Klarinet Archive - Posting 000182.txt from 2004/08

From: CBA <clarinet10001@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Material influence on sound...one more time
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 06:39:22 -0400

I knew this was going to come back to bite, and have been ready
for the explanation...

As a doubler, I do get to see lots of different perspectives
from other instruments. My point (which I did leave out in the
original explanation) is primarily that if you can sense a
difference in the playing capabilities of the instrument (brass,
flute, and sax people are able to have an instrument replated,
and feel a difference with different metal platings, so they see
this more than we do, since we don't usually refinish the
interior of our instruments where the airstream is) the
difference in playing will *at least* be heard and felt by you,
wich does affect your playing and performance. Sure, you can say
that Ricardo Morales will basically sound like himself whether
he plays on a Selmer, a Buffet, or a Vito, but does he *PLAY* on
a Vito? Not hardly.

I was at ClarinetFest a few weeks ago, and went to the Buffet
vendor stand where F. Kloc was, and tried out the clarinets
there. I found out something rather odd. All of the instruments
that seemed to have a playing quality that I didn't like (this
is for *me* and not for everyone - I am not saying they are bad
instruments) were the greenline instruments. I noticed this
mostly on the Tosca clarinets, where GREENLINE isn't embossed on
the front of the instrument like the ohter Buffets, and I was
able to do a more *blind* test on them since I usually played
them before noticing the green dot on the back. I am not saying
that Greenline instruments are bad. I am just saying I didn't
prefer the sound production I got from them *for me*. Other
people could tell the difference by *the way I played to
compensate the difference in the clarinets*.

I fully agree that material on clarinets soundn't make a huge
difference on the instrument vibrating, since the clarinet
doesn't vibrate like a violin to influence sound. The airstream
going through the instrument *is* affected by material, because
different materials have different coefficients of aerodynamics.
Ask a car manufacturer how much coefficient is related to the
surface material the air has to touch when going over your car.
Sure, it won't make the car go appreciably slower, but it does
affect gas mileage in tests.

The fact that someone probably can't tell the difference in the
airstream in an audience 100 rows back during a concert is not
the issue. If you can hear the difference in your own playing,
or even just *feel* the difference, your playing will change and
adapt to accomodate the added hurdle of a more difficult playing
situation, or will be less labored with the ease of sound
production, thus changing sound production with a different
instrument material. I can't see how material for instruments
can be ignored by the players.

Kelly Abraham
Woodwinds - Computer Geek
Hattiesburg, MS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- dnleeson <dnleeson@-----.net> wrote:

> Kelly Abraham writes:
>
> "As far as the comment goes about the material not having an
> affect on the sound vibrations on a clarinet would be very
> different in the mater of metal, but for a different reason
> than
> the vibrations of the body. Everyone who is a brass player or
> a
> sax or flute player knows that silver, gold, platinum, brass
> and
> bronze all have very different playing response due to the
> affect of the airstream against the metal. The surface of the
> interior of the horn does affect the airstream, so why
> wouldn't
> the different woods have an affect on at least the airstream?
> I
> imagine that a solid gold clarinet or basset hound <grin>
> would
> have a very live and vibrant sound with more of the upper
> partials present than on wood instruments (probably too much
> so.)"
>
> Posing hypotheses and asking rhetorical questions about
> different
> circumstances (i.e., "so why wouldn't the different woods have
> an
> affect [sic] on at least the airstream") does not constitute
> an
> effective argument. In other words, the fact that one believes
> something about the effect of material on an airstream [on a
> brass instrument] does not mean that materials affect the
> character of sound produced on a clarinet.
>
> It is arguing by analogy; i.e., if thus-and-so produces this
> effect under those circumstances, why should it not produces
> the
> same effect under a different set of circumstances?
>
> I don't know. It doesn't. And arguing that it should doesn't
> help and it certainly does not clarify.
>
> Maybe different materials DO produce different characters of
> sound on clarinets. So many people believe that maybe it is
> true.
>
> If so, then establish some objective basis for this truth
> other
> than by asserting "well it does on a trumpet, so it must be so
> on
> a clarinet."
>
> Finally this: I know next to nothing about sound production on
> brass instruments. But I need a lot more than your assertion
> that "everyone who is a brass player ... knows that silver,
> gold,
> platinum, brass and bronze all have very different playing
> responses," is true. When someone says, "Everyone knows..."
> your
> first reaction should be to grab of and hold on to your wallet
> because you are about to be sold something that is not
> necessarily true and probably isn't.
>
> Dan Leeson

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