Klarinet Archive - Posting 000508.txt from 1998/08

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Clarinet Material Revisited
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:52:05 -0400

I think a sort of consensus on this was reached on the list a while back -
the only clear differences between materials seemed to be secondary,
meaning the effects of the smoothness of the bore and the shaping of the
holes, mostly. Some illustrious contributors have *always* said that the
materials have specific effects on the sound, without giving any clear
reason - notably, Tom Ridenour.
Roger Shilcock

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Tim Roberts wrote:

> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:39:59 -0700
> From: Tim Roberts <timr@-----.com>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
> To: Clarinet List <klarinet@-----.org>
> Subject: [kl] Clarinet Material Revisited
>
> Just when I thought the issue was largely settled in the opposite direction,
> along comes my July/August edition of The Clarinet magazine, with an article by
> Lee Gibson which opens with a blanket statement that the material of which a
> clarinet body is made makes a difference in the instrument's sound.
>
> I'm confused by this article. He offers no facts or references at all to back
> up this statement. He even goes on to say that independent "blind" tests find
> no discernable difference between wood and metal clarinets, which is what I
> understand.
>
> So where does his premise come from? Is he just furthering the myth? Is this
> wishful thinking? Or could Mr. Gibson have access to some as yet unpublished
> research results?
>
> (I meant that in a respectful tone, although I fear it doesn't sound so. I've
> tried wording it several different ways. I apologize if I have offended.)
>
> --
> - Tim Roberts, timr@-----.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------