 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Exiawolf
Date: 2016-12-01 07:59
Dear Bboard members,
Recently I've been trying a Grabner G13 to possibly replace my B40 Lyre, and it has been a sore on my mind for the past week as I can't fully decide between the two. And there's one underlying factor that's causing my unease, and that is distance.
I've had multiple listeners compare the two mouthpieces for me in different spaces on different excerpts and such, and here's what I've been told:
The Grabner sounds warm, smooth, clear, and "chocolatey" (whatever that means to you) in music halls and from a distance. However, when in close proximity they described it as sounding reedy and forced, yet still with a fullness.
The B40 Lyre on the other hand they said sounds notably smoother up close, however they said it didn't sound as good as the Grabner in the hall. It was still pleasant sounding, but was not as good.
This disparity in sound compared to distance is driving me nuts, and I've heard it mentioned on here a few times that a reedy sound can translate to a beautiful sound in the hall, however I've also been told contrary by teachers saying that if it sounds bad up close it'll sound bad far away too.
What's your opinion on this notion of sound vs distance?
(Lastly, I know some are going to say if the Grabner sounds better in the hall, why not just go for it? The problem I find is that most of auditions I currently take are in close proximity with the committee and are sometimes in rather small rooms.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-12-01 11:41
Are you using the same reeds for both? I own several of Walter's mouthpieces, including a couple of G13s, and "reedy and forced" wouldn't describe any of them to my own ears (even closer than your listeners).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-12-01 14:24
I don't know the Grabners, but I know that a lot of players here in France use Vandoren B40 Lyre in big halls and it seems to carry well. Philippe Cuper has used one throughout his career and he plays one in the huge Bastille Opera. So if it's alright close and far, maybe that's the best compromise. Personally, I prefer handcrafted mouthpieces: Fobes and Lomax.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2016-12-01 17:04
I think ultimately either will work, perhaps by choosing slightly different reeds and getting used to it. How do they compare in- reed friendliness, ease/comfort in playing, intonation? Any differences?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2016-12-01 18:31
There is a substantive difference between the way we sound up close and the way we sound in the hall. The way we sound in the hall is the "real sound", in the same way that ones recorded voice -- which sounds awkward to the person recorded -- is their "real" voice.
The audition committee members will be aware of that. They themselves (assuming the other WW principals are present) recognize the difference.
I would suggest that if you were to play the B40, which sounds good up close, they may question how it would sound in the hall.
I would love to hear what others think?
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2016-12-01 18:35
You can hear an example of this here, as Lowenstern plays a couple recordings and then plays live -- up close:
https://youtu.be/xh39a54lmLQ
Lowenstern sounds buzzier and reedier in real life.
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-12-01 19:25
I'm still wondering a couple of things about the comparison you're making.
First off - full disclosure - I personally much prefer the Grabner G13 (and any of his earlier models) to a B40 Lyre or any other Vandoren model. So my prejudice is out in the open.
The B40 Lyre is, relatively speaking, quite open at 117.5 mm with a "Long" curve (I'm assuming somewhere around 19 mm with a standard .0015" feeler). The most open of the G13 series is "1.07-1.10 mm" with a medium-long curve. In my experience Walter tends to use a curve of about 17 mm - meaningfully shorter than the B40L. So, just to accommodate the two facings, you'd need different reeds to get the best from each mouthpiece. Then there are differences in the baffle and chamber that make differences in the way the mouthpieces respond and sound and need to be adjusted to.
Your description of the sound you get close up with the G13 as "reedy and forced" makes me think that you may not be adjusting to it well and you're comparing it to a mouthpiece you're already comfortable with. Ideally, you should be using different reeds on each and probably making small adjustments inside your mouth.
If you really want to decide intelligently between the two, you should now stop doing quick A-B comparisons and try using the G13 for a period of time - at least a couple of weeks, or maybe a month. During that time, you can learn to choose and adjust reeds for it and you'll get used to the difference in feel of the Grabner and what you need to do to smooth it out.
Then make the comparison again and see if the results hold true. At that point either stay with the G13 or go back to Vandoren, depending on what you discover.
Oh, and if you have auditions coming up really soon, you're probably better off staying with what you're already comfortable with than experimenting with anything new until the auditions are past. Unless you're auditioning for a super-major symphony orchestra, the potential difference in sound won't mean nearly as much as your command of the audition material and the accuracy and musicality of your approach to it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2016-12-02 18:42
I can't comment on the two mouthpieces because I've never used either one. Having said this, I think it depends on what you're looking for in a mouthpiece.
If you like both and need mouthpieces for close-up and big hall situations, why not follow Liquorice's advice and use both?
I once took lessons from a member of a major symphony orchestra, and he'd sometimes play during my lessons. Although he played very well, I wasn't crazy about his sound close up. As it turned out, that really wasn't very important because he did most of his performing in large auditoriums. When I'd hear him at concerts, I'd hear something very different, a big beautiful sound that carried well all the way to the back rows.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sax panther
Date: 2016-12-02 20:27
I have a B40, and a Grabner K11* (amongst other mouthpieces...).
I like them both, but the Grabner is my main piece - I find it a bit more responsive, more reed friendly, and easier to control in the altissimo.
I sympathise with your dilemma - I sometimes put the B40 on and I really like how it sounds - to me, the tone sounds a bit fuller than the K11*, fruitier even (I'm awful at describing tone..), particularly on the lower notes.
However, I had a couple of solos in the last concert that I did, and the concert was recorded with some decent equipment. I was pleased with my sound - it was clear, pingy, resonant and not thin sounding.
So if I were you, if you can, try recording yourself on both mouthpieces at a variety of distances - close up, front row, halfway back, and from right at the back of the hall. Then you don't have to rely solely on friends' opinions. See which sound you prefer.
If you like both, and end up using both as you feel appropriate - nothing wrong with that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-12-02 23:51
I completely understand your situation. It is a tricky one so lets make it real simple. First off people say I have a nice sound. I don't claim to say this. But I did study with Fred Ormand for a bit and Iggie Gennusa for 7 or 8 years. So some has to rubbed off to maybe create my own unique sound.
Here is your answer -
You can adjust your REED CHOICE strength to fit the room.
I'm going to attempt to put your mind at ease.
I've heard 2 of the past greats and a few of the present greats which I feel have very special sounds.
Lets start with non Marcellus and Iggie Gennusa. Up close they sound just as wonderful as they do as sitting in a hall. When I first heard these players up close I got goose bumps. The same when sitting in a concert hall.
Recent players I've heard live and up close do the same and I act the same way. Underrated perhaps is Steve Barta, recently retired from the Baltimore Sym after 40 years. He studied with Harold Wright and Bob Marcellus, but he has his own special sound. Up close he is amazing. In a hall he is just the same.
We have others. They may not have the sound of the past guys, but up close Fred Ormand was a master player with the ability to teach students to hear how they sound. He always sounded great in a small room teaching or when he was with the Chicago Sym, or doing quintet work. One of my favorite recordings, not live, but as in recordings was Shepard on the Rock performed with his wife. David Shifrin also played this piece and both players kind of sounded like the horns were "Singing," with the actual singer.
Then we have Mitchell Lurie who played and tested reeds with me at Rico and we were in the most dead room you could ever think of. All cork walls for sound proofing. He sounded fie just as he did when playing live at USC.
So long story short, forget about the mouthpiece and find a great one. Use it all of the time. Never change it around. I'm not saying to not look around for that perfect mouthpiece, because the dang instrument companies like Buffet, Selmer, all of them, keep changing the designs of the horns. So every 10 to 15 years or so you may need and want to make a mouthpiece change, but DO NOT change mouthpieces to fit a room. Change your reed setup only.
When entering a room play a few practice notes and if you do not like the sound of the reed in the room change the reed. The people hearing you play won't mind and you can tell them what you are doing. This will not hurt your audition, if anything it will add respect to the people hearing you play. The ability to adapt in a very short time, like within a minute or less. So if the room is dead switch, if it echos like in a bathroom, switch the reeds. You can also move the chair or the stand around a tad if you don't like what you hear. I've done this, played a few notes and moved around a bit.
Another common mistake, even worse. A temperature change of 5 to 10 degrees or so. Be ready for a reed change here as well. I learned this from playing in the Air Force that when you were on tour a hall temperature might only be set at 68 degrees for the rehearsals or so to save money. Then a few hours later they warm up the hall for a concert and the temp is 75. Needless to say a mouthpiece change isn't the answer.
Changing mouthpieces to me is as scary as it can get. You cannot play a great audition on 2 different mouthpieces and sound the same. Something WILL go wrong. A note may not speak, you cannot "Feel," the pieces the same way so you won't play them the same way, because you may be afraid how the mouthpiece might react. For example the Copland Concerto starts off slow and you have to go from lower notes and hit higher notes softly. You have to nail these higher notes. In the same piece towards the end you have some other hairy and very high notes to hit. You must trust that mouthpiece. You must hit that high A. You have to hit the glissando.
Often I write too much. But often we have to think things through logically to win. Yes I was in the Air Force band, but I had to beat out around 100 plus people to get in. The more consistent our setup is the better your auditions will be. Gennusa took 4 students a year for college. That fear factor alone is intense and to worry about 2 sets of mouthpieces and several reeds surely doesn't set well. So keep it simple for your auditions.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2016-12-06 04:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-12-05 11:05
A study was done on the violins claim that certain equipment dulled the tone, but was found to only be the case near the performers ear. And no difference from a distance. So I am surprised to read that the listeners felt there was a difference at a distance different to what they heard close up (I would expect the difference to be less defined with distance just from violin experience.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-12-05 20:26
There's just more stuff to hear up close. Violinists in particular make all sorts of noises that aren't perceptible to audience members more than six feet away or so.
In general, my current-day violin students have a big challenge with generating enough articulation when they play, because under they ear they feel like it is more than sufficient, but if you stand far enough away everything just gets mushy. They are always very surprised when they sit and play next to me because they hear all of the noises, the "click" of the bow at the beginning of some strokes, and the edgy intensity of the sound when the bow is played very close to the bridge at forte and greater dynamics. It's very noticeable when recorded...up close can sound rather raw and unrefined, whereas from the audience perspective further away it is clear and beautiful. Of course, this is assuming that everything else is working okay, that it is in tune with a good tone to begin with.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-12-05 21:16
SarahC wrote:
> A study was done on the violins claim that certain equipment
> dulled the tone, but was found to only be the case near the
> performers ear. And no difference from a distance.
Can you pass along a link or citation to the study? I'd be curious to read what equipment they were testing and how they determined the effect on tone both near the performer and at a distance.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-12-06 01:02
Karl: If my memory serves me right, I think it was in respect to the use of a chin-rest on violins. Those who oppose its use on the grounds that it has a damping effect on vibrations were proved wrong by people-even proponents of not using one- who couldn't tell the difference when sitting at a distance in a concert hall. The late Joseph Silverstein, concertmaster of the Boston Symphony, discusses the matter in a YouTube video. Nevertheless, we cannot make light of our subjective impressions when we play. People may say that they can't hear the difference between two mouthpieces, ligatures, or what not at a distance in the hall, if we perceive ourselves as having a more beautiful tone, we a re bound to play better.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-12-06 01:23
Well... I can tell u exactly what claim they were testing. As one of my colleagues had initiated the study, as to where it was published etc I have no idea. I assume in Australia,as part of uni research. She had mentioned it many years ago in conversation.
It was in answer to the claims that a shoulder rest dulled the sound because it dulls the resonation of the violins body. And the results were only very close to the ear was the difference perceivable. This may be different in the case of the clarinet. But I just raised it because the results the OP mentioned seemed unusual to my thinking in light of the above. But as I have said at numerous times, my expertise is not in the clarinet! The clarinet is just the instrument I am enjoying trying to better myself in at the moment
And as an interesting side I have two friends permanently damaged because their bodies could cope with a shoulder rest less technique. I personally had no issue with it. But these friends had very long necks, which I suspect caused their issues. But in that era in Australia we had the lecturers who refused to let students use shoulder rests, who told students to play thru pain, and then the piano lecturer at the conservative who famously destroyed the bodies of three years worth of con students, most of whom developed RSI permanently :( I think it was big in the eighties. As I am forty now, and my teacher as a teen was promoting no shoulder rest. Dark days in the musical history of Australia I guess.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-12-06 10:20
There's tons of folks in the violin world that go berserk over the use of shoulder rests, chin rests, mechanical pegs, synthetic strings, carbon fiber bows, etc.
It stems from the failure to comprehend the concept that not every single person fits in the same exact mold, so each person must find their own unique setup to play the instrument. Especially where shoulder rests are concerned...when you have adults who range in size from under 5 feet to 6+ feet tall (with wingspans to match) all playing approximately the same sized instrument (about 14 inches in body length), to assume that everyone can do it the same way is nonsense. Yet, the attitude still persists.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2016-12-06 10:30
Karl: Sorry. I said chin rests and I meant shoulder rests.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-12-06 14:50
Ruben, I believe there are some that promote a chin-rest less technique as well! At least I have read about it in early baroque circles. i personally love my chin rest, can take or leave the shoulder rest though. I'm not fussed.
Fully agree Gwie. I feel angry on behalf of my friends who damaged their bodies permanently while at uni because of stubborn professors. At least the universities are more aware of these issues now, when they are hiring people... i think!
I was 15 when my friend was at the Conservatorium, and then became damaged. and now many moons later, she can't even play a hymn on the piano without pain becoming unbearable. but it had a lasting impact on me.. I have been ultra conscious with both myself and my students about the concerns of the body since. Not sure that I am always right.. but definitely ultra careful.
But anyway.. huge side track. it appears with violin, the differences in dampening of the sound box, (the belly of the violin) are only evident to the player, and not further away. this may or may not be relevant to the clarinet question
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-12-06 22:40
I'll just mention that the difference can be heard with singers. A relative was a professional opera singer, and up close in, say, the kitchen, her voice was edgy and, though well controlled, not terribly appealing. In a concert hall she sounded terrific. As I think it was noted above, it's more about the acoustics of the environment than the distance to the source.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-12-07 04:12
>> ...it's more about the acoustics of the environment than the distance to the source.>>
Indeed; it's the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound – and the nature of the reflected sound – that is crucial.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2016-12-07 08:39
Tony Pay wrote:
> >> ...it's more about the acoustics of the environment than the
> distance to the source.>>
>
> Indeed; it's the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound –
> and the nature of the reflected sound – that is crucial.
>
> Tony
Yup. That's why everyone sounds AMAZING singing in the shower vs singing in a carpeted bedroom.
Reflected sounds help ... hmmm .... "color" the sound in a large hall? Maybe that's the word I'm looking for?
In a nutshell, a beautiful sound in a dead room will sound beautiful in a reflective room. A thin sound in a dead room MIGHT sound better in a reflective room. So I strive to get a beautiful sound in a dead room. So far, I'm making strides in the right direction.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk ★2017
Date: 2016-12-07 18:47
I've spent one or two hours googling and reading publications related to frequency dependent acoustics in concert halls. From this, I conclude that it is normal for a hall to have longer reverberation times for lower frequencies, and higher dampening for higher frequencies. See for instance Physical and Applied Acoustics: An Introduction, Erwin Meyer, Academic Press, 1972, which can be partly read via Google Books https://goo.gl/SvPR88.
This means a concert hall acts as a kind of low pass filter. Ornaments on the walls play a role in this, besides the presence of chairs and the audience, of course. See f.i. the presentation on http://slideplayer.com/slide/676882/.
Conclusion: the room does have influence on the sound. This influence grows greater with distance from the source. Generally the higher the frequency, the less it will be perceptible for the audience.
Regards,
Luuk
Philips Symphonic Band
The Netherlands
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-12-07 19:04
>> In a nutshell, a beautiful sound in a dead room will sound beautiful in a reflective room. A thin sound in a dead room MIGHT sound better in a reflective room. So I strive to get a beautiful sound in a dead room. So far, I'm making strides in the right direction.>>
I'm sure that's not a bad way to go.
However, because we have to play effectively in all these various acoustics, it's perhaps worth saying that a sound rich in high harmonics may work BETTER in a resonant acoustic than a sound that you might prefer in a deader one.
And, by 'work better', I mean, deliver the music more effectively.
I remember coaching on a chamber music course in Spain. There were two venues, one a cathedral and the other a school hall. Some students were playing a string sextet, and the question arose: which hall should we choose?
The students unanimously preferred the cathedral, where everything SOUNDED wonderful to them, as opposed to the relatively dead school hall, where they had to be much more careful.
The only trouble was that in the cathedral, the 'sound' was all you could hear. There was no clarity of any passagework, and you couldn't hear any contrapuntal texture or inner parts. The MUSIC ITSELF was inaudible.
I had quite a row with the string coach, who said that the students should decide where they wanted to play. For me it was almost a moral issue; to choose the cathedral amounted to reducing the music to 'the noise it made'. I didn't think that was a helpful attitude to represent to young players.
We as clarinettists sometimes have to play in more resonant acoustics than we would like – perhaps not as resonant as that Spanish cathedral, but acoustics where we need to make a sound that helps the music work, in the sense above. Look at the following post:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=409966&t=409922&v=t
It's initially about trills; but it explains why passagework suffers in an over-resonant acoustic, and why the word 'beautiful' in the phrase 'a beautiful sound' is context-dependent.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-12-07 19:19
I just read Luuk's post, which appeared while I was composing mine. What he says implies essentially the same thing: a sound that has a high ratio of upper harmonics to lower harmonics 'dies' faster in the acoustic, so you don't get so much overlapping of notes in passagework, and you hear appoggiatura-resolutions more clearly.
I encourage myself and others always to have a repertoire of sounds available, so as to be effective both in slow melodies and in faster-moving music.
Reed choice also comes into it: you probably need brighter reeds for cathedrals and woodier ones for open air:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-12-07 21:03
I think Tony's dictum, "The word 'beautiful' in the phrase 'a beautiful sound' is context dependent" has further implications when applied to the context of electronic amplification and electronic recording. No matter what the surrounding physical acoustics might be, you change them when you put a microphone and loudspeaker system between the performer and the audience. In such situations, you have 1) how the performers sounds over the mike in a particular hall or recording studio, and 2) how the playback of the recorded performance sounds.
With so many different physical and electronic "contexts" mixing, it is no wonder that players often sound very different on recordings than they do in person. Drucker and Gigliotti, for example, sounded very different when I heard than live than they did on recordings.
Jazz clarinet pretty much grew up in the age of electronic recording. The first thing you see in photos of Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw are those big geometric microphones they are playing into for radio shows. My memory of live performances by Goodman, Barney Bigard, Pete Fountain, is all in the context of hearing them perform over a microphone/loudspeaker system, so the equipment they selected and the way they learned to voice the instrument grew out of what matched and flattered the electronic amplification equipment. The electronics shaped their sound. When somebody asked Fountain how he sounded so good, he quipped that he had a good sound engineer. Actually, he meant that he had learned to make the most out of the electronic amplification context he lived and breathed in.
So, it seems to me that the classical traditions of clarinet playing grew out of the question "how do we sound good in this concert/opera hall or cathedral or whatever?" and the jazz/pop schools of clarinet playing grew out of the question of how to sound good on electronic amplification and recording equipment. In the current environment, of course, electronics is enveloping everything.
Post Edited (2016-12-08 01:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
