Klarinet Archive - Posting 000846.txt from 2002/10

From: b5w@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:41:58 -0500

Another issue needs to be addressed:

The original assertion that closer to the embouchure is more important
(produces greater effect) (in the case of a fully functional instrument)
is often false --- not just over-simplified, but actually false.

I can think of several examples. Probably there are more.

(1) I have a custom-made bell that has at least as much effect on my
sound as a different mouthpiece does, and _more_ effect when I compare
swapping the two bells vs. swapping B45 for 5RV mouthpiece. This 'bell
effect' is strongest at low E through low G or A, but it extends all the
way up through clarion A.

It would be a close call, but I also would say that my bell has more
effect than metal vs. fabric ligature.

(2) Many barrels have more effect on the sound than the choice of reed
does --- not that the reed is insignificant --- unless you consider a
reed that is simply too stiff to play. (For my own situation, I would
put moving from a #3 to a #5+ in the same category as trying to play a
non-functional instrument, which is not what we're discussing here.)

(3) Moving down to the joints: large bore vs. small bore, and
polycylindrical vs. not polycylindrical, probably have more effect than
(say) B45 vs. 5RV mouthpieces, or than (say) V12 vs. Zonda reeds of
approximately the same strength.

(4) You could make the same argument about one-piece instruments where
the throat Bb hole is 'better' located because you don't need to allow
for the tenon and socket.

So even if you accept one of the definitions for 'proper analogy', or
even if you agree that regression analysis is meaningful in this
instance, I think the basic statement that "more removed from the
player's mouth produces less effect" has so many exceptions that it must
be described as false.

Cheers,
Bill

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