Klarinet Archive - Posting 000310.txt from 1997/01

From: "Ian M. Dilley" <imd@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: How much opinion vs. how much fact
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:12:50 -0500

I think I suggested playing C parts on an A clarinet some months ago
when this subject last came up. I'd just read Benade's book and seen
the same charts as you.

On further reflection though, this is not a satisfactory solution for
a couple of reasons.

First the break will be in a different place. No matter how much we
strive to hide it the frequency specrums of the different registers
are completely different so the tone quality of the notes that end up
in a different register will be different.

Secondly the "bad" notes will be in different places. For example the
throat Bb which is a notoriously poor note would occur on Bbs on the
original C clarinet and on Gs on an A clarinet.

Ian Dilley

>
> This whole discussion of which instruments to use is missing one basic point.
>
> First, let me add my voice to the opinion that composers more often than
> not have a tone quality in mind when they select an instrument for a part.
> Therefore, absent any other direct evidence from the composer, one should
> try to honor those wishes.
>
> However, and this is a big one, "honoring those wishes" does not equal
> "play on an instrument of the same transposing key". If it's the tone
> quality he was after then we should honor that and not necessarily the key
> of the instrument.
>
> Allow me to explain.
>
> First, Dan's statement about the holes in the instrument not making a
> difference in tone quality is plainly, factually, and incontrovertibly
> incorrect. Furthermore, it is not only wrong, but as I have posted in the
> past, virtually the opposite is true.
>
> As was proven years ago by Benade, perhaps the *single largest determining
> factor* in the tone quality of a clarinet is its cutoff frequency. And it
> is precisely the placement, size and shape of the holes that determines the
> cutoff frequency. The bore dimensions, and particularly the bore variations
> also play an important role in determining the cutoff.
>
> In his book, "Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics", Benade shows an important
> graph comparing the cutoff frequencies of five different instruments: an
> Albert System, Albert Bb, a Boehm System Buffet Bb, a Boehm System Buffet
> A, a Mueller System Bilton C (1830), and an Oehler System Uebel Bb.
>
> [To recap some of my previous messages a bit, for every fingering on the
> instrument there is a cutoff frequency, and when one speaks of THE cutoff
> frequency for an instrument, he is referring to the average cutoff
> frequency across the bottom register of the instrument. Wind instruments
> are designed, in general, to keep the cutoff frequency as constant as
> possible across this range. Cutoff frequency is directly correlated with
> the "darkness" or "brightness" of an instrument. Higher cutoff =
> "brighter". Lower cutoff @-----. All of this is experimentally
> verified fact, not opinion.]
>
> I don't personally know the cutoff frequencies of modern-day German
> instruments, but in the example given in the book, the Mueller System
> Bilton C clarinet from 1830 has by far the lowest cutoff frequency (around
> 1400Hz). Whereas, Bonade points out, "Cutoff frequencies on today's
> Boehm-system C clarinet normally lie in the region of 1700 Hz, making the
> instrument bright for playing orchestral parts written in the early 1800s."
>
> This is a perfect example of why it is not necessarily correct to say that
> because so-and-so wrote for C clarinet, one must play it on C clarinet. In
> fact, it actually may be more appropriate to play it on a Bb or an A,
> depending on the actuall cutoff frequency characteristics of the
> instruments in question. By the way, the same graph shows clearly that the
> Buffet A is designed with a consistently lower cutoff frequency making it a
> "darker" instrument. And the darkness is NOT a function of the fact that
> pitch is one half step lower.
>
> The original instrument/Early Music movement (of which, I am not a big
> fan), would, of course, have everyone play everything on the exact
> instrument that the copmoser wrote for. This is fortunately not practical
> for anything other than historical curiosity.
>
> One step away from that would be to have everyone playing on replicas.
> Again, not practical.
>
> Obviously, modern day instruments have made many improvements in
> intonation, stability, evenness, and ease of sound production (not to
> mention durability, serviceability etc.) over the old instruments.
>
> Therefore, possibly the best approach would be to discover the prevailing
> cutoff frequencies at the time and place and performers associated with the
> composer in question, and attempt to match that with an appropriate modern
> instrument (no matter what transposing key the instrument happens to be
> in).
>
> -----------------------
> Jonathan Cohler
> cohler@-----.net
>