wrote:
> Well dear Karl,
>
> I think I must have offended you with something. If yes, I
> apologise. If not, I don't see any reason why you should insult
> me and saying I don't know recordings and I'm on a wrong way
> whatever you think to be the good one.
>
I'm sorry - Arnoldstang is probably right that I just bit off too much at once. I didn't mean to be as strident as I you must have found my post as you read it. As far as insulting you that you "don't know recordings" is concerned, I was reacting to your wording that you "doubt" modern players could match those early players for musical refinement. If you're actually comparing modern players whose performances you have heard, your wording threw me.
> First of all, I'm open minded for different sound conceptions.
> I have mouthpieces with different lays and tip openings from
> 1.05 to 1.27. Both of them has a certain quality and I like all
> of them. Of course I know I have to use different type of reeds
> on them. Thanks for this useful piece of information...
>
I didn't mean this to belittle you. It's just that the reed strength in itself doesn't mean much, unless you also take into account mouthpiece styles and preferences. I know you understand this from your contributions to other threads. If you get different results using a 1.05 mouthpiece with one reed and a 1.27 mouthpiece with a lighter reed, the difference can't be explained just by the reed change (as I know you understand). It just seemed to me you were only looking at one part of more complex set of issues that really can't be easily separated.
> I didn't stated the opposit most of your statements. I didn't
> confute that you can produce good sound with hard reeds. It
> would be a silly thing to do.
>
No, you said a good sound was possible, but you said explicitly that it *didn't seem likely* to you ("I doubt") that anyone could play on those harder reeds with the "fluent elegance and beauty" of the older players on their softer ones. I just thought it was much too broad a statement to make.
> I didn't make any logical conclusion, it was a guess.
>
Again, I read things like your "I imagine..." and "I doubt..." as sort of opinionated conclusions centered on your idea that players have been turning to harder reeds over the last half century. Again, I'm sorry if I misread what you wrote and turned whimsical musings into firm statements about the relationship between reed strength and sound quality. And if I misread you, I over-reacted.
> Of course stability-flexibility purity-complexity are not
> excuding each oder completely when talking about sound. And
> beauty is a highly subjective factor.
>
Well, that was my reaction, too, and so I said your statement about players' having made choices (presumably by choosing to use harder reeds) puzzled me. You said that as the music got harder, players needed to choose among those playing qualities. I just didn't (don't) see where the choice is and so still don't understand what you meant to say.
> You're certainly entitled to have opinions about all of I said.
>
Well, I think in the end I don't so much want to argue with you as try to understand exactly what point or points you're trying to make. We probably agree on some of what you intended to write. As I read it, your post said that earlier players, based on your listening to their recordings, probably used medium strength reeds (VD #3 or less) and that modern players, who tend to use stronger reeds, aren't likely ever to match those older players in their "fluent elegance and beauty." Did you mean to say something different from that?
No insult meant - I only want to understand what we're discussing.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-01 21:45
"Off the mark" means "off-target," so he's saying there may be some accuracy in what you've said.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-01 22:07
By the way, it's interesting to know that your base of experience is in Hungary and its surroundings, so I can imagine that much of what I wrote in my first post about Bonade-Curtis and Philadelphia may not have meant much to you.
I did mention, just as your teachers have said, that those "purple paper and plastic box" Vandorens (purple cardboard before they started using plastic) were very nearly the only quality reeds available here as well, although many of the players here were using Hard (#5) Vandorens. Most of the alternatives were student-level reeds aimed at the growing American school music market. I remember that Vic Olivieri reeds were also available. Sax players used La Voz a lot, but orchestral clarinetists not so much.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-01 22:53
I have heard of Bonade, mainly as an outstanding orchestral player, but you are right, I don't really know what the Bonade-Curtis school is. But I'm almost sure you haven't heard of Géza Radanovics, György Balassa, József Deák, János Maczák or Tibor Dietrich. What I try to say is we know very little about each other's base of experience and what had an influenc of the other.
Thanks for shading some light on that expression.
> Of course stability-flexibility purity-complexity are not
> excuding each oder completely when talking about sound. And
> beauty is a highly subjective factor.
>
'Well, that was my reaction, too...'
I said I have some problem with the language, but as I see our basic opinion is not so different, any kind of misunderstanding can came from my scummy composition. Maybe I would say it in another way in hungarian.
'Well, I think in the end I don't so much want to argue with you as try to understand exactly what point or points you're trying to make. We probably agree on some of what you intended to write. As I read it, your post said that earlier players, based on your listening to their recordings, probably used medium strength reeds (VD #3 or less) and that modern players, who tend to use stronger reeds, aren't likely ever to match those older players in their "fluent elegance and beauty." Did you mean to say something different from that?'
Well I have to make some retreat at this point. I have listened the samples at Richard Hawkins's site. He plays on his own mouthpiece models, and he recommands strength 3.5 and4. The way he plays Brahms is superb. If I had to choose between the Kell's, Thurston's Hawkins's or lets say Béla Kovács's Brahms recordings...it would be as uneasy as I should decide which one of my fingers to bite.
Of course each of them are very different and above this level there is no better or worse sound. But despite they play perfectly there is huge difference how they do/did it.
My question is after all; does the reed strength has important part in these distinctions?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2011-01-01 23:58
Unless you mention your mouthpiece's tip opening and the facing length the reed strength in itself is meaningless. A mouthpiece with close tip would require harder reed in comparison to the mouthpiece with the open tip. The #4 (or stronger) reed might be very comfortable on the 1 mm tip. To have the same comfort on the open tip of 1.20 mm you have to use softer reed. That's how it works.
__________________________
If all other parameters are equal:
closer tip - harder reed
open tip - softer reed
longer facing - harder reed
shorter facing - softer reed
__________________________
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2011-01-02 00:04
I'm almost 100% sure that I've read that Reginald Kell used reeds #2.5 It might even have been in the booklet that came with the Decca 6 box set I own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-02 00:04
Do you know what setup Béla Kovács uses? Of the Hungarians you named, he's the only one I've heard - or at least the only Hungarian clarinetist I've heard who is identified individually (I don't know who is playing when I hear those old Antal Dorati recordings of Philharmonica Hungarica). I think Kovács's sound is wonderful, but I can't begin to guess what combination of instrument, reed and mouthpiece would most likely produce it.
By the way, "scummy" is too harsh a way to describe whatever discomfort you have with English. I think your basic use of English is fine - we may just be losing the meanings of a few idioms in translation.
And the only Hungarian you'll read from me will have been translated by Google - I have no idea what that would do to my posts!
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-02 00:13
My apologies to everyone else - I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but this is too good an opportunity to pass up.
Mark, you've read my latest message above in English. I've gotten a Google translation of it. I'm very curious to know how faithful it is to what I actually wrote in English. Can you read it and let me know whether it's accurate or has really made a mess of the original meaning? I never know when I use Google Translate whether the person I'm writing to is rolling on the floor laughing at what comes out.
Tudod, mi setup Kovács Béla használ? A magyarok akkor nevű, ő az egyetlen, én is hallottam - vagy legalábbis az egyetlen magyar klarinétművész hallottam, aki egyedileg azonosítani (nem tudom, ki játszik, amikor azt hallom a régi Doráti Antal felvételei Philharmonica Hungarica ). Azt hiszem, Kovács hangja csodálatos, de nem tudok kezdeni kitalálni, hogy mi kombinációja eszköz, nád és a szopóka valószínűleg termelésére.
By the way, "habos" túl durva módon leírni, amit kényelmetlenség van az angol nyelvvel. Azt hiszem, az alap angol nyelv használata rendben van -, akkor egyszerűen elveszíti a jelentését, néhány idiómák fordítását.
És az egyetlen magyar fogsz olvasni tőlem lesz fordították le a Google - Fogalmam sincs, mit kellene tennie, hogy a hozzászólás!
Thanks,
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-02 09:04
It's funny. If I didn't know the original version I think I wouldn't been able to understand it. Especially the translarion of 'mouthpiece' is weird and obscene. Anyway.
As far as I know Antal Doráti was the conductor of the National Opera House, (maybe in the '20s) but he was a welcomed conductor virtually everywhere from Russia to the USA. The Philharmonica Hungarica and Doráti worked together on long series of LPs with Haydn's all symphony. The orchestra was founded in 1956 as a cultural reaction to the Soviet tyranny. The orchestra was at Germany and the member were emigrants.
Béla Kovács was born at '37 and I don't think he had a chance to play in that orchestra.It's shame but I don't know their clarinettists.
Back to the original theme. Béla Kovács has/had the unique ability to sound exactly the same in all kind of equipement. He played on crystal mouthpiece at some time (he said it had much colorful sound than ebonite) but then he switched back to ebonite for the same reason... I have recordings from both periods and the sound is really the same. He was a big fan of B40 when it came to fashion. He liked it because it's comfort. Reeds very mostly Vandoren 2.5 and 3 and perhaps Stauer. He used some german-like custom mouthpiece made by an Austrian craftsman. He had a Buffet RC, maybe he used it in orchestras too, or the orchestra's RC Prestige, I'm not sure. He is inactive because of medical reasons.
Once when playing with Radanovics, Kovács said to him: 'Géza I would be happy to swap my sound to yours' . You can imagine...
If you hear a recording from the 70's from the National Radio Orchestra and they play one of Tsaikovsky's symphoy, you have a great chance to hear Radanovics.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-01-02 12:35
>>Firstly does anyone have information about the reed strengths that the artists in question actually used? I guess(sorry for that) that reeds were not marked at the time?
>>
Does anybody know when commercial manufacturers of reeds first began putting numbers on them? If so, do the earliest numbers seem standardized at all? (Not that today's numbers are consistently standard from one brand to another -- we all know they're not -- but at least today we can predict accurately that a reed marked 5 will be stiffer than a reed marked 2, no matter who manufactured it. I don't know whether that was always true or not.)
I ask because when I've bought antique clarinets (late 19th century, early 20th century) in "garage horn" condition, in original cases and apparently unplayed for decades, they often come with some handmade reeds. I've never tried playing on those reeds because they've all looked dirty and deteriorated and anyway, I don't know where they've been. I've read descriptions of orchestra clarinet players in times of yore making reeds while the conductor worked with the musicians from other sections. It may be that we just can't answer this question.
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: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-01-02 14:01
I think it depends on what you mean by a beautiful, fluent elegant tone. I know many players whose tones are just that and they use number 4s and 4 1/2s. Tone is in the ears of the listener. I think it's a strange statement to make since it depends on personal taste. What one player thinks is a beautiful tone others may consider to bright, to dark, to small, to big etc. etc. etc. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-02 14:06
I played for a very short while back in the '70s a boutique brand made by a local player that had a numbering system that started with 10. I don't remember how high the numbers went.
I have a couple of boxes of Vandoren bass and E-flat reeds that I bought (and marked the boxes) in 1977. Those reeds have no strength markings on them - only the boxes are identified by strength. My memory suggests (but I'm not sure) that stamping the numbers on Vandorens coincided with the introduction of V12s, which included the 4-1/2 strength that the original traditional VDs did not. The old boxes, of course, were marked in English and in French "Hard - 5," "Medium Hard - 3-1/2 - 4)," "Medium - 2-1/2 - 3)," etc... Even the boxes didn't give discreet numeric strengths as they do now.
As far as other brands' markings were concerned, I remember that La Voz marked the front of the reed (just above the end of the bark), as I think they still do, with a description - hard, medium hard, etc... The school brands - mostly Rico and Symmetricut - always since the late '50s (my introduction to the clarinet) - had numbers stamped on the back as they do now.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-01-02 16:57
Long, open lay ==>hard reed
Short, close lay ==>softer reed
This comes from being able to wrap the reed around the curve of the lay from where it is softly supported by the lip.
BUT, the reed must always have a higher resonance frequency than the note being played. This frequency ratio (physics) requirement is really only challenged in the altissimo register, where the pressure wave's return to the reed can happen so fast that a "slow" reed can't respond quickly enough to match the vibrating air column.
The reed also needs to be "fast" in order to change its vibration to match the next note in the playing sequence --making that slurred leap from A-440 to A-1760 two octaves above.
Generally, we expect that a harder reed is needed to meet the demands of the altissimo. We also have a tendency to "bite" the reed, effectively shortening the length of the lay, shortening the amount of reed that is flapping against the mouthpiece, raising its frequency of vibration and making it work on the highest notes.
The reed's natural frequency depends upon the ratio of the material's strength to its stiffness and the thickness distribution of its shape/cut. Putting the squeeze on the reed to get it to vibrate allows us to rate the reed's stiffness/hardness --and that correlates to the number stamped on the cane. It does not provide a perfect measure of the reed's vibration frequency. This measure of reed hardness gives insight into the stiffness part of the reed's character. We know part of the rest of the story (how the reed will vibrate) through our experience playing reeds made of cane and cut to familiar shapes. We've played long enough on enough reeds, so that we know that picking a reed with a different number will play differently --and the trend of that difference.
But, the rest of the story is in the details of how the reed vibrates, how it warps and unwraps around the curve of the mouthpiece's lay.
AND, there is the possibility that the reed may not simply wrap smoothly around the rails and slap against the tip rail, but twist so that one corner hits the mouthpiece ahead of the other corner.
This twisting of the reed is harmful, and we all balance our reeds to get rid of it; but it alerts us to the fact that the whole bloody situation is a lot more complicated than it seems at first.
The reed also participates in the generation of harmonics that color the tone quality. The system's lungs, throat, tongue, mouth, air pressure, air stream, mouthpiece, tuning barrel, bore, tone hole positioning, undercutting, bell (?!) all participate in the generation of sound quality.
The participation of the reed in the sound quality is critical, but I think it goes well beyond the static stiffness of the "diving board strapped to the mouthpiece."
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-02 17:13
"The reed's natural frequency depends upon the ratio of the material's strength to its stiffness ..."
Bob, what do you mean by "strength" in this context? I've always generally equated strength and stiffness in reeds.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2011-01-02 20:22
The vigor with which hard reed fanciers promote the virtues of hardness, suggests to me a kind of musical machismo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2011-01-02 20:38
Referring to the 'diving board' analogy, and acknowledging it as a gross over simplification but a bit useful, it illustrates the function of 'biting' into higher notes.
Clearly a stiffer ( higher strength ) reed would require more pressure to 'bite' onto a shorter free vibrating length of reed.
However I don't think that everyone is happy with biting, and less so with biting with more pressure.
In fact, biting is often discouraged as a concept.
So, hard guys, I still don't find a clear exposition of why hardness, beyond a necessary minimum to permit controlled vibration at the highest note, is in itself a virtue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2011-01-02 21:12
Mark Nuccio said in a video on the Rico site that he knows players who play on reeds #3 and others that play on #4 or 4.5 and the end result are pretty much the same they all sound beautiful.
I personally can hear most of the time if player is using #3 on an open mouthpiece or #4 or 4.5 on a closed mouthpiece. Honestly I most of the time don't like the tone of players using much harder reeds than #4 reeds. It gets often gets too thick and too dark with too little clarity for my taste.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-01-02 21:28
kdk,
I'm sorry for the error in my post. I meant to say density, not strength.
When you work the math for "lumps" of things vibrating, you can often come up with a formula for frequency of vibration that breaks into two factors. The first is the square root of the ratio of stiffness to density, and the second addresses the "lump's" geometry. ["Stiffness" is Young's modulus, and "density" is mass/volume modulus.]
Stiffness/density is specific stiffness, and is probably what the designer of a synthetic cane for use in reeds is searching for --trying to match the natural cane. Interestingly, specific stiffness is about the same for all metals. Steel is both 3 times as stiff and 3 times as dense as aluminum.
The current champions for stiffness/density are composites of boron or carbon with a matrix like epoxy to hold the fibers together. I'm anticipating the marketing of carbon fiber reeds.
interd0g,
On biting. I think it is a natural result of the player trying anything to make the altissimo speak. You bite, and sometimes the note comes out. I've been trying to break my biting (and half holing) for a long time now.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-02 21:50
If we could define when the reed's destiny/stiffness is ideal, there must be a very narrow path for it's length, thickness etc. I mean there must be best parameters for a certain material. It it has, there must be a mouthpiece what fits the best to it.
Of course one can play on 1.5 reed or 5. reed on a mouthpiece which fits to it. But these extremities only works with tremendous compensations.
Best thing to do is not to compensate things but to find the middle in every aspect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2011-01-02 22:10
As a matter of interest, I believe that one of my favorite clarinetists, Jacques Lancelot, played on a Vandoren 5RV mouthpiece withe VD 2.5 reeds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-01-03 03:57
Back to the diving board analogy, though. Extend a meter stick (yard stick) over the edge of a table. Hold it down with one hand, and pluck it with the other so that it starts vibrating. Then use the "plucking hand" to pull the stick back onto the table so that it gets shorter. The frequency will increase as the amount of yard stick extending past the edge of the table is reduced.
Thus, I'd guess that a too-slow (too soft) reed can be made faster by wrapping it around the lay of the mouthpiece to shorten it --like the vibrating yard stick.
I think that that is what biting does --speeds up the reed.
In the end, of course, biting is counter productive because the reduced reed can't "bang" on the air column with enough authority to keep the air column excited. The result is a weak, thin, unappealing sound quality.
Some other variation in all the things that affect the sound production will clear things up.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2011-01-03 13:29
beejay said:
"As a matter of interest, I believe that one of my favorite clarinetists, Jacques Lancelot, played on a Vandoren 5RV mouthpiece withe VD 2.5 reeds."
That could very well be true because he sure sounds like he is playing on a mouthpiece on the closer end with a light reed.
Combination that I even dislike more than a harder reed on a more open mouthpiece.
To show you the extreme if this is correct for Lancelot's setup then Paul Meyer who plays on 5RV and 5RVLyre uses V-12 #3.5 and 4 or more recently 3.5+ on those mouthpieces which I presonally feel when listening to him that is the right strength suited to those lays and guess Vandoren recommends this strength too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2011-01-03 21:06
I think you're correct there interd0g, who want's to spend their life busting their lip playing on paddle pop sticks.
You can get an excellent sound and range on 2 and 2.5 reeds matched to a suitable mouthpiece. The downside I assume is that this type of reed doesn't last as long as the harder type.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2011-01-03 21:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-01-04 12:37
The argument against hard reeds is aimed at people who overdo it. It is possible to have a #4 1/2 reed on a close mouthpiece that only provides substantial air resistance and doesn't require excessive biting.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2011-01-04 13:20
I've met Kovács Béla a couple of times in Budapest and know a few other Hungarian pros, all of whom were his students and/or colleagues.
He is now retired but was principal for something like three decades in the opera orchestra (as opposed to the National Philharmonic, the Budapest Festival, the old Philharmonica Hungarica, or the various other orchestras that are part of the Hungarian scene).
His instruments were always Buffets. He latterly played a Prestige. He often switched mouthpieces, they say, and frequently played on Vandoren mouthpieces. He also played on Viotto mouthpieces.
I once asked the late Tibor Dittrich (who taught with Kovacs at the Franz Liszt Music Academy in Budapest) to describe the style of Hungarian clarinet playing. His reply? Kovács Béla sytle. And it's true. His influence in that country has been (and continues to be) profound. As a result, the level of clarinet playing in Hungary is exceptionally high.
Arguably Kovács Béla's all-time best student is Balogh Jozsef, who is now teaching at the University of Oklahoma, replacing the late David Etheridge. Balogh Jozsef, like his teacher, is a masterful player and musician whose stylistic range is truly amazing.
Paul Globus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-01-04 15:13
>>The argument against hard reeds is aimed at people who overdo it. >>
Yeah, I think a lot of that starts among young beginning and intermediate players in school, where they more or less challenge each other to move up to higher reed strengths. Kids often equate words such as higher, stiffer and stronger with better.
Back in 1959 or so, a boy who sat next to me in grammar school band picked up one of my reeds when class ended and we were putting our instruments away. He looked at the back and said, mockingly, something along the lines of, "Two-and-a-half? You're still playing this little Brownie Scout reed?!" Pressuring me usually backfires and did this time, although I didn't quite have the nerve to taunt him with confusing a stiff reed with part of his anatomy....
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: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-04 22:52
Paul Globus wrote:
<I once asked the late Tibor Dittrich (who taught with Kovacs at the Franz Liszt Music Academy in Budapest) to describe the style of Hungarian clarinet playing. His reply? Kovács Béla sytle. And it's true. His influence in that country has been (and continues to be) profound. As a result, the level of clarinet playing in Hungary is exceptionally high. >
I would be a nice statement but I have to say there are more exceptions than you would think.
Its obvious that the imitation of a great artist always have to fall, because it's just imitation. Kovács had a few good students indeed. But the not-so-good ones misunderstood a lot of things and when they came to teach, they just simply couldn't. Of course Kovács's influence is huge. But nowdays some student of the Liszt Ferenc Academy is just a bad joke, a parody and victim. Saying to a student 'play nicely and easily like Kovács Béla' is not a teaching concept at all.
Oh yes, reed strength. I got a Gigliotti P34 two days ago. According to the chart I should use VD blue box 4 or 4.5 or V12 4.5 or 5 as I remember.
I use blue box 3 on it. And I have to adjust them even a bit.
I just can't produce any kind of sound with a 4. But with 3 it has a really beautiful and even sound from top to bottom in all kind od dymanics. Articulation is easy. Perhaps extreme distance legato is not so easy, but I think this can be caused by the very narrow window. Or my slow accomodation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-04 23:24
According to the Gigliotti homegage '...narrower window creates balanced resistance. This eliminates the necessity of using heavy reeds...'
Then they suggest VD 4-4.5-5 -5+
Funny. Maybe with a normal window it would require strenght 8...
I have to mention that my P34 is in original condition and those who tried the mouthpiece agreed with me regarding the reed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-01-05 00:08
For what it's worth, Gigliotti himself used the P facing, generally with a #4-1/2 V12, but his reeds were very vibrant after he'd adjusted them, not stiff or ever stuffy. The P34 is shorter, supposedly with the same tip opening as the P (very closed - less than 1.00 mm), so you would expect it to take something a little softer than the P takes. But the mouthpieces may have changed since he died - they may now work more easily with softer strengths than 4. I'm not sure who wrote the bit about the narrow window (which is true) and "balanced resistance" (I'm not even sure what that means).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
