Klarinet Archive - Posting 000696.txt from 2003/02
From: MVinquist@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Various
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:17:55 -0500
I have to switch computers and connections to post, since the current versio=
n=20
of CompuServe insists on MIME encoding, so I'll answer several items:
Walter Grabner says: In my VERY LIMITED understanding, the surface creates=20
turbulence in the air stream which affects the sound. It's very possible tha=
t=20
plastic clarinets sound so "plasticity" is that the surface is TOO smooth.
Walter -
Very little air moves down the tube. Almost all the energy from the player=20
goes into making the reed vibrate, which in turn makes the air *already*=20
inside the instrument vibrate. Turbulence in the air stream is minuscule. =20
There was a lot of discussion on this back when Alvin Swiney (a Moennig=20
apprentice) and Jonathan Cohler (who has a Ph.D. in physics) were posting,=20
raising much smoke but less light. Alvin, for example said that the pre-R-1=
3=20
buffets had a highly polished bore, sealed with shellac, which accounted for=
=20
their sound and response, yet he also said that barrels and bells made of=20
lighter wood with distinct pores and grain were best. Finally, he said that=
=20
Moennig lined barrels with hard rubber, at least for Gigliotti, and=20
presumably the rubber would be quite smooth. Jonathan had much to say about=
=20
Benade's experiments, which, as I recall, found that surface shininess (and=20
the material of which the instrument was made) had little or nothing to do=20
with tone. The artist-quality silver clarinets I've seen (H. Bettony,=20
Haynes) have very shiny bores. Alexander Williams told me he played a silve=
r=20
H. Bettony in the New York Philharmonic, and both Abe Galper and Pamela=20
Weston say that Gaston Hamelin played a silver instrument (probably a Selmer=
)=20
in the Boston Symphony. (A picture I've seen of Hamelin shows the=20
instrument.)
---------------------------------
Sue Raycraft says: So, we could just make a plastic horn with a rougher=20
surface inside? Has anyone ever tried that?
Sue -
As I just said, I don't think the shininess of the bore is what makes the=20
difference. Rather, as Benade says, it's the sharpness of the edge where th=
e=20
tone holes meet the bore. This edge is extremely sharp on a plastic=20
instrument, and Benade says that even a tiny amount of rounding makes a=20
dramatic difference in tone and response.
I'm of two minds on roughening the bore. I've done it on inexpensive plasti=
c=20
recorders, and it's made a noticeable improvement, taming a shrill quality=20
and making the sound more complex, but I wouldn't want to risk my R-13. On=20
the recorder, the sound is "built into" the instrument, in the design and=20
voicing. On the clarinet, where so much depends on the embouchure and oral=20
cavity, I think it would be less important.
On the other hand, in my experience, the smoothness of the bottom of the ree=
d=20
where it covers the window of the mouthpiece makes a difference in tone and=20
response. For me, at least, the tone is livelier and the response is better=
=20
when I polish the bottom of the reed, and I can only put that down to the ai=
r=20
column vibrations reflecting more efficiently against the polished surface.
On the other (third?) hand, each time I've gotten a hand-finished mouthpiece=
,=20
the maker has worked on the baffle and left it unpolished from the file or=20
sandpaper. They've told me that the adjustments are so small that putting o=
n=20
a final polish could easily ruin the mouthpiece.
On the fourth hand, Kalmen Opperman has worked on plastic contrabass=20
clarinets, doing Benade's easing of the tone hole edges, plus other tuning=20
and voicing. I've played Kal 's Linton/Bundy Eb contra and Vito BBb contra,=
=20
and they're true artist instruments, a world apart from anything else. I=20
know that Charles Bay has done the same thing with plastic basses and=20
contrabasses, and people who have played them say he's worked the same kind=20
of magic. I think he may still have some of them listed on the Sneezy=20
classifieds.
---------------------------------
Sue Raycraft says: My repair guy insists that the modern R13's are not=20
anywhere near as good as the older ones, say, up to maybe mid 1960's. So,=20
what is it about the older ones that is "better?" Anyone have experience=20
with Howarths?
Sue -
There was a definite change in design of the R-13 in the mid-60s. The=20
outside diameter of the instrument was made noticeably larger, the tuning wa=
s=20
jiggered, and the position of the register vent was lowered. To my taste,=20
the original design sounded better, but you had to put up with tuning=20
problems and a very dull throat Bb. When I play Buffet's current Vintage=20
model, I feel both the good and the bad things compared with my own #1=20
instruments, which are R-13s from the mid-70s.
I tried the Howarths at the ClarinetFest in Columbus a few years ago. =20
Everyone who played them felt that they were good, but not quite ready for=20
prime time. They may well have improved since then.
----------------------------------
Karl Krelove says: The 2RV is a mouthpiece I haven't seen in a long time.
Karl -
People have contacted Vandoren about this, and it's clear that the 2RV was=20
renamed the 5RV, probably around 1980. Like others, I've found the 5RV to b=
e=20
stuffy. If I played a Vandoren mouthpiece, it would be the 5RV Lyre, which=20
is a bit more open, but it's strictly a matter of taste.
-----------------------------------
Clark Fobes says: Picasso didn=E2=80=99t adapt to the prevailing style of Fa=
uvism.
Clark -
I think he did. He and Matisse traded Fauvist paintings back and forth,=20
seeing who could outdo the other in brilliance of color. Similarly, Picasso=
=20
and Braque simultaneously explored the possibilities of cubism, each trying=20
to outdo the other.
Most important, Picasso was always painting his best and was famous for doin=
g=20
it in many styles. He was famously adaptable and reinvented himself many=20
times, always being recognizably himself and painting wonderfully.
I agree with you that it's a bad idea to try to play what you think the=20
audition committee wants, and you always have to perform as yourself. Any=20
time I try to "hold back something" for the next time around, the music=20
deflates. You always play your best, all the time. But this doesn't mean=20
you can't do something more than one way. If for example the audition=20
committee brings out the 1st chair player and has the two of you do the duet=
=20
solos from the slow movement of the Dvorak 8th, or Fingal's Cave, you would=20
certainly match the other player as well as you could, as well as playing=20
your best.
Good luck on the audition (or, rather, I hope luck has nothing to do with it=
,=20
and you make it on merit and preparedness).
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
