Rediscovering the clarinet’s left-hand sliver key

I think for many doublers the clarinet’s left-hand “sliver” key seems useless or problematic. For example, the sliver key is easy to press by mistake when intending to cover the middle and/or ring finger holes. And even when reaching for the sliver on purpose, it’s easy to accidentally cover part of the ring finger hole, producing an E-flat or B-flat that is flat and stuffy.

The left-hand sliver also lacks any real analogue on any of the other common woodwinds, so its use is a technique that doesn’t transfer easily from another instrument. Flutes, saxophones, and standard bassoons don’t have any key in that spot. The oboe has a trill key there, but its usage isn’t similar. Among the standard band/orchestral woodwinds, only the contrabassoon has a key positioned here that is used in a similar way to the clarinet family. Especially for saxophonists, the right-side fingering is much more familiar.

The Woodwind Fingering Guide (still the best fingering source on the web) lists three E-flat/B-flat fingerings in its standard clarinet fingering chart, with only the right-side-key fingering marked as “basic.” The left-hand-sliver fingering is described as a “Chromatic and trill fingering,” to “use in combination with D4 [D below the staff] and A5 [A above the staff].” (The “one and one” fingering using both index fingers is also listed, though it might perhaps be better relegated to the “alternate” fingering chart.)

Occasionally I’ve run across the attitude that the sliver key could perhaps be removed or wedged shut to prevent accidental venting. I think this would be a waste, and all clarinetists of an intermediate level or higher should get used to using this key as an equal partner with the right hand key—not merely as an alternative for rare occasions.

Here are a couple of examples from well-known solo repertoire where the left-hand sliver makes sense:

From Debussy, Première Rhapsodie. Click to enlarge.

In this example from Debussy, the E-flat occurs four times, each time preceded by E-natural, and followed in three cases by D—this is the aforementioned “chromatic” usage. Among the three most-common E-flat fingerings, the sliver is clearly the best technical choice here. While one-plus-one works equally well (from a technical standpoint) moving from E to E-flat, E-flat to D is compromised by having  to move two fingers, each on a different hand, each moving in a different direction; the intonation issues of one-plus-one further complicate its use. The right-hand-side fingering is less hairy, but does involve moving fingers on both hands simultaneously (a maneuver which should, of course, be possible, but which carries unnecessary risk of mistiming).

From Finzi, Five Bagatelles. Click to enlarge.

This excerpt from the first of Finzi’s Five Bagatelles highlights some other use cases. In the second measure of rehearsal number 4, a well-trained clarinetist will use the two lowest right trill keys for G-flat, which would make a transition to one-plus-one or right-side E-flat unnecessarily awkward, particularly since the E-flat then moves right back to G-flat. The sliver key allows for crisp, tidy finger movements. In the last two measures of this excerpt, the sliver key again constrains the fingers to similar motions in adjacent fingers of a single hand.

If you are new to the use of the left-hand sliver (or just a little rusty), I suggest conditioning its use for both E-flat and B-flat with slow, deliberate scale practice. Start with the chromatic scale and B-flat major, then look for appropriate places to use it in other major and minor scale material.

Similar Posts

  • Clarinet and saxophone embouchures and the “chin”

    The chin is much-discussed in clarinet pedagogy. Keith Stein suggests a “stretching” of the chin, making it feel “long and pointed” and “rather hard.” David Pino, a student of Stein’s, echoes this. Jane Ellsworth describes a chin that is “drawn downward” (while the jaw provides a “controlled” “upward pressure.” Michele Gingras advocates a “flat” chin. Bil Jackson indicates that the chin “flattens naturally” when the lip configuration and voicing are correct. Tom Ridenour explains that the chin should be “down and flat” and that this happens “virtually automatically” as a result of proper voicing.

    The chin gets somewhat less attention in saxophone teaching, but some pedagogical examples can be found. Larry Teal indicates that the “chin muscles” should support the lower lip (as the jaw drops downward), and Timothy McAllister agrees. Tracy Heavner recommends that the chin muscles be “held flat against the chin” with a sensation of those muscles “pushing … down and away from the body.” Brian Utley advocates a “firm but relaxed [chin] position.”

    Most of these sources seem to generally agree that the “chin” (or something) must be flattened or stretched or firmed in some way. Let’s look more closely at exactly what is being described, and how it does or doesn’t differ from the clarinet to the saxophone.

    “Chin” is probably not a specific enough term for our purposes. Is it a bony structure? a muscular one? The pedagogical literature is rather unclear and contradictory about exactly how the “chin” moves, and even whether it is actively engaged or whether its movement is a result of some other thing moving.

    Additionally, there is a common misconception in single-reed teaching that the lower lip forms a “cushion,” without which the teeth would contact the reed. This creates an embouchure that is formed by pressure from the jaw, with the lips serving passively as a gasket, and the lower lip taking quite a bit of abuse from the lower teeth.

    A better way to form the embouchure is to bring the jaw (and teeth, and chin) down, away from the reed, and allow the muscles of the lips to form the embouchure. This moves the effort from the larger, stronger jaw muscles to the smaller but more supple muscles of the lips (of the citations above, Teal’s describes this the most clearly). For early beginners (or those who have played for many years with unnecessary jaw pressure and the resulting shredded lower lip) it may be necessary to gradually develop a little endurance in those muscles.

    Taking this approach, it becomes clear that the pointing/stretching/whatever, which is actually mostly jaw movement, must be more extreme for the clarinet than for the saxophone, to accommodate the clarinet’s steeper angle.

    Left: clarinet jaw position (more open). Right: saxophone jaw position (less open).
    Left: clarinet jaw position (more open). Right: saxophone jaw position (less open). Note that the lower teeth clear the reed; the lip will rise to meet the reed and form a muscle-based (rather than jaw/teeth-based) embouchure.

    However, the chin area does have muscles, too, and these play an additional role. The lower lip has an acoustical damping effect on the reed, which plays a role in response, tone quality, and volume. Pulling the muscles around the chin downward around its bony structure (this is independent of jaw movement!) firms the lip slightly, reducing the damping. Allowing the muscles to relax softens the lip, increasing the damping. To take an oversimplified view of one aspect of this, we could say generally that the smaller clarinet requires a slightly firmer lip (and thus less damping) to accommodate its higher frequencies (pitches), while the larger saxophone needs less firmness (more damping) to accommodate its lower ones. Note that firmness of the lower lip should not be confused with overall embouchure “tightness.”

    Understanding better the anatomical and acoustical aspects of the “chin” (and, of course, the skeletal and muscular systems that combine there) lead to clearer, more accurate teaching and better single reed playing.

  • Woodwind Doubler Census 2021 results, part 1: demographics

    Thanks to all who participated in my 2021 woodwind doubling survey, and to those who helped spread the word. I’m releasing the results in installments, so be sure to use my social media links, RSS feeds, etc. to keep up.

    I got 284 responses, an improvement over 2011’s 187. The numbers for each of these questions don’t necessarily add up to exactly that number, since not everybody responded to every question.

    Gender identity

    I provided more options for gender identity than in 2011’s survey. Here’s the breakdown. (Percentages are of those who answered the question.)

    2021 Data
    Male 222 78%
    Female 49 17%
    Female, Transgender 1 ~0%
    Nonbinary/nonconforming 10 4%
    Transgender, Nonbinary/nonconforming 1 ~0%

    2011 Data
    Male 146 78%
    Female 41 22%

    Age

    As was the case 10 years ago, the numbers skew toward the younger end. I’m not sure if this is affected by the survey being distributed primarily online. No respondents claimed to be younger than teenaged or older than in their 70s.

    2021 Data
    Teenage 22 8%
    20s 72 25%
    30s 67 24%
    40s 40 14%
    50s 41 14%
    60s 35 12%
    70s 6 2%

    2011 Data
    Younger than 20 19 1%
    20s 54 10%
    30s 31 29%
    40s 36 17%
    50s 33 19%
    60s 12 18%
    70s 1 6%

    Region

    I provided options for this that broke down by continent. A few of you island dwellers responded with “other” and specified locations in Oceania and the Caribbean. I probably need to rethink this question for 2031, but for purposes of data reporting I have lumped everyone together into continents for now.

    The continued absence of responses from Africa and South America may be related to language barriers and/or other factors. I did get a few responses from Asia this year, which I didn’t in 2011.

    2021 Data
    Asia 3 1%
    Australia 11 4%
    Europe 20 7%
    North America 249 88%

    2011 Data
    Australia 11 6%
    Europe 12 6%
    North America 162 87%

    Which of these best describes where you live?

    The “city, but not a ‘major’ one” option was added based on feedback from the 2011 survey. A few of you used the “other” option to explain more complicated living situations (such as multiple locations), and for reporting purposes I’ve taken the liberty of lumping those into the categories I thought were the closest match.

    2021 Data
    major city or metropolitan area 127 45%
    city, but not a “major” one 69 24%
    suburb or exurb 63 22%
    rural or remote area 24 8%

    2011 Data
    major city or metropolitan area 93 50%
    suburban area 66 35%
    rural or remote area 23 12%
    other 5 3%

    Describe your current level of formal education (in any field).

    “Less than high school diploma” is a new option this yea. The categories in the graph are abbreviated; the full text from the survey is in the data table.

    2021 dATA
    Less than high school diploma 8 3%
    High school diploma or equivalent 6 2%
    Some college 33 12%
    Bachelors degree 70 25%
    Some graduate school 18 6%
    Masters degree 103 37%
    Doctorate 38 13%
    Other degree type or comparable certification 6 2%

    2011 Data
    High school diploma or equivalent 8 4%
    Some college 28 15%
    Bachelors degree 59 32%
    Some graduate school 16 9%
    Masters degree 53 28%
    Doctorate 16 9%
    Other degree type or comparable certification 6 3%

    Thanks again for your participation and stay tuned for more survey results.

  • |

    Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 8: final comments

    I decided to leave a space in the survey for general comments, and many of you took the time to remark on a variety of subjects. Many of them were directed to me personally or seemed otherwise non-public in nature, so I’m not going to list them all, but I’ll share a few and summarize the rest.

    Some of you politely made suggestions on how the survey could be better:

    • There’s a big gap between “casual dabbler” and “semi-pro”. I suggest an additional category: “serious amateur” or something like that.
    • It would be good to have a skill level between casual dabbler and music major (something along the lines of “good amateur”). As the poll currently is, it suggests that I play recorder to the same standard as sax. I would consider my recorder and flute playing better than “not at all” but my sax and clarinet playing not to be at the level of “music major”, hence they all closest to “casual dabbler”. I guess it’s too late to change the poll now, but I thought I’d offer my opinion anyway :).
    • maybe ask music arranging abilities. Small ensemble writing for different woodwinds is necessary in my working fields.
    • Not sure what your intent is with this data, but I do think that there are some fields that would be nice to have/know of (of course maybe for the next time you do this)…  For example,
      -“what do you consider your strongest/primary instrument”,
      -consider having three columns in the instruments section like:  own/play/don’t own
    • Didn’t know how to answer some of the questions because I’m still a high school student

    I think these are all good suggestions, and ones that I would probably take if I could do the survey over. (At this point I have no specific plan for future surveys, but haven’t ruled the idea out, either.) Read More “Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 8: final comments”

  • Ask yourself these questions before becoming a woodwind doubler

    For me, there was a point in my education and career when I decided that I was a woodwind doubler, or at least that I was going to be one. Prior to that decision, I had really identified as a saxophonist, or maybe a saxophonist who doubled a little on the side.

    If you are thinking that serious woodwind doubling—committing to playing several instruments at the highest possible level—might be your thing, then I suggest you ask yourself these questions:

    • Am I willing to commit major practice time to each instrument?
    • Am I willing to accept a slower rate of improvement and/or more extensive practice routine than I would if I remained committed to a single instrument?
    • Am I willing to sacrifice or at least postpone some high-level performance goals on my primary instrument in order to devote time to my secondary instruments?
    • Do I have the resources and/or financial discipline to accumulate the necessary high-quality instruments and other equipment?
    • Do I have the guts to perform on instruments that aren’t my strongest one(s)?
    • Am I genuinely interested in and motivated by each of the instruments I intend to play?
    Photo, stonelucifer
    Photo, stonelucifer

    If you answered “no” to one or more, then you might be happier and more successful maintaining a single “primary” instrument, and taking a more casual approach to doubling. Or you may not have fully come to terms yet with the realities of woodwind doubling. Playing any one instrument well requires non-trivial investment of time and money, and very little of that can be truly recycled for a second instrument: if it takes you 10,000 practice hours to achieve your goals on your first instrument, expect to take another 10,000 to achieve the same goals on another.

    There are of course many advantages to woodwind doubling, which I won’t rehash in depth here other than to list a few: more and/or different employment opportunities, expanded musical experiences, and, for some, great fun. But it’s not for everyone (probably not for most people). If your answer is “yes” to each of the questions above, then carve out some extra practice time, start saving your pennies, and clear your calendar for some new opportunities.

  • Connecting observations to techniques

    If you are teaching a woodwind methods course, you might be interested in my book.

    In my woodwind methods class, I try to create lots of opportunities for students (future instrumental music educators) to practice observing woodwind playing and giving feedback. For the feedback to be useful, it needs to connect an observation to a technique. Here are some examples of what not to do:

    Observation without technique

    “Your tone sounds good.”

    “Your intonation is problematic.”

    “There are response issues.”

    First, it’s important that an educator can articulate their observations with clarity and detail. What is “good” about the student’s tone? (Are you saying that it is characteristic? That it is consistent from note to note?) What is problematic about their intonation? (Is it flat overall? sharp overall? Is it unstable over the course of a phrase? over the course of a single note?) What “issues” are there with response? (Notes responding late? Notes responding with extraneous noise?)

    But once the problem or success is clearly identified, it still isn’t of much use unless it comes with a recommendation.

    “Your tone is very consistent. Nice work using steady breath support.”

    “Your pitch is scooping upward into each note—be sure to articulate with just the tip of the tongue so your voicing remains stable.”

    “Let’s see if a softer reed will allow your notes to respond more quickly and clearly.”

    Technique without observation

    “Try relaxing your embouchure.”

    “Use more breath support.”

    “Keep your fingers close to the keys.”

    Barking orders without explanation might produce some short-term results, but when students know what result you’re trying to produce they can be proactive.

    “Remember, you can get that bigger, clearer sound if you relax your embouchure.”

    “Use more breath support so those high notes will be up to pitch.”

    “You’re having trouble covering the toneholes because your fingers are starting from too far away. Keep them closer so they can find the holes more easily.”

    When my students learn to give feedback that connects their specific, precise observations with clearly-taught techniques, they are preparing for fruitful lessons and rehearsals with their own future students.

  • Irish flute/whistle ornamentation symbols à la Grey Larsen, in Lilypond

    If you are nerdy/awesome enough to be into (1) the pedagogy of Irish traditional woodwind playing and (2) open-source text-based music notation software, then you may want to check out my set of symbols for Lilypond, based on the excellent ornamentation system by Grey Larsen. You can get the .ily file on GitHub (and submit your pull requests to make improvements to my code).

    Cuts, strikes, rolls, cranns, etc.
    Cuts, strikes, slides, rolls, cranns, etc.

    If you are unfamiliar with Mr. Larsen’s system and you play pennywhistles or wooden flutes, then really I must insist that you buy a copy of his The Essential Guide to Irish Flute and Tin Whistle immediately—his ornamentation system is clear and logical and should be regarded as the standard for teaching and learning Irish-traditional ornamentation for wind instruments.

    If you are unfamiliar with Lilypond, chances are good that you won’t like it even though it’s free and produces much better notation than the software you already spent several hundred dollars on.

    Also, it’s worth noting that Chris Throup already had a similar idea a few years ago. Mine is a bit more complete, but his is really simple.

    Sláinte!

6 Comments

  1. An interesting little piece, Bret. Personally, I never use the ‘one plus one’ fingering for e-flat, as it’s dreadfully out of tune and it requires movements of both hands on both the upper and lower joints of the instrument at the same time. I do use that fingering as a higher register b-flat, though, but only with certain arpeggios that are very fast.

  2. Interesting, Bret, to hear that this useful key has fallen into disuse or out of favor by clarinetists. I was taught this “sliver” fingering early on by my teacher Frederick Westphal, who introduced it in private lessons and in beginning woodwinds classes; and I have told students about its values and uses all my career. (Westphal also advocated the use of the Ring Key over the LH third finger hole, which is not found on most beginner clarinets, but it very useful. )

  3. I’ve generally considered the sliver fingering to be the default fingering for Eb/Eb on clarinet for a couple reasons.

    1. It keeps the motion in one hand for certain scalar patterns that you’re likely to see in many of the common key signatures.

    1. The intonation is generally a little more consistent than the side fingering. The thickness of the cork on the spatula of SK1 determines the opening of the key, and is regulated by the position of a small post on the lower joint. Since cork tends to settle over time, the opening of side Eb/Bb will continue to get wider as this happens. It also varies depending on how well you line up the bridge keys between the two joints. I would be willing to bet that most of you will find your side fingering to be a 5 – 10 cents higher than the sliver fingering. It will probably be more out of tune in the upper register due to the way that how the tone hole lattice reacts to the harmonic series.

  4. I use the L sliver key more on bass clarinet than soprano.

    It is more comfortable in the hand and more often helpful in physical terms because of the size of the instrument.

    I did not use on soprano clarinet until undergrad for 3rds in G-flat(F#).

  5. I have always used the chromatic eb key, but…..I am currently doubling on Eb clarinet (West Side Story, followed by a run of Assassins in October) a lot and Hadcock tells of removing the left sliver from his Eflat clarinet….and frankly, as tight as the keys are, I don’t know I use it on that instrument.

    Comments on removing from the eefer?

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.