Klarinet Archive - Posting 000618.txt from 2000/10

From: GrabnerWG@-----.com
Subj: Re: [kl] Symmetrical vs Asymmetrical Facings
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:02:28 -0400

Roger G, says: <<Keep in mind that several of us, even though we like and use the Zinner, do not in any way employ the use of the hollow table (concavity). Rather, we flatten it to as close to perfectly flat as possible before the facing and curve are added. Therefore, this concavity no longer exists to simulate a
more open and longer curve. >>

Walter jumps in: At one point, I was dead set against any concavity, believing, without much empirical evidence that a perfectly "flat" table would be optimum.

I no longer believe that. I believe that the concave table is one of the chief advantages of the Zinner blank. I believe that it imparts a delicious "ping" to the sound, which leaves once the table is flattened.

I have played several of my Zinner models this last year, almost exclusivly, and all have a concave table. (they all have symmetrical facings).

I have observed no undue warping or distortion of the reed. In fact, I have enjoyed a 12 month period in which I had no really serious reed deficiencies.

I also thought that by going with the concave table approach, I would no longer be able to use Legere reeds. Boy, was I wrong about that!!!!!

( I must be doing something correctly, because I am being requested repeatedly for chamber and solo appearances, including a performance of Prokofieff's "Overture on Hebrew Themes", a solo appearance with the Skokie Valley Symphony, and my recent Mozart/Brahms quintet appearances, none of which I sought or organized.)

So Roger, go ahead and remove those concave tables...I'm keeping them!

Walter
clarinetxpress.com

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