The difference between “student” and “professional” instruments

Visit a music store or an instrument maker’s website and you will frequently see band instruments sorted into categories like “student,” “intermediate/step-up,” and “professional.” It’s important to understand that these distinctions are not bound to any specific criteria, and not policed by any governing body. The labels have a lot to do with target market, and not much to do with the instruments’ actual playing characteristics.

For example, I often have prospective college music majors proudly show me their “professional” clarinets, a specific model that a local retailer labels as such even though very few professional players would find the instrument to their liking. These students will, in most cases, have to purchase another, more expensive instrument to meet the demands of college-level playing.

On the other hand, some of my college students have instruments that are positioned by the maker as lesser than the maker’s more premium line, but which are popular and well-regarded among professional musicians.

“Student” instruments are rarely better for students, mostly just less expensive—made more cheaply or with fewer features. In most cases, if money were no object, I think it would be an advantage for a beginner to start on a high-quality (“professional”) instrument. Sometimes “student” instruments are designed to be more comfortable for smaller players, which of course doesn’t necessarily correspond to quality requirements.

Labeling instruments as “intermediate” or “step-up” is another exercise in creative writing. In my experience, these are rarely worth it—they tend to cost nearly as much as “professional” instruments but play only slightly better than “student” ones.

There are a very few other designations that have specific meanings. For example, the term “full conservatory” for oboes is widely accepted as meaning the instrument has certain required keys and mechanisms on it. However, an oboe maker or retailer can label any oboe as “full conservatory” without any formal consequence. (My nearest retailer does this exact thing.) Many makers sell “modified conservatory” oboes, which has no specific meaning—it’s just aimed at people who can’t afford “full conservatory” but like to believe they have gotten some version thereof.

If you are a student (including a college student) or are purchasing an instrument for one, you should ideally do so with significant input from your teacher. And if you are a professional, you should prioritize carefully which features and qualities are most important, regardless of labels.

Similar Posts

  • Creating fingering charts with diagrams from the Fingering Diagram Builder

    My Fingering Diagram Builder has been around for a little over five years now. I was careful to name it the Fingering Diagram Builder instead of the Fingering Chart Builder because it is a tool for creating individual diagrams, not for assembling them into comprehensive fingering charts. But the difference can be a little confusing, so I get frequent questions from users who complain that they can’t figure out how to create and download a “chart” with multiple fingerings on it.

    The reason I didn’t try to build a complete system for creating fingering charts is that I assumed users would have widely-varying needs, and would do better to assemble charts using some other kind of software. Here are a few examples of how that might be done, using music notation software, using a word processor, and using a text editor to create HTML code (such as for a website). All the software I’m using here is free to download on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, but whatever free or commercial programs you are already using probably have similar features. You’re on your own to work out the details (and feel free to share them in the comments if you are feeling helpful).

    Creating a fingering chart in music notation software

    I am using MuseScore here, but commercial software like Finale and Sibelius and other free software like LilyPond could be used in similar ways.

    First I set up a musical “score” with the notes for the chart. I used whole notes, separated by double bar lines, but that’s up to you.

    MuseScore setup

    Next I created my fingering diagrams in the FDB. I sized the diagrams “tiny” with “thick” lines.

    Adding the diagrams to the score is very simple in MuseScore—I just dragged the downloaded diagrams from my file manager right onto the score. If I drag the diagram and hover it on top of a note, that note gets highlighted. Then I can release the diagram and it attaches to the note.

    musescore-drop

    Initially the diagrams are placed right on top of the note. I selected the diagrams and used the Inspector panel to give them a horizontal offset of -2.5sp and a vertical offset of -10.5 sp, which moved them above the staff, more or less centered above the noteheads. I adjusted the A and tenor B-flat fingerings’ horizontal offsets a bit more to make them look just right.

    Here is the finished product, a small chart with a few bassoon fingerings:

    bassoon-fingering-chart-sample

    Creating a fingering chart in word processing software

    I am using LibreOffice Writer, but something like Microsoft Word or Apple Pages would work just as well.

    First I opened a new document and inserted a table. My table has three rows and seven columns.
    writer-table

    Then I dragged the downloaded diagrams from my file manager into the bottom row of the table.

    writer-diagrams

    I merged some cells together, dragged in some images of notes on staves, and added some text.

    writer-complete

    A few more little tweaks and here is the finished chart:

    clarinet-fingering-chart-sample

    Creating an HTML fingering chart in text editing software

    This code be used in any text editor or HTML source editor, and of course similar results could be accomplished with a visual/WYSIWYG editor. I’m not showing complete code here, just the most relevant parts.

    I started with a framework for a table that I could use to show a note with two alternate fingerings. (This is a flute fingering chart with horizontally-oriented diagrams. For an instrument with vertically-oriented diagrams, you may want to rearrange things a bit.)

    <table>
      <tr>
        <th rowspan=2><!— note image here —></th>
        <td><!— first fingering image here —></td>
        <td><!— first fingering text here —></td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><!— second fingering image here —></td>
        <td><!— second fingering text here —></td>
      </tr>
    </table>
    

    Then I plugged in <img> tags and text:

    <table>
      <tr>
        <th rowspan=2><img src="images/f-sharp-note.png" /></th>
        <td><img src="images/f-sharp-standard.png"</td>
        <td>Standard</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><img src="images/f-sharp-trill.png"</td>
        <td>Trill from E</td>
      </tr>
    </table>

    I duplicated that code for additional notes. Since this is a sample alternate/trill fingering chart, each note has at least two fingerings. For notes with more fingerings, I added <tr>s and changed the rowspan values accordingly.

    I also added a little CSS to spruce things up:

    <style>
      table {
        display: inline-block; /* make tables wrap gracefully depending on screen width */
        margin: 1em; /* put some space between tables for legibility/clarity */
      }
      th img {
        max-width: 8em; /* manage size of note images */
      }
    </style>

    Here is the result:

    flute-fingering-chart-sample

    I hope that sparks a few ideas for you if you are considering putting together a fingering chart. If you have other methods or tips, please share in the comments section!

  • Playing in tune: five factors

    One of the first “technical” things I wrote on this blog was about playing in tune. I ran across that now-embarrassing post recently and decided it is time to revisit that topic since my thinking about it has crystallized a bit more.

    To play a woodwind instrument in tune, there are five factors to address:

    Photo, Shaylor
    Photo, Shaylor
    1. Ears. If you don’t know what “in tune” sounds like, you probably won’t do it by accident. I still like the Tuning CD (now available as a download) for this. Follow the instructions for your instrument and do a few minutes every day over the long term. Sing, too. Electronic tuners have some uses but ear training doesn’t happen to be one of them.
    2. Equipment. Play the best instruments, mouthpieces, etc. you are able to get. If you are picking out new equipment, intonation should probably be your top priority over sexier things like “tone,” which is both more subjective and more malleable. (Incidentally, this is one of the best arguments for playing new woodwind instruments rather than “vintage,” since, generally speaking, incremental improvements mean that each generation of instruments plays better in tune than the one before.) Sure, you can “play” a lesser instrument in tune, but let your equipment do as much of the work for you as possible.
    3. Playing technique. This includes, for starters, consistent and powerful breath support, accurate and stable voicing, and a well-formed embouchure. Even small weaknesses in any of these areas makes your pitch less steady and predictable, and more significant weaknesses can make good intonation virtually impossible.
    4. Adjustment of the tuning mechanism(s). This means pulling something in or out to slightly adjust the instrument’s length, but it could also include, say, selecting a clarinet barrel or a bassoon bocal. Assuming good equipment and solid playing technique, there will be a “spot” where the mouthpiece/barrel/headjoint/etc. should go for the instrument to play optimally in tune at its intended pitch level (A=440? A=442? etc.). Any deviation from this should be a carefully-considered compromise. For example, if you are playing with an ensemble that tunes a little sharper than you’re used to, you can “push in” to make it a little easier to get up to pitch, but you will find that the instrument’s intonation characteristics change: some notes will get a little sharper, some a lot sharper.
    5. Adjustment of individual notes. Even on the best instruments, some notes have undesirable pitch tendencies. And sometimes you have to play a note a little “out of tune” to match another musician’s pitch, to meet the demands of “just” intonation, for expressive purposes, or for a variety of other reasons. These adjustments are best made by using alternate fingerings or by making slight temporary changes in voicing. Be wary of using any other technique, including things like “rolling” the flute or making any embouchure changes (“dropping the jaw”), which are unwieldy and compromise other aspects of tone production.

    Development of good intonation is a cycle of revisiting each of these elements again and again: each improvement to your ears, each equipment change, each change in your technique, each adjustment of a tuning mechanism, and the needs of each individual playing situation may require further refinements of all the other areas. If intonation isn’t something you have tackled seriously before, then start by working on your ears, and be patient.

  • Tonguing and language sounds

    Be wary of pedagogical approaches to woodwind articulation that depend on analogies to speech sounds.

    The most common, at least in the English-speaking world, is the idea that tonguing is like saying “too” or “doo.” And certainly there are significant mechanical similarities, especially with “too.” “Doo” doesn’t work as well because it is a voiced consonant, produced essentially the same way as “too” but with vibration of the vocal cords, an undesirable effect for woodwind playing (except for some extended techniques).

    Some teachers recommend something like “too” for crisper articulations and “doo” for gentler ones. If you compare carefully your whispered (unvoiced) “t” and “d” sounds, you may find that they are not, in fact, completely identical. My “t” gives a bit more explosive sound, because I release the entire tongue, and my “d” is softer because I tend to release only the tip of the tongue, keeping the back in contact with my molars. But this difference doesn’t apply to good woodwind playing technique, in which the back of the tongue must be kept independent from the tip in order to manipulate voicing.

    “Loo” is another one that gets mentioned sometimes for gentler articulations. This one also doesn’t work well if taken literally because (1) the “l” sound is voiced and (2) it leaks air around the sides of the tongue. (You can approximate an unvoiced version by whispering “lll…,” but that sound isn’t typically used in English.) A woodwind book I read recently recommends some additional oddities like “droo” or “thoo.” “Droo” doesn’t work well because it has a sequence of two consonant tongue positions, one of which is voiced. “Thoo” (presumably the unvoiced version) leaks air near the tip of the tongue.

    Another point worth making is that consonant sounds in English aren’t necessarily the same as consonants in other languages, so even if we select some workable English consonant sounds, it’s not a given that those are the ideal choices. (Plenty of study has already been done on this topic.)

    And that’s just the consonants. Assuming they are used as a shorthand for describing articulations, with an understanding that they do not precisely represent articulation technique, vowel sounds can still cause confusion. Consider the “oo” in “too.” Vowel sounds are loosely analogous to woodwind voicings, so it is best to match the vowels to the instrument. Is “oo” the right voicing to evoke?

    For low-voiced instruments, an “oh”- or “ah”-like vowel sound is a better match. (“Oh” is still problematic because English speakers pronounce it as a diphthong, two vowel sounds in sequence—this will cause unstable pitch and tone when applied to a woodwind instrument. To avoid this, we must borrow an “o” sound from another language.) For the clarinet, “ee” is the closest match. For saxophones, the vowel sound needs to be somewhere in between, perhaps near the schwa (ə) sound like the “a” in “about.”

    Language sounds can be used only as a very limited analogy for woodwind articulation technique—use them with care.

  • Jazz opportunities for woodwind players: learn the saxophone

    Jazz clarinetist (and saxophonist!) Eddie Daniels. Photo, Professor Bop

    I’ve been having a great time directing the university jazz band this year (alas, a temporary assignment). The group performed recently for some talented high school musicians from around the state, the kind of students I would like to recruit. After the performance, I was approached by no less than three of them, each expressing an interest in playing in the group in the future. None of them play instruments typical of jazz big band arrangements.

    I’ve had this happen with private students, too. I once met with a very young and enthusiastic clarinetist and her mother. They explained to me that the young clarinetist was being excluded from her middle school jazz band because she didn’t play a “jazz” instrument. Their plan was for her to study clarinet with me, and to get so good that the jazz band director would “just have to” accept her into the group.

    The clarinet, of course, does have a noble history in jazz music (even big bands), as does the flute, and, less frequently, the double reeds. And don’t get me wrong here—I love playing and listening to jazz on all those instruments, and would love to see every young woodwind player, regardless of instrument, get the chance to participate. But there are some practical barriers. Read More “Jazz opportunities for woodwind players: learn the saxophone”

  • Woodwind doubling recital program, Northwestern University, 1950

    A new Internet friend shared this gem with me (click for slightly larger):

    Read More “Woodwind doubling recital program, Northwestern University, 1950”

  • Maintaining direction in staccato passages

    In my last post, I pointed out that staccato notes are not always exactly “detached,” even though they may give that impression. Now let’s consider how this sense of detachment, real or false, can disrupt a phrase.

    To make a legato phrase sound like a unified idea, all I have to do as a minimum is make sure my air doesn’t stop: my fingers and tongue delineate individual notes, but the sound is continuous. But with a staccato phrase, the sound stops (at least sort of). We could perhaps visualize it this way, with each box representing a note:

    staccato notes

    There’s not a clear sense of continuity—each note is an island.

    But I can make the notes sound like they belong together, without eliminating the space between them. For example, suppose I give the passage a subtle crescendo:

    staccato notes, with crescendo

    The space between the notes is the same, but now there is a clear relationship. It’s obvious that the individual notes, though detached, make up a single structure and not six separate ones.

    A bit of crescendo is a reliable and tasteful way to do this in many cases, but really any variable aspect of musical expression could ostensibly be used: decrescendo, change in tone color, change in vibrato, accelerando or ritardando, or just about anything else that can be varied continuously across a group of notes. Make sure each note you play serves a larger phrase!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments that take a negative or confrontational tone are subject to email and name verification before being approved. In other words: no anonymous trolls allowed—take responsibility for your words.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.