 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BassetHorn
Date: 2005-03-01 21:39
I have been wondering, hope that some of you could offer an opinion. Why do clarinets of different makers, but within one given system, look similar to each other?
If you compare pro, or student, models of Boehm system clarinets, you’d be hard pressed to notice any significant design difference through the naked eyes. Many similarities abound, such as the layout and shape of the keys. Granted, bore sizes are different, and the position of tone holes need to be consistent to produce the right “clarinet” notes, but couldn’t makers come up with innovative ideas on design of touchpiece shapes for example? Has the science of clarinet making evolved to the point that there is only one generally-accepted design that offers best compromise of cost efficiency and product utility? Can makers afford to experiment with design for the sake of creativity and aesthetics? (I am not referring to differences between German and Boehm system, but within a given system)
To be honest, I find clarinets boring to look at because of the similarity. Sure they all play differently, and may feel different under the fingers, but from an aesthetic viewpoint, why have more than one if they all look the same?
This is especially so in soprano clarinets, less so in altos and bass. When we get down to contrabasses, this design homogeneity effect is significantly less. We see contras built in numerous ways; plastic, metal, wood, straight like the bass, curved like paperclip, or curved like baritone sax (Linton/Orsi, Buffet). Is it because the larger size allows more margins for error/experimentation/variety in shape design?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2005-03-02 02:08
One person's opinion...
Most likely, BassetHorn, it's the, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", philosophy. The current design doesn't offend anyone.
There have been many innovations, doughnut (ring) keys, additional vents (lower joint F(?) pad), trill linkage (C#/G#), alternate C keys and Eb keys and such radical departures as the McIntyre. Then there's the extreme and unique departure by Mazzeo that barely resembles "modern" clarinets. And these are only a few of many Boehm system 'experiments'. I'm not knowledgeable or aware of enough to mention them all. Most of the innovations that are intended to make life easier also drive the manufacturing costs up and that, I suspect, is why most clarinet makers stick to what works well as a time-tested "standard" for most of their cost-minded customers; students.
- r![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif) n b -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Topher
Date: 2005-03-02 21:00
The reality is that if a company were to make a change in the keywork, experienced players would not want to "relearn" the clarinet to incorporate the newest fads in clarineting. Students might want to try it, but they are the most cost-conscious, and the company needs the money to justify the R&D.
topher, who is currently taking an Economics course
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
