(Okay, sometimes I also have this problem.)

The solution, in most cases, is quite simple.

Step 1: Use the correct voicing. For oboe it should be low and open, like blowing very warm air. This is usually the result:

Step 2: Use powerful abdominal breath support. Voilà:

I find that once voicing and breath support are balanced against each other, a good oboe with a good reed is one of the easiest woodwinds to play in tune, and responds easily in all registers.

This is, generally speaking, true of all of the woodwinds: solid breath support plus a stable voicing appropriate to the instrument are the recipe for reliable, in-tune notes from low to high.

There are some inexpensive and easily-obtained tools that are useful to have around. Most of these things you can easily buy locally; only a few require buying from a musical instrument repair supplier (MusicMedic.com and Ferree’s Tools are a couple of good suppliers that happily sell to non-pros). These are tools and supplies suitable for small repairs and maintenance, the kinds of things that you can do mostly with common sense or with instructional materials available online. The most expensive item on my list is a “selection” of sheet cork, which I have pegged at about $20 to get smallish pieces in a few different thicknesses. You can get my entire list for less than the cost of a decent clarinet mouthpiece.

Click each item for a description.

(see larger image)

Click column headings to sort.

Most woodwind instruments come in several sizes, and a naming system is required for describing the size and pitch of each. The most familiar for players of modern Western woodwinds is that used for (for example) the clarinet and saxophone families, with most of those instruments being described as “in B-flat” or “in E-flat.” However, there are several other systems in use in the larger woodwind family tree. This can be confounding for newcomers to folk, ethnic, and period woodwinds, but I’ll attempt to shed some light on things.

Here are the four primary systems. The names are my own:

• Modern. This system is used for modern Western orchestral/band woodwinds and brasses. In this system, each member of the instrument family (such as all of the clarinets) match a written pitch to a fingering, so that, for example, a written C can be fingered the same way on any of the clarinets, and the actual pitch produced depends on the instrument’s size. (Playing written C, incidentally, produces the sounding pitch for which an instrument is named: Playing “C” on a B-flat clarinet produces a sounding B-flat, “C” on an A clarinet produces a sounding A, and so forth.) This is convenient to the clarinetist, but awkward for composers, copyists, conductors, and others dealing with multiple transpositions. It also leads to oddities such as the lowest contrabass clarinets, like all their clarinet siblings, being notated in treble clef.
• Non-transposing. The recorder family, for example, is always notated at concert pitch. (Or sort of at concert pitch—all the major recorders but the alto [treble] and tenor recorders actually sound an octave higher than written.) This means that a recorder player must actually learn more than one fingering system: all holes closed on a soprano (descant) or tenor recorder produces a C, but all holes closed on a sopranino, alto, or bass produces an F. Therefore, the recorders are non-transposing instruments (disregarding the octave). This system adds an element of difficulty for the recorder player, but greatly simplifies score reading. The bass recorder reads bass clef, which seems intuitive in terms of score notation but is a surprise to modern woodwind players.
• Six-hole. Pennywhistles, so-called “Irish” flutes, and some other simple-system flutes use a naming system based on the note produced when six fingers (the three middle fingers of each hand) cover their respective holes. Thus, a flute whose six-finger note is D is referred to as a D flute. For most modern woodwind players, it’s familiar for this six-finger note to be a written D, but the fact that the six-finger note produces a sounding D makes this flute a concert pitch instrument, or what in modern nomenclature is a “C” instrument.
• Three-hole. This of course works the same way as the six-finger system, except that it is based on the note produced when the three middle fingers of the top hand (usually the left hand) are covering their respective holes. This system is used most notably for bamboo simple-system flutes such as the Indian bansuri and Chinese dizi. Thus a D flute in the six-hole system would be renamed as a G flute in the three-hole system.

For many simple-system woodwinds using six- or three-hole naming systems, there is no well-established standard for writing parts in Western notation. Among the proposed systems, I think the simplest to understand for modern Western woodwind players is to transpose parts so that the six-hole note is always notated as D below the treble clef staff. This puts flutists, oboists, clarinetists, and saxophonists at ease by playing on the similarities in their fingering systems (with a “six-hole” D), and transposes the parts for different sizes of instrument in the way to which modern woodwind players are accustomed.

Okay, let’s try an example. Suppose that you have a simple-system flute (with an embouchure hole and six finger holes that produce a major scale). When all six holes are closed, the sounding pitch is D. Here is how that instrument would be described in each system:

Here’s another example: a simple-system flute with a three-hole note of B-flat.

I hope this information will come in handy for woodwind players who are new to folk, ethnic, and period instruments when reading notated parts (remember, alto recorder uses different fingerings than soprano) or purchasing instruments (remember, a dizi in D isn’t the same size as an Irish flute in D).

A few weeks ago, I replaced the bell tenon cork on this clarinet with a composite cork product, made from compressed cork bits. It’s cheaper than traditional solid cork, so I thought I would give it a try to see how well it compares. But the cork I used was too thin, and the bell was too loose. I’m going to try the experiment again with a thicker composite cork, but you can do this exactly the same way whether you’re using solid or composite. You can get either kind from MusicMedic.com.

First peel off the old cork.

Remove as much of the old cork and glue as possible, so the new cork will be smooth and even.

Measure a piece of the old cork to see how thick it was. A small sliding caliper is handy for this, if you’ve got one.

Find a new piece of cork that’s the right thickness. In this case, I’m intentionally going a little thicker than the old cork.

Cut a strip to the right width for the groove in the tenon, long enough to wrap around plus a little extra. Since the cork is crumbly, especially the composite cork, you need a very sharp blade to get a clean cut. I’m using a new razor blade.

At one end of the strip, sand one side to make a ramp.

Wipe off any leftover cork dust from the sanding. Apply a very thin coat of contact cement to the ramp, to the entire back side of the strip, and to the groove in the clarinet tenon.

Wait a few minutes until all the glue is completely dry.

Starting from the ramp end, press the cork into the groove on the tenon. The ramped side faces up. The dry contact cement bonds instantly, so take your time and make sure everything is lined up right. Sort of massage the cork into the groove with your fingers, to make sure as much surface area of the cork as possible bonds to the wood.

Wrap the cork all the way around, and up onto the ramp. Pay special attention to where the cork overlaps onto itself, and make sure it’s securely bonded.

Trim away the excess cork, and sand the seam smooth.

With the composite cork, the seam is practically invisible if you do a good job with the sanding.

Generously apply a quality cork lubricant.

Assemble carefully.

That’s it!

• The palm keys don’t have any dependencies—they don’t move any other keys and aren’t moved by any other keys. So replacing a palm key pad won’t set off a chain reaction of adjustments you have to make to the instrument’s mechanism.
• The palm keys are sprung to sit closed when you’re not pressing them, which means that the spring will help you get the pad seated, instead of getting in your way. It will also press the pad firmly against the tonehole, overcoming small imperfections in your padding technique. With keys that sit open on their own, the padding has to be extra skilled so you can use a feather-light touch when you play.
• The palm keys are long, so you’re less likely to burn your fingers.
• When you’re playing, the palm key pads take the brunt of the condensation from your breath, so they need relatively frequent replacement anyway. I bet yours could stand replacing.

I’ll walk you through this. I perhaps should confess that I am not NAPBIRT certified or anything fancy like that. You undertake this at your own risk, etc.

I like to clean any gunk off the tonehole, as well:

Next, heat the pad cup to liquefy the glue or shellac. I use an inexpensive butane torch that I got from a hardware store.

Too much heat can scorch the lacquer, so go slowly and be patient. Often, when the glue starts to liquefy, the pad will start to lift out of the pad cup on its own. If not, you can poke the pad with something (not a finger—it’s hot) and see if it’s loose yet.

The adhesive under this pad is clear, so it’s most likely the kind of glue that is used in hot glue guns. You can get it from a craft store. A brownish shellac is more traditional, but seems to be losing popularity. You can get it from places that sell instrument repair supplies.

This pad has the size indicated right on it, so I know which size to replace it with.

But pads are easy enough to measure, especially if you have a cheap caliper. Match the thickness of the original pad, too.

MusicMedic.com is a good place to buy pads (and other supplies) for do-it-yourself repairs, since they will let you buy pads individually, instead of hundreds at a time. If you’re not in a hurry, you can take out the pads that need replacing, measure them, and then place an order for exactly what you need. The pads already on this horn are tan leather with a brown plastic resonator, so that’s what I’m replacing them with, but there are lots of other options.

If you’ve already got pads and the adhesive is still warm enough to be in a liquid state, you can put the new pad right in. Otherwise you’ll need to reheat the pad cup first. If you need to add adhesive, you can heat the pad cup and sort of paint some in there with the stick of glue or shellac. Or put some shavings from the stick into the pad cup and then heat it.

Plop the new pad into place.

If you act quickly, you can put the key back on the instrument while the glue is still liquid, and the pad will hopefully settle right in. If you’re slow or if the pad doesn’t seem to be contacting the tonehole completely, add a little gentle heat to re-soften the glue, then press and release the key a few times. The pressure from the spring will help guide the pad into place.

If the pad still seems to be leaking, you may have a pad that isn’t flat. Or you may have a tonehole that isn’t level, or a key that is a little bent (either of these can be quickly and easily fixed by your favorite professional saxophone technician). But if the old pad was seating well, chances are that a good new one will, too.

Let the glue cool thoroughly, and you’re all done! Nice job.

From an acoustical perspective, that point is the division between the fundamental pitches and the first overtone. When playing a lower-register note, the air column’s vibration is at its simplest. The pitch is determined by the effective length of the saxophone, which depends on which toneholes the player opens or closes. In the upper register, the air column is manipulated into vibrating twice as fast (by changing the airstream and/or opening a register vent), and a sound an octave higher is produced.

This means that there is, technically, some overlap between the registers shown above, which really are based on one specific set of “standard” fingerings. The fingerings for low B-flat, B, C, and C-sharp can be used to produce sounds in the second overtone, and the fingerings for high D through F-sharp can likewise produce sounds at the fundamental. In theory, this should mean an overlap of over a fifth:

If you’ve experimented with those fingerings, you know that they don’t work quite as expected in practice. The low B-flat fingering with the octave key added, for example doesn’t sound great, and neither does the high F-sharp fingering with no octave key. But with some experimentation, a few usable alternative fingerings can be found within this range.

Here are a couple of examples from the saxophone movement of Sy Brandon’s Divertissement for multiple woodwinds and piano.

example 1

In example 1, the excerpted passage stays entirely in the lower register, with the exception of one note, D. The D is a “long-tube” note, meaning that most of the toneholes are closed and the effective length of the tube is long. It is immediately surrounded by the notes C-sharp and B, which are short-tube notes. The short-tube notes tend to be free-blowing, clear, and flexible, while the long-tube D tends to be more resistant and stuffy, especially if you are adding the low B key (and you should) to compensate for the D’s built-in sharpness. Here’s what it sounds like:

Play

The D doesn’t sound the same as the notes around it. It’s duller and more muted. I can make the standard fingering work if necessary (good breath support and voicing are key), but I think the better part of valor is discretion, and it makes sense to me to avoid crossing the break here if possible. After a little experimenting, I picked an alternate fingering that keeps me in the fundamental register, and works reasonably well technically:

The tone produced with this fingering is a much better match for the surrounding notes, and contributes to a smoother line.

Play

Your ears should of course be your guide, but I did find this visual comparison revealing. The D stands out significantly in the first waveform, and virtually disappears into the C-sharp in the second.

using standard D fingering

using alternate D fingering

In a second example from later in the movement, there is an occurrence of the opposite problem:

Here, there is only one note, C-sharp, that, using standard fingerings, belongs to the fundamental register. This free-blowing short-tube note is likely to blare out a little:

Play

This alternate fingering works quite well, and, though it does not technically put the C-sharp in the upper register (despite the octave key), it does bring the C-sharp in line with the surrounding D’s tone-wise. Note that some saxophonists are initially put off by what they perceive as an airiness or fuzziness about this fingering; I find that effect to be significantly less perceptible from a few feet away, and less jarring than the blare of the “open” C-sharp. Eugene Rousseau considers this fingering essential enough that he includes it in his beginning saxophone method.

Here’s how it sounds:

Play

In the recording, I am using the low B key for pitch correction on the D, and I hold it down through the C-sharp without detrimental effect.

I have a small handful of these alternate fingerings that I use on a fairly regular basis. I think that they are somewhat instrument-specific, though, and are best discovered through trial and error on your own horn. If you like, you can use the Fingering diagram builder to create charts of your favorites.

I worked on reeds today (both single and double). My favorite reed tip: don’t adjust your best one. Adjust some others until one of them is the best, and then go back and work on the first one if you like.

Adjusting reeds can be a little risky, so gamble on a reed that you won’t miss too much if it doesn’t survive. And don’t put all your eggs in one basket, concentrating all your efforts trying to perfect one reed—try to bring several up to a playable level.

Keep those knives sharp!

I’d like to share a few of the most horrifying examples, and tell you why I’ve tried to make mine the opposite of these. I’m not naming names on the sources, but many of them are well-known and recognizable. Many come from players and pedagogues who I deeply respect for reasons other than their fingering-chart-making skill. (Please don’t identify them in the comments. I’ll edit you if you do.)

Case study no. 1

Here’s a partial saxophone fingering chart from my collection:

Commentary:

• Numbering multiple fingerings (such as the A-sharp/B-flat fingerings numbered 1-4) is confusing when keys are also identified by numerals. It also raises questions of ranking: are they numbered by priority/preference?
• The side F-sharp key and the Bis B-flat key are represented by both a circle and the name of the key—this breaks the conventions used for all other keys on the chart, and can appear as though the circle and the text each represent a different key. Also, the circle used for the side F-sharp key does not resemble the oblong key shown in the photo.
• The correct use of the numbered “LSK” and “RSK” keys is not immediately obvious; the labeled photo must be consulted in order to be sure which one is, for example, “LSK 3.”

Suggestions for improvement:

• Use a strictly visual representation and eliminate the text. Make the keys in the diagram look like they do on a saxophone, and do away with the labeled photo altogether.

More charts with similar problems (click for larger):

Why is the thumb hole square?

Case study no. 2

Here is a chart from a book of nothing but clarinet fingerings:

Commentary:

• This shows not only every key on the instrument, but also every bit of mechanism and an outline of the instrument’s body. It’s visually messy and difficult to read.
• The high level of visual detail doesn’t hold up well at this small size; in many of the diagrams it appears (incorrectly) as if perhaps the rings should be pressed, because the lines have bled together.
• The diagrams have apparently been colored in by hand, which adds to the visual distraction, introduces some ambiguities, and seems unprofessional for a published book.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Show the six main finger holes (and possibly a very few other keys) all the time for a point of reference, and introduce additional details only if they are relevant to the specific fingering. In most cases, there’s no need to show mechanism, rings, pad cups, or the instrument body.
• Color neatly for professionalism and especially for clarity.

More charts with similar problems (click for larger):

Unnecessary saxophone body outline

This illegible nightmare, which I tried to use in a woodwinds class, is what finally drove me to create the FDB

Case study no. 3

Two oboe charts, from the same book, on consecutive pages:

Commentary:

• Why use two different diagram systems in the same book?
• In the first chart, the right little finger keys within a circle are unusual and unclear, as is the diagonal slash through the left hand, first finger key.
• In the second chart, the upside-down (oboist’s-eye?) orientation is clever but nonstandard. It does require the outline of the instrument’s body so that the orientation is clear.
• In the second chart, the oboe appears to be foreshortened, which makes the traditionally round keys look oval-shaped, and harder to identify.
• In the second chart, the level of visual detail is needlessly high and distracting. The “broken oboe” outline also seems unnecessary (and slightly disturbing).

Suggestions for improvement:

• Be consistent. Pick one (good) diagram system, and go with it.
• Don’t reinvent the wheel unless you have a good reason to do so. The shapes of an oboe’s right hand little finger keys are distinctive and recognizable—make the ones in the diagram resemble them, instead of inventing new symbols.
• While I can see the value of a fingering diagram shown from the player’s perspective, almost every chart I’ve ever used shows the instrument from the audience’s perspective, and I’m accustomed to charts in that style. Remember that a drastic change like turning the image upside down, mirroring it, rotating it, or otherwise breaking from the basic layout of traditional fingering charts means that extra time and frustration for the reader.

More charts with similar problems (click for larger):

Oddly rotated

Front F, left hand stack keys, and Bis key are virtually indistinguishable

Conclusions

Based on my dissatisfaction with fingering charts like these ones (and oh, so many more), I decided that I wanted the FDB to produce diagrams with certain characteristics:

• Strictly visual symbols, no text. In cases where textual explanations are needed, you have to add them yourself in an image editor, word processing document, blog software, etc.
• Symbols based as much as possible on the actual shapes of keys. There are some exceptions to this; for example, almost all of the diagrams use six large, equally-sized, equally-spaced, and centrally-aligned circles to represent the main keys and/or holes operated by the three middle fingers of each hand, which I think provides a needed point of reference and also gives a nice consistency between the diagrams. And, of course, key shapes are not the same on all instrument models, so I’ve created shapes that I think are as clear and identifiable as possible.
• A bare minimum of visual clutter. By far the most frequent complaint I’ve gotten about the Fingering diagram builder is that, by default, it hides many unpressed keys. Although I feel strongly enough about this issue that I’m keeping that functionality (it’s good to be the king), I did cave and provide a “Blank diagram” button in the 0.2 version, which turns on all the keys for the selected diagram and preset.
• Standard audience-view orientation. An early, unreleased version of the FDB allowed for rotating the images in 90° increments, which I abandoned for both technical reasons and personal preference, and a few people have requested the ability to create mirror images. Users who want this badly enough will have to do it themselves with image-editing software.
• Appropriate line thicknesses for good visual clarity at small sizes. Rather than make this happen automatically, which I did consider, I’ve given users the ability to select their own line thicknesses. I personally prefer using thick lines most of the time.

One more note. My original intention in preparing this article was to contrast poor examples of fingering charts with better examples. After an hour digging through my file cabinets, I gave up on finding any good examples.

Try the (free!) Fingering diagram builder

Take the spelling test

Students in my woodwind methods classes are usually music education majors, planning careers as school band directors. In my class, they get their one-semester crash course in playing and teaching the flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and saxophone. Clearly there’s a lot of information that they will need but which will be easily forgotten—I can’t give a trumpet player three weeks to learn to play the clarinet, and then expect her to remember many fingerings once the playing test is done, the clarinet is returned, and I’ve given her a bassoon contend with.

So I have them prepare a woodwind notebook over the course of the semester, with lecture notes, class handouts, fingering charts, and other things that will hopefully be valuable resources to them in their teaching careers.

One of the things I ask them to include in the notebook is some resources that they have discovered independently. The idea here is to have them find things that they think they will need, and to become acquainted with some good sources for woodwind information along the way. I tell them that information found on the web will only count if I think it’s reliable, and I encourage them to send me links for advance approval.

Usually my classes figure out that I can’t very well reject anything they print from my website, so I usually see a lot of my own stuff appearing in their notebooks. I don’t object to this as long as they choose well, but sometimes they don’t. Last semester’s submissions included my review of the AKAI EWI 4000s, which, of course, is not part of our curriculum, and even some of my links pages, which become considerably less useful on paper, since you can’t click through to the good stuff.

So I figured I might as well share my own selection of posts from this blog that I would encourage future band directors, or other woodwind players or educators, to put in their notebooks:

• Breath support
• What is voicing? and Voicing, part II
• Physical factors and beginning woodwind players
• Clarinet pinky fingerings
• Information overload: oboe F fingerings
• Not making your own double reeds
• Buying woodwind instruments
• Does material affect tone quality in woodwind instruments?: Why scientists and musicians just can’t seem to agree
• Dubious pedagogy alert: woodwind vibrato
• How well do you know your major scales?
• 10 ways to improve your musicianship with a computer
• Seven habits of highly effective beginners

And this isn’t one to print out, but one to bookmark in your favorite web browser:

• The Fingering diagram builder