Author: CEC
Date: 2007-04-23 20:13
Excellent points all. Thanks for all the thoughtful straightnening out!
Chris P - My teacher was hardly a gullible fellow. In fact, he was extremely conservative when it came to spending his student's money. For instance, he believed that the "premium grenadilla" used in the prestige line was worth neither the cash nor the hassle (he felt that the "better" wood added, if anything, to fatigue and tension due to it's slightly greater weight). He also felt that the metal tenons offset any tonal improvements wrought by the premium wood (for the same reason many experience that ringless barrels resonate better, I'd imagine). And, yes, he did have experience playing on Prestiges.
Perhaps he did need to get out more, but spent too much time listening, practicing, conducting, researching 19th century lit (he's cited in Grove's) and looking after his students
"flutes are sharp, flutes are ALWAYS sharp."
Then that points to design rather than materials, yes? (Not being sarcastic)
Ben - Points well taken, though I'd imagine manufacturers sometimes look for ways to add expense to their upper crust instruments (this is the main reason my teacher took a dim view of the Prestige, I think - it struck me that he viewed the additional features as largely frivolous and a waste of $$$ better spent elsewhere - he also disliked the extra keywork, though he did like the double-skinned pads). It's certainly unfair to say that metal tenons fall into that category though, given that they do have practical advantages.
(and thanks again - I've certainly been guilty of the same! Sorry I became defensive.)
rsholmes - Very cogent and appreciated.
Chris
Post Edited (2007-04-23 21:27)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
