Klarinet Archive - Posting 000066.txt from 2001/10

From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Trivialities
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:27:01 -0400

I shall say no, we <probably> don`t disagree now that you have initiated a
fuller explanation. But if I might put my slant on this just one more time,
I feel that if it is known that there are clarinets on the market with this
'fault' then it cannot be trivial to consider this as an important part of
points to consider in initial selection. One must try to find all pros and
cons, so surely this now in future has to be considered more carefully. Is
some one going to buy an instru. for it`s fabulous tone, and then be content
to let it fall apart in the middle of performance?
No, we don`t disagree, but I feel we must make clear what we are want to
convey - - - perhaps it was a 'dig' at somebody where I should have known
better and kept well clear? :<) If so, I`m sorry.

Best,
Tony W.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Pay" <Tony@-----.uk>
Subject: Re: [kl] Trivialities

> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:56:04 +0100, tony-wakefield@-----.net said:
>
> > > If you're referring to my suggestion -- and I suspect you are --
> > > that a (perhaps) potentially wobbly middle tenon joint is a trivial
> > > reason to choose one make of clarinet over another, then I can't
> > > agree with you.
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > I <don`t> agree that this is a trivial reason to choose one over
> > another. I agree that this problem can probably be easily solved, but
> > it can <initially> be not trivial surely.
>
> Oh, of course. After all, there are degrees and degrees of wobble. You
> can imagine that in a worst case scenario, the instrument might come
> apart in your hands. (Indeed, the bell of a boxwood instrument of mine
> did on one occasion fall off during a broadcast performance of the Weber
> quintet. A bit more on that later.)
>
> My comment wasn't intended to suggest that to talk about how to cure a
> wobble is to talk trivially, even though it actually is quite easy to
> cure a wobble with waxed thread, or by replacing the cork, or by any of
> the other more or less permanent suggestions that have been made.
>
> It was intended to suggest that anyone who, on reflection, really
> believes that 'many people' have *changed* instruments from Prestige to
> R13 -- both professional instruments, notice -- 'because of this
> [wobble] problem', must be operating in some sort of alternate reality.
>
> My own unfortunate experience on a copy of a period instrument occurred
> because boxwood is much more sensitive to humidity than blackwood. If
> you don't play a boxwood instrument for some time, the joints tend to
> shrink, and so are wobbly. As you play on it, they tighten up, and in
> the end can actually bind unacceptably. So ongoing maintenance -- for
> example, with waxed thread, or for the less authentic, pvc (plumbers')
> tape -- is necessary. I hadn't noticed that the bell was loose, though
> I'd checked the other joints. The bell fell off just before the final
> triplet semiquaver passage, so there was absolutely no chance to replace
> it. And it not only 'compromised' the low E ;-), but made the whole
> sound wheezy and unresonant. The quartet were (silently) howling with
> laughter, of course.
>
> > Shall we agree to disagree?
>
> Probably we don't disagree?
>
> Tony

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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org