Klarinet Archive - Posting 000192.txt from 1998/01

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: too long, maybe, but not mindless (I hope)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:17:57 -0500

Bill, it is I who must apologise. You have given a very thorough
and interesting answer to my question for which I thank you. I
misread your original statement and thought that you were
referring to the swabbing of the clarinet rather than the swabbing
of the mouthpiece. Swabbing the mouthpiece is a subject about
which I know nothing, and that is at the high end of the scale. I
suspect I know so little that I damaged my own mouthpieces.

But I thank you for taking the time to answer my question even
though I posed the wrong one out of ignorance.

> From: MX%"klarinet@-----.77
> Subj: too long, maybe, but not mindless (I hope)

> 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!!)
=======================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
Rosanne Leeson, Los Altos, California
leeson@-----.edu
=======================================