BACKGROUND
Phrasing is the performer's musical language, strongly linked to how well one masters one's instrument and can communicate musical ideas and interpretations. Mastering an instrument requires years of in-depth study, and according to Anders Ericsson's research, 10,000 hours of intentional practice over a decade is necessary to reach a professional level[1].
Instrumentalists have seen developments and innovations over hundreds of years, leading to the instruments we use today. Modern orchestral instruments are often very different from their historical predecessors, especially evident with woodwind instruments. Bruce Haynes writes about the development of woodwind instruments: "By making one thing easier, another thing gets harder. Keys on woodwinds, for instance, made it easier to play in extreme tonalities by eliminating cross-fingering and making every chromatic note similar in timbre; but this gain was offset by the greater difficulty of scales with few accidentals, thirds, and leading tones that were less well in tune, and the loss in individual character between tonalities"[2].
The woodwind manufacturing industry experimented with different materials, settling on Dalbergia melanoxylon, commonly known as African Blackwood, Mpingo, or grenadilla, as a standard in professional clarinets starting at the end of the 19th century[3]. Grenadilla’s acoustic qualities have enabled the clarinet to establish itself with a clear function in a modern orchestral set-up[4]. Since 2017, grenadilla has been classified as an endangered species in Appendix 2 of CITES[5], and the industry has been searching for different materials following availability, cost, and sustainability factors. In 2020, the largest manufacturer of clarinets, Buffet Crampon, announced that it would produce a limited edition of their top model Légende in boxwood[6], the wood most frequently used for woodwind instruments in the 17th-19th centuries. In July 2021, they also introduced 85 limited-edition mopane clarinets in four model ranges, expanding to regular production in 2022. Mopane is, like grenadilla, a dense and hard African tonewood, but more sustainable and allegedly less prone to splitting.
The establishment of institutional orchestras and the use of larger ensembles in late romanticism/early modernism[7] corresponded to the construction of several dedicated concert halls for classical music performances[8]. The need to fill larger halls and project through an ever-expanding orchestra has led to the development of the modern instrument to emphasize evenness through the registers, larger volume, and projection[9].
Modern playing methodology is also highly focused on evening out the instrument's idiosyncrasies, aiming to make all notes through the registers have the same shape[10]. These are goals that are important for today's performers, who must master a multitude of styles and be flexible and innovative at the same time. But what happens when everything sounds the same? This begs the question: Has phrasing become a victim of evenness?
PURPOSE
I have worked as a principal clarinetist in two of the most prominent Norwegian orchestras and perform regularly as a guest principal clarinetist with various orchestras across the Nordic countries, Europe, Asia, and Australia, including the Philharmonia Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. Having experience performing across all these regions, I began identifying some of the limitations imposed by modern orchestral instruments. Teaching at the university level for over a decade—supervising young players and reflecting on my own techniques and methods—has led me to contextualize this research project in the following way: as we simultaneously work on mastering the instrument on one hand and mastering music on the other, although they are certainly intertwined, I felt that the former was restricting our ability to shape music.
Connecting this project with the orchestral field was essential to inform and validate it. For an international perspective, this project has been presented at 42 leading institutions on six continents. LINK TO «AFFILIATIONS TO THE FIELD» REFLECTION
With the woodwind manufacturing industry searching for alternatives to grenadilla, focusing primarily on mopane in recent years, it was relevant to incorporate modern boxwood and mopane instruments in addition to grenadilla into the research project to investigate the consequences of my field’s direction.
This project addresses (a) how modern instrumentalists have to respond to where the development has taken the instrument, (b)howwe should react to where the woodwind manufacturing industry is heading, and (c) how we want the methodology of teaching to progress.
CONTEXT
Artistic research, which this project is based, connects with Christopher Frayling’s notion of “research through art…”[11] and Henk Borgdoff’s “research for the arts”[12]. As a performer, this research is through the art of music, where the artistic results are at the forefront, together with material documenting artistic reflection.
To give context to this project, the terms phrasing, rephrasing, and affordance need to be addressed. What is phrasing? LINK TO «PHRASING?» REFLECTION My working definition is simply: how a musician shapes music. The (Re)phrasing in the title of my project links to this definition: “to…express (something) in a different way, especially to make the meaning clearer”[13] Thus, reexamining phrasing on modern instruments.
Orchestral musicians shape music using an instrument, bringing us to the importance of affordance. The American psychologist James Jerome Gibson introduced the word «affordance» as a term in the study of cognition. It is widely used in different forms of psychology, design, human-computer interaction, robotics, language education, and artistic research. Gibson defines affordance in his final book from 1979 as such:
“The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment.”[14]
When examining affordances in the context of musical instruments, this is the relationship between the instrument and the musician. LINK TO «AFFORDANCES OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS» REFLECTION A musician’s understanding of the agent of affordances in this relationship determines an instrument's possibilities. I propose that affordances be categorized into two distinct areas: material affordances and co-affordances. Material affordances are the properties that define an instrument’s use. These properties can be influenced by the material (i.e., wood as a variable in this project), make, model, plating, keywork systems, construction methods, etc. Co-affordances are the interactions between the musician and the instrument that influence phrasing, dependent on fingers and keys closing or opening holes to achieve different notes. These interactions form a specific phrase depending on how well the results align with or disrupt the intended musical trajectory and the maneuvering needed to counteract or reinforce them. The term co-affordance has been used in a limited way as a term in human-computer interaction and robotics, but not in music performance.
THEORETICAL CONTEXT
Mine Doğantan-Dack is at the forefront of artistic research and is a piano and music performance professor at the University of Cambridge. She writes:
«In the context of artistic performance as research, understanding the affordances of different kinds of musical instruments becomes crucial in exploring the means through which new insights and knowledge might emerge»[15]
Researcher and flutist Markus Tullberg at Lund University in Sweden wrote his dissertation on the affordances of musical instruments, focusing on the simple-system flute. This is the closest research paper that connects to my project, although its viewpoint is from a folk music and music education standpoint. Tullberg writes:
“While the concept of affordances has been applied in music research, it has not been satisfyingly developed regarding musical instruments.”[16]
He continues:
“Furthermore, researcher-musicians and educators can contribute by autoethnographies and phenomenological explorations of their craft. Such first-person accounts have the potential to inform our understanding of perceptual and cognitive processes, hard to access from a third-person perspective.”[17]
This project answers Doğantan-Dack and Tullberg’s call to action by exploring affordances from a first-person practice-based artistic research standpoint. LINK TO «CONTEXTUALISATION» REFLECTION
WORKING METHODS
In this project, I use a period boxwood instrument, modern boxwood instruments, modern mopane instruments, and modern grenadilla instruments as tools for research on phrasing. By switching between a period instrument and different modern instruments, I have identified various parameters exploring how the instruments' affordances influence phrasing.
The period instrument I am using is a replica baroque clarinet made by Guntram Wolf. It is tuned to standard baroque pitch, A=415 Hz. It has two keys and is in the key of C. The modern clarinets are made by Buffet Crampon. They are Tradition models with nickel-played keys, tuned to A=442 Hz. They have 19 keys and six rings and are in the keys of Bb and A.
I want to address some limitations in this project. The project's scope does not factor in the different fingering systems and keywork progressions throughout the instrument's history that have led to the modern German (Oehler) and French (Boehm) system clarinets. A factor also not considered is spectral analysis, which is the visualization of frequencies present in sound. This method, although interesting, doesn’t align with the purpose of investigating the relationship between an instrument and a musician. Also important to note is that the research is not devoted to examining how phrasing is to be shaped in accordance with performance practice. The focus is on the affordances' effects on how a certain performer wants to shape their music.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
My project consists of three parts:
1. What is the relationship between phrasing on a period instrument and a modern instrument?
2. How does material influence phrasing?
3. What is the future of phrasing on a modern instrument?
1. What is the relationship between phrasing on a period instrument and a modern instrument?
The first part of my project explored the differences between phrasing on a period instrument and modern instruments. At that stage, I did not have the mopane instruments. This part focused on performances where fragments of the same piece are first played on a period instrument and then on a modern instrument (Bb clarinet in both grenadilla and boxwood transposed ½ tone up from A=440 Hz to remove the experience of tonality) to identify differences in phrasing.
EXAMPLES (excerpts from Research Presentation 1 & 2)
Some of the differences I found were based on resistance, response, dynamics, homogeneity, flexibility, ergonomics, and articulation. An important factor to address is that the period instrument, being less resistant and thus demanding more air, could affect the length of possibility concerning a specific phrase and therefore its overall shape.
In the examples, I am practically exploring what lies in the concept of affordance regarding these instruments. To hear the phrasing idiosyncrasies between them, it was necessary to eliminate tonality or key sense. The tuning of most modern instruments is standardized at A=440-443 Hz, depending on the country. Modern pitch in the Nordic countries is A=442 Hz. Modern baroque pitch is standardized at A=415 Hz. A semitone or halftone is divided into 100 cents, with 415 Hz being 101 cents lower than 440 Hz or marginally more than a semitone. 415 Hz is thus a little more than a semitone lower than 442 Hz. I am therefore transposing my modern clarinet playing on the Bb instruments up a little more than a semitone to be in the same key as the baroque instrument in C.
I had some choices concerning transposition. I could have commissioned a replica period instrument tuned to A=442 Hz to eliminate the need for transposition, but this would involve my period instrument colleagues having to transpose. It would also have deemed the instrument unusable outside the scope of this specific research project, and I did not see this as a viable option. I then had two choices concerning transposition on the modern instrument. I could play on a modern C clarinet and transpose a semitone down, or I could play on a modern Bb clarinet and transpose a semitone up. I chose the latter as this is the instrument most familiar to me, and also where a modern variant was available in boxwood, and later in mopane.
2. How does material influence phrasing?
The second part of my project explored how the various modern material instruments influenced how I phrase. This was when I got the mopane set.
EXAMPLES (excerpts from Research Presentation 3 & 4)
I want to address some of the variables in this project phase. My grenadilla instruments are from July 2019, so they are played in, arguably, on the way to being played out. The modern boxwood instruments are from May 2023. The mopane instruments are from April 2024. I have the same Straubinger and cork pad setup on all the modern clarinets to limit variables other than age and wood. Although all the modern instruments are similar in resistance, the choices I have made with selecting an appropriate reed might vary depending on which instrument I choose them on. LINK TO «REEDS» REFLECTION
Two factors that influence the instruments separately are hardness and density, referring to material affordance. The Janka scale is used to determine the relative hardness of wood, measured in Newtons. This is the resistance of wood to indentation, with higher numbers indicating harder woods. Balsa wood is the softest of all woods, measured at 98 Newtons, and Australian Buloke is the hardest wood, measured at 22,500 Newtons. These are the hardness and density figures of the different woods provided by suppliers:
Boxwood density 900-1030kg/m3 Hardness 12,610N
Grenadilla density 1250-1300kg/m3 Hardness 16,320N
Mopane density 1300kg/m3 Hardness 15,060N
Grenadilla is the hardest of the three, at 16,320 Newtons; mopane is at 15,060 Newtons, and boxwood is the softest, at 13,080 Newtons. Looking at the density figures, we can see that although grenadilla is the hardest of the woods, mopane is the densest at 1,300kg/m3. Density is defined as mass over volume. We can assume that the volume of the different clarinets is the same, with the weight being the relevant factor. Mass and weight are not the same, though. Weight is a force, while mass is the amount of matter in an object. However, the example below of the weight of my instruments reinforces the relative density figures of the woods provided by the suppliers. These are the specific weights of my instruments:
Bb A
Boxwood w/64 mm barrel 753g 791g
Boxwood w/65 mm barrel 754g 792g
Grenadilla w/65 mm barrel 796g 839g
Mopane w/66 mm barrel 829g 874g
Mopane w/65 mm barrel 828g 873g
Boxwood is the lightest, with the Bb clarinet weighing 753 grams, grenadilla weighing 796 grams, and mopane the heaviest, weighing 829 grams. With the volume being constant, mopane is thus the densest, with boxwood being the least dense.
My first observation comparing the different modern instruments was that all the woods have different and unique pitch tendencies. The instruments have the exact same dimensions; as mentioned, the only variable is the age of the instruments and the type of wood. The boxwood instruments are slightly lower in pitch (around 2 cents). I thus have to use a 1 mm shorter barrel to be in the same pitch as the grenadilla instruments. This has been confirmed to be the general tendency of the material, as other players and the manufacturer have backed this claim up. The mopane instruments are slightly higher in pitch (around 2 cents). I thus have to use a 1 mm longer barrel to be in the same pitch as the grenadilla instruments. This has also been confirmed to be the general tendency of this material, as other players have backed this claim up. Therefore, I can deduce that pitch tendencies are linked to their densities, where the densest material is also the highest pitch.
We also see a density range for each wood. Pitch being linked to this range also answers why there might be minute pitch discrepancies between the same type of instrument, even though they have the same dimensions. This will be because of minute density differences between each particular batch of wood.
The next observation comparing the different modern instruments is that separate response rates and dynamic impacts are associated with each type of wood. I have linked these to the hardness of the material, where softer materials react quicker with less dynamic impact and harder materials react slower with greater dynamic impact. My findings are that response rate and dynamic impact are inversely proportional to each other. Boxwood is the least hard and most responsive material. Mopane is second, with grenadilla being the hardest and least responsive. Dynamically, grenadilla has the most impact, with mopane coming second and boxwood having the least.
The boxwood instruments, being lighter and the least dense, warm up quicker, thus intonation adjustment is more prominent as temperature and pitch are linked. Boxwood is also less stable with its porosity, allowing for more changes in bore, tone holes, and tenon dimensions compared to grenadilla and mopane, even when stored in a humidity-controlled environment, as I do with Lomax cases. This was evident when Buffet Crampon checked the boxwood instruments' bore and tone hole measurements after ½ a year of use. The upper bore of my Bb clarinet had shrunk considerably, making the pitch in the throat register very flat, and it had to be rereamed. ½ a year later, the A clarinet had changed, needing to be adjusted.
After using the mopane instruments for a few months, I returned to the factory to check if they had changed. Both instruments’ upper joint bores needed to be slightly adjusted. I returned after ½ a year; no changes were noted. Granted, grenadilla clarinets can also move, but I did not notice a digression in pitch on the mopane instruments as I did on the boxwood instruments.
Price is a factor to address. The Buffet mopane instruments are 5% more costly than the grenadilla instruments, but the boxwood instruments are around twice the price. This, together with their instability, makes them an interesting pathway to the knowledge of phrasing parameters rather than an alternative to grenadilla.
3. What is the future of phrasing on a modern instrument?
The third part of my project addressed how material and methodological properties influenced my awareness of the clarinet’s qualities and my musical phrasing. The key parameter of interest was that mopane and boxwood respond quicker to dynamic impulses than grenadilla. This material affordance can impact the ease of shaping a phrase.
EXAMPLES (excerpts from Research Presentation 5 & 6)
My experience is that it is easiest to form the intended shapes of phrases with the boxwood instruments. Because of the material affordances, I have to be much more deliberate with shaping phrases on the mopane instrument, and especially with the grenadilla instrument.
Having played full-time with the mopane instruments for ½ a year from August 2024 in orchestra and chamber groups, my initial reaction was that they respond to dynamic changes almost as quickly as the boxwood instruments but with a shape to the sound closer to grenadilla. How does the wood work in an orchestral setting where all groups are content to be heard? The material affordance of dynamic impact is vital in orchestral playing and is essential to understand when considering which instrument to choose. I experienced firsthand that my mopane clarinets could not match fortissimo wind passages in an orchestral setting. This was when I played as guest principal clarinet with the Iceland Symphony Orchestra in November 2024. The mopane instrument worked quite well in Beethoven’s 4th piano concerto, which was played at the concert's start. It could, however, not match the fortissimo woodwind passages in the main work, Shostakovich’s 8th Symphony. This was quite unexpected because when playing chamber music and practicing alone, mopane felt as if it had all the possibilities of a grenadilla instrument, but with a quicker response rate. After listening to the radio broadcast, what surprised me even more was that the sound was not «mine». It was very warm and a bit broader in shape, but not how I have sounded on grenadilla instruments or would like to sound. I was missing the point, or focus, in the sound. I was planning on playing the whole of season 2024/25 on the mopane clarinets, but after these experiences and findings, I returned to my grenadilla set after a solo concert I had in December of 2024.
As an orchestral musician, I need to have the possibility to project in a modern orchestra. Having a cap on dynamics, as with mopane (and boxwood), is a disadvantage, even though it is easier to form the intended shapes of phrases on these instruments because of their response rate. The ease of shaping a phrase and response time is a less significant material attribute for me, as this variable I can, to a certain degree, learn to adjust on the grenadilla instruments, which is one of the purposes of this research project.
Co-affordance is the fundamental factor that needs to be addressed, as most clarinet players still use grenadilla instruments. Even though other materials can facilitate certain aspects of phrasing, the interaction between musician and instrument needs to be addressed. How is this relevant in the bigger picture for performing artists? As an example, I was an external jury member for an audition for the principal clarinet position in the Malmö Symphony Orchestra in March and April of 2025. The jury listened to 91 submitted recordings over a preliminary round and 31 candidates for the live audition. It was an eye-opening experience to hear many of the top musicians on the current European audition scene. All rounds were behind a screen and thus anonymous, so I could only rely on the auditory information for my judgment. I felt that most candidates let the instruments’ affordances dictate their phrasing.
NAVIGATING THE EXPOSITION
This Research Catalogue exposition aims to be simple in presentation and easy to navigate for my field of orchestral musicians. Therefore, I have designed it so that after the abstract and this introduction, the artistic results and reflections can be viewed as parts, with each section standing independently but linked together. I suggest starting at the top of each section and working down. After the introductory reflections, I have grouped the reflections into categories of material affordances and co-affordances.
The case studies use excerpt material from the artistic results. In the co-affordances case study, I compare a recording from 2012 where I performed Mozart’s clarinet concerto with the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra to how I play Mozart after three years of exploring and understanding more of affordances and co-affordances. LINK TO «CASE STUDY: MOZART CLARINET CONCERTO» REFLECTION I used Artificial Intelligence with an app called Lalal.ai to separate the melodic line from the orchestral accompaniment to better hear phrasing nuances. I also examine Mozart’s exposition on the three different material instruments in Material Affordances. LINK TO «CASE STUDY: MOZART CLARINET CONCERTO EXPOSITION» REFLECTION In the second Material Affordance case study, I compare my performances with the Norwegian National Opera Orchestra of Mozart’s Cosí fan tutte on different modern instruments. LINK TO «CASE STUDY: MOZART COSÌ FAN TUTTE» REFLECTION I played half the performances on the grenadilla and the other half on the boxwood instruments. The third Material Affordances case study compares Debussy’s Premiere Rhapsodie on different material instruments. LINK TO «CASE STUDY: DEBUSSY PREMIÈRE RHAPSODIE» REFLECTION The fourth Material Afforances case study compares Schubert’s Der Hirt auf dem Felsen on the modern boxwood instrument with a fortepiano and then on the modern grenadilla instrument with a modern Steinway piano. LINK TO «CASE STUDY: SCHUBERT DER HIRT AUF DEM FELSEN» REFLECTION The interesting outcome of this collaboration was how the different instruments not only affected how I phrased but also influenced my co-musicians’ musical expressions noticeably. At the end of the reflections, I have grouped the complete researched presentations in case an audience wants to follow my process from the beginning of my instrument's history to the music of our time, and then a conclusion.
[1]Ericsson A., Krampe, R. and Tesch-Römer, C. «The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance» p. 394 (1993)
[2] Haynes B. «The End of Early Music: A Period Performer’s History of Music for the Twenty-First Century» p. 152 (2007)
[3] Cunningham A.B. «More than a Music Tree: 4400 Years of Dalbergia melanoxylon Trade in Africa» South African Journal of Botany 98, p. 167 (2015)
[4] Meyer J. «Acoustics and the Performance of Music» p. 205-208 (2004)
[5] https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php
[6] https://www.buffet-crampon.com/en/instruments/clarinets/legende-boxwood/
[7] Lawson C. and Barclay R. «The Cambridge Companion to the Orchestra» p. 36-41 (2003)
[8] Beranek L. «Concert Halls and Opera Houses» p. 13-15 (1996)
[9] Weinzierl S., Lepa S., Schultz F., Detzner E., Coler H., and Behler G.«Sound power and timbre as cues for the dynamic strength of orchestral instruments» The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144, p. 1352-1353 (2018)
[10] Colwell R., and Hewitt M. «The Teaching of Instrumental Music» (2011)
[11] Frayling C. «Research in Art and Design» Royal College of Art Research Papers Volume 1. Nr, 1, p. 5 (1993)
[12] Borgdoff H. A. «The Conflicts of the Faculties: Perspectives on Artistic Research and Academia» 2012 p. 38
[13] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rephrase
[14]Gibson J. J. «The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception» p. 127 (1979)
[15] Doğantan-Dack M.«The Role of the Musical Instrument in Performance as Research: The Piano as a Research Tool» p.173 (2021)
[16]Tullberg M. «Affordances of Musical Instruments: Conceptual consideration» p. 1 (2022)
[17]Tullberg M. «Affordances of Musical Instruments: Conceptual consideration» p. 9 (2022)