Klarinet Archive - Posting 000110.txt from 2002/11

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] This thing on my front door
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:15:01 -0500

At 09:24 AM 11/2/2002 -0700, William Semple wrote:
>...I am not talking about absolutes here, I am taking about the relative
>importance of various aspects of the instrument with regard to outcomes. Not
>perfect outcomes. Variable outcomes. We can argue the order, but what I am
>arguing is the concept whereby it is logically and intuitively permissible
>to state that the embouchure in general is more important to the
>contribution of the quality of sound than the bell of a clarinet...

I think that is where this discussion has diverged. When we are talking
about relative importance, I think what we really mean is the amount of
CHANGE in the output a given change in the INPUT will cause. Obviously, if
you keep the whole instrument setup the same and change the player, or the
player changes his embouchure, massive changes in the output will
occur. We all know that changing a reed makes a significant change in the
sound, as does changing a mouthpiece. Barrels also have a strong effect,
positive or negative. The changes seem to get less significant as you move
down the instrument. Yes, a bell can change the sound, but only a really
RADICALLY different bell design seems to have much effect. In all of this
discussion, one must assume a fully functional instrument in good repair,
since a leaky Buffet will not outplay even a Chinese Monique that seals
well (for the five minutes or so it can before the keys bend).

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

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