 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Renato
Date: 2004-01-19 20:58
Hi
My question today is:
Don't you think that we, as blackwood (grenadilla, mpingo) users/consumers, should consider donating some money to the African Blackwood Conservation Project or some organization as such, since we're helping decimate the blackwood population by rising the demand on that invaluable wood? Or at least, buying the video tape? (there's a beautiful video tape, a documentary about this marvellous wood, its current status, its utilization, the Project itself, and so on)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetmajr
Date: 2004-01-19 23:15
Actually, I think i've seen that video! It has little excerpts of some French guy playing... I can't remember his name.. was it Guy Deplus? Anyway, I am totally in agreement with you, that something ought to be done for conservation of this material.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-01-20 16:48
Its a noble thot, Renato, and the results of contributions, if properly applied, would benefit future woodwind players. It might seem to be more of an increased "industry" effort to many of us. Do we know of actual blackwood "farming" activities, beyond the conservation efforts of Greenline and similar mfgr'ing methods? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-01-20 17:24
Want to conserve?
Buy a used instrument - save a tree.
Tech restoration and repair work has never been at a higher level. Older instruments can be put back into better than factory fresh condition.
There are many older high quality, lightly used, carefully restored, classic, and vintage instruments available.
You just have to make an effort to find one ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2004-01-20 19:29
No, I'm not in favor of sending them some money.
If the situation was bad enough, the manufactures would do something or fund this project.
I'm still waiting for Pro hard rubber clarinets to may a come back. The main problem I see is that they won't be able to justify the current high prices.
A lightweight pro clarinet with spaceage key material would suit me fine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-01-20 22:22
If you want to see most of your money go to 'overhead' and the cost of 'doing business' in Mozambique or Tanzania - cut a check.
I would rather see charitable donations go to Habitat for Humanity, even if they trim every window with M'Pingo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2004-01-21 01:24
The wood sellers say that the difficulty of getting grenadilla wood is the hostile environment in which the trees grow and that there is no shortage of trees. It's difficult to work there, to cut the trees, and to transport it out. If grenadilla wood is really not available in the future, a plastic instrument may work just fine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neil
Date: 2004-01-21 03:19
Is there any availability of Mpingo seeds or seedlings in the US? Maybe if we grew it here it turn out denser due to the cooler climate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-01-21 08:55
SB's is a nice point. I recently bought quite a set of dining table and chairs, and was puzzled as to why the shop did not identify the wood. When I asked what it was, they told me it was rubber. It was the wood from the rubber tree, which has traditionally been burned when the tree's productive life was over, but is now being recycled into furniture.
Have a rubber clarinet, and rubber wood furniture (music stand?), and you can feel virtusous.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-01-21 11:11
I for one am not too worried that we may soon need other materials for clarinet. I believe that by now it's been proven that the material isn't exactly the number one decision whether to use a clarinet or not. Makers are using other materials and getting great results with them (Greenline - buffets, hard rubber - Tom Ridenour and others, rosewood - Leblanc/Rossi/others, Delrin - Stephen Fox, etc). So to me personally I would also rather see money go to do good to humanity instead of trying to preserve a clarinet makers traditional material.
US Army Japan Band
Post Edited (2004-01-21 12:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-01-21 12:14
Don't we pay for this wood in the price of the instrument? Don't we pay enough without having to send a cheque?!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Renato
Date: 2004-01-22 14:20
Just a few thoughts:
1- It's about two different things: it's not "either donate to charity or to a conservation project"; one act doesn't prevent the other from happening;
2- It's not a practical matter (as in "they will improve the hard rubber clarinets, so this wood won't be necessary"), it's a subtle matter of ethics;
3- Of all the alternative ideas, I liked this one best: "buy a used clarinet";
4- The point is not whether we're paying for the wood or not, but whether there is any moral obbligation on our part deriving from the fact that we're creating a demand that ultimately challenges the survival of a tree species
(the use of water being another case in point -- are we doing enough toward helping conserve freshwater simply by paying more for it?).
Just a few thoughts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark P. Jasuta
Date: 2004-01-22 22:58
I agree with GBK.
Buy a used /vintage clarinet. My daughter has many, and they all get played.
I think the wood used was better then anyway. As a matter of fact, I think that wood that wound up on the scrap heap 20 - 50 years ago is now (thanks to modern technology) being made into instruments. I believe this may account for some of the decline in the quality of the new ones. We can't blame everything on poor workmanship and profit seeking corporations.
Regards
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-01-23 16:02
"Wise use" involves conservation and well, use of resources.
If you ever get the chance to live in a developing country (I did), you'll see remarkably different, and more pragmatic, approaches to what comes out of the ground... and what is treated as pollution as an afterthought.
Seriously, if you intend to contribute real dollars to a charitable organization, don't you think it should go to a fund that spends money on the project - rather than overhead?
**********
I'm just steamed about the preachy nature of these notions, when we have hungry and homeless people in our backyard!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marie_marius
Date: 2004-01-23 16:13
I don't think the situation is that bad...Buying used clarinets is one great idea but I believe that if school bands (esp. those in Singapore) take more effort in maintaining the instruments, the demand for new clarinets will substantially drop.
Marius
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-01-23 16:24
Synonymous Botch wrote:
> Seriously, if you intend to contribute real dollars to a
> charitable organization, don't you think it should go to a fund
> that spends money on the project - rather than overhead?
And , uh, where exactly is the overhead in Chuwa's organization? Have you looked at their finances?
Have you looked at the reports sent out? I have. With a small grant he was able to stop taking buses and walking to the seedling areas - he bought a used but reliable truck.
If you're talking about pragmatic conservation, the Blackwood Conservancy is something you might want to investigate rather than shout at. Chuwa is all for renewable resources; he's the one that with help from schools and interested parties is setting out near 100,000 seedlings.
There are much worse places to throw your money.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2004-01-23 17:47
Synonymous Botch also wrote "I'm just steamed about the preachy nature of these notions, when we have hungry and homeless people in our backyard!"
To expand on Renato's first point, "it's not 'either donate to charity or to a conservation project'; one act doesn't prevent the other from happening", there are any number of things we should be concerned about and that concern shouldn't be exclusive. We can't wait until the "worst" problem is solved before we work on another problem, for at least three reasons.
One reason is that most any problem will never be completely solved. We may reduce the number of hungry and homeless, for example, but I doubt they will ever be entirely eliminated.
A second reason is that while we are concentrating on one problem, leaving others unchecked, it is likely that the others will go beyond the point of remediation. We can't wait until all the homeless and hungry, for example, have homes and are well fed before we, say, search for a cure for AIDS or prevent global warming or prevent the extinction of some plant or animal species.
A third reason is that everyone will never agree on what problem is the worst. Let's not waste our time bickering over what problem is the worst; let's instead spend our time on solving all of them. If you perceive a particular problem as being the most pressing, put as much of your time or resources as you want into fixing it, but please don't dismiss the other problems in the world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
