During a rare visit to a music store this week, I overheard a very young clarinetist asking a salesperson to help him locate some unusually stiff reeds. The salesperson was as surprised as was I that the young man was interested in such an extreme equipment choice—but apparently for different reasons.
“You must be very talented to have moved up to such stiff reeds already,” the salesperson told the beaming prodigy. “How impressive!”
To me, this is a little like congratulating someone on moving up to a larger hat size. “Oh, it’s nothing, really. I started out in a 7¼, but I worked really hard and now I’m ready for the 7½. But the real greats all wear at least an 8, so that’s where I want to end up.” Bigger isn’t better—you should wear whatever fits your head.
A clarinet or saxophone reed should be an appropriate fit to the mouthpiece. There are a number of factors that determine what strength of reed is right for a mouthpiece, but, in general terms, most mouthpieces with wider tip openings require softer reeds to get good response, and most mouthpieces with narrower openings need a stiffer reed for stability and dynamic range.
While each player is of course different, I think sometimes the factor of the individual embouchure is actually over-emphasized. The embouchure doesn’t and shouldn’t need unusual muscular strength to do its job—it requires delicacy and control. If you’re biting and straining against a too-stiff reed, you’re sacrificing both, and both you and your audience are suffering for it. For most mouthpieces, there is a narrow range of reed strengths that is about right, no matter how “strong” you are (or think you are).
There’s no such thing as “moving up” to a stiffer reed, just “moving” to a different strength to suit a new mouthpiece or to correct an error in your previous reed choice.
I’m not sure I can recall the last time I walked into a music store and bought something.
I hear every so often that I should support local businesses and mom-and-pop shops, and I have to admit that this sounds vaguely like a responsible and virtuous thing to do. But here’s why I don’t—and can’t.
It costs too much. Prices are inevitably higher in local stores. I understand that so-called “full-service” establishments have overhead, but so do I. If they can justify charging higher prices, it seems fair that I can justify shopping around.
They don’t stock what I need. Other than a few scattered specialty shops, local music stores stock what they can sell in volume, and that’s inexpensive instruments and accessories for the beginning band market. I live in a small town, but even in the fairly large cities where I have lived, I have, more frequently than not, been unable to get what I like. A few months ago I made a two-and-a-half hour drive to go saxophone shopping with a student at a large music store in a large city. The store was large enough to have a saxophone specialist on staff. The store regularly stocks one brand of (arguably) professional-quality saxophone (and it’s not Selmer, Yamaha, Yanagisawa, or Keilwerth), and had exactly two major-brand instruments available, used. We also contacted a small saxophone specialty shop that was a little farther away, one that actually has “saxophone” in the store’s name. They had zero pro-line horns in stock.
As far as I can tell, the “superior customer service” factor is largely a myth. I think most woodwind players have experienced the frustration of going into a music store and being “helped” by the heavy-metal guitarist behind the counter. And even in specialty shops, I’ve rarely found a salesperson who can answer serious questions with much more than regurgitated advertising copy or a personal opinion. And, while I don’t doubt that specialty retailers are passionate about what they do, it’s important to keep in mind that they are businesspeople and subject to motivations other than getting you the best possible product for the smallest possible price. Read More “Confessions of a mail-order shopper”
It’s very common for woodwind doublers to be saxophonists first, and approach the other woodwinds later, often because of the demands of flute/clarinet doubling in jazz big band music. So advice for woodwind doublers is often really advice for saxophonists playing secondary instruments. But when players of other woodwind instruments pick up the saxophone, there are some challenges that need to be addressed as well.
Tone production problems (pitch, tone, response). Assuming good breath support is in place (the same as with any other woodwind), these problems are probably caused by some combination of embouchure and voicing issues.
As with the other reed instruments, your embouchure should be airtight but not tight—just enough to close around the mouthpiece and reed, with your top teeth on the mouthpiece and your bottom lip in a neutral position (not rolled in or out). A tight embouchure constricts tone and reduces dynamic range.
The mouthpiece should angle up to your embouchure a little, but not at nearly as steep an angle as the clarinet or the oboe. Too steep an angle contributes to an uncharacteristic, slightly clarinet-like tone.
Use the paper trick to ensure you are taking in the right amount of mouthpiece. Taking in too much mouthpiece creates a wild, honky tone, and to little causes a stuffy, labored tone.
Voicing is tricky to get right on the saxophones. Flutists and double reed players are used to playing with a voicing essentially as low as it can go, and clarinetists use an embouchure essentially as high as it can go. Saxophonists need to hit a target somewhere in between. Daily mouthpiece pitch exercises are the best way to train this. Using a too-high voicing causes the thin, pinched sound and poor low-register response that expose you as a doubler coming from the clarinet. A too-low voicing causes a tubby tone, unstable pitch, and unresponsive high notes.
Fingering problems. The saxophone’s fingering system is in some ways the simplest and most intuitive of the modern woodwinds, but it has its share of problems. “Side” and “palm” keys are among them—they are awkward and imprecise to use, and take a great deal of practice to develop fluency. Similarly, movement between the pinky-finger keys using rollers, especially on the left hand, is problematic and requires diligent training. Scales and arpeggios, practiced though the instrument’s full standard range, are essential. Fluency in the saxophone’s middle register is comparatively easy, but the lowest notes (left-hand pinky) and highest notes (palm keys, especially left hand) are a real test of saxophone skill.
Style problems. For doublers approaching the flute, clarinet, or double reeds, a solid classical/orchestral approach to the instrument will cover most musical demands. Not so with the saxophone, which is often used in jazz or popular styles. To play these styles convincingly requires meticulous attention to tone, inflection, articulation, vibrato, and other subtleties. Doublers learning the saxophone would be wise to consider taking lessons both from “classical” and jazz teachers, and to do a great deal of listening and study of many styles of music.
Effective improvisation in various musical styles is a lifetime pursuit, and essential for serious saxophone gigging. Find a good teacher.
Jazz and classical setups. For saxophonists, playing in different styles sometimes requires different equipment. It’s common to have a classical mouthpiece and at least one jazz/pop mouthpiece, plus reeds to suit each. A classical mouthpiece often doesn’t have the volume, brightness, or punchy articulation needed for jazz or rock, and a jazz mouthpiece may not have the warm/dark tone, pitch stability, and subtle/soft dynamics for classical music.
Jaw vibrato. Jaw vibrato is a technique unique to the saxophone among the other woodwinds. (Clarinetists most often don’t use vibrato, and flutists and double reed players use a breath-pulse vibrato sometimes mislabeled as “diaphragm” vibrato.) Mastery of this skill takes good instruction and lots of practice. The saxophone vibrato needs to be fast, narrow, subtle, and fairly constant for most classical applications. Jazz players traditionally tend toward a slower, wider, terminal vibrato.
The saxophone is a valuable and rewarding double, and opens up many gigs that aren’t available to players of just the “orchestral” woodwinds. Give it serious study on its own terms and with an excellent teacher. Practice well!
I saw a blog post recently by a saxophonist who had been called upon to play some clarinet for a big band jazz gig. The post was full of common frustrations that saxophonists who are casual clarinet doublers face in that situation. I want to respond to some of the ideas in that post, but since it’s not my object to embarrass anyone I’m not going to name the saxophonist or link to the blog post. Also, the “quotes” I’m using here are actually paraphrases, but I believe they capture the saxophonist’s intended meaning.
The clarinet is evil! And it sounds like a dying animal.
I understand this is said in jest, but fear and/or contempt are not good starting points for approaching woodwind doubles. Either focus your energies on instruments you are motivated to play, or have an open mind. As with most things, you probably hate and fear the clarinet because you haven’t taken the time and effort to get to know it.
I’m actually pretty good at the bass clarinet, though.
I doubt it! There are plenty of saxophonists who claim they can play the bass clarinet but not the B-flat clarinet. In many, many of those cases, what the saxophonists mean is that they can use a very saxophoney approach to playing the bass clarinet—a too-low voicing, a too-horizontal mouthpiece angle, etc.—and make some kind of sound, whereas the smaller B-flat simply won’t cooperate at all with these bad techniques. Truly good bass clarinetists, however, produce a more characteristic sound because they play the instrument like what it is: a member of the clarinet family.
I dug up a fingering chart so I could do some practicing for my gig. Those pinky fingerings just don’t make any sense, plus you have to read a bunch of ledger lines.
A few months ago I shared a list of published opinions on how to avoid undertones on the clarinet.
Many of the ideas shared by the distinguished authors seemed like just descriptions of good basic clarinet technique (“ensure correct, stable embouchure formation,” “establish breath support/air pressure before releasing tongue”). I agree that the most important way to improve undertones is to have a solid baseline tone production technique. If you can play with a beautiful, characteristic tone, mostly in tune, with good response, then your undertones are probably mostly gone already.
I do have one small tip that I find helps a great deal with clearing up any remaining undertones, that wasn’t mentioned by any of the sources I consulted. My readers know I frequently discuss the importance of keeping voicing very stable, but as I have indicated previously that’s only one side of a multifaceted issue.
I have good success with lowering my voicing just a little bit in the upper clarion register. (I tell my students to think of warming the air by just a degree or two.) This seems to stabilize and clarify those notes.
As always, expect any change in voicing to have multiple consequences, for tone, pitch, and response. In the case of clarinet upper-clarion notes, I find a very slight lowering of my voicing to have only minimal and acceptable effects.
If anyone is aware of others teaching this technique, I would be curious to hear about it.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.
I’ve posted a few times previously about synthetic reeds, which I believe are the inevitable future of woodwind playing. Last June (2025) I published an article in The Clarinet surveying the clarinet reeds currently on the market.
Because The Clarinet doesn’t endorse specific products, I stuck to factual information about the reeds I sampled. Eight different makers sent samples, with the understanding that it wouldn’t be a “review” per se.
I personally found some of the reeds to be surprisingly playable, and others to be dismally bad. (To be fair, some other fine players tested them too, and their conclusions didn’t always match mine.) After the article was published, I reached out to a few of the makers to see if they would be amenable to me using the free samples they had sent for a genuine review here on my blog.
Luckily, the makers of my two favorites agreed to this, so here are some thoughts on those.
D’Addario Venn
D’Addario Woodwinds has sent me a number of products for review over the years, and I have been generally quite pleased with them; a number of their products are still my go-tos for clarinet and saxophone. But they are a relative newcomer to the synthetic reed market, and some first-generation samples I received a few years ago had (by a D’Addario rep’s admission) some quality concerns, so I wasn’t expecting to be wowed. But to my surprise and pleasure they turned out to be my favorites of the bunch (by a narrow margin).
For me, these were an easy transition from my cane reeds of choice (D’Addario Reserve and sometimes Reserve Evolution). A D’Addario representative tells me the Venn synthetics are not meant to be an exact reproduction of any of their cane reeds, but a new Venn-specific cut. Still, they were familiar enough in feel that I hardly noticed the difference, and came very, very close in sound.
In fact, after using the Venns exclusively in my studio for a few weeks, I felt confident enough to try them in an orchestral context. After playing part of a rehearsal on a Venn reed, I took advantage of a short break to switch back to a favorite cane reed for a quick comparison. To my dismay, another musician in the orchestra (a woodwind player but not a clarinetist) said, “now that’s a reed!”
The verdict: the Venn comes pretty close to replacing cane for me, and in terms of function (response, dynamic range, articulation, etc.) seems like an equal match. But tone, though quite good, doesn’t yet seem to fully measure up, at least not for me and my setup.
The Venn reeds look very much like real cane, in color and fibrous structure. In fact, they look so similar to cane reeds that I’ve had to be extra careful trying to keep them separate. I might welcome some distinctive marking to set them apart visually from cane.
The Venns are smoother and slicker than cane, which feels nice on my lip but does require a little extra care to make sure I get them properly aligned on the mouthpiece.
Légère French Cut
Légère reeds are what pop to mind for me, and I suspect a lot of others, when I think of synthetic reeds. They were the first really viable synthetics I tried, somewhere around 25 years ago, and I have always had some since. They have been a lifesaver especially for playing larger reeds in dry climates, or instruments I play less frequently, or for woodwind doubling situations. Their product line is mature and diverse, which is an advantage over D’Addario.
The French Cut is one of the newer models, and my favorite of the available offerings. Among the players who tested reeds with me, preferences were somewhat split between the French Cut and the also-newish European Cut.
I also spent a few weeks playing exclusively on the French Cut clarinet reed, and found it very pleasant and easy to play. Like the Venn, it checks all my boxes for function. I do find that with my setup the French Cut has a little different tone compared to Venn and my favorite cane reeds, but only a little, and not in an unpleasant way.
I did use the French Cut for performance in a musical theater setting, where I was playing only a small amount of clarinet and could get away with tone a little different from my usual. As expected for a synthetic reed, this was great for switching instruments without worrying about reeds drying out. (I used Légère bass clarinet and saxophone reeds on the same gig.)
For me, they run a very close second to the Venns in terms of function and tone, but it’s a narrow enough margin to probably chalk up to personal preference or the quirks of my mouthpiece.
Visually, they won’t be mistaken for cane—they are made in Légère’s characteristic clear synthetic material. I don’t mind the look, but if I’m careless about where I set one, it can be hard to spot from across the room. Their slightly textured surface gives them more of the grippy-ness of cane, which feels familiar on my lip and doesn’t require any special effort to place on the mouthpiece.
Both
The Venn and Légère synthetics, of course, both share the positive qualities of synthetic materials: longevity, consistency, and impervious-ness to climate. Both are instantly ready to play with no soaking. At the time of this writing, they seem to be selling for almost exactly the same price per reed, which is to say about the cost of a box of 10 cane reeds.
Both brands also make saxophone reeds, which I’ve dabbled with but haven’t had as much opportunity to test thoroughly.
Have I switched?
As I concluded in the article in The Clarinet, I do think that there are some quite viable options for switching fully to synthetic reeds for professional playing, and these two products are certainly among them. Some world-class players have already made the switch to using synthetics exclusively.
I personally haven’t. While I still believe synthetics are the future, I find myself in a transitional phase. I’ll keep both the Venns and the Légères on hand, and will likely continue to use both at least sporadically. But I’m not fully ready to give up my cane reeds yet.
I suspect both companies are continuing to refine and develop their product lines, and if their next rounds of offerings are even small improvements on the current products, that may be enough for me to switch over completely.
Or, if I decided the hassles of cane were too much, I might be able to switch to current synthetic products and adapt my playing to them. I live in a humid climate where I find cane reeds relatively easy to care for, but if I found myself performing in a drier atmosphere or higher altitude that might be enough to convince me to change. Even if I needed to change mouthpieces to get the best out of the synthetic reeds, it might well be worth it.
Should you switch?
I think it’s important to remember that someone else’s experiences with a product, including mine, are personal and based on a variety of factors, including what other equipment they use, the finer points of their playing technique, and many other musical and practical factors. The only good way to know if synthetics are right for you is to try them.
That’s also why I’m not including audio samples here. You will get much more useful information by trying them yourself. (And my experience in the orchestra rehearsal was a good reminder to me that it’s worth getting an unbiased opinion from someone with good ears.)
In any case, the high-quality synthetic reeds currently on the market are an exciting and promising development, and I look forward to what’s next.
My Fingering Diagram Builder has been around for a little over five years now. I was careful to name it the Fingering Diagram Builder instead of the Fingering Chart Builder because it is a tool for creating individual diagrams, not for assembling them into comprehensive fingering charts. But the difference can be a little confusing, so I get frequent questions from users who complain that they can’t figure out how to create and download a “chart” with multiple fingerings on it.
The reason I didn’t try to build a complete system for creating fingering charts is that I assumed users would have widely-varying needs, and would do better to assemble charts using some other kind of software. Here are a few examples of how that might be done, using music notation software, using a word processor, and using a text editor to create HTML code (such as for a website). All the software I’m using here is free to download on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, but whatever free or commercial programs you are already using probably have similar features. You’re on your own to work out the details (and feel free to share them in the comments if you are feeling helpful).
Creating a fingering chart in music notation software
I am using MuseScore here, but commercial software like Finale and Sibelius and other free software like LilyPond could be used in similar ways.
First I set up a musical “score” with the notes for the chart. I used whole notes, separated by double bar lines, but that’s up to you.
Next I created my fingering diagrams in the FDB. I sized the diagrams “tiny” with “thick” lines.
Adding the diagrams to the score is very simple in MuseScore—I just dragged the downloaded diagrams from my file manager right onto the score. If I drag the diagram and hover it on top of a note, that note gets highlighted. Then I can release the diagram and it attaches to the note.
Initially the diagrams are placed right on top of the note. I selected the diagrams and used the Inspector panel to give them a horizontal offset of -2.5sp and a vertical offset of -10.5 sp, which moved them above the staff, more or less centered above the noteheads. I adjusted the A and tenor B-flat fingerings’ horizontal offsets a bit more to make them look just right.
Here is the finished product, a small chart with a few bassoon fingerings:
Creating a fingering chart in word processing software
A few more little tweaks and here is the finished chart:
Creating an HTML fingering chart in text editing software
This code be used in any text editor or HTML source editor, and of course similar results could be accomplished with a visual/WYSIWYG editor. I’m not showing complete code here, just the most relevant parts.
I started with a framework for a table that I could use to show a note with two alternate fingerings. (This is a flute fingering chart with horizontally-oriented diagrams. For an instrument with vertically-oriented diagrams, you may want to rearrange things a bit.)
<table>
<tr>
<th rowspan=2><!— note image here —></th>
<td><!— first fingering image here —></td>
<td><!— first fingering text here —></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><!— second fingering image here —></td>
<td><!— second fingering text here —></td>
</tr>
</table>
I duplicated that code for additional notes. Since this is a sample alternate/trill fingering chart, each note has at least two fingerings. For notes with more fingerings, I added <tr>s and changed the rowspan values accordingly.
I also added a little CSS to spruce things up:
<style>
table {
display: inline-block; /* make tables wrap gracefully depending on screen width */
margin: 1em; /* put some space between tables for legibility/clarity */
}
th img {
max-width: 8em; /* manage size of note images */
}
</style>
Here is the result:
I hope that sparks a few ideas for you if you are considering putting together a fingering chart. If you have other methods or tips, please share in the comments section!
Thank you for the post. I remember being told that I was “moving up” to a 3 or a 3 1/2. That’s why when I entered college I was playing on a strength 4 reed on a Rascher mouthpiece. It took my college professor telling me that there was no such thing as “moving up.” I wish more band directors would stop using the term “moving up” so their students don’t get the wrong impression of better player = stronger reed. I am by no means an expert but I am just fine playing on my strength 3 reeds on my optimum mouthpiece. I felt like it was a little soft so I tried the new Rico Reserve 3+ but even those were too hard, so I will keep my wonderful strength 3.
I didn’t have this mentality specifically … but at one point I was killing myself playing tenor with a V16 8 HR, with Regotti (sp?) 4.5 hards. It just seemed like I couldn’t find that sound I was looking for no matter what, and although I was close-ish with this set up, I had to work sooooo hard all the time.
My private lesson prof for 2nd year had me do an experiment … he had me bring in my softest reed I could find and play on it for 30 minutes and then try my set-up again … I couldn’t even get a sound out.
After that lesson, and some experimenting, I settled on a late 80’s metal otto link 7 that had a little work done to it, with V16 3s and I couldn’t be happier.
Thank you for the post. I remember being told that I was “moving up” to a 3 or a 3 1/2. That’s why when I entered college I was playing on a strength 4 reed on a Rascher mouthpiece. It took my college professor telling me that there was no such thing as “moving up.” I wish more band directors would stop using the term “moving up” so their students don’t get the wrong impression of better player = stronger reed. I am by no means an expert but I am just fine playing on my strength 3 reeds on my optimum mouthpiece. I felt like it was a little soft so I tried the new Rico Reserve 3+ but even those were too hard, so I will keep my wonderful strength 3.
I completely agree with you both!
I didn’t have this mentality specifically … but at one point I was killing myself playing tenor with a V16 8 HR, with Regotti (sp?) 4.5 hards. It just seemed like I couldn’t find that sound I was looking for no matter what, and although I was close-ish with this set up, I had to work sooooo hard all the time.
My private lesson prof for 2nd year had me do an experiment … he had me bring in my softest reed I could find and play on it for 30 minutes and then try my set-up again … I couldn’t even get a sound out.
After that lesson, and some experimenting, I settled on a late 80’s metal otto link 7 that had a little work done to it, with V16 3s and I couldn’t be happier.