What’s in a name? What “doublers” call themselves, part II

In my last post, I listed some alternate titles for “woodwind doubler.” Here are my thoughts on some of them.

Woodwind doubler (or just doubler) – I mentioned in my last post two problems with this one. The first is that “doubling” seems to indicate only two instruments; the second is that the term, in some contexts, has come to suggest musicians playing instruments on which they are not especially skilled. A third problem is that a layperson may not be able to infer the meaning (which they easily could with “flutist” or “saxophonist.”) Still in all, this is by far the most frequently used term for a player of multiple woodwind instruments, and is the quickest and clearest way to indicate just what it is that I do—provided that I’m speaking to someone in the music business.

Woodwind player – The immediate problem with this is that it isn’t clear enough. A doubler is all of these, but so is a musician who plays only clarinet. Using a plural form, as in woodwinds soloist, solves this problem at the expense of grammatical awkwardness. Woodwind man for some reason, seems to me to suggest a doubler, but it’s too slangy for professional use (ditto for woodwind-er), and of course has the problem of being gender-specific. “Woodwind woman” doesn’t quite have the same ring. “Woodwind person?”

A number of the titles I listed used either artist, soloist, specialist, performer, or instrumentalist (as in “woodwind artist,” “woodwind performer,” or “woodwind instrumentalist,” for example). “Artist,” “soloist,” and “specialist” have a touch of self-aggrandizement; okay for self-promotion (as of this writing, I’m using “woodwind artist” in my bio), but it would be nice to have a non-judgmental term that simply suggests a player of multiple woodwinds, whether of “artist” stature or not. “Performer” seems to go the other direction, making doubling sound like a stunt or novelty act. And “instrumentalist” is just plain redundant—you wouldn’t say “oboe instrumentalist.”

Quite a few possible titles use reed in them (i.e. “reed player,” “multi-reed instrumentalist”). The brevity of “reed player” is appealing, but seems to indicate a player of reed instruments only—though many of the doublers whose websites yielded “reed” titles count the flute among their instruments.

Oddly, Wikipedia currently has an entry for multireedist, but not “woodwind doubler.” (There is an entry for doubling, which gives definitions of the term in several musical and non-musical contexts; the closest it comes to addressing true woodwind doubling is the use of flute-piccolo doubling as an example. There is also an entry for multi-instrumentalist, which doesn’t mention woodwind doubling. [Wikipedia entries are subject to change.])

So, here’s my wish list for a title for what I am (currently “woodwind doubler”):

  • Vague enough to allow for any combination of woodwind instruments
  • Specific enough to show that I play instruments of multiple woodwind families
  • No built-in judgments (negative OR positive)
  • Clear, preferably even to a nonmusician
  • Concise and grammatically acceptable

“Multiple woodwind player?” How about “multiwoodwindist?” Hmm.

Similar Posts

  • Pushing in and pulling out

    As a follow-up to last month’s post on playing in tune, I would like to revisit the idea of adjusting woodwind tuning mechanisms (generally by the “pushing in” or “pulling out” of some joint of the instrument). Note that this information is probably of most value to advanced players; beginning and intermediate players should be focusing their intonation efforts on breath support and voicing.

    A simplistic view of “tuning” is that “pulling out” makes the instrument play a little flatter and “pushing in” makes it play a little sharper. The problem is that not all notes are affected equally.

    For example, let’s keep the math simple and imagine an instrument that is 100cm long with its tuning mechanism pushed all the way in. And let’s imagine that instrument has a tonehole that can be opened to give the tube an effective length of 50cm.

    tuning_percent_before

    Now suppose that you pull the tuning mechanism out by 1cm. The lengths of the tube for the notes are now 101cm and 51cm.

    tuning_percent_after

    They have changed by the same absolute length, but not by the same percentage. The shorter-tube notes (those with more open toneholes) are more dramatically affected by changes in the tuning mechanism than the long-tube notes are.

    This is a problem without a tidy solution. A high-quality instrument is built to play at a specific pitch standard (A=440, A=442, etc.) with the tuning mechanism adjusted to a precise location and at a specific temperature. The “easiest” way to play in tune is to own an instrument built to your preferred pitch standard (such as the one your ensemble tunes to), play only in spaces having a suitable temperature, and adjust the tuning mechanism to that precise spot every time. In reality, of course, we need the flexibility of a moveable tuning mechanism to adapt to a variety of circumstances, but we have to be aware of the consequences of pushing in and pulling out.

    An additional wrinkle, so to speak, is that adjusting tuning mechanisms can introduce perturbations to the instrument’s bore. Skilled instrument makers can purposefully create perturbations to improve an instrument’s intonation, but undesirable perturbations can have non-intuitive effects on the instrument’s scale.

    Here’s what I mean by the tuning mechanism creating a perturbation. Notice how when the tuning mechanism is pushed in the bore is a consistent width, but when the tuning mechanism is pulled out, there is a wider spot in the bore:

    perturbation

    This is one of the benefits of tuning a clarinet or bassoon flatter by switching to a longer barrel or bocal: you get the additional length you need without creating a bore perturbation (though remember, notes are still affected unequally). A workaround for clarinetists is to use tuning rings, preferably matched to the instrument’s bore size at that joint, to fill in the perturbation.

    Most of getting tuned up has to do with obtaining a high-quality instrument and playing it with high-quality basic technique (good breath support, voicing, and embouchure). That last little bit of improvement is complex and elusive, and understanding some of the reasons for that can help you get there.

  • Being a beginner on your doubles

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

    I’ve mentioned often on this blog the idea of “being a beginner” on your woodwind doubles. Here’s what I mean by that.

    When I was a college saxophone major just starting to get serious about doubling, I arranged to take some flute lessons one summer. At my first-ever flute lesson, the teacher told me she knew that I was an accomplished saxophonist already (a generous assessment) and therefore wouldn’t need much more than some instruction on embouchure. That made sense to me, so she sent me away with my first repertoire assignment: a Mozart concerto. Read More “Being a beginner on your doubles”

  • Woodwind doubling and clarinet problems

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

    Here are a few of the common problems woodwind doublers have with the clarinet:

    Flabby/saggy/tubby/airy tone and flat pitch. This is a dead giveaway for a self-“taught” clarinet doubler. The clarinet’s voicing is quite high, higher than any of the other woodwinds, and beginning clarinetists sometimes struggle for years to make that proper voicing a consistent habit. Once it settles in, pitch problems mostly evaporate, tone becomes clear and ringing, and notes respond beautifully and easily in every register. If you’re thinking about buying a shorter barrel because your “clarinet” is so flat all the time, don’t. Work on your voicing instead. Voicing is the #1 crucial technique for successful clarinet doubling, and will solve most of your problems.

    It may also be worth checking your mouthpiece angle—it should be quite steep compared to saxophone or double reed instruments. Keep your head up straight and eyes forward, and aim in the ballpark of keeping the clarinet around 30° from vertical. You can also use the paper trick to make sure you’re taking in the right amount of mouthpiece.

    Reeds can be a contributing factor, too. Often (but not always) saxophonists lean toward a slightly more open mouthpiece and softer reed, while clarinetists lean toward a little more closed mouthpiece and stiffer reed. The strength you prefer on a typical saxophone mouthpiece may not be right strength for a typical clarinet mouthpiece.

    Constricted tone. Bafflingly, there’s a common pedagogical idea that clarinetists should tighten their embouchures to fix various problems. This is nonsense. Keep your jaw open to make space for the reed to vibrate, and let your lips (not your jaw/teeth) close around the mouthpiece, not tight but just airtight. Notes will respond more readily, with a fuller, prettier tone, and you can throw away the tape or paper or dental appliance you have been using to cushion your lower lip from your teeth.

    Squeaks. 95% of the time this is an issue of fingers failing to properly cover toneholes. (And 95% of the time, struggling clarinet doublers blame it on something having vaguely to do with embouchure, reeds, or the clarinet somehow just being a squeaky instrument.) Use the large, fleshy pads of your fingers (not the tippy-tips) to cover the holes. Sometimes a quick check in the mirror can reveal that your fingers aren’t where you think they are.

    Fingering awkwardness. The clarinet’s fingering system and unique overtone series provide tremendous advantages: an expansive range, clean and precise technique, and lots of useful alternate fingerings. (It’s superior to the saxophone’s “easier” system with awkward palm keys and relatively few alternates. Fight me.)

    But if you’re coming from another instrument, you might find the 12th between the lower and clarion registers confounding. That’s because you’re still thinking about the fingerings. Practice your scales, arpeggios, and études until your fingers move on autopilot, like they already do on your primary instrument. It can be done.

    The clarinet’s dreaded “break” as a technique concern is mostly a myth. Keep your support, voicing, and embouchure well-formed and stable, and just move your fingers. Your left index finger should rock or tilt between its tonehole and the A key, not hop (losing contact with the instrument) or slide (dragging along the key). Work toward a tiny, efficient, relaxed movement.

    The clarinet’s clever system of redundant pinky keys enables lightning-fast technique in virtually any key, but it takes real effort to learn to use them well. Remember that for those pinky-finger notes there aren’t really “standard” vs. “alternate” fingerings—you need to know them all well enough to use interchangeably. And if you have beginner habits like using both pinkies for third-line B, you will need to learn to use a single pinky in many cases for the most efficient and flexible approach.

    Ledger line catastrophes. Because of the clarinet’s broad tessitura, clarinetists have to be fluent in ledger lines above the staff (maybe more than you’re used to if you’re an oboist) and below the staff (more than you’re used to on any treble-clef woodwind). Hit the Baermann or Kroepsh books for thorough workouts spanning the clarinet’s range.

    Remember the best money you can spend on your clarinet playing isn’t another mouthpiece or barrel or book—it’s some lessons with an excellent teacher. Learn the instrument on its own terms, and, whatever you do, try not to sound like a doubler.

  • Reed adjustment checklist

    Problems with your clarinet or saxophone reeds?

    1. If you buy into the myth that there are only two or three “good” reeds in a box of ten, you are buying the wrong reeds. There are many, many options available to you. When I’ve got the right brand, cut, and size of reed for my mouthpiece and embouchure, easily eight play respectably well right out of the box. Within 15-20 minutes, I can adjust nine or ten to play quite well, and maybe three or four of those at recital quality. I use the steps below and nothing else.
    2. Um, no.
      Um, no.
      Don’t waste time and cane messing with the topography of the reed’s cut. With all the variation in reeds, the cut is the one thing that is really quite consistent. If you don’t like the cut, shop around some more. If you own a diagram like the one shown here, with elaborate instructions on which tiny sectors of reed you should sand, I recommend that you throw it away.

    3. Make sure the reed is flat. Many aren’t, and one that was flat yesterday may not be flat today. A piece of 600-grit wet-dry sandpaper held against a piece of glass is the perfect tool for this. Concentrate on the part of the reed that contacts the mouthpiece’s table. For $2, I had a local glass shop cut me a 3″×4″ piece of ¼” glass, with the edges ground smooth. You can also use a mirror or window pane. A flattened reed will respond better and squeak less.
    4. Balance the corners. This is the one exception I make for changing the reed’s cut. Well-balanced reeds have a nice clear tone and respond reliably throughout the instrument’s range and at any dynamic level. I find that balancing the corners can correct for much of the asymmetry of a typical reed. Even a reed that already seems pretty good can often be improved. Tom Ridenour’s method is dead simple and strikingly effective—required reading.
    5. If absolutely necessary, clip the tip using a high-quality reed trimmer. I do this to maybe one in twenty reeds. I do it to make a reed feel a little stronger. Clip off the tiniest possible amount at first—a little clip goes a long way. It’s very rare that I clip off more than a tiny bit, and if I do, it rarely works out well.

    That’s it!

  • 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!

  • What kind of ligature should I get?

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

    I’m on record as believing that clarinet and saxophone ligatures make little if any actual difference in how you sound. You’re welcome to disagree, but you might want to watch Michael Lowenstern’s video about it first.

    So, assuming the ligature has little direct influence on sound, what is the best kind to buy?

    Consider the humble fabric-type ligature:

    Fabric-type clarinet and saxophone ligatures

    They can be made of fabric or various other flexible materials. Fake-leather materials are popular.

    Here are their advantages over most other ligatures:

    • Generally inexpensive, although there are pricier versions available if paying more makes you feel better
    • Relatively easy to fit to even unusual mouthpieces and reeds, since they are flexible
    • Durable: I still have and use one I bought in high school
    • Not easily damaged: can be dropped, stepped on, or otherwise battered with little if any ill effect
    • Won’t dig into or otherwise damage reeds or mouthpieces
    • More expensive than an actual shoelace, but quicker and easier to install
    • Ambidextrous: many of the popular inexpensive ones can be switched for left- or right-handed screw tightening
    • Usually just one screw to tighten, so 50% less tightening/loosening time than the many other kinds of ligatures that have two screws
    • Available: no waiting lists or custom-building, easily purchaseable from just about any brick-and-mortar or online band-instrument retailer

    I have a number of fancy and expensive ligatures that various teachers required I buy over the years of my education, including some plated in actual gold. They don’t outperform my fabric-type ones in any meaningful way. You may still see them in my performance videos, etc., as I am still trying to get my money’s worth out of them. When they break or wear out, I’ll replace them cheaply and easily with good reliable fabric ones.

    Get a good, reliable, no-nonsense ligature to hold your reed in place, and happy practicing!

One Comment

  1. I know this is a few years on, however I just stumbled over this post and thought I’d contribute.

    I normally use either “multi-woodwind player” or “multi-woodwind musician” (the last word dependent on whether I think the person I’m speaking to will understand what I mean by ‘player’). The inevitable (and loathed) follow-up question nearly always asks for a number to replace the ‘multi’.

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.