Klarinet Archive - Posting 000016.txt from 2003/12

From: Dan Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] The season to kill bad ideas
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:06:08 -0500

Ken Wolman wrote:
> Dan Leeson wrote:
>
>> OK. I'll bite. What physical property may be found in the Selmer
>> clarinets (or vice versa) that allow them "to indeed sound different"
>> from Buffet clarinets (or vice versa)? And once you describe that
>> physical property, the next question is how does this difference
>> manifest itself in a sound that is "heavy on the fundamentals and
>> lower partials with relatively less energy in the upper partial (which
>> you define as "dark")?"
>
>
> Every question here beats the whatever out of me. Last week I went to
> my first lesson with an honest-to-God teacher, a 25-year-old (maybe)
> woodwind MM candidate at Mason Gross School of the Arts at Rutgers. This
> young man is principal clarinet of the Rutgers orchestra, so he came in
> (he had a rehearsal to follow) with his attache case with Bb and A
> R-13s. He wanted to play the instrument I was carrying probably to make
> sure it worked: this is not the Noblet I'm now looking to move, but the
> 1967-vintage Series 9. He attached his own barrel and mouthpiece and
> played for a few minutes. It sounded great: a hell of a lot better than
> me playing the same instrument. Big surprise. But as to whether it's
> my ear or some infinitesimal difference in construction or workmanship,
> which pieces of the tree Buffet and Selmer used, in fact I could not
> really hear any discernible difference between what he sounded like on
> my old Selmer and how he sounded on his Buffet. I know the bore
> dimensions are different. That seemed to have no effect on the quality
> or properties of the sound. I'm totally confused about the physical
> properties of Selmer vs Buffet clarinets of the same approximate
> quality. You could add all the other brand names you choose there and
> then we can start in (again....) on why players choose one brand over
> another.
>
> As for partials, I keep thinking of false teeth:-).
>
Ken, what has happened here is that you inadvertently fell into the
middle of a conversation that began about 5 or more years ago on the
subject of sound character of clarinets. It's a long and complicated
and often opinionated discussion that has no single resolution. But let
me state that there are a not modest number of people (of which I am
part of the group) who suggest that they way you sound on a clarinet
has, all things being equal, very little to do with the instrument and
the medium of its manufacture. If you sound great on a Selmer center
tone, you are going to sound great on a Buescher metal clarinet.
Anyway, that's the assertion.

As a consequnce of this still continuing discussion (though it goes
dormant from time to time), whenever someone (anyone) says, "my x-brand
clarinet sounds much better than a friend's y-brand clarinet," a sneak
attack is launched. The most significant question that the sneak attack
puts forth is "Why is this the case?," or "How do you know this is the
case?" or "What physical characteristics of the x-brand result in your
having a different sound than the y-brand."

But then you did a worse thing. EVIL. EVIL. EVIL! I believe that it is
called a mortal sin in Catholic theology. You used the term "dark
sound." And worse, you compounded your EVIL EVIL EVIL by attributing the
"dark sound" to something about partials.

Watch your back. Members of my group are looking for you will equally
evil intent.

Dan Leeson

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org