Klarinet Archive - Posting 000313.txt from 2005/06

From: "Steve White" <bass.clarinet@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Trouble in River City
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:35:05 -0400


As always, Dan, your responses are very stimulating.

>Steve, this argument has no bottom. It allows us to suggest that we have
>simpler clarinets with no low e since it is a note so rarely called for. And
>this key or that key can be eliminated because we can get that note in some
>other way. Simplify for the purpose of reducing price, would be the
>mechanism du jour.

Perhaps the argument has no bottom. The idea that we would change the standard
instrument to a basset clarinet for the inclusion of relatively few pieces of
the overall repertory is just as open-ended as suggesting a change from the
existing design. Being a total geek at times I'd have to say the concept of
'mechanism du jour' does seem to stir something in me....palms sweat MORE TOYS!

>The bottom line is that our instruments are capable of considerable
>complexity much of which may not be used for this or that concert, but we
>have them anyway. So why not have a basset clarinet as the regular
>orchestral instrument. And with its extendede compass present, composers
>would write for it, thus justifying the manufacturer's expense to make it
>and the clarinetist's expense in buying it.

The capabilities of our instruments is somewhat dependent upon whose
mouth and hands are connected to it on a regular basis. Changing the primary
clarinets to basset clarinets would very likely work out the way you have
entailed - eventually. This would be asking the manufacturers to change as much
if not more than we would have to. These clarinets are larger and more
expensive to produce. They are more labor intensive. They require a higher
degree of skill to set up from the factory. Not to mention more time to produce
(time=money in the business world - which is everyone's world) It is, in and of
itself, a whole new animal in the player's mind and life. Music publishers and
case manufacturers and, and...What I'm really getting at is the resistance to
such a change would be the real issue within the industry - regardless of the
reasons for making the change. I know that individually these changes are
relatively minor, combined together they represent a significant shift in the
business that is music and the clarinet related industry.

>I am sympathetic to your financial concerns, but not to the extent of a
>possible elimination of an important clarinet type simply because you don't
>want to buy one. One could argue that the A clarinet itself should no
>longer be made, and the B-flat with an extra half tone extension be used at
>all times. It will save you the cost of buying an A. The problem is only
>the unwillingness of the clarinetists to make a considerable sacrifice.

I never said that it wasn't important. I never said that it was. I did say
that I want one. If I had the money, I'd have one. I want one professional
quality example of every clarinet type there is. (well, maybe two) This is, of
course, an unreasonable desire that doesn't fit into the needs of my family very
well. This is coming from a person who just bought a beautiful used Selmer
model 37 Bass Clarinet (low C) this month so I could play in a choir.
Eventually I may get all the clarinets that I want. Key word - eventually. As
for a considerable sacrifice, yes it would be. It is somewhat unreasonable to
call for the clarinet community to make the lion's share of it. For this to
happen, many different parties would have to make some sacrifices. The
manufacturers have tried. They are likely losing their shirts on these
instruments but keep them available for artistic reasons. Selmer is the same
with their contra clarinets. If you want one, you either find a good used one,
or wait until Selmer get enough orders to warrant a run of them.

>These financial arguments really net down to your personal financial
>situation, and I have serious questions if the improvement of the clarinet's
>mechanism should be dependent on your needs. Instead, I suggest that you
>will have to get more money somehow in order to possess these improvements.
>The fact that the additional notes will not be used very much or at all for
>a few years is not as important as getting that instrument into the general
>population.

A few years. Personal situation. Got it. I just have to suck it up and pour
resources down a hole with no inkling of payoff. Most of the professionals I
know and have come in contact with are not afraid to purchase an instrument for
a particular purpose - provided that the payoff for the purpose justifies it.
Bypassing the personal 'business' issue will not make it go away. It is a
primary concern for every musician. The economics of the world demand it. That
is a demand that cannot be ignored. Unless Eating and providing a roof over you
and your family's heads are optional of course.
As for the economic constraints limiting the development and issue of
improvements of the clarinet's mechanism, what other limiters would you put on
it? It does seem to be 'the big one.' Of course we all want to make more money
than we need so that we can have what we want. We each approach that issue
uniquely to say the least.

>It is not the manufacturers having high prices for new development that is
>the problem. It is the unwillingness of clarinetists to sacrifice and
>absorb the pain that is the problem.

So your asking artists to absorb more pain and sacrifice in an environment where
they are typically less successful than other professions who spend less of
their life training and preparing for their career. Just getting a student to
purchase an A clarinet when they need one is difficult as it is. Of course all
things can be managed with a proper budget, but what do give up in exchange?
Remember, new bass clarinet, I drive a 19 year old Volvo that looks to be on its
last legs in many ways. I made my choice. Do I not pay rent instead? What
about a mortgage? Light bill - hard to see, I guess I could use candles though.
I'm sure these pedantic points are not new to anyone on this list. Life as we
know it is only going to get more difficult in the future - in socio-economic
terms that is.

>Further, sales of the basset clarinet in A would eventually result in the
>need for a basset clarinet in B-flat because the lower notes would appear
>also for a B-flat clarinet. In addition, the added length needed for the
>basset range would supply the instrument with an improved sound for those
>notes already on the traditional instrument. For example, the low C bass
>clarinet provides improvement for those notes that are traditional. The low
>e is better because the low c wood is there, even if the note is not played.

Of course sales will dictate change. That is what businesses do. They meet a
need for a price. The need changes, so does the price.

>Change is going to occur as long as we insist upon it and pay for it. If we
>don't, change will become stultified and all new developments will dry up.
>It then becomes the players who are the problem, not the manufacturers.

I think the change is already stultified in that no major mechanical changes
that have cropped up throughout the last 50 years or so have really stuck. it
comes down to whether or not you can do the job without the changes or not.
When you can't, then you have to change. it isn't totally up to the clarinet
community to shoulder the burden here. Manufacturers have a part, which they
are putting out there. The problem is that while individually we see this as a
relatively straight forward issue, as a whole the group won't change due to
similar economic constraints until they absolutely have to.

Steve

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