Klarinet Archive - Posting 000451.txt from 2001/05

From: "Dee D. Hays" <deehays@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Clarinet History
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 07:23:00 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Roberts" <timr@-----.com>
Subject: [kl] Clarinet History

> Why was the clarinet developed so late, relatively speaking? The early
> clarinet lags behind the early oboe by several hundred years. I find this
> surprising. The clarinet seems like a natural derivative from the old
> recorder, much more natural a double reed arrangement.
>
> I presume there have been innumerable masters theses on this topic.
Anyone
> have any pet theories?

I would just add to the excellent comments already posted that one should
*NOT* think of either the clarinet or oboe as derivatives from the recorder.
All three developed independently from each other. Simple double and single
reed instruments go back a couple of thousand years. Also keep in mind that
it is not the single reed alone that makes a clarinet a clarinet. It is the
combination of single reed with a cylindrical bore.

Dee Hays
Michigan

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