As I noted in previous reviews, (solo) etudes for woodwind doublers have an issue: it’s too easy to take extra time during instrument changes, a luxury that doesn’t exist in musical theater or many other doubling scenarios. Kaplan’s two volumes solve this by pairing the player with another doubler. Saunders’s previous works provided piano accompaniment (including downloadable backing tracks). Either solution keeps the woodwind doubler accountable to another musician (at least a virtual one) to execute the quick changes without disrupting the tempo.
Saunders’s new publication expands on his previous offerings by introducing a duet format with piano or backing track. The backing tracks include versions with just accompaniment (piano plus a virtual rhythm section), or with accompaniment plus Saunders ably playing the first woodwind part, or with accompaniment plus the second part.
Kaplan’s solution of course requires a duet partner with skills on three instruments, but also provides some flexibility in rehearsal with tempos or repeating problem sections. With two volumes available, each with a dozen 2-3 page duets, this would be a great resource for a sight reading session with a friend or student. (This new volume has well-placed page turns.)
Saunders’s approach lends itself well to solo practice, and since you can play either part with Saunders covering the other, the six duets amount to twelve parts to work on. The included piano score also raises some possibilities for a polished public performance. (The introduction also indicates that the duets are composed to work without the accompaniment.)
The books are similar in instrumentation, for flute/clarinet/saxophone doublers, with the first part using alto saxophone and the second using tenor. Saunders’s book has one duet with optional piccolos. I’ve been clear that I think the flute/clarinet/saxophone doubling paradigm is outdated in the 21st century, and while the market for such things is admittedly probably small, I’d like to see more resources available that incorporate double reeds.
Both books publish the duets as separate parts, which is probably a closer match to the musical theater doubling experience, but I do prefer seeing both lines on the same page. With Saunders’s book, the additional piano score does show both parts, which could be helpful for perusal or rehearsal.
I’ve updated my Music for woodwind doublers page to include these new publications. Keep me posted if you are aware of additional ones.
In the opening “Allegro” movement of his Wind Octet in E-flat major, Op. 103, Beethoven perpetrates a bit of mischief at the expense of the listener—and the analyst. In this paper, we will examine some analytical puzzles of this movement, then attempt to solve them by exploring a possible hermeneutical interpretation and applying Schenkerian techniques.
The hermeneutical narrative that we will attempt to apply here represents only one possible interpretation, but it is useful because it provides an accessible context for dealing with problematic elements (we will deal with an oddly recurring melodic motive, some unexpected harmonic turns, and a formal deformation). The Schenkerian techniques are effective here for identifying and explicating the essential harmonic motion.
A motivic troublemaker
"Troublemaker" motive
The first riddle of the Allegro is a trill-like motive (example 1) that dominates the opening of the movement. It appears in the first oboe, repeated in each of the first four measures. We will investigate a possible hermeneutic role of this motive: the impish troublemaker. (The troublemaker motive remains closely associated with the first oboe, though the first oboe also plays a part as a fully cooperative member of the ensemble. The oboe isn’t the troublemaker; the motive itself gets the blame.) Read More “A troublemaker in the octet: A hermeneutical approach to Beethoven’s op. 103”
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.
I’ve been working on my Taffanel and Gaubert this summer to shore up some aspects of my flute technique. The very methodical, repetitive nature of those etudes made me aware of some tension in my left hand. My hands are fairly large, and my hand was tending to collapse inward somewhat.
For less than $8, I decided it was worthwhile to try the Bo-Pep Flute Finger Rest, which is designed to help with this problem. It’s a little plastic thing that clips onto the flute’s body, allowing a more open hand position.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.
I’ve had a König & Meyer bassoon/bass clarinet stand for years now, and recently picked up the Hercules version and tried it out on some gigs. I was hoping to form a strong opinion and make a nice clear recommendation here between the two. But the bottom line is that both are really quite usable.
left: Hercules; right: K&M
The exact model of K&M stand that I have doesn’t seem to be in production anymore. There is a newer one with a black finish (nice for onstage use) and slightly different hardware. I would be interested to hear if anyone is aware of any significant difference between the older and newer models.
The big question of course is stability. I spent some time knocking both of these around to see what it would take to tip them over, and based on that non-scientific approach they seemed about equal. (No instruments were harmed.)
I don’t have any concerns about either stand scratching my instruments. The K&M has a rubbery cup for the bottom of the instrument to sit in, and a felt-covered brace at the top. The Hercules has a harder (but not hard) plastic cup and a foam-covered brace.
The K&M’s large, soft, and somewhat grippy cup is a nice feature for quick instrument switches. The Hercules’s I wouldn’t trust quite as much—I would need an extra moment to be sure the instrument is secure. The Hercules has room to add a couple of additional instrument pegs, which is a nice feature for doublers.
Note also that the Hercules’s cup can be rotated 180° from the way I have it oriented, if desired. It is mounted on a leg that is adjustable, which I suppose you could use to change the angle of the instrument on the stand. I like it at full extension for maximum stability at the base.
For quick switches, I like to be able to play bass clarinet with its peg still in the stand if needed. Both stands accommodate this without any trouble.
Upper braces on both stands are height-adjustable to about the same height. At around full extension the braces are out of the way of keys on the bassoon’s long joint (the bell key is on the side where the braces don’t touch it). Neither quite adjusts as high as I would like for a low C bass clarinet (with the peg extended a little), so unfortunately for me the left index A and A-flat keys rest against the brace.
Both stands fold up, but neither is tiny. The Hercules is more portable if you remove the cup, but that means fussing with a wing nut and then having one extra piece to carry around (or lose).
The Hercules does win on price, at about 60% of what the K&M costs.
Overall, I guess I lean toward the Hercules a little for bass clarinet, mostly because I could add, say, pegs for B-flat and E-flat clarinets and be ready for a utility clarinet gig. And I like the K&M slightly better for bassoon because its larger, softer cup makes a better target during a quick instrument switch. If you’re still torn, the Hercules’s lower price point may be a good tiebreaker.
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.
I’ve been reading The Woodwind Player’s Cookbook, published last year by Meredith Music and edited by Charles West. It’s a collection of 57 pedagogical essays by a pretty impressive roster of woodwind folks. You can download the table of contents here to see the authors and titles.
Most of the articles deal with technique fundamentals on specific instruments, which should make this book valuable to school band directors, but it also works quite well as a handbook for woodwind doublers; in fact, there are several articles that deal specifically with doubling, by Mike Duva, James Nesbit, Elsie Parker, and Albert Regni. Read More “Review: The Woodwind Player’s Cookbook”
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.
Bottom line: the ClariMate is an interesting gadget with potential for various uses, but it’s a little rough around the edges. Consider buying one now as a tech toy if you’re an early-adopter type, or wait for a new-and-improved iteration if you need something that just works.
I recently got my hands on the “ClariMate,” a new electronic device from the venerable Buffet-Crampon, clarinet maker of choice for most Boehm-system players worldwide. “Play anywhere, anytime,” its marketing materials proclaim, “the gateway to silent practice and digital music.” It’s a surprising and intriguing offering from a company more associated with tradition and history than innovation.
Players of electric keyboards and guitars have long had the option of using headphones, and Yamaha’s “Silent Brass” digital practice mutes were introduced in the 1990s. But woodwinds are much more complicated to silence, since sound waves don’t just emanate from the instrument’s end—they come from the instruments’ many toneholes. Enterprising folks have marketed a number of questionable solutions, ranging from pieces of foam stuffed inside the instrument to molded containers that completely encase it.
Buffet is betting on a more sophisticated approach. The ClariMate plugs into your clarinet’s barrel on one end and accepts your mouthpiece on the other, and does some electronic trickery in between. Buffet’s sales pitch is that you can play on your own clarinet silently, without substantially changing the instrument’s feel and with a convincing clarinet sound in your earphones. Does it fulfill this promise?
Yes, kind of. But it’s a new technology with a lot of real-world variables to deal with, and it’s marketed to some of the most sensitive and finicky customers there are: musicians.
So, at a current price of $425 USD, as much as a handmade mouthpiece, is it worth it? Let’s take a closer look.
What’s in the ClariMate box
The ClariMate unit, a black plastic thing with buttons and lights. The tube part adds about 1½” (38mm) of length to your clarinet. The perpendicular part with the buttons is about 2″×2½” (51mm×64mm). The unit weighs about 1½ oz (45g).
A nice black nylon carrying case, about 6″×6″×3″ (15cm×15cm×7.5cm).
Two “active reeds,” like plastic clarinet reeds with some additional attached mechanism that fits inside your mouthpiece
Some spare O-rings for the ClariMate’s tenon, where it connects to your barrel
A few rubbery plugs that can be inserted into the end of the flexible tube, for customizing the blowing resistance to your liking
A fabric-jacketed USB cable, for charging the ClariMate and for connecting to a computer
A flexible tube that connects to the ClariMate and dangles inside the clarinet
What the ClariMate sounds like
There are a couple of questions to address here: what does the ClariMate sound like in your earphones, and what does it sound like to someone else in the room?
The ClariMate does effectively silence your clarinet (almost), since the “active reed” assembly does not vibrate. Instead, the ClariMate detects what pitch your clarinet would be producing, based on the fingering you’re using, and replaces that with an electronic clarinet sound in your earphones.
The electronic clarinet sound is a garden-variety synthesized clarinet, like the one from your electric keyboard or music notation software. You wouldn’t mistake it for a real instrument, but it’s recognizable as a clarinet. A contact at Buffet tells me an improved, acoustically-modeled sound is already in the works for a future software release (which will be installable on already-purchased ClariMates).
Here’s a short demonstration. I play two excerpts from the Rose 32 Etudes, first on “real” clarinet and then with the ClariMate (with the Windows app). The final part of the video shows the sound in the room (which is virtually silent).
The ClariMate unit does produce a very quiet but audible hum (Buffet calls it the “chirp”), which changes as you open and close toneholes. Here’s an up-close recording of what it sounds like. I’ve got the microphone right at the bell, and I’m playing some notes down to low E. The thumps are the pads closing, and should give you an idea of how much I boosted the recording volume.
In reality the chirp is quiet enough to be masked by typical room sounds like air conditioning.
Connections
The ClariMate can be used in “standalone” mode, in which you just plug in some wired earphones (not included) and play. It can also connect to computer apps via USB cable or smartphone/tablet apps via Bluetooth for additional features.
It can’t be used with Bluetooth earphones due to latency, a delay between when you play the note and when you would hear it in the earphones. The technological issue here is real and probably currently unavoidable at this price point, but it’s a shame to see this device hit the market just when many people are discarding their wired earphones and living in their Bluetooth ones.
The ClariMate website suggests the USB mode can be used for MIDI, but the user manual doesn’t provide any information about this, and Windows did not detect my ClariMate as a MIDI device. A Buffet representative confirms that although this functionality is mentioned on the website, MIDI features are “not publicly available yet.”
Operating the ClariMate unit
The ClariMate has four buttons and four LED lights. Two of the buttons operate as simple volume-up and volume-down buttons, but you have to use an app to get any visual feedback on how much of the available volume you’re using.
There’s also a power button for starting the unit in standalone mode, or you can turn the power on while holding any of the other three buttons to start in USB, Bluetooth, or reed calibration mode. I find this a little fussy and non-intuitive; you have to read the manual to figure out how to turn the device on correctly. (Although I will allow that a clarinetist ought to be able to handle pressing more than one button at a time.)
Playing the ClariMate
Playing a clarinet with the ClariMate feels pretty natural to my embouchure. The non-vibration of the reed, which feels shiny-smooth but otherwise pretty reed-like, is different but not difficult to deal with.
The latency of the note tracking is slight and mostly manageable, but noticeable to an experienced clarinetist.
A contact at Buffet explained that the ClariMate requires a fair amount of finger precision, maybe even more than actually playing the clarinet, in order to correctly recognize the pitches you want. This was a purposeful choice, as the ClariMate team wanted to make sure the device was useful as a practice aid, and not something that would allow you to develop bad playing habits. I found the ClariMate mostly identified my intended pitches without difficulty.
Failure to detect the intended notes can be due to imprecise finger placement, or due to differences between your clarinet and barrel and those used in developing the ClariMate (apparently a Buffet E11). This can be fixed by “training” the ClariMate to recognize your individual instrument’s quirks. My Buffet Festival B-flat mostly worked pretty well without any training for playing simple things, but I did do a full training regimen, which took about 5 minutes, to get the device to respond well to faster passages and short staccato notes. The training consists of the app showing you a sequence of notes, which you play on your instrument.
You can adjust the ClariMate’s breath sensor “threshold” to match your accustomed reed response (in other words, will the ClariMate start playing with the slightest breath, or will there be a bit of cushion to blow against?).
The “active reed” has a simple non-electronic device that sits inside the mouthpiece to detect pressure on the reed. As I understand it, this pressure is supposed to affect pitch, but I was unable to get the reed properly calibrated, so I wasn’t able to test this. I got an error message from the apps over and over during the calibration process. A Buffet representative kindly walked me through several potential solutions, including trying ligatures other than the one I usually use, but we were unable to solve the problem.
I’m not convinced that mapping volume to breath pressure and pitch to reed pressure accurately reflects real clarinet playing. Intentional adjustments to pitch on the clarinet are best accomplished with voicing rather than changing the pressure on the reed. Pressure on the reed is, however, tied to volume in “real” clarinet playing, and breath support should generally remain constant. In this way, the tone-production aspects of the ClariMate may not be a direct match to real-world clarinet playing, though they will be familiar to players of electronic wind controllers.
The extra length and weight added to the instrument by installing the ClariMate is not bothersome. It’s not much more than the difference between playing a B-flat clarinet and an A clarinet.
Use cases
Buffet’s primary push for the ClariMate seems to be as a device for practicing silently. After fully “training” the device to recognize notes on my instrument, the note tracking is probably good enough for most practice applications, but still has a just-noticeable lag that would be problematic for artist-level playing.
And, of course, the tone production aspects of practicing (tone, intonation, response) are lost or substantially changed when using the ClariMate. This may limit its usefulness to developing players.
Buffet’s marketing materials also suggest the device can be used for digital music-making. It does at least theoretically provide a way for a clarinetist to control MIDI devices or other electronics using their own instrument, pending future software releases.
A Buffet representative described their conception of the ClariMate-plus-clarinet as wind controller as a “Reversible Hybrid Instrument (RHI).” I do think the addition of electronics to a woodwind instrument suggests some future possibilities for digitally-augmented performance, perhaps blending electronic sounds with live instrument sounds. But this isn’t possible with the ClariMate, which prevents the clarinet from producing its natural sound.
And if you want to play a wind-controlled synthesizer, then I still think the best way is to make the effort and learn to play a purpose-built one, my favorite being the Akai EWI series. Some other instrument makers (Roland, Yamaha) have introduced digital saxophone-style instruments, which are easy for saxophonists to play out of the box but which fully embrace the problematic aspects of saxophones, like palm keys and pinky rollers.
Digital saxophones at least have the ability to expand their tessitura with relatively intuitive solutions like additional octave keys, but this would be more complicated on the clarinet (whose registers aren’t an octave apart). The ClariMate brings to the table the possibility for clarinetists to play an electronic instrument without learning new fingerings or significantly new tone production techniques, but, like the digital saxophones, brings the limitations of an “acoustic” instrument into the digital world.
The apps are able to provide some real-time visualization of aspects of your playing, such as breath pressure and reed pressure, and there is potential for these, used judiciously, to become useful diagnostic or pedagogical tools.
Reliability
My ClariMate worked upon first opening the box, but I quickly ran into some issues that made the device inoperable. With assistance from Buffet’s support staff, I was able to resolve these. An ongoing problem is that I am unable to complete the reed calibration process, getting a persistent error message in the apps. That means I can’t alter pitch by applying pressure to the reed.
I experimented with the Windows and Android apps. There are also apps for Apple devices. (As a Linux user, I’m experiencing the familiar disappointment that my preferred platform isn’t supported.) The apps feel buggy and unreliable—I find myself often restarting them and the device to try to solve various technical issues. My conversations with Buffet suggest that they are hopeful about frequent and significant software improvements, including updated firmware that you install on the device itself to improve its future functionality. (Long-term software development will no doubt depend on the financial success of the ClariMate project.)
It’s worth bearing in mind that this is in some ways a whole new class of device, so some birthing pains are to be expected. If you enjoy tinkering with the newest gadgets and have the patience or tech savvy to work around some bugs while waiting hopefully for software updates, then I think the ClariMate is usable. If you are a more reluctant tech user, it may be wise to wait for the ClariMate’s software and/or hardware to mature more fully.
How the ClariMate works
I’m not a scientist or engineer, but here’s what I can gather:
The ClariMate uses an air pressure sensor to detect how hard you’re blowing, and translates that into volume (or silence if it detects you aren’t blowing).
The reed bite sensor works by way of a small mirror, a light, and a light sensor. The light shines on the mirror (part of the “active reed” assembly) and reflects back to the sensor. Biting on the reed moves the mirror and affects how much light is reflected.
The ClariMate unit produces a quiet hum (the “chirp”) inside the bore of the instrument. Opening and closing toneholes affects the pitch of the chirp. A microphone detects the pitch of the chirp, compares it to a stored database of pitches, and plays back the corresponding note from the electronic clarinet sound.
As a side note, the pitch of the chirp isn’t necessarily the same as the pitch of the note that is produced in the earphones. You can hear it change, and the device can match that pitch to the intended note, but you can’t necessarily hear the tune you’re playing just from the chirp.
Also, the ClariMate doesn’t directly detect your fingerings—for example, it can’t tell if you are playing low E with the left or right hand pinky. But it can recognize some alternate fingerings that produce detectably different chirp pitches.
The flexible tube allows for drainage of condensation, and also directs your breath out the instrument’s bell rather than letting it linger inside the instrument’s bore, where it would affect bore temperature and interfere with the ClariMate’s pitch detection.
Additional observations
The name “ClariMate” is cute but fails to describe the product in a useful way. I imagine “ClariMute” must also have been discussed, but another product with that name already exists. Here’s how the packaging justifies the name:
I have heard rumors that the ClariMate has been in development for 10 years. If that’s true, it’s odd that the release of the product feels like it was kind of rushed. There are some rough edges on the technology, and also on the product release. The demonstration video on the product website failed to actually demonstrate the product being used. It didn’t include any audio of the instrument’s sound in the earphones or in the room, the two things that I wanted and expected to hear in a media clip. (I’ve hopefully helped rectify that with this review.)
I was provided by Buffet-Crampon with a ClariMate unit at no charge, with the possibility but not the promise of a review. I have done my best to keep my review unbiased. I use some other Buffet products but have no official relationship with the brand.
Hi! Can you please elaborate more when you say flute/clarinet/sax doubling is outdated? What does that mean exactly? I’m a high school woodwind player. Thank you!!
I’ve been reading The Woodwind Player’s Cookbook, published last year by 
Hi! Can you please elaborate more when you say flute/clarinet/sax doubling is outdated? What does that mean exactly? I’m a high school woodwind player. Thank you!!
You might find this helpful: https://bretpimentel.com/the-amazing-shrinking-woodwind-section-increasing-demands-on-woodwind-doublers/