Woodwind Doubler Census 2021 results, part 1: demographics

Thanks to all who participated in my 2021 woodwind doubling survey, and to those who helped spread the word. I’m releasing the results in installments, so be sure to use my social media links, RSS feeds, etc. to keep up.

I got 284 responses, an improvement over 2011’s 187. The numbers for each of these questions don’t necessarily add up to exactly that number, since not everybody responded to every question.

Gender identity

I provided more options for gender identity than in 2011’s survey. Here’s the breakdown. (Percentages are of those who answered the question.)

2021 Data
Male 222 78%
Female 49 17%
Female, Transgender 1 ~0%
Nonbinary/nonconforming 10 4%
Transgender, Nonbinary/nonconforming 1 ~0%

2011 Data
Male 146 78%
Female 41 22%

Age

As was the case 10 years ago, the numbers skew toward the younger end. I’m not sure if this is affected by the survey being distributed primarily online. No respondents claimed to be younger than teenaged or older than in their 70s.

2021 Data
Teenage 22 8%
20s 72 25%
30s 67 24%
40s 40 14%
50s 41 14%
60s 35 12%
70s 6 2%

2011 Data
Younger than 20 19 1%
20s 54 10%
30s 31 29%
40s 36 17%
50s 33 19%
60s 12 18%
70s 1 6%

Region

I provided options for this that broke down by continent. A few of you island dwellers responded with “other” and specified locations in Oceania and the Caribbean. I probably need to rethink this question for 2031, but for purposes of data reporting I have lumped everyone together into continents for now.

The continued absence of responses from Africa and South America may be related to language barriers and/or other factors. I did get a few responses from Asia this year, which I didn’t in 2011.

2021 Data
Asia 3 1%
Australia 11 4%
Europe 20 7%
North America 249 88%

2011 Data
Australia 11 6%
Europe 12 6%
North America 162 87%

Which of these best describes where you live?

The “city, but not a ‘major’ one” option was added based on feedback from the 2011 survey. A few of you used the “other” option to explain more complicated living situations (such as multiple locations), and for reporting purposes I’ve taken the liberty of lumping those into the categories I thought were the closest match.

2021 Data
major city or metropolitan area 127 45%
city, but not a “major” one 69 24%
suburb or exurb 63 22%
rural or remote area 24 8%

2011 Data
major city or metropolitan area 93 50%
suburban area 66 35%
rural or remote area 23 12%
other 5 3%

Describe your current level of formal education (in any field).

“Less than high school diploma” is a new option this yea. The categories in the graph are abbreviated; the full text from the survey is in the data table.

2021 dATA
Less than high school diploma 8 3%
High school diploma or equivalent 6 2%
Some college 33 12%
Bachelors degree 70 25%
Some graduate school 18 6%
Masters degree 103 37%
Doctorate 38 13%
Other degree type or comparable certification 6 2%

2011 Data
High school diploma or equivalent 8 4%
Some college 28 15%
Bachelors degree 59 32%
Some graduate school 16 9%
Masters degree 53 28%
Doctorate 16 9%
Other degree type or comparable certification 6 3%

Thanks again for your participation and stay tuned for more survey results.

Similar Posts

  • Reasons to choose an instrument

    School is starting soon, and some kids will be picking out the instrument that they will play in the school band. If you know someone in this situation and they are interested in a woodwind instrument—flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, or saxophone—here are some factors that might come under consideration.

    photo, Herald Post
    photo, Herald Post

    Bad reasons to choose an instrument

    • Gender. Some outdated attitudes and pedagogical materials suggest, for example, that the flute is particularly suited to girls.
    • Facial anatomy. Some outdated or ill-informed ideas exist, for example, that certain sizes or shapes of lips are better suited to certain instruments. For woodwinds, this is not an actual issue, except perhaps in cases of significantly unusual morphology.
    • Physical size or hand/finger size. This is not a significant issue for middle school or larger kids with any of the typical beginning band woodwinds, unless they are very significantly smaller than average, or perhaps significantly larger than an average adult.
    • Blowing “strength” or “lung capacity.” Anyone with normal respiratory function has the “strength” and “capacity” to play any of the woodwinds.
    • Success in “aptitude” testing. Some educators like to give some kind of test or trial to see which instruments individual students will be good at. These tests are, at best, mildly entertaining experiments in beginners’ luck.
    • Previous experience. For someone who is switching to a new instrument (or adding one), there is generally no reason to be concerned about any specific combination of instruments, and perceived similarities are not necessarily an advantage.

    A sad-but-true reason to choose an instrument

    • Expense. Unfortunately, woodwind instruments can be expensive to purchase, equip, and maintain, and some of them more so than others. It’s wise to be aware of the costs up front. (Generally speaking, beginner-model woodwinds go from least to most expensive in this order, assuming equivalent quality: flute or clarinet, saxophone, oboe, bassoon.)

    The best reason to choose an instrument

    • Motivation. A beginner’s interest in playing a certain instrument is the best predictor of enjoyment and success, and, whenever possible, should be the primary deciding factor.

    Good luck!

  • What is voicing?

    I’d like to address the term “voicing,” which I think is often misunderstood. Here’s my best definition:

    Voicing refers to the relative size of the oral cavity, which can change depending on the position of the back of the tongue.

    There are a number of other terms that are used to describe this same concept in woodwind playing. I don’t take issue with any of these terms individually, and I think that as a teacher it’s useful to have a variety of possible ways to explain this concept. (These terms can become problematic, however, when they are used in opposition to each other: “Open up, and blow cooler air.”)

    Here are some examples of ways of describing voicing. I consider the terms in the left column all to be descriptions of the same thing, and those on the right to be likewise equivalent to each other. Read More “What is voicing?”

  • Doubling-specific skills vs. instrument-specific skills

    I don’t think a woodwind player really learns the skill of “doubling” so much as he or she learns the skill of flute playing, plus the skill of saxophone playing, and so forth. 99% of being a good doubler is being a good flutist and a good saxophonist and whatever.

    There are only a few aspects of woodwind doubling that are unique to multi-instrumentalists. These are:

    • The physical act of switching instruments. This becomes an issue in Broadway-type situations when instrument changes sometimes need to happen very quickly. It’s worth practicing these little bits of choreography until they can be done as quickly, quietly, and safely as possible. Tips: own good, sturdy stands, and keep your instruments laid out in a consistent way.
    • The mental effort of switching instruments. Years of developing a fine clarinet embouchure can go right out the window when making a quick change from tenor saxophone. The problem isn’t with your lips, it’s with your focus. As you switch instruments, shift gears mentally, too. Tips: warm up thoroughly on each instrument before the rehearsal or gig, and take a brief (sometimes very brief) moment of meditation as you physically change instruments, so that you are 100% in clarinetist mode by the time the reed hits your lip.
    • The guts to play an instrument that isn’t your best one. Even if your secondary instruments are quite strong, it can be unnerving to perform on one instrument when you know you can do better on a different one. Courage! You’ll be that much more experienced when the next gig rolls around. Tips: be aware of your body—is your nervousness affecting your posture? Breath support? Hand relaxation? If so, simply recognizing the physical symptoms can be enough to relieve them. Focus on musical things that you may be able to bring to the table despite technical deficiencies, like blend or phrasing.

    Practice hard!

  • Some woodwind problems with competition repertoire rules

    Here are some repertoire-related problems I’ve encountered trying to get my woodwind students signed up for competitions. These range from significant national/international competitions down to small competitions within my own university music department. Some are competitions designed by woodwind-savvy folks and some aren’t. I mention these problems here in the hope that it will be helpful in designing competitions that are fair and sensitive to the particular repertoire quirks of the woodwind family.

    Style periods. The clarinet’s repertoire really takes off in the Romantic period (with some notable Classical exceptions), and the saxophone’s doesn’t really get going until the 20th century. Competitions that have requirements related to style periods make things difficult for these instruments, especially if there are restrictions on playing transcriptions. It can also be a challenge if rules for determining style period aren’t clear: can I count something like a Saint-Saëns woodwind sonata as Romantic, even though it was likely written in the 1920s?

    Accompaniment. While a pianist, classical guitarist, etc. can play significant repertoire alone, most wind-instrument repertoire is accompanied. This involves extra cost, rehearsal time, and logistics for the woodwind entrant. Concerto repertoire in particular often has unrealistic piano reductions that require a pianist who is both skilled and creative (and therefore expensive and busy). There exists unaccompanied repertoire, to be sure, but pieces of this nature often provide significant challenges to the less-experienced woodwind player. To write convincing unaccompanied works, composers often write for virtuoso players capable of filling up the space with notes. Stamina issues, too, are different for wind players than for pianists and others, and unaccompanied pieces can be especially taxing.

    Timing. Competitions that favor singers tend to have shorter time limits, which circumscribe repertoire options for instrumentalists, particularly if there are restrictions on playing partial pieces or making cuts.

    Cost. Pianists, singers, violinists, and others can buy large collections of public-domain repertoire by great historical composers for relatively little money. More recent works, such as those for the clarinet and saxophone, are much more likely to be under copyright and sold individually at higher prices. For me as a teacher, this means that I have in my file cabinet, for example, only so many unaccompanied-pieces-for-sophomore-level-clarinet-players-that-fit-within-eight-minutes-and-are-flashy-enough-for-competition. Are there more pieces out there? Definitely, but even to look at the scores may require expensive purchases. There probably won’t be IMSLP downloads or many YouTube performances to peruse.

    Multiple instruments. There is significant clarinet repertoire for clarinets in B-flat and for clarinets in A. Saxophone repertoire favors mostly the alto and the soprano saxophones, but also exists for tenor and baritone instruments. Competitions with too-tight restrictions on playing “more than one instrument” limit options for these entrants. It’s a nice courtesy if there is time and patience for entrants needing to bring a second instrument up to temperature before starting, or to wet a second reed.

    Many of these concerns dissipate at least somewhat at high levels of competition. But smaller competitions are often geared more toward participation opportunities than toward crowning victors, and a little care in designing the rules can help achieve this goal.

  • Observing woodwind playing objectively

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

    I have my woodwind methods classes do a lot of observing of woodwind playing. They comment on each other’s woodwind playing in class, write concert/recital reports, and make written comments on each other’s playing exams (for my eyes only). This is a crucial skill for their future teaching careers.

    I try to push them to keep their observations objective. But often the comments are things like:

    • “Your tone sounds really good.”
    • “Your articulation was sluggish.”
    • “So-so finger fluency.”

    Remarks like this, especially if detached from technique observations or recommendations, are unhelpful but often also unfounded. “Good” tone is a difficult thing to pin down, even for a specialist in the instrument. Even my college woodwind-instrument majors usually haven’t done enough critical listening in their lifetime for me to fully trust their judgments of what tone is “good,” even on their own instrument.

    I find it more helpful to the development of my students’ disciplined, precise teaching to hold them to a standard of objectivity. Tone isn’t inherently “good” or “bad.” (It might be more possible to effectively use a standard like “characteristic,” but even that requires some context.) But it’s fairly straightforward, and more useful pedagogically, to determine whether tone is, say, consistent.

    Some better versions of the above observations might be:

    • “Your tone is consistent from note to note, and also seems characteristic of the instrument.”
    • “I hear a moment of air noise before each note, especially in the low register. Try increasing breath support to help each note respond immediately.”
    • “Your fingers seem to move quickly and confidently to most notes, but you seem to arrive late at the F-sharps. Let’s review that fingering.”

    Keeping observations factual and non-judgmental makes lessons more efficient and targeted, and keeps lines of communication open for better teaching and learning.

  • How to get 10 good reeds from a box

    1. If you are getting less than 80% playable clarinet or saxophone reeds from the boxes you are currently buying, buy different ones.
    2. Be realistic about strengths. If you are only getting 2-3 good reeds out of a box, you aren’t just being “choosy.” You are probably playing on reeds that are too resistant, and those 2-3 are the softer ones. Let go of the nonsensical old myth that better players play stiffer reeds. If you are getting less than 80% “good” reeds from a box, try moving down (or, in rarer cases, up) a half strength.
    3. Update your shopping list. There are many, many available reed options! Clarinet and saxophone players used to be stuck with the few brands available at nearby music stores. Now there are more brands, shipped anywhere in the world, probably for cheaper than buying at your local store. Don’t let a misplaced sense of brand loyalty or tradition keep you putting good money into bad reeds.
    4. Skip the sandpaper, mostly. If you are buying reeds that actually work for you, you won’t have to do more than a few minutes’ worth of adjustment over the reed’s useful lifetime. The available variety of cuts and profiles is staggering. And modern reed companies can shape reed vamps with very good consistency and accuracy.

    A brand that genuinely makes clarinet or saxophone reeds with less than 80% success doesn’t deserve your repeat business. But there’s a strong chance you have simply mismatched the reeds to your mouthpiece and playing requirements. Keep searching!

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.