 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: A2musician
Date: 2011-07-07 03:54
Hello, I have recently been experimenting with many different reed types to try and achieve a "David Shifrin" like sound. I have recently played on vandoren v12, gonzalez, and rico classic reserve reeds. I have made great progress with my sound but I was just wondering if anyone could give me any insight. I know embouchure is most of the battle, but if anyone had any ideas about which reed could steer me in the right direction, that would be great. Thanks so much for the help.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2011-07-07 05:35
To be honest with you. You will always sound like yourself. There are things that can influence your sound say David Shifrin. But in all fairness you'll never sound like David Shifrin, neither will I, nor anybody else in the world. But, to sort of answer your question, what mouthpiece are you currently playing on? Mouthpieces are the number 1 thing next to the instrument that will change how you sound. Barrels and bells can also be beneficial but the mouthpiece is the first. If you want a sound liiike David Shifrin, try experimenting with other mouthpieces. Reeds will influence sound as well, but not nearly as much as a mouthpiece will.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-07-07 15:17
You are pretty much destined to produce your "own" sound no matter what equipment you choose to use. The great mouthpiece maker and clarinetist, Bernard Portnoy, said "a new mouthpiece will change your sound for about two weeks, but after that, you will return to your old sound--the sound you were born with [due to your oral configuration]". Like the stripes on a tiger, you can try to lose them, but they are there to stay. The more important ways to "sound" like David Shifrin--or better yet, Ricardo M--is to play as perfectly in tune as is possible (at all times) and to play with impeccable, error free, technique. Those are playing characteristics well within any clarinetist's control. Your sound, however, will always be "just you".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimeister
Date: 2011-07-07 17:25
That's great you mention Ricardo, William. In fact, at NAMM this year Ricardo told me that the way to make it is exactly how you said it. Play in tune and have really good rhythm, and you can make it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-07-07 17:56
Yes, it is true that you will always sound like you but you can make some small changes. The first thing is to get the sound you want in your "inner" ear. That is to know exactly how you want to sound to yourself when you play. Then you have to find the right MP - reed combination plus experimenting with your throat, tongue and embouchure positions until you hear what you want to hear. At that point you have to work very hard not to change back. It's a little like going on a diet, once you loose the weight you can't go back to your old eating habits.
Pretty much you can make your sound a little darker, or brighter, maybe a bit bigger or smaller but you won't be able to make any drastic changes. As Leon Russianoff used to say, find what gives you YOUR best sound. ESP
eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-07-07 21:35
I can say you will never sound like David Shifrin...but he will never sound like you no matter how hard he practise...seriously this is like changing hair colour. Makes no sense IMO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2011-07-07 22:41
I'll say this though - you can sound quite a bit like your teacher if you have very similar equipment, and learn his sound concept.
One of Ricardo's students early on didn't sound much like him at all, but after a few years, she really did quite a bit.
That's one of the reasons he doesn't play constantly for his students, as he doesn't want clones out there.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2011-07-08 00:30
I can understand your curiosity. I heard Shifrin once in person many years ago when he was teaching at the University of Michigan. He doesn't have the classic "dark" Marcellus sound, but I still enjoy it very much. His playing seems to be effortless with no sign of any tension.
I'm going to go out on a limb--way out on a limb. I would guess that he probably uses a fairly "open" mouthpiece with a "softer" reed (quite possibly 3 or softer). He used to play on Selmer clarinets, but I'm not sure if this is still true.
To me, his playing sounds almost English. Now, a question and a comment to those reading this in the UK. What do you think? Does he have an "English" sound? Please don't be offended--I do enjoy hearing English clarinet playing!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-07-08 02:42
Listen to Shifrin recordings ....get the sound in your head. Ask students of his what he does and last of all equipment. It all adds up. Don't worry about being a clone....it's not going to happen in a hurry and in any case you won't lose your individuality. There is one clip on youtube where the clarinetist had tried for years to imitate Ralph McLanes articulation. He felt it was a big part of his sound. It isn't a bad thing to imitate.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2011-07-08 02:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: A2musician
Date: 2011-07-08 03:00
Hi and thank you all for your input and for responding to my question. I am fully aware that I will never play like David Shifrin and my goal is not to become a clone of him. But his sound is certainly one that I admire, and I aspire to be a player with a similar sound. I don't think anyone could ever duplicate Shifrin's sound but I would love to know what sort of reed is more apt to produce a softer, sweeter sound. I currently play on a Vandoren M13 mouthpiece. I know many students at the U of M and also the professor of clarinet there, Chad Burrow, play on one. Again thanks for your input.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: A2musician
Date: 2011-07-08 03:08
William, I have to disagree with you. With work and practice you can certainly change your sound as I have experienced. Your embouchure is not "destined" to always be the same. This is like telling people who are unsatisfied with their sound that there is no benefit of working on your sound, as it will always be the same.
Post Edited (2011-07-08 03:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Red Chair
Date: 2011-07-08 09:58
The last time I saw David and heard him play he was sounding his wonderful best, actually even a little better then he had in the last five years or so I thought. As I'm visiting the uk at the moment I can also only look with disgust at such a comment as 'English sound'. If you honestly believe there is such a thing and that all uk players sound one way it's time you got a passport and traveled to hear the wide variation in tonal colour that it is on offer in Britain. It's wonderful that there is such variation amongst such wonderful players.
Back to David though, he also mentioned he is now using a mouthpiece that Ramon Wodkowski has worked on in detail so if you do want to try to emulate his glorious sound perhaps his mouthpieces are a good starting point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2011-07-08 10:51
No mention of tongue position in relation to Shifrin's sound? I haven't studied with him personally but he does espouse the focused sound produced by high tongue position as a fundamental principle, or am I wrong about that?
FWIW A2musician, for me proper embouchure is fundamental to a freely vibrating reed which provides ease of play -- quality and aesthetic of sound is achieved by acknowledging and developing your personal sound concept (as mentioned above). For me that involved a great deal of work on tongue position before I felt secure delivering my sound at every moment that I played.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomD
Date: 2011-07-08 12:30
I know that Shifrin was playing a Yamaha CSG for several years but the last few times I saw him in the past year, it looked like he was playing a Tosca. There was no ring on the bell and the barrel was a standard length, not the short CSG barrel. I wasn't close enough to be able to tell for sure if it was a Tosca. He will be playing the Mozart concerto with the New Haven Symphony (Connecticut) in October. I will definitely be there. It will be interesting to see if he uses the basset clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomD
Date: 2011-07-08 16:37
I'm a huge fan of David. I live in the New Haven area so I've been able to see him many times including with the Symphony as well as with small chamber groups. I have his recording of the Mozart and his recordings of most of Weber's works. This discussion has been about his sound which is great but I really love his interpretation, i.e. his phrasing etc. His adagio movements of the Mozart and Weber Concertos are just beautiful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-07-08 19:27
I'd normally stay away from these threads like the plague, but..........
I would suggest that you'd be better served analyzing how Shifrin uses his sound than dissecting how he produces it.
As for "sound", equipment will get you closer perhaps, but unless you consciously change your concept and approach you will sound no more like "Player X" than you do now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But to expound further............
I agree that you will always "sound like yourself" in principle (and that you will never sound like "Player X"), but you can choose what yourself is. (In fact there is a redundancy in saying you will always sound like yourself. Obviously so- you're the one doing the blowing. What else COULD result!) Also, I have never agreed in full with the notion that one is ingrained with one personal sound. Normally, you mature as a clarinetist with a "tone" concept that is nurtured- and most will stick with that.
-(All of this is assuming you have some level of proficiency on the clarinet.)
Yet, you CAN change "yourself" quite easily. Hear what you want and do it. There is no inherent difficulty in this. In fact, it is freeing in opposition to the feeling you must be locked into specific shapes and positions, never varying- even if they are "personally tailored."
Initially, there may be a feeling of "difference" as you are thinking/approaching the clarinet in a "new way", but that too will pass. Ultimately, it is Un-learning some things: the letting go of forcing yourself into one mold. (In fact you probably don't know exactly what your mouth, tongue etc... is doing at all times, I sure don't.) You can change at will to produce whatever it is you hear.
Above all, the music will be better served as you are not imposing your voice("sound") on to it, you are letting the music guide what your voice is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW- I played a "copy" of the famous Kanter that Shifrin used for years (on the same Riffault blank). I forget the numbers, but it was a bit more open and longer than what is considered "medium" here in the Midwest. A tad more free-blowing, but in the end it was just a piece of rubber. As for what he uses now I have no clue except that it is probably made of rubber.
-JH
Post Edited (2011-07-08 22:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclarinet
Date: 2011-07-09 13:25
I met David Schifrin when he was a high school student at the Interlochen Arts Academy and spent some time with him waiting to play one of the final rounds of a San Francisco Symphony Associate Principal Clarinet audition many many years ago. At the audition ,he was 19 years old and was the best clarinetist I had ever heard, bar none. He was and is a fantastic musician. When I hear him play, I do not think of what clarinet he plays, or the mouthpiece , or his embouchure--just the beautiful music he makes!
Post Edited (2011-07-09 13:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-07-09 19:29
Ten players can use exactly the same equipment as their teacher and study with that teacher for 4-5 years and they can, and most likely will, all sound slightly different. Some may sound close to their teacher and some will sound very different. I've never heard anyone sound like Marcellus, or Genussa , (Marcellus admired his sound very much), or Wright or any other great player noted for their sound. Your tone quality is like your voice, it's yours and yours alone. You can make some changes with equipment, embouchure, breath support and voicing but it's still yours. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-07-09 19:40
Using the same studio and recording engineer as Shifrin would help also. Try it on different stereo systems and headphones as well. Don't discount the effects on sound of the environment it's played in and the means by which it's heard.
With the same equipment, I can play with lots of different sounds with different ways of moving the air and positioning my mouth on the mouthpiece. I'd experiment with that before embarking on too many acquisitional adventures.
Knowing what equipment Shifrin uses is completely pointless if he also had "the David Shifrin sound" when he used other equipment.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-07-10 01:11
EEBaum wrote:
>
> Knowing what equipment Shifrin uses is completely pointless if
> he also had "the David Shifrin sound" when he used other
> equipment.
>
Funny thing is, I'm not sure he did. Years ago - sometime in the 70s - it happened that he was hired to play 1st clarinet as a guest in a concert by the Camden Philharmonia. I think this was very soon after he left the Cleveland Orchestra. I was hired to play 2nd clarinet for the concert (I'd been playing 2nd in the orchestra for several seasons, although there was no firm season contract - it was pretty much a per-service orchestra with only a handful of concerts per season).
I was amazed, especially knowing he had trained at Curtis under Gigliotti, that his sound was almost alto saxophone-like. Very round, open, completely lacking in what some would call edge. Very unlike the sound I heard three seasons ago when he played one of the Weber Concerti in Philadelphia with the Philadelphia Chamber Orchestra.
I believe he told me at the time of the Camden Phil concert that he was playing on a Pyne mouthpiece - whatever it was, he was really enthusiatic about it. The only real point, though, is that if what I heard 3 years ago was "the David Shifrin sound," he didn't sound like that when I played with him 30 years earlier.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2011-07-10 14:46
KDK said:
I was amazed, especially knowing he had trained at Curtis under Gigliotti, that his sound was almost alto saxophone-like. Very round, open, completely lacking in what some would call edge. Very unlike the sound I heard three seasons ago when he played one of the Weber Concerti in Philadelphia with the Philadelphia Chamber Orchestra.
Yes! When I heard him play at the University of Michigan about 30 years ago, this was exactly the sound I heard. It was a pleasant sound and he played very well, but it seemed to be just a bit "different" (although there is nothing wrong with that). It has been many years since I've heard him in person, and from what you're saying, his sound really has changed.
I'm no David Shifrin--not even close!--but I know my sound has changed a little since the 70s. A slightly different embouchure, a different mouthpiece and barrel, thick-blank reeds that were barely available back then--these factors do make a difference.
Post Edited (2011-07-10 14:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-07-10 15:18
I have a few different voices. I can sound like Acker Bilk, or sound like a no name ligit player, and on alto sax I can imitate Paul Desmond, also do a rock and roll sound etc. as well as a classical sax player. So I think you can alter things. The main criticism of cloning musicians I think refers to people who copy the interpretation of a work exclusively. I don't know who would do this but certainly I remember years back playing Sheherazade on oboe. I listened quite a bit to Ray Still (Chicago Symphony) and what he did with the solo. No doubt this influenced me but even then my focus was on making music.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-07-10 15:35
It's always possible to follow an influence. It's rarely possible for one player to duplicate the sound of any other.
I sound a lot more like my teacher than I sound like Leister, Brymer, Pay, Kovacz, Morales, Cohen or any other of the many players whose recordings I've listened to and admire. And to an extent, that's by choice, but it's also by habit, because I'd have to change so much, from my concept through almost every piece of equipment I use, that it shakes my comfort level too severely any time I've tried to wander very far.
I think it's possible to emulate, though probably not to copy (inborn physical attributes do play a part), another player's sound. Students do it all the time. But unless you can make it part of your own musical core, you run the strong risk of being artificial and superficial, with no other reason for doing things than "that's what ... would have done."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-07-10 19:50
I think Karl has hit the bulls-eye on this one; actually on several points.
*Emulating another player, even if done well, is a carnival act at best. Or perhaps we could start a Las Vegas show with Marcellus, Wright, Leister... et. al. impersonators.
*We do follow the influences around us when learning. Listen to the earliest clarinet/orchestral recordings- there are very clear differences in tonal concept and style between regions and countries. I don't think this was due to idol-emulation, but simply was the result of the climate a certain performer grew up in. A clarinetist followed the influence that surrounded them.
With the wide-spread dissemination of recordings and ease of travel today, there is much more homogenization of style and "sound." (For better or worse?, you decide.) One can "pick and choose" what traits of a certain style/player they wish to embody and form their "voice."
**What does this show us? The fact that one is born with one built in sound that they can only slightly alter? Actually no. (Most were likely guided into their personal sound by their (even unconscious) choices and preferences.) It does show that we can alter our voice much more than we initially think. You WILL always sound like you, but you can change the "you." If not, how could people learn to speak fluently in other languages with the proper accent (a drastic change of oral cavity shape and tongue position, no?) Yes, yes, it will be in your built-in "voice", but when properly achieved a person can sound quite different. (I've had close friends not even realize it was me speaking when I spoke in Spanish.) The same can be done on the clarinet if desired. No, you will never sound like Shifrin, Marcellus or Gennusa, but that is not the end-goal. You can alter much more than you think and expand your "personal sound." It may feel strange, or uncomfortable, just as Karl suggested, but over time will become second nature (just as a foreign language.)
Does this change your built in sound? I would pose that it actually will somewhat eliminate it. With more freedom and flexibility to utilize, you are starting with a much larger palate of color to choose from at the drop of the baton; you will have a much larger operating range of oral cavity shape, tongue position or air placement at hand.
-You can sound like yourself and only have yourself be person 'A'.
-or-
-You can sound like yourself, and let "you" be person(s) 'A' through 'Z'.
(and for the record, no, you will never "sound like" Shifrin, Marcellus or )
-JH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2011-07-12 15:15
Nice timbre. Listen at length to the one(s) you wish to emulate. It can make a significant difference. Some professionals can vary and control it at will; Portnoy for one. Keep working at it.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-07-12 16:01
I LOVE arnoldstang'stake on it. Have a few voices. Be able to call on them on demand so you can better represent whatever concept you're trying to get across.
I believe that there are a few distinct combinations of mouthpiece and Reed that will get diffferent sounds. Open mouthpiece, short lay and soft Reed makes me sound more like Ricardo Morales (velvety) open mouthpiece, medium lay and hard Reed and lots of biting gives me a very covered and "dark" sound(but hurts my lip and is a bear to articulate) Closed mouthpiece, long lay hard Reed requires very little embouchure pressure and makes me think more of joze kotar or gigliotti. Closed mouthpiece, long lay and light Reed probably a thinner sound like Benny Goodman. And WWBW has over 100 mouthpieces with various combinations!
Personally, I realized ill never sound like the people I really wish to sound like. LOVE Ricardo's sound, carbonate, Eddie Daniels, and paquito driverA. I would love to have ANY of their sounds. But I don't. However I have worked hard and continue to work to develop a good sound. Is it what I thought it would be? Nope. But its not bad and I'm very comfortable with it.
I just finally accepted that I'm going to sound like Alexi no matter how much I try to be someone else, so let me swirl on the best Alexi sound I can get. And that's what I'm doing.
Alexi
Ps- equipment CAN change you're sound noticeably. I once had a mouthpiece that used a size 2.5 Reed. A 3 would be WAY too resistant. Made my sound MUCH different. But I wasn't comfortable with that sound so I stopped using it.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
