Klarinet Archive - Posting 000848.txt from 1997/03

From: BKruse@-----.COM
Subj: Re: Cane reeds ->was->kevlar underwear?
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:34:43 -0500

--------------- cc:Mail Forwarded ---------------
From: Reedman2@-----.com AT MINDSCAPE
Date: 03/25/97 04:19 PM
Cc:
Subject: Re: Cane reeds ->was->kevlar underwear?

I'm not convinced that nothing else sounds like a cane reed, but that
brings up another question. Is there something unique about the acoustical
properties of cane? Has anyone studied the physics on this?

But just for the sake of argument, let's say nothing else _does_ sound like
cane. Does that mean other things sound worse or just different? And if
cane actually does sound better than anything else, why is that? Assuming
other materials just sound different, aren't we ignoring a world of
possibilities for tonal color?

As for the fly rod, I am intrigued. Is that just a psychological thing or
is there some tangible difference?

Barry

_____
Subject: Re: Cane reeds ->was->kevlar underwear?
Author: Reedman2@-----.com at MINDSCAPE
Date: 3/25/97 4:19 PM

In a message dated 3/25/97 122956, BKruse@-----.COM wrote:

>So, back to the point. Even if cane is in general the best material for
>the great unwashed masses (like me) in terms of cost/benefits, why is
there >no premium material out there for the elite?

Probably for no other reason than there is nothing else that sounds like a
cane reed but a cane reed. After all, don't we play the Clarinet because
we love the way it sounds? And most of us fell in love with that sound
long before spaceage materials were around. I know there are some that
will believe that new and improved is better and sometimes it is. . . but
not always. Graphite
is a wondreful material but I will take my old cane fly rod
any day. But sorry, that's off topic.
Just call me old fashioned I guess. . .

Thomas
Reedman2@-----.com