The purpose of this, of course, is to help the students develop good aural concepts of tone, phrasing, expression, vibrato, ensemble, and so forth. To try to learn to play an instrument well without a solid aural concept is like trying to learn a foreign language from a textbook. You might pick up a few things, but you’ll be sunk unless you get to really hear—over and over—how the words and phrases sound.
I’m discovering that it’s a challenge to make the recording selections meet all the criteria I’d like. For example, I would like for each one to:
Be by a major soloist, preferably living
Contain very standard literature that my students should know, without too many repeats from previous selections
Contrast with last semester’s selection (for example, if last semester’s recording was music with piano, I tried to pick a concerto recording this time around)
If at all possible, contribute to a sense of diversity
The last one has been a challenge. So far my two-semester tally, selecting recordings for four different instruments, is six white men and two white women. I’d like to improve on that in the future, though I do think that, ultimately, what comes through the earphones is more central to this project than the colors or genders represented on the CD covers. I’ve got a few ideas for future selections and welcome additional suggestions.
Here are this semester’s selections:
Oboe: Nancy Ambrose King Plays Oboe Concertos
Repertoire: Concerti by Mozart, Goosens, Vaughan Williams, and Martinů.
Clarinet: Paul Meyer, French Clarinet Art
Repertoire: Sonatas by Saint-Saëns and Poulenc, Chausson Andante et Allegro, Debussy Petite Pièce and Première Rhapsodie, Milhaud Sonatine and Duo Concertant, and Honegger Sonatine.
Bassoon: Dag Jensen, Musique pour Basson er Piano
Repertoire: Tansman Sonatine and Suite, Koechlin Sonate and Trois Pièces, Dutilleux Saraband et Cortège, and various short pieces by Bozza, Bitsch, and Mihalovici.
Saxophone: Claude Delangle, Under the Sign of the Sun
Repertoire: Ibert Concertino da Camera, Tomasi Concerto, Ravel Pavane pour une Infante défunte, Maurice Tableaux de Provence, Schmitt Légende, Milhaud Scaramouche.
The book includes seven studies for doubler playing flute, clarinet, and alto saxophone. It also includes a piano accompaniment book, with piano part recordings included. This is an elegant solution to one of the problems of woodwind doubling etudes: how do you enforce quick instrument switches? Chris Vadala’s book provides rests and trusts you to observe them. Gene Kaplan’s duo book pairs you with another woodwind doubler. Saunders’s book, used with the recordings, provides a simple way to work out quick switches alone in a practice room. (For a real-world challenge, cue up the recordings in a playlist, and sight-read the book beginning to end with no breaks between etudes.)
Saunders’s tunes are fun and musically satisfying—to my tastes, the best among the doubling etude books so far. Styles are what you might find in contemporary rock/pop-based musical theater. Here is a quick-and-dirty demo of etude #3, “How Cool Can You Be:”
Mr. Saunders emphasized to me that the etudes are intended for aspiring woodwind doublers, and therefore are of moderate difficulty. I would say So You Want to Play is not as challenging as the Vadala book, comparable overall to the Kaplan book. The most technically-demanding material nearly always falls to the clarinet. The flute parts tend to stay in a comfortable register, rarely breaking into the third octave, and maxing out at a high G. There is a note or two of saxophone altissimo. There are frequent instrument switches, a few of them very quick.
Mr. Saunders was also kind enough to send me early drafts of some a couple of etudes that will appear in a forthcoming second volume. They appear to be more difficult, with some swing feel and doubles on soprano and tenor saxophone.
As I’ve mentioned in reviews of previous materials, I wish there were more resources available for doublers that included the double reed instruments and/or auxiliary instruments. But, as you may know, double-reed doubling is less common in the West End than it is on Broadway, so this book is probably a good fit for most British woodwind players (like Mr. Saunders), and quite a few American ones. So You Want to Play is a solid addition to the flute/clarinet/alto materials available, challenging but fun for an up-and-coming doubler.
I was pleased to hear from a representative of Rico about their new “Reserve” clarinet mouthpieces, which they seem to be promoting very heavily and which are generating some buzz (no pun intended) among curious clarinetists. She was kind enough to send me a few to check out for myself and to review here, and to put me in touch with Robert Polan, Rico Product Manager, who answered some of my questions during the process.
Initial observations and thoughts
The mouthpiece is currently available in three models. Rico sent me one of each:
X0 (which has a 1.00mm tip opening)
X5 (1.05mm)
X10 (1.10mm)
I’m a fan of connecting model numbers to actual relevant measurements, as Rico has done here, rather than assigning seemingly arbitrary codes (take note, Vandoren), though of course the tip opening is only one of many measurements that affect a mouthpiece’s playing characteristics. Dave Kessler speculates that we might see some larger tip openings from Rico in the future, but it does seem that Rico has boxed themselves in on any smaller openings with this naming scheme; naming the mouthpieces something like X100, X105, and X110 might make more sense if future offerings were to include a sub-1.00mm tip opening (X095, etc.). Mr. Polan responded noncommittally to my question about future offerings:
Since the product is so new, it’s too early to know which additional models clarinetists will want. We are carefully evaluating the response to these three models in order to determine what is next.
Mouthpiece diagrams on boxes
The boxes’ design includes some faux-technical-drawings of the mouthpieces—which I initially thought was a cool touch, showing the precise dimensions of the mouthpieces—but the drawings are actually identical on the different models’ boxes, so they are probably mostly decorative.
The mouthpieces themselves are etched with the text “Reserve Rico,” a six-digit serial number (the first three digits are zeroes at this point), the model number (such as “X5”) and additional numeral 2 (I don’t know what the 2 means, and I couldn’t seem to get a response to my question about it). It seems a little unusual to see a serial number on an inexpensive, mass-produced mouthpiece (the Reserves seem to be going for a street price of about $100). I asked Robert Polan about this, and his response was:
Adding a serial number was an important feature for us. We are planning to offer online tools and future promotions for Reserve mouthpiece owners who register their mouthpieces on a soon-to-be released “Owners Area” on our website. Again, more to come on this in the coming months.
Serial number
Model number, and mysterious “2”
The mouthpiece is also bedazzled with a painted-on dullish-silver “R” logo on top, which I expect will wear off quickly; I think it would be a classier (and more permanent) touch to etch the logo. I am pleased to see the other identifying information etched into the mouthpiece; my old Vandoren mouthpieces get difficult to tell apart once the painted model numbers wear off. The Reserves also have the usual latitudinal lines which can be used to gauge ligature position.
One of Rico’s big claims about the Reserve mouthpieces is the extreme precision with which they are made, using a process of milling, or carving, the mouthpieces out of solid material, rather than pouring liquid material into a mold. In fact, Rico touts “Zero handwork for maximum consistency” as a feature of these mouthpieces. This seems like a daring choice; in the past, I’ve always seen mouthpiece makers anxious to point out the hand-finishing of their mouthpieces. Rico’s implication seems to be that other mouthpiece makers use hand-finishing because their manufacturing tolerances aren’t exact enough without it, and that Rico has found a way to improve those tolerances to the point that they can eliminate the extra step, cut costs, and take potential human error out of the picture. Mr. Polan clarifies:
Using the CNC technology to fully machine the Reserve mouthpiece allows us to control consistency to a very high level, resulting in greater repeatability than with hand-finishing. This is especially true with high volume production. One of the smartest operations experts I know once put it to me this way: “When you ask a human being to perform a task repeatedly, he or she will get it right on average about 80% of the time.” While a mouthpiece craftsman like Lee Livengood can no doubt produce results that rival our machines, finishing hundreds of mouthpieces a day would make maintaining repeatability challenging for even the most skilled hand-finisher. Considering that many competitors’ mouthpieces in the Reserve price range are finished by factory workers, most of whom do not even play clarinet, the attention to detail with the finishing steps is not the same as it is with someone like Lee Livengood, nor does it come close to matching the consistency we achieve with the Reserve mouthpiece.
[Ed. note: Lee Livengood is a clarinetist with the Utah Symphony, a mouthpiece maker, and a past president of the International Clarinet Association, and a technical consultant to Rico on the development of the Reserve mouthpieces.]
Rico claims that they can machine-mill mouthpieces to tolerances of 0.0005″. Kessler suggests that Rico is perhaps stretching the truth with this claim; when I mentioned this, Robert Polan responded:
Regarding the question about our machining tolerances, we are indeed holding tolerances as tight as .0005” in areas of the mouthpiece that require that precision. We do not claim to hold .0005” with every dimension; that would be both costly and unnecessary. But we are holding to that tolerance where it counts. Ultimately the player will judge any claims about tolerances and quality. We did our homework with the Reserve mouthpiece and we are confident it stands up to the most discerning players.
It’s fair to point out that I don’t really have a concept of what kind of tolerances are necessary for mouthpiece making, but, on close visual inspection, the precision of these mouthpieces does indeed appear very impressive. The rails and tips appear to my eye to be very, very symmetrical and even. This is something that I definitely haven’t seen in mass-produced mouthpieces before. Held in the right light, the tables reveal some visual evidence of the tooling process: some subtle lengthwise lines. However, the tables feel glassy-smooth to the touch.
I mentioned that it would be interesting to compare several of the same model and see if any variation could be spotted with the naked eye (my bet is: not much). Mr. Polan immediately offered to send me several more to compare, commenting:
We don’t claim that every mouthpiece we make is identical; offering identical measurements is impossible. We do, however, feel confident that there is a noticeable similarity between every mouthpiece we make, thanks to the control in our process. As Richie Hawley put it when we had him test our consistency, the Reserve mouthpiece has a “comfortable and predictable similarity” from one to another.
Though demand for the mouthpieces has delayed getting the additional mouthpieces to me (I understand Rico is currently backordered by 5oo units), I think it speaks to Rico’s faith in their product that they are willing to offer samples up for side-by-side scrutiny. I will post a follow-up when the additional mouthpieces arrive. [Update: read the follow-up here.]
At that point the ClariMate seemed to be positioned mostly as a tool for practicing the clarinet silently. I found that to be a bit of a stretch, maybe having limited usefulness for practicing fingerings but far less helpful with matters of tone production.
At that time, some of the promotional materials also suggested that the ClariMate could be used as a MIDI controller. That turned out to be incorrect, and a Buffet-Crampon confirmed that the feature was “not publicly available yet.”
There is now some MIDI functionality available. A dual purpose of silent practice plus MIDI capability is reflected in the current advertising copy (found at the ClariMate US website as of mid-September 2024): “Silent Practice, Digital Play,” “ClariMate is a Reversible Hybrid Instrument and Digital Practice Mute for Bb clarinets,” “Opening the door to silent practice and the world of digital music.” This is bolstered with some videos of prominent clarinetists using the ClariMate as a MIDI controller.
Reliability
As I mentioned in my full review, I had some issues with my unit, including sporadic inoperability and a persistent failure to complete the “reed calibration” process in the apps. (Calibrating the reed ostensibly makes it possible to bend pitch by applying more or less pressure to the reed. This is a common feature of many wind controllers, though I don’t think it’s an accurate reflection of how pitch is manipulated on the clarinet.)
To their credit, members of Buffet-Crampon’s ClariMate team have stayed in touch over the last couple of years, and ultimately offered to exchange my ClariMate for a new unit. I have spent a little time with the new unit and I do find it to be more stable, though it’s not clear to me whether that’s due to a defect in the previous one or to improvements to the firmware and apps.
I did manage to complete the reed calibration process in the Windows app, but only after many attempts with the new unit. And I still find that I do not have any real control of pitch bends. Most of the time the pitch is completely unaffected no matter how much or how little pressure I put on the reed. I do hear very occasional small bends while playing, but they are not intentional and I can’t figure out how to make them happen on purpose.
MIDI features
I also experimented a little with the new MIDI functionality. The ClariMate website now offers free “MIDIMate” software, a rudimentary soft synth for Windows and MacOS with a handful of sounds. I was also able to use the ClariMate with another Windows soft synth, and with a music notation program for note entry, though both were considerably more glitchy than MIDIMate or the ClariMate apps.
In researching the new MIDI capabilities, I did a web search for “ClariMate manual” and clicked the first result, a PDF hosted on the ClariMate EU website. It contains this text: “MIDI will work in USB or bluetooth mode via Windows or MacOS, and in bluetooth mode via Android and iOS. We recommend using MIDI in USB mode to reduce latency as much as possible.” I was unable to get ClariMate MIDI working with my Android device, and a representative has now confirmed that MIDI is “not yet available on Android, but should be soon.” He also pointed me to a more up-to-date version of the manual, which does not include the misleading text. (If you are looking for a current manual, you should visit the ClariMate website to make sure you aren’t looking at something outdated.)
The fact that MIDI capability was falsely advertised at the ClariMate’s launch, and that Android MIDI was falsely mentioned in a recent user’s manual, seem consistent with an apparent pattern of over-promising and under-delivering. That’s concerning when selling a not-inexpensive gadget to tech-savvy clarinetists, a finicky bunch if ever there was one. The older manuals should probably be removed from the ClariMate websites so they will disappear from Google results, and it would be responsible of Buffet-Crampon to be precise and truthful about which features are and aren’t available.
Use cases?
My ClariMate has mostly stayed in its case. I am fortunate to have a space where I can practice out loud, and if that were to change I don’t think the ClariMate’s silent practice functionality would suit my purposes. And the MIDI compatibility pales in comparison to the capabilities and reliability of my Akai wind controller. If you are a professional or semi-professional musician and finding good uses for the ClariMate, I would be curious to hear about them.
I’m grateful to the ClariMate team for their ongoing communication and support, and I hope this device will be a first step toward continuing innovation.
I only know of one etude book geared toward woodwind doublers, and it’s Chris Vadala’s Improve Your Doubling: Advanced Studies for Doublers (Dorn Publications, 1991).
Mr. Vadala is on my list of “notable woodwind doublers,” and certainly he is an outstanding player on single reeds and flute, but I think what makes him really notable in the (tiny) world of woodwind doubling is that he jumped on the opportunity to establish himself as an expert in the field, by writing this etude book and by contributing a semi-regular column, “Tips on Doubling,” in Saxophone Journal throughout the 1990’s. If you find yourself in the odd position of trying to do scholarly research on woodwind doubling (like I do, now and then), you find a lot of Chris Vadala and not much of anybody else.
So. I’m generally leery of anything that is “for doublers.” I don’t want, say, a clarinet mouthpiece “for doublers”—I want a clarinet mouthpiece for clarinetists. What do I want to sound like when I play the clarinet? A doubler? No. And so I find the idea of an etude book “for doublers” to be a little problematic—wouldn’t I be better off using the tried-and-true etude books for each individual instrument? Read More “Review: Improve Your Doubling, by Chris Vadala”
The PiezoBarrel pickup is a way to electrify wind instruments, for amplification and for the application of electronic effects, such as guitar effects pedals. There are a few models of PiezoBarrel with different tonal characteristics, and the “Wood” model seems to be optimized for clarinets.
I have experimented with electronics previously using the Little Jake pickup, on bassoon, bass clarinet, and English horn. In those cases installation involved drilling a small hole into a metal bocal or neck, and soldering on a small adapter to accept the Little Jake. I considered pursuing the same approach with the clarinet, but had some apprehensions about drilling into a wooden barrel.
While trying to work up the nerve to proceed, I discovered that the PiezoBarrel is available pre-installed on a clarinet barrel. (It can also be purchased separately if you want to take on the do-it-yourself task or have your repair tech handle it.) I found this to be a surprisingly affordable option, so I placed my order through PiezoBarrel’s eBay store, figuring this would at least be a way to test-drive the pickup before installing on one of my own barrels.
On arrival, I found the provided plastic barrel to work quite well with my instruments, so my wooden barrels get a reprieve for now. If I choose, I can later use the same pickup with many other instruments, if I install adapters (available from PiezoBarrel) for mounting on wood or metal.
The package I purchased included the plastic 65mm barrel, with a screw that can be used to close the hole (so the barrel can be used as a “normal” barrel). It also included the PiezoBarrel pickup unit, which is a cylinder just over 2cm in length and about the same in diameter (or just under 1 inch). It screws into the threaded hole in the barrel. It also includes an audio cable, with a 1/8″ end that plugs into the PiezoBarrel and a 1/4″ end that plugs into your effects or amplification. There were also a few extra adapters, such as for installing into my own wooden barrels, and a small screwdriver for adjusting the PiezoBarrel’s output volume. (This is something you would adjust once if needed, and then adjust volume for performance using your amplification system’s volume controls.)
Installation was as simple as putting the barrel on my clarinet, screwing in the pickup, and plugging in the cable.
The PiezoBarrel doesn’t require an external preamp. It can be plugged directly into a PA system or something like a guitar or keyboard amplifier (using the included cable), or can be routed through effects units of your choice.
Most pickups will impose some amount of “character” on the sound of a wind instrument. (For a more purely “natural” sound, use a high-quality external microphone instead, though this raises potential problems when working with live effects or on noisy stages.) However, I find the PiezoBarrel’s sound to be surprisingly close to natural on my clarinets.
For baseline comparison, here’s me playing, recorded with a conventional microphone:
And here’s what it sounds like through the PiezoBarrel:
Here are some examples using effects, from the Boss GT-1000CORE guitar multieffects unit. All have a little added reverb. For simplicity, they do not have any noise reduction or added EQ/compression, which I might do to sweeten them for a real performance or recording situation.
Overdrive plus chorus:
Delay:
Distortion:
Pitch shifter:
In my opinion, this is an excellent system for electrified clarinet—easy, affordable, and of suitable quality for performance.
The Evolution currently comes in a single opening/facing, but the two Evolution mouthpieces I received are different in appearance: one is the standard black, and the other is what’s called “marble” on D’Addario’s website, or “sandstone marble” on the box. I usually don’t care to have equipment that calls too much attention to itself, but this is pretty cool and subtle enough not to be gaudy on stage.
I can’t definitively say that there is a difference in how the marble/non-marble play or sound. For the two I have in hand, the marble is possibly very (very) slightly more dark/muted, and the non-marble has very slightly more brightness/presence. But this doesn’t match my experience trying the mouthpieces back-to-back at the ICA conference (“ClarinetFest®”) over the summer. In any case, if there’s a difference, it’s trivially small, and I think you can pick the one that you think looks nicest.
As I’ve pointed out in my reviews of D’Addario’s other clarinet and saxophone mouthpieces, these are made with very, very high consistency, which finally brings mouthpieces into the online shopping age: you can just order one from wherever you find the lowest price, and count on it to play just as well as any other. No need to order a bunch of them, put a deposit on your credit card, ship back the ones you don’t want, pay a restocking/sanitation fee, etc. And if you lose or break yours, you can get a replacement quickly and probably not notice any difference. They are great-playing, affordable mouthpieces, but the consistency is the unique, killer feature. I’ve personally adopted each new clarinet and saxophone mouthpiece as it has hit the market.
(I don’t have a formal relationship, endorsement deal, etc. with D’Addario. They do sometimes send me products to try, presumably with the hope that I will review them favorably, but there’s no advance agreement. And I think that the consistent quality is a significant development in the mouthpiece market, and worth comment.)
What I’m looking for in a mouthpiece is a good balance between response and stability. To some extent these may be two sides of the same coin. A very responsive mouthpiece “speaks” immediately, even on resistant notes or at softer volume. But sometimes the tone and/or pitch are too flexible, and keeping them in check takes a lot of work. A very stable mouthpiece has consistent tone and pitch, but may take more work to get notes to respond as desired.
The particular quality of tone is my third consideration. I don’t make this my first priority for a few reasons. One is that a mouthpiece that strikes a good responsive/stable balance is already likely to have an appropriate, middle-of-the-road, versatile tone. (Often, within that middle-of-the-road zone, more “responsive” mouthpieces tend toward “brightness,” “presence,” or “liveliness,” while more “stable” mouthpieces lean toward “darkness,” “warmth,” or a “covered” sound.) Another reason is that tone quality is one of the more malleable aspects of a mouthpiece’s playing characteristics. If it functions well on the response/stability axis, then with a little time I will probably adapt my embouchure in minute ways (even without realizing it) to find the tone I want.
For the last seven years I have been using D’Daddario’s Reserve X5 clarinet mouthpiece, so I’m using that as my frame of reference. The Reserve and Evolution mouthpieces are both good, solid choices, and I can’t really say broadly that one is better than the other. But they have some differences in response, stability, and tone, which I’ll outline here in case it helps you pick one that best suits your preference.
Basically I find the Reserve to lean slightly toward responsiveness, with the expected tinge of brightness/presence, and the Evolution to tend more stable, with the darker/more covered sound. It’s subtle.
(Besides the mouthpieces, D’Addario also makes Reserve and Evolution reeds, which I find to have those same characteristics: Reserve = more responsive, Evolution = more stable. A D’Addario representative tells me the similarly named mouthpieces and reeds are “not meant to be exclusively paired together.”)
The following audio clips are all played using the same reed, a D’Addario Reserve 3.5. It’s just a little softer than I prefer for the X5, which accounts for some of the responsiveness and brightness but not all of it. Using a 3.5+ brings the sound and response just slightly closer to the Evolutions.
Evolution (black)Evolution (marble)Reserve X5
These photos are of the packaging for the X5 and Evolution mouthpieces. The measurements, oddly, are mostly in inches. (The X5 packaging is several years old, from when these were still sold as “Rico Reserve;” I don’t know if the box otherwise still looks the same.) The side view diagrams seem to indicate that both have a tip opening of ~.042 inches, which seems like a possible typo. Assuming the openings are precisely 1.05mm and 1.08mm (as also indicated on the packaging), these might be better expressed as .041 and .043.
I like both the Reserve X5 (my current favorite of the Reserve options) and the Evolution, and currently they are both living in my clarinet case. If forced to choose, I think at the moment I would fall back on the X5, because responsiveness feels important to me right now. But I can easily see myself switching to the Evolution at some point, perhaps depending on repertoire and performance situation.
In any case, the Evolution is another strong addition to D’Addario’s line of mouthpieces, and worth checking out.
I only know of one etude book geared toward woodwind doublers, and it’s Chris Vadala’s Improve Your Doubling: Advanced Studies for Doublers (Dorn Publications, 1991).
