Klarinet Archive - Posting 000062.txt from 2003/04

From: list-klarinet@-----.net (Paul Ebersman)
Subj: Re: [kl] Clarinet sound
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:10:40 -0500

leeson0> The first consideration that you have to accept is that you
leeson0> are not the best judge of how you sound. People have to
leeson0> get away from the source of sound to hear it best.
[...]
leeson0> You also hear a lot how a person sounds better on a wooden
leeson0> clarinet than a plastic one. It is also probably not true, but
leeson0> wood is a beautiful physical medium and that affects the
leeson0> performer.

This subject (affect of instrument on sound) has been hotly debated on
every instrument list I've ever been on (strings, flute, etc). There are
several pieces to this:

* Is there any difference at all between any two instruments or is it
all psychological on the part of the player?

* Is the player really the one to determine "best" sound?

There are some folks on all lists who are unwilling to ever concede that
there is any "appreciable" sound difference between two high quality
instruments of basically similar design. However, I have seen/read of
enough blind tests to believe that highly trained ears can hear
differences. I won't say that they can tell one sounds "better"; just
that they can tell differences and in some cases can even identify
particular instruments or makers.

I will agree that the sound experience the player has is different than
the one the audience has, even more so for wind instruments, where the
instrument is vibrating against bones in the head, adding a second aural
path to the ear. If that difference makes a player give a better
performance, that's a good thing. Will the audience notice? Hard to
say. B^) Certainly most of us would agree that ignoring the audience
experience is probably not the best thing, since most of us perform for
an audience.

* Does the material affect the sound?

* Does some construction subtle detail affect the sound? (I'm talking
about minor design changes, not conical vs cylindrical bore, etc.)

There are various scientific papers with wonderful things like a
concrete flute or a papier-mache guitar that try to prove that materials
are irrelevant. The flaw is that the scientists/builders tend not to be
professional musicians but seem to feel qualified to comment on what is
a "good" sound.

At a certain level, the player makes more difference than the
instrument. Note I say more, not only. Above student grade (player and
isntrument B^), the player makes the majority of the
difference. However, most of us, if blindfolded, could probably still
tell differences in materials and even maker. It is a point of
diminishing returns, i.e. at a certain price point, the amount of money
you have to spend vs the playing/sound benefit you get goes way up.

My personal take is that if you can tell the difference, you like the
difference and you can afford the instrument, buy it. If someone else
feels they can tell a difference and can afford it but you can't see it
being worth it, don't buy one yourself but let them enjoy their
instrument choice.

We should all feel lucky that we have so many choices and can afford a
good amount of "gear". When I think of programs to take used guitar
strings to send to 3rd world countries to musicians unable to afford a
$5 set of strings, all our quibbles tend to pale.

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