 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-20 20:16
Hello to all.
While reading a lot about clarinet thingso often stumble upon the frase, "playing focused", unfortunately I haven't found an explanation what is meant with that.
I understand to play well you need to train your embouchure, proper "biting" pressure (not to little, not to much), right amount of mouthpiece inside your embouchure, doublelip?, create a fast steady airstream preferably by abdominal breathing* and proper tongue (Ke) placement but none of this creates an abiity to focus anything. Maybe I am taking this to literal but.. I just like to understand.
Kind greats
Matthieu
*(people talk about stomach sizes andsuch, but I just ignore that. Your stomach doesn't do much except pre-processing food you have eten. It has nothing to do with breathing (IMHO)).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-05-20 21:45
To my way of thinking focus is referring to the production of a more pure sine wave timbre as opposed to a fuzzy, airy sound. Some examples of Benny Goodman, jazz clarinetist, had a more diffuse sound. No judgement meant but compared to Ralph McLane (of roughly the same era) you can hear a distinct difference if you go to YouTube to listen to comparisons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDWBcl4IpdA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBasgt-4sY
Play an open G. Start with playing as loose as possible and with as flabby a lower lip as you can. Now just begin to use more and more musculature of the lips as you increase the amount of air you blow. At some point you do reach a point where you just squeeze off the sound. But within that wide approach there is that more concentrated sound.....closer to the "pinching off" where the sound is purest and more resonant. So there is a constant balancing act (I've referred to it as a high wire act with students) where you are finding just the right amount of musculature in the lip verses the amount of air you blow (and this varies with the note either higher or lower as well as the dynamic you choose for those notes) to create this sort of "glowing" tone.
But you may not want that if you are looking more at a jazz sound. Just sayin'
.................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2023-05-20 23:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lydian
Date: 2023-05-20 22:51
To expand on Paul's not fuzzy or airy, it means more high frequency components giving the sound crispness and definition, like turning up the treble on your stereo. It's mostly achieved by the inside shape of the mouth cavity and tongue and direction and velocity of the airstream. You get there by listening and copying a focused sound, not by trying to match some description of embouchure. It's all about the feedback loop from your ears. With much trial and error, your body will do what's necessary to achieve the focused sound you hear.
You're missing the point about the stomach as well. You need a teacher soon than later since you're well on the path to failure by disregarding a lot of valuable advice and forging your own path (bad breathing technique, wrong embouchure, wrong reeds, etc.).
By the way, a beginner will not have the skills or experience to fine tune at this level for years. Any attempts for you to dial this in now are futile, unless you're some sort of genius.
Post Edited (2023-05-20 22:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-05-20 23:12
lydian,
You're on the right track when you speak of air stream, listening, and feedback loop. But I hasten to disagree with regard to being somewhat harsh with the poster and some sort of time earned level of expertise.
I've had young beginners who've caught on RAPIDLY to the production of a really good, focused sound that will set themselves up for even more success as time goes on. It is only a matter of finding the correct approach. There is no certain amount of time or special talent necessary to achieve a mature classical sound.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-21 00:09
@ Paul
Thanks so much for those links, in an instant it is very clear with what you mean with that.
Quote:
Play an open G. Start with playing as loose as possible and with as flabby a lower lip as you can. Now just begin to use more and more musculature of the lips as you increase the amount of air you blow. At some point you do reach a point where you just squeeze off the sound. But within that wide approach there is that more concentrated sound.....closer to the "pinching off" where the sound is purest and more resonant. So there is a constant balancing act (I've referred to it as a high wire act with students) where you are finding just the right amount of musculature in the lip verses the amount of air you blow (and this varies with the note either higher or lower as well as the dynamic you choose for those notes) to create this sort of "glowing" tone.
/Quote..
I will definately give that a go and I can also decide later what I want as style or sound.. But I believe being able to go both was should the goal.. And not let abaility make the choice for me.
@Lydian
Quote:
To expand on Paul's not fuzzy or airy, it means more high frequency components giving the sound crispness and definition, like turning up the treble on your stereo. It's mostly achieved by the inside shape of the mouth cavity and tongue and direction and velocity of the airstream. You get there by listening and copying a focused sound, not by trying to match some description of embouchure. It's all about the feedback loop from your ears. With much trial and error, your body will do what's necessary to achieve the focused sound you hear.
/Quote..
I agree with you here "It's all about the feedback loop from your ears. With much trial and error, your body will do what's necessary to achieve the focused sound you hear". This is indeed very important and on so many levels, on the otherhand.. to me (IMHO) it seems that one will never be able to accomplish this if there isn't also first the understanding on what a good basic technique / emboushure should be like and then adjust this by with the aid of auditive feedback loop.
Quote:
You're missing the point about the stomach as well.
/Quote..
Doubtfully, as an MD, I am well versed in proper breathing techniques, as well as misuse of anatomical terms. But let's agree to disagree on this part.
Quote:
You need a teacher soon than later since you're well on the path to failure by disregarding a lot of valuable advice and forging your own path (bad breathing technique, wrong embouchure, wrong reeds, etc.).
/Quote..
As mentioned (a few times now) before..
The path to find a teacher has been started.. and is well on it's way and I am hoping to have the first lesson soon.
On the other hand... I know from personal experience that a (bad) teacher is also quite capable of sending students onto the wrong path as much as anything else.
It is not so much a teacher, but the right teacher.. and the right personal feedback. For now I am not doing much practising at all so not much chance to get into bad customs.. Just diving into the world of understanding things.
What is right, what is wrong, what is personal preference, what is personal limitation, what is material based limitation, How to read into that what is written Any new field of interest has it's own vocabulairy, that one has to understand first.
Additionally, I personally believe that, people respond better on telling them what to do then telling them what not to do, but that is just me. Do not take this as that I am not appreciating your advice though, I do... Just am also letting other pieces of information coming to me as well and hopefully find that capable and enthousiasticating teacher soon.
Kind greats
Matthieu
Post Edited (2023-05-21 00:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-05-21 00:13
You need a model - a sound that you can hear and emulate. The trouble is that you can run afoul, yet again, of word definitions. A sound that's "thin" for some is "focused" for others. A sound that's "spread" for some is "dark" or "big" for others. You need to discover a sound, or at least a sound type, by listening and deciding what you want to sound like. Very likely, you'll choose different sound types for different musical genres. For many of us, our teachers were the initial models. And for those of us who were lucky enough, we heard other models in live performance and didn't have to rely on recordings.
Don't rely too much on technical descriptions involving frequency distributions and wave forms - most of us don't practice with an oscilloscope or frequency analyzer in front of us, we're looking at music notation. Those descriptions may be accurate, but developing a sound is, or should be, primarily an aural, not a visual process. That isn't to say ignore them completely, but rely more on your ears. Even instructions about internal oral shape can be hard to implement, and trying too hard to follow them can lead to distortions that impede rather than help produce the sound.
Aside from your ears, one of the most important things in producing a clean, clear ("focused") tone is good reeds. It's hard to distinguish as a beginner between good reeds and bad ones without a teacher's help, and IMO that help is one of the real benefits of having a good teacher.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-21 00:57
@KdK
Quote:
You need a model - a sound that you can hear and emulate..
/Quote..
Absolutely true!! I love the sound of the clarinet, but hardly an music I listen to has any clarinet in it.. So I have been trying listening to some clarinet music where I can find it but it is hard to google for, so yeah this is DEFINATELY a gap in my (musical) education. On going process....
Kind greats
Matthieu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lydian
Date: 2023-05-21 03:30
As an MD you are NOT well versed in proper breathing technique for singing or playing an instrument, unless there were some music classes in there somewhere in your curriculum. So please leave that to musicians and artists who have perfected those techniques over hundreds of years. The best breathing technique for getting O2 into and waste products out of your bloodstream has little connection with the optimum pressure, volume and flow for an instrument. The optimal biological function must take a back seat to getting the proper air flow through the machine in your hands. Expanding the abdomen rather than the upper chest yields the best results for musicians. Yes, this is not the stomach, but even a child understands the intent. For you to dismiss such advice based on semantics is foolish.
You can't master an instrument by reading about it. It's a craft passed down through generations from master to student. You can't cherry pick your favorite facts from the internet and declare yourself an expert. What makes the most sense to you intellectually may not work at all in practice. For example, you've already decided double lip is the way to go for whatever reason, in spite of its rarity and drawbacks. Similarly story for reeds, breathing, etc.
It's good to be curious and analytical. But at some point, you need to trust the experts who have years of practical experience.
Post Edited (2023-05-21 21:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-05-21 05:03
I would only add that we, as professionals however, use many different ways to describe what we are talking about often being quite contrary on its face. Some things I've said that parrot what I heard from the likes of Robert Marcellus only hacked off folks like Tony Pay who have an entirely different way of looking at the same problem.
I think though that as lessons progress between student and teacher (for this example we'll assume a good teacher) the student will arrive at the proper understanding of what the teacher is saying through trial and error and examples put before her/him. There in lies the age old process of passing down wisdom from long ago and far away.
We have also discussed recently on this Board that similarly there is room for metaphoric language that is not technically accurate but can describe a process in a way that may communicate better what the teacher means: cold air, diaphragmatic breathing, maybe even focused sound.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-21 15:02
@ Lydian,
No there were music lessons in the curriculum. There were plenty of lesssons on the topic of profession related injuries and without much surprise the topics of instrument playing came up quite a lot, specifically oboe players. So when you think the medical education stops at high school biology...
Additionally, breathing techniques has a place many other places.. for example, I (as goldsmith) have worked for 3 years with a torch where the air supply was provided by me, my lungs and proper breathing techniques were very important here to to geep a stable flame at the right temp by adjusting the airsupply as much as the gas supply a technique that has many similarities with what we are talking about.
And I never said to assume to Master anything by just reading, just get some basic understanding, ahead of developing (proper) techniques.and Iam also hardly cherry picking, just getting asmuch info as I can get and venting my thoughts to verify I my mind is indeed not theorising practical things and yeah a teacher would help.. much..and it will happen.. patience is needed here unfortunately.
Quote:
It's good to be curious and analytical. But at some point, you need to trust the experts who have years of practical experience.
/Quote..
Completely agree here.
@ Paul,
Quote:
I would only add that we, as professionals however, use many different ways to describe what we are talking about often being quite contrary on its face.
/Quote..
Hence my reason to start thistopic in the first place, to understand that what is not obvious to me in the first place.
but lets close the topic?to avoid to lengthy nowhere going discussions?
Kind greats
Matthieu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2023-05-21 16:07
So here is Benny playing Mozart.
https://youtu.be/pY6vLmjUAeI
Would you say the tone is still a little spread? I think we need two classical music examples of spread and focused. Or are all “good” classical tones focused?
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-21 16:21
My ears are way to untrained to give that an educated answer..additionally the intro's and the accompaniing instruments distract me from what I am trying to listen too. The clarinet.. never the less my feelings say, way less.. but still a little.
Kind greats
Matthieu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2023-05-22 00:41
Just think about focusing a lightbeam. It's essentially the same, sound and light are both some kind of waves after all. If you can manually focus the beam of a torch, it carries further and you can reach a longer distance. If you blur the beam, you can cover a bigger area but the range you can reach is diminished.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-05-22 00:47
Hi,
I know we're meant to concentrate on practise and technique, and not on gear, but I found that my sound got much more focussed when I got a mouthpiece that was more suitable for me. Sadly the improved focus was nothing to do with my technique.
It might be good to try several different mouthpieces to see how they all work for you.
Jen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-05-22 02:16
SunnyDaze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know we're meant to concentrate on practise and technique,
> and not on gear, but I found that my sound got much more
> focussed when I got a mouthpiece that was more suitable for me.
> Sadly the improved focus was nothing to do with my technique.
>
> It might be good to try several different mouthpieces to see
> how they all work for you.
kdk wrote:
> Aside from your ears, one of the most important things in
> producing a clean, clear ("focused") tone is good reeds. It's
> hard to distinguish as a beginner between good reeds and bad
> ones without a teacher's help, and IMO that help is one of the
> real benefits of having a good teacher.
This is the direction I was going in when I wrote the above paragraph in my last post. Along with good (responsive, balanced, vibrant) reeds, you need a mouthpiece that lets reeds vibrate efficiently. I have always found a new student's first lesson or two to be the easiest ones for me to teach. Most new students first arrive with thin or fuzzy, noisy tone and noisy, insecure articulation. Replacing a damaged or otherwise unsuitable mouthpiece, if necessary, often improves things, and replacing their reed with one that suits the mouthpiece almost always produces noticeably improved sound quality. It's the easiest improvement to make before we have to begin dealing with their other problems of "practice and technique."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MKilpatrick
Date: 2023-05-22 02:30
It never ceases to baffle me why creating "something as close as possible to a pure sinewave" could ever be a goal. That is essentially saying that the note is devoid of absolutely all colour and personality by means of the absence of any overtunes or fluctuations in timbre. As far as I'm concernned, "focused" doesn't really mean anything in this context, and certainly not in a positive sense. People use this term all the time for saxophones too.
I mean, WHY? Why do classical clarinetists and oboeists strive to sound as pure, straight and colourless as possible? Violinists use vibrato all the time, so why is that the woodwinds have to be constrained to be as colourless and square as possible when they have a solo line in a classical context?
Beauty is, of course, always in the eyes of the beholder. But Ralph McLane sounds empty and characterless to me. I'm not a big Benny Goodman fan but he sounded rather more interesting playing Mozart, not as if he had a pole stuck up his arse.
Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-05-22 02:30
Hi Karl,
I'm really glad that that fits with your experience. It was a revelation for me, when I got that new mouthpiece.
Jen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-05-22 04:03
MKilpatrick wrote:
> It never ceases to baffle me why creating "something as close
> as possible to a pure sinewave" could ever be a goal. That is
> essentially saying that the note is devoid of absolutely all
> colour and personality by means of the absence of any overtunes
> or fluctuations in timbre. As far as I'm concernned, "focused"
> doesn't really mean anything in this context, and certainly not
> in a positive sense. People use this term all the time for
> saxophones too.
I don't know what a well-controlled, focused sound looks like on an oscilloscope or other sound analyzer, but I'm not sure it really looks like a pure sine wave. I don't agree that a focused tone is "devoid of absolutely all colour and personality" or that a focused tone lacks any overtones. The presence of overtones is in fact what allows us to distinguish between a clarinet and an oboe or flute. The distribution of the overtones present is what determines most of what we perceive as "timbre."
> Beauty is, of course, always in the eyes of the beholder. But
> Ralph McLane sounds empty and characterless to me. I'm not a
> big Benny Goodman fan but he sounded rather more interesting
> playing Mozart, not as if he had a pole stuck up his arse.
>
That you find McLane's playing "empty and characterless" is, of course, your personal reaction to which you're fully entitled, but I suspect it has little to do with his sound's being a pure sine wave, which I think is an impossibility except coming from an electronic tone generator. You just don't like his tone. À chacun son goût.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-05-22 07:55
Hi Matthieu:
I questioned whether I had something of value to add here rather than trying to make others listen to me.
Focus, as has pointed out, is an subjective term. But I'd like to think that is those steps that transfer the player's expenditure of energy into sound that is capable of projecting, and is otherwise pleasing to the listener, that doesn't involve things that can be heard that aren't consistent with what we'd normally associate with clarinet tone.
This, in my and I am sure many player's opinion is focused sound. Many also consider it beautiful and not requiring things many consider embellishment like vibrato.
https://soundcloud.com/lucia-mcclarinet/rose-8?ref=clipboard&p=i&c=0&si=27E93546F6C8402EA3D04FBDFA406F10&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
But there are players with different sounds no less focused I'd say.
For example, one of my favorite souding players, who I think plays will a covered sound (which I'll define as the opposite of shrill--good luck with that subjective definition) is Jon Manasse.
https://youtu.be/S9nTKA3meRc?t=176
And is Doreen Ketchins jazzier sound https://youtu.be/OcP2sAX90jI?t=5 is that less focused? I don't think so, although maybe some people might think that the growling sounds she makes are (I don't.)
In my opinion, clarinet sound full of other things, like airiness lacks optimal focus, as the energy spent on such extraneous sound could be conserved or applied to things that better transmit the clarinet's "true" sound. But I've been told that Anthony Gigliotti's sound was focused from afar but airier up close
So what do I know!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-05-22 08:25
I really like this video for seeming like a really good clarinet sound, and well recorded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQdq65bLTM0&t=2135s
It doesn't really help me to know how to actually play well, but without having the chance to hear good players in real life, I really like this video for showing me how it should or could sound.
Post Edited (2023-05-22 08:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-22 14:34
I am happy to see the topic back on track.
I have read through the thread and am unfortunately lacking time to respond in full, but just want to respond that I will be reading through it again..and have a proper listening to the recordings..
Thanks !
Matthieu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2023-05-22 16:01
For clarinet, a pure tone would be more like a square wave not a sine wave. I don’t know if most would consider a square wave as focused or not.
I have heard trumpet players discussing focus too. All wind players may use the term. With sax mouthpieces, smaller throat designs are usually considered more focused than large ones. With clarinets, a straight sidewall design might be more focused than a barrel or A shaped throat. But baffle shape can be a big factor too.
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2023-05-22 19:43
I imagine , that with the right equipment to turn sound into a visual graphic ,
one could quite clearly demonstrat what is going on between what we are referring to as a focused or unfocused sound . As MKi l Patrick rightly pointed out , in focusing sound one is definitely not aiming for a pure sound wave . That would be horrible in any musical instrument.
I'm guessing that what one would see graphically ,plotting the transition from unfocused to focused sound ,would be a stripping away of CERTAIN overtones , leaving those we hear as more complimentary to the fundamental.
Perhaps there's someone out there that really knows about the technical angle .
If so it would be interesting to hear from them at this point as it might help to clarify this discussion.
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2023-05-22 21:05
Paul,
I just want to add that I think that your description of focusing sound as trying to achieve a "pure sound wave " Is actually a VERY good one , because although it's probably not something one would actually want to ...or even could achieve , it describes very well the idea of focusing ones sound around the note's fundamental to lose the blurry overtones .
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2023-05-23 17:33
I Googled Woodwind Sound Waves and looked the Images found. The clarinet examples were a lot dirtier than a pure square wave. But I did not see any focused vs unfocused examples of a characteristic clarinet sound.
This one has a clarinet sound example and a simulated clarinet tone generated. The simulated tone is more focused but not quite a natural sound.
https://pages.mtu.edu/~suits/clarinet.html
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-05-23 19:43
My opinion is that we were initially speaking of a technique or specific approach to playing, not the specifics of the resultant wave analysis or the specific equipment (mouthpieces, reeds or ligatures for example). One can play focused or not focused on any equipment at any time. In fact, the Benny Goodman "Whispering" is a great example. He uses the two different registers as well as a more focused sound in the clarion to provide a wider contrast between the statements of the melody and his riffs.
Sounds like some of you don't care for the Ralph McLane Mozart. You can ignore that one if you prefer.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-05-23 20:09
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Sounds like some of you don't care for the Ralph McLane Mozart.
> You can ignore that one if you prefer.
>
So far, only one of us (and not me).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MKilpatrick
Date: 2023-05-27 19:49
I note that some people may have misread "pure sine wave" as "pure sound wave" which is something entirely different.
Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-05-27 20:24
MKilpatrick wrote:
> I note that some people may have misread "pure sine wave" as
> "pure sound wave" which is something entirely different.
What would a "pure sound wave" be?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Burt
Date: 2023-05-29 18:35
Mojo, a pure tone is a sine wave. A square wave has a very large percentage of its energy in overtones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spikey1973
Date: 2023-05-29 19:21
A acoustic pure sine wave would indeed be a pure tone of the wavelength of the sine wave.
A pure square wave is only a theoretical possibility as it would consist on an infinity amount of overtones.
A pure accoustic square wave is there for an impossibility and IMHO just like a pure sine wave a torture to the ears. But since the ears can even register all infinite overtone. I might be completely wrong there.. and it might be experienced as angelic.
But generally I believe that is the slight imperfections
That make things (not just sounds) perfect for us. But that is a philosophical debate that could take years so to conclude.. if ever
Like so many things in life. Like ligatures and single Vs double lip
Kind greats
Matthieu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
