 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Arhoolie
Date: 2009-03-04 17:20
As a new clarinetist with minimal stamina, who is also playing-in an instrument, I'm currently very aware of constantly putting together and taking apart my horn.
This caused me to wonder why all clarinets seem to be in multiple parts. I realise historically there may have been limits to what craftsmen could do and that joining several pieces together was the only practical way to build them.
But surely with technology it should be possible to make a one piece instrument - certainly fusing the bell and its two nearest neighbours into a single section with perhaps a separate barrel and mouthpiece? If its tough to get long enough sections of wood it surely isn't an issue with plastic. And would a clarinet of fewer sections not be sonically better?
The joins seem to be the home of so many potential problems - leaks, dried up cork, damp cork, swelling, poor fit......It seems beneficial to remove them if possible.
I am sure there must be reasons its not done. Just wondering what they are.
Post Edited (2009-03-04 17:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2009-03-04 17:26
There are some "boutique" that have one-piece bodies (Rossi comes to mind) but in the current production situation the issue that first springs to mind for me is the wood.
Usable pieces of wood the size to make a one piece body are not easy to come by...and I wonder if they are more prone to being unable to survive the machining process.
I'm certain that there will be more thoughts in various areas, but this is surely one of them.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-03-04 17:36
Arhoolie wrote:
<<I am sure there must be reasons its not done. Just wondering what they are.>>
Well, here are four:
1. For tuning purposes, it's nice to be able to make tuning adjustments at the middle joint or at the bell.
2. People like being able to buy aftermarket bells, as well as barrels.
3. With a two-piece middle section, you can buy a basset extension to play Mozart with instead of buying a whole new instrument.
4. Some avant-garde pieces require that you have an instrument that you can disassemble into top and bottom halves. For example, take this piece by William O. Smith....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrtA64_U_kI
By the way, for Eb clarinets, a one-piece middle section is normal (although the mouthpiece, barrel, and bell are usually separate).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2009-03-04 17:51
More advantages of the two-piece body:
- Smaller case (huge advantage IMO)
- MUCH easier to find problems, do repairs, etc.
- Probably easier to make (for several reasons)
These plus all the advantages other mentioned (and probably more I forget) are IMO a lot more important than the disadvantages. In addition, pretty much all disadvantages you mentioned of the joints are possible to fix. If you have a one-piece clarinet you are stuck with it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-04 17:58
And if a one-piece bodied clarinet splits, you will have to replace the entire body section as opposed to the top joint if it can't be repaired.
What is funny is the Leblanc A basset clarinet is made with a one-piece body - Selmers and Buffets have the standard top joint with the basset lower joint.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2009-03-04 18:14
A good discussion and very good reasons for "2 bodied clarinets". I'd add the great advantage of the ability to replace a joint [upper or lower, or bell/barrel] in cas of severe cracking [the U J in partic]. The lower joint of my pro[expensive] bass cl has been replaced as evidenced by differing serial #'s,but very satisfactory, and prob. much less costly than a full replacement as would be re: my Pruefer single-bodied Bb. With inst. quality Grenadilla becomming scarce, a single body wood would be prohibitively costly. Plastics could be single with long cases! PM thots, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-03-04 19:13
I agree with all the above mentioned answers. Good question, good answers. ESP
www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-03-04 19:27
One further aspect at least with quality instruments is the fine tuning required e.g. undercutting toneholes and putting small perturbations in the bore to optimise tuning/tone/response etc.
the fine finish on the bore is also achieved using specially profiled reamers which would be much more difficult or even impossible to make in one long piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-04 20:29
I reckon there's no real reason a plastic clarinet couldn't be made with a one-piece body, or even entirely in one piece with integral bell and barrel. You can use tuning rings in the mouthpiece socket if need be.
The case will be like a metal clarinet or straight soprano sax case (or a tubular plastic affair as seen on eBay) which isn't exactly compact unlike some well designed small cases for standard jointed clarinets.
You will need to mount the LH rings on a single rod screw running through them (like an Eb clarinet) that has a point for the RH ring keys replacing the upper point screw.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2009-03-04 20:49
Very good, Chris, I can see that you already have it designed, and some? problems solved as well. I'm afraid that using the very long rod for the two ring stacks isn't patentable [per se] since thats the way my Pruefer is built, and other "novelties" with attached barrel and bell are somewhat old. Perhaps there might be a cost-of-manufacture advantage in a "student/beginner" inst. sufficient to overturn our long-time methods ??? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-04 20:57
If tenons and sockets are considered a 'neccessary evil' in wooden clarinets (I think that's how Jack Brymer labelled them in his book), they can be done away with in one-piece plastic ones. Less is more - and the one remaining metal socket ring at the top end could also be done away with too.
Maybe more expensive versions in carbon fibre could be made.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arhoolie
Date: 2009-03-04 22:02
Perhaps its because I play heavy brass ringed five string banjo and guitar that a bigger clarinet case doesn't phase me!
I appreciate all the points people have made. It strikes me though that for child's beginner instruments made out of plastic or even more advanced ones made from ebonite, there is surely a niche for a one piece, cheaper, less trouble-prone horn.
And I do wonder if sonically there should be an improvement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris J
Date: 2009-03-04 22:06
Chris
You beat me to the comparison with metal clarinets, so for Arhoolie - here is a single piece clarinet....
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-04 22:13
The other advantage with one-piece clarinets is the C#/G# tonehole can be sited in its correct place and also larger in diameter to give a much better tone quality C#/G# (and altissimo F) than some clarinets have.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2009-03-05 04:16
As Clarnibass wrote, "MUCH easier to find problems, do repairs, etc." with 2-piece.
This should not be underestimated.
Arhoolie wrote ".... there is surely a niche for a one piece, cheaper, less trouble-prone horn."
I think that all things considered, one piece is possibly more expensive and troublesome.
Other advantages:
1. When you sit on a two-piece, or trip and land on it, the centre tenon breaks, and is relatively simple to deal with using a graft. A one-piece would break in a splintered mess, very difficult to repair.
2. I suspect that a fair bit of timber is found to be unsatisfactory during the machining processes. Some joints would be patched up, but my guess is that some are discarded. For a one-piece, you discard twice as much timber and work. Hence greater expense.
3. Think about removing a stuck swab. Even the alligator forceps would not reach in far enough.
4. Far less access to the bore if that should be necessary for dealing with an internal split. (I've never seen one, but some technicians deal with them.)
4. More difficult to hold rigid for machining the tone holes etc. Hence less precision?
When I work on a one piece bass clarinet which is really a two piece with a securing clamp, I am so appreciative that the manufacturer did this. I can unclamp to make a two piece, and work on it so much more easily.
Post Edited (2009-03-05 04:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: blazian
Date: 2009-03-05 04:35
My FB clarinet is close to one piece body-wise. The case is a little longer than I'd like and is meant for the whole clarinet, including the mouthpiece, to be left together. The six rings on the front are all on two rods. One from the bottom and one from the top, both ending in points for the C#/G# key near the middle. IMHO it's easier for me to take apart.
- Martin
Post Edited (2009-03-05 04:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2009-03-05 04:58
>> Perhaps its because I play heavy brass ringed five string banjo and guitar that a bigger clarinet case doesn't phase me! <<
Actually, I carry a bass clarinet most of the time, so carrying the bigger one-piece clarinet case is not a problem because it's bigger. Actually, it isn't really bigger, just longer. In the rare occasion that I don't need my bass clarinet, I carry just my soprano in its small case, and put it in a backpack, with other things (if I don't need anything I'll cary just the small clarinet case which has a shoulder strap). A one-piece clarinet case wouldn't fit in a regular backpack, which means I need to buy an unusually huge backpack, or carry two things, in a considerably less comfortable way.
This is what why I meant the smaller case is much better.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-05 11:31
What are all of your general thoughts on a one-piece plastic bodied clarinet that's made entirely in one piece with integral barrel and bell?
Would the pros outweigh the cons, or is it a recipie for disaster?
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-05 12:50
Come on now, you can elaborate a bit more on that!
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2009-03-05 13:54
Disaster.
Most reasons already given.
The players would not stand for that, because whatever barrel you give them, they want to change it for one that is perceived as better. :-)
(Over-generalisation of course :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris J
Date: 2009-03-05 14:11
Would it significantly reduce production costs, assuming it would be made in a man-made material?
A good student clarinet is not cheap, and students are still quite skilled at breaking them. If a well machined, all be it by a robot, single bodied starter clarinet was made that played well there might be a market if was significantly less expensive than a 4 part body, especially if replacement cost less than repair.
Perhaps it should be biodegradable with trade-in concessions for a new one to recycle the keys.....
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-03-05 14:20
> Would it significantly reduce production costs, assuming it would be made in
> a man-made material?
Not sure - just think of all the new tools that are required. No interchangeable parts etc etc.
Okay, the keywork could be made a lil' cheaper...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KV
Date: 2009-03-06 02:54
In the high school marching band it wasn't so "cool" to be the "odd" one out. Back in the stone age when i went to school, we were all poor and using old attic instruments ans such. The kid with the one piece was like bringing a ferret to a cat show. it was neat, but it didn't have the artistic qualities that made us feel like a unit. The band was a unit and we gave up individuality to become a piect of this unit with one great sound.
Let's face it. Most of us didn't have the private lessons and we were struggling to learn from the older kids as well as the band director and just learn to play our Sousa Marches. This wasn't "Jazz' band where each instrumentalist had to develop a style. The skinny silver clarinet guy soon found himself a 'real" clarinet and started to fit in.
Remember this was the stone age and Benny Goodman and Arnie Shaw were still riding high--Also Sigurd Rascher. ( Not sure why my clarinet repair person Eric Klipphahn boasted on his business card that he 'repaired for Benny Goodman and Siguro Rascher) I was impressed I still have the card saved in my clarinet case.
Just my idea why the single unit silver clarinet died. Like shoulder pads, we declared it out of fashion.
kimvawter72@cox.net
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
