 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2011-01-21 04:25
This argument again... Basically the only way to settle the argument would be to make two instruments that were absolutely identical dimensionally out of different material and then test them. Unfortunately since no two materials machine exactly the same way this would be nearly impossible to actually do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Reedirect
Date: 2011-01-21 05:11
mmmh, one could indeed do so...
take the Yamaha YCL 250 and the 450 (ABS versus Grenadilla, but otherwise as close to "identical" as possible) and give it a try with the same player, using the same mouthpiece and reed and the same tune, place it blinded at Youtube and ask the auditorium which is which.
I bet, we would be surprised
Best
Jo
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 06:23
Reedirect wrote:
> take the Yamaha YCL 250 and the 450 (ABS versus Grenadilla, but
> otherwise as close to "identical" as possible)
R13 and R13 Greenline would be even closer.
> and give it a try with the same player, using the same mouthpiece
> and reed and the same tune, place it blinded at Youtube and ask the
> auditorium which is which.
I think it has been established that the audience wouldn't hear the difference between wood and non-wood (greenline, resin, hard-rubber, yes, even metal). The only one who feels a difference in the hands and claims to hear the difference is the player.
> I bet, we would be surprised
No, I don't think so. ;-)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RJShaw0
Date: 2011-01-21 06:52
tictactux wrote:
>R13 and R13 Greenline would be even closer.
But even Greenline vs Grenadilla makes a difference. I tried some Greenline/Grenadilla Toscas and the sound difference was quite incredible. In one hand I had a thin, but very loud, "flat" sounding instrument (in comparison to the other Toscas), and in the other I had a clear, focused, dark tone.
I chose the latter, which happened to be Grenadilla.
That being said, even the Greenline Toscas were an exceptional jump from what I used to play on.
As for the optimum material, who knows, maybe we'll all playing on PVC in 100 years.
Just my 2 cents worth...
RJS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Reedirect
Date: 2011-01-21 07:41
RJShaw0 wrote:>
> As for the optimum material, who knows, maybe we'll all playing
> on PVC in 100 years.> RJS
Once global warming has put an end to wood harvesting, well, yes.
However, personally, I would be VERY VERY glad to play on PVC in 100 years. Assuming that playing a clarinet with 150 years of age would imply quite a decent physical condition. ;-)
Best
Jo
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-01-21 09:42
My Greenline vs. Blackwood comparison was closer than the above. Personally I feel the two were quite similar. There is a bit more "carrying power" to the blackwood version in that it has just a bit more vibrancy. This, however, is ONLY picked up in a side by side comparison. Playing the Greenline in a performance setting would not be noticeable to any degree whatsoever. In addition, the Greenline material is stable, so there is no settling after the initial construction of the instrument. This gives the Greenline the advantage of having a more consistent internal pitch from instrument to instrument.
I would probably prefer utility horns (bass and Eb) of Greenline from this point out.
.....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2011-01-21 10:18
Howarth made several PVC-bodied S1 clarinets back in the '90s - the biggest problem they faced was prejudice as plastic instruments don't command the respect wooden ones do and were deemed 'student' instruments even though they underwent the same manufacturing process the wooden ones went through, though plastic ones are more difficult to manufacture as the swarf doesn't clear during turning, the risk of melting is higher so some operations (eg. drilling the bore, cutting toneholes, bedplaces, etc) have to be taken slower, fitting pillars without stripping the threads in the body and getting a highly polished and uniform finish all takes longer.
PVC-bodied oboes and cors were also made as well as those with PVC top joints, so PVC is a viable material but will have the usual problems associated with plastic - mainly thermal expansion/contraction and the notoriously weak middle tenon. Has to be said the all-PVC cors didn't have the same tonal weight/depth as their wooden counterparts and were more 'blary' in comparison. Ones with a PVC top joint only had the better sound, but still not as much tonal depth as an all-wooden one.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2011-01-21 15:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2011-01-21 14:30
Science also says that a curve ball doesnt curve-go figure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cxgreen48
Date: 2011-01-21 15:06
I actually have compared the Yamaha 250 and 450 side-by-side and found them extremely similar. The 450 did seem to have slightly more "depth" in sound in the chalumeau register; this wasn't as apparent in the clarion register though. (Just my experience, not really scientifically proving anything.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2011-01-21 15:16
The problem with simply comparing instruments of the same model but different materials is that you don't know if any differences in tone that you hear are due to the material difference or slight differences in the dimensions of the instruments. It is relatively common when comparing multiple instruments of the same make, model, and material to find some that play well and others that play not so well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 15:21
Even if the two instruments could be made to precisely identical specifications, people would still argue: "It's not the *best* grenadilla! This other grenadilla is better / worse / denser / older / regurgitated by Cthulhu...."
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: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-01-21 15:23
I have a dissertation wherein gold, aluminum and silver alloys were made into flutes with various wall thicknesses. Simple flutes with no key work.
Spectral analyses were made of the sound produced by the, and they could not be distinguished.
In your comparison between Greenline and wooden Buffets, don't forget the substantial differences between the wooden ones. Wood is not wood, it is wood --highly variable from stick to stick.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 16:02
If I may inject a small dissertation here: I don't believe that "Science" purports to "prove" anything, or provide the Final Answer to questions about the universe and how it works. What science does for us is to attempt to use measurements and observations to build a model (mathematical, geometric, logical, etc.) of objects and system in the physical world, which model can then be used to PREDICT future behaviors and occurrences with some degree of accuracy. For example, a good weather model doesn't claim to provide the ultimate truth about the Earth's climate, but it does allow us to predict pretty well whether or not it will snow tomorrow in Des Moines.
So the subject of this thread is a bit absurd, in my opinion, because "Science" doesn't "prove" (or disprove) anything. But as the thoughtful responses above point out, the current materials and acoustic models that have been developed generally indicate that the material of which a clarinet is made, IN AND OF ITSELF AND INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER VARIABLE (of which there are many), does not create a statistically significant, measurable, repeatable, audible difference in the tone quality of the instrument. Which, if the models are good, should allow us to demonstrate this theorem by building clarinets, if physically possible to do so (a BIG "if"!) out of, say, strawberry Jell-O (my favorite structural material) which sound just like Buffet R-13s to the audience.
Thanks for your indulgence, I shall have another cup of coffee now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Barnhart ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 16:35
Having majored in physics, I am inclined to discount our ability to isolate the effect of material ALONE amidst a virtual plethora of factors that can (1) affect the sound directly, or (2) influence the performer's PERCEPTION of how the instrument feels, responds and sounds, which in turn can affect how s/he plays, which in turn CAN affect the sound perceived by the audience.
As noted above, I think the telling observation is: can an objective, 3rd-party observer discern an audible difference between the sound of two instruments that are made/played IDENTICALLY and differ ONLY in the material from which they are made.
This is a really tough experiment to conduct with fidelity.
Another approach would be to average out individual differences by taking lots of samples (which is not possible for most of us). An example is the "double-blind" experiment done by Yamaha to determine whether the Hamilton plating on their CSG clarinets affects their sound. Apparently, they had a number of players play some number (10-20?) of silver- and Hamilton-plated CSGs for panel of judges. The judges were behind a screen and somehow the performers were (presumably) unable to tell which model they were playing. Interestingly, most of the players and judges felt that the Hamilton-plated instruments sounded better.
I play Hamilton-plated CSGs and I think I sound pretty much the same as on my Buffets. Moreover, I cannot conceive of an explanation for any effect of the plating on the sound. Nonetheless, the above experiment appears to have produced an arguably conclusive result.
Still for my money, I ascribe the effect of material on the sound to the psychological effect that certain knowledge has on the performer. I have personally seen cases where if you tell someone that (material) "XYZ" will make you sound great, they will enthusiastically agree that it does, even if no one else can discern any difference!
Bob Barnhart
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 17:03
The point of this thread is to construct a scientifically-defensible argument for some university to provide me with grant money to build a clarinet out of strawberry Jell-O.
I think.........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 17:10
...or to confirm or refute those who claim they sound like a pinched piglet only because they have a cheap plastic instrument.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bret Pimentel
Date: 2011-01-21 17:21
I'm the author of the linked article. Thanks, DAVE, for the minor spike in website traffic, and thanks all for your perspectives.
As you can probably tell from the article, I'm not a scientist myself, and I only aspire to be half the musician (clarinet and other woodwinds) of some of the people who frequent this board. A few years back I started reading up on this topic--articles by scientists, musicians, etc., in publications ranging in scientific rigor from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America to Saxophone Journal. To anyone who feels strongly enough about the issue to argue over it, I suggest doing the same.
Of the several dozen articles I read, there were some arguing each side. I did my best to evaluate them for validity, using the admittedly weak standard of my own common sense. The linked article is my own conclusion.
The writings I cited in my article, by Coltman and Backus, seemed to me like especially good ones since they were written by respected scientists who were also fine musicians. I suggest them as a starting point if you care to do some reading on the subject. A version of Coltman's article was printed in Woodwind World in the early 1970's, and led to a multiple-issue-spanning debate between Coltman and flutist Roger Mather, which is both informative and entertaining.
One more note: I did, of course, scour the Internet for good information when I began researching the topic, but found that there's a serious wealth of information in the good old fashioned library that hasn't made it to the web yet. Try your nearest university campus.
Cheers all,
Bret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2011-01-21 17:50
I used to be in the side of "material makes little difference" side, until I tried a Greenline.
Expecting the same (as was my predisposition) I was met with difference. Confused, I tried a few more to check- same thing. My expectation was let down by the reality.
Now, were there causes that were not the material (but still were) that caused it? Maybe. The material is heavier, so maybe the way I was carrying (shoulder and chest muscles) it change something. Also the weight might mean that the balance in the mouthpiece was different, so the pressure on the top and bottom lip were different than with wood.
All in all, it was less flexible. So much that I could not bend pitch as far down as with wood. Side by side, I tried it and I could not bend down as much. With wood I could finger high C and bend down to D- with the Greenline, I could only go to F. THAT was strange and very unexpected, but it told me that there really was a difference.
Now, on the other side, it does not mean that one it better or worse, just different. A friend (orchestra player) came over once and heard me practicing and said, "Wow, that sounds nice. What kind of horn is that?"
"Bundy Delux"
He didn't even want to try it after I told him. :p
The clarinet played rather well, but the soft keys made me stop using it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-21 19:41
I just don't see the point with comparing plastic and wooden horns from the same types. I can't found two similar clarinets between let's say 10 wooden Buffet RC from 2002. I'm saying this because that is what I exactly did.
Post Edited (2011-01-21 21:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-01-21 19:52
Maybe that's exactly the point - the difference between identical models are just as big as the differences between comparable models but of different material.
In the end we have say 50 different clarinets, all of the same class/level, made of plastic, compisite, wood, metal, hard rubber, and all fifty sound differently, even (surprise) same-model ones with adjacent serial numbers.
Don't trust the sales pitch. Trust your ears.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-01-22 01:51
Material definitely has an effect on sound, so the statement as given in the topic clearly is not correct. Acoustic impedance varies with material, so geometrically identical instruments of different materials will produce different acoustic emissions (and, therefore, will have different sounds). That's a tough argument to refute - the physics are well-understood both experimentally and theoretically.
What might be true is that the differences are below the threshold of human perception, or below the threshold of *most* human perception.
The "science" mentioned in the posted link is far from it - not only is the system studied not representative of an actual clarinet, it appears that the only transducers used are human ears.
There's a lot of science that exists beyond human perception.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2011-01-22 02:58
I'd agree with your point about acoustical impedance if we were talking about stringed instruments but we're not. In the case of a clarinet the body of the instrument does not vibrate in any significant way so the acoustical impedance of the body material has negligible effect on the sound produced.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-01-22 03:36
I'm not saying whether the effect is negligible or not, simply that it exists. Material does, in fact, have an effect on sound. Whether or not it's perceptible is unclear, at least to me.
If your definition of negligible is "imperceptible" then you might be correct - I don't know.
My point was that "imperceptible" is not the same as "non-existent." So saying "Material has no effect on sound" is not correct.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2011-01-22 03:54
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If the acoustic effect of something is imperceptible, does it have an effect?
I leave such matters for the philosopher -- I'm just an engineer. But as a musician, if a sound can't be heard, then it is negligible, or imperceptible, or just doesn't matter, however you want to phrase it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2011-01-22 06:24
Certainly - if we can somehow show that the effect is imperceptible to everyone, then we can dismiss it as inconsequential. However, I haven't seen any evidence to either support or deny that claim.
So the alternate approach is to say that the difference cannot physically exist, which was the approach hinted by the title of the original post. I think it's clear that's not the case.
Therefore, since we must allow for the possibility that there exists a difference in acoustic emission, then we must allow for the possibility that someone can perceive that difference.
So, in essence, all we can say right now is that we don't know.
rgames
P.S. The lack of human perception does not make it a philosophical question. If that were the case, most of 20th century physics/engineering would be considered philosophy. Very little of quantum mechanics or relativity is perceptible by the human senses, but it definitely is not philosophy.
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-01-22 09:27
If material doesn' matter I think scientists should make a clarinet from recycled paper. It would sound as good as anything else and even Greenpeace would support it!
Post Edited (2011-01-22 09:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-01-22 10:21
> If material doesn' matter I think scientists should make a clarinet from
> recycled paper. It would sound as good as anything else and even
> Greenpeace would support it!
If you manage to get the material enough stiff and of a certain weight to keep the instrument's resonance frequency within an undistracting range, then yes, this might work; you'd have a thin-walled instrument just like a metal clarinet.
What we need, unlike a brass instrument, is a material that has enough inertia as not to vibrate in sympathy with the frequencies produced by the mouthpiece/reed. And it needs to be of enough rigidity to support all the keywork. If your recycled paper satisfies these requirements then I see no compelling reason this couldn't work.
Per Greenpeace supporting it - buy a second-hand instrument (no new trees had to be chopped for it) or at least one made from sustainable production (e.g. FSC wood).
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2011-01-22 13:16
Benade wrote that materials can make a difference in sound, but not because the walls vibrate or different woods have inherently different tone qualities. Rather, it's because machining produces different surface textures on different materials. See http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/1999/04/000333.txt.
One of Benade's discoveries was that clarinet tone and response are affected by the intersections of the tone holes with the bore. Slightly rounding these intersections creates dramatic improvements.
Plastic has no grain and is homogeneous. The molded bodies used in student plastic clarinets have clean, sharp edges at the intersection with the bore. Among other things, clarinet setup technicians round off the intersections.
Makers of handmade recorders do the same, and I assume it's also done on oboes and perhaps bassoons. I know from personal experience that the tone of inexpensive plastic recorders improves dramatically when I take the shine off the outside and inside with 400 grit sandpaper and improves even more when I bevel the top and bottom of each tone hole.
Both Kalmen Opperman and Charles Bay transformed plastic Eb and BBb contras into professional-quality instruments by doing this work.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2011-01-23 20:00
To the discerning ear there is a difference in tonal quality, just like the differences between the different material types. The better your ear and tactile sensitivity is, the more likely you are to hear and feel the difference between them. There are some people that can't hear the difference between a metal instrument and a wood instrument. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference. Some people can't hear themselves playing out of tune or singing off pitch either. Some people are entirely tone deaf.
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-01-24 00:42
Although I agree that the difference is not as great as one would expect there is a difference to my ear when I play or hear a student in a play test when picking out a clarinet for them. The Greenline is slightly brighter. When I use to teach young students and I'd play test their Bundy, it sounded different to my ear to me, tone wise. Yes, in the hands of an accomplished musician there isn't nearly as much difference as one would think, but there is a difference. I had the neck and bell of my bass clarinet double gold plated, over a coating of silver, several years ago and I believe it made the altissimo register a bit more mellow. When I compare it to a regular one I can hear the difference. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: USFBassClarinet
Date: 2011-01-24 06:38
Speaking of gold plated necks, Rocco Parisi ordered one for his bass clarinet at clarinetfest. Not sure if he is actively using it or not though. He play tested one for about 40 minutes or so in the booth, while I and a few others sat around and admired his playing. Doubling tonguing in the altissimo on bass is a little insane to say the least. In a large, loud, area like that I couldn't discern a difference but Mr. Parisi obviously did as he was very impressed with it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2011-01-24 12:14
What science proves when conducting a very clinical approach is that a cylindrical tube of any material coupled with a single reed mouthpiece will always sound like a clarinet and an expanding conical tube of any material coupled with a single reed mouthpiece will sound like a saxophone.
Science is only looking at the fundamental issue here, not the bigger picture which is what makes the differences between a Selmer clarinet, a Buffet clarinet and a cheapo Chinese plastic clarinet. True they are all based on the same principle, but to us they all sound and play very differently. Then there's all manner of mouthpieces and reeds to put into the equation, not forgetting the players.
Only so much can be gained from theory and clinical study - they are missing the most important aspect which is adding a player and their musicianship to the equation.
If we adhere rigidly to what a study proves then we shouldn't bother choosing one instrument over all others - we should just settle with a £50 plastic clarinet as science has proved it shouldn't be any different from a £3,000+ clarinet.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-01-24 15:26
Well, no, because the workmanship is very different between a "a £50 plastic clarinet" and an R-13 or a Selmer Recital series instrument. There are clearly differences among all the various models of instruments, mouthpieces, barrels and reeds as well as among players that even Benade would have have acknowledged beyond any question. The only question suggested here by the studies mentioned in the original article is whether or not the material contributes anything acoustically to those differences in a direct, primary way. If not, then design (and its execution) and possibly workability of each material account for the differences we all hear and feel.
To say that "science has proved it [the £50 plastic clarinet] shouldn't be any different from a £3,000+ clarinet," is to go way off to an extreme that I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion would seriously suggest was true. Time for a deep breath, anyone? 
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-01-24 18:38
Looking back at the original topic, this sheds a lot of light on a bunch of my experimentation with amplification, and why the reed is the only place I can get decent signal with a contact mic.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LesterV
Date: 2011-01-25 14:01
I suspect that scientific analysis has concentrated on the harmonic content of the sustained note. However, this is only a small part of the sound characteristics of any given instrument. Those that attempt to synthesize musical instrument sounds divide a note into four intervals - attack,decay, sustain and release (ADSR). If the ADSR of a synthesized instrument is not done properly, it will immediately be recognized as a fake by even non-musicians.
Perhaps the material chosen has an effect on ADSR that is overlooked by science but is immediately sensed by the musician. Just a thought.
Google ADSR to find more information than anyone would ever want to know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-01-25 16:49
This is certainly true in trying to synthesize an authentic-sounding clarinet patch. But I'm not so sure how much it applies to the discussion about the effect of material on timbre.
The attack, decay and release are primarily a function of the player's technique and how he/she chooses to apply it to the music at hand. Attacks can be produced in a number of ways, some better-sounding than others, but still even within acceptable musical limits a considerable variety is available. Same for releases, although the variety may not be as large. There's still a fair amount of gradation between a suddenly stopped secco release and an al niente in which the actual release is inaudible. As to the decay, that's completely up to the player. So, to the extent that these three parts of the "envelope" are player-controlled and not primarily instrument-driven, they shouldn't very much reflect the material the instrument is made of. Even the timbre itself (sustain) is somewhat player-controlled, which is what makes this whole discussion so open-ended. It's virtually impossible to make reliable, valid A-B comparisons between materials because there's no good way mechanically to limit the variables.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2011-01-25 19:34
I have to admit that being unacademically minded I fell asleep reading the article so may have missed several points that were made, though I doubt they were all that important, like the article itself.
The point I'm making here is that it's all very well and good to theorise about stuff, but practice is an entirely differnet matter. You don't need a degree in physics to play an instrument or know which particular instrument you like the best out of a selection.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: interd0g
Date: 2011-01-26 15:48
Many experts here assert that individual instruments of the same batch vary so much that we should always try 6 or more to select a good one.
If this is so, then the marginal differences on the material side would probably be swamped by the fact that no two identical instruments are in fact identical.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-01-26 15:56
Indeed. The question remains, however, of how much of an actual sound difference is due to the condition of the pads and mechanics, and the effects of the instrument's construction and condition on the clarinetist's playing, and how much of it is due to the characteristics of the material used.
Does that clarinet sound nicer because it is made of a piece of wood that has nicer acoustical properties than another material or even another similar piece of wood, or does it sound nicer because its characteristics provide a slightly more amiable situation for the performer?
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2011-01-26 16:45
There is no such thing as "two identical pieces of wood". This fact suggests that no two identical instruments are in fact identical.
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2011-01-26 18:24
I'm so sensitive, I wouldn't notice a crocodile under my mattress, much less a pea. Perhaps this is why I'm perfectly happy playing crystal mouthpieces on hard rubber clarinets, or plastic mouthpieces on metal clarinets, or whatever.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[toast]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley15.gif)
