 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-14 03:10
Have any one tried the Nagamatsu mouthpieces?
I received a catalog from their sales person in
Japan and saw some specially designed " high
tech" accessories/ligatures/mouthpieces..
just wonder whether they actually will work out or not
I was very amazed that how much creativity they
have in their product design and the technology
behind seems unlimited. on the other hand, i feel
so sorry for the mouthpiece maker in US/Canada
most of their product is inherited totally from
the legendary stuff like Kaspar or Chedeville
and they seems get no better than the old ones
why can't N.American mouthpiece maker be more
creative and get into some new design instead
of follow the tradition? I don't think the technology
is not available here, i just think their business
stand point is very short sighted. they have not brought
any new element into the mouthpiece design for the future
and therefore we will not expect something comes out
in the near future than the better than the Kaspar
or chedeville... etc ...
how do you guys think? I am not being offensive
I just think there need some changes in this mouthpiece
world!!
Jake
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-03-14 03:43
Jake wrote:
-------------------------------
on the other hand, i feel
so sorry for the mouthpiece maker in US/Canada
most of their product is inherited totally from
the legendary stuff like Kaspar or Chedeville
and they seems get no better than the old ones
why can't N.American mouthpiece maker be more
creative and get into some new design instead
of follow the tradition
---
Believe me, they <b>do</b> try ... but just because something is new doesn't mean it's any better, and a maker of new [whatever] has to be in it for the long run since it will take quite a while for something new to be tested and become something other than a novelty. Take a look at the number of different kinds of ligatures, and check again in five years. Maybe 10% of the current "new & improved" ligatures will still be around.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-14 04:09
Mark Charette wrote:
-------------------------------
Believe me, they <b>do</b> try ... but just because something is new doesn't mean it's any better, and a maker of new [whatever] has to be in it for the long run since it will take quite a while for something new to be tested and become something other than a novelty. Take a look at the number of different kinds of ligatures, and check again in five years. Maybe 10% of the current "new & improved" ligatures will still be around.
-------------------------------------------------------
however , i believe you won't believe the old design
is the best as time goes by right? but in this place
we just need some pioneer with good knowledge
and skill stand out and do their business in that way
however, most famous makers i saw stick to the
traditional design. the question is there any possible better design? the answer is definetly <b>YES</b>
but seems no one is being able to find one..
is this becuase of technological problem or
they run their business in a profit stand point?
America has the best technology in the world, but
why none of the maker can use it to make a better
mouthpiece?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-03-14 04:13
I agree with Mark, however, I would add that old tech mouthpieces and ligatures were good enough for the contemporary players (Goodman, Lazarus, Bellison, etc.). For me, once I found the right facing on a mp, I don't worry about the equipment anymore. I do confess to a Rovner lig but I only really bought it because it's easier to fix into place having one screw instead of two. A good player will be able to adapt to whatever reasonable equipment they have. It only took me about a week or two to adapt from a very closed facing to a very open facing. I don't recall ever seeing a photo of Benny Goodman with anything other than a standard screws on the bottom ligature.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-14 04:37
Rick2 wrote:
-------------------------------
I agree with Mark, however, I would add that old tech mouthpieces and ligatures were good enough for the contemporary players (Goodman, Lazarus, Bellison, etc.). For me, once I found the right facing on a mp, I don't worry about the equipment anymore. I do confess to a Rovner lig but I only really bought it because it's easier to fix into place having one screw instead of two. A good player will be able to adapt to whatever reasonable equipment they have. It only took me about a week or two to adapt from a very closed facing to a very open facing. I don't recall ever seeing a photo of Benny Goodman with anything other than a standard screws on the bottom ligature.
----------------------------------------------
Benny Goodman is a very good player, and none
of us on this board comparable to him
and his technique surely make it possible to use
most of the equipment, but how many of us have
such flawless skill? you are saying we should
totally depend on technique to cover up the
defects in equipment which i think it is
not correct in the idea of clarinet design.
clarinet/mouthpiece are made for players
for easier life, if all people like you
think the current avaialable clarinet/mouthpiece
is good enough, than 100 years later, most players
will still be playing a R-13 with Bonade inverted
but i am sure this will not be true since technology
is avaialable, we can play easier and better with
the same technique but better equipment if some
one in this area use the technology.
just like when computer was first invented, programmer
wrote programs in machine code and later assmebly code
which make life like hell, now we have much higher
level programming language make our life easier
and the computer is designed for all level of people
not only professionals. it is true that in the old
days, programmer can still make result with machine
code and assembly code, however now we can code
much efficient and easier with better results
and i think this is analogous to have a better
equipment of clarinet for our future. do you
agree?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-03-14 13:22
Jake wrote:
-------------------------------
just like when computer was first invented, programmer
wrote programs in machine code and later assmebly code
which make life like hell, now we have much higher
level programming language make our life easier
and the computer is designed for all level of people
not only professionals.
---
Jake, I never considered it "hell", and we still use assembly code in time critical sections. In fact, most of the code produced by modern compilers is horribly bloated - but it <i>is</i> much faster to write. The "efficiency" and "better results" you speak of are highly debatable. When's the last time you tried to compile an optimized version MySQL's relatively simple parser with less than a 600 Mb of swap using gcc?
Back to clarinet stuff ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-03-14 13:41
Another thing with mouthpieces and clarinet equipment is that clarinets have been around now for approximately 200 years. There has been substantial development in that time in every area. Musicians have always sought easier to play, better sounding equipment. So it is possible that clarinets and equipment are already relatively advanced in design and have been so for decades now. Improvements are apt to be very small and incremental.
Today's equipment is already outstanding in intonation, tone, playability, and flexibility. It is now up to the player to sound good after picking the combination that suits him. Suiting the player is also a big element. You spoke of the polycylindrical R-13. It happens I don't like it and it doesn't suit me. With your approach, all makers would make the same thing and I would not be able to choose what plays well for me.
Beginners sound like beginners even on the finest, most advanced and most expensive equipment made. No matter what changes occur to the equipment, this will remain true. Advanced players will sound like advanced players no matter what they play.
Also for new designs to become economically feasible, you have to convince satisfied players to switch to that new design. If I am satisfied with my Vandoren B45 mouthpiece, why should I change?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-03-14 21:46
I never claimed that anyone on this board is as good as Benny Goodman, though I could debate that with the participation in other areas of of the board of the likes of Sherman Friedland and others, but that point is moot. Besides, I could be professional with a major symphony for all you know (I am not).
Dee's points are right on the mark. Improvements will be subtle these days. It's not likely that there will be the equivilent of the Albert to Boehm system conversion left to do to this instrument without transforming it into something else. (I personally don't even consider Albert and Boehm sytem horns to really be the same instrument.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 1999-03-15 00:59
I bought a Nagamatsu mouthpiece around 1987.Its shape is characterised by a wall standing at the center of the chamber palallel to the stream.At first I liked its smooth feeling.But after I acquired a Kasper-cicero I felt it somewhat monotonous.
One thing:Nagamatsu does not boast that their products are produced by scientific analyses.They only say ideas came out from Mr.Nagamatsu(a professional clarinetist) and they applied the ideas to their products and listened to the results:if they liked the results they start to sell them.
They do not use big words "scientific","science",or "technology".
http://www.c-d-k.or.jp/~nkk-plan/index.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-15 01:03
Mark Charette wrote:
-------------------------------
---
Jake, I never considered it "hell", and we still use assembly code in time critical sections. In fact, most of the code produced by modern compilers is horribly bloated - but it <i>is</i> much faster to write. The "efficiency" and "better results" you speak of are highly debatable. When's the last time you tried to compile an optimized version MySQL's relatively simple parser with less than a 600 Mb of swap using gcc?
Back to clarinet stuff ...
-----------------------------------
I guess you have missed the most recent compiler
optimization ability. the modern compiler move
the codes like magic ... and i hope someday
there will be an clarinet like that ^_^
Jake
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-15 01:13
Dee wrote:
-------------------------------
Also for new designs to become economically feasible, you have to convince satisfied players to switch to that new design. If I am satisfied with my Vandoren B45 mouthpiece, why should I change?
-----------------------
well your point is totally from the player's point of view
I am talking about the development of the equipment
and more look at the things from manufacturing and
developing of the clarinet and accessories.
back to 100 years ago, if every one were like you
said why we need to change because we are happy with
our clarinet, i forgot how many keys it had but it
was simply a recorder style instrument. then 100 years
later today, we are playing the same instrument
but the fact is, we are not playing the same instrument
because there are some great man like Tom Ridenour
or others have stand out and modify the clarinet
and try to improve it in every aspect as he can;
if everyone think like you, which instrument are
you playing ? a recorder style clarinet?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-15 01:26
Hiroshi wrote:
-------------------------------
One thing:Nagamatsu does not boast that their products are produced by scientific analyses.They only say ideas came out from Mr.Nagamatsu(a professional clarinetist) and they applied the ideas to their products and listened to the results:if they liked the results they start to sell them.
They do not use big words "scientific","science",or "technology".
---------------------------------------------------------
their web page said their equipment was developed
based on Mr. Nagamatsu's 20 years research
and on my catalog, it said their research has
been deeply involved with physics, acoustics
knowledges. just take a look of their product
for example the reed activitor which use the
electricity current to make the reed more
lively, if there is no scientific knowledge support
it, how he make it? also do you think his creativity
is really neat? take a look at another product:
the new reed with a weird tail shape, you think someone
just imagine the shape and make it without use
technological/scientific knowledge?
i don't think so, my common sense said so
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 1999-03-15 02:19
Jake,
I am not saying that we should not change. I get a new computer every couple of years because they are changing, developing and IMPROVING so fast that a two year old computer just cannot do the job in many cases. But clarinets are not like computers. They are more basic like spoons. Afterall how much have spoons improved in the last century?
I hope the researchers DO keep working on the clarinet. That way we will have more choices.
The changes that we have today came from the _PLAYERS'_ points of view and need for better equipment. If the players did not want a proposed change, it died. That same market force is in operation today. However once an item has reached a mature design, there simply are no major developments left. The clarinet falls into this category. This is a hard thought to accept as it means that there is no magic clarinet or mouthpiece or reed out there waiting to be discovered that will make a person a great clarinet player. It's like sports. No matter how good a running shoe is developed, the runner must still train or he'll be beaten by the guy in the discount sneakers.
Between the many clarinets, ligatures, mouthpieces, and reeds out there, you can achieve just about any degree of tonal color that you want.
There is no one perfect design. The laws of physics won't permit it. A change that leads to perfect intonation throughout the clarinet range would throw off the tone color. Designing for gorgeous tone color makes achieving perfect intonation impossible. Every clarinet design is a compromise because you are trying to address several different mathematical principals that operate in differing directions.
You could add a lot more keys for alternate fingerings to allow more choices for intonation versus tone color or to make difficult passages easier to play but that tends to be impractical as well as expensive. Today the forked Eb-Bb, the articulated G#, and the additional key for the left hand little finger are available and only a few people buy them. For many the improvement in fingering is simply not worth the expense.
You cannot ignore market forces. The Boehm system as applied to clarinet is over 100 years old but it did not really catch on until the early 1900s due to the cost of the additional keywork. Why did it catch on? Because it was difficult to play many passages on the older systems AND as manufacturing advanced, the price became reasonable and so the players bought them.
The narrow bore design and polycylindrical designs are considered advancements also yet there are still players who prefer the big bore instruments and non-polycylindrical designs. It is not because they don't want to change but because they prefer those characteristics. There are some players who learned on the modern narrow bore polycylindrical horns who chose to go the older style to take advantage of its features.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 1999-03-15 03:52
Jake:
I only replied what I felt after using their mouthpiece.
I bought also a reed activator and an electron charger.I felt like this.
Reed activator:I like it.it just makes small waves on the lower surface of the reed and makes four small convex foots to make it vibrate easily.Yes it works too my feeling.
Electrical charger:this is based on their theory about how musical instruments vibrate.If elecrons are dispatched irregulary its vibration is hampered.I did not recognize anything different compared to when I did not use it.
I found a same kind of "US" people to cyrogenic-treat metal instruments:they say residual stress during manufacturing process can be removed and they sound better.
http://www.thebrassbow.com/brassbw1.htm
(Technology or science aside,it seems reasonable since saxohpone,trumpet,trombones are shaped and bended with ice inside:Residual stress will be relieved if they exposed to very much lower temperature).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick2
Date: 1999-03-15 04:02
I still maintain that almost everyone would be better off simply working on thier technique rather than looking for some high tech solution to make things easier. The only thing I would run out and buy right now would be a completely electric clarinet that can be played using headphones and be silent to the outside world, and then only because it would substantially expand the number of practice hours I have available.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-15 06:59
Dee wrote:
-------------------------------
>They are more basic like spoons. Afterall how much have >spoons improved in the last century?
I would not think clarinet is like a spoon,
how many knowledge you need to produce
a spoon and how many knowledge you need to
produce a good clarinet? clarinet is the
tool for express our artistic mind and it
require a much higher level of perfection
>There is no one perfect design. The laws of physics won't >permit it. A change that leads to perfect intonation >throughout the clarinet range would throw off the tone >color. Designing for gorgeous tone color makes achieving >perfect intonation impossible. Every clarinet design is a >compromise because you are trying to address several >different mathematical principals that operate in >differing directions.
however, if you compare your current clarinet to the
clarinet people have 100 years ago, do you agree
that your clarinet has better intonation, tonal color
and almost every aspect get better? there are
some design will lead to overall improvement
and some will lead to partial improvement and
throw away some good element. from a engineering
design stand point, it is the manufacturer's responsibility
to find the design that will improve the clarinet
in almost every aspect. maybe something like
improve 100 elements of the tone and make 1 element
get worse is considered as overall improvement
I just think the current manufacturer are too
satisfied with their products and sell it for
total profit, i have heard Buffet produce
each clarinet within 8 hours; you think it
has been tuned properly?
Jake
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-15 07:05
Rick2 wrote:
-------------------------------
I still maintain that almost everyone would be better off simply working on thier technique rather than looking for some high tech solution to make things easier. The only thing I would run out and buy right now would be a completely electric clarinet that can be played using headphones and be silent to the outside world, and then only because it would substantially expand the number of practice hours I have available.
----------------------------------------------------
working on technique is one thing, improving
the instrument is another thing, they are not
mutually exclusive, why people want to be so
narrow minded? because everyone did not think
the product could be made better, than there
is no demand in the market to push the manufacturer
to produce better clarinet. i am not expecting
a perfect clarinet, but at least i think the
current models available are far from perfection
in both workmanship and design.
I have heard Selmer made a revolutionary clarinet
call Signature which was recommended by Master Tom
Ridenour, I hope i have chance to try it out.
so is there any contradiction that i work on
my technique and try out different new design
and adapt my technique with the new desgin
if i think it is overally better?
Jake
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-03-16 02:22
Jake wrote:
-------------------------------
I guess you have missed the most recent compiler
optimization ability. the modern compiler move
the codes like magic ... and i hope someday
there will be an clarinet like that ^_^
---
Jake,
Be careful. I am a computer scientist working on some of the most modern equipment for the automobile companies in 3D graphics (I was a member of ANSI X3H3.1, where I helped define the Programmers' Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System - PHIGS, and PHIGS+) and I work in crash simulation using advanced math codes. I know what computers and languages can do and what they can't. I can hand-roll Cray and Alpha codes 3 or 4 delayed branches deep - compilers are lucky to do 2.
What can/have <b>you</b> done?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-16 05:06
Mark Charette wrote:
-------------------------------
Be careful. I am a computer scientist working on some of the most modern equipment for the automobile companies in 3D graphics (I was a member of ANSI X3H3.1, where I helped define the Programmers' Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System - PHIGS, and PHIGS+) and I work in crash simulation using advanced math codes. I know what computers and languages can do and what they can't. I can hand-roll Cray and Alpha codes 3 or 4 delayed branches deep - compilers are lucky to do 2.
What can/have <b>you</b> done?
------------------------------------
I have spend 6 work terms in a world famous company
(keep it anoymnous here) doing compiler optimization
for its developing studio
i know machine code can get a real optimal running
code, but compiler can get you a almost optimal
code with a ratio bound < 1.2 , so which one you
prefer? code in machine code or in higher level
language like C++ and get similar results?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jake
Date: 1999-03-16 05:11
Mark Charette wrote:
-------------------------------
What can/have <b>you</b> done?
--------------------------------
by they way, i am able to craft/optimize a
compiler from scratch either in team or
individually, i am not showing off my qualification
but just let you know our computer skill are not
are that far apart although you are a professional
and i am just a new grad.
Jake
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-03-16 12:00
Jake wrote:
------------------------------------
I have spend 6 work terms in a world famous company
(keep it anoymnous here) doing compiler optimization
for its developing studio
i know machine code can get a real optimal running
code, but compiler can get you a almost optimal
code with a ratio bound < 1.2 , so which one you
prefer?
---
Jake,
You're young, so I'll let this slide. (1.2 is average - in math codes ratios of 2-1 are more common, even using Fortran, which runs math much better than C or C++).
The subject is now officially dropped - for both me & you. We've drifted way off subject.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 1999-03-17 05:35
Jake:
An "American" Trumpet manufacturer does manufacture revolutionary trumpets.Its name is Monette.Winton Marsalis uses this one.
http://www.monette.net/ajna.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
