Which instrument to “start” on

ByBret Pimentel

Every so often I am told by a band director or parent that a child wishes to play a certain woodwind instrument, and then I am asked which instrument the student should “start” on, instead of the one they have apparently already chosen.

I don’t see a good reason, at least within the woodwind group, for a beginner to start on a different instrument family than the one they ultimately wish to play. There may be wisdom in some cases in requiring a beginner to start with a “main” family member: a student who really wants to play the piccolo, for example, will find their opportunities limited if they do not have a strong foundation in the flute—they will be of less usefulness to a school band program, and, should they continue to more advanced studies, may find the piccolo’s repertoire and pedagogical resources comparatively limited. I also think the piccolo is inherently a bit more difficult to play, although that in itself is not sufficient reason to deter a strongly-motivated student; however, for some students a more difficult instrument might be frustrating enough to bring their musical pursuits to a premature end. I likewise generally recommend that oboists start with the oboe rather than the English horn, clarinetists start on the B-flat instrument rather than a “harmony” clarinet, bassoonists leave the contrabassoon until later, and saxophonists start on the alto, or maybe the tenor.

Photo, Herald Post
Photo, Herald Post

But I also sometimes run into an attitude that, for example, an aspiring saxophonist really should start on the clarinet. This, I believe, comes from an outdated school of thought that considers the saxophone a “color” instrument in the clarinet family, and concludes that you should start with the “main” instrument, the clarinet, in the same way that you would start with the flute and later add the piccolo. (It may even stem from a more outdated idea that the saxophone is vulgar or a novelty, while the clarinet is respectable.) But surely the saxophone has by now earned full membership in the wind band and has a sufficiently rich solo and chamber repertoire that it need not be seen merely as the clarinet’s half-sibling.

I encounter a similar approach to the double reeds, in which a beginner is made to start with something “easier” or cheaper or more common, like the clarinet, and is later permitted or required to switch to the oboe or the bassoon. If the cost of starting a beginner on a double-reeded instrument is prohibitive (and in some cases it may well be) then I suppose a less-costly instrument is better than nothing. And parents or band directors may have other reasons to delay putting an oboe or bassoon in a beginner’s hands: to make sure the student can be trusted with good instrument care before issuing them an expensive bassoon, for example. And I know that some band directors feel underqualified to teach the double reeds (join the club), and may wish to postpone for reasons rooted in that insecurity.

But as far as I am concerned there is no sound pedagogical reason to start a student on one instrument and then move them to another. If a student wants to be an oboist, the best hope for their success is to get an oboe into their hands as soon as possible (and, preferably, connect them with an excellent private teacher).

Still, some parents or educators, insisting that the “switch” is a foregone conclusion, press me on which instrument is the best pre-switch instrument for the student to learn. In my opinion, it makes no difference whatsoever. I think there is more harm than advantage in trying to choose a “similar” instrument; a flutist switching to saxophone can learn the embouchure from scratch, while a clarinetist switching to saxophone may find it more difficult to shed clarinet habits. Ditto for “similar” fingering systems.

Encourage your beginners to play, within reason, what interests them most.

Similar Posts

  • Woodwinds and “altissimo” registers

    ByBret Pimentel

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

    I recently had a saxophone student perform a repertoire piece with some altissimo technique in it, and a non-woodwind-playing musician asked me afterward about the instrument’s extended range. This led to further questions about “altissimo” on other instruments. The answers are a little complicated, but here is some information:

    The term “altissimo” suggests an extreme high register. The term is widely used by clarinetists and saxophonists, with essentially the same definition: pitches in the instrument’s third register or higher. Basically, this is notes above (written) F-sharp-6 for saxophones or (written) C6 for clarinets. (It’s not really that simple if you factor in alternate fingerings: a clarinetist, for example, might use a trill fingering to produce a D6 in the second register, or a saxophonist might use a “front” fingering to produce E6 or F6 in the third register.) For clarinetists, using some of the altissimo register is a pretty basic technique, part of the instrument’s “standard” range (which extends maybe to G6, depending on who you ask), and accessible to, say, an intermediate-level high school student. For saxophonists, altissimo is viewed as a more advanced technique, outside the “standard” range, perhaps accessible to college-level musicians or motivated high schoolers.

    The word “altissimo” isn’t used much in the flute and double reed worlds, though those instruments’ third registers are widely used even by intermediate-level players. (Christopher Redgate does use the term in his writings about oboe extended techniques, but arbitrarily defines it as beginning at G6, well into the instrument’s third register.) The flute’s third register begins (basically) at D6, the oboe’s at C-sharp-6, and the bassoon’s at E-flat-4.

    the lowest pitch (written) of each woodwind's third register
    the lowest pitch (written) of each woodwind’s third register

    In short, all of the woodwinds do have an “altissimo” range in the sense that they have a third register and higher. But not all of them use that terminology, and those that do differ on whether the altissimo range is “standard” or an extended technique.

  • Playing flat on the clarinet

    ByBret Pimentel

    I frequently see this kind of question asked on online message boards:

    I have a Nabisco clarinet with a Palmolive C43 mouthpiece and Marlboro 3¾ reeds. I am 30 cents flat all the time. What piece of equipment should I buy to solve this problem?

    The answers are always varied (harder reeds, softer reeds, someone else’s favorite brand of reeds, an expensive mouthpiece, an abnormally short barrel, a specific model of clarinet) and generally completely off base.

    On further prodding, the clarinetist with the flatness problem invariably turns out to be self-“taught,” sometimes with some degree of prior achievement on another wind instrument. This is a huge red flag that we are dealing with operator error.

    Photo, matsuyuki
    Photo, matsuyuki

    The correct solution to this problem is to take at least a few lessons with an excellent clarinet teacher. A good teacher faced with this problem will review the fundamentals of tone production with you: breath support, voicing, and embouchure formation. With some dedicated practice, you will almost certainly see your pitch improve (as well as your tone, response, and more).

    On the rare occasion that I do see this course of action advised, the poor flat clarinetist often has a number of excuses at the ready:

    • “I don’t have money for lessons.” (You should be able to get at least one and probably several lessons for what you would have spent on that new mouthpiece or barrel.)
    • “There aren’t any teachers near me.” (Have you really checked? The world, sadly, is full of very talented musicians who are underemployed and very much available for lessons. Check in with your nearest university music department, consult a school band director, or even try “Skype” or other online live-video lessons if you must, which are being offered more and more frequently by qualified teachers.)
    • “I already play a different instrument really well, so I’m pretty sure I can figure the clarinet out by myself.” (Learning a new instrument requires much more than a fingering chart and brash confidence. In particular, the clarinet’s voicing technique is unique among the major, modern wind instruments, and doing it wrong will result in—you guessed it—significantly flat pitch.)

    Message boards and other text-based communication methods (even books) have their uses, but they aren’t a viable substitute for having a real, experienced clarinet teacher diagnose the problem and make some suggestions. Even if it does turn out that an equipment purchase is in order, do it under a teacher’s guidance—the money you spend on lessons is an investment in avoiding mistakes that are much more expensive.

  • |

    Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 5: challenges

    ByBret Pimentel

    Back for more, I see? Thanks to all who are still reading results from the Great Woodwind Doubler Census of 2011. At this point we are getting into some more of the questions with free-form answers, and I think your responses are really interesting.

    Q: What is your greatest challenge as a woodwind doubler?

    I categorized the answers as best I could, with many of your responses falling into multiple categories. Here are some of the most common issues raised:

    By far, the most common issue reported was finding the time to practice multiple instruments—I’ll reveal that this was my own answer, as well.

    Flute-specific problems were also frequently mentioned, with oboe, clarinet, and bassoon appearing lower on the list (the saxophone got only a mention or two). I do think that the flute as a double has some particular challenges, but, as we know, it’s also one of the most common doubles. It would be interesting to assemble a group of doublers who play all five major woodwinds at a somewhat equal level, and take a poll to see which instrument they think is the biggest challenge.
    Read More “Woodwind Doubler Census results, part 5: challenges”

  • The amazing shrinking woodwind section: increasing demands on woodwind doublers

    ByBret Pimentel

    There is a long tradition of using small orchestras in musical theater as a money- and space-saving consideration. Presumably, if budgets and orchestra pit square footages were unlimited, full symphonic orchestras would be used for theater like they are for movies, with an 8-12(+)-piece orchestral woodwind section, plus perhaps a 5-piece saxophone section. But let’s go back a few decades and examine the compromises. Here are a couple of examples:

    Flower Drum Song

    (from original 1958 orchestration)

    1. Piccolo, flute, alto flute
    2. Piccolo, flute
    3. Oboe, English horn
    4. Clarinet, alto saxophone
    5. Clarinet, alto saxophone
    6. Bass clarinet, tenor saxophone

    You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown

    (from original 1966 orchestration)

    1. Piccolo, flute
    2. Flute
    3. Clarinet
    4. Clarinet
    5. Bass clarinet, tenor saxophone

    The Flower Drum Song orchestration uses a 6-piece woodwind section. The bassoons, sadly, are the first thing to go. The principal flutist has to double on both piccolo and alto flute, an uncommon compromise in the orchestral repertoire, where the doubling is often relegated to an auxiliary flute part to allow the principal to be at his or her soloistic best on a single instrument. (The second flutist also doubles piccolo, which is a bit more common.) Similarly, the oboist pulls double-duty as soloist on both oboe and English horn. The full clarinet section is expected to double not on auxiliary clarinets, but on saxophones.

    You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown is not quite as demanding on individual woodwind players; the first flute part does include piccolo (again, this is not typical symphonic-orchestral thinking), and the bass clarinetist doubles on saxophone. The double reed section is eliminated completely.

    photo, NK Eide

    Now let’s look at how these shows’ orchestrations have been revised in more recent revivals:

    Flower Drum Song

    (from 2002 revival orchestration)

    1. Piccolo, flute, alto flute, dizi in C, D, E-flat, F, and B, bamboo flutes in E, F, and G
    2. Flute, clarinet, soprano saxophone, alto saxophone
    3. Flute, oboe, English horn, clarinet, soprano saxophone, tenor saxophone
    4. Clarinet, bass clarinet, bassoon, tenor saxophone

    You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown

    (from 1999 revival orchestration)

    1. Piccolo, flute, clarinet, soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, soprano recorder, kazoo

    44 years later, Flower Drum Song’s woodwind section has shrunken from six musicians to four, but the number of instruments has boomed from 13 to 25. The first flutist is expected to play some “world” woodwinds in addition to an array of orchestral flutes, and the other three woodwind players each cover instruments from three or four woodwind families, with multiple members from at least one of those families.

    You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown’s revival after 33 years drops the woodwind section from five musicians down to one. The lone woodwind player covers seven instruments from (arguably) five families: two flutes, a clarinet, two saxophones, a recorder, and a kazoo (which, despite being vaguely woodwind-like in form, is not one). As the only player of each of these instruments, this musician should expect to be prepared to sound like a convincing soloist on each.

    Based on these examples and others, two trends seem to be emerging in theater orchestrations:

    1. Fewer woodwind players.
    2. More colorful orchestrations. In the case of both of these shows, the new orchestrations are not simply a slimming-down of a too-expensive woodwind section—new sounds are being introduced. In some cases these might be meant to rebalance the orchestra due to cuts in other sections, but it also seems that recent orchestrations involve creative choices tending toward a broader aural palette.

    Both of these mean greater demands upon woodwind players. 21st-century woodwind players need to be able to play a greater number of instruments, from a pool no longer limited to the orchestral woodwinds and saxophones, at a soloist level on each instrument. The common 20th-century clarinet/saxophone or flute/clarinet/saxophone doubler may find him- or herself less employable than in previous years, and less able to hide in the section on a weaker double. Double reeds are a must, and so are auxiliary instruments (piccolo, larger flutes, English horn, clarinets and saxophones of any size) and world or historical woodwinds.

    As the number of woodwind chairs shrinks and the standards of musicianship and versatility rise, the specialist and the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none will both be out of a job, and the rare jack-of-all-trades-master-of-each will become an increasingly hot property.

  • Principles for teaching woodwind methods

    ByBret Pimentel

    If you are teaching a woodwind methods course, you might be interested in my book.

    I teach a woodwind methods course at my university. This class (sometimes known as “woodwind techniques” or “class woodwinds”) is for music education majors. It’s a kind of crash course in the woodwind instruments (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and saxophone) in preparation for careers in school band directing. Here are some things I try to keep in mind when teaching it.

    • It’s a pedagogy course, not a performance course. Since my background is in performance, not music education, it’s tempting to veer off into the finer points of playing. But while hands-on experience with the instruments is crucial, the real goal here is that they are able to effectively teach beginning and intermediate students, which is a (somewhat) separate skill. Give your students lots of chances to practice their teaching.

    • Keep it concept-based. While some time needs to be spent on the quirks of each instrument, it’s more efficient to teach underlying principles like breath support, voicing, embouchure, and finger movement, which vary from woodwind to woodwind less than many educators think. Help your students make connections between how the instruments are played, rather than walling the concepts off into a flute unit, an oboe unit, etc.

    • Keep it mission-critical. Mine is a one-semester course; some schools offer the luxury of spreading the woodwinds over several semesters. But even a semester for each instrument wouldn’t be nearly enough. Be disciplined about sticking to the most central, useful concepts. Knowing the early history and development of the oboe isn’t a bad thing, but it’s not critical to this course. Ditto for show-and-tell with the alto flute or sopranino saxophone, discussion of circular breathing and double-lip clarinet embouchure, and reedmaking. Be ruthless about cutting what are probably your favorite lectures—the more advanced, obscure ones.

    • Expect your students to forget everything. They can probably learn just enough clarinet fingerings to get through the test, but they will almost certainly forget them as soon as you hand them a bassoon. Gear your woodwind methods course activities toward broader skills like the ability to read a fingering chart, rather than short-term memorization of specifics.

    Give your students their best chance at becoming successful woodwind teachers!

  • The woodwind section in Mozart’s late symphonies

    ByBret Pimentel

    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

    Read More “The woodwind section in Mozart’s late symphonies”

8 Comments

  1. I started on saxophone. When I needed to add clarinet, it was a struggle to get enough embouchure strength, as I either have a naturally loose embouchure, or I learned it from playing saxophone.

    Most of the good doublers I know started on clarinet, no matter what instruments they ended up playing.

    I dislike Bb clarinet enough where I don’t regret starting on saxophone, but it seems to me that it is easier to learn saxophone embouchure after playing clarinet than vice-versa.

    Reply

  2. Amen!

    I started in 5th grade. I wanted to play tenor saxophone. (I wanted to be Boots Randolph, to be exact. :-) ) I was at least allowed to play saxophone, though I was instructed to start on alto. (Looking back, that’s probably a good idea. A tenor is huge for a kid that age.)

    At the music store, the salesman tried to talk me into starting on clarinet. His reasoning was that clarinetists can pick up saxophone easily but saxophonists struggle with clarinet.

    I stood my ground. I wanted to play saxophone! I wanted to be Boots Randolph!

    30 years later, as an adult, I did take up clarinet, and I certainly did find it to be challenging (much more so than flute or bassoon had been), but it was still the right choice to start on saxophone. I got there in the end. :-)

    Reply

  3. Looking at the issue from the point of view of a single student, the benefits of starting on a different instrument seem dubious at best. I suspect, however, that this mindset has more to do with insuring a reasonable band instrumentation and making the best use of limited band resources than anything else.

    When I was in beginning band they started kids on flute, clarinet or saxophone. By high school, the result was reasonable flute and clarinet sections and 14 alto saxes (only one of which actually practiced or cared). Not long after my class graduated they switched to only starting woodwind players on flute or clarinet and having them audition for saxophone, oboe and bassoon after proving their seriousness on flute or (most commonly) clarinet. Now, sax sections are leaner and “meaner” and the ever-present glut of non-caring, non-practicing kids get stuck on third clarinet (or even more questionably, bass clarinet) where they are thought to do less damage. I am not defending this; simply clarifying what I believe to ultimately be the true reason.

    For oboe and bassoon (not to mention lower saxes and clarinet), most schools in this area provide instruments. This makes it somewhat important to insure that the students who get these few instruments be serious and are likely to stick with the program. Otherwise, 4 valuable oboes may sit unused because the first four kids to sign up for oboe ended up flaking out.

    Lastly, for bassoon it is very often an issue of size. If we limited our future bassoonists to only those that had had early growth spurts I do believe we’d doing them a disservice. Now to convince middle school band programs to purchase some tenoroons!

    However, as a bassoon instructor I often get asked this question and this is my answer: “Any musician can become a bassoonist given the interest and practice. I started on trombone. One of my fastest learning beginning bassoonists started on trumpet. However, if you want to know which transition generally presents the fewest problems then my answer is flute. I’ve found that teaching a flute player (who has already developed a relaxed, open embouchure with a very slight overbite) to deal with a reed is faster and more natural than teaching a clarinet player to unlearn half of everything they’ve learned regarding embouchure.”

    Reply

  4. If as directors we let the kids play whatever we want we would have bands that not even parents would want to listen to. I once substitute taught a band that that had 12 flutes, 3 clarinets, 20 saxophones, 15 trumpets, 1 horn, 1 trombone and 20 drummers (not percussionists, most couldn’t play mallets). The band also had 2 dynamics loud and blast. Unfortunately I forgot my earplugs that day.

    Reply

  5. I agree that for bassoon, size of hand is the most important determining factor. As most kids do not have sufficient hand size until 7th or 8th grade, that’s when most programs start bassoonists. I think that’s reasonable, as all who play bassoon know that generally you want the smart kids who can function independently from their friends to be on bassoon. I began on flute, which I played for two years, switched to saxophone for one semester, then began bassoon. I also skipped a grade when going from flute to sax (entering marching band that fall —oops) but I loved bassoon and sax and continue to play each. I think beginning instruments should be chosen due to interest of the child so long as size is not a preventative factor. As stated above, with the desire to work hard on an alternative instrument, one can become good at anything, whether he/she starts on that instrument or not.

    Reply

  6. One thing I always tell my parents of students wanting to learn an instrument is whatever the student wants to play, try to allow them the chance to play that particular instrument, for they will be more inclined to stick with it in the long run. If a student gets discouraged from music AND they were on an instrument they didn’t want to play originally, they are pretty much a lost cause. If a student gets discouraged, but they are on an instrument they chose, they are more likely to stick with it a little longer because it’s an instrument they like.

    I’ve got a sax (now flute) student who’s band director tried to make him start on clarinet, but he really didn’t want to play the clarinet. He was told that he had to get lessons on sax before starting with the band. So I started him, and then he went a good 3/4 of the semester not playing more than 3 or 4 different notes. He was thoroughly frustrated, but he stuck with it because he liked the saxophone. If he’d been forced to play clarinet, he probably would have quit.

    Reply

  7. In my first long-term teaching assignment,the teacher whom I would be replacing advised me to start beginners on the clarinet, then switch them to the saxophone. She based this on poor pedagogy she had been taught, that “the saxophone is the easiest instrument to play poorly”. Having started on the sax myself, I knew this to be nonsense. (In reality, her decision seemed more to stem from availability: there were dozens of clarinets, compared to only eight saxes.
    The students I started on saxes did quite well, and quickly developed enough nuance to not overblow the sax.

    Reply

  8. I get the reasoning behind starting on other instruments. My secondary school didn’t have football, so there was no marching band per se. One was in “Band” which was the concert band that also marched in parades. Marching bassoons isn’t unheard of but I think it would be difficult as hell and probably not the best for our climate. Unfortunately we always ended up with more flutes we needed, and rarely an oboe, bassoon or French horn. Our director had always hoped there would be ambitious volunteers who would make a switch. It happened occasionally. There was probably little interest as anyone who took one of those instruments would be by themselves, no safety in numbers. Regardless, those instruments seem to be the least sexy out of most of the standard wind band.

    Reply

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.