More on the science/fiction of woodwind materials

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:

But still, I really do believe that my wooden clarinet sounds better than any plastic I’ve ever played. So why? If the math says it shouldn’t, why does it? I’ve never been sure, but my suspicion is that it’s a matter of craftsmanship … you’ve got a very complex shape, and every contour of that shape has an effect. That distinction, the math supports very clearly: change the shape of the body, and you are affecting the waveform of the sound.

This sounds like a wood flute. It really does. It sounds better than any of the beaten-up real wooden flutes that I’ve acquired … I think that that’s more a matter of workmanship than material.

MarkCC reviews the new flute (one of these) in some detail, and his review is very positive in terms of sound and playability. For more information:

Similar Posts

  • Clarinet vibrato

    The question of whether the clarinet should use vibrato has been argued to death, and I won’t pursue the question further here. Suffice it to say that it’s a matter of taste and a matter of tradition.

    American and European classical clarinetists usually don’t use it. Why that particular quirk of taste and/or tradition has taken hold probably can’t be pinned down for certain. But there are some weak theories that are worth retiring for good:

    • That the clarinet’s sound is somehow special or has unique properties that make vibrato unnecessary or undesirable.
    • That vibrato cannot be artistically executed on the clarinet.
    • That the orchestra just “needs” a vibrato-less sound, and clarinetists happened to step up to volunteer.

    I don’t see any reason to believe that the clarinet is uniquely unsuited to vibrato, or that there’s anything inherently “right” about the clarinet being vibrato-free.

    Among proponents of clarinet vibrato, there is disagreement about which body part(s) produce the effect—the lips? the diaphragm? the cheeks? This is essentially a settled matter among clarinetists’ closest cousins, saxophonists, who nearly universally produce vibrato with jaw movement. I find this to be the only really viable option on the clarinet, as well, since it can be manipulated mostly independently of tone, response, intonation, and dynamics (by maintaining stable embouchure and breath support).

    As to why vibrato hasn’t become standard in the clarinet world, my best theory is that the clarinet’s unique high voicing is relatively easily disrupted by jaw vibrato. While it’s very possible to do clarinet jaw vibrato well, it does take some care to do it without destabilizing the voicing and causing pitch and tone instability. I suspect that over the centuries clarinetists have found this to be a mild deterrent, and instead have leaned into clear, vibrato-less tone as a virtue.

    In any case, some classical clarinetists have used it with great success, but the prevailing tradition is a pure and un-embellished tone, without even a trace of vibrato.

  • Shaping a phrase

    When a woodwind player plays a phrase like this:

    …it could have a variety of shapes, depending. But often a rising line gets a subtle crescendo, and a long note at the end gets a little decrescendo:

    To play create this shape, you blow air that makes the shape. You can imagine playing a single note, like this:

    …and then let your fingers and tongue play the notes over the shape.

    But sometimes less-experienced players blow like this:

    That makes the phrase sound weird, like the notes each have their own shapes. For the notes to unite into a phrase, they need to combine into one shape.

    To practice this, first decide what shape your phrase should have, and mark it into your music. Then, without your instrument, blow air that makes the shape of the phrase. Then pick up your instrument and do the fingerings, blowing the air shape outside the instrument. If some notes should be tongued, add that next. Once you are comfortable with all those steps, combine them to play a smooth, connected, well-shaped phrase.

  • Saxophone low notes

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    The saxophone’s lowest notes can be notoriously unresponsive. This is partly due to the instrument’s acoustics, particularly its fairly extreme conical bore. (For technical details, see for example Acoustics of Musical Instruments by Chaigne and Kergomard, section 7.4.6.1.) The oboe and bassoon, whose bores are conical but not to such an extreme, have this problem to a lesser extent, and the tips that follow apply to those instruments as well.

    For the best chance at successful low notes you need:

    • A well-adjusted, high-quality instrument. Even a small leak anywhere on the saxophone makes the lowest notes more difficult. And the best-designed and most meticulously-made instruments help to minimize the difficulties of the low range.
    • A good mouthpiece and reed combination. This may involve tradeoffs: a mouthpiece/reed combination that really improves the low register may, for example, make the highest notes more difficult. Since mouthpieces and reeds vary in so many ways it’s hard to make reliable generalizations, but often I find that a wider tip opening with a softer reed tend to favor the low register more (and the high register less).
    • Good, stable fundamentals of saxophone technique. Breath support, voicing, articulation, and embouchure (let’s include jaw position in embouchure here) should be properly set, and shouldn’t change for the low register. If you find that you need to increase breath support, lower your voicing, change your embouchure or tonguing, or open your jaw to make the low notes succeed, then you should probably already be doing those things, in every register. Don’t make the low notes even harder by creating a moving target.

    To expand on that last point a little, if you find that your low notes need a little extra help, then a small alteration to your voicing is the right way to provide it. But know the tradeoffs: lowering your voicing as you approach the low register affects pitch and tone, besides creating instability in your tone production technique. Manage these concerns by aiming for the smallest possible change.

    Practice smart. No shortcuts!

  • Naming the low E-flat (contrabass? contra-alto?) clarinet

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    Every so often I hear from people about what I call the E-flat contrabass clarinet (or “contrabass clarinet in E-flat”), such as in my woodwind doubling in musicals list or in my woodwind methods book. Some prefer the term “contra-alto” or even “contralto,” but I find “contrabass” to be the most accurate and useful description of the instrument.

    (One disadvantage of this terminology is always having to specify the key to differentiate it from the larger contrabass in B-flat.)

    First, let’s dispense with “contralto,” which describes a low female voice, typically in an opera setting. That misses the mark by a wide margin for an instrument whose range dips considerably lower than the lowest male voices.

    The use of “contra-alto” (with or without hyphen) seems to be based on the questionable idea that the prefix “contra-” means “an octave below.” My best guess is that this is a back-formation from the names of some other instruments, such as the contrabassoon (which happens to be pitched an octave lower than the bassoon). In any case, following this logic leads to the term “contra-alto” clarinet because it is pitched an octave below the alto clarinet (an instrument whose waning popularity makes it a questionable choice for a frame of reference). This logic then produces “contrabass” for the B-flat instrument, as it is pitched an octave below the bass clarinet.

    Various music dictionaries that I have at hand agree that the prefix “contra-” means “lower than,” but do not specify an octave lower, and most use contralto voice as an example. (If you have a counterexample from a published, music-oriented reference, I am interested to hear about it.) Based on this, “contra-alto” seems inapt—a contra-alto/contralto instrument should be just lower than the alto, and higher than tenor or bass.

    Problematically, of the three major current manufacturers, Buffet-Crampon and Leblanc list “contra alto” clarinets on their websites, and Selmer uses “contralto.”

    Here are some published usages of various names, listed from oldest to newest. Send me others if you know of any. It does seem to me that “contra-alto” becomes more common in the last quarter of the twentieth century, a trend that I consider undesirable (cf. “flautist”).

    Reference Nomenclature used Notes
    Waln, George E. “The Clarinet Choir.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. 2: 43. Article originally published 1955. E♭ contrabass
    Ayres, Thomas A. “Arranging for the Clarinet Choir.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1957. E♭ contrabass
    Cailliet, Lucien. “Cailliet Discusses the Contras.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Letter originally published 1961. E♭ contra-alto clarinet
    Hullfish, William R., and Jack Allen. “Examining a Versatile Instrument.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Letter originally published 1963. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Weerts, Richard K. “The Clarinet Choir of Yesterday and Today.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Letter originally published 1963. E♭ contra-alto clarinet Weerts uses “contra-alto” in this letter, but “contrabass” in subsequent articles listed here.
    Abramson, Armand R. “A Better Use of the Clarinet Choir.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1964. Contrabass clarinet The author does not specifically name the E-flat instrument, but refers to the “contrabass members of the clarinet family” (in the plural).
    Weerts, Richard K. “Clarinet Choir Music.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1964. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Weerts, Richard K. “The Contrabass Clarinet in the Modern Symphonic Band.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1964. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Rohner, Traugott. “The Bass and Contra-bass Clairnets are Misnamed.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1957. “So-called contrabass in E♭” The author makes a case that the instrument would be better called an E♭ bass clarinet (and the bass clarinet would be better called a baritone clarinet).
    Lawrence, Morris Jr. “The E♭ Contrabass Clarinet.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Letter originally published 1966. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Small, Terrence. “The Contra-Clarinets.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1968. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Weerts, Richard K. “The Clarinet Choir as a Functional Ensemble.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1969. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Rendall, F. Geoffrey. The Clarinet: Some Notes Upon Its History and Construction. 3d ed. Edited by Philip Bate. Instruments of the Orchestra. London: E. Benn, 1971. Contrabasset-horn in E flat The author clarifies that this does refer to the instrument in question here.
    Harmon, John M. “The Contra Clarinets: New Possibilities.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1978. E♭ contra-alto clarinet
    Heim, Norman. “The Clarinet Choir Phenomenon.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1979. E♭ contra-alto clarinet
    Donald E. McCathren. “Teaching and Playing the ‘Other Clarinets.'” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1983. E♭ contrabass clarinet
    Heim, Norman. “The Clarinet Choir.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1985. E♭ contra-alto clarinet
    Baines, Anthony. Woodwind Instruments and Their History. New York: Dover, 1991. Contrabass in E♭
    Baines, Anthony. “Contrabass clarinet.” In The Oxford Companion to Musical Instruments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. E♭ contrabass
    Jones, Brian D. “The E♭ Contra-alto Clarinet: Misunderstood and Overlooked.” Woodwind Anthology: A Compendium of Woodwind Articles from The Instrumentalist. Northfield, Illinois: Instrumentalist, 1999. Article originally published 1998. E♭ contra-alto clarinet
    Pino, David. The Clarinet and Clarinet Playing. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1998. E♭ contrabass The author allows that it is “sometimes called the ‘contra-alto’ clarinet.”
    Page, Janet K., K. A. Gourlay, Roger Blench, and Nicholas Shackleton. “Clarinet.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Edited by Stanley Sadie and J. Tyrrell. London: Macmillan, 2001. Contrabass clarinet, E♭
    Sadie, Stanley, and J. Tyrrell, eds. “Contrabass clarinet.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. London: Macmillan, 2001. Contrabass clarinet in E♭
    Randel, Don Michael, ed. “Clarinet.” The Harvard Dictionary of Music. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press, 2003. Contra alto clarinet in E♭
    Payne, Tim. “The Contrabass Clarinets.” In The Versatile Clarinet, edited by Roger Heaton. New York: Routledge, 2006. E♭ contrabass
  • Saxophone vibrato

    What is vibrato?

    Carl Seashore, in his In Search of Beauty in Music, defines “good” vibrato as “a pulsation of pitch usually accompanied by synchronous pulsations of loudness and timbre, of such extent and rate as to give a pleasing flexibility, tenderness, and richness to the tone.”

    Debate over saxophone vibrato

    Saxophone vibrato is a controversial topic for several reasons. In fact, some have questioned whether vibrato should be used at all. Paul Berler, in a 1996 Saxophone Journal article, notes that wind instrumentalists have only made serious study of vibrato in the last century. Robert Luckey points out in a 1983 article in Woodwind, Brass, & Percussion that “prominent saxophone teachers have equated their instrument with the human voice,” and that, since vibrato is accepted as a natural embellishment of the human voice, it should be accepted as a natural part of the saxophone tone. Read More “Saxophone vibrato”

  • Woodwind doubling and flute problems

    Many doublers start out as clarinetists or saxophonists, and many doublers would say that the flute is particularly challenging as a double. These phenomena are related. Let’s look at some of the issues woodwind doublers have with the flute. I’ll offer a sort of glib, inadequate tip or two for each situation, but the real solution here is to learn the flute right, with lots of patience, years of dedicated practice, and a well-qualified and longsuffering flute teacher.

    photo, Peri Apex
    photo, Peri Apex

    Lightheadedness, inability to play long phrases, fuzzy tone, weak low register. These are products of a too-large aperture (the opening in your lips). Single-reed players tend to have a mental image of a relatively large clarinet or saxophone mouthpiece held in their embouchures. Think instead of the actual opening between the tip of the reed and the tip of the mouthpiece—this is much closer to the size of opening you need to create in your lips. (Think especially of a high-pitched instrument like a clarinet or soprano saxophone, and a mouthpiece with a narrow tip opening.) Or try this: close your lips and relax them as much as possible, then blow gently until a tiny “needle” of air pokes through the center of your lips. That’s how much smaller your aperture needs to be.

    Thin/shrill tone, weak low register. The saxophone uses a medium voicing, and the clarinet uses a high voicing, but the flute uses a very low voicing. (Flute doublers coming from a double reed instrument or even a brass instrument have an advantage here.) Keep your airstream very warm, even in the highest register, to give your tone depth.

    Uneven intonation and tone. If you are counting on similarities between flute fingerings and clarinet or saxophone fingerings, then you are likely committing a number of flute crimes. F-sharp uses the right third finger, not middle finger. And you must master the ballet between the left index finger and right pinky finger, especially in the transition from first to second octave. (If middle-finger F-sharp and a lazy right pinky sound fine to you, it’s because your tone production technique and tone concept aren’t well developed yet.)

    No dynamic control. The typical problem is loud third octave, medium-loud second octave, and very soft first octave. This is a sure sign that you are trying to change octaves by blowing harder or softer. Your “octave key” on the flute is your flexible, well-trained embouchure. Instead of cranking up to gale force for the higher octaves, try pushing gently forward with your lips. (As a side note, if you find in doubling situations that your embouchure is tense and swollen when switching from reeds to flute, that’s a sign that you are playing reeds with too much tension.)

    Sluggish technique. There are two main problems here that doublers bring to the table. The first is the habit of moving relatively large, heavy, stiffly-sprung keys. A flute’s keys are small, light, and move with a feather touch. The second issue is insecurity in holding the instrument. It can be hard for a beginner to get the instrument properly balanced (laziness about fingerings can contribute to this, too), and that will slow you down. If the flute keeps trying to roll out of your hands, rotate it a few degrees so the bulk of the keywork sits right on top of the instrument.

    Sight-reading disasters in the third octave. Flutists play way up in the ledger lines as a matter of course. If you want to hang in the flute section, it’s time to learn to read those notes fluently. Stumbling around above the staff is also a sign that you haven’t really payed your dues technique-wise yet: you’re getting by within the staff because the fingerings are similar enough to saxophone and clarinet, but above the staff is a different story. Practice your scales and arpeggios.

    Good flute playing doesn’t come from casual “dabbling.” Take the flute seriously, study it diligently with good instruction, and it will be a joy to play and a boon to your doubling career.

One Comment

  1. Thus is why, when we conduct studies, all care must be taken to exclude the perceptions of those who may have bias. Not just double, but triple blind studies are needed. There once was a very well respected scientist who believed that water had memory because he conducted studies that apparently showed that water had memory. But after other scientists examined his methods they found that he had not conducted a triple blind study that would clearly take him out of the equation. So the reason why it sounds better is not because of craftsmanship – although that can be a reason why any flute sounds better – but rather what ideas, both conscious and subconscious, the instrumentalist brings to the process. I say whatever makes you play better, then that’s what matters. If you think you play better on a wood flute then, hey, play on a wood flute – but don’t fool yourself. If we continue to fool ourselves in the face of scientifically fic fact simply because WE don’t believe it or it’s not OUR experience, we end up in the situation where we have a culture susceptible to disinformation and conspiracy theories. It’s a slippery road when we pick and choose what facts of science we want and don’t want to believe. I take full responsibility for my words because I believe in the importance of being a rational thinking human being who can question my own beliefs. And when science tells me what I feel is wrong? I will make changes accordingly instead of being hard-headed about it.

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.