Klarinet Archive - Posting 000692.txt from 1998/05

From: "Kevin Fay (LCA)" <kevinfay@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Instrument Development--Clarinet v. Oboe v. Flute
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:15:08 -0400

Interesting contrast with Flute and Oboe. While there may have been work in
the 19th century on those instruments, development seems to have stopped for
both (at least until recently).

Dr. Lacy will undoubtedly know more about oboe--all of my info comes from
watching my wife play, and he knows what he is doing--but it seems to me
that the oboe was never "designed" at all. Unlike the flute, whose key
mechanism was integrated by Boehm, or the clarinet (ditto by Buffet, I
think, in making the "Boehm" system we know today), it appears that oboe is
a collection of keys with little rhyme or reason. As a cylindrical bore
instrument that overblows on the octave, shouldn't its key mechanism be no
more complicated than the saxophone?

I know that there has been recent development activity in the bore of
oboes--Loree has at least 2 different bores for sale. (My wife insists that
there isn't so much for oboe as clarinet because they already have it
right.)

Flute had a comprehensive overhaul/design by Boehm, of course. Until the
last few years, however, the scale of most flutes was very bad. I'm told
that the big makers' tooling was all set up to the "low pitch" popular in
the early 20th century, approx. A@-----. To bring up the pitch, makers lopped
on a section of the head joint and did not adjust the scale at all. Only
relatively recently--with the "Cooper" scale used by some makers and
equivalent development activity--are flutes in tune with themselves at our
standard concert pitch.

We should all know the story of the clarinet, which is likely on the web in
sneezy.org etc. I believe it was Buffet/Klose that gave us the key
mechanism the Western world uses today, and R. Caree (sp?) of Buffet that
graced us with the basic polycylindrical design of the R-13 and its
offspring (which includes all of Leblanc's spiffy new horns).

While we can lament the lack of innovation in the clarinet world, I think
the truth is exactly the opposite--there is a remarkable amount of
development work being done for us (as opposed to other instruments) given
the tiny market for the instruments, at least from an economic perspective.
Buffet has at least 3 professional bores for sale in the U.S., and probably
a similar number for Europe (where the pitch is higher). Yamaha has 3 or 4.
Selmer at least 3. Leblanc has so many that you can't keep them straight
without a scorecard (Tom Ridenouer has been a very busy man; fortunately,
they have a very good one printed that explains their design philosophy).
These are just the basic horns--there are literally a zillion people making
the next great mouthpiece, barrel and reed!

When I was a lad (20 years or so ago) there was really only one good reed
you could buy: Vandoren. Now, there are at least 4 different brands that I
can use in performance, that are so consistent that I can use most of them
right out of the box (my 4 are the V-12, Grand Concert thick, Olivieri and
Zonda)--I'm sure that there are more, but I've run out of time to try them.

I, for one, am grateful that there are so many talented people working very
hard to make my clarinetting better. Of course, they do it to get my
money--but I'm sure that there is a basic dedication to the instrument or
they would be manufacturing something much more profitable. A hearty thanks
to all of you!

kjf
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven J Goldman, MD [mailto:gpsc@-----.com]
Subject: [kl] Fw: [kl] Re: A new concept in orchestral clarinets

It seems particularly to be a clarinet players disease. Clarinets seemed to
have changed much more slowly, esp. fingering systems, than the other member
of the woodwinds and this was because other players were never satisfied
with the status quo. Oboes and to a greater extent flutes when through a
flurry of experimentation, trial and error, in the nineteenth centuries.
Clarinetists were much less likely to try new ideas. By the way, the basset
clarinet and the basset horn (very different instrument than the modern one)
died out because technically they were inferior and players just did not
show enough interest to warrant makers to continue to experiment. Contrast
this to flutes where until the second quarter of the 19th century
instruments going down to C were acoustically inferior to those whose lowest
note was D. But there continued to be a great demand for C instruments and
this encouraged the makers to do it until they got it right!
And your right about innovation occurring in an instrument prior to
composers creating for it. Mozart wrote his concerto for a basset clarinet
because there was one to write for. He didn't write a concerto out of the
range of any extant instrument and wait patiently for some maker to invent
one. Beethoven did not extend the range of the piano. Piano makers were
busily improving the instrument and this allowed Beethoven to increase the
range he could write for.
Steve Goldman
sjgoldman@-----.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 7:48 AM
Subject: [kl] Re: A new concept in orchestral clarinets

>Jack Kissinger addresses the important question of why the basset clarinet
>died out, a thoughtful argument central to the entire question of its
>use.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org