Recorder notation vs. band/orchestral woodwind notation

At the request of a reader, I’m going to try to clarify some things about notation for recorders. (I touched on it previously in an article about woodwind key nomenclature systems.)

Those of us who play modern band/orchestral woodwinds are familiar with a system in which, within a family of instruments, a notated pitch always corresponds to a certain fingering. No matter how large or small the instrument, the same fingering always corresponds to that same written pitch, even though the smaller instruments produce higher sounding pitches and the larger instruments produce lower sounding pitches. For example:

E-flat clarinet B-flat clarinet A clarinet Bass clarinet
Notated pitch
Fingering
Sounding pitch

This is convenient for clarinetists because, essentially, they only need to learn one set of fingerings to be (in that respect) prepared to play any instrument in the clarinet family. Note also that even the bass clarinet is notated in treble clef, as are its even lower cousins. All the major modern woodwind families (flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons, and saxophones) use this approach: consistent clefs, and consistent correspondence of notated pitch to fingering. The transposition is a function of the instrument’s size.

Because of the prevalence of this system in the Western woodwind tradition, it’s an understandable error to assume that the recorder family is notated in the same way. But recorders typically use a different system, in which each instrument is notated in concert pitch, and the fingerings change depending upon the instrument. Or, to be more precise, each instrument is notated in a sort of “concert pitch class,” since someĀ of the recorders are notated as transposing by one or more octaves, but a notated C always produces a sounding C. Bass recorder and lower are notated in bass clef. Here are the most common ones:

Descant (“soprano”) recorder Treble (“alto”) recorder Tenor recorder Bass recorder
Notated pitch
Fingering
Sounding pitch

Recorder players must learn twoĀ sets of fingerings, one with the instrument’s lowest note being C (for descant and tenor recorders), and one with the instrument’s lowest note being F (for treble and bass recorders), and must be prepared to read in two clefs.

The reader who contacted me described a musical theater situationĀ in which a part for treble recorder had been erroneously notated as if the recorder were a transposing instrument: the copyist treated the treble as a band/orchestral instrument “in F,” so the player had to use C fingerings to produce the correct pitches.

The reader asks:

Is this notation common practice in Broadway shows? It would seemĀ counter-productive to me; it’s both incorrect notation for the altoĀ recorder and also makes it more difficult to play the part on flute ifĀ necessary (as is surely often done). The only questionable benefitĀ would be making it slightly easier for someone who had only playedĀ soprano recorder to pick up an alto.

I’d love to hear your experience and opinions on the matter!

I have seen it done both ways. My preference is that recorders are notated with the non-transposing system for the sake of consistency with the existing recorder tradition; it doesn’t make sense to me to put the burden of adaptation on those who have actually made the effort to learn to play recorders properly. But for the sake of accessibility, it might be wise to provide some kind of ossia or cue notes, for recorder dabblers who either haven’t researched the instrument enough to know its tradition or haven’t spent the time in the woodshed to learn both sets of fingerings.

I hope that helps!

Similar Posts

  • Finding information for the Woodwind Doubling in Musicals list

    I continue to be amazed by all the interest in and support for my Woodwind Doubling in Musicals list. I hear frequently from musicians who have information to contribute or who just want to say hello or thanks. It’s pretty great.

    Over ten years ago(!) when I started putting the list together, I spent a good deal of time and effort compiling data. I don’t do that very much anymore, partly because I have already picked over the most obvious sources, partly because I want to focus more time on teaching and playing music, and partly because I get better information when I get emails from woodwind players down in the orchestra pits with the reed books in front of them.

    So these days my role in the list’s upkeep is basically that of editor, data-entry monkey, and mostly-benevolent dictator, and I count on you cool people to send me what you know. In the interest of encouraging and facilitating that, I’m going to dump here (in alphabetical order) some potential resources for gathering information. Maybe some of you know of other sources that you would like to share in the comments section. (I’ll selectively edit them into this post.) Enjoy!

    Woodwind Doubling in Musicals

    Show publishers, rental companies, etc.

    Sometimes these websites list woodwind doublings. You might find that information under something like “orchestration,” or under something like “rental materials.” The information is often vague and has errors, but it’s a start. (Also, keep in mind that I do want submissions for shows that have no reed books, since a verified lack of reed parts can be useful to doublers.)

    Information on specific productions

    Sometimes in sources like this you can find the orchestra personnel, sometimes with their instruments listed. Or you may be able to use this information to, say, Google the orchestra members and possibly get in touch through a personal website or social media account. Please be super considerate and respectful of people’s time and privacy.

    Miscellaneous

    • Google and social media sites. Sometimes people post information from productions, photos of program pages, etc. Sometimes musicians put a brag list on their personal websites of what shows they have played. Or, sometimes you can find out something like a musical director’s name, get in touch, and ask for information (maybe the doubling information itself, or maybe a connection to the woodwind players). Again, be incredibly sensitive about hitting up strangers on the internet.
    • Musical Theatre Reed Book Orchestrations [update: link dead] – I believe this one actually precedes my list, though I didn’t discover it until mine was already online. I don’t think it has been updated in a number of years.

    Have information to submit? Check out the contribution guidelines and send it along. Thanks, you’re awesome.

  • Synthetic reeds are probably the future

    I was pleased to receive recently some samples of D’Addario Woodwinds’s new “Venn” synthetic clarinet and saxophone reeds. In an upcoming post, I’ll share some thoughts about and demonstrations of the specific products. But here are a few thoughts to set the stage:

    • I’m thrilled to see a major cane reed manufacturer like D’Addario take on this challenge. My hunch is that other major reed makers are either close at their heels or betting on musicians’ provincial thinking about modern materials. Let’s hope it’s the former.
    • I am a strong believer that synthetic reeds are the future. Modern science has invented amazing materials for clothing and smartphone screens and space travel; we can invent something that works great for reeds. Natural cane isn’t sacred or magical—it’s a material with upsides and some very clear downsides.
    • It’s easy to fall into the trap of trying something like a synthetic reed and asking the question, “does this synthetic material sound as good as cane?” And, if the reed doesn’t play as well as one’s usual cane reeds, to answer the question with a no, and perhaps to further opine that nothing can ever sound as good as “real” cane. But that knee-jerk reaction fails to take into account all the other things we already know about reeds, such as that their geometry matters a great deal, and that their match to the mouthpiece is equally crucial. We’ve all found the reed-plus-mouthpiece combinations that work for us, and introducing any random new reed (cane or synthetic) isn’t especially likely to improve the situation. The better question to ask is, “Is this a viable reed?” In other words, does it function like a reed should, when paired with an appropriate mouthpiece: with appropriate response, stability, and characteristic tone, regardless of whether it is my new personal favorite?
    • Assuming there are viable synthetic reeds available, it may make sense to adopt them and claim all the potential benefits (consistency, longevity, resistance to warping, reduced waste, cost savings), and, if necessary, seek out new mouthpieces that are well suited to them. I have mouthpieces I like, but if I can replace them and never have to deal with the problems of cane again, that seems like an option well worth considering.

    Zealous loyalty to “traditional” materials isn’t a virtue. (If you’re a woodwind player like me, there’s a good chance your equipment already includes materials that are “new” since the instrument’s invention anyway.) Keep an open mind!

  • Which instrument should I learn next?

    Photo, Jon Delorey

    One of the questions I get most frequently from aspiring woodwind doublers is “Which instrument should I learn next?”

    The short answer is “Whichever you want.” Woodwind doublers’ motivations (career, artistic, or personal) are varied, and your interests and goals should override any advice I (or anyone) can offer. If you really want to learn to play a certain instrument, then no need to read further—that’s the one you should tackle next. And if you don’t feel motivated about a certain instrument, then your chances of success aren’t good.

    But many of the doublers I hear from have designs on picking up several instruments over the long term, and are just looking for advice to maximize some aspect of their current careers:

    Employability

    If your goal is to get as many doubling gigs as possible, then there are some relatively common combinations of instruments that are used for musical theater, jazz big bands, and other commercial-type live-performance situations. (If you play another combination, then there are probably still opportunities out there if you find them or make them yourself.) Some of the common ones are:

    • Flute, clarinet, and saxophone. For jazz situations, you need good saxophone chops coupled with a good grasp of jazz style and possibly improvisation. If doubling is required, it will almost always be C flute, B-flat clarinet, or both, and often the bar isn’t terribly high on these. For theater, you will find that the weighting depends on the show and the book; often the Reed 1 and Reed 2 books both call for flute, clarinet, and saxophone, but Reed 1 might have the lead flute parts and solos, and Reed 2 is the lead/solo clarinet part. If it’s a jazz-heavy musical, then either part might call for orchestral-type soloing on flute or clarinet, plus demand convincing lead alto saxophone playing. Theater books are also likely to call for doubling on “secondary” instruments like piccolo, E-flat clarinet, and soprano saxophone.
    • Low reeds. In a jazz big band, this means primarily baritone saxophone with some bass clarinet (and occasionally B-flat clarinet and/or flute). For theater, a more “classical” show will likely be bassoon-heavy, with bass clarinet and baritone saxophone doubles; a jazzy show will lean toward baritone saxophone and bass clarinet with less (or no) bassoon. Bass saxophone and contrabass clarinets occasionally appear as well; most smart arrangers will provide ossia lines to enable covering these on more standard instruments.
    • Oboe specialist. This surprising combination shows up in many musicals: oboe, sometimes with English horn, plus B-flat clarinet and tenor saxophone. Generally the oboe and English horn parts call for a soloist-level player, with little more than inner harmonies on the single reed instruments.
  • Breath support, register breaks, and resistance

    A few months ago I wrote this about the clarinet:

    IfĀ breath support, embouchure, andĀ voicingĀ are correctly established, then Crossing the Dreaded Break ceases to be a Thing. It’s just another note: a moment ago you were playing B-flat, and now you are playing B-natural. As long as your fingers get where they are supposed to go, then that’s all there is to it.Ā Personally, I don’t even use the word ā€œbreakā€ with a beginning student—there’s no need to get them all uptight about what really is a non-event.

    My point was that crossing a register break is merely a fingering issue, and shouldn’t be turned into a big to-do about embouchures and equipment purchases and so forth. And I stand by that, but there is something I glossed over a bit that perhaps ought to be revisited in more detail, and that applies to register break crossings on all woodwind instruments.

    The point that I want to return to is that of breath support. If it, and some other basic tone-production matters, are “correctly established,” then break-crossing is indeed nothing more than a new fingering or two. But assuming that breath support is 100% correct with a student just reaching the break-crossing stage is often a mistake.

    Each note on the clarinet (and on any woodwind) has a certain level of resistance—that is to say, it requires a certain amount of air pressure to get the air column vibrating. Some notes are more resistant, and some are less resistant. As a sort of general oversimplification, we might assume that a long-tube note (with more toneholes closed) is more resistant than a short-tube note (with more toneholes open). Other factors do apply, of course: the size of the toneholes, whether the fingering is a “forked” fingering, and more, but let’s isolate tube length for the moment. So for the clarinet, having a break between A-sharp and B, we would expect to see this kind of resistance change while crossing the break:

    Taller grey bar = higher resistance
    Taller grey bar = higher resistance

    (Note that the bar graphs here are strictly illustrative and not based on any real measurements.)

    A beginner who is accustomed to the lower resistance of a few chalumeau-register notes might have intuitively developed just enough breath support to make those notes respond. When he or she attempts to cross the break, the breath support isn’t enough to overcome the increased resistance: Read More “Breath support, register breaks, and resistance”

  • 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!

  • Not making your own double reeds

    I’ve posted a few times over the past year about making double reeds (cf. here, here, and here), and I maintain that this is the truest way to abiding oboe/bassoon satisfaction. If you consider those instruments to be serious parts of what you do as a musician, you need to learn to make—or at least skillfully adjust—reeds.

    But, frankly, not everyone is up to the challenge.

    The basic reedmaking process can be learned within a few lessons, but developing the skills well enough to make good reeds consistently can take years, and most reedmakers will continue to develop and modify their approach over a lifetime.

    Reedmaking is expensive, too. A set of the most basic tools for making reeds from preprocessed (gouged, shaped, and, for bassoon, profiled) cane costs as much as several boxes of clarinet or saxophone reeds, and the cane doesn’t come cheap, either. If you want the control of doing your own gouging, shaping, and so forth, the additional equipment may cost you nearly as much as a pro-line clarinet.

    And, of course, reedmaking takes time. I’ve heard the “rule of thumb” that an oboist, for example, should spend an hour making reeds for every hour he or she spends practicing. I don’t know that I agree entirely, but you get the idea of what kind of commitment is involved.

    So, if I’ve now talked you out of making your own reeds, what are your options?
    Read More “Not making your own double reeds”

4 Comments

  1. Nice explanation! Just to add a bit, this system is the most visible remnant of an older Western woodwind tradition. Other instruments arranged in consorts – shawms, dulcians, crumhorns, etc. – work the same way. Anything an instrumental ensemble would’ve played in the Renaissance was likely written as vocal music anyway, so the idea of a transposed part wouldn’t have made sense.

    This makes me wonder – what was the first transposing woodwind instrument family (not counting octave displacement)? Clarinets?

      1. It’s hard to tell. The ancesters of the oboe and the bassoon (resp. the shawm and the dulcian) were declined in several sizes from soprano to bass. As we know today, only the small versions of the shawms were upgraded to become the oboes we know and only the low version of the dulcian was upgraded to the bassoon we know. I have no idea why it was done that way and not another, but I think we were that close to read oboe litterature in bass clef and playing bassoon in treble clef.

        Now I guess those instruments used the system Bret described in this article so it doesn’t really count as transposing instrument but there’s research to be done about this.

  2. I think some of the confusion may come from variations in the different musical “worlds”. In the Renaissance world, instruments “in C” are instruments for which their lowest is C. Instruments “in F” have their lowest note as F. It would be easy to assume that these are transposing instruments, which is probably what happened with the Broadway score. However, they should be notated at pitch, there isn’t any actual transposition involved.

    (although Renaissance wind players did sometimes transpose in consort settings in order to avoid playing instruments tuned a fifth apart, but this would have simply meant you played C fingerings on F and visa versa)

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.