Klarinet Archive - Posting 000862.txt from 2002/10

From: "WILLIAM SEMPLE" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:27:42 -0500

I think I get it. Cheers if I do.

You, Tony, and others are asserting that the clarinet is by definition a
closed system (e.g., the lock and key) wherein the variables of the chain
are so inextricably linked that the relative contribution of each variable
is impossible to determine except in terms of the specific system as a whole
and in the instance under examination.

Would it be fair to restate your view with the following syllogism:

1) In a closed system, one cannot generalize about the relative importance
of elements.

2) The clarinet is a closed system.

Therefore, ergo, to wit:

3) One cannot generalize about the relative importance of the elements of
the clarinet.

Assuming that the major premise is true (I do not know, having never
considered this issue before, but it makes sense), the minor premise becomes
the arguable condition:

Is the clarinet a CLOSED SYSTEM??

I'll take Harold Wright or Reginald Kell (may they rest in peace) and a
plastic clarinet any day (which might make them toss and turn) over a first
year student and his her Prestige. Oh, I'd let Buddy and Reggie fiddle with
their mouthpieces and reeds -- maybe even the barrels -- before going on
stage.

p.s. I like Lelia's point of view. Time to go practice.

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Wright" <b5w@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door

> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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