It’s been some time since I’ve had the space to prepare a newsletter––and for that you have only yourselves to blame: it’s been busy here and for that we at RCP are very grateful to you. One man’s silver lining is another’s cloud, and in this instance the cloud takes the form of my derelection of duty in producing timely newsletters. As my old and dear friend, Santy Runyon always said, “In regard to life, you gotta take the bad with the lousey.” May he rest in peace

Here’s the letter:

The Lorelei were sirens who mystically appeared on the Rhein and lured sailors to their doom with their singing. They were attractive and the song irresistible ––– but going to them meant certain shipwreck. A communication from a recent customer reminded me of the Lorelei legend juxtaposed into the realm of clarinet playing. Below is the customer’s letter and my response.

Mr. Ridenour,
You are absolutely right on this. After the adjustments on my embouchure and letting the clarinet do the work, things work out wonderfully for me! This is different from the playing experience with my R-13 where a lot of sound quality and control must be done through the embouchure while the clarinet itself has little hold on the sound. The sound from your A clarinet is dark, resonant and sweet. Thank you for making such wonderful instruments at such affordable prices!

Thanks for writing. Your experience is a common one and one being repeated in increasing numbers. It also has a logical, acoustical explanation as follows:
Axiom no. 1: If a clarinet is easy on the air (inefficient) the embouchure will have to work excessively to control and maintain stability of the qualitative aspects of tone (shape, pitch and color) in quantitative change (dynamics <>).

In other words, that “easy air” in the chalumeau is a sure indication that when you begin to play in the dynamic extremes control problems will crop up, especially in respect to tones above the staff. For example, playing louder in the upper (left hand) clarion will likely result in the pitch sagging, the color brightening and the shape shattering or spreading, resulting in an overall thinness and harshness in the tone––unless the embouchure whips into action to contain the tonal rupturing by adding pressure to the reed. Suprisingly, the same is true when it comes to playing softly above the staff. At the lower dynamics there will be a tendency for a sub-tone, undertone or “grunt” to appear in the sound. This too is caused by inadequate resistance in the clarinet’s acoustical design. The “solution”, once again, is for the clarinetist to call the embouchure into action to supply the resistance and support the acoustical design does not.

Because I’m used to playing the Lyrique-style acoustic when I play a Buffet-style acoustic I find I have to use more and more jaw pressure (biting) just to control and keep the sound together. I can do it; it’s just a lot more work than I think it should be, and doing so reduces my endurance and flexibility considerably. If I try to play most Buffet-style acoustics with the dropped, relaxed (no bite) jaw position I use on the Lyrique it sounds like a kazoo and the pitch drops as much as ten cents.

In contrast, when I drop my jaw on the Lyrique everything works and remains well up to pitch. It works because the equipment is holding and stabilizing what I have to hold and stabilize with my embouchure on an instrument that is acoustically gutted.

I recall at Yale, the oboe teacher, Robert Bloom, used to speak of oboes in similar fashion. He referred to those that lacked necessary resistance as having “lost their juice” or being “blown out.” I recall him telling me every four or five years he had to change oboes.
The mistake most players make, including many talented, advanced ones, is a fundamental and simple one: they are lured to an easy blowing instrument as the sailors on the Rhein were lured by the song of the Lorelei, thinking such an instrument will give them a big sound and flexibility––when the very opposite is the truth. That the clarinet often turns out to be uneven in resistance further compounds the daily struggle playing such an instrument becomes.

Repeated experience has taught me that when ever I play a clarinet with a twangy, unstable open G (common to the Buffet-style acoustic) I know one thing instantly: there will not be enough EFFICIENT resistance in the acoustical design to keep upper clarion and third register tones stable and full throughout the dynamic range.

The result will likely be a solo (clarion) register that is uneven from hand to hand, upper clarion pitches that undertone easily at softer dynamic, and spread, thin and brighten at the fuller dynamics. Even the hoped for big sound can’t really be produced because the pitch/color/shape tonal envelop begins to deteriorate as soon as the forte level is reached––and the louder the dynamic the more the tone degrades. (Playing such a horn is consigning your self to a lifetime of struggle and frustration. The fact that “everyone plays it” is no excuse––it’s not even a good reason.)
A stable clarinet with enough good, efficient, even resistance will not cause such problems. Rather, you will be able to relax your jaw, increase your air and the qualitative aspects of the tone will remain stable and together at higher dynamic levels. Consequently, you will not only be able to produce a LOT of sound, you will be able to produce a lot of good sound! Of course, free blowing, inefficient clarinets can produce a lot of volume in the upper register too––but who can stand to listen to it in the upper register beyond a mezzoforte?

Axiom no. 2: Quantity means little when achieveing it is at the expense of quality.

A stable clarinet not only allows for flexibility and freedom in the embouchure, it does the same for reeds. It enables you to play resonant, responsive reeds without fear of the tone sounding thin, harsh or bright above the staff. In contrast, those who play low resistance or uneven clarinets are not only forced to play with tight embouchures, they also are constantly seeking to create the needed stabilizing resistance their horn lacks by playing harder reeds, crooked mouthpiece facings and barrels with chokes and all sorts of acoustically inefficient and bizarre things––and nothing really brings complete satisfaction because the problem has not been solved––it has only been masked to a certain degree. Life becomes a never ending search for the right barrel, right reeds, right mouthpiece that will delivered the desired satisfaction. But Parnassus remains unscalable, because these peripherals are not where the real problem lies.
All these complications and more can be avoided by playing a clarinet with adequate, even, balanced, efficient resistance. Which brings us to:
Axiom no. 3: What your equipment doesn’t hold, you must hold. And this drains your energy and reduces your endurance.
With my clarinets and well-balanced reeds on a well-made mouthpiece I can play for hours and never tire.
Axiom no. 4: The more efficient your equipment is the less physical energy and stress will be needed to control the instrument. (And the more freedom and security you’ll have to play phrases expressively and artistically).

As obvious as all this is, it’s frequently hard to get others to see it––especially those who are simply driven by name-brand, herd-mentality prejudice and refuse to consider or discuss the issue.

All too many clarinetists seem to be unaware that the instrument they play is conditioning them all the time they play it. Logically, if their instrument of choice has acoustical defects (instability, uneven resistance, tuning etc) they will have to do unnecessary things to adapt and make it work.

Those adaptations become their playing habits, and whenever they approach another horn they will approach it with those habits reflexively ingrained in their muscle memory.

There is one more chapter to the story––and it’s perhaps the most tragic chapter of all. Because they are doing so many things to control a badly designed, acoustically inefficient clarinet, when they do find a well-designed one it is often not easy for them to recognize it–––especially when they first play it. Because they are looking at it through the lens of an array of unnecessary habits, they simply cannot see it clearly and objectively.

Their reaction to any clarinet different from what they have is, in the main, negative, because when they reflexively (unconsciously) do the same things they do to control their own clarinet the result is bad. For instance, they might be creating resistance with their embouchure in a place where a better designed instrument already supplies adequate resistance. Their judgment: “The clarinet is stuffy.” And it is–– but it is they and not the horn that is contributing the negative resistance. Frustrated, they declare the clarinet sucks. All the while, it never occurs to them that THEY might be the problem.

The story is not all glood and doom. Clarinetists who are patient and have some affinity for analysis and reflection ultimately come to see what they’re doing is unnecessary and begin to trust the new horn to do many things they previously had to do for themselves. In so doing they begin to discover a degree of ease, security and freedom previously unknown to them: For the first time the clarinet is working with them to make the music––playing is tranformed from a wrestling match to a congenial collaboration. The process usually goes something like this:

Let’s say the clarinetist has a mental list of 15 or so adjustments he routinely must do to control his old clarinet. Because the new clarinet is more efficient, instead of making up a new list of different adjustments needed the play it, he simply begins crossing things off the old list, reducing it to maybe three or four basic things instead of the original fifteen. Every item crossed off the list will give him an increase in endurance, relaxation, expressive freedom and security. Soon he finds himself directing more and more energies at making music and less at controlling the clarinet.
What a concept!
Thanks for writing.
tom