 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Musinix
Date: 2006-07-29 17:36
I'm thinking about purchasing either an Arioso or Allora clarinet in A. I've heard that they are identical, but the Allora is about half the price. Can anyone confirm that they are the same clarinet?
Thomas Fiebig
Post Edited (2006-07-29 17:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-07-29 21:22
You will have to contact Tom Ridenour and ask him the question. I know that he makes the Allora clarinets for WWBW but I do not know what the differences, if any, are in the clarinets delivered under the Allora name.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-07-30 18:41
The Arioso and the Allora are the same instrument. This I know from Tom Ridenour himself, who has nothing further to do with the Arioso Company, but did design both clarinets. There are about 70 Bb clarinet at 123, or WWBW and there are no plans for any more. The A clarinets are in shorter supply and from I can glean from Mr Ridenour who did produce most of them.
For me, the main difference is in the guarantee which is highly dubious if you buy from Arioso, if at all existant . If you buy from Ebay, it is nonexistant.
The WWBW or 123 Music guaranty, or warranty is 45 days and then if you wish, a complete refund.
Mr Ridenours designs are superlative and I have purchased one Arioso, and perhaps six different Alloras, returning four and keeping a set. The others were acceptable as is the keywork, but not great.
These are hard rubber instruments , a material which has been used for clarinet manufacture for more than a century. The material is as natural as wood, and it is virtually impervious to climate changes or to cracking.
The quality of sound produced is sweeter and darker than genadilla.
The quality of production of sound is much more immediately even than is grenadilla and nothing like any plastic, a strident and glassy sounding instrument.
Of course these are my opinions, howeve I am a professional, who has been operforming professionally for more than 50 years. I studied with Norman Carrel Rosario Mazzeo, Gino Cioffi, Lee Munger, and Nadia Boulanger, (yes clarinet repertoire).
I was a Selmer Clinician for 30 years, and have held many professional positions.
My most recent concert was "La Quatour Pour La Fin du Temps", by Olivier Messiaen on July 2nd at Festival Alexandria in Ontario.
Please see my website:
http://clarinet.cc
One may also wish to read Mr. Ridenours "The Myth of Grenadilla" a wonderful essay with which I agreed for 40 years before I read it.
Post Edited (2006-07-30 18:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-07-30 19:38
I believe that Tom still sells the Arioso - at least he did at the Oklahoma Clarinet Symposium in June and it is currently listed on his web site. I would beg to differ with you that the sound of hard rubber is superlative to Grenadilla. We have had many discussions about the material of the body making a marked difference in the sound and thus far there is no overwhelming evidence pro or con. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion in the absence of difinitive data.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-07-30 21:41
My opinion is that hard rubber is superior to grenadilla.
My definitive proof is my playing. No data can be possible,this obviously being a personal consideration.
I respectfully suggest that everyone read "The Myth of grenadilla", by Tom Ridenour.
And come to my next concert.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Musinix
Date: 2006-07-30 21:57
L. Omar Henderson wrote:
>
> I believe that Tom still sells the Arioso.
Yes, but they're twice the price of the Allora at an online retailer. If they're the exact same instrument, and I believe they are, then in my opinion, it's a no brainer to purchase the Allora if that's what one is looking for. I have an audition in two weeks with a local community orchestra, for possible consideration as an alternate. They're going to ask me if I have an A clarinet, which I need to have just in case they ask me to fill in as a substitute at a moment's notice. The principal clarinetist usually conducts the Christmas Pops concert, and it's my understanding that they usually use an alternate for that performance. Another interesting note is that the principal clarinetist recently purchased an Arioso A, which he prefers to his LeBlanc Concerto.
Thomas Fiebig
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-07-30 21:59
"The quality of sound produced is sweeter and darker than genadilla."
How many identical clarinets with only different material have you blindfold tested to say this as if it was a proven fact?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-07-30 22:17
clarnibass - To be fair to Sherman, I don't think he is claiming that hard rubber produces a "sweeter and darker" sound than grenadilla, given an identical design. His posting is ambiguously phrased, but I think he is saying that his Allora/Arioso clarinets, which are made of hard rubber, produce a sound that is "sweeter and darker" than the sound he gets from grenadilla instruments.
This may be true; whether it is due to the material is not proven.
-----------
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: sherman
Date: 2006-07-31 11:16
Tom Ridenour asked me to share the following:
" I wonder if you'd be kind enough to share these few things to the readers of that list.
First, in regard to hard rubber versus Grenadilla.
As chance would have it I've been fortunate enough to have been able to put largely the same acoustical type designs in four professional grenadilla clarinets and four hard rubber clarinets. Thus, with virtually the same acoustical design in both grenadilla and hard rubber one is judging apples to apples in regard to the acoustics, and this provides a more objective condition by which the materials can be judge head to head.
In every case, when the hard rubber clarinet with the same acoustical design was tested against the grenadilla clarinet the hard rubber came out better, repeatedly. What's more, production of the hard rubber models came out much more consistent from clarinet to clarinet, they tuned better and more consistently, they responded with better resonance and tone, were more stable in dynamic changes and eliminated all the logistical variables endemic to wood clarinets. And it tested out without exception repeatedly in blind playing/listening tests.
I call that definitively superior. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck and has feathers like a duck, IT'S GOTTA BE A DUCK!
My repeated experience with hard rubber vs Grenadilla has convinced me to the point that if any major maker came to me and asked me to design a wood clarinet for them I would tell them not to waste either their or my time; the future of the acoustical perfection of the clarinet is in hard rubber. If it is not ultimately in hard rubber one thing is double dog definite; its' perfection is NOT in Grenadilla wood. That is inferior stuff.
As far as I can see, knowing what I know about clarinets and clarinet production, this is empirical evidence of the highest sort. It's not going to get much better than that.
Prior to this there was no real possibility of judging the materials with such a high degree of objectivity because no hard rubber clarinets really share the same or similar style acoustics to any of the more popular wood clarinets.
Now they do, I KNOW they do, because I was the guy that did it."
Tom Ridenour
Post Edited (2006-07-31 12:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-07-31 12:43
in regard to the Arioso/Allora clarinets:
1. Part of the Allora stock was processed by me before I left Arioso and part was just shipped out, so it's a crap shoot.
2. WWBW does not provide after point of purchase services and support and customzing and the processing we did at Arioso when I was there is not refined to the degree I do for the clarinets I personally sell. That would be too time consuming in a factory situation.
Long after WWBW is through with selling the stock they have I'll be supporting and servicing my customers throughout the years they play my clarinets.
3. The tuning of all the models from the factory is not as good as it can be made to be with really careful, knowledgeable processing. There are several areas tuning can be improved on all models, Bb, A and C, and in some cases customizing is needed due to the particular needs of a player or because of equipment concerns. Otherwise, tuning will be a struggle and an ever present irritant.
WWBW is incapable of providing any of that. Clarinetists who buy the clarinet from me get all those services and more free. So, when you compare the two clarinets you are not at all looking at apples to apples.
The first part, HR vs GW, is very much in support of your claims on the list. I really appreciate you having the guts to stick your neck out and courageously insist on the truth. I am in your debt as a consequence.
best,
Tom Ridenour
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Merlin
Date: 2006-07-31 13:18
Sherman,
Since we're discussing Arioso instruments, and you have a direct line to Tom Ridenour, I'd love to find out how he responds to criticisms of the Arioso low C bass clarinet.
It's been brought up often here that this is an instrument with great potential, which has so many mechanical/setup problems that make it difficult to put to use.
I played one at the NAMM show, right in front of Tom. I voiced my concerns about the problems, and said that as a dealer, I could not in good conscience carry that instrument as it was displayed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-07-31 14:24
What Ridenour says is very interesting. I have no opinion yet on HR vs. GW because I've never played a HR clarinet. I would like to know, if possible to have Ridenour explain it, is the exact details of his blindfold test.
That is, what model clarinets were used, if all were his was he personally the one going over them to make sure (as much as possible) they were the same, how many people played the clarinets, how many people compared the results (both players and audience), was it recorded or just by live playing, and any other details he might have.
Basically, I'm looking for an exact description of how the test was done, so I and others can judge for themselves. In the vage description above there is already a bias (most obvious one is Ridenour himself only sell HR clarinets) but there are too many details missing to know for sure.
If you anyone can find those details that would be very helpful!
Thanks and best wishes.
Edit: Another thing I would like to know is what the results actually were. For example, if people were asked to rate the clarinets from best to worst, were all rubber clarinets rated on top by all the people, etc. This was just an example, I would like to know how Ridenour did it, so basically if he can explain what exactly he meant by "the hard rubber came out better".
Post Edited (2006-07-31 15:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2006-07-31 15:01
>>In the vage description above there is already a bias (most obvious one is Ridenour himself only sell HR clarinets<<
OK, but one does need to remember that Tom Ridenour was the person who designed the original LeBlanc Opus -- he's not just some guy tinkering around in his garage workshop.
And for those who have never had the pleasure, be sure to check out Sherman Friedlander's long-running "Clarinet Corner" website. http://clarinet.cc/
These two guys (Tom and Sherman) kinda take up the "real world" slack for every one of us who likes to theorize and speculate. They've been there, and they've done it, and they have my utmost respect.
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-07-31 15:08
ohsuzan wrote:
> They've been there, and they've done it, and they have my
> utmost respect.
Respect must be divorced from experimental results. There have been many highly respected people who have been wrong as often as right during their career. Being right or wrong doesn't detract from the respect one has for those that are willing to try.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-07-31 15:33
(Disclaimer - I am maker of the Forte' Bb and C clarinets)
I have the greatest respect for both Sherman and Tom Ridenour and Tom has a proven track record in instrument design and modifying clarinet's acoustics. He has been generous and most helpful in suggesting fixes for daunting acoustic situations that we have encountered with the Forte' clarinets.
I do think that hard rubber may be more easily machined and possibly more consistent in milling than Grenadilla. Grenadilla is subject to unevenness and splintering (only seen at high magnification) at the tone holes and dimensional distortion may take place due to swelling or shrinkage of the wood post milling. Hard rubber too may have some environmental and temperature concerns.
I am tired of fighting the battles of trying to convince the community that manufacturing technique and finishing are paramount in producing a clarinet with superior tonal qualities. From a physics perspective the airflow through the tone hole and associated turbulence and tone hole characteristics are much more important than the contribution of vibration through a thick wall segment of any material. This material vibrational sound value contribution has been suggested to be a fraction of one percent of the total frequency sound volume produced. Although Buffet has made significant strides with a well machined and finished "plastic" Greenline series clarinet, the pervasive mentality is that wood= good and plastic, hard rubber, etc = inferior is firmly entrenched in the woodwind community.
From a statistical point of view it would take a whopping big experiment to control for the variables associated with tone production and reach a significant result denying the null hypothesis. I appreciate the observations of very talented musicians about tonal qualities which escape this poor clarinet player but without enough hard evidence I suggest that the material of the body has very little effect on tonal qualities given the significant, provable, contributions of other factors. Again, this is the hypothesis of one person and without proof only as valid as any other suggested hypothesis.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: am0032
Date: 2006-07-31 16:53
I am excited about the tonal possibilies of hard rubber and look forward to giving these instruments a shot. Unfortunately, until clarinets made of this material are found in orchestras and military bands, or played by whoever your favorite clarinetist is, they will be looked down upon no matter what the "evidence" is. Maybe makers of these instruments need to charge the $2000-3000 and people would give them another look. Equal price=Equal quality. Just a thought.
Adam
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-07-31 20:31
Response from TomRidenour to question of blindfold test:
There were several tests carried on in several different venues over a number of years. Tests were both formal and informal, planned and spontaneous.Results were consistent.
First, I tested the models back to back in the process of development. Without exception the hard rubber was superior.
What do I mean "superior"? Nothing subjective, believe me. You cannot afford yourself the luxury of prejudical subjectivity when you are developing instruments. So what do I mean?
I mean some very concrete and easily quantifiable things: things that concern themselves with the objective demands of actual performance. Specifically,in the hard rubber models the response was more even at all dynamic levels, transitions from register to register were smoother, hardly requiring any change in embouchure/air pressure, the high register was more stable in pitch, color and shape in dynamic changes; upper clarion did not "undertone" at the soft dynamic nearly as readily in the rubber clarinet as it did in the wood, and the tones stayed fuller and rounder. Tuning was more stable and consistent horn to horn within the same model. These are all objective and concerned with the demands a particular instrument makes upon the player's playing techniques to actually phrase music with elegance, security and inspiration.
In blindfold tests here in Texas 17 out of 17 band directors picked it as best in a field of 8 clarinets, some wood, some composite. In another blind fold test 31 our of 33 band directors picked it as best in a field of six clarinets, most wood. In another test I was not present for I was told my hard rubber clarinet received the most first and second place votes, but I don't recall how many other clarinets were in the blind fold test and how many band directors. It was a large ISD, so I imagine there were at least 20 band directors or more.
I have tested the clarinets in blindfold tests with clarinetists and non-clarinetists scores of times, and other players have written me about tests playing for their colleagues or spouses. They usually write me because they are amazed. A friend who recently performed at Kennedy center in D.C. with a chamber music group had a chance to record rehearsals of his concert on both my clarinet and his R-13. He told me the music was easier to play on my clarinet and it recorded better than his R-13, so he played my clarinet on the concert.
The results are so consistent as to be uncanny. Yet, people are so prejudice for reasons I cannot even guess they come to a conclusion without even being open to test things out for themselves. I'll bet the people who believed in a flat earth or a heliocentric universe reacted the same way when they heard the earth was not flat and the sun is not the center of the universe...hmmmmmm, now that I think of it, some people still believe the earth is flat.
Tom Ridenour
Post Edited (2006-07-31 20:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-07-31 20:38
sherman wrote:
At this point I would much rather Tom relayed the information directly rather than have it relayed for him.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-07-31 20:39
On the low C comment on the Arioso Bass
Ridenours response
"This is kind of a red herring in regard to the issue, but here's my response: The key work on most basses are problematic. I hear educator's constantly moan about the instability of the key work on all models and how kids are always messing them up and they spend as much time in the repair shop as a Jaguar spends in the garage.
The problem is that the bass keys on the low C have to be unusually long; longer than the bassoon keys and used in a mechanism that,unlike the bassoon, is HIGHLY interdependent. (The bassoon has little mechanical interdependence).
The Arioso low c bass is acoustically excellent and the key work has been problematic in production. Therefore, I have not sold it for some time.
[ Section cut. At this point the post is becoming closer to advertising. mark C. ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-07-31 21:31
When can we get back to the materials issue rather than execution of the clarinet? An excellent design and finish work will produce a top rate and fine playing instrument regardless of the material of the body - IMHO. Unless the experiment is conducted with the same design and finish work in different materials it does not address the question of material. Comparing different manufacturer’s clarinets, even in different materials, is not a valid comparison technique.
Inevitably there will be instrument to instrument variability even among the same model - regardless of the material - and possibly of differences in the machining and finishing qualities of the material used. In statistics there are techniques called "Power" calculations which estimate the sample size, given the number of dependent and independent variables in the sample set, needed to reach statistical certainty that the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between groups) is not true. There are different levels of confidence around this estimate - 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 etc.. which enter into the prediction of the sample size needed. Just given the number of variables that I can quickly name off the top of my head the sample size raises to hundreds of instruments in each material needed for a 0.1 confidence level.
Myself, and only me, will have to see data from an experiment designed to test the contribution of material of the body of a given clarinet to some objective or at least standardized set of criteria related to tone and playability. I do not doubt the observations of experts and talented players but must filter and mentally tabulate these with those of others until I can feel confident of a consensus (even this is not a scientific approach). This is my approach as a scientist and not necessarily the approach which is comfortable for others.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2006-07-31 23:41
Scientifically, L. Omar, who can argue with you. However, ultimately playing and listening to clarinet music is an artistic experience, not a scientific experiment. All this means, is that we each have to evaluate instruments. and the sound that they produce, for ourselves. Our ears are the final arbitrators of sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-01 00:52
FDF, what you say is absolutely true. I would not want some weird scientist dictate to me what instrument I choose and what my own feeling about the sound, playability, etc. were best for me. I might be interested if someone could conclusively show that one material for the body was superior, or at least different than the other. But, again, the discussion about materials has to do with - "Does the material of the body of the clarinet contribute significantly to the sound quality produced". One of the problems of course is the evaluation criteria which is a sticky wicket if other than spectral frequency analysis is used as the criteria. We at present do not know what series of frequency patterns contribute to the commonly described, but not universally understood, qualities such as "dark", "centered", "velvety", etc., or if the material somehow improves playability issues such as register shifts - how do you realistically measure this parameter? So, subjective criteria or a unified set of common criteria must be used to evaluate the experiment. If you want to sort out the contribution of material you must do the experiment - or not.
I would suggest that the Buffet experiment with the Greenline series of R-13's comes closest to approximating the proper experiment on body material. No thorough evaluation of the results has been done but perhaps should be. My evaluation of the comments from many threads on this BB indicates that there is no perceived or consistent difference noted in the sound quality of the wooden R-13 or the Greenline which has many different physical properties than wood. This may be a large enough sample set to analyze the question of material. (Disclaimer - I have no association with Buffet or receive any compensation).
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2006-08-01 01:29
L. Omar,
I agree, descriptions of clarinet sounds, such as “dark” “bright,” etc., are at best, nebulous. A sampling from this board using such descriptions would also be problematic. A control group using a semantic differential might help a great deal. An experiment asking skilled clarinetist to respond to the sounds, using a semantic differential, comparing a hard rubber clarinet and a wooden clarinet, might be a start.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-08-01 01:46
Just to give one example of my experience with both hard rubber(arioso) and grenadilla(selmer 10s) during one rehearsal of La Quatour Pour La Fine du Temps performed last July 2nd, I had prepared the other players about the hard rubber instrument. When I played #3 Abime Des Oiseaux, I played it one the hard rubber instrument, same mouthpiece, reed etc.
This is a seven minute solo passage for the clarinet and I myself found the sound to very immediate and present, forget about dark and sweet or light.
This clarinet did not shriek, no matter what the passage was.
I found this to be gratifying, so too did my colleagues. In my opinion it was the material itself that contributed to this quality
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-01 02:06
One clarinet, one skilled clarinetist listener? Multiply this by hundreds of the same model in different body materials and you have a start. I do not mean to be unkind but I face statisticians and peer review for experiments on a daily basis so I know what it takes from a science point of view to prove an experiment. Even our epidemiologists that use questionnaire instruments must satisfy the statisticians with their written questions and the potential value of data derived from subjective answers. When you throw subjective and non- objective (measurable) components into the mix you drastically multiply the sample set needed. When you throw subjective elements without a common consensus of listeners (e.g. what is "dark") into the experiment it becomes exponential. There are tools for clarifying, to some extent, subject impressions as you suggest which potentially may help but still the sample sizes for this experiment are huge. I am no expert on subjective data interpretation however. Where are all the psychologists in the crowd to help us out?
L. Omar Henderson
P.S.
Sherman, I really do value your impressions and respect the experience of other talented clarinetists and their observations - I would be a fool not to do so. Aside from all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo there is value in the impressions of the artist performing the work and evaluating the instrument which defy my abilities to sort things out as a scientist and poor clarinet player and stand alone as another kind of information resource to all of us. I can use the statistical tools to approach a question of materials but the answer may be beyond quantitiative measurement and the "art" may be the only avenue to approach these issues.
Post Edited (2006-08-01 02:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-08-01 06:17
Unfortunately, I don't see anything in this thread (including the comments from Ridenour) that prove at all that hard rubber is "better" or even different from grenadilla. All the experiments he described, at least without a lot more details, don't say anything about the material, like Omar Henderson said.
Omar Henderson - Do I remember correct that your C clarinets are made from grenadilla or hard rubber? Maybe that would be a good way to know?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Oberlin ★2017
Date: 2006-08-01 11:33
A question for Sherman Friedland: I've read a lot about the "sweetness"
of the sound of the Arioso clarinet and am wondering if this comes at the
expense of the ability of the instrument to project through a large group.
Do you have an opinion on this?
And a suggestion to anyone seriously interested in these instruments and
going to Atlanta in August: if Tom Ridenour is there, try the horns and post
your opinions!
D.O.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom W
Date: 2006-08-01 16:53
Maybe artistry is getting in the way of science....
Tom R wrote: The tuning of all the models from the factory is not as good as it can be made to be with really careful, knowledgeable processing.
Throughout the history of the clarinet there have always been craftsmen (artists) able to tweak instruments to make them more enjoyable to play and/or correct their design or mfr'g limitations.
Perhaps mfr's have depended on these artists too much....or maybe we just don't know enough about clarinets yet to design/mfr one without faults.
I would think that today's cnc machines could produce instruments much more consistant sounding then appears to be occurring.
Tom W
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rodb
Date: 2006-08-01 19:20
I got a ridenour 147 based on the hype for arioso, and wonder if that is totally different, or the hype is just that. It'z not a special horn that I can tell. Sounds about like the other synthetic ones, not near as nice as the silver throat. either in tone or volume or ease of playing. Nothing like the classic wood ones I'm playing. Maybe it'z out of adjustment? Hope this isn't too far off topic?
RodB
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-08-02 21:33
Well,I do have an opinion concerning this business of projection in a large group of the Arioso Clarinet.
First and foremost, my opinion is that it will uqual to the finest wooden clarnet available, or less emotionally, why wouldn't the projection be equal to any clarinet?
Here are the variables of which I can think in rendering an opinion:
1. The maturity of the player, his experience performing in the particular ensemble.
2. The kind of mouthpiece, not the make, but the balance and the dimensions of the mouthpiece. For instance, an unbalanced mouthpiece will not project as well.
3. The ability of the performer to balance his or her reeds.
4.The maturity and the kind of ensemble:
a:orchestra, b. band c. combined orchestra solists and choir.
d. Composer.
e.Professional ensemble, or student ensemble.
These are just a few of the variables.
But the most complete opinion that I can render is that the projection should be no worse, but probably better than the average wooden clarinet.
This is because the acoustic is more balanced and more even on the rubber instrument, the Arioso.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-08-02 21:41
I do not think that knowledge of the material of a particular instrument made by a scientist, however esteemed , would be a good way to know if a particular material is better as good or worse than hard rubber.
A good way to know is non-existant, for only a person of considerable professional experience might know, but only based upon his opinion in performing for many years, teaching many students, making many recordings, being respected within the business in which he has made his life.
This would be a good way to know, the reliance on a persons opinion or not. That is what teaching is all about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-08-02 21:58
"Our Forte C Clarinet is made of grenadilla wood"
This is advertising, pure and simple. I have been rendered an opinion that the posting of the thoughts and responses of perhaps the most important clarinet designer in the US is advertising.
I disagree with the webmaster, because there is so much advertising within this site that I find it objectionable.
Therefore I will post no more on this site.
My entire idea in responding to the post of Arioso or Allora is only to let all the students out there know that there is an alternative to the three-thousand dollar (or more) clarinet.
I weep for the funds that are paid for these instrument by students, or parents of students who can hardly afford them, for a dream that will never be realized.
I see herds of kids playing these instruments, playing bad horns with unbalanced acoustics. Get ready for this: It makes me weep.
I am 73 years old and have spent my life playing this wonderful instrument and I believe that there is a material that is better, far more in abundance
than the current material used and much less affected by variance in temperature.
I prefer the sound.Yes, I prefer the sound, and finally I prefer the acoustic qualities of hard rubber.
Stay well, and visit my site if you wish. Just put my name in your browser.
There are more than 300 articles, all answering your problems.
That too is advertising.
Bye!
Post Edited (2006-08-02 22:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-08-02 22:00
sherman wrote:
> This would be a good way to know, the reliance on a persons
> opinion or not. That is what teaching is all about.
That might be "a way to know" but it's far from science, and I'm not so sure it's really what teaching is all about. My best teachers were open to ideas from their students, but the students had to have some sort of logical rationale to argue from. Saying "it is thus and so because in my experience it is thus and so therefore thus and so is truth" is dogmatic.
Many teachers are dogmatic - is that a good way to teach? Guidance based on experience is fundamentally different than dogmatism.
While I have utmost respect for performers, I try and separate their opinions from fact. The opinions have great weight, but often they are far from fact.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2006-08-02 22:04
I guess what people are trying to hint at is where the clarinet falls in line with the
arioso
vs
buffet r 13
Factors to consider:
reputation
keywork
key plating/wear
design
LOGO (aka brand hype)
Resonance factors: wood age and batch for the grenadilla
But ultimately the statement being said about the arioso clarinets are consistency which both grenadilla and rubber are still in an argument about. Ask yourself, when is rubber practical over grenadilla? and lastly, is my ego getting in the way of Making music versus fitting in with my social peers?
Going back to the comparison, does the buffet r 13 offer that same color that the arioso clarinet does? sure it could definitely be style and habit, but does the arioso mimick the color that the r 13 creates.
that should be the sale of this instrument.
just my 2 cents. carry on =)
_edit_
oops this topic just went off tangent. Focus! Is there a colloration between the arioso and the allora clarinet? the question seems to have been dodged.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
Post Edited (2006-08-02 22:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-08-02 22:05
sherman wrote:
> "Our Forte C Clarinet is made of grenadilla wood"
>
> This is advertising, pure and simple.
No, that's a response to a direct question, no more, no less. It doesn't promote or demote any instrument.
> My entire idea in responding to the post of Arioso or Allora is
> only to let all the students out there know that there is an
> alternative to the three-thousand dollar (or more) clarinet.
If that were all we wouldn't have come to this impasse, would we?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mary Jo
Date: 2006-08-02 22:57
The headline reads "Arioso verus Allora" and somehow in this terrific fight, Sherman gets knocked out of this clarinet ring.
I am shocked and dismayed, figuratively, if you can imagine it, waving a hanky in the face of the beloved clarinetist, Doctor Friedland, who must take to his feet and defend musicianhood and clarinetists as is the right of this revered champion of the old black stick, be it wooden or synthetic.
Good heavens, can't we all agree to disagree with manners?
Isn't just about every topic on this site somehow related to commercial products and our opinions of them?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-08-02 23:34
Mary Jo wrote:
> Isn't just about every topic on this site somehow related
> to commercial products and our opinions of them?
First hand opinions about products are certainly relevant and provide useful feedback.
However when the maker/manufacturer of a product provides nothing but "ad copy" that would fall under the domain of advertisement and self-promotion.
We welcome manufacturers to answer direct questions and clarify information about their products - however they should not promote their own offerings in their responses.
Difficult to do? Yes, but certainly possible ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-02 23:56
It indeed would be a shame to loose you Sherman. There are many nuances in playing, performing, phrasing, and just life experiences that are not written down anywhere and only come through the oral - in this case written words - of master players. Much as the past masters in any artistic field live on through their students it should be so with our little segment of the music field.
I am old enough to remember when my college professors were "Gods" and no one ever questioned or corrected their inevitable human failings but when I became one myself after the 70's I found a new questioning environment by students and IMHO this is a better learning environment where the teacher has to know their material better, in more depth, and know it well enough to defend the material imparted. Unfortunately, this whole pendulum swing has gone to the extreme where college professors must now be entertaining and not too tough because their department ratings and ultimately tenure is based on popularity surveys of their students. Later in life I now feel that some of the toughest courses were actually the best but would have given the professor a poor popularity rating at the time. The point being that there is now a questioning population everywhere that has to be shown proof of fact and does not value only experience and feeling - maybe less so in the arts than analytical pursuits but still prevalent.
I still feel that certain aspects of the clarinet instrument are amenable to scientific investigation and improvement. Most of the mechanics of the instrument follow principals in physics and chemistry. Playing the instrument is the art form. Exploring the purely physical aspects can be studied using a scientific approach. To follow this approach must involve using the scientific principal and following scientific method. Some aspects obviously cross over between art and science but both sides should take from the other that which is valuable.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2006-08-03 02:53
L. Omar Henderson wrote:
> I still feel that certain aspects of the clarinet instrument
> are amenable to scientific investigation and improvement. Most
> of the mechanics of the instrument follow principals in physics
> and chemistry. Playing the instrument is the art form.
> Exploring the purely physical aspects can be studied using a
> scientific approach.
My dear L. Omar, if I may respectably agree to disagree with certain aspects of your admirable statement, my objections are these: You state,” I still feel….”, yet shouldn’t you say, “I think…? Or “ I know….? ” Moreover, in your support of the scientific approach to instrument making you neglect the artisan, a person who is part artist and part craftsman, and whose uncanny skills produce great instruments, should one mention Stradivarius on a clarinet board? Artisan’s must be aware of the physical properties of the materials they use, but we do rely on them to have an artistic sensitivity to these materials that the rest of us lack.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-08-03 03:24
Quibbling about sentence construction should be left to the English class.
The artisan aspect of instrument making still exists in upper level clarinets only in finishing steps despite the fact that CNC machining has all but removed the necessity of finishing steps. The student to intermediate grade instruments rarely feel the touch of an artisan and no one artisan completes the finishing work - only the final tester (and only for upper level instruments) knows the results of the many hands that have completed the instrument. For the majority of all clarinets the keywork is still hand assembled - mostly in the Asian Rim by less than artistic hands. The design of the instrument, created by the engineer artisan - an artisan using physics principals either calculated or learned from a teacher or by trial and error experimentation - accounts for most of the tonal qualities of the instrument. The finishing steps - smoothing tone holes, reaming the bore, assembling and regulating the keywork only complete the design of the engineer artisan and make it work to optimal performance which he/she prototyped. Only the one of a kind, hand made instruments made by an artisan can be attributed to a single person displaying their artisan talents.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2006-08-03 03:42
L. Omar Henderson wrote:
> Quibbling about sentence construction should be left to the
> English class.
>
>I'm sorry that was not a quibble about sentence construction, but an observation about your thinking.
The remainder is proof.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sylvangale
Date: 2006-08-03 03:48
Quote:
you neglect the artisan, a person who is part artist and part craftsman, and whose uncanny skills produce great instruments, should one mention Stradivarius on a clarinet board?
Help Wanted, professional artisan $12 an hour:
http://www.burkart.com/e/env/0001omu8tDAqX3w98I7l9C0/index.html?link=jobs.htm
I'll add that in this day of age, in America at least, while you may think your instrument is handmade or even American made. The person who makes your instrument may speak little English and comes from further south than you'd care to think.
It's the engineering and quality control measures that really matter.
In other countries it would be the same, but the languages and peoples are just changed.
Regards,
Stephen
♫ Stephen K.
Post Edited (2006-08-03 04:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
