Klarinet Archive - Posting 000826.txt from 2000/07

From: Richard Bush <rbushidioglot@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Carbonare's Selmer
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:27:49 -0400

Bill,

Well stated. Over the years, what clarinet players have wanted (or gotten
use to because of selling spiel or conforming to "tradition") has changed.
Big bored clarinets are out. Smaller bored instruments are in. Instruments
with modified upper joints (poli-cylindrical bores, aka Buffet R-13) are the
present state of affairs.

What is most mystifying to me is that no great maker of clarinets, whether
it be Buffet, Selmer or Leblanc, has ever been able to put together a TOTAL
package, having a great instrument, a great barrel and a mouthpiece that all
would kill for.

And, if you think about it, how does anyone at the factory test a prototype
without doing so with a certain mouthpiece, a certain reed, a certain
embouchure, a certain playing style and concept. The final product comes
after all the above. What qualifies and quantifies any decision made for the
instrument itself?

Since everyone (the buyer) seems to be looking for this magical combination
of things that all happen in the top four inches of a clarinet, and many
have made a living walking through this bed of coals, why can't someone at
the manufacturing level do it? Are individual tastes and styles of playing
so diverse as to make this an impossible quest?

William Wright wrote:

> <Bilwright@-----.net>
> If the fundamental note is in tune, the higher harmonics cannot be.
> (Same as a piano, which must compromise on a tempered scale.)
>
> <><> Mark wrote:
> That is not true of the clarinet. The harmonics are in tune. Added mass
> (wound strings) on a piano cause inharmonicity.
>
> Ah well, it would require several hundred pages to say everything
> with absolute precision.
> I was trying to say that, in addition to the purely mathematical
> problem that pitch ratios change as you divide a larger interval into
> smaller ones and then 'add' the smaller intervals back together in order
> to obtain the larger interval again -- hence the need for even tempering
> -- each family of instruments has its own unique practical problems as
> well.
> In the case of a piano, the lower-pitched strings would have to be
> ridiculously long and thick if they weren't wound, and when you do wind
> them, new difficulties arise. In the case of a clarinet, using a single
> register vent (register key) to change from one vibration mode
> (register) to the next causes its own difficulties -- with the final
> result being that the ideal hole locations when the vent is closed are
> not identical to the ideal hoe locations when the vent is open. The
> discrepancies must be accommodated in some fashion other than simple
> geometry.
>
> But what I was really trying to say -- and there's nothing new
> about this, it's just that this particular thread seemed (to me) to be
> heading away from a well-accepted fact -- is that every clarinet
> involves compromises and the player must fill the gap with his or her
> own skills -- embouchure, choosing the best fingering for each
> situation, breath support, and so forth.
> It's not true that one brand of clarinet is 'out of tune' and all
> the others are 'right on'. They all involve compromises. You pay your
> nickel and you take your choice. That's all I was trying to say.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org