 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2008-10-28 23:53
A well considered assessment of clarinet materials.
As a person who has a vintage wooden clarinet and a contemporary hard rubber clarinet, I can only agree. I do believe the vintage wooden clarinet is superior in sound, if not intonation, but that the contemporary clarinet blends well with other materials and has an excellent sound. I also believe that the contemporary clarinet is brighter. Only, my observations and opinions.
Post Edited (2008-10-29 00:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jeeves
Date: 2008-10-29 01:16
My only question is, "If the instrument material doesn't matter, would a metal clarinet sound the same???" It doesn't seem like it. Also, I know this is slightly different, but what if a brass instrument were made out of wood. It would totally not sound right, so it seems as if it does play a role.
Jeeves
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-10-29 05:59
>> My only question is, "If the instrument material doesn't matter, would
>> a metal clarinet sound the same???" It doesn't seem like it
Maybe it doesn't seem like it... but it sounds like it!
>> what if a brass instrument were made out of wood
Loooong time ago, horns were made of wood. Also, a friend of mine has a wood saxophone neck. It sounds different from his metal sax neck, but so does a different metal neck. It still sounds exactly like a saxophone, and so does playing the neck alone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-10-29 10:47
"Also, I know this is slightly different, but what if a brass instrument were made out of wood. It would totally not sound right, so it seems as if it does play a role."
Horns were originally fashioned from animal horns which is indeed where the name 'horn' came from. The Shofar and gemshorn are both instruments made from animal horn, although the Shofar belongs in the brass category and the gemshorn belongs in the woodwind family.
So the material an instrument is made from is irrelevant when it comes to classification.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2008-10-29 10:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-10-29 12:20
From what this article shows, I see a different conclusion than the material not making a difference. First off, from what it says about the vacuum test with the clarinet, I would find from those results that the material does in fact matter, as Backus proved that, even in a very small way, the material does vibrate. And, although its own vibrations are not very loud, they are happening before the air stream is amplified. This would seem to me to show that the material involved shapes the sound. Furthermore, in Coltmans' study on flutes, he used cylindrical tubes, not flutes. These would seem to me to be imporecisely made tubes resembling the look of a flute, but not created by a true flute maker or even a professional musician. Now, I am not a physicist by any means, but the results of these experiments really don't convince me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-10-29 12:26
Interesting exposition of how beliefs can rule one's actions.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2008-10-29 12:45
Interesting conjecture but still too many uncontrolled variables to isolate the potential contribution of material. It does reinforce, at least for me, the top down theory that begins with contribution of the player to the ultimate sound and the role of the mouthpiece and barrel next in importance in forming the characteristics of the fluctuating air column. It also introduces the concept of a feedback loop between the instrument and the mind of the player which is a subjective variable and highly uncontrolled but very influential. Perhaps this is why a great clarinetist will have a similar sound playing disparate instruments?
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-10-30 05:29
The article is very interesting and the flute example raises a good question. Maybe the Delrin headjoint makes the most difference and the body makes almost none??? Maybe it's just the area that the wind travels over that makes the difference??
Are there any blind studies like this with different materials or platings on the head joint and the body being the same??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-10-30 10:29
Benade probably has something to say about this but I can't cite specifics without checking the book. My impression is that flautists have more material fetishes than clarinetists have.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-10-30 13:07
All the flautists I've known have told me that the head joint material/design is critical and dominates the response of the instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-10-30 13:10
I do believe material matters. but the more up you go the more it matters.
I pulled out an old vintage Betcha plastic reed ..... i'll have to make a recording some time but i sounded more like a recorder than a clarinet.
with flutes, I believe the size & shape of the embouchure hole really allows the player to vary the tonal qualities. My old Armstrong 101 v 303 v 80 all had diff sized EHs with the 80 being a large oval compared to the small circularish 101s. and the 101 was more difficult for me to play. Also the 101 was nickel vs the 80 being solid silver.
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-10-30 13:46
> All the flautists I've known have told me that the head joint material/design
> is critical and dominates the response of the instrument.
Might as well be the work that has been invested in such a headjoint.
It probably doesn't make sense to deliver a botch job with a platinum or kryptonite headjoint, nor would someone apply the same amount of fine tuning to a nickel head (eg because that material is hard to work with, or because nickel is frowned upon as being cheap, causes allergies etc etc)
And because people are likely to pay more for a white gold instrument, it makes sense to bury a lot of work there, because this will be your flagship product displayed on CD covers and concert ads, not something you see students whacking each other with.
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that because and when the player thinks that a gold flute sounds better, it will sound better. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-10-30 14:49
If you make /bells/ out of different materials they all sound different. The metal resonates and couples to the air. In a wind instrument the air resonates and couples to the body of the instrument. Same difference, no?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-10-30 17:09
stevesklar wrote:
> but making them out of different material one could argue/ask
> if the internal dimensions are exactly the same as the "other"
> one
The chances of the dimemsions exactly cancelling out the variations between each material is miniscule at best.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-10-30 18:11
Ahhh....yes I think you've hit on it there, David...
It's all about what ears are listening to any given sound. My students frequently do not hear things that I hear. And I'm sure you'd hear more in my playing than I do. And I'm sure the "names" (i.e. Sabine, Ricardo, Karl, etc...) would hear even more!
It's more about the training those ears have too...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: leonardA
Date: 2008-10-30 20:42
All I know is that I was anazed at the beautiful sound my teacher produced with my plastic Vito.
Leonard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2008-10-30 20:54
Subject for endless discussion, but surely great players can produce the desirable timbre on all the materials mentioned.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-10-30 21:02
Ah, if I only knew what timbre really meant.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2008-10-31 16:13
Timbre--- if you have to ask you should ask your teacher, your director, or, read the sometimes amusing article on the web. All things to all people. Maybe you should not ask your director; it might be embarrasing.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Geirskogul
Date: 2008-10-31 16:57
The wiki article on "Timbre" is a good place to start.
Post Edited (2008-10-31 16:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sbrodt54
Date: 2008-10-31 19:14
<<<<Furthermore, in Coltmans' study on flutes, he used cylindrical tubes, not flutes. These would seem to me to be imporecisely made tubes resembling the look of a flute, but not created by a true flute maker or even a professional musician. Now, I am not a physicist by any means, but the results of these experiments really don't convince me.>>>
I was also not very impressed with the controls or the research. I'm rather certain that the material does make a huge difference in the tone quality of the instrument whether it's a clarinet or a trumpet.
One person that did a great deal of precise work in this area is the late Renold Schilke, please take the time to read his article on brass acoustical effects at:
http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/Brass%20Clinic.html
It's very well written and knowing Renold, very well researched. I'm pretty sure he tried his best to keep control factors as accurate as possible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-10-31 21:12
Timbre has no agreed upon meaning so asking anyone is pointless.....including Wiki. What's your definition....Dick?
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-10-31 21:21
Katrina wrote:
"It's all about what ears are listening to any given sound. My students frequently do not hear things that I hear. And I'm sure you'd hear more in my playing than I do. And I'm sure the "names" (i.e. Sabine, Ricardo, Karl, etc...) would hear even more"
But it doesn't matter what Sabine hears. We are playing for an audience of concertgoers, not an audience of experts. What matters is what the concertgoers hear.
If 99% of my audience thought I played well, how happy would I be......
.......
Leonard wrote:
"All I know is that I was anazed [sic] at the beautiful sound my teacher produced with my plastic Vito."
Sure, a good player can produce a beautiful sound on (almost) any instrument. The difference is not the sound the player makes. The difference is how hard he has to work to make that sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-10-31 21:28
NorbertTheParrot wrote:
> Sure, a good player can produce a beautiful sound on (almost)
> any instrument. The difference is not the sound the player
> makes. The difference is how hard he has to work to make that
> sound.
Hmm. Unless the instrument is leaking etc, it shouldn't be harder at all.
Give me my mouthpiece and any kind of clarinet and I will mostly sound like myself. And if the instrument added an odd timbre, I'd probably have no means of removing it anyway.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-10-31 21:49
Its how the player feels that he sounds that counts the most. If you don't feel good about a performance, doesn't matter what the critics think.
And a really good player is never 100% happy, usually not even close to that.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-10-31 23:19
Norbert said, in response to my post:
"But it doesn't matter what Sabine hears. We are playing for an audience of concertgoers, not an audience of experts. What matters is what the concertgoers hear.
If 99% of my audience thought I played well, how happy would I be......"
That's my point. Many laypeople cannot hear the differences between clarinetists much less clarinets!
Why do you think loud bombastic concerts of various kinds of rock are the norm?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2008-10-31 23:33
True, but that's not our typical audience.
Bunch of old folks usually....
They ARE the people that we have to keep happy as they are our patrons. But the satisfaction in what we sound like has to come from within. The better we get, the higher the personal bar is raised. That keeps a player from getting lazy.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-11-01 11:44
"Bunch of old folks usually...."
Where the heck did I leave my ear trumpet, Maud?
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-11-01 16:08
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Except for the music students, most of the Classical audiences
> are not younger than 60. And many are over 70. As long as they
> keep replenishing....
It's all a question of marketing. I don't want to take Rondo Veneziano as a poster group, but certainly there can be done more about bringing classical music to "the masses".
Now, what colour would you like you Town Car in, Sir? I am sorry to inform you that our models with progressive-focal windshields only come in phosphorescent colours.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
