Klarinet Archive - Posting 000386.txt from 1997/11

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: Blowout
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:05:50 -0500

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.95
> Subj: Blowout

> I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but I wanted to try to
> insert some logic into the blowout argument.
>
> Assuming that there is something that can happen to the bore over time,
> eg., the wood shrinks, the swab takes away microns of wood, the water
> or oil content is different
>
> And...
>
> Manufacturing tolerances for clarinets vary by thousanths of an inch
>
> Then:
>
> I would expect that depending where the particular clarinet is on the
> bell curve of tolerances, it may have just as good of a chance of
> getting better over time as it has of getting worse, eg., "blowing
> out."
>
> So, I suspect we need a new term to describe a clarinet that improves
> with age - perhaps "blowing in."

That is very clever!! I like it, will steal the idea, and present
it as my own invention. I'm only telling you this so that you won't
be surprised.

But your note contains a very important element that requires a more
measured response. You begin by saying that we assume that things
will happen over time that will affect the bore over time. And, then,
as a consequence of those changes, something negative (or even positive)
can happen.

Well that wording is very much what the argument is about, and it has
several dimensions:

1) some suggest that whatever happens to result in blow out,
the thing that is affected by long use is not the bore but
other things, such as the rim of the tone holes which become
rounded over time; I am not suggesting that this is true or
not true; I don't know. But here is a case where some
responsible people have said, "Whatever the problem is, it
does not derived from the bore (alone?)."

2) there are a zillion things that might have happened to
the bore over time but there is little evidence as to
exactly what happened, and which one (or ones) result in
this phenomenon.

3) there are those prepared on the basis of such folk-wisdom
to leap to a conclusion about the existence of the problem
and its causes.

I, on the other hand, admit ignorance of massive proportions. I
don't know anything about the problem and, therefore, automatically
suspect anyone who makes executive harrumphing noises when they
tell me all about it, its causes, its results, and why I should
throw away my clarinet every 12 years. I had a C clarinet that
I sold that was more than 100 years old (which is now in the
happy hands of David Neithamer in Richmond) that was still
going strong. It had troubles with the throat tones, but I think
it had those troubles when it was made by Buffet in the late
1800s.

The most seriously defective arguments that have been presented
on this list with respect to blow out are those that assert that
"you can hear it" or that "you can feel it" or that "you can
sense it." To which I can only reply, "horse-hockey!" On that
basis, anything can be established as being true or false.

The last thing that one should accept in this arena are "feelings"
or "sensations" or "hearings" since they change so frequently
and are often affected more by emotion than by rational thought.

>
>
> Steve Gordon, M.D.
> Beaverton, OR
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org