Klarinet Archive - Posting 000183.txt from 2009/01

From: kurtheisig@-----.net
Subj: RE: [kl] Bass Clarinet
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:53:27 -0500


Was it the plastic---or the acoustical design????

Bear in mind that 1/2 of one thousandth of an inch can be a HUGE difference....

-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Gentry <peter.gentry@-----.uk>
>Sent: Jan 9, 2009 11:08 AM
>To: klarinet@-----.org
>Subject: RE: [kl] Bass Clarinet
>
>You are correct. I fell into the trap of following "received wisdom". I have
>never been lucky enough to play "superior" instruments of either material.
>My personal experience is limited - Boosey & Hawkes "77", Yamaha Student
>Plastic, Buffet RC. In my list both woods had superior tone in my hands.
>
>Mind you I was always in awe of the tone my teacher could coax from the 77
>which I never could.
>
>regards
>Peter Gentry
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Charette [mailto:charette@-----.org]
>Sent: 09 January 2009 06:23
>To: klarinet@-----.org
>Subject: RE: [kl] Bass Clarinet
>
>> Oh I'm with you on that superior wood beats superior plastic.
>
>Why is that a given? It might be someone's experience, but ...
>
>can they describe consistently what a "superior" instrument is and why
>something that is or isn't a superior instrument is dependent on the
>material used in the construction rather than the construction? I might
>think some of the materials used _do_ contribute to a superior instrument
>(in the mechanical and precision sense) but I'm not willing to make such a
>broad statement such as "superior wood beats superior plastic" given the
>dearth of what I would consider "superior plastic".
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 08/01/2009
>06:05
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------