Klarinet Archive - Posting 000173.txt from 1998/01

From: Edinger/Gilman <wde1@-----.com>
Subj: too long, maybe, but not mindless (I hope)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:17:38 -0500

I didn't start this thread, but I guess I poured some gas on the fire.
Dan Leeson wrote, in response to my "indisputable opinion : )":

"Bill, in my opinion, the effect is very disputable. What evidence do
you present to support the view that (a) this phenomenon occurs to the
extent that you suggest, and (b) that it has a specific effect on
something?"

Typical Dan Leeson question: concise, scientifically objective, and
providing just enough rope to let me hang myself. OK, here goes.

I have a Selmer mouthpiece that was swabbed for over 25 years, and the
edges of the rails - which, as I understand it, are vitally important to
keep sharp-edged to maintain responsiveness - are clearly rounded down,
as are all the corners around the tip (compared to a brand-new
mouthpiece). At the same time, the outside edges of the rails are just
as sharp as ever, indicating the wear came from the inside. I'm
assuming that abrasion from the reed, had it been the cause, would have
affected both inside and outside rail edges similarly, but that's not
what I see. It's obvious that some abrasive wear has occurred here
from the inside.

Other non-evidential but persuasive clues are that a friend of mine who
studied with James Pyne was told (presumably by Mr. Pyne) that running a
swab through a mouthpiece is an absolute no-no, and Abe Galper's citing
of Frank Kaspar should carry some weight as well. The evidence cited by
Bill Hausman certainly knocks down my idea that the reed doesn't hit
against the mouthpiece rails and tip, but that doesn't do anything to
rule out swabbing abrasion, aside from its rather disturbing age (1941)
and the odd claim that the reed is closed half the time of its vibration
cycle. That just doesn't sound right.

Other points:
"A razor strop is designed to be abrasive. It is SUPPOSED to remove
material... I would not swab out my mouthpiece with sandpaper. I use
silk..."

Sorry, but a leather strop is not impregnated with abrasives (as you
wrote privately) and is not meant to be abrasive - the whet stone (hard
Arkansas) does that job - and it is nothing like sandpaper. The effect
would be about the same on a steel razor as cotton cloth on a rubber
mouthpiece (even if it IS "steel ebonite" : )). Silk - now there's a a
good idea - see below under "lens cleaning."

"More material than that may be lost due to simple decay. The saliva
acids left inside the unswabbed mouthpiece may cause more damage."

Simple decay? I don't get it. Does hard rubber sublimate into thin
air? Also, saliva is slightly alkaline, I believe (Dr. Karius?), but it
does indeed have dilute enzymes - but they work mainly on starches.

"The same thing with a swab - the swab cloth in and of itself will not -
cannot - wear down anything harder than itself. Contaminated with dirt
and dust - it might."

This erroneous idea seems to be based on memories from Earth Science
class, where mineral hardnesses were compared - you know, a diamond will
scratch anything, and slate is harder than shale, or whatever. It is
simply not true that a softer material can't erode a harder one, whether
there's particulate matter in it or not (although that surely helps).
And how hard is the particulate matter? Most dust is actually pretty
soft organic matter. And, as someone else put it,

"My optometrist told me NEVER to use tissues or paper towels on my
glasses as these items are actually made of wood fibers and despite
their apparent softness (in the case of tissues) are more abrasive than
cloth."

As a microscopist of sorts, I can tell you that glass is a lot harder
than wood fibers.

"When I got my last lenses, I was given a cleaning kit which included a
silk cloth..."

Same idea.
The best technical summary of all was this one (sorry for leaving names
out):

"A few things you might need to consider...

Cloth: material
type/amt of impurities
type of mp
size (affects the pressure against the face)
speed of pulling thru
direction of pulling thru

Reed: "size" of reed used
type of mp
playing habits"

Add to this total number of pulls and you can see why there's
disagreement on this issue - there's a huge range of action in swabbing,
so the effects are widely different too.

But the best comment of all was Mark Charette's:

"An indisputable opinion! In the same vein as: usually unique, jumbo
shrimp, and military intelligence :^)"

With that last word, I will acknowledge the unreliability of my ardent
"indisputable opinion" (but remember, I did put a "smiley" after it) and
allow for the possibility of alternate suggestions. Hey, I'm a
scientist, I'm _supposed_ to be indecisive with my conclusions (insert
double-smiley).

Bill E.

("mindless??" Well, I never!!)