Klarinet Archive - Posting 000101.txt from 2006/02

From: X-MailScanner-tom.henson@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Value of Good Equipment (long)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:07:48 -0500

I know that we have discussed on occasion the value of equipment in the
overall scheme of things in the past. These discussions have mainly
touched on equipment as a factor in the way a clarinetist sounds, and if
equipment makes any reasonable difference in what a musician can
achieve. We have also included in these same discussions the material
that a clarinet is made out of in regards to what I will call the X
factor, or that which when combined with a talented clarinetist produces
something beyond what they would have been capable of producing without
it.

I would like to visit this discussion about equipment again, but would
like to divorce the material aspect from this discussion as it is not
relevant to what I want to discuss. I want first to state my opinion
that equipment plays a bigger role that what many people have given it
credit for. I know that some people will roll their eyes at this
statement and say "here we go again", but I ask that you have an open
mind about this.

First, let me say that I am in complete agreement that equipment in and
of itself does not improve anything, practice does. A clarinet is an
inanimate object, a tool created for a single purpose, to make music. It
is only when this tool is put into the hands of a person with some
musical inclination that it begins to produce this music. In other
words, a clarinet by itself is of little or no value until it is
combined with a person to play it. Typically, the more talented the
person, the better the results.

Therein, lies the heart of some of our discussion. How much does the
equipment really play in what is produced by this marriage, and how much
is really the result of the talented person. Is the sound that a person
makes in some way dependent on the equipment, and if so how much? There
is the often told tale of the professional clarinetist giving a student
lesson and is presented with a student that does not play up to their
expectations. The student then goes on to claim that they are having
"equipment" problems of some sort, or that their clarinet is partly to
blame for their lack of progress. The professional clarinetist then
picks up their clarinet and seems to have no problem playing the same
passage. Thus proving the theory that equipment has very little to do
with how you play.

Let's examine this for just a minute. If we consider that a professional
clarinetist has years of practice under their belt, and performance
experience under less than optimal circumstances (like having to play on
a bad reed or other problem), then we should expect that they could pick
up just about any clarinet and produce something of higher quality than
the student. I see little value in this display of proof, other than the
student may simply be making an excuse and has not practiced and
therefore the teacher proves that there is nothing wrong with their
clarinet. Or is there?

Let's take a look at how a person develops the proper skills to play a
clarinet. If equipment makes no difference, then why does any sane
teacher tell their students to buy the "best" clarinet that they can
afford. Clearly, some clarinets are made better than others quality
wise, but how about the actual mechanical design of the clarinet itself.
Should we consider that some brands of clarinets are not only better
made quality wise, but have a superior design as well, thus making them
a "better" clarinet. I think most of us would agree that this is
certainly the case. The largest of manufacturers also have various model
levels graduating in price from student line all the way up to their top
of the line professional instruments. Here, I think, the line becomes
blurred, and the manufacturers become a victim of their own hype and
advertising. It is because of this typical hype that I believe many
people have come to discount to a degree that equipment does make a
difference. After all, why should I spend $4,000 US for a Tosca, when I
can get a plain old nickel plated R13 for about half that price? Why
indeed. The manufacturers have come up with a scheme to justify this
extra cost by putting more man hours into the making of the clarinet.
Thus the theory is that you are getting a "better" clarinet for the
larger amount of money. But is this really true?

Set up. Those two words are understood by everyone on this list. The
$4,000 Tosca clarinet supposedly has had more factory "set up" than the
R13, and thus is presumed to play better out of the box. Well it just
might. Making clarinets on the level of Buffet as an example (not
picking on Buffet), has become so refined and exact a science, that I
have a feeling they can build in a certain amount of playability related
to the set up. This can result in the impression that the Tosca does
play better than say a stock nickel plated R-13. But I think we also
need to know that this is by design. Yes, it is a marketing thing to
some degree. Granted, Buffet says that the quality of materials (there's
that nasty word) is of better quality than that used on an R-13 and thus
justifies the higher cost. Plus the additional hand work to set it up.

However, it has not always been this way. Let's go back to the "golden
years" at Buffet as an example. Most people will tell you that Buffet's
golden years started with the introduction of the R13 in the 1950's
through about 1975, give or take a few years. Some will say Buffet's
golden years ended when Boosey and Hawkes bought them out (not picking
on B&H). Why do people feel this way? Some will say it is because the
quality of the wood used was so much better, but that is a discussion
about material. I have a 1971 R13 that was made using green wood, back
when Buffet was desperately trying to fend off a hostile buy out and cut
their cost by increasing production. They made R13's with wood that was
very unseasoned compared to what they had used in the past. The grain on
my 1971 R13 looks horrible. Very large and long grain lines that would
make many people think that they were cracks. Both inside the bore and
on the outside. In fact, some R13's from this time period did crack, but
many did not. Not to get into a discussion about material here, but some
of the best clarinets that Buffet made were made during this period of
time when they were using "green" wood. Why, because the quality of
workmanship was very good, and the design of the R13 was just plain
good. Some will then go on to say that yes, this is true, but this is
history and the R13's that Buffet makes today are not as good. I beg to
differ. I just bought a new nickel plated R13 A clarinet and it is
simply the best R13 A clarinet I have every played, bar none. It is
every bit as good as my 1971 R13 Bb, if not better. But we are straying
from our discussion here.

What role does equipment play? I believe that equipment plays a bigger
role that some people give it credit for. But the reverse is also true,
bad equipment can lead to very poor development and skills, thus
creating a poor performance. It is only by the shear tenacity and
determination that a talented player can overcome some of these
deficiencies and better themselves. But look at the cost. I will use
myself as an example of how bad/poor equipment leads to bad habits that
are very difficult to overcome later in your development. I played on
the same student line clarinet from the time I started playing in the
6th grade up until I graduated from high school. A total of about 7
years of playing. I felt that I had accomplished something in these 7
years and had been fairly successful in the usual academic competitions.
It was not until I started studying with a really good clarinetist while
in a military band that he pointed out all the bad habits that I had.
Habits which I had developed in order to compensate for bad, or poor
equipment. The problem was not one of sound or tone, but mainly related
to mechanical things involving fingers and technique. The mechanical
design and quality of the clarinet that I had to play on was just
inferior, and I had to admit it showed in my technique. For those that
teach out there in clarinet land, how many students have you seen, or
still see today like this? Equipment has a very real affect on their
performance level.

If the negative is true, then it would make sense that a good, well
adjusted clarinet would enable a student to learn proper technique from
the very beginning and thus bypass years of troubled development and the
later bad habits. One can also not discount proper instruction as part
of this formula of development, but I truly believe that any teacher
understands the value of good equipment in this formula.

Stradivarius. Just about everyone in this world has heard the name of
Stradivarius and knows that it is a very expensive violin. Most all of
the top violinist have played on one in the past or use one today. Why?
Well, sound for one. A Stradivarius has a unique sound that many
professional violinist prefer. But I have to also believe there are
other reason than just sound. I do not play violin, but I have a feeling
that they are also mechanically superior to many other violins. Some say
that the wood used or the varnish makes a difference. But this is a
discussion again about material which I am not wanting to go into.
Suffice it to say, that most people will acknowledge that a violinist
must be good if they play on a Stradivarius. Most professional violinist
that aspire to greatness also aspire to own or play on a Stradivarius,
so there must be some very strong connection here with the equipment as
a factor that allows them a fuller expression. I watched a program on
Ovation about Maxim Vengerov. It told the story of his life and his
struggle to become one of the world's foremost violinist of today. He
was overjoyed the day that he was given a Stradivarius to play and
claimed that it allowed him the ability to more fully express his
musical vision. Why would he feel this way if the equipment did not
matter? Especially given that he could play on any violin in the world
if he so desired.

I have a secret to share with you. Equipment does matter, and matters a
great deal. Ricardo Morales is regarded as a very fine clarinetist
today. One of the best in the world currently. But I have heard stories
of him showing up at Morrie Backun's workshop with 12 sets of clarinets.
Why in the world would anyone need, or even have time to play on 12 sets
of clarinets? Simple. Ricardo is still searching for "that" clarinet. He
understands that equipment can make a difference, even if at his level a
small difference in his playing. This does not surprise me one bit, as I
regard Morrie Backun in the same league as Hans Moennig was back when he
was alive. The best clarinetist in the world made a pilgrimage to see
Mr. Moennig in his cluttered shop in Philadelphia because they knew that
they would leave a better player for it. At their level, it was not just
about more practice, it was about equipment and finding something that
would allow a fuller expression of what they heard in their head and
heart. Mr. Moennig took the humble R13 and made it into a world class
instrument, worthy to be compared to a Stradivarius in the clarinet
world. Back then, there were very few independent clarinet
manufacturers, so Moennig worked with what he felt was the best
foundation he could, and that was the Buffet R13. Over the many years
that he worked in his shop, he slowly lamented the many changes that
Buffet made to the R13, but he was still capable of making them into
world class clarinets. His modifications were at times extensive, but
his attention to detail was legendary. The work that Hans Moennig did
was of such a consistently high level that when Harold Wright showed up
at his shop to try out 2 R13's that Hans had modified, he could not
decide which one to buy, so he bought both. I admire the way Harold
Wright played. His tone was so pure, so full of energy. I would describe
his tone as being bright, light and airy, sweet, and full of rich
overtones. How much of this was the result of Harold Wright, and how
much was the result of his collaboration with Hans Moennig? I remember
the day when the professional clarinetist I was taking lessons from in
the military let me play his R13 clarinet. It was an eye opener. I had
little problem producing a similar sound and the clarinet played with
such ease it was unbelievable. Octave intervals, no problem.

I am extremely demanding now of my equipment. It must work perfectly, or
I will work until it does work perfectly. The 1971 R13 that I have is a
very good clarinet in my opinion, but I was able to make it better by
paying very careful attention to the details in the mechanical things.
Things like air leaks (I can get a 3-4 minute vacuum on both upper and
lower joints). You would be amazed how differently a clarinet will sound
when there are no air leaks. Suddenly, all the energy is being used
efficiently and the difference is apparent in the sound. The sound takes
on an energy. I can tell when I have a perfectly adjusted clarinet
because it just comes alive in my hands. You can feel it in the way it
vibrates, even to the way that vibration is felt in your fingertips and
hands. Springs are another area that Hans Moennig spent a lot of time
on. Does the clarinet have a perfectly balanced spring action? How about
the pressure on the keys? Is the motion of your finger an example of a
perfectly efficient movement where the downward movement is equal in
speed and muscle kinetics to the upwards motion? You will never get
perfect legato unless your keywork is perfectly adjusted. I don't know
of any exercise alone that will get you this type of finger motion
outside of just playing. So is your keywork holding you back? How about
air leaks? How much of the energy in the pressure wave is being lost
through air leaks. Are your pads making a perfect seal on the tone hole
face? How about the tone hole itself? Are there any defects in the tone
hole or facing that is causing air to leak past. This is all part of the
"set up". Something that even Buffet no longer does, not even on the
Tosca. That is why people like Hans Moennig, and other repair
technicians today that studied under him and trained with him, are in
such high demand. Because good clarinetist understand that you can have
the best clarinet in the world, but it is only a diamond in the rough
until given a proper set up by these very talented people. And that can
make all the difference in the world. With the combination of my Behn
Vintage Chedeville mouthpiece and my perfectly adjusted R13, I have no
problem now sounding very similar to Harold Wright. The funny thing is,
I did not set out to imitate anyone's sound. I just focused on the
equipment (including mouthpiece) until I reached a point that I felt was
working for me and then realized the other day that my sound is very
similar in nature to his. So how much of his sound was the equipment? I
have to think 50%. It was a marriage after all.

Tom Henson

-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WOODWIND.ORG ANNUAL DONATION DRIVE IS GOING ON NOW! VISIT
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation TO FIND OUT ALL THE FACTS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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