 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2005-07-19 19:58
The thread about "Water" went on much too long, at least on my part, and was correctly labeled "cheese" somewhere along the way. A little explanation about the "Rocket Science" of natural and synthetic use and care products and the scientific method may however be appropriate. You can stop right here if you are allergic to "cheese". This is not to toot my own horn or in any way promote any of my products but merely as explanation of my passion for good data, natural products, and use of the scientific method in accessing products or procedures that we use to maintain our equipment in order to make music.
Background:
The science of "natural" products lags some of the modern scientific discoveries in synthetic chemistry. There is a fruitful area of drug discovery that collects many weird and largely unknown flora in the Amazon to test for potential drug activity and then the laborious task of isolating and identifying the active chemical agents. Since plants differ in their life cycle from animals, especially mammals, many of the chemicals, enzymes, and energy cycle pathways are different and many still largely undocumented. Only recently, and not exhaustively or thoroughly understood are the unique antioxidant chemicals in plants. These antioxidants must be hardier than fauna antioxidants because they directly interact with molecular oxygen in the photosynthesis pathway. Many of the emulsifying chemicals that keep different types of plant oils in a state of cohabitation are yet to be described or synthesized. Many of the natural products described in historical documents for use in preservation of wood, leather, etc. no longer exist in the form used because modern processing techniques have removed trace elements sometimes essential to their purported activity. The discovery and description of the actions of trace elements is an active field of scientific endeavor.
Natural product chemists are in high demand - even those consultant chemists hired by mega companies to augment or fill gaps in their scientific knowledge of natural products. Bringing a new natural product to market may take 6 months to two years with complete teams of Ph.D. chemists and technicians working full-time. Some end up being better, some worse than synthetic chemical formulations - some fulfill special needs.
Consumer products take another special step to reach the market. Whole divisions within consumer products companies are devoted to bringing the chemistry from the lab bench to the packaged product. The product must be robust - not be unstable and finicky in application or use, the product must be stable - the longer the shelf life the better, the product must be formulated to accommodate a range of consumer use and abuse practices so that the desired effect is accomplished and no undesired effects sustained from under or overuse. The product should be presented in an easily usable form without many steps to make it work. The safety and toxicity of the product must be accessed. And the list goes on!
Practical:
Making a simple natural consumer product from plant derived materials and mixing various oils, waxes, antioxidants, emulsifying agents, lubricity components is a very complex task - maybe in the rocket science realm - perhaps not!
The scientific method has evolved for problem solving efficiency and demands an adequate and representative sample size, and description of all of the variables which may interact to produce a result. The "art" of applying the scientific method often involves making educated assumptions which constrain or remove some of the variables in a process or observation. The scientific method also dictates changing one variable at a time and documenting the results - unless all the variables and interactions are understood. Experience may allow us to group variables - perhaps not.
Since we were talking about reeds all along it is important to note that we do not understand many of the physical, infrastructure, or chemical properties that make one reed play well and another not. The reed too is part of an interactive system of the player (oral cavity, embouchure, ability, etc.), mouthpiece, ligature, and instrument. We can make assumptions about some of the variables affecting reed performance from our experience but without knowledge of some of the other unknown variables we cannot accurately predict the performance of any one reed. We can more or less access performance and only guess at the effects of interventions from our own skills or experience base.
Another area of "rocket science" is the practical aspect of actually getting it successfully and efficiently off the ground - many rockets - more efficiency needed. The one area of musical "rocket science" that is largely neglected is the KISS (keep it simple stupid) area which implores us to eschew complex rituals and loads of accessories in order to make music. We often create new problems by adding intervention on top of intervention or accessory on top of accessory. Generaliztions too are dangerous because what works for one musician may not work for another! Making music is an art form, producing the fluctuating column of air in the instrument is a scientific problem, modulating the fluctuating column of air is again back to art form.
All of this is my own humble opinion.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-07-20 02:52
Nicely done Omar. Some people might have interpreted my response to your writing as vitriolic.. That was certainly not my intention. I would like to ask you something about the rocket science you talk about. How do you know that you have enough critical information about the stuff you talk about? ie If you know 100 times more information about a subject than I do , how do you know that I don't have the missing part to your puzzle? In other words you could be wrong and I'm right on the money. All your reasoning doesn't make it right or wrong. ps Generalizations aren't dangerous .....they are just general statements. Kaspar mouthpieces are great mouthpieces. If you interpret this as....all Kaspar mouthpieces are great....you are misreading the statement. John
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2005-07-20 02:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2005-07-20 11:00
The more I know about a subject the more it indicates to me that there are gaps in my knowledge, but the scientific method will indicate to me what variables I cannot describe or predict. The right answer by definition predicts the outcome of the interaction of all of the variables. I do not have any hold on predicting the right answer but only the knowledge, and experience to be able to identify more variables and make assumptions and group variables that may get me to the right answer more quickly - maybe not! Employers hire people that have education or consultants like me to potentially predict more of the variables and the ability to test those interactions more quickly with the hope of finding the right answer.
In science, which I do not hold up as more than a method or approach to a problem, we have different categories of what we believe to be true. A law is something that withstands repeated and rigorous testing, a theory is something with conforms to the known variables but has not been universally tested (or with our methods cannot be absolutely tested). Generalizations may or may not have a definition but as you point out it depends on the depth and definition of the testing or application of the statement. My problem with "Generalizations" is that the interpretation of several people may be different for the statement and therefore some people may give it more value or a different interpretation than the person who made the generalization. This is a semantics game which has no answer.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-07-20 12:41
Omar, didn't one of the "founders" of our mathematical practice say, "when in doubt, do what is most probable" , or some better statement like that ?statistics?? Quite a disseration going on here !! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-07-20 13:07
Pascal's experiment with "flipping" coins, heads vs tails, is given in one of my dictionaries. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-07-20 14:12
In Omar's submilssion of July15 on the topic Water he says reeds can become overhydrated and not play well. ie waterlogged. This just seems matter of fact the way he describes it. Last year I played water logged reeds for four months during the winter. I kept them submerged and only took them out of water to perform on them. They played very well and were quite stable..not changing day to day. I used some hydrogen peroxide to keep them sanitized. Two of my collegues also used this approach and with good results. Omar, have you actually tried to play on water logged reeds? John
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-07-20 14:46
I'm wondering what natural products one uses (should use) with plastic clarinets.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2005-07-20 14:57
"Generalizations aren't dangerous"???? That's a dangerous generalization to make.
Well, generalizations about clarinet reeds may not usually be dangerous, but the statement "Generalizations aren't dangerous" can't be made in general. Take for example generalizations that start with "All blacks...", "All Muslims...", "All Christians...", "All women....", "All percussionists..." etc. or even ones that start with "All wolves...", "All snakes...", etc. These *can* be dangerous, as can others.
Generalizations about clarinet equipment may not be dangerous, but they can certainly be limiting and may prevent one from trying something that might work better for them.
Please don't generalize about generalizations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2005-07-20 15:07
I'll first give you the scientific answer (again a massive amount of cheese and one of the longest sentences on record )- as indicated earlier - prediction of variables and interaction of variables requires an adequate and representative sample - this is a matter of statistical probability which is an indicator of the probability of the reproducibility of an observation. In order to obtain a high probability you would have to test a valid sample size, and with the number of variables present - ------- e.g. the absolute amount and range of proper hydration, the average hydration potential range of reeds in general, and the subset of the type, group, degree of aging- etc. - of your group and manufacturer of reed, the range and absolute degree of over hydration that you tested, your subjective or quasi-objective quantitation of what "playability" means, length of reed useful life and measures of diminution of average useful life, ad infinitum ------- -------- you would have to test a huge number of reeds to control for all the variables. You small number of tests qualifies as an isolated observation, and potential indictor of reed performance with some unquantified parameters of reed hydration and subjective determination of results.
From my own practical experience -- I have left reeds to clean and sanitize in a hydrogen peroxide containing product - ReedLife (90 +% water) - for much longer (18-36 hours) than I wanted (simply forgot about them), took them out, rinsed them off, and tried to play them. Probably most of the time they sat in plain water with the H202 consumed. My own subjective opinion was that the response was slow, the tone not centered or vibrant, and the clarity reduced (again, these are my own subjective descriptions of playability terms). In truth I have not reproduced your exact ??? conditions of allowing them to sit in plain water for an extended period of time - I'll try it - experimentation is the mother of invention! I would be thrown out of the statistician's lounge if I ever tried to communicate the results however. All of the "cheese" does diminish your observation and offers a potential avenue for investigation.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: archer1960
Date: 2005-07-20 15:11
The Doctor wrote:
...
> opinion was that the response was slow, the tone not centered
> or vibrant, and the clarity reduced (again, these are my own
> subjective descriptions of playability terms). In truth I have
> not reproduced your exact ??? conditions of allowing them to
...
Maybe try the same thing with reeds 1/4 or 1/2 step harder than your usual?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-07-20 18:26
re generalizations...... They aren't specific. If you interpret them to be specific you will be wrong. They are no more dangerous than they are non dangerous....They are neutral. I thilnk that generalizations help humans sort through mountains of information....you put things in groups but realize that you are creating the group . It is artificial and not specific.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-07-20 18:36
Omar, Why would you be thrown out the lounge? You have evidence and if you can duplicate the results over and over......there might be something to it. Is it not a beginning? ps What are you doing in a statistician's lounge in the first place? I will reread your entry Omar.....I'm not sure I have the concentration to digest your posts....but I'll try. They are ten times denser than Tony's. Regarding reeds I'm certainly not saying that long soaking makes poor reeds into good reeds. ................I will take a few sample reeds today.....play them dry....see if they play/vibrate well and then drown them for a week. Let's compare notes in a week. John
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2005-07-20 19:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2005-07-20 19:46
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where I have my day job is a statistician's and epidemiologist's heaven and they have the best lounges so we poor chemists have to abide by their rules of probability before entry is permitted (just kidding) The association however tends to rub off into a more statistically valid thought process and critical approach to problem solving. Seriously, the bean counters have infiltrated all levels of corporate life and much of research and development output must be cast in terms of variable assessment and multi-variate analysis yielding a probability value. The musician side of me usually goes with "what works" for me but I usually do not share my random observations without some serious experimental work to refine and define conditions and constraints. Consultation work these days also demands a statistical approach to projects.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-07-23 19:50
Test results after two days of soaking.....reeds are about the same strength as they were originally.....they sound and play well. I estimate nothing will change over a week or two. If I let these reeds dry out at this point there might be big warping problems but I'll keep them soaking. John
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
