“Forked” fingerings, in which a lower tonehole is closed while one above it is open, often produce somewhat inferior results–notes that are mismatched in timbre and/or intonation. (Some modern woodwinds use special mechanisms to correct for this, such as the F resonance mechanism on a high-quality oboe.)

An electronic woodwind-style instrument, such as the Akai EWI series, uses a fingering system that is designed to be similar to a traditional woodwind, so that a traditional woodwind player can easily adapt to it. But this is an arbitrary choice. Since the instrument’s tone production system uses electronic circuitry and software, rather than a vibrating air column, the fingering system don’t necessarily have to use the fingers in sequence, and forked fingerings don’t have any inherent problems. The fingerings can be invented completely from scratch, with no acoustical limitations.

EWI fingerings are designed to draw upon the best of both worlds–the familiarity of traditional woodwind fingerings, and the flexibility of a non-acoustical fingering system.

Note that the current-model EWI4000s, using version 2.4 of the operating system, includes several fingering modes. The mode I am considering here is the “EWI” mode, as the “flute,” “oboe,” and “saxophone” modes sacrifice some flexibility for the sake of increased familiarity to traditional woodwind players. You might consider this article to be subtitled, “Why you should be using the ‘EWI’ fingering mode.”

The current manual (“revision D”) shows a mere 17 fingerings in its EWI mode fingering chart (11 chromatic pitches, with B-flat through D having fingerings in two octaves, and B-flat having one additional alternate fingering). But many, many more are possible.

We can consider the individual EWI keys as having individual functions, rather than being inherently interdependent. For example, pressing none of the keys produces a C-sharp:

C-sharp

Adding any key will alter the C-sharp pitch by a given amount:

If I press LH 1, LH 2, and LH 3, the pitch is lowered from C-sharp by a total of 6 semitones, producing the G fingering familiar to saxophonists, oboists, flutists, and clarinetists.

But that is only one possible combination. I could also produce a G with, for example, LH 1, LH 2, and RH 3. Or LH 3, LH pinky 2, RH 1, and RH pinky 2. These fingerings would be extremely unlikely to work on a traditional woodwind, but with the EWI the possibilities are wide open. As long as the total pitch change adds up to -6 (and accounting for any of the listed exceptions), you get a G.

Standard G fingering. (LH 1 + LH 2 + LH 3) = (-2 + -2 + -2) = -6 = G	One alternative G fingering. (LH 1 + LH 2 + RH 3) = (-2 + -2 + -2) = -6 = G	Another alternative G. (LH 3 + LH pinky 2 + RH 1 + RH pinky 2) = (-2 + -1 + -2 + -1) = -6 = G

These examples are illustrative but likely have few real-world applications. For a more practical example, consider trills, which among traditional woodwind players are a subject of endless discussion and books upon books of awkward, complicated fingerings. An ideal trill fingering involves moving only one finger, preferably one that can be moved in a rapid, controlled, non-awkward way.

Take a look at the following musical example (one that oboists will recognize).

This passage would be a nightmare to play using only Akai’s 17 listed fingerings, but is easily manageable if you take a moment to work out some alternatives.

Assuming that you are using the “side” B-flat fingering in the first measure, the most obvious A-flat to B-flat trill is to hold the B-flat fingering and trill will LH 3. However, if you prefer, LH 2 will work equally well, as will RH 3 or RH pinky 3. (LH 1 will not work, because of the LH 2 exception; that would produce an A-flat to B-natural tremolo.)

Awkward A-flat to B-flat trills using Akai’s published fingerings. (Alternate the blue and red keys.)		A much better trill fingering.

The next problematic trill is F to G-flat in the last measure of line 2. I suggest holding the F fingering and trilling with RH pinky 1. (LH pinky 1 is also serviceable, but I find RH easier because RH 3 is free.)

F to G-flat trill

For the G-flat to A-flat trill in the same measure, I would hold the G-flat trill fingering (standard F, plus RH pinky 1) and trill with RH 1. (Again, there are more possibilities. In many cases the standard A-flat fingering trilling RH 1 would make sense.)

G-flat to A-flat trill

Try that whole measure–the fingerings are unfamiliar at first, but they lie very comfortably under the fingers and make for effortless trills.

Here’s what it sounds like:

Play

Take a little time to experiment with your EWI’s fingerings, and see what you come up with!

The cast of Chicago changes frequently, but if you listen to the orchestra behind the actors, then you’ll hear the same man night after night.

Woodwinds player Seymour “Red” Press has been in the orchestra of the long-running Broadway revival since it opened in 1996, and that’s just part of a career that spans over fifty years and 100 shows. He’s played everything from Pippin to Meet Me in St. Louis to A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, not to mention the original production of Chicago.

Read the whole thing here, and see a photo of Mr. Press in his natural habitat.

This thread at the Clarinet BBoard brought the story to my attention, and has some nice comments from some of Mr. Press’s colleagues and admirers.

For less than $8, I decided it was worthwhile to try the Bo-Pep Flute Finger Rest, which is designed to help with this problem. It’s a little plastic thing that clips onto the flute’s body, allowing a more open hand position.

It looks like this…

…and clips on like this. No adhesives or tools required. Installs in one second. Having tried it, I have no concerns for the safety of my flute’s finish.

Works like a charm!

It comes with a little fabric bag, presumably for storage. My flute fits just fine in its case with the finger rest installed, but even if it didn’t, it would be no problem to snap it on or off as needed.

The verdict: a cheap, effective, and dead-simple flute customization. It immediately opened up my hand position and helped a lot with the tension. Now back to Taffanel and Gaubert…

Bo-Pep also makes a Finger Saddle (for smaller hands, I think) and a Thumb Guide.

The American Federation of Musicians, the world’s largest organization promoting the interests of professional musicians, has put its support behind the U.S. Senate’s version of the FAA Reauthorization Bill (S.1451). This bill seeks to overhaul many aspects of air travel, and the official summary includes this text:

(Sec. 713)

Requires an air carrier to permit an air passenger to carry a violin, guitar, or other musical instrument on a passenger aircraft without charge if it can be stowed safely in a suitable baggage compartment in the aircraft or under a passenger seat. Sets forth requirements for the carriage of musical instruments as checked baggage or as occupants of a purchased seat.

The AFM is calling for “all musicians” to sign a petition in support of including the relevant text from the Senate version in the final version of the bill. You can sign the petition at the AFM’s website.

The AFM famously struck an agreement with TSA several years ago, ensuring that musical instruments be allowed to pass through airport security. This was widely misinterpreted by musicians to mean that airlines would be required to allow instruments as carry-on; unfortunately this was not the case. This legislation specifically addresses musicians’ need to keep their delicate and valuable instruments in their own care on board the airplane.

Your to-do list:

1. Sign the petition (you don’t have to be an AFM member).
2. Read some of my previous articles for a better explanation of the problem, including the notorious AFM/TSA agreement.
3. Get general information about the bill at OpenCongress.org, or, if you’re feeling saucy, dive right into the full text of the bill.
4. Drum up support for this legislation by posting about it on your own blog, Facebook page, etc. If you like, you can use my handy “share” buttons (to the left) to point people right here via email, Twitter or Facebook (or other social media outlets via AddThis).

Happy flying!

I got an interesting question by email last week. I’m reprinting the message here, followed by the suggestions I sent in return (I’ve edited a bit).

Hi Bret,

I’m doing my first arrangement for a musical, which will be an amateur production.

I’m going to be hiring players from amateur/student orchestras (university), or simply people who play well enough to take on the parts. I don’t think at this time I will be able to have more than 3 wind players.

One wind player has advised (from their experience as a musician) not to expect a player at this level to be able to play both a single and double reed instrument. Is it common for this to be the case, in your own experience? Is there any doubling of a mix of certain double and single-reeds instruments that’s even commonplace amongst ‘amateur’ players?

Do you have any recommendations of how to group the players, in terms of if I only have 3 available, and they are ‘amateur’ (but still ‘good’) level?

I had a look at the reed books on this site, but had to bear in mind that when putting on professional productions, you’re more likely to find players who can switch between a wider range of instruments. Any tips you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Hello,

Thanks for stopping by my website and for taking the time to write. This is a great question with, I’m afraid, no great answers.

Woodwind doublers, like most commodities, are most easily found in larger cities, but can also pop up in odd places. Depending on where you are located, you may have more or fewer (or none) at your disposal. The best solution, when possible, is to line up your musicians in advance, and write for their strengths. Shows on Broadway are sometimes written this way.

Assuming that you can’t do that, you may have to hedge your bets somewhat. You might, for example, do something like this:

Reed 1: Piccolo, flute, clarinet [optional]

Reed 2: Flute [optional], clarinet, soprano saxophone [optional]

Reed 3: Bassoon, clarinet [optional]

In this case, the parts could be played by a flutist, a clarinetist, and a bassoonist. The optional parts could be notated on ossia lines for the “primary” instruments, or omitted according to your instructions. All of these books include clarinet writing, but you would want to put the important solos and the lead clarinet parts in book 2; likewise the Reed 2 flute parts would be harmony parts to Reed 1′s lead.

As for university-level musicians (or musicians of ANY level) who play both single and double reeds well: I would say that this is certainly not unheard of, though definitely on the rare side. Woodwind doublers can come with any variety of available instruments, but these combinations might be among the most common:

• Saxophone with flute and/or clarinet. For some reason it’s unusual to see alto and tenor saxophone in the same book, but I’m not sure why. Many if not most serious saxophonists will have both available.
• When oboe is used with doubles, they are most often (besides English horn) clarinet and/or tenor saxophone.
• Low reeds: some combination of bassoon, bass clarinet, and/or baritone saxophone, maybe with some flute and clarinet as well.

Allow me to suggest that when it comes to hiring musicians, you avoid doing it by posting notices in music stores or university music departments. Instead, get in touch with:

• Musical directors of other local musical theater productions
• University music professors
• Church music ministers
• Personnel from local recording studios and live music venues

The way to get good, reliable musicians is by word-of-mouth recommendations. Even before you start writing, these kinds of contacts can give you an idea of whether you’ve got strong woodwind doublers available. Also, most professional musicians won’t be offended if you offer them the gig, even if the pay is low. They might not accept, but they may be willing to recommend their star students (who will work cheap, and maybe take your music in to their lessons).

I hope that helps.

Best,

Bret

I wrote this a few years back for a graduate school course. The professor, not a wind player, raised the question of why I limited the discussion to clarinets in B-flat and A, and ignored, for example, the C clarinet. The reason for this, which may not be obvious to a non-clarinetist, is that the B-flat and A instruments use the same mouthpieces, reeds, and sometimes even barrels. Since other sizes of clarinet require their own mouthpieces and reeds, there is a clearer separation between these instruments.

Photo, Ollie Crafoord

Alert concertgoers will be aware that the orchestral clarinetist is often seen on stage with not one, but two clarinets, which appear to be nearly identical. These are clarinets in the keys of B-flat and A, and, in truth, they very nearly are the same—identical in keywork and playing approach. The difference is one of an inch or so in length, giving the A clarinet a range that is deeper by one semitone.

It seems a redundancy to have two instruments so close in range. The ubiquity of the B-flat and A clarinets is a vestige of the clarinet’s early days, when its simpler keywork made it poorly suited to playing in more than a handful of keys; early clarinetists owned several instruments of different transpositions so that they could play in whatever key was required. But the modern instrument has a more involved mechanism that allows much more chromatic agility. The problem that remains is that the clarinet has accumulated two hundred and fifty years of repertoire, some of which calls for the instrument in B-flat, some of which calls for the instrument in A, and even some that calls for a little of each.

The question, then, is this: for a given piece of music, did the composer simply choose a specific clarinet in an attempt to make life easier for the clarinetist? If so, it may no longer be necessary to use two clarinets to do the job of one, with the modern instrument’s more sophisticated keywork giving it more chromatic freedom. The clarinetist might pick his or her preferred instrument for the situation, regardless of which is specified by the composer. (Jack Brymer is willing to leave the decision up to an even lower-level employee: “There is a fairly strong school of thought which suggests it [the use of both A and B-flat clarinets] is an archaic hang-over and that the composer should simply write the score out in concert pitch and leave it to the copyist to sort the matter out.”)

The other possibility is that composers selected either B-flat or A clarinets to exploit a difference, real or perceived, in tone quality. Colin Lawson points out that composers as orchestrationally astute as Francis Poulenc and Richard Strauss have scored for B-flat and A clarinets to be used simultaneously, with the clear intention of contrasting the instruments’ timbres. Brymer, however, contends that “one can prove scientifically that the sounds of the B flat and A clarinets are identical,” and attributes any perceived timbral difference to preconceived notions.

The clarinetist who chooses to use only one clarinet to play parts written for either instrument must, of course, become skilled at transposing. Another issue is the very slight difference in range: the A clarinet’s low E (concert D-flat) is unobtainable on the ordinary B-flat clarinet. Some musicians have used a B-flat clarinet built to reach the extra low note, but Lawson quotes the conductor Sir Henry Wood as calling this practice a “great mistake.” Sniffs Sir Henry, “I always missed the particular quality of the A instrument.”

The debate over the B-flat and A clarinets is built essentially on differences of opinion. The only clear conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that clarinetists for generations to come will walk onto the stage with a clarinet in each hand.

Sources

Brymer, Jack. Clarinet. Yehudi Menuhim Music Guides, ed. Yehudi Menuhin. New York: Schirmer, 1976.

Lawson, Colin. “Introduction: Clarinets in B-flat and A.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet, ed. Colin Lawson. Cambridge Companions to Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Believe me when I tell you that this is a seriously cool instrument.

Even after hearing and reading a number of rave reviews of the Akai EWI 4000S, I was pleasantly surprised by its playability, responsiveness, and capacity for expression. In my opinion, this is a real instrument, and a viable option for serious music-making.

A few highlights:

• It has a nice heft to it, and feels in my hands like professional-grade gear.
• The breath sensitivity is easily adjustable, and it only took me a moment to get it set up to really suit my preferences.
• It is packed full of all kinds of sensors: the breath sensor (of course) which even responds well to flutter-tonguing and growling, a bite sensor, and various sensors for the thumbs that can control things like portamento and pitch bend. These are all programmable to some extent, so if you’re clever you can remap them to control different things.
• It has an on-board synthesizer, unlike its primary rival, the Yamaha WX5. That means you don’t have to plug it into a sound module (although you can if you like). It also means it’s relatively cheap: the Yamaha currently has a street price of about $750 and requires an $800 sound module. The Akai goes for about $700, and doesn’t need a sound module.
• The on-board synthesizer is actually a synthesizer, not just a collection of canned sounds. That means you can create your own sounds (using a computer and the free Akai software), or buy professionally-developed sound banks. It does come with a selection of pre-programmed sounds, so you can just play it right out of the box if you prefer.
• It has an 8-octave range, which is sort of mindblowing to me as a woodwind player.
• The proprietary EWI fingering system is quite intuitive for a woodwind player, very saxophone-like. But the fingerings are very flexible, with lots of possibilities for alternate or trill fingerings. (There is a very basic fingering chart in the user’s manual, downloadable from Akai, but it does not tell the whole story. Stay tuned for a future article taking a closer look at EWI fingerings.) The EWI also has additional fingering modes, including “saxophone,” “flute,” “oboe,” and an apparently trumpet-valve-like system, which might ease the transition from another instrument but lack the power of the EWI fingering system.
• It has a nice set of on-board effects and other tricks: reverb, delay, chorus, portamento, the ability to play in octaves or another interval of your choice, and the ability to sustain a note while you play a phrase.
• It can be powered by an AC adapter (not included), but seems to run for a good long time on 4 AA batteries.
• It has a 1/8″ headphone jack, a 1/4″ line out jack, and MIDI in and out jacks.

In short, I am very satisfied with my new toy. There are a few things to be aware of, however, if you’re thinking of getting into wind controllers:

• There isn’t any kind of speaker built in, so it doesn’t make any noise unless you plug in some headphones or an amplifier. For casual playing at home, I’ve also had success plugging a nice pair of computer speakers and subwoofer into the headphone jack.
• The most difficult part of the fingering system is the left-thumb octave rollers. These make the huge pitch range possible, but take some getting used to.
• The included sounds are quite playable, but the custom sound bank from Patchman Music really takes the EWI to another level. You haven’t experienced the true potential of the EWI4000S unless you’ve used the Patchman sounds. (From what I understand, the same is true of the Yamaha wind controller.)
• Also on the subject of sounds: the best application of the EWI4000S’s synthesizer is synthy sounds. If you want to convincingly imitate acoustic instruments, you will need to plug the EWI into some kind of sound module. This wasn’t a negative for me, but it’s worth knowing ahead of time.

Here’s a small taste of what the Akai EWI4000S sounds like, using one of the Patchman sounds. I didn’t add anything to the recording after the fact–all the effects, etc. are coming from the 4000S itself.

Play

EDIT: I originally had an embedded video here, of a CBS news interview with Broadway woodwind doubler Dan Willis. It appears the video is no longer available. You can read a text summary here, at least for the time being. Below is a picture I stole from their website.

It appears Mr. Willis is playing reed 3.

Steve Gorn on his beginnings as a woodwind player:

I advanced relatively quickly with the clarinet. When I got into eighth or ninth grade I got into a lot of jazz, and I started playing saxophone at that point. Jazz became much more of a focus. I played clarinet in the school orchestra.

On his path toward Indian music:

All through my college years I was drawn to the avant-garde [jazz] style. I was imitating it. I later realized that a musician has to find his own authentic voice. Here I was playing jazz music that largely came out of an African-American culture, something different from the way I was brought up, and looking back at it I thought the best I could do was to try to imitate that. But for some reason, and it doesn’t make sense from a logical point of view, when I got involved in Indian music I found a music where I could really find my own authentic voice.

On teaching:

One can have many relationships in music. I teach some people who are professionals and have aspirations to really work on Indian music as professionals. And I teach other people just because the flute is an accessible kind of instrument. These are people who just want to step outside of themselves and make some music.

My objective, when I give a lesson to a student, is to help them find their own voice. I try to make it as personal as possible, especially if somebody is really interested in really going at it. Then it’s really a delightful journey that will allow their authentic voice to speak through music.

I hear every so often that I should support local businesses and mom-and-pop shops, and I have to admit that this sounds vaguely like a responsible and virtuous thing to do. But here’s why I don’t–and can’t.

1. It costs too much. Prices are inevitably higher in local stores. I understand that so-called “full-service” establishments have overhead, but so do I. If they can justify charging higher prices, it seems fair that I can justify shopping around.
2. They don’t stock what I need. Other than a few scattered specialty shops, local music stores stock what they can sell in volume, and that’s inexpensive instruments and accessories for the beginning band market. I live in a small town, but even in the fairly large cities where I have lived, I have, more frequently than not, been unable to get what I like. A few months ago I made a two-and-a-half hour drive to go saxophone shopping with a student at a large music store in a large city. The store was large enough to have a saxophone specialist on staff. The store regularly stocks one brand of (arguably) professional-quality saxophone (and it’s not Selmer, Yamaha, Yanagisawa, or Keilwerth), and had exactly two major-brand instruments available, used. We also contacted a small saxophone specialty shop that was a little farther away, one that actually has “saxophone” in the store’s name. They had zero pro-line horns in stock.
3. As far as I can tell, the “superior customer service” factor is largely a myth. I think most woodwind players have experienced the frustration of going into a music store and being “helped” by the heavy-metal guitarist behind the counter. And even in specialty shops, I’ve rarely found a salesperson who can answer serious questions with much more than regurgitated advertising copy or a personal opinion. And, while I don’t doubt that specialty retailers are passionate about what they do, it’s important to keep in mind that they are businesspeople and subject to motivations other than getting you the best possible product for the smallest possible price.

I do not begrudge brick-and-mortar proprietors their profit margins, or salespeople their commissions (or their jobs). And on a neighborly level I hate to see a local shop go out of business. But the loss is a pretty abstract one for me–not much more relevant than the closing of a big-’n'-tall clothier (I’m neither big nor tall).

Since starting college as a music major, I have made almost all my music-related purchases from warehouse stores, by catalog and phone in the past, and now exclusively via the internet. The behemoth mail-order establishments stock nearly every product I use, charge the lowest prices anywhere, and often provide just as much product information on their websites as I could get in a local shop, plus customer reviews.

One of my favorite online retailers offers a virtually perennial free shipping promotion on orders over a certain, relatively small dollar amount. Since I’m usually in need of reeds in a half-dozen sizes, I don’t have any trouble qualifying.

I’ve tried in the past to offer brick-and-mortar stores the opportunity to match prices with the mail-order giants. This usually proves to be a hassle and often seems a little cruel, asking a small business owner to reduce their razor-thin profit margins to those of a volume dealer. A few have been willing, but most have responded with excuses about overhead. The excuses, presumably, are valid ones. But if they can’t budge on their price requirements, then why must I?

It’s sort of true that in a “real” store I can actually hold the product in my hands before I buy, but even this is a pretty slim advantage. Music stores that cater to intermediate-level students or professionals understand the need for musicians to try out things like mouthpieces before committing, but beginning-band stores or guitar-and-drums shops are less likely to allow this. The major online retailers all offer good trial and return policies, usually allowing you to obtain a number of mouthpieces, barrels, bocals, instruments, etc. for a small deposit, and return the ones you don’t want. If you end up purchasing one or more, most sellers will waive restocking/sterilization fees. The relatively minimal hassle and expense of return-shipping unwanted merchandise have, in my experience, virtually always resulted in a better product and a lower cost than purchasing at a store.

I’ve occasionally heard people extol the post-purchase service and support available from brick-and-mortar stores. This means repair service, which is another thing that I often find unsatisfactory unless I deal with a specialist, usually in a distant location. Many stores offer extended service contracts on purchased instruments, which, make no mistake, are designed to maximize the seller’s bottom line, not yours.

As a side note, I do think that there is one in-person shopping situation that can rival the benefits of online purchases, and that is conferences. A couple of years ago I bought a new oboe at the IDRS conference. I had a blast trying literally over a hundred oboes offered for sale by the vendors in attendance. Because the vendors were packed shoulder-to-shoulder in the exhibit hall, most were offering special “conference pricing” to stay competitive. Some had repair specialists on hand to tweak instruments to potential customers’ preferences. I was also surrounded by conference attendees, many of them professional oboists, most if not all of them happy to offer opinions. When I picked out “the one,” the vendor refused to let me pay for it, instead recommending that I take it home for an extended trial period, and then return it or make the inter-state purchase via credit card, avoiding the local sales tax at the conference location.

If you are lucky enough to be near a great music store with excellent service and knowledgeable staff, then you have my envy. If they offer prices competitive with the warehouse dealers, then enjoy it while you can, because they will soon be a Starbucks (sigh).