The woodwind section in Mozart’s late symphonies

Introduction

The woodwind section of the symphony orchestra has long held a place of preeminence. Woodwind historian Anthony Baines gushes: “…the woodwind [section] is a small cluster of musicians in whom the greatest virtuosity in the symphony or opera orchestra is concentrated. It is the orchestra’s principal solo section… They are stars because composers for over two hundred years have made them so…”1 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart certainly made stars of the woodwinds—in fact, he may have been the most important link between the string-heavy ensembles of the early symphonies and the lush, varied sounds of the post-Beethoven orchestra.

Nathan Broder points out that Haydn and a multitude of lesser figures made contributions during this same period. However, when comparing Haydn and Mozart:

Of the two, Mozart was the more progressive. Younger, more impressionable, more sensitive to contemporary music, and possessed of a wider knowledge of it because of his travels, it was he who, after having learned much from the symphonies of Haydn, took the lead and reached the pinnacle of pre-Beethoven instrumentation. It was he in whose work were combined all the progressive tendencies of the various outstanding composers of the time, and whose symphonies present a summing-up of orchestral advancement in the latter half of the eighteenth century.2

The late symphonies3 in particular provide insights into Mozart’s relationship with the woodwinds. These represent a mature, though certainly still evolving, approach to orchestration, with a heightened sensitivity to the character of each instrument. Within the six years that these six symphonies were written, we see Mozart move from the more traditional orchestration procedures to a more modern sensibility where the woodwinds are given pride of place as section and soloists capable of bearing the weight of full-fledged symphony themes.

Symphonists before Mozart took a relatively casual approach to the makeup of the woodwind section. According to Adam Carse, “a certain freedom of choice between oboe and flute,”4 and later clarinet, was common in orchestral writing and performance practice. In Mozart’s late symphonies, however, we begin to see flute parts written for the flute’s unique colors and idiosyncrasies, oboe parts written for that instrument’s distinctive tone, and even the bassoons promoted above the level of continuo workhorses. And the addition of the clarinet to the woodwind section can scarcely be discussed without mention of Mozart’s contributions.

Mozart’s woodwind section

The six symphonies under consideration show some variation in the makeup of the woodwind section:

Symphony Flutes Oboes Clarinets Bassoons
K.385 “Haffner” [original Salzburg version] 0 2 0 2
K.385 “Haffner” [version revised for Vienna] 2 (1st and 4th movements only) 2 2 (in A – 1st and 4th movements only) 2
K.425 “Linz” 0 2 0 2
K.504 “Prague” 2 2 0 2
K.543 1 0 2 (in B flat) 2
K.550 [original version] 1 2 0 2
K.550 [revised version] 1 2 2 (in B flat) 2
K.551 “Jupiter” 1 2 0 2

According to Thomas Glastras:

Mozart had two main criteria for which wind instruments he would use in his symphonies; 1) the aesthetic nature of the various winds, and 2) the availability of the various instruments. Of course, many times these two were obviously considered together, or rather, it would be impossible to say which came first.5

This seems a reasonable explanation for the variation in Mozart’s woodwind section throughout the late symphonies, but Neal Zaslaw adds some additional possible criteria. First is range; Zaslaw points out that the flutes of Mozart’s day were weaker in their lower register, while the oboes “thinned out”6 above the treble staff. Therefore, depending on the key and register of the material, different instruments may have been appropriate for different situations.

Zaslaw also asserts that Mozart is more likely to use flutes in the keys of C, D, or E flat (five out of our six symphonies are in these keys—K.550 is in G minor) because in these keys the horns use shorter crooks and are pitched higher, leaving less space for high woodwind parts.7 The flutes, with their stronger and more expansive high range, are more effective in these cases than oboes, which would crowd the horns in their best register. This theory may explain why K.543 (in E flat) surprisingly omits the oboes altogether, using flute and two clarinets, with their stronger high registers, instead.

Finally, Zaslaw suggests that Mozart may have considered venue acoustics in his orchestrations, especially when writing for open, semicircular theaters rather than resonant, rectangular concert halls.8 Zaslaw points out that the Haffner symphony was first performed, with oboes and bassoons only, in a Salzburg hall, but performed later in a Vienna theater with added flutes and clarinets.

Mozart’s expansion of the winds in K.385 may have been an effort to take full advantage of the Viennese orchestral forces at his disposal, but it was quite probably also an attempt to alter a work calculated for a hall to make it ideal for a theatre.9

The woodwind instruments of Mozart’s day were, of course, somewhat different in construction and timbre from in ones in use by modern instrumentalists. Baines comments:

Elementary though the old instruments appear to the eye, inwardly they are very subtle. Modern instruments possess many qualities that the old ones do not, but the converse is also true, and as one works patiently at the ‘antiques’ they reveal musical beauties that fully explain how it was that Mozart and the rest were able to put them to such superlative use.10

The bassoon was already well established as an orchestral instrument. But in the late symphonies, we see Mozart’s bassoon, as Adam Carse puts it, “release[d]… from its duty of always playing the bass part, and [getting] some measure of independence in the tenor register.”11 In the Haffner symphony, our earliest example (1782), the score calls for Fagotti in the plural, though in the first, third, and fourth movements, they spend most of their time playing a deux, doubling the bass line. However, in the second movement, we see the bassoons joining the oboes as a four-part reed choir. In subsequent symphonies, Mozart gives the bassoons more and more freedom, sometimes functioning as bass instruments, sometimes as members of a unified woodwind section, and with increasing frequency as key soloists.

In Mozart’s time the oboes were “indispensable”12 even in smaller orchestras. The large, established orchestra of the 18th century had flutes available, but used them less often than the oboes. When flutes were used, it was often in place of the oboes, sometimes only for one movement. It was not uncommon for the oboists also to play the flute, and, later, the clarinet.13 This is probably the intention in the Michael Haydn symphony mislabeled as K.444, where the oboes are replaced by flutes, likely played by the same musicians, during the first half of the second movement.

Mozart seems to have had a special affection for the clarinet. He was likely introduced to the new and still rare instrument by the virtuosos of the Mannheim orchestra. Broder mentions that in 1778 Mozart wrote to his father, sighing, “Oh, if only we too had clarinets!”14 Mozart’s concerto for the instrument is still the crowning jewel of the clarinetist’s repertoire.

Woodwinds in the late symphonies

Of the late symphonies, only the first, K.385,15 has the complete woodwind section of the so-called “full high-Classical orchestra,”16 with pairs of flutes, oboes, clarinets, and bassoons, and this only after Mozart revised the orchestration for performance in Vienna. The woodwinds are used here in ways that only hint at the greater trust Mozart will give them in subsequent symphonies. Nathan Broder implies that the winds might have gotten more attention here had the symphony not been written in such haste; the symphony shows signs of having been conceived for the string section.17

Example 1
Example 1

The most interesting woodwind moments in this symphony belong to the oboes and bassoons which were in the original orchestration. Starting in measure 67 of the first movement they dominate a 7-measure woodwind interlude that sets up the tutti finish of the exposition. The descending “sigh” steps that characterize this interlude reappear starting in measure 118, at the closing of the development, in solo oboe and bassoon responses to the strings.

In the second movement Mozart does not add flutes and clarinets to his original orchestration; here the double reeds work closely with the horns in parts that are largely independent of the strings. The bassoons, surprisingly but very effectively, get to play a brief bass line almost free of the low strings (measures 12-15 and 61-64). The same instrumentation applies to the third movement, but in this minuet the reeds never play more than a supporting role to the violins and violas. The added flutes and clarinets reappear in the finale as little more than filler for tutti passages. The bassoons dutifully double the bass line, and the first oboe gets one all-too-brief moment of melody (measures 190-198), fortified at the octave by violins.

In the first movement of the “Linz” symphony (K.425) the oboes and bassoons make contributions to the introductory Adagio section and the coda, but participate significantly only in the development section (see measures 8, 169, and 123). Their only real thematic involvement occurs in the second theme gavotte (measure 71).

Example 2
Example 2

The Poco Adagio and Menuetto movements would miss the woodwinds little (besides octave doublings) were they removed altogether. The exception is the final eight measures of the Menuetto’s Trio section, in which the solo bassoon plays echoes to the violins and oboe (m. 50).

In the final movement, the woodwinds are once again relegated to strictly accompanimental roles except for teasingly short solos buried in the development section (mm. 201 and 204).

In the “Prague” Symphony, K.504, the woodwinds (here, a pair each of flutes, oboes, and bassoons) are used much more fully, and in more idiomatic ways. This is clear from the very introduction of the first movement. Within these 36 measures, the woodwinds are used in a surprising variety of formats. They are used in tutti in six-part harmony, in quartets of fl-ob-ob-bsn, fl-ob-bsn-bsn, and fl-fl-ob-ob, and in duets of fl-ob and ob-bsn. All three principal woodwind parts include brief solos.

Example 3
Example 3

The woodwinds also make their true expository-material debut in this movement. In the seventh measure of the Allegro section (m. 43 of the movement) the winds seize a rare opportunity to powerfully rebuff the string section’s timid opening argument. The oboe then makes an eloquent solo statement. At the close of the first theme, the winds retain the stronger position while the strings, unusually, content themselves with subservient fanfare figures (m. 63).

As if to legitimize the dominance of the winds in the first theme, Mozart scores the second for a humbled string section. The bassoons comment in harmony on the strings’ melody (m. 105).

The woodwinds participate actively and independently in the development section. At the recapitulation, the oboe develops its solo remarks from the exposition, and then passes them to the flute for further commentary (m. 217).

In the second movement, the woodwinds are perhaps less independent but make up the difference in vividness of color. Mozart enthusiastically avails himself of the palette of available woodwind colors here (see especially the flute in mm. 36 and 61, the oboe in mm. 20, 60, and 67, and the bassoon in mm. 31 and 82).

The finale casts the woodwind choir as a foil to the string section. Though used primarily for contrast rather than exposition, the woodwind passages (often unaccompanied!) are given weight and authority that belies their mostly nonfunctional nature. The principal flute leads these woodwind episodes much in the manner of a prima donna operatic soprano.

Mozart’s three final symphonies showcase a mature, personal approach to orchestration. Christoph Wolff opines:

… one likes to single out Mozart’s Last three symphonies of 1788 as a category in its own right where Mozart demonstrates an extraordinary and largely unprecedented command in his handling of symphonic form and orchestral possibilities. And it is nearly a cliché to characterize his technique of instrumentation as natural, intuitive and most ingenious … The degree of refinement in Mozart’s orchestral writings from the mid-1780s on is well above everything else in both theory and practice of instrumentation. We have no choice but to regard Mozart as basically a self-taught master of instrumentation. This is by no means a revolutionary notion, since there are so many elements and aspects of Mozart’s style that are without any precedents.

Mozart’s purpose in writing the final “trilogy” of symphonies has been debated at length. In a 1992 article, I. Grattan-Guiness makes a convincing argument that Mozart wrote them, despite desperate financial circumstances and a lack of commissions (as far as modern scholarship has been able to determine), as an expression of Masonic devotion. If this is indeed the case, it seems strange that Mozart wrote three symphonies in such a short time with different woodwind sections—surely works of such personal import and free of practical limitations would be written with an ideal woodwind section in mind (which we might presume would include one flute and two each of oboes, clarinets and bassoons)? It is probably a safe guess that the clarinets were added to Mozart’s original K.550 orchestration as a consideration for some later performance of that work. After such success with the clarinets in previous works, it is surprising that Mozart omitted them in K.551, unless it were written with a specific commission in mind.

The most immediately striking feature of the K.543 woodwind section is the omission of the oboes. Somehow less conspicuous is the substitution of clarinets—they are handled with subtlety, though given small moments in the spotlight. The use of a single flute seems curious from a perspective of post-Beethoven scoring practices, especially since Mozart scores the flute higher here than in any of the previous late symphonies. The clarinets provide stronger high-register support than the oboes (especially those of Mozart’s time) would have been able to offer, but the intervals between flute and first clarinet are precariously wide in places. Still, a cursory survey of Mozart’s orchestral works shows a strong preference for the single flute.

Example 4
Example 4

Throughout K.543, the woodwinds are used almost exclusively as a unit, sometimes supporting the strings and sometimes playing contrapuntally with them. The most remarkable woodwind occurrence is the clarinet solo in the Trio of the Menuetto with its equally interesting Alberti-bass-like figure in the second clarinet (m. 45 of the movement). The second clarinet here uses the low “chalumeau” register to extraordinary effect in a perhaps unprecedented manner. Also very effective are several places throughout the symphony where Mozart uses a clarinet-bassoon choir (1st mvt. mm. 115, 152; 2nd mvt. mm. 39, 73; 4th mvt. mm. 89, 139, 198).

The G minor symphony, K.550, is of special interest because Mozart modified the original orchestration, with flute, two oboes, and two bassoons, to accommodate the addition of two clarinets in B flat. In the case of the Haffner symphony, parts were added for flutes and clarinets, but in this case the original oboe parts have been changed to allow the clarinets to take a more integral role in the orchestration.

In many places, clarinets have been added to tutti sections without modifying the oboe parts. In several instances, however, what was formerly an oboe-bassoon duet has been changed to the clarinet-bassoon sonority so favored in K.543 (see 1st mvt. mm. 45, 55, 72, 140 [tied whole notes]). In other places, the woodwind choir has been revoiced to blend the clarinets seamlessly into the texture (1st mvt. mm. 127, 153, 196, etc.), or the clarinets have simply taken the place of the oboes in the woodwind choir (1st mvt. mm. 14, 148, 160, etc.).

In the Menuetto movement, the woodwinds are used at the end of the second strain to soothe the listener with a soft, legato melody after the relative harshness of the preceding measures. Mozart elects to replace the oboes with sweeter-sounding clarinets at this juncture, though he keeps the original oboe parts to give added brilliance to the G major Trio section while the clarinets sit out.

The final Allegro Assai movement adds clarinets to ensemble passages leaving the original oboe parts nearly unaltered. Virtually every oboe solo, however, has been stripped from the original part and given to the clarinet (mm. 86, 190, and 262; the sole exception is m. 146).

In the C major “Jupiter” symphony (K.551), we see further evidence that Mozart’s woodwind section has coalesced into a full member of the orchestra, capable of carrying important thematic material, but having risen above novelty.

Example 5
Example 5

In the first movement alone, several examples prove this to be the case. In measure 24, the flute and oboe (joined shortly by the bassoon) subdue and calm the fiery opening motive, reducing the violins to a whisper. The simplicity of this woodwind motive belies its power—in measure 37, it returns at forte in the dominant key, whipping the strings again into a frenzy. Mozart further entrusts the woodwinds with the opening bars of the development section (m. 121), where they play a four-note figure, unaccompanied, in authoritative octaves, driving the orchestra into E flat major. The woodwinds continue to play a major role throughout the extensive development section, on a completely equal footing with strings, brasswinds, and timpani, but perhaps having the advantage in variety and subtlety of color. This mature, sophisticated woodwind section continues to manifest itself throughout the remainder of the symphony, imparting a stern dignity to the Andante Cantabile, a lightness (without frivolity) to the minuet, and diving headlong into the fuguelike fray of the finale.

Conclusion

In the space of six years and six symphonies, Mozart bridged the gap between earlier woodwind scoring practices and the dictates of his own genius. Indeed, Mozart’s mighty woodwinds would become the birthright of Beethoven, Wagner, and Schoenberg. Haydn said, close to the end of his life, “Only in my old age have I learned how to use the wind-instruments.” From whom else but Mozart could the great Haydn have learned such a lesson?

Bibliography

Recommended Recording

Wiener Philharmoniker, cond. Leonard Bernstein, Mozart: The Late Symphonies; Symphonies Nos. 25 & 29 (Hamburg: Deutsche Grammophon, recorded 1984-1990).

Recommended Scores

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Later Symphonies (Nos. 35-41) In Full Score (New York: Dover, 1974).

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Five Symphonies in Score, ed. Hugo Liechtentritt (New York: Books and Music, 1939).

W. A. Mozart Symphonie 38 [K.504], D major (Germany: Philharmonia).

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No. 39 in E flat major, K.543 (New York: Edwin Kalmus).

Mozart Symphony in G Minor, K.550, ed. Nathan Broder (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967).

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No.41 in C major, K.551 (New York: Edwin Kalmus).

Books and articles

Baines, Anthony. Woodwind Instruments and their History (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1959).

Broder, Nathan. “The Wind-Instruments in Mozart’s Symphonies,” The Musical Quarterly (1933), 238-259.

Carse, Adam. The Orchestra in the XVIIIth Century (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd., 1940).

Grattan-Guiness, I. “Why did Mozart write three symphonies in the summer of 1788?” The Music Review, vol. 53, no. 1 (1992), 1-6.

de St. Foix, G. The Symphonies of Mozart, trans. Leslie Orrey, (England: Wessex, 1932)

Tovey, Donald. Essays in Musical Analysis (London: Oxford, 1935).

Wolff, Christoph. “Aspects of Instrumentation in Mozart’s Orchestral Music,” L’interpretation de la Musique Classique de Haydn a Schubert (Paris: Editions Minkoff, 1977).

Zaslaw, Neal. “Mozart’s Orchestral Flutes and Oboes,” Mozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).

Notes

1. Anthony Baines, Woodwind Instruments and their History (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1959), 25.

2. Nathan Broder, “The Wind-Instruments in Mozart’s Symphonies,” The Musical Quarterly (1933), 238-239.

3. Beginning with K.385 (1782), and omitting K.444, of which it is now known that only the introduction to the first movement was written by Mozart (and the remainder by Michael Haydn).

4. Adam Carse, The Orchestra in the XVIIIth Century (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd., 1940), 126.

5. Thomas Glastras, Thirty-Five First Movements of Mozart Symphonies: Their Structural Development, Distribution of Instruments and Parts, and Character (Master’s thesis: Indiana University, 1954).

6. Neal Zaslaw, “Mozart’s Orchestral Flutes and Oboes,” Mozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 204.

7. Zaslaw, 205.

8. Ibid.

9. Zaslaw, 210.

10. Baines, 274.

11. Carse, 33-34.

12. Carse, 34.

13. Zaslaw, 202.

14. Broder, 252.

15. For analysis, see International Music Edition. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Five Symphonies in Score, ed. Hugo Liechtentritt (New York: Books and Music, 1939).

16. Zaslaw, 201.

17. Broder, 254.

18. Measure numbers based on Dover edition. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Later Symphonies (Nos. 35-41) In Full Score. New York: Dover, 1974.

19. For analysis, see Donald Tovey, Essays in Musical Analysis (London: Oxford, 1935), 183-185.

20. For analysis, see Philharmonia edition. W. A. Mozart Symphonie 38, D major (Germany: Philharmonia).

21. Christoph Wolff, “Aspects of Instrumentation in Mozart’s Orchestral Music,” L’interpretation de la Musique Classique de Haydn a Schubert (Paris: Editions Minkoff, 1977), 37-38.

22. See G. de St. Foix, The Symphonies of Mozart, trans. Leslie Orrey, (England: Wessex, 1932), 94-95.

23. I. Grattan-Guiness, “Why did Mozart write three symphonies in the summer of 1788?” The Music Review, vol. 53, no. 1 (1992), 1-6.

24. For analysis, see Kalmus edition. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No. 39 in E flat major, K.543 (New York: Edwin Kalmus).

25. See Broder, 257.

26. For analysis, see Norton Critical Scores edition. Mozart Symphony in G Minor, K.550, ed. Nathan Broder (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967).

27. The Dover edition includes the original parts, plus the added clarinets and modified oboe parts.

28. For analysis, see Kalmus edition. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No.41 in C major, K.551 (New York: Edwin Kalmus).

29. Quoted in Broder, 259.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Reedmaking and choosing your college oboe or bassoon professor

    US college/university music departments and conservatories are filled with talented, qualified faculty. If you are an oboist or bassoonist bound for a large school then there will almost certainly be both oboe and bassoon professors there with outstanding credentials and years of high-level teaching and performing experience.

    Smaller schools are also well-stocked with excellent music faculty, and can provide a very, very good education. But one thing to bear in mind is that in smaller music departments, the faculty members often have to wear multiple hats, sometimes teaching instruments that they don’t perform on.

    Those professors still have much to teach you, and while it’s not an ideal situation it’s also not unheard of. However, for double reed students, there’s an additional wrinkle: the need to learn reedmaking.

    Reedmaking is a crucial skill for oboists and bassoonists. At larger schools it’s not unusual for the oboe and bassoon professors to offer classes in reedmaking, or at least to spend a significant chunk of lesson time on it. And while still learning this art, you will probably need someone to provide you with reeds or adjust ones you purchase elsewhere. (The ones from your local music store or online retailer aren’t likely to play at the level you will need for college study.)

    So, if you’re considering a school where you might study with someone who isn’t a performer on your double reed instrument, it would be worthwhile to find out their plan for teaching you reedmaking. If they don’t have a detailed and convincing one, you might think about some other schools, especially if you are planning to pursue a performance degree, or ask your teacher about ways to fill that gap in your education.

  • A minimal Little-Jake electric bassoon setup

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    Be sure to check out my recent interview with Trent Jacobs, the inventor of the Little-Jake bassoon/woodwind pickup.

    During the past year I got myself a Little-Jake to experiment with some electrified bassoon playing. I didn’t know much about using electronics in this way, and it took some research and trial-and-error to figure out exactly what I needed to use the Little-Jake with my bassoon. I thought others might find it useful to see that information all in one place. Here’s a kind of minimum setup:

    • A bocal that you’re willing to have altered. I had an old one that I liked but wasn’t using much.
    • The bocal needs a small hole drilled in it and an adapter soldered to it. A skilled instrument technician can probably make you an adapter from scratch, or you can buy one pre-made. Forrests Music has one, and so does Midwest Musical Imports. I bought Forrests’s (cheaper) version, plus the threaded plug in case I want to use the bocal without the Little-Jake. I shipped my bocal to Forrests and they installed the adapter for a very reasonable fee.
      Brass adapter visible just above whisper key pip

      Adapter with plug
    • The Little-Jake pickup. It’s a thin cable with a 1/4″ plug on one end, and a little threaded connector on the other. The threaded end connects to the adapter on your bocal.
    • A preamp. The 1/4″ end of the Little-Jake connects to the preamp’s input jack. The preamp works some electrical magic to get the electronic “signal” ready for amplification. You can buy an inexpensive one made from an Altoids tin, or this L. R. Baggs one that Trent recommends, or there are other options if you know what you’re doing. The L. R. Baggs is handy because it clips to your belt and provides a volume control.
    • An audio cable, like the ones used for electric guitars. One end plugs into your preamp’s output jack.
    • An amplifier. The other end of the audio cable plugs into an input jack on the amplifier. There are many options at many price points. I use a small Mackie PA system for practicing or small venues, or a keyboard amplifier if I need more volume. Keyboard amps and PA systems are usually designed for a relatively “clean,” unaltered sound, whereas guitar amps tend to add their own character. This is a personal choice depending on what you want to sound like, but for me the keyboard/PA-type amp seemed to make sense as a starting point.
    Assembled system: bocal → Little-Jake → preamp → audio cable → amplifier (in this case, a small PA system)

    That’s enough to start making some fun sounds, but refer to Trent’s interview and an article on his website for some thoughts on adding effects pedals, which really make things interesting.

    My current pedalboard setup

    The Little-Jake can be used for some other instruments, as well, with the same setup (except the adapter must be attached to a saxophone or bass clarinet neck, clarinet barrel, etc.).

  • Saxophone hand position

    I often see poor hand position among developing saxophonists. It’s not as much of a problem for oboists, clarinetists, or bassoonists, since those instruments’ finger holes demand a higher degree of finger-placement precision in order to close them properly; an open-holed flute also requires a little more care. But the saxophone’s toneholes are all covered by pads affixed to relatively large keys, so even with a casual approach to hand position getting the holes covered isn’t a serious problem.

    But there are a number of advantages to more careful hand positioning, and on a well-designed instrument it’s also really easy: just put the tips of the three middle fingers of each hand on the corresponding key touchpieces. (Not the tippy-tips, like a violinist, with the fingers perpendicular to the key surface, but the fleshy pad or “pulp” of the finger, just to the palm side of the tippy-tip.)

    Let’s look at the left hand first. I have superimposed (poorly) the key touches over my fingers to show their locations.

    Good hand position
    Good hand position
    Poor hand position
    Poor hand position

    Here are the problems that the poor hand position causes:

    • In order to fully depress the keys, the fingers may lock straight or even collapse backwards a bit. This makes the fingers’ motion more complicated and tense, and less efficient.
    • The fingers may contact the keys farther down the finger pad, perhaps even at or below the first knuckle crease. This decreases control over the keys. And/or…
    • The pads of the fingers contact the keys somewhere beyond the key touchpieces, giving the fingers less leverage and requiring more effort to depress the keys.
    • The pinky finger is shifted to a position where it is more difficult to reach the low C-sharp key, and where more effort is required to fully depress it.
    • Although not pictured here, the thumb should also be situated to that its pad contacts the octave key in a strong position with good leverage.

    Now the right hand.

    Good hand position
    Good hand position
    Poor hand position
    Poor hand position

    If poor right hand position is used:

    • As with the left hand, the fingers lose their neutral curve and become unnecessarily straightened.
    • As with the left hand, the contact points between the fingers and keys are less than optimal.
    • The pinky finger is shifted into a position where either the finger must be contorted to contact the E-flat key properly, or a less-optimal part of the finger contacts the key.
    • The ring finger must bend uncomfortably to reach the side F-sharp key, or that key must be pressed by stiffening the finger and contacting the key near the base of the finger, which is imprecise and awkward.
    • Sometimes poor right-hand position results from allowing the crook of the thumb and index finger to sit in the thumb hook. In these cases, good hand position will require repositioning the thumb so that the thumb’s distal joint is in the thumb hook.

    Some of my students, when asked to shift their hand position, have initially objected, insisting that their poor hand position is required due to their individual anatomy or the configuration of their individual saxophones. I have yet to see this prove true. I suppose I can’t eliminate the possibility that very rare situations exist that might call for a slight adjustment to the finger-pads-on-the-touchpieces positioning, but I haven’t encountered a significant case of this yet. Even with my larger-than-average hands (you may be able to spot my custom extra-high green palm key touchpieces in the photos), putting my fingertips on the touchpieces immediately creates an open, relaxed, and efficient hand position, with fast finger movement and a light touch on the keys. If your saxophone has badly-positioned touchpieces, you might consider visiting a good repair technician to have them relocated (or consider it a warning sign of a poorly-made instrument that should be replaced).

    Good hand position is a prerequisite to smooth, effortless saxophone technique. Check yours carefully, and set yourself up for success.

  • Using electronic harmonization with woodwinds

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    In a recent recital I performed my own arrangement of Ravel’s Boléro for multiple woodwinds soloist using electronics, with piano and snare drum. I used electronics to try to approximate some of Ravel’s harmonies (and timbres), and used what in my mind are three different techniques, which I’ll try to outline here.

    In performance, I used the BOSS GT-1000CORE guitar multi-effects unit to do most of the heavy lifting. I did find that it had difficulty tracking my flute playing (though, surprisingly, it did better with piccolo), so I used an Electro-Harmonix Pitch Fork + to assist with that instrument in particular. I also used a BOSS SY-200 to try to create some non-woodwind tone colors. There are plenty of other equipment options that can achieve similar effects, but you’re on your own to read the manuals.

    All of this was done with a microphone rather than pickups, which was less complicated for quick instrument switches, but did make it difficult to get relatively isolated woodwind sounds into the electronics, which ultimately caused problems with the audibility of some of the electronic sounds.

    The warts-and-all live performance is available on my YouTube channel, but I’ll provide some clearer, isolated examples here. For rehearsal numbers in the orchestral score, I’m referring to the Durand Edition on IMSLP.

    Technique 1: parallel intervals

    At rehearsal mark 8 in the score, horn and celeste play the A theme in octaves, with two piccolos playing in parallel a perfect fifth and a major tenth above the celeste’s highest octave, perhaps in imitation of a pipe organ’s mixture stop.

    To achieve this harmony with electronics, I played the upper piccolo part “live,” and routed the piccolo’s sound into the GT-1000CORE where I split it into two separate signal paths. One got transposed down using a digital pitch shifter to create the second piccolo part. The other got transposed down to the melody pitch and split into octaves, then routed through the SY-200 to turn the sound into something vaguely celeste-like.

    Since the intervals are strictly parallel, this is a pretty straightforward use of pitch shifting: whatever note I play on the piccolo gets transposed to the specified intervals.

    Technique 2: smart harmonization

    At rehearsal mark 16, a thickly-orchestrated ensemble of woodwinds, brass, and strings plays the A theme in harmony. I opted to play this portion on soprano saxophone, thickened and harmonized with a synthesized string section.

    Since the harmony in this section is largely diatonic, I used the GT-1000CORE’s smart harmonizer. I added voices a diatonic fourth and diatonic sixth below in the key of G (like a first-inversion triad), which tracks with the notes in the first part of the theme. But there’s a moment in the first part that uses F-natural instead of F-sharp, and the second part of the melody uses F-naturals exclusively, so I used the unit’s footswitches to change to the key of C major as needed. I routed all of this through the SY-200 to change the three soprano saxophones into a string section sound, with the “live” soprano remaining audible in the room.

    For the key switching, I set one footswitch as a “momentary” switch, so it changes the key just while I’m pressing it, and another as a “toggle” switch, so I can press and release it and the key remains changed. This gives me some helpful options for live performance.

    Technique 3: smart harmonization with custom scales

    The smart harmonizer works well out of the box as long as you want to use notes of a major scale (or mode thereof), but at rehearsal mark 15 Ravel’s harmonization is more complicated than that. Luckily, the GT-1000CORE supports smart harmonization with custom “scales.” What this really means is that I can tell the unit that any time I play a certain pitch, it should add one or more pitches that I can specify arbitrarily. I can add whatever pitches I like to each note of the chromatic scale.

    I chose to play this section on clarinet, using the electronics to turn it into a 3-part clarinet section. During the first phrase, the melody pitches are harmonized in a consistent way: every time there’s a melody concert B-flat it’s harmonized with a G and an E, every time there’s a melody C it’s harmonized with an A and an F, every time there’s a melody E it’s harmonized with a C and a G, and so forth. I can just tell the effects unit which harmony notes to add to each melody note.

    But things change in the first half of the second phrase: melody B-flat is now harmonized with G and D, and C is now harmonized with A and E. To accommodate this I have to create a second custom “scale,” and use a footswitch to activate it at the right time. To finish the second phrase requires a third scale, engaged with another footswitch.

    Because of the flexibility of the custom scale system, I can recreate harmonies that use a variety of intervals. With a little analysis I can figure out where the scale changes need to be (basically anywhere a given melody pitch is harmonized in a new way).

    Additional thoughts

    There are some limitations to using pitch shifters and harmonizers, depending on your equipment. Each virtual pitch shifter and harmonizer in the GT-1000CORE can only add two voices, though by (virtually) splitting the audio signal into multiple paths and passing each through its own shifter/harmonizer I can build thicker chords.

    When trying to reproduce specific harmonies written by a composer, there may be some decisions to make to balance accuracy with practicality. Serendipitously, most of Ravel’s harmony translated fairly easily to the effects unit’s capabilities. But there were a few spots where I decided that certain chord voicings were close enough, and that I didn’t need to complicate things with one more custom scale plus the corresponding onstage footwork.

    As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m more interested in electronic effects that give my woodwinds new capabilities, like polyphony, than in just adding some distortion or echo (though those are also fun). Enjoy!

  • Out-of-tune accents

    Young woodwind players often have trouble playing elegant, well-controlled accents. Accented notes are too often thumpy and out of tune. The most common manifestations are accented notes that are too flat, or that scoop up to pitch.

    This is usually a side effect of the mistaken idea that accented notes should be tongued “harder.” The underlying misconception here is that the tongue “strikes” the reed in some way to kickstart its vibration. But the tongue merely releases the air that does the real work of starting the note, and releasing the air… harder?… doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    In a misguided attempt to tongue harder, less-experienced players end up moving more of the tongue than is necessary. In good woodwind playing, the tongue serves at least two separate functions: the tip of the tongue releases the reed/air for articulation effects, and the back of the tongue controls the space in the oral cavity for voicing. Tonguing “harder” often involves the back of the tongue in the articulation process, which means the voicing changes, and thus the pitch changes.

    Solve this problem by teaching a correct conception of articulation. Treat accents as note shapes, a dynamic effect.

  • Not making your own double reeds

    I’ve posted a few times over the past year about making double reeds (cf. here, here, and here), and I maintain that this is the truest way to abiding oboe/bassoon satisfaction. If you consider those instruments to be serious parts of what you do as a musician, you need to learn to make—or at least skillfully adjust—reeds.

    But, frankly, not everyone is up to the challenge.

    The basic reedmaking process can be learned within a few lessons, but developing the skills well enough to make good reeds consistently can take years, and most reedmakers will continue to develop and modify their approach over a lifetime.

    Reedmaking is expensive, too. A set of the most basic tools for making reeds from preprocessed (gouged, shaped, and, for bassoon, profiled) cane costs as much as several boxes of clarinet or saxophone reeds, and the cane doesn’t come cheap, either. If you want the control of doing your own gouging, shaping, and so forth, the additional equipment may cost you nearly as much as a pro-line clarinet.

    And, of course, reedmaking takes time. I’ve heard the “rule of thumb” that an oboist, for example, should spend an hour making reeds for every hour he or she spends practicing. I don’t know that I agree entirely, but you get the idea of what kind of commitment is involved.

    So, if I’ve now talked you out of making your own reeds, what are your options?
    Read More “Not making your own double reeds”

One Comment

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.