Klarinet Archive - Posting 000314.txt from 2004/10

From: Tony Pay <tony.p@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Selmer St. Louis
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:30:15 -0400

On 10 Oct, Elgenubi@-----.com wrote:

> ...in talking about clarinet sounds you said, "I find that Selmers have
> more fundamental and Buffets more higher partials."
>
> I've heard many people use these words, when trying to describe something
> they hear in a clarinet sound. I think these terms are even less useful
> than 'dark' and 'bright' and 'warm'. Whereas 'dark' and 'bright' have at
> least emotional weight, 'fundamental' and 'partial' have defined scientific
> meanings that makes this kind of usage worthless.

I don't think so. Whilst it's notoriously difficult to characterise what
relationship between fundamental and partials constitutes 'good' clarinet
sound, it's perfectly possible to make a much more general statement like
his, and for it to be meaningful.

Without needing to go into any scientific details, it's surely apparent that
the proportion of upper partials to lower partials in a recorded sound can be
changed simply by using the tone control -- or treble lift/cut -- on your
amplifier. That produces a change in (say) a clarinet sound that is
comparable to the change that you often get in live playing by switching from
one design of clarinet to another, using the same mouthpiece/reed setup.

Of course, there are all sorts of other things that change when you switch.
Still, I often want to say, this second instrument is too 'toppy', 'bright'
(or some other such word) for this setup, and will change reed or mouthpiece
to compensate.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd tony.p@-----.org
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

... If it's not broke, let me take a crack at it.

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