Klarinet Archive - Posting 000212.txt from 1993/12
From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: Harold Bennett and homogenization
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 15:53:06 -0500
After reading Cary's wonderful note on metal/wood technology as it
applied (or did not apply) to clarinets, I remembered something I left
out of my first incomprehensible note. So I add a second incomprehensible
comment on a subject about which I know nothing (except that I had it
done many times).
The question arises, was whatever Bennett did to the clarinet, why did it
have to be done again? Why wasn't it permanent.
I once asked Bennett that and he said something like "The molecules of
the wood have a tendency to gravitate to that level of instability
they had achieved after the cutting, boring, shaving, etc. So you
have to keep reminding them what position they really need to occupy."
Frankly, I found it very anthropomorphic that a molecule remembered
anything and really chalked it up to a belief that Bennett wanted you
to come back because he made money by you coming back. However, not to
be uncharitable, the instrument did deteriorate after a while and did
not play as well as immediately after homogenization, so I would have
it done every 6 mos. or so, and my instruments have never played so
well since he died.
Keep in mind that no one in America was more skeptical than I was about
what I referred to as "Bennett's bullshit" and had he not done the first
one for free, I never would have gone near him. But after he did it,
I would have given him my first-born. He made up on that freebee many
times over. And I was not the only skeptic so converted.
The fact that he had this great porno collection didn't hurt either.
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California