Klarinet Archive - Posting 000910.txt from 1997/02

From: Steve Prescott <mipresc@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: glass/crystal
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:16:48 -0500

Oliver wrote:

>The use of the two terms for me as a chemist is both problematic
>and irritating. Problematic because a crystal is a body formed by
>an element or compound solidifying so that it is bounded by plane surfaces
>symmetrically arranged which reflect a definite internal structure. A
>glass is a material not yet in a crystalline state but whose amorphous
>structure has been frozen in place by cooling below its softening point.
>The use of the word crystal is also irritating to me because it is a bit
>of a con. The fourth definition of "crystal" in my old collegiate dictionary
>is "glass of superior brilliancy, made into articles for the table, etc."
>
>So unless your mouthpiece was made by chipping away at a piece
>of quartz crystal and carved and ground meticulously with carbide and
>diamond grinding tools or cast in a mold at its melting point of 1610 deg. C.
>it probably isn't crystal, but some form of glass (of superior brilliancy,
>OF COURSE, so that the manufacturer can justify charging more for it).
>In any case I'd be interested to read the posting of an authority on the
>subject
>who could tell us what the average melting point is of these various hard and
>transparent mouthpieces for which the word "crystal" is bandied about so
>casually.
>
I don't think that we're arguing semantics here. It is the industry that
has coined these words (glass and crystal). We, clarinetists, are forced to
use these terms whether we agree with their derivation or not.

Steve

Steve Prescott
Instrument Rep.Tech./ Clarinetist
Indiana State University
mipresc@-----.edu