Be suspicious of instrument bling

ByBret Pimentel

If you are considering buying the newest, hottest instrument, accessory, gadget, etc., it’s worth asking yourself a few questions:

  • Is this item made out of materials that are usually used for fine jewelry or the dashboards of luxury cars?
  • How likely is it that the most visually-attractive materials also happen to have the ideal acoustical qualities? Is there really a good reason to believe that this particular material sounds better than other materials that happen to be less pretty and less expensive? Is there some reason to believe this couldn’t be made from practical and low-cost materials like steel or aluminum or oak or birch, or any of the incredible and endlessly varied synthetic materials?
  • Does the item come in a variety of materials at a variety of price points, with the most expensive materials being pushed as the best-sounding?
  • Does the marketing pitch sound like it might really be describing how the material looks, rather than sounds? “The brilliance of silver,” “the smooth dark sound of grenadilla,” “the rich sound of our proprietary gold alloy,” “the complex character of our highly-figured maple.”

You should use the instruments that work best for you. If precious metals and fragrant exotic woods make you happy and you can afford them, then you should have them. But be careful not to get caught up in a sales pitch that is more about bling than about real benefits.

Similar Posts

  • Joseph Phillips and Ben Kono on woodwind doubling

    ByBret Pimentel

    In a blog post from last week, New York City composer Joseph Phillips discusses his ensemble Numinous and his decision to use woodwind doublers instead of a conventional orchestral woodwind section.

    Joseph Phillips
    Joseph Phillips. Photos stolen from Joseph’s post.

    When I started Numinous back in the fall of 2000, I knew I wanted flexibility of colors in the woodwind section. Even though I’m a saxophone/woodwind player, I didn’t want a saxophone dominant sound to the section. I also didn’t want to have 10 woodwind players to cover saxophones, oboe, English Horn, flutes, clarinets, and whatever woodwinds I happen to write for. So the most natural solution was to have woodwind doublers who would be able to play multiple instruments. Of course with the demands of my music, I didn’t want or need a typical jazz saxophone doubler: someone that plays maybe passable flute or clarinet but not well enough to match their saxophone abilities. In addition to being able to improvise well on all of the instruments, I really need musicians whose abilities on the other woodwind instruments are all fairly equal and could move easily between jazz, classical, and popular genres.

    One of Numinous’s woodwind players is Ben Kono, who currently plays the reed 1 book for Jersey Boys on Broadway. In Joseph’s blog post, he interviews Ben about his woodwind abilities: Read More “Joseph Phillips and Ben Kono on woodwind doubling”

  • |

    Does woodwind doubling prevent you from being the “best?”

    ByBret Pimentel

    My recent post about woodwind doubling has been cited lately on various social media sites to fuel discussions over whether doubling is a good or acceptable pursuit.

    Many of those arguing that woodwind doubling is a bad idea raise the issue that the “best” players of such-and-such instrument don’t double, and you can’t be the “best” at such-and-such instrument if you are doubling. If you think that, I could name a dozen prominent doublers who might change your mind, but that’s not really the important point.

    As an undergraduate saxophone major, I daydreamed occasionally about being the “best” saxophonist. For me it probably wouldn’t have been a realistic goal, and the pursuit of it wouldn’t have led me to happiness, nor to success as I would have seen it through that lens.

    When I made the decision to commit myself to woodwind doubling as a career path instead, I knew that would mean my progress on the saxophone would slow down. But it has been a very worthwhile choice for me: I get to play interesting music in a variety of settings, I get to spend all day at my university teaching job talking about the music and instruments that fascinate me, and I even have an audience of like-minded folks who stop by to read my blog posts. Now it’s hard for me to imagine myself being content to play just saxophone music all day.

    Most of us won’t land a top orchestral job or tour the world as a concert soloist. And, believe it or not, not all of us want that anyway. We should be encouraging aspiring musicians to seek out niches that they enjoy and are motivated by.

    Very, very few of us will ever be the “best,” so if that is your goal then I wish you luck. But for many of us, myself included, that’s not the goal at all. Mine is to have a successful and enjoyable career doing what I love, and so far, so good.

  • Focus on fundamentals, not localized fixes

    ByBret Pimentel

    As I’ve discussed here previously, when trying to solve woodwind-playing problems there’s a useful distinction between problem-specific solutions and simply shoring up fundamental technique.

    Here are some examples of problem-specific solutions:

    • Second-octave G-sharp tends to crack on saxophone, especially tenor? When you get to that note, blow warmer air (in other words, use a lower voicing).
    • Low notes on oboe respond sluggishly? Try dropping your jaw a bit as you descend into that register.
    • Flute pitch sagging at softer dynamics? Increase your breath support as you decrescendo.

    Notice that all of these suggestions give you a sort of localized task to perform—make some change to your tone-production technique whenever you play a certain note. This is an exhausting way to play: trying to remember and execute a handful of directives for each note that goes by; discovering that a constantly-changing tone-production technique makes tone, pitch, and response unstable; adding another layer of fixes to try to counteract the instability. It can quickly become too much to process, and higher-order things like musical expression get sacrificed.

    Sometimes these localized fixes are necessary, usually as a workaround to some flaw or compromise in the equipment’s design or manufacture. But much more often the “fix” should be an improvement to fundamental technique:

    • If lowering your voicing helps the cracking G-sharp on tenor, what would happen if you used that lower voicing on every note?
    • If taking some jaw pressure off the oboe reed helps the low notes speak, what would happen if you didn’t add that pressure back in the higher registers?
    • If increasing breath support helps buoy up softer notes, would it hurt the louder ones?

    My guess is that by making these fixes part of your fundamental technique, instead of applying them here and there like bandages, you would discover:

    • a richer, more in-tune tenor saxophone tone
    • clearer, more immediate oboe articulation, with less fatigue/pain
    • flute playing improved in virtually every aspect

    Examine your problem-specific fixes carefully, and try making them your default approaches rather than special-occasion ones.

    When dealing with problem spots in your music, it’s okay to remind yourself of relevant and helpful fundamental techniques, but the ultimate goal should be to remove as much as possible of the mental overhead and physical gymnastics from your playing. Develop good basic technique that lets the instrument more or less play itself, so you can focus on the creative aspects.

  • Quick quote: woodwind doubling in the 17th and 18th centuries

    ByBret Pimentel

    From Bruce Haynes’s The Eloquent Oboe: A History of the Hautboy, Oxford University Press, 2001:

    In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a wind player was an hautboist who might by circumstance be led into a concentration on some other type of instrument. The modern idea of a musician who would limit himself to one instrument, and become a virtuoso on it, took hold at the Dresden court at about the beginning of the eighteenth century, perhaps as a result of the numerous Italian musicians who worked there, and who tended to specialize. But it remained unusual in Germany for some time.

    More insight from the footnotes:

    Based on archival evidence, Oleskiewicz (1998: 49) believes woodwind doubling ‘completely disappeared sometime between 1717 and 1719.’

    And:

    There is evidence that hautboy players in bands in the early 18th c. could not necessarily switch to bassoon.

  • Beginners, parents, and making double reeds

    ByBret Pimentel

    I am in touch fairly often with parents (and school band directors) about their young oboists and bassoonists. Obtaining suitable reeds at an affordable price is of course an Ongoing Problem for beginning double reed players and their adjacent adults. Invariably my advice is that they connect with a private teacher who can supply and adjust reeds. But there aren’t many of those in the area, and, of course, they cost money, so sometimes the conversation turns toward reedmaking, which they may have read about on the internet and which seems to them like a promising solution.

    If you are a parent or band director, here is what you need to know about reedmaking:

    photo, Javier
    photo, Javier
    • Making oboe or bassoon reeds is an art that takes many years to master.
    • While there are some fine books, videos, etc. that teach reedmaking concepts, there is no substitute for studying reedmaking with an oboe or bassoon teacher.
    • Reedmaking ability is very dependent on playing ability. Most of reedmaking is an iterative process of testing the reed, making a tiny adjustment, testing again, adjusting again, and so forth. A beginner’s playing level isn’t enough for reedmaking, even if they somehow manage to master the physical reedmaking techniques. (At youngest, I might start reedmaking with a very dedicated and talented high school junior.) This is also why it won’t work to learn to make reeds yourself for your child or student, unless you already happen to be a fine oboist or bassoonist.
    • Reedmaking is expensive! Someone studying the art of reedmaking will make many, many, many reeds before it starts to be a good deal financially. A minimal set of tools can be had for maybe the cost of a couple of car tires, but will require the purchase of cane that is already partially prepared. Each piece of prepared cane costs about as much as a large order of French fries, and a beginning reedmaker may ruin dozens or hundreds of them before making their first somewhat usable reed, and hundreds or thousands more before they can make reeds as good as ones from an excellent private teacher. (Cane purchased in its raw tube form is cheaper, but requires additional equipment costing as much as a transatlantic flight, plus extra hours of work.)
    • It may be worth pointing out, too, that reedmaking involves razor-sharp tools. These can of course be handled safely with proper training, but it’s still a concern where small hands are involved. Pieces of cane can be dangerous, too—I’ve cut myself more times with sharp or jagged pieces of cane than I have with knives or razor blades.

    The best thing you can do for your beginning oboists or bassoonists is to pair him or her with excellent teachers who can help them improve their skills on their instruments, make and adjust reeds for them, and lay the groundwork for future instruction in reedmaking.

  • More on the science/fiction of woodwind materials

    ByBret Pimentel
    Photo, ~Bob~West~

    There’s an interesting woodwind-related post by blogger “MarkCC” at Good Math, Bad Math, entitled “My Newest Flute, made of… Plastic?!”

    MarkCC recently acquired a new flute of the type used in Irish traditional music, the kind that are most often made of wood. But MarkCC’s is made of polymer, and it sounds like MarkCC has wrestled a little with the issue of whether a plastic flute can really measure up to a wooden one.

    But… Plastic?

    I’ve seen several acoustic studies that claim that the material the instrument is made of isn’t that important. In a wooden flute, the physics show that the head joint is the only part of the flute that really has a significant influence on its sound. But the head joint of a wooden flute is actually lined with metal. So the wood isn’t really having too much influence on the sound.

    As it turns out, MarkCC is something of a doubler, and also plays the clarinet.

    Most people (including me) play on mouthpieces made of hard rubber or plastic – so the primary sound-producing piece of the instrument is plastic. The barrel of a wooden clarinet is (obviously) wood, so according to the physics/acoustics, that’s the only piece of wood that actually has any measurable acoustic effect. And the physics of this isn’t sloppy stuff put together by an instrument company trying to sell their plastic clarinets: to the limits of my ability to understand it, it’s good, solid stuff.

    And yet, I’ve played a whole lot of clarinets, and by god, there’s nothing like a grenadilla wood clarinet. Even the best clarinet makers, even when I put my wooden barrel on a polymer body, it doesn’t sound the same. Of course, that’s subjective, and we humans are notorious for hearing what we want to hear in a subjective situation. And, by god, I’m a math geek. I’ve seen the math, and it’s correct.

    One of the most-linked articles on my blog makes the same point about our expectations about materials coloring our playing experience. It’s worth pointing out, too, that a different barrel made from the same material will also affect the instrument’s sound.

    I do think it’s a grey area to refer to a mouthpiece or barrel (or flute headjoint) as “sound-producing.” The instrument’s parts don’t produce any audible musical sound (unless you hit them with drumsticks)—it’s the column of air contained within them that vibrates in a musically useful way.

    But MarkCC goes on, I believe, to hit the nail on the head: Read More “More on the science/fiction of woodwind materials”

5 Comments

  1. Spot on, Bret. This post reminded me of a certain woodwinds accessory company (who shall go unnamed here) that sells a ligature made primarily of string, with a minimum amount of metal parts (e.g., the screw). When I read about how the cryogenically treated gold parts “significantly” improve resonance and response (as opposed to the less expensive model, which has silver parts), I become a bit suspicious. And all this for a mere $200! Yeah, okay.

    Reply

  2. Thanks for this, Bret. I know your article is talking more generally about what to watch for, but I’m curious what you think about the lefreQue “acoustic bridge”. The marketing sounds like exactly what you are describing, but it’s being endorsed by some heavyweights (yes, they might all be paid endorsements) and also by personal colleagues. I haven’t had a chance to try one out yet, and given your skepticism I thought you would have the most pragmatic opinion on the product.

    Reply

    1. I haven’t tried one and so can’t give any kind of informed review. But the concept seems sketchy to me, and certainly the emphasis on shiny jewelry metals is suspect.

      Most gadgets etc. that claim to emphasize or improve the vibrations of the instrument’s body seem to me to affect how the player hears themselves much more than how anyone else hears them. (See the Backus article listed in the notes of this old blog post for some good science on instrument body vibrations and their audibility.) However, if something affects the way I hear myself, then that might change the way I play (which someone else can definitely hear).

      Reply

      1. Your statement that “Most gadgets etc. that claim to emphasize or improve the vibrations of the instrument’s body seem to me to affect how the player hears themselves much more than how anyone else hears them” is right on, in my experience, and better stated than I’ve been able to articulate. I play with another gadget on my instrument (not a LefreQue, but a previous “fad” from about 15 years ago). It works great for me. Do I sound different to my audience? Not sure, but it makes ME feel like a million bucks when I play. It may be a placebo effect, but if the end result is a performance I’m happy with, it’s worth it to me. I don’t push them on my students, as I’d rather they put a couple hundred into repairs or upgrades rather than the latest trend.

      2. Not sure how I stumbled across this post almost 5 years after the fact. But I do find the Le freQue acoustic bridge a curious one. I know there are these “heavy screws,” too, that screw onto the saxophones (I believe in the lyre screw hole) that claim to make a difference.

        I’m open to the possibility but a little skeptical, too. But I will say that your statement, “if something affects the way I hear myself, then that might change the way I play (which someone else can definitely hear)” sums it up for sure.

        Two instances of that come to mind. for one, I notice that any time I’ve tested a P Mauriat sax (several, now) I notice that the horns seem to always have a bit of “back pressure” to them – in other words, my Cannonballs blow freely like blowing through a garden hose; the Mauriat always seems to have a little resistance to the air flow. It DOES affect the way I play when I’m on one.

        The other thing I notice that makes a difference too (which is why, although I’m skeptical, I’m open to the idea that it might make a difference) is that I notice a difference even with ligatures. One in particular is a Rovner that I have that has different “tone plates” that drop into a slot inside a pocket in the ligature. Playing with or without the plates does make a difference. In this case, I think it is more “resistance” that I feel, but that resistance does affect the way I hear myself, and like you said, I think it makes me feel different when I play, which, I believe, affects the sound.

        Good web site, by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments that take a negative or confrontational tone are subject to email and name verification before being approved. In other words: no anonymous trolls allowed—take responsibility for your words.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.