 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-11-28 01:04
Just a question out there for those more knowledgable than me about clarinet design and trends.
Why is the clarinet so far behind other instruments in technical design?
Some examples:
1) Whatever happened to improving the throat Bb by using a double tonehole design (i.e. one hole for the register, one for the Bb).
2) What about articulated G#, a feature on just about every other woodwind instrument. What about the positioning of the G# tonehole, which is so clearly not in the best place for tuning, tone, and condensation concerns?
3) Why don't we have rollers like flutes and saxophones? Couldn't we use them?
4) What about other technical advantages such as extra trill keys or something like the bis key on saxophone?
I just don't understand why basic clarinet design not only haulted, but pretty much went backwards, with no major company taking up the throat Bb mechanism challenge, and everyone abandoning the in-line, articulated G#. You can talk all you want about polycylindrical bores and the new Tosca bore, but the reality is that those ideas are still way behind the times. Only now are we seeing clarinets remotely in tune by Buffet's Tosca, Yamaha, Orsi & Weir, and the new Leblancs.
In particular, I'm curious why the two-hole concept for the throat Bb was never further investigated.
Okay, that was much more than just one question. Still, any thoughts?
Post Edited (2007-11-28 01:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2007-11-28 02:19
Each of the things you mention is being done now by various makers, but generally only on "custom" instruments, not by the Big Four.
It's not a matter of old design that we don't see these more, it's a matter of player demand.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-11-28 06:00
Trying to think as a potential buyer:
1. I'd consider a clarinet with an automatic double register key but not if it compromises the feel of the key, which I'm sure it will, at least a little. I might want if only with very little compromise to the feel. Maybe I'll look into it later how it coudl be done, but it would have to be connected to the A key and sounds like a huge mechanism for such a small instrument (and it adds more holes to this area too).
2. An articulated G# is a tricky mechanism and very important adjustment. Another thing to get out of adjustment! Plus the design of the C#/G# key would have to be different (with a lever to allow something else to close it). I don't think I would want this and have more mechanism problems and adjustments. There are so many option you can play so making those trills/tremolos easier/possible is not that important IMO.
I don't remember how articulated G# works on clarinets (I've seen only one and many years ago) but maybe there will have to be a bar and goes beyond the end of the joint when disassembled, which will be sesitive to bending and throwing this mechanism out of adjustment.
From what I read on this forum the location of the C#/G# tone hole is supposed to be on the tenon. Making it exactly correct like on articulated G# clarinets (I think) means the hole is through the tenon and different mechanism. Maybe that makes some adjustments less reliable? I don't consider the C# a serious problem.
Anotehr solution is something like the Rossi which is made in one piece body but IMO this is a bad trade off for at least two reasons.
3. Some model from Marigaux has some rollers and I doubt they help much.... Part of what I like about the clarinet mechanism is the small size and rollers would compromise that slightly, and the shape of the keys too probably.
4. I'm not familiar with the name so much, what is the Bis key? What extra keys and where would you put them? I alreayd don't use the higher banana key and the left G#/D# key. I don't think I would want even more keys, again because I like the simple and small mechanism of clarinets.
All of these things would raise prices too.
Just some ideas.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2007-11-28 06:04
bingo on the supply and demand. if clarinetests want more features, they have to want to demand it. basic econ 101.
Look at the automobile industry today. when the japanese companies launched their fuel efficient campaign in lieu of this idea of going green, they literally swept the market in sales due to their ability to get more mpg out of their cars then ford and gm. At first ford and gm weren't open to these changes and remained closed to market forces, but they realized that their sales began to slump; look at Ford's commerical about the Fusion "... It's like saying we're back" talk about appealing to pathos.
the fact is that most clarinet players are content with the basic stone age instruments.
it's the rubber clarinet industry that has yet to be tapped with the exception of ridenour and forte clarinets.
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
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-11-28 12:13
(Disclaimer - I am the seller of Forte' Bb and C clarinets)
The Forte' Bb is made of ABS plastic and the Forte' C is Grenadilla wood. Both have innovations not found on Big 4 clarinets.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John25
Date: 2007-11-28 12:37
I think the question of demand for the improvements you mention is linked to conservatism. Pupils don't know about them because their teacher doesn't have them.
I had some of these improvements fitted to my A and Bb many years ago. The articulated G# feels exactly like a normal G# and causes no difficulties whatever. The extra hole for middle Bb is fine, but occasionally works out of adjustment - I have to check it each time I play, but it's worth it.
I think that the reaction of some of the above posts shows that people are not willing to try new mechaisms.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ianm
Date: 2007-11-28 12:57
The German clarinet makers Schwenk and Seggelke make a clarinet called a 3000G. This clarinet has no link between the joints and subsequently no long Bflat/Eflat. The hole for the left middle finger is moved up the body similar to a German or Albert system clarinet, allowing a cross fingered note here and allowing F to be played with the right hand fingers on and to be more resonant. It also has a vent hole for altissimo Fsharp and an alternative hole for Bflat. This clarinet was a very favourably reviewed by Alan Hacker some time ago. It seemed expensive but perhaps now is comparatively less so when one considers the new Leblanc models. As a newcomer to the list I would be most interested to know if anyone has experience of this clarinet. Thank you in anticipation of your thoughts.
Ian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-11-28 13:05
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> I don't even use the L.H. Eb lever which my Prestige Buffet comes with
Re: LH Eb key
I feel the same way, although none of my Buffets have a LH Eb key (my choice).
I think that many in the generation of clarinetists who started playing in the 1950's and 1960's find the LH Eb key both a bit strange to get used to and in some cases annoying. Thus the resistance to accept it.
After years/decades of learning to alternate pinkys and successfully working out the fingerings with only one choice for Eb5, having a new alternative (LH Eb) changes many of the passages which are already in our muscle memory. Frankly, in my case, I don't want to be bothered "relearning" the fingerings for many pieces.
If manufacturers are to be serious about taking the clarinet into the next century, then many of the "improvements" (ex: LH Eb key) should be standard on all beginner instruments so that students can learn from the very first day that there are two fingering choices for Eb5.
In the words of Stanley Drucker, when I asked him about using the LH Eb key:
(paraphrasing) "I don't need it. I got by all these years without it."
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rsholmes
Date: 2007-11-28 13:07
Is it fair to say because the clarinet overblows at the twelfth, meaning there are about 50% more notes per register than on other woodwinds, we already have enough fingering complications to deal with without adding new keys and springs and tone holes?
But it is a little odd that bass clarinetists have a completely different attitude toward their Bb/register key.
Of course a major manufacturer did market clarinets with "improved" Bb -- Selmer's Mazzeo models -- and they were not successful.
As for one-piece body, I'm curious why it's a bad idea for clarinets but not for saxophones. Of course in the case of the sax a middle tenon would interfere with the conical bore, but is that the only thing standing in the way of sax players' longing for a two-piece body?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-28 13:33
As far as the Klose-Buffet 'Boehm' system design keywork goes (which was a radical redesign from the other systems going before it), it's by far the simplest design to make and maintain (compared to Oehlers, etc.) and a simple design that works very well if well engineered.
So this is probably part of the reason for it's popularity and longevity.
Manufacturers of Boehm systems nowadays are mostly concentrating on the 17/6 system as this is the most popular, and only add a LH Ab/Eb as an option on intermediate or entry level pro instruments, or fit it as standard on their top models.
Full Boehms (and others like the Marchi system, Mazzeo system, etc.) have largely fallen by the wayside from the large manufacturers as the demand for them is small, and only a few smaller companies will offer them.
Simplicity is best.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-11-28 13:38
Rossi makes one piece body clarinets and they very fine instruments. There is no specific acoustical reason to get a two body clarinet unless you really think that pulling the middle joint will help intonation.
The reason why the clarinet has not seen major apparent design changes in the last century is that one has been able to play a clarinet whose intonation is stable, and sound charasteristics smooth and resonant for all the notes. The improvements you are suggesting have little impact on the playability and sound of the instrument and one would have to relearn skills to achieve goals they have already achieved. The extra Eb key and roller keys can make life easier, but one can slide without rollers.
As for the stuffy Bb and G#, they are already designs that achieve lots with tone placement and bore design without the need for an added mechanism.
I am all for technological advances, but sometimes a little "if it ain't broke why fix it" goes a long way.
To me the most capricious aspect of clarinet playing is the reed. What we need is more company like Legere who can make our life easier by getting rid of cane, not more keys for more fingerings to learn...
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-28 14:01
I often practice etudes for non-clarinet instruments and I sometimes find places where a passage would not be possible without the LH Eb.
I just got the LH Eb 6 months ago but I find it more useful everyday.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-28 14:20
"As for one-piece body, I'm curious why it's a bad idea for clarinets but not for saxophones. Of course in the case of the sax a middle tenon would interfere with the conical bore, but is that the only thing standing in the way of sax players' longing for a two-piece body?"
If a one-piece clarinet were to develop a serious crack in the upper part of the body, this will mean the whole body joint would need replacing. So replacing ONLY the top joint on a two-piece clarinet is far easier and more economical. And finding a lenght of timber to make a one-piece body without natural defects will be difficult, and more billets will end up being scrapped if defects shows up during turning. Pilot drills will have more tendency to wander out of true in longer pieces of timber, and the whole joint also has the potential to warp in between each stage of manufacture as it matures, so the outside can be perfectly straight but the bore can end up banana-shaped - or both the bore and outside can be banana-shaped.
As for saxes, due to the mechanism, tonehole layout and construction it will be impossible to make them in two halves (as well as interfere with the conical bore unless a large socket and tenon as seen on twin-crook sporanos is involved which have a tapered bore to the tenon, but this would be large, unsightly and heavy and will have a tonehole going through it), and the mechanisms that cross the middle joint will need linkages that can get all bent up during assembly - saxes are large instruments so assembly will be more difficult on these physycally, as well as the chances of something going out of adjustment (or the tenon or socket getting damaged) if done carelessly.
A single-piece body is much stronger in the case of metal instruments, and tenons and sockets are not really needed on them (even though there are metal clarinets built in sections).
Learn to live with tenons and sockets as they are part of the package on wooden instruments, and although they can be eliminated in some situations, they can not be eliminated completely.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2007-11-28 14:28
While I was in college, I had an A clarinet with an articulated C#-G#, and I missed the availability of the long F.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2007-11-28 14:29
ChrisP wrote: And finding a lenght of timber to make a one-piece body without natural defects will be difficult, and more billets will end up being scrapped if defects shows up during turning.
Each joint of a bass clarinet is roughly twice the length of the equivalent joint of a soprano. Finding and working large pieces of wood can't be that difficult.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-11-28 14:34
NorbertTheParrot wrote:
> Each joint of a bass clarinet is roughly twice the length of
> the equivalent joint of a soprano. Finding and working large
> pieces of wood can't be that difficult.
And the reason you pay $9000 and up for a wooden bass clarinet is ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2007-11-28 14:36
Look closely at a pro-grade bass calrinet. Many of these, fresh from the factory, already ahfve adjustments and repairs from the manufacturer, but they are hard to detect.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-28 14:40
As is evident on my bass - a Buffet Prestige.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2007-11-28 14:44
MarkC wrote: And the reason you pay $9000 and up for a wooden bass clarinet is ...
a) You don't necessarily. Some respectable wooden basses are much cheaper than this.
b) The cost of a top-of-the-range bass is still comparable to the cost of a pair of top-of-the-range sopranos, even though the bass contains two long pieces of wood and the sopranos contain a total of four shorter (and slimmer) pieces.
c) Bass clarinets are priced similarly to oboes of comparable quality. That suggests that the pricing has much more to do with economies of scale and complexity of keywork, than it has to do with the cost of the wood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-11-28 14:49
A VERY FINE pro/con discussion, TKS to all contributors. I'm a ?desirer/lover? of extra-key systems for Boehms, dont know much about German systems. My first good cl was my teacher's P M Full Boehm at age 14?. There have been many [check into the patent files] improvements developed, a few actually [test?] marketed, by and large rejected due to complications, cost, etc, EXCEPT for the big cls as mentioned above, where the advantages overcome simplicity arguments. As I recall Brymer discusses this subject in his book, likely others as well. While our big 4 [et al] offer partial and full Boehm systems, I suggest that the Leblanc developments [by Leon and Vito] were leaders [many patents US and elsewhere] in this desireable modernization of our beloved inst. AM thots, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-11-28 15:10
J.J. the responses here expose the psychology of the clarinet marketplace more than they give any solid technical reasons for commercial instruments hovering a bit behind the keywork possibilities you mention.
For my part, I have played a full Buffet Boehm Bb for almost 40-years. It is a bad horn: stuffy, out of tune. I replaced it with a nearly new Buffet RC a couple of years ago. I certainly would have replaced the old horn with a full Boehm system IF I could have found a good one. If one wants to audition a couple dozen new clarinets, fuggeddabout it.
RC is now in the crack hospital, so I'm doing this week's playing on the old full Boehm horn.
Here are my impressions of the change. I really, really miss the articulated G# and the Bb/Eb available by lifting the left hand middle finger while fingering G#/C# (middle C#). The long altissimo F can be gotten with the articulated G# my opening the throat G# key instead of the G#/C# key. BUT, it took a long time for my new teacher and I to figure that one out!
The G# key is closed when the right hand rings are pressed down. This is mechanized by having the bridge mechanism that makes the 1-1 Bb possible also lift a lever to close the G# tone hole. That puts two simultaneous requirements on the bridge mechanism. That, in turn, makes it hard to adjust. There is ONE twist position between the upper and lower joints that makes both the 1-1Bb and the G# work.
The right hand G#/C# trill key (sliver key on the lower joint) is not much use in most of the pinky-key exercises because you need the third right hand finger to play the long notes.
The left hand Eb/G# key has been part of my pinky-swap planning for all these years, but it has been much easier to "loose" than the articulated G#. I've had to start over and learn to slide pinkies --including the art of deciding which side to set-up for the slide.
I think that the G# tone hole on the top of the instrument (and through the tenon) accumulates less moisture than that in the conventional location on the bottom of my new horn --but that's probably more a matter of where the bore is slickest then the hole position.
I'm much happier with my 17/6 RC that plays more responsively and more in-tune. But, not having the articulated G# is something I have not gotten over in the two years since swapping instruments.
INNOVATION: I'll quit bitchin' about the lack of the articulated G# when someone figures out how to keep spit out of ALL my tone holes.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-28 15:10
"I often practice etudes for non-clarinet instruments and I sometimes find places where a passage would not be possible without the LH Eb."
-----------------------------------------------
There probably isn't a passage written which you (I) can't just slide and make it work.
It may not be easy, but can be done.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cpark
Date: 2007-11-28 17:10
Here's a passage you can't play w/o left hand Eb and you can't slide it:
I will give all the notes, Imagine the final run as sixteenth note triplets starting on the beat, at quarter note = 88
Low C#(left hand pinky is the only option)
Low F#(right)
Low F (left)
Low F#(right)
Low Ab(oh noes!...can't play this one!)
Low Bb
Low B
Notice it's impossible to slide at an earlier juncture to reverse the pinkys so the right pinky is free for the Eb. You would have to maybe slide from the C# to the F#....basically impossible...sliding F# to F is also impossible...also switching fingers on the same key is impossible due to speed.
This is an actual passage that came up in a band piece recently, we had to leave out a note. There was another passage on the same concert, that required a slide but was always sloppy due to the fast tempo.
I don't have an Eb key, but I always think is funny how clarinet players are happy with actually not being able to play certain passages(however rare). Saxophones have rollers and spatula mechanisms to solve this problem, I agree with JJ clarinet design needs to evolve.
Chris
Post Edited (2007-11-28 20:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2007-11-28 18:18
"clarinet players are happy with actually not being able to play certain passages"
But this is true of any instrument. No violinist can play a double-stop of low G and low C. (Other than by retuning.) No pianist can play a chord consisting of C in five octaves. (Other than by using some appendage other than his hands.) Just because notes are present on the instrument, doesn't mean it has to be possible to play them in every possible combination.
As for problems on the clarinet, I'm far more concerned by the lack of any way to play many simple trills. This is much more an issue than the sort of passage cpark describes, which is pretty rare.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-28 18:31
"I'm far more concerned by the lack of any way to play many simple trills."
Which trills have you got in mind?
If anything, clarinets are much better at playing certain trills than other woodwinds, eg. the side keys perform many more functions than just the notes they're named after.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-11-28 18:52
I'm guessing you mean low Ab, cpark? Or is it a piece on bass or on a full boehm?
My philosophy for passages like that is that the composer needs to fix it to match the instrument's capabilities.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-11-28 19:08
One way to handle without sliding is to do a quick "trade". For example, play the F with the L and immediately switch to the R.
Post Edited (2007-11-29 01:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2007-11-28 19:28
I think most of the arguments against clarinets without a middle joint deal with difficulty of tooling and availability of suitable material — grenadilla wood. But I see no reason why hard rubber, plastic, and composite instruments should be limited by these concerns.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-28 19:48
And as far as clarinets being stuck in the 19th Century, why not also consider the other woodwinds whose current design isn't all far off what the new designs were back then.
There's the Boehm system cylindrical flute (in both wood and metal) which is still used and relatively unchanged, the various designs of oboes (thumbplate from the 1800s and full Gillet from 100 years ago - and the Viennese oboe which harks back to an earlier era) and bassoons (both French and German, and contras) and more recent, the saxes, whose keywork is largely based on Selmer's Balanced Action design from the '30s (even though they were invented in the mid 1840s).
Have stringed instruments changed much since the 1800s? What about pianos? The double action pedal harp has been in use since 1810.
It's not just the clarinet that is frozen in time.
What (apart from throat Bb mechanisms which are already standard equipment on Reform Boehms and others) do you want to see on a clarinet that hasn't already been done?
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cpark
Date: 2007-11-28 20:53
Doh! sorry guys, yes that passage included a low Ab(not Eb)...Eb on the brain...
I edited the post.
I agree all instruments have limitations...but to not be able to play a simple string of notes, there are no leaps, double stops etc... it would be nice if a solution to this problem was standard on all horns.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-11-29 03:13
All these key-work options are potentially wonderful, but I'd like instrument makers (and after-market "goop" developers) to figure out how to keep tone holes free of water.
There has to be a long-lived surfactant (or something) that will repel water from the tone holes and send it harmlessly down the bore.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-29 04:08
I wrote "I often practice etudes for non-clarinet instruments and I sometimes find places where a passage would not be possible without the LH Eb."
And David Blumberg responded:
"There probably isn't a passage written which you (I) can't just slide and make it work.
It may not be easy, but can be done."
---------
The above example by cpark is good, but a simpler one is a repition of D#,C#,B at a very high speed. Yes, the slide is possible, but it is not a good as having all the keys on both sides. Is that not the reason that we have the E/B,F/C,F#/C# on both sides in the first place? Do you think it is good technique to make a habit of sliding between middle C and Eb?
Post Edited (2007-11-29 04:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-11-29 13:54
Probably for the same reason the violin is "stuck" in an earlier century.....it works.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-29 14:50
Exactly.
Same applies to the clarinet - it works.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-11-29 15:13
Bob says:
Quote:
Probably for the same reason the violin is "stuck" in an earlier century.....it works.
When I sit and watch bassoonists play, I often marvel at how they can accomplish what they do on that system which is seemingly out of the dark ages.
The clarinet went through many changes earlier, and of course, the change from the older simple systems (Albert and such) were adopted to facilitate ease of playing.
As to clarinet fingerings, it makes me reminisce. I recall studying the Firebird with teachers who seemed to have countless tricks and alternate fingerings to get through the variation movement. When I studied with Marcellus, I asked him what fingerings he suggested. He replied- "All the regular ones, just practice it."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-11-29 16:12
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Ya don't need fancy fingerings for the firebird variation.
Fancy, no.
A few well thought out alternate fingering choices, yes. ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-11-29 16:52
I will give all the notes, Imagine the final run as sixteenth note triplets starting on the beat, at quarter note = 88
Low C#(left hand pinky is the only option)
Low F#(right)
Low F (left)
Low F#(right)
Low Ab(oh noes!...can't play this one!)
Low Bb
Low B
---------------------
Just tried it - lightly tongue the 1st low F# and play it with the left hand (you need to cut off the 1st C# also). Then the other notes are easy (low F in right, etc). Took a few tries, but got it down.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-11-29 17:30
This has been a good thread. I'm pleased with all the responses, even though I still disagree with many of them.
David, come on. Without getting into a debate about when it's okay to leave out a note or change something here and there, just admit that it is not a playable passage as written. Adding a toungue and cutting off a note is not an acceptable solution for this very basic debate.
As for the "it works" arguement, that's completely bogus in my opinion. Being able to get by and manage just fine should never be a justification for not trying to improve something, especially when there are definite areas we can point to as less than ideal. But even putting that aside, we all know that we play repertoire from in the early 1800s that was composed for instruments that were mechanically inferior and undoubtedly more difficult to play that what we have now. I'd say we owe a lot to the developement of different mechanical systems and innovations along the way. Do we now just stop and say that it's perfect?
Comparing the technical complexity of a bassoon to clarinet isn't fair either. Bassoons are outfitted the way they are because they have to be. They need all those keys to deal with the challenges of the bore and all the thin, sideways-drilled holes.
What I'm saying is that we as clarinet players have allowed this "simpler" design to take hold for some reason. But why? How could you not believe that something could be gained from making the new standard a more modern, easier instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-11-29 19:12
J.J.,
Isn't the "french" system clarinet this easier instrument? I think that when the Paris Conservatoire adopted the boehm system instrument it was because it was easier to play than anything else available. After all, lifting up one finger after the other for a scale is very easy.
I agree that the clarinet industry is lacking variety, but whether or not we need a new system to facilitate difficult music I do not know. If works by Carter, Lindberg, Corigliano, Donatoni, etc. are playable on our instruments, I personally don't think the mechanics of the clarinet are the most pressing issue. I really believe that any piece of music written is playable on our instruments. Of course someone can create a hypothetical unplayable passage (if there is such a thing) but that is not music.
I would rather see clarinet makers effort go into creating instruments out of the best possible materials that have a uniquely colorful and matched tone. Oh yeah, good pitch wouldn't hurt either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-11-29 22:12
I don't know the exact date of when the Paris Conservatoire adopted the French system, but I'm pretty sure it was a long, long time ago. Long enough that the title of this thread, sort of a joke, would actually be true.
Keep in mind I'm not talking about a "new system." I'm just talking about additions to the current system like th evolution of practically every other instrument. The issue is not the playability or unplayability of something, but the ease with which we can do it.
Good pitch is precisely what I'm after as well. Are you aware that the register placement and size on pretty much any clarinet is not ideal? The reason it's not is because it also serves the dual function of being expected to sound the pitch Bb. Separating the functions of this hole would lead to all kinds of freedom of proper placement as well as refining the bore itself.
As an aside, could you clarify what you mean by "uniquely colorful and matched tone?" Do you mean matched tone throughout the registers? Otherwise I find the use of "uniquely" and "matched" exclusive. I'm actually all for experiementation with different materials. The Greenline and use of hard rubber has added something new to the mix. I just find it odd to suggest such a change without considering that more could be done to aid the technical facility of the clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2007-11-30 02:16
I was trying to point out that the "easier instrument" you say we need is the clarinet we already have. I think that the boehm system is an incredibly easy instrument to play.
Furthermore, modifications are not going to make the most difficult repertoire much easier to approach. If you cannot play Carter or Donatoni on our clarinet, a few extra keys will not help.
In answer to your aside, I meant that a clarinet should allow the player to sound like an individual. It should help the player achieve a unique sound and a large palette of tonal colors. I also didn't mean to suggest different materials should be used for instruments. Maybe synthetic materials work well, I cannot really say, but I have heard of the big clarinet manufacturers using very poor and under-aged wood for their instruments as of recently. This speculation is what I was referring to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-11-30 11:57
I have the LH Eb on a 1931 Buffet in A. I've come to regard that key as more of a necessity than a convenience--so much so that I can't resist this clarinet, even though I keep telling myself I should save wear and tear on it by practicing on a more modern clarinet in A.
Re. the articulated C#-G#, I'm half-convinced that the vaunted difficulty of keeping this key adjusted may be, if not exactly a myth, an exaggerated bugaboo. I've got that key on several vintage/antique clarinets. I've had far more trouble adjusting the crossover between the normal LH A/Ab throat keys than I've ever had with an articulated key.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-11-30 13:03
One thing about the articulated G# is that you don't have to use it. You can adtust the screw all the way out and the 'feature' of the connection between the RH is removed. You could even cut the key and then you get the long F AND a better placed tone hole.
-
Has anyone found a way to play D#,C#,B repeatedly without the LH D#??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-30 14:22
A lot of gadgets that have been used on clarinets have more often than not been discontinued leaving the basic 17/6 or 18/6 (w/ Ab/Eb) keywork, so I'd suspect in the not too distant future the Buffet Tosca may lose the low F correction vent key.
And with a lot of players, it's the 'why do I need this when I've never needed it before' syndrome.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-11-30 15:58
HEHEH
My 17/6 is in the hospital, so I have to do this week's lesson on my Full Boehm. Interestingly, the etude of the week is in Gb Major.
And there is this half note trill from Cb4 to Db4 ending with grace notes down to Bb4 and back up to the bottom line of the staff. With my articulated G#/C#, its a "noodle." Hold down the C# pinky key, trill both the right forefinger and the Bnatural sliver key. At the end, drop the sliver to get the Bb put it back for the Bnat, lift the right forefinger for the Db.
Other things here, too --like using the TRX0XG#|000 fingering for quick Ab to Bb transitions. A perfect 6-flat key sig reason for all those extra conveniences on a full Boehm horn.
Of course, taking this back for next week's lesson will mean bring it back to suffer through the agony of trying to do this hard stuff with my "better" clarinet.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-11-30 16:00
To make life easier.
Clarinets need the speaker key, the throat A key and the E/B key so there's no gaps between the lower and upper register.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-12-02 09:23
ChrisP- "To make life easier.
Clarinets need the speaker key, the throat A key and the E/B key so there's no gaps between the lower and upper register."
But we have many more keys than those 3.
Do keys really just make life easier or do they make possible the impossible?? There were many things that were not possible on the pre-17/6 clarinets and there are still some things that are not possible. There are still some true limits to the mechanism proper- regardless of the player.
Post Edited (2007-12-02 12:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2007-12-02 12:17
Those were both completely seperate statements, the first was in response to your question (though another message was submitted in between):
Q. Why do we put keys on the clarinet in the first place?
A. To make life easier.
Clarinets need the speaker key, the throat A key and the E/B key so there's no gaps between the lower and upper register.
On the 5-key clarinet (where all the simple and non-Boehm clarinets have evolved from) they need these keys so both the lower and upper registers meet with no gaps. Without any keys, there'd be a large gap between G in the lower and C in the upper as we only have so many fingers that are used to close toneholes with - keys allow toneholes well out of reach to be closed or opened to increase the range.
Now we have many more keys, either by evolution when more and more keys have gradually been added, or a complete redesign whereby a new keywork system was invented (Klose-Buffet's 'Boehm' system) which has proved popular almost the whole world over due to it's simplicity.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2007-12-02 12:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
