My university saxophone students are anxious to tackle the altissimo register, and it’s not at all uncommon for them to show up to their first lessons clutching the Sigurd Raschèr Top-Tones for the Saxophone book and wearing a hopeful expression. I also see the Raschèr book frequently and glibly recommended on online forums. With the greatest respect for Raschèr, I think this is a mistake.
Don’t get me wrong: the Raschèr book is a classic and contains a great deal of wisdom. It is a must-have for the well-read saxophonist. But I think most saxophonists would do better to start with Eugene Rousseau’s Saxophone High Tones, and have the Raschèr on hand for supplementary exercises and instruction.
Get this one firstUse this one as a supplement
I’m going to make the following point first, not because I think it’s necessarily the most important, but because it’s the one that will click with those of you who are hoping to “learn altissimo” in an afternoon by looking at a fingering chart: Rousseau’s fingering charts are much better. They are better suited to “modern” (Mark VI and beyond) instruments and more complete (in the sense of providing many more options for each note, though Raschèr’s chart does go a little higher). Rousseau also provides separate fingering charts for soprano, alto, tenor, and baritone, while Raschèr provides only one chart, which he indicates in the first-edition foreword is intended for “E-flat saxophones”—altos, that is. (I do have a few issues with the visual layout of Rousseau’s charts, and Raschèr’s too, but that’s another rant.)
Rousseau also addresses the issue of selecting from among the provided fingerings for each note using his “mode” system to develop patterns of fingerings that are well-suited to certain sequences of notes. Raschèr’s approach is to provide one or two fingerings for each note, which by comparison is refreshingly simple. But most saxophonists who are prepared to successfully develop altissimo technique are comfortable with the idea of multiple fingerings for each note and will be able to use the additional possibilities to their advantage. And of course saxophonists are not required to use all of Rousseau’s fingerings—he walks saxophonists through the most useful ones, and the others are available for experimentation.
Perhaps more important than the fingering charts themselves are the pedagogical materials and exercises each author provides to help prepare saxophonists for success in the altissimo register. Both Raschèr and Rousseau stress the importance of proper altissimo tone production, developed largely using overtone exercises. Both are worth reading, but Rousseau’s approach is clearer and more focused. I don’t really recommend that young saxophonists attempt to teach themselves altissimo from a book—there’s no substitute for good in-person instruction—but Rousseau’s would be a much better choice for saxophonists taking that path. The Raschèr book leaves more gaps that really require a private teacher to fill in.
I can’t help but wonder if the Raschèr book has a bit of an edge sales-wise because of its lower price. The Raschèr is cheap, but the Rousseau is affordable—currently “only” about the cost of a box of reeds. Get the Rousseau first.
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.]
I like mouthpieces that are easy to play, especially in terms of response and tuning. But I also really like something easy to replace; I don’t like the idea of a mouthpiece that is so expensive, variable, or rare that if I drop it I can’t just order a new one, have it in a few days, and expect it to play like the old one.
A few years back I did a fairly detailed review of the Rico Reserve clarinet mouthpieces (in two parts), and have been happily using the Reserves as my main clarinet mouthpieces ever since. The Reserves are, in particular, astonishingly consistent from specimen to specimen, presumably due to the very precise tooling that obviates the need for hand-finishing (which sounds cool but ultimately means a relatively high degree of variability).
The pro-line products formerly released under the Rico name are now D’Addario Woodwinds products, and they now include some alto saxophone mouthpieces, the Select Jazz series. I was pleased to hear from a contact at D’Addario Woodwinds who sent me some samples to try out.
My point of reference is the various Meyer-ish alto mouthpieces I have played for about the last 20 years, most recently the V16 series from Vandoren. I used the A6/medium chamber for a number of years, but more recently switched to the A6/small chamber, which gave me a little more bite in my sound that works well for me in louder situations (like big band lead playing, or blues gigs here in the Mississippi Delta) without having to strain as much.
The new D’Addario Select Jazz alto mouthpieces are currently available in three flavors, the D5M, the D6M, and the D7M. Larger numbers in the middle correspond to larger tip openings (details at D’Addario’s website). I got a couple of each to try. Each one says “medium chamber” on the box, so maybe D’Addario is considering other chamber sizes. At the moment street price seems to be a little higher than the V16s, but still basically in the same class.
If you read the second part of my Reserve mouthpiece review, then you won’t be surprised to see that the Select Jazz mouthpieces are extremely consistent. Check out the very even and symmetrical rails and tips.
L-R: two each of the D5M, D6M, and D7M. Click for higher resolution.
As mentioned in a couple of otherreviews, the Select Jazz mouthpieces have an unusually tight fit on the neck cork, and they chewed up my aging cork a bit. Cork grease!
The mouthpieces have individual serial numbers, like the Reserve clarinet mouthpieces. When I asked about this during my clarinet mouthpiece review, the Rico/D’Addario rep told me there might in the future be some way of registering your mouthpiece online, maybe to access some kind of members-only content. I haven’t seen anything happen along these lines, so maybe there’s a more logical explanation, like that the numbers are just for quality control.
Here is a sound clip of each of the six mouthpieces I received, plus my two V16 mouthpieces for comparison. For all the sound clips I used the same inexpensive fake-leather-type ligature, but different reeds, a D’Addario Select Jazz filed 3S and a filed 3M, depending on which worked best with each individual mouthpiece. The V16s and the Jazz Select D5Ms worked better with the 3M reed, and the Jazz Select D6Ms and D7Ms seemed to prefer the 3S reed.
D’Addario Select Jazz D5M, specimen #1
D’Addario Select Jazz D5M, specimen #2
D’Addario Select Jazz D6M, specimen #1
D’Addario Select Jazz D6M, specimen #2
D’Addario Select Jazz D7M, specimen #1
D’Addario Select Jazz D7M, specimen #2
My old Vandoren V16 A6M
My old Vandoren V16 A6S
The differences are minor at best, and really in a pinch I could make any of these eight mouthpieces work, but here are a few observations:
The Select Jazz mouthpieces have noticeably more stable intonation than the V16s, especially the D5M. This is a bigger deal than tone, which is more malleable and more subjective.
The Select Jazz mouthpieces are, again, very consistent. This is the killer feature of D’Addario’s mouthpieces. I found the two D5Ms to be virtually interchangeable in terms of tone, response, and tuning, and the two D7Ms too. One of the D6Ms (#2) has, to my ear, just a tiny bit of an edge that I find unpleasant. I suspect that this one is slightly “off,” but the difference between the two is still quite minor compared to the differential in hand-finished production mouthpieces.
I do still want something with some edge to it, and the V16 small chamber still feels like is has more of that than any of the seven others, but not by much. The Select Jazz mouthpieces seem to have a bigger core and body to the sound, plus a bit higher volume, so I’m thinking it may be an acceptable tradeoff as far as making my presence known among the electric guitars.
Overall, I find the Select Jazz to respond better both down low in the staff and up above it than the V16s do. I didn’t play any altissimo in the sound clips, but I find the Select Jazz to have a slight advantage in that register as well.
The D5M and, to a lesser extent, the D6M, seem to be the best fit for my style and needs. The D7M doesn’t work as well for me—it has the louder but more spread tone and less-stable intonation you might expect from a larger tip opening—but it’s still one of the best mouthpieces I’ve played in that category, and it’s really only slightly large, not nearly as extreme as the tip openings offered by some other makers.
I think the Select Jazz D5M is going to be my new mouthpiece. (I’m keeping a D6M in my case for now too until I can try them both on a loud blues gig, but so far the D5M has worked well for small-group jazz.) The combination of solid intonation, pretty-but-gutsy tone, budget-friendly price, and amazing consistency make this a solid, versatile, and practical option for a working saxophonist. They are great for educators, too—they are easy to recommend to students because they are so easy to play and because they are so reliable in quality (much less need to order a half-dozen on approval and hope there’s a “good” one in the bunch). A great all-around, no-nonsense alto jazz mouthpiece.
I look forward to more offerings from D’Addario Woodwinds, perhaps alto mouthpieces in other chamber sizes, or mouthpieces for other saxophones.
When several fingerings are available for a note, how do you choose the “right” one for a situation? Below are some criteria you might use in that decision, but be aware that it is virtually always impossible to meet all the criteria, so you have to choose the one that best balances the pros and cons.
Which one would involve moving the fewest fingers? (Look at the previous note and the following note.) In general, moving fewer fingers is safer because it reduces the risk that the fingers will fail to move at exactly the same time.
Which one lets you make tidy, positive motions like lowering a finger onto a key or lifting it up from a key? Sliding fingers from key to key is harder to do accurately.
Which one lets you keep most or all of your fingers moving in the same direction? It is easier to keep your fingers synchronized if they are all either pressing down together or rising up together.
Which one keeps the movement in one hand? It is easier to keep your fingers synchronized if all the moving fingers are on the right hand, or all on the left hand.
Do the fingerings have different pitch tendencies? Does one sound more in tune in this situation? (It may be necessary to consider “just” intonation.)
Do the fingerings sound different tone-wise? Which one best matches the tone of the surrounding notes?
Do the fingerings have different response characteristics?
That might seem like a lot of mental effort just for one note, but if you practice conscientiously over the long term, it will become more and more automatic. In the meantime, use a pencil to mark in reminders for which fingerings to use on things you are practicing.
Recently, I’ve noticed a lot of jazz musician bloggers opining about the evils of memorizing patterns and “licks,” and calling for original and creative improvisation. While I don’t think anybody will argue about the importance of individuality and creativity, I do think it’s a big mistake to ignore the value of memorizing, practicing, and internalizing established jazz vocabulary.
When a person learns a foreign language, they learn first to repeat some standard useful phrases. Then they learn to rearrange the vocabulary and syntax of those phrases to create new ones. Over a lifetime of study and practice, they may learn the language well enough to speak or write with their own distinctive creative voice. But if a student tries on the first day of French class to be creative and original, they aren’t likely to make much sense. To speak the language, you need to hear it, imitate it, and then repeat over and over. Genuine individual originality comes much, much later.
If you listen to a lot of Kenny Garrett, and if you take it upon yourself to transcribe a bunch of Kenny Garrett solos, and if you steep yourself in those Kenny Garrett solos, then chances are you will come out sounding an awful lot like Kenny Garrett.
Now, if that’s all you aspire to, then that’s where you’ll end up: as a Kenny Garrett clone. But if you desire to forge your own voice, then Kenny will simply become a part of your vocabulary, a vocabulary that includes other influences besides Kenny and increasingly reflects your personal explorations with melody, harmony, timbre, and nuance. You are an individual, after all, and the sheer force of your individuality will direct you toward your own sound and approach.
A good writer doesn’t become one by attempting to create a different dictionary. He or she develops expertise by becoming conversant with the existing language, and that happens largely through reading the works of great writers who have gone before. Through careful scrutiny and application of how others have handled the English language, the individual’s personal writing style emerges.
Shakespeare is noted for adding a huge number of words and phrases to the English language—undoubtedly one of the most creative minds working in that medium. But how many of the words and phrases in his works were really brand new inventions? Surely less than 1%. And how much did Charlie Parker or John Coltrane add to the jazz language, that wasn’t already there? Their contributions are staggeringly significant, but what they actually created out of thin air was a drop in the bucket among all the notes they played in their careers. For most of us mortals, our truly original contributions to the language (be it English or jazz) are few and far between; most of our creativity happens when we shuffle and remix the materials that are already before us.
Bob backs up his ideas about the importance of jazz vocabulary with his Giant Steps Scratch Pad project. The Scratch Pad provides a wealth of tasty and useful vocabulary for playing over the chord changes to John Coltrane’s tune “Giant Steps,” a tune that has challenged the best of jazz players for decades because of its unusual and elegantly symmetrical chord progression. Bob was kind enough to send me a review copy of the Giant Steps Scratch Pad Complete, a new PDF-only (at least for now) edition that contains the same material as the Scratch Pad, transposed into all twelve keys. The transposed material makes this especially good for those who aspire to play Giant Steps in all twelve keys, or who double on instruments of different transpositions.
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.
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.
I too am in favor of Rousseau’s book. Although I believe Rascher’s book to be very helpful (I really love his discussion of Tone Imagination), I very much like High Tone’s fingering chart, the modes you described, and how sequential the development of technical facility is. Donald Sinta’s Voicing book is my personal favorite, as the book goes over a lot of the physiological phenomena necessary to develop a consistent altissimo register. Mastering the “Front F Trick” was my breakthrough
I have used both of these and prefer Rousseau. My real break through book was the Rosemary Lang Book. Lots of simple melodies that make it more relevant to add into a real playing scenario and also easier to hear intonation and sound quality in relationship to the other notes.
I haven’t worked out of the Rousseau personally, but I have attempted to work from the Top Tones book with little to no success leading to great frustration. The book that actually helped me the most was Beginning Studies in the Altissimo Register by Rosemary Lang ( http://www.amazon.com/Saxophone-Beginning-studies-altissimo-register/dp/B00072ZF9C ). It uses melodic studies of common songs all students should know easing into the higher range. Since it is no longer in print, I actually don’t recall how I obtained a copy. This book has been the most helpful for me and I’d be interested to know your opinion of it as well.
I like the Lang, if you can find it, for supplementary exercises; it has virtually no explanatory material. Mostly the Lang seems like material from a beginning method (“Hot Cross Buns,” etc.), transposed up a couple of octaves.
I’m a big fan of Sinta’s “Voicing” book. It’s done wonders for my playing. I originally learned from the Rousseau book. Sinta’s book is so simple and thorough, much like Trevor Wye’s tone book for flute.
Hard to say for sure how well those Rascher fingerings would work for you—you would have to give them a try. In any case, I think you will find the Rousseau book to be more complete and methodical.
Any opinion on Robert A. Luckey’s Saxophone Altissimo? It is what taught me the basics. My choice was basically pre-structured by what I could find in the sheet-music store well before the Holy Internet was invented. It provides quite a variety of fingerings. It doesn’t provide an elaborate bibliography, but the foreword states that methods by Raschèr and Nash are not quite suitable for present-day instruments. Anyway, as I am brushing up old skills, I think I should simply buy both Raschèr and Rousseau. One never has too many books.
I too am in favor of Rousseau’s book. Although I believe Rascher’s book to be very helpful (I really love his discussion of Tone Imagination), I very much like High Tone’s fingering chart, the modes you described, and how sequential the development of technical facility is. Donald Sinta’s Voicing book is my personal favorite, as the book goes over a lot of the physiological phenomena necessary to develop a consistent altissimo register. Mastering the “Front F Trick” was my breakthrough
I have used both of these and prefer Rousseau. My real break through book was the Rosemary Lang Book. Lots of simple melodies that make it more relevant to add into a real playing scenario and also easier to hear intonation and sound quality in relationship to the other notes.
Totally agree, Bret. I just wish that their prospective price tags were switched ;-)
I haven’t worked out of the Rousseau personally, but I have attempted to work from the Top Tones book with little to no success leading to great frustration. The book that actually helped me the most was Beginning Studies in the Altissimo Register by Rosemary Lang ( http://www.amazon.com/Saxophone-Beginning-studies-altissimo-register/dp/B00072ZF9C ). It uses melodic studies of common songs all students should know easing into the higher range. Since it is no longer in print, I actually don’t recall how I obtained a copy. This book has been the most helpful for me and I’d be interested to know your opinion of it as well.
I like the Lang, if you can find it, for supplementary exercises; it has virtually no explanatory material. Mostly the Lang seems like material from a beginning method (“Hot Cross Buns,” etc.), transposed up a couple of octaves.
A second edition of Lang’s book was published a couple of years ago:
http://www.hickeys.com/products/078/sku78455.htm
It’s available at other places too.
I’m a big fan of Sinta’s “Voicing” book. It’s done wonders for my playing. I originally learned from the Rousseau book. Sinta’s book is so simple and thorough, much like Trevor Wye’s tone book for flute.
So, if I have one of those old saxes (I do, 1936), would you recommend the Rascher over the Rousseau?
Hard to say for sure how well those Rascher fingerings would work for you—you would have to give them a try. In any case, I think you will find the Rousseau book to be more complete and methodical.
Any opinion on Robert A. Luckey’s Saxophone Altissimo? It is what taught me the basics. My choice was basically pre-structured by what I could find in the sheet-music store well before the Holy Internet was invented. It provides quite a variety of fingerings. It doesn’t provide an elaborate bibliography, but the foreword states that methods by Raschèr and Nash are not quite suitable for present-day instruments. Anyway, as I am brushing up old skills, I think I should simply buy both Raschèr and Rousseau. One never has too many books.
I 100% agree with you on this post. I hadn’t looked at the Rascher book until recently, Rousseau took care of me in our BYU days. I love both books.