 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2006-09-18 22:18
In the last one hundred years, what, in your opinion, have been the most important changes in the clarinet to enhance either the sound or the ease of playing?
Post Edited (2006-09-18 22:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2006-09-20 04:43
Polycylindrical bore?
Or reverse tapered barrel?
Nothing really changed since Klose(1839).
***
This is not related but early 19th century was indeed golden period for most musical developments from clarinet,French horn to piano.With an exception of string instruments most instruments became "perfected" in the period from 1800 to 1830's
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-09-20 08:40
"With an exception of string instruments most instruments became "perfected" in the period from 1800 to 1830's"
This is maybe misleading.
The years 1800 to 1840 certainly saw the introduction of modern keywork to woodwinds and of valves to brass. It was indeed the time of the most rapid evolution of these instruments, and maybe at the time the instruments were thought to have been perfected.
However, there have been many changes since. The Conservatoire oboe, Heckel bassoon and the double ("French") horn date from much later in the nineteenth century. The modern two-valve bass trombone, still far from standardised, is less than fifty years old.
The clarinet has changed much less; Klosé and Buffet did a pretty good job.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-09-20 10:35
The clarinet is surely still evolving, compared to things like string instruments. The bore of the upper joint: what shape should it be? Can we do funky things with the barrel bore? How do we voice that darned throat Bb? Can we do away with that big gap between the holes around the middle joint? How can we stretch the range higher in a pleasant, consistent manner? And every year sees a new crop of reed and mouthpiece designs. Bass is even less mature. How shall we provide a register key? How many notes shall we have?
To answer the original question (kind of): my hunch is that the reverse taper on the top half of the instrument is very interesting, and that the polycylindrical thing is just the beginning in this respect.
Post Edited (2006-09-20 10:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2006-09-20 11:40
David Peacham
Thank you for more info.
"perfected " wasn't good choice of word.
I meant many old,rudimentary instruments went thru changes to become modernized instruments.
My point is that it is very interesting that even unrelated instruments went thru the same kind of make-over in the same time period. I think that was remarkable.
No other period of time was filled with innovations after innovations for
so many different kinds of musical instruments.
Post Edited (2006-09-20 11:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-09-20 13:06
Most significant?
The phonograph record....That way clarinetists had easy aural access to the playing of other musicians.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2006-09-20 15:16
I think that even mature instruments like fiddles are the subject of intensive investigation that should lead to new understanding. I have an article from Scientific American ca. 1970 that talked to the acoustic interaction between the air cavity, the frets and the plate vibrations --an early attempt to understand the difference between (good) Stradavari and ordinary violins.
I'm sure that coming mathematical models of clarinet acoustics will result in instruments that are more responsive and have better intonation.
Once again, I encourage an interaction between musicians and engineer/physicists for productive graduate programs in instrument modeling and synthesis. Talk to your faculty and student friends.
OH, the best recent clarinet design innovations? --those that make my Buffet RC so playable.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-09-20 15:44
Sure this wasn't an April 1st edition of Scientific American?
Violins don't have frets, not even Strads.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2006-09-20 16:06
"Can we do away with that big gap between the holes around the middle joint?"
Yes, full Boehms and metal clarinets have already done this, as well as one-piece body clarinets.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-09-20 16:16
David Peacham wrote:
> Sure this wasn't an April 1st edition of Scientific American?
>
> Violins don't have frets, not even Strads.
Strad, Strat ... both have strings. It's confusing! 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2006-09-20 17:34
Clarinet innovation started in the 18th C.From the advent of the instrument. We started with two keys then a extra key added to get the B that Vivaldi and Molter left out of their concertos. Stadler and his work on the basset horn/clarinet. The introduction of the C# key, (Lefevre states in his 1802(?) tutor all clarinets should have one). They were being put on in the 1790s.
Clarinet design will stay the same but there will always be someone somewhere who will add keys. Human nature to try and make things easier.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2006-09-20 19:48
P C says it well, my "observation", since 1930, is that bits/pieces improvements have come along [almost] regularly, via keying [easier and more {FB Chris}], the bore "innovations", Bb alternatives [Stubbins/Mazzeo/McIntyre et al], others? I believe Brymer wrote a paragraph or so, on possible further improvements to our nearly-cylindrical-bore inst., and the continuing "offerings" by Forte, Backun, Ridenhour and others, says to me, we are alive, well and still innovative. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2006-09-22 01:17
Thanks for all of your responses. I learned a great deal.
The most consistently mentioned change was bore design, especially the introduction of the polycylindrical bore for acoustics. One person suggests that more study needs to be made to make acoustical changes of significant value. . . . “coming mathematical models of clarinet acoustics will result in instruments that are more responsive and have better intonation.”
This seems like a reasonable request. . .use the advances in science during the 20 century to create a better clarinet for the 21st century. Meanwhile, we should all use our own sensibility to discover the clarinet that's best for us.
Oh, and practice, practice, practice.
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-09-22 02:03
ON the other hand, current clarinet designs provide even resistance, accurate intonation and good dynamic range. There may still be room for improvement but changes will probably only be slightly incremental.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-09-22 08:44
Sylvain,
Actually I suspect that significant bore changes could significantly change the instrument. Is there any other instrument with an hourglass bore? We have plenty of conical and exponential horns, and the recorder is reverse taper... is clarinet going to stay basically cylindrical, or will it evolve?
Chris P - I'm aware of full Boehms (and would kinda like to get one at some stage!). Does anyone know why they never took off?
Post Edited (2006-09-22 11:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2006-09-22 09:30
I would like to see some research done on the reeds. I suspect that reed design was different several decades ago but have no information on it. If it was, then that would make as big a change as anything in the actual instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2006-09-22 15:23
Bassie,
My very naive understanding of acoustics is that the clarinet sound is *defined* by the fact that it is basically a cylindrical tube closed on one side.
I have been told that German bores are still very much cylindrical and that they tend to be very even and easy to play (never tried one). The "french" bores were designed to compensate for some of the tuning and response problems introduced by addind so many keys (and holes) to the instrument.
It seems to me that if you make drastic changes to the bore design you may end up with an instrument that does not sound like a clarinet. And I believe people would still like to hear a clarinet sound.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-09-22 15:37
Full Boehm instruments have never been popular for one big reason, a reason having little to do with the playing qualities of such instruments.
They have (in the past) been a special order item, one not kept in stock when someone was looking to buy a clarinet. As a result, few have been able to try them (much less a range of them), and thus fewer still have had the opportunity to buy one.
Nowadays, with the shrinkage in the number of makers, only Amati (the Czech firm) produces them for sale "off of the rack". And, as always, they are not a "stock item", but rather one kept in limited numbers. No opportunity to try equals few opportunities to buy. (That Amati workmanship leaves a lot to be desired is an additional reason to vote no here.)
Quo erat demonstratum
I am eternally glad that I had the youthful foresight to special order both an A and a Bb full Boehm when I was a young sprout. As our Second Amendment people always say, you can have my full Boehm horns when you pry my cold, dead fingers from them...
Now, if only I had been able to win that auction for a Selmer Eb full Boehm horn a month or so ago. Missed it by that much...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-09-22 16:00
Terry wrote:
> (That Amati workmanship leaves a lot to be desired is an additional reason
> to vote no here.)
On what period (and on what big a sample) does your assertion base? I hear that prejudice every so often (mostly from music stores who last laid their hands on an Amati some 30 years ago) but really can't second their findings re workmanship.
(fixed typo)
--
Ben
Post Edited (2006-09-22 16:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-09-22 16:15
I would submit that there have been NO significant improvements (at least in the Boehm system) in clarinet design in the last 100 years. Last year I acquired, restored and eventually sold, after playing myself for a couple of months, a turn-of-the-century Jerome Thibouville-Lamy full-Boehm "A" clarinet that was the equal in every respect to any top modern instrument. The mechanism, intonation, response and tone were not significantly different from a comparable brand-new clarinet, and the materials and workmanship were superior. I've owned and played many clarinet which were slightly "newer" (say, 70-80 years old) than the JTL, and they are essentially indistinguishable from new clarinets in all the important ways.
Not to be purposely controversial, but I would submit that the Boehm clarinet design was essentially fully-developed around the late 1800s/early 1900s and has not changed significantly since.
On the other hand, there have been significant developments along the German-system and Reform Boehm-system paths in the last 100 years.
As for polycylindrical bores, I consider them more of a marketing tool than a significant design change. This modification fixes some intonation problems (which can and have been fixed in other, standard ways) while creating some new ones of its own. If it were such a great leap forward, then Buffets and the other brands which have adopted polycylindrical bores should play much better in tune than in fact they do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2006-09-22 18:10
Sylvain
We are talking about 0.2-0.3 mm difference most.
It is basically cylindrical as long as over tone blows octave and half.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-09-22 18:16
I purchased (new) an Amati German system horn (the "up end one" that they offer), and I have found that there are many areas where the horn comes up short compared with a "top end" French one.
Examples are ring fitting (both depth of shoulder from end of joint and diameter issues), key fitting (some keys on the lower joint were installed with too much play, making for a noisy horn until rectified), and quality of fit and finish with the keywork (rings WAY too far above their chimneys (and not easily adjusted, either, requiring special pads to be created for the intonation clapper cups), sloppy fitting of posts/pillars to the horn's body) and so forth.
(For what it's worth, these same problems appear to also be present on Amati Boehm horns that I have examined (but not played).)
Tone hole wise, I feel (but have not taken the time to do the research or have the work done) that a little undercutting is in order. Just a feeling, but one borne out by a borescope examination of the horn, which reveals that all of the tone holes within reach of the instrument are straight walled ones.
I like the horn, particularly as it presents a challenge to play well due to the system differences. But, if I used it all of the time, there would have to be some changes made.
Oh, and the thumbrest is kin to that on Conn saxophones from the 1910 era. At least the guy who designed it found gainful employment...something good from the bad.
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-09-22 18:46
Terry,
I've had three or four Amati clarinets roll through here (in fact I own one now), and they have all indeed been non-undercut ("straight-walled") and all have benefitted hugely from moderate undercutting and bevelling/radiussing of the toneholes. With that little bit of extra work they magically transform into very pleasant and in-tune clarinets for the most part.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-09-22 19:25
David,
...but I'd call this (non-undercutting) a "design issue", not a "workmanship issue". Workmanship issues are - IMHO - leaky pads or wobbly joints, rattling keywork or bent springs.
(Bear in mind that I operate at the lesser end of the clarinet food chain, in every respect.)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-08-19 15:02
Next questions
What improvements or changes in the next 100 years?
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ariel3
Date: 2015-08-19 20:13
I must mention the MAZZEO improvement that provides for a non-stuffy throat B-flat and much more ease in negotiating over the bridge gap. It never caught on because of a lack of enthusiasm of professional teachers - therefore students were never introduced to or coached on the system.
I have been playing my Mazzeo clarinets for forty-five years now and would not think of changing.
In short - we are simply resistant to change.
Gene
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-08-19 22:14
"In short - we are simply resistant to change."
Resistance is futile
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-08-20 00:13
Silversorcerer- your arguments could use a bit more passion. I can see you with a couple of Cooper devotees in a biker bar after a few rounds, LOL.
WRT equal temperament, as a pianist / keyboardist I've enjoyed things sounding the same in any key, especially since I'm a fan of key transpositions between verses, often 1/2 step. (Since returning to and of late arranging for clarinet, I've reverted to full step key changes, fancy that.) BUT I think that today there is no excuse for a computer based keyboard to stay with rigid tuning per note. Rather, it should adapt the tunings for the chords being played, to make the fifths perfect, for instance. Does anyone do this? Has anyone even tried? (Does it, would it- really sound better to us?) Vocalists, clarinetists, and other wind players always make these adjustments "automatically", right? Or is it too close to know the difference? Fascinating topic, gist for a few doctoral dissertations in acoustical engineering, physics, or music.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-08-20 05:26
the most important changes in the clarinet to enhance either the sound or the ease of playing..
it's happening now, or in about 10 years:
...the incorporation of non-wood clarinets into the high end of clarinet making for their ability to not crack, remain dimensionally stable, play better in tune, and address shortages in African Blackwood.
To rephase: the understanding by the clarinet world that plastic and other synthetic non-wood materials are not only NOT necessarily synonymous with inferior clarinets, but when done correctly, actually superior ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-08-20 13:07
fskelley wrote:
> ...it should adapt the tunings for
> the chords being played, to make the fifths perfect, for
> instance. Does anyone do this? Has anyone even tried? (Does it,
> would it- really sound better to us?) ..
Yes, it's been done. One implementation is Hermode Adaptive Tuning which is implemented in Apple's Logic Pro recording/sequencing software.
All the gory details are here http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/paperspdf/hermode.pdf
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2015-08-20 17:32
Silversorcerer wrote:
> "Maybe this fellow would by coincidence be having a beer on my tab on the
> next bar stool when the Cooper/Bennet "gang" motors in (on whining Ninja
> bikes) Lock the door, and watch us clean house on them:
> http://www.justflutes.com/blog/in-my-opinion/"
Later the same night you're in the cooler downtown, and the riffraff are questioning why you're there... "A bar fight, huh? ... over a girl? a football team?", and you say, "We were arguing over flute tunings". Could be a bad night.
Dibbs wrote:
> Yes, it's been done. One implementation is Hermode Adaptive Tuning which
> is implemented in Apple's Logic Pro recording/sequencing software.
I had a quick look. Obviously it is not a slam dunk- many compromises and the adjustments have to be very slight. Makes me wonder if they really can make a sampled orchestra sound more real (think GigaStudio which I think finally died, but I still use GigaPiano!). Actually, since my 1960's organ days, I've thought the opposite was true- pitches that are too perfect are what sound artificial. Organ makers struggled for years to achieve good chorusing- some went to the complexity and expense of individual tone generators per note and per voice! Rather than the usual scheme of 12 generators tuned to the highest 12 pitches of the organ, and then all lower notes derived by divider circuits. Today in any sequence with samples, every voice is going to be fed through some level of chorusing and digital delay, even if set almost to zero- the effect is profound and a big deal compared to unfiltered. Now looking at this paper I'm wondering if the HAT adjustments are smaller than the typical chorus pitch variations, so they would get washed out anyway. And how do they compare to real player variations in pitch, which are typically audible (though we try for them not to be, unless we're deliberately detuning- which is an effect I do on clarinet often, love it or hate it).
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2015-08-20 17:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 2cekce ★2017
Date: 2015-08-22 04:34
Thanks David I also own two amatis one full Boehm Bb and the eefer and both have been great instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roxann
Date: 2015-08-23 18:48
The innocent-looking Ton Kooiman thumb rest has allowed me to continue playing much longer than I would have been able to play without it. It places the thumb in a much better ergonomic position than the traditional thumb rest does. The damage done by the traditional thumb rest will never go away, and it causes me considerable pain from time to time, so I'm forever grateful for the invention of this "new" style of thumb rest!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2015-08-23 20:36
Roxann, you're absolutely right about thumb rests. I have large hands, and I cringe when I think about the standard, poorly-placed tiny thumb rests so many of us used for so many years. I can't think of anything good to say about them.
Fortunately, there are better alternatives now, such as the Ton Kooiman you mentioned. I had one of the newer Buffet adjustable thumb rests installed on my old R-13 several years ago, and with a BG cushion, playing is now fairly comfortable.
Saxophones can be heavy, but with a good neck strap that's adjusted properly, a saxophone feels comfortable in ones hands. For a young clarinet player with small hands, playing a student clarinet with a standard thumb rest isn't a comfortable experience. No wonder so many young players have poor right hand positions. It's a mystery as to why little has changed, especially on student instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
