 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-07 19:49
I'm going to say that it doesn't make any difference. I've heard this claim sometimes used as an excuse for why one person has a great sound and another does not.
I arrived at this conclusion through a dental issue I am going through at the moment. For the next three months I will be using a "partial" (retainer like device that holds a false tooth) in preparation for the installation of an implant. Mine is rather thick plastic plate of about 3mm at its thickest and it runs from the left molar to the right. This takes up a fair percentage of room in my mouth. Without it, I am back to normal oral cavity size and also have the tooth gap which should add even more oral cavity size to the equation.
I play five minutes or so with the partial (not so comfortable for articulation mind you, but it works ok). Then I pull the partial out and play about five minutes of the same material only to find that there is no difference to the sound whatsoever. I realize that this only represents a percentage of the total volume but if there was any claim to the oral cavity being an important constituent to the sound, then I should hear some difference and there is none whatsoever.
I realized in the post about the A-Frame Baffle in the Backun Signature mouthpiece question, that a fairly small reconfiguration of the internal shape of a mouthpiece CAN and DOES make a big difference to the response of the mouthpiece. So if the size of one's oral cavity made any significant difference to sound, the same should be true about changing a portion of the oral cavity size.
I hope to hear from others who have similar appliances with which to experiment.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-06-07 23:47
Paul Aviles wrote:
> I'm going to say that it doesn't make any difference.
I'm not necessarily going to disagree with you, but maybe more definitional clarity is needed.
> I've
> heard this claim sometimes used as an excuse for why one person
> has a great sound and another does not.
>
It depends of course on what the person making the judgment considers to be a "great" sound. The meaning isn't always consistent among people who judge other players' sounds.
Poor or even mediocre tone isn't explained by oral cavity size. Things as basic as poor choices in reeds or other equipment or inefficient embouchure formation will do it, or a weak or non-existent concept of what even a *good* sound (never mind a "great" one) is.
And it's probably silly to try to say that all "great" or even very good players have larger oral cavity space than not-so-great players.
That isn't to say that the tone and pitch can't be manipulated by changing the shape of the soft palate, the tongue and the lower jaw position. So, while oral cavity size can't be used to explain why some players produce "great" sounds, I think it goes too far to say voluntary adjustments to oral shape/size have no influence on the sound a player produces.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-06-07 23:50
I'm sorry to hear of whatever aggravation your dental work may cause you Paul and wish you a full speedy remedy.
That said, are you saying (and if you are I'm all ears thinking I might be playing a trick on myself) that the sound I generate playing single lip--which seems to me to be ever less rich than when I play with double lip and a presumptively more open pallette.....
is-no pun intended---all in my head?
I sometimes get the sense that only a trained ear or my own can detect the difference. Kal Opperman use to claim he could hear the difference.
BTW: he's my definition of a double lip sound:
https://youtu.be/GQCpSvewtfA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-08 00:19
I guess what I am saying is that sound.....as it pertains to the clarinet.......is all about the amount and quality of the 'pressure' on the reed vs the amount of the air we push IN THE MOMENT.
We have soooooo many different factors to play with that it is hard to winnow it down. But I think that having this gizm to either have in my mouth or not (it is mostly aesthetic, and somewhat about being able to make the proper sound for the letter "F") makes a drastic enough difference to pretty much clear up the size and shape theory.
I go back to the fact that we learn speech from a very early age and all of those mechanics are natural to us and we do them without thinking or even realizing what we are doing. So imposing what we think we are doing on clarinet playing may help some to improve but it is not an accurate description of what is going on.
Yes, Second Try, you are making a better sound but it is not because you are opening up your mouth, it is because of the subtle difference to how you are clamping the reed.
..............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2023-06-08 00:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-08 00:42
I'll even provide another example of this weird 'explainism:'
Robert Marcellus had an overbite and the position of how he placed the mouthpiece in his mouth together with the size and shape of his oral cavity is what gave him his sound.
that's hogwash....even if you change that to "what helped him get his sound"
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: senexclarinetta
Date: 2023-06-08 02:07
What if one thinks of 'size and shape' as not literal, but as proxies for 'the kind of embouchure one is likely to develop' or 'the ease with which one can produce a focused airstream?'
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-08 18:59
It was John Yeh who explained that "open throat" is actually "closed throat." The tongue is much bigger than what we see dangling in our mouths. It is a also the crucial first step in moving a bolus of food down the esophagus. When we form in in the "say ah" position, more of it is blocking the top of the throat, therefore creating a less efficient way to move air out. Sure you CAN do that but what players who do this are experiencing is the tendency to relax the jaw and achieve softer "clamping" of the reed.
Nothing to do with the throat really.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2023-06-09 22:49
Ed Pillinger’s PHD thesis on clarinet mouthpiece design drew the same conclusion, and acknowledged that this would be difficult for some players to accept (and I suspect was a surprise to Ed). So this supports the view that the oral cavity itself makes no difference to the sound projecting to the listener (as distinct from what the player thinks they are hearing).
graham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-10 06:19
Just a fine point to that. The differences heard and deployed by players are very real. It’s just that the mechanism is in fact merely a combination of air and embouchure (quite subtle changes in ‘pressure’ on the reed).
I feel the best analogy is the production of a sound on violin. There are very subtle but consequential changes to the pressure exerted on the string. For example, an articulated beginning to a note is done with slightly more pressure right at the outset and a quick backing off from that pressure. The overall dynamic of the note is determined by the force on the string (embouchure) coupled with the speed of the bowing (amount of air in our case).
We’ve talked about there being room for inaccurate descriptors if they ultimately lead folks in the right direction (ie “cold air” that I parroted from Marcellus for decades). That’s of course if it indeed leads you in the right direction .
…………..Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2023-06-10 18:25
In other words, Paul, you are saying that a player’s lips and teeth make the difference we hear. Pillinger also says that where a player deliberately changes their oral cavity and hears a difference, it can only be consequential differences arising in lip pressure (etc) which is then conflated with the change in oral cavity.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2023-06-10 19:37
graham wrote:
> In other words, Paul, you are saying that a player’s lips and
> teeth make the difference we hear. Pillinger also says that
> where a player deliberately changes their oral cavity and hears
> a difference, it can only be consequential differences arising
> in lip pressure (etc) which is then conflated with the change
> in oral cavity.
I suspect that, while oral cavity size may not have an effect, the level of tension and flexibility in the tissues inside the mouth can. Trying to pull the muscles we can electively control to force more opening can create rigidity in the those soft tissue areas and, I think, actually interfere with internal resonance. Singers who tighten their cheeks and soft palate as they sing lose ring and focus in their vowels. I think the same thing happens to players of wind instruments. Tension caused by trying to produce an "open throat" deadens the sound that eventually comes out of the instrument.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2023-06-10 21:03
Hi Paul,
I wondered if you had any thought on why it is that tiny birds seem to be able to make such an enormous noise, when they have such a tiny body? I've always wondered, and it seems directly connected to the point you're making here.
I mean robins have such tiny mouths but they do know how to project don't they? I always wonder if their whole body rings like a bell when they sing.
Jennifer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-10 22:54
That's actually a really good observation about the relative size of birds. I'm not in a position to make a pronouncement on THAT, but it is related. It must be much like wind players all putting in roughly the same amount of "air effort" into playing their instruments from piccolos and flutes all the way to bass saxophones and tubas. Also higher frequency sounds are much more directional and can travel much longer distances.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2023-06-11 22:20
Were Pillinger's conclusion regarding size of oral cavity based on photography or x-ray of cavities, or what the player said was going on?
From more recent research, unfortunately I can't remember who it was, it seems what the player 'feels' is going on can be the exact opposite of what is actually going on, based on examination of results x-ray, photographic, or other modern technologies.
The great English player, Jack Brymer, had an exceptional tone, and his speaking voice was also very resonant. It was suggested that the bodily cavities were the source of both. Are there any studies of this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-06-12 01:17
It must be remembered that the clarinet's sound (as all other wind instruments) is the vibrating column of air within the instrument. The generator of that vibrating air column is the reed as it moves across the rails of the mouthpiece. Now the lips and air affect the quality of that sound generator's vibrations, but there is nothing prior to the reed/mouthpiece that has any bearing on the sound at all.
There was a circulated x-ray video of clarinet playing where many seem to see the movement of the tongue as an important factor yet do not wish to comment (honestly) on how that player moves his reed contact point quite dramatically up and down the reed. I don't suppose THAT has anything to do with the sound (as an eeee...yawwwww, eeeee....yawwwww sound is produced). :-)
I needed to add as well that though I've never heard Sabine Meyer speak, I'd bet her voice is neither as deep or sonorous as Jack Brymer's voice.
And stepping back from the specifics, what I am really trying to put forth is that ANYONE can sound great on clarinet. It comes down to knowing the mechanism and using your ears to respond to what effects are achieved by all the combinations of air and embouchure. And there is a lifetime's worth of combinations.
...........Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2023-06-12 03:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2023-08-09 10:16
Quote:
... there is nothing prior to the reed/mouthpiece that has any bearing on the sound at all.
Though I may not have any real evidence against that statement, I still don't feel fully convinced about it.
Perhaps the mere oral cavity size alone doesn't play a role, but how about the vibrating air column from the bottom of our lungs up to the reed/mouthpiece - with all its "surroundings" (different kind of body tissues, flesh, bones, bodily cavities, etc)?
That there really is a vibrating air column also behind the mouthpiece may itself be beyond doubt - but if not, it can be easily felt by placing a hand against the cheek while playing a first register note (at least from open g downward). Thus similarly as we can feel also the vibrating air column inside our clarinet by our fingertips on the open toneholes.
I think most of us believe our sound quality is at least to some extent influenced by such factors as the shape of our mouthpiece's baffle, throat and chamber, as well as the bore design, body material and wall thickness, etc, of our clarinet. At least to me it would thus not be too far fetched to assume that our bodily constitution could affect the air column behind the mouthpiece similarly. Maybe by similar mechanisms that gives each of us our distinctive speaking voice, in most cases easily distinguishable from others - also despite an otherwise similar outward bodily appearance (though I personally wouldn't go as far as assuming a nice voice itself would translate also to a nice clarinet tone)?
I'm also thinking about what I've heard from at least a couple of people who have heard Karl Leister playing on a French system clarinet. They were struck by his tone being his "usual one", as on his German system clarinets. Mr Leister certainly has a most distinctive tone, and though some may describe it as typical "German", at least I haven't heard anyone capable of fully reproducing it - either on German or French system clarinets (and I believe quite many have attempted that, myself included). If tone quality were solely about the combinations of air and embouchure, I wouldn't think reproducing Mr Leister's tone could be that hard (even though there are of course a multitude of such combinations).
Could it thus be that what affects the air column before the mouthpiece has even a greater effect on tone, than what affects it past the reed/mouthpiece?
I readily admit that my arguments are probably at a level of only anecdotal evidence, but this is how my thoughts go.
Comments?
Post Edited (2023-08-09 12:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2023-08-09 15:03
I've thought a lot about Leister's sound over the years. I recall one master class where he, being aware of various Boehm fingerings and their effects, had suggested to a student to use the "1 and 1" Bb (note sitting on the first ledger line above the staff) because it has a lovely covered sound.
Lately I have been experimenting with and incorporating different combinations of fingers for "throat notes" that have not only affected the quality of those notes but the overall sound approach of the entire spectrum of notes. So tonal concept is influenced by many factors but controlled by our brain/ear more than anything else.
Again I put forth GOOD NEWS! Anyone can have a wonderful SOUND on clarinet despite gender, size, or age. Now when it comes to hearing pitch properly or developing technique...that's still up to nature and hard work.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2023-08-09 18:31
Just a thought: The sound you hear in your mind is the sound you strive for and, to a greater or lesser degree, is the sound you produce on the instrument. Stated another way, the game is as much mental as it is physical, with the former driving the latter.
This would account for why Leister sounds like Leister on both a German and a French instrument.
Post Edited (2023-08-09 18:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Claudia Zornow
Date: 2023-08-09 22:29
When I was dealing with a missing tooth in preparation for an implant, I had a "partial" as you described that covered part of my palate, but I only used it for eating. For playing, I used a clear plastic tray, similar to Invisalign braces. I didn't notice any change in my tone, just an increase in salivation.
The missing tooth was an upper front incisor, so your mileage may vary.
Claudia
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
