 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2003-02-19 04:17
I recently purchased a Haynes double walled Eb silverl clarinet. Haynes is still
making flutes, so I went to their website. Their website doesn't have much, but does
mention that they are now producing a wooden flute. I searched on the designer's
name and ended up with a very interesting article on flute design
http://www.christiebeard.homestead.com/publications.html
From there I ended up looking at carbon fiber flutes
http://www.matitflutes.com/
And Kingma quarter tone flutes.
http://www.brannenflutes.com/kingma.htm
By the way, you can spend over $30,000 for a flute. I don't feel so bad the Haynes,
now.
The Kingma not only produces a chromatic quartertone scale, but enables multiphonic sound. If you want to hear flute music that sounds like it was played by a Chewbaka, check out
http://kalvos.org/laberge.html
My question: is anyone doing anything this radical with new clarinet designs? The closest I know of is Evan Zapora's CD, something like "This is the Clarinet". However, he is just using lots of techique, not redesigning the instruments.
jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2003-02-19 05:49
8[!!!Titanium!!!]
(soapbox)
is NOT something I'd want to use to make a musical instrument !!!
Serious precautionary measures are taken in manufacturing things from titanium to avoid its carcinogenic hazards. I suppose finished products 'might' be safe enough, since it's the 'dust' from machining it that poses a (known) problem but, still... do you remember, from your history lessons, radium watch dials?
(We know Greemlines are okay... and you can play real music on one
(hops off soapbox.... )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vote Red
Date: 2003-02-19 07:16
carcinogen or not, I don't think new materials are all that revolutionary, design-wise. There have already been hundreds of discussions on the message board arguing that a plastic or metal clarinet can sound just as good as a blackwood clarinet, if designed properly.
I'd be interested in improvements along the line of ergonomics, more efficient & stable key fingerings or maybe additions that allow completely different timbres (like how a mute can give a trumpet a more 'nasal' sound).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2003-02-19 07:34
The clarinet is the most elegant, practical design. Yet, it is simple, relatively easy to make, and easy to repair. It will be very difficult to come up with a design that improves it.
The oboe could use a new design and there must be something to be done to improve the bassoon. These systems are deeply rooted in our culture so it is unlikely that they will be changed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rene
Date: 2003-02-19 08:29
If you look into Jack Brymer's book, you find he is an advocate of new designs. However, he knows that new designs, key systems or any other changes are not easily adapted. Teachers teach their systems, that's the way it is.
Espically, he discusses the mechanisms to separate the Bb from the register key.
One of my own favourite ideas is to get rid of the middle joint in Greenline and plastic clarinets, helping the C#/G# problems, and yielding a stable bridge mechanism.
Rene
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vote Red
Date: 2003-02-19 10:26
The Boehm system was new and radical back in the day, and it is now (as far as I know) the most commonly used key system for clarinets, flutes, and newer woodwinds. If that system managed to become so popular today, I don't see why an improved oboe/bassoon key system couldn't do the same.
Granted, it may be shunned by the doublereeders at first but given time they would accept it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2003-02-19 11:10
It took me three tries to get to the Hanson website. It crashed netscape twice and I finally cut and paste the url to explorer.
Indeed, the last option appears to be a metal body clarinet. However, I notice that the intermediate models are "100% mill carved body" while the professional models are
"100% mill carved & sculptured body" I don't know what the difference is, but the latter applies to both wood and the titanium models.
Would titanium plated keys resist wear more than silver keys? Why not carbon fiber keys. Or would a black clarinet with black keys look too much like a toy? (Maybe put black keys on a metal body and get a clarinet that looks like a negative.
Still, makers have been messing with the articulated c#/G# for at least 70 years. The Mazzeo, discussed yesterday, has been around a while, too. Where is the quarter tone clarinet or the polyphonic clarinet?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank
Date: 2003-02-19 11:29
Hi,
I own a Selmer Series 9 will all the extra keys except the low Eb and have a Mazzeo Bundy. I have tried to make friends with the Series 9 practice to use the extra keys but when the chips are down, I always go back to my Series 9* or Leblanc Dyn 2 both with "regular" keys. I find myself, under pressure or when my attention wanders during rehearsals, missing the left side F#/C# and bumping the left alternate Ab/Eb sometimes (I may just remove this key). The forked Bb/Eb fingering is great to have and the articulated C#/G# comes in handy at times when in G concert or above.
With the Mazzeo, I have problems because I try to keep the RH on when going down over the break and coming right back. This will give me a Bb anytime I hit the A key on the Mazzeo. However, the covered thumb hole is great and would be terriic for beginners since that is hole that causes a lot of trouble until the LH hand position becomes established.
Now the Leblanc Stubbins model with the S-K mechanism seems to be great for a better Bb. Everything is automatic and no thought is required.
So if I was to design a new clarinet, it would combine many of these designs that have been offered in the past century. But the idea of whether you are improving the clarinet system for intonation or for better facility must be the driving force. Can both design notions be in harmony?
HRL
I would add a BIS key though. I tried the Runyon and lost it in the grass during an outdoor summer concert somewhere between Universal Judgment and the Holst #1.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-02-19 11:55
Search "Benade NX" for one of the more salient designs in the last 100 years designed to address accoustic problems.
The Stubbins mechanism is one of the few recent developments that I consider to be transparent... none of my few remaining neurons need be engaged to make it work.
Oh yeah, it really works too.
*****
Manufacturers give the buying public things that help sell more horns... anything that adds build cost and lacks positive effect on overall sales will end up in the trash bin.
If you want innovation, look to the smaller builders.
Stephen Fox is a good example... MAN can he make a horn!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: javier garcia
Date: 2003-02-19 12:08
I'm not expert on clarinet design, but as far as I can understand, there are some attemps to try with new clarinet designs. Maybe, the Benade Clarinet from Stephen Fox is one, see:
http://www.sfoxclarinets.com/Benade.html
Schwenk&Seggelke, from Germany make a Reformed Boehm soprano clarinet that introduce some improvements from the german system, as the fork Eb/Bb, and correction devices for some throat notes and the lower joint F#/C#, and a B-C# trill key (as in professional oboes). see:
http://www.schwenk-und-seggelke.de/englisch/eindex.html with excellent pictures.
Rossi one piece body clarinet has an improved C#/G#/F due to the correct position of the hole, a little lower than standard two body pieces clarinets, and a little bigger. That improves pitch and "stuffyness" (My A Clarinet is a Rossi). See:
http://www.rossiclarinet.cl/
Orsi also makes one piece body soprano clarinets, their "Verdi" model, but I don't know anything about it. See:
http://www.orsi-wind-instruments.it/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charlene
Date: 2003-02-19 13:21
Those interested in new instrument design in general (especially you recorder players out there) should check out the Mollenhauer "Modern" alto and "Helder" tenor. These have been around for several years now, but I only recently tried out a modern alto in blackwood. It was quite disconcerting at first in its unrecorder-like timber (pure, projecting and very little reediness with truly excellent high range response) but it's been growing on me. The bore is stepped with what looks like grooves, is slightly longer with keys for low f-f#. The Helder models are even more radical and interesting (removable block held on by a metal ligature, for one thing), I'd like to play one but they're expensive. With everything I've read about the necessity for a smoothly polished clarinet bore I'm amazed that this plays so well with an interruped bore design.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-02-19 14:40
Regarding the Benade "NX" clarinet, I had the opportunity to play on the original proto-type at George Jamesons home many years ago and remember the instrument as being heavy, with all of the extra key mechanisms (but with exceptional smooth and even key action) and lacking resonance in the sound. There were some resonance holes cut into the bell as well. The intonation was good--from what I could tell by only playing it a few minutes--and it played quite evenly between the registers. It was the sound of the instrument that concerned me most--a rather "flat" or uninteresting tone quality which might be well suited for blendiong with the ensemble, but not for solos. Perhaps with the proper reed and mouthpiece (and more time spent getting used to playing the instrument), my impressions would be more favorable. I have always wanted to try the Fox version of the "NX" clarinet--the Benade/Jameson model was very promising, but the sound.........
(FYI--I recently retired my Leblanc Concertos in favor of sound of my old R13s)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-19 18:35
Quite a broad question being asked! RADICAL! [complete??] keying designs, dern few, individual keying/problem solving "improvements" quite a few, many have been patented! This has been a life's hobby of mine, since my first good cl was a Full Boehm!, in my oboe "years" I looked for a Boehm System Ill Wind, and half a career in an oil co's patent division doing much reading. The above commentary, esp. Wm's, and hopefully more after mine, do/will list many inventor/developer names, some of whom are well written-up in our cl books, [such as noted in the Mazzeo thread] and their contributions discussed. My first research is via patents, USPTO.gov will get you started, Class 84, Musical Instruments, Subclasses 380-5 and some newer subs in the 900's??. Just using "clarinet" brings much rain, so add some "Boolean" and/ors for reasonable retrieval. References cited broaden/improve a search, and some [there are many!] foreign pats may be "basics", harder to find and get copies!! Nuff for now. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jean
Date: 2003-02-19 22:47
As a Rossi player I would say the one-piece design is about as radical as it gets. Also a number of the keys, especially the register key are a bit more ergonimically designed.
On bass clarinet the Buffet Prestige has a nice feel in the right hand thumb keys. A design change in the 90's I believe. The newer basses have had some additional changes which I believe William would know about.
Jean
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joris van den Berg
Date: 2003-02-19 23:34
Kergomard and Meynial have develloped a way to produce quartertones on clarinets. I don't know if it ever went into production however.
(Kergomard, J., Meynial, X., Systemes micro-intervalles pour les instruments de musique a vent avec trous lateraux, Journal Acoustique 1 (1988) 255-270)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2003-02-20 19:15
Jim -
There have been many radical clarinet designs. Baines discusses them in detail, and there are lots of other books. For some truly bizarre items, see http://jerselmer.free.fr/clarib/claribole.html, particularly the square basset horn, http://jerselmer.free.fr/clarib/hbsqu/page.html and the serpentine bass, http://jerselmer.free.fr/clarib/iclbas06/page.html, both of which have been discussed at length on the Early Clarinet board.
Historically, many prominent players have made and attempted to market their own improvements, but most of them have failed to catch on because they require changes in fingering, or complex mechanisms, or both.
A fascinating experiment by Meyerhofer was on the cover of The Clarinet a couple of years ago, with a detailed description of its mechanism and restoration.
The late 19th/early 20th century virtuoso Manuel Gomez invented a completely "rationalized" system and played on a custom-made instrument. He made several recordings available on the historical Clarinet Classics compilations. I can't say he sounded much different from other players. Baines describes his instrument in detail.
I think the reason new designs haven't caught on is that there are the top players do very well on the standard design. Even changes that don't require alteration of fingerings, or that make additional fingerings available, have something to be said against them as well as for them.
For example, the alternate Ab/Eb lever for the left little finger adds a bit of weight and, for some players, can at least in theory get in the way. The older design, in which the lever was mounted between the E/B and F#/C# levers, drove many players nuts because it created a gap between those two keys. Buffet had tremendous resistance to the Prestige until it redesigned the key and made it removable. The good players play quite well without it, and learn to slide from one key to another to avoid impossible sequences.
I always wondered why the left ring finger hole was "blank" wood. There seemed to be no possible objection to a ring there that gave an extra fork fingering for Eb/Bb. Then I got an instrument with the extra ring, only to find that it produced as many headaches as benefits. In particular, it means that instead of two pads and keys that had to be coordinated (using the bridge mechanism), there are now four (the tiny extra hole plus the connection between the extra ring and the pad between the left index and middle fingers).
There seems to be a limit of two basic fingering systems that can coexist on wind instruments. There are French and German clarinets, with a compromise Reform Boehm system that has standard French fingerings and a German bore. French and German oboes have very similar fingering systems, with a slightly different English system. The German bassoon system is almost everywhere, but the French system is still alive. The Boehm flute seems to have conquered the world, even though many alternative systems existed up until the 1950s, particularly in England (see Baines).
It's not sufficient to note that there are passages that require sliding or other clumsy movements on an existing instrument. Bassoonists slide constantly. Violinists play all their notes with just four fingers and have to shift every few notes. It's just something you learn to do, and people like Karl Leister and Ricardo Morales do it effortlessly.
Add to this the problem that boring additional holes degrades the tone quality. The clinician Robert Lowrey had the Eb/Bb sliver key for the left little finger removed and always used the right hand trill key for those notes, saying he detected an acoustical improvement. Steve Fox makes his instruments with a single hole, so that the sliver key opens the trill key hole rather than having one of its own.
At the Clarinet Congress in London 20 years ago, the Buffet representative said they had made an experimental "simplex Boehm" instrument, leaving off both sliver keys and the top three trill keys, and found a dramatic improvement in tone and response.
At the same London conference, a well-known player named Jiri Kratochvil had made a quarter-tone clarinet, with double the usual number of holes and an key for every quarter tone. It sounded truly dreadful. Steve Fox has a "horrible example" instrument he admits he ruined by adding a bunch of extra keys and holes.
--------------------
Wes -
"Rational" hole positions produce big changes in tone quality. Boehm applied his key system first to a reverse-conical wood body, with the same interior profile as the "randomly" developed older system. It sounded much stronger and less complex than the older models, even those with very large holes. The cylindrical silver flute sounds completely different again.
Also, baroque composers wrote for the flute with a particular sonority in mind, and, just as important, for an instrument that had a sound that varied from note to note. I play baroque (one-key) flute, and the cross-fingered half steps are noticeably less resonant than the non-cross-fingered notes. Even the best baroque flutists don't have a perfectly matched scale. The recorder/baroque flute virtuoso Danny Waitzman has had a baroque flute made with full Boehm keywork, on which every note matches the sonority of the others, and, at least for me, it doesn't work on baroque music.
The Boehm system keywork has been tried on bassoons, but the results have been uniformly disastrous. The "standard" bassoon sound apparently requires long, thin, diagonal holes.
I think that if a clarinet were made like a Boehm flute, with each hole very nearly the diameter of the bore, and all lined up neatly down the front, it wouldn't sound even close to the current instrument.
Combine that with the inherent conservatism of clarinetits and conductors, and it's hard to make changes. Pamela Weston and Abe Galper, who ought to know, both say that Gaston Hamelin had his contract as principal in Boston terminated because he played a silver clarinet, and I doubt that any flutist who showed up with a Matit flute http://www.matitflutes.com/06reach.html, or a clarinet that looked the same, would get very far.
----------------------------------
Charlene -
I'm a serious recorder player, and I've tried both the Mollenhauer Modern Alto and Helder Tenor. I've also discussed them with Friedrich, Patrick and Nik von Huene and other players and makers. We all agree that the instruments are interesting experiments, and much louder than traditional recorders, but that they're suitable only for music written for them. They're simply unusable for the music written for the baroque recorder.
Also, the recorder tone is highly dependent on the voicing, which is built into the instrument. A good clarinetist can sound great on any instrument, because so much is done with the embouchure, but even the best player can't sound good on a poorly voiced recorder. Any change in position of the block radically changes the voicing and requires corresponding adjustments in other areas of the windway. This doesn't happen when you make changes in the Mollenhauer adjustable block, and, quite frankly, the instrument plays and sounds terrible with the block in any position except the original one.
I'm curious as to why Mollenhauer made a "stepped" bore, but not surprised that it makes little difference. The response and tuning depend on the volume of air, and not the shape. Organ pipes sound the same whether the cross-section is round, oval, square or rectangular. I have a Paetzold contrabass recorder with a rectangular bore that plays in the usual way, and my von Huene baroque bass has a bore with at least three 1/4" steps in diameter. Friedrich von Huene told me he had to do it that way to make the instrument play in tune.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-20 21:36
My compliments, Ken, what a fine dissertation on many of our woodwinds re: problems, solutions and the future direction of WW research. Very thought-provoking. Perhaps a number of us seniors should investigate Brymer's et al suggestions of Reform and Double Boehms as starting toward a "radical" redesign of our beloved inst. Having read a bit re: Gomez et al and having copies of Paladino's Boehm oboe patents [?ever developed beyond a "model"] makes me believe we should use our improving technology to pass on a legacy to future musicians. Hope I'm not just dreaming. Thots?? Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2003-02-20 21:53
Don -
I've read Baines, Rendall, Brymer et al., and there are historical articles in The Clarinet from time to time that I follow with great interest. It's always fun to learn about other possibilities. For example, when the article on the Meyerhofer instrument came out in The Clarinet, a year or so ago, I spent an hour deciphering the fingering chart, and even thought of having a saxophone-type palm key (which Meyerhofer used) put on my contra-alto to substitute for the absent pinhole vent for the left index finger to get into the altissimo.
This is a great "thought experiment," but I wouldn't dream of making an actual change of instrument.
There's about as much difference between clarinet and recorder as there is between French and German clarinets. I've played recorder seriously for 35 years, but even now it doesn't feel as "natural" as the clarinet fingerings I learned when I was 13. I suppose I could switch to German fingerings on clarinet, and I often imagine how it would feel to play the Mozart Concerto on a basic 5-key instrument with basset extensions, but at this point it's more curiosity than any serious thought of switching fingering systems.
Great to think about. Hard to do.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2003-02-21 06:16
Thanks for a fascinating discussion.
George Jamison demonstrated the NX clarinet and said that the design minimized the well-known effect of the pitch getting sharper with softer playing. I was not sensitive enough to detect this in his performance, however. He was a nice man and sort of a genius maker/fixer.
On the Boehm oboe, I believe that a modernized version with a Loree type bore and thick walls could be successful if the culture block could be surmounted. I've seen a couple of Loree Boehm instruments that looked pretty good. It probably can be bought today as a extra cost special order. The older ones just don't have the acoustics for today's USA oboe sound. Manufacturers need to make and sell their established product in order to survive. Players would be reluctant to change to a new system because it would cost them some more money and they would not know the fingerings. As an oboe and clarinet player for many moons, I would change as it could make many oboe passages easier. Many Boehm oboes have been made but the market is still very small for any oboe system. Oboe makers don't get very rich, I think.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-21 16:52
Ken, Wes et al - I've made a series of US patent searches via Clarinet AND Woodwind, Cl AND Keys, Clarinet AND Keying, Clarinet AND Systems, retrieval of perhaps 500 pats, will take some time to cut off replications and to glimpse content of the better sounding titles. I'll report significant findings under the above title, several are velly interesting, like a "ninteen-tone" [temperment] scale. Also, Benade's co-author's name is Jansson, no pats tho, but physics-literature references. Just wanted to enter this before we hit the archives. Quite a few hours research ahead. Regards, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-22 19:43
Joris van den Berg mentioned above the Kergomard/ Meynial publication of their "micro-interval" [1/4 tone] research. They have a US patent 4,714,001 issued on it which may be easier to access by those interested. Just wanted to add it. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
