 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Chris2787
Date: 2013-03-02 14:06
I found this online posting from a clarinetist and he says hard rubber is better than Grenadilla wood. Very interesting. Any one feel the same was as this guy?
http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/grenadillamyth.htm
Cheers,
Chris L.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2013-03-02 14:13
Ebonite will always be a more consistent material compared to grenadilla if it's always made to the exact same formula, plus the fact ebonite doesn't suffer with humidity related problems. I don't know how much dimensional change there is with ebonite under cold conditions compared to plastics which aren't dimensionally stable with temperature fluctuations, but grenadilla is less affected by temperature than it is by humidity.
Ebonite will soften with heat so it becomes bendy (as it is hard rubber after all) as well as discolour to green, brown or orange with exposure to sunlight and from being immersed hot water. It can also give off a strong sulphur smell which is one of the main ingredients (which also heavily tarnishes silver very quickly).
Some champion the tone quality ebonite gives, but a lot is down to the workmanship and finishing of the joints - the differences in playing characteristics between individual instruments will be less noticeable with ebonite compared to wooden instruments.
But like anything, it's a matter of opinion as to which is best.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2013-03-02 19:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-03-02 14:29
In case you didn't know, "this guy" isn't just some bloke with a random opinion. He was responsible for the redesign of Leblanc clarinets years back and is considered, by many, to be one of the foremost authorities on the instrument.
That said, grenadilla is the winner and the material of choice (by the market, hence manufactures, or the reverse), even if it is a myth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2013-03-02 15:18
While being one of the world's foremost clarinet accoustics authority, TR is also a world-class salesman. While with LeBlanc, he was able to sell his ideas to some of the planets finest clarinetist's which boosted the sale of his Opus & Concerto designs for the company. Now he is concerned with promoting his new line of clarinets made in China manufactured with his design and specifications. They are most likely well made clarinets--and if I know Tom, in tune with an even scale--that many have found to be excellant players, however, history will solve the grenadilla vs ebonite "war".
I seem to remember Selmer, back in the 1950's, promoting Resonite as new worderous clarinet material, even convincing some "pros" to use the Bundy clarinet in their professional orchestras.
I think we consider grenadilla to be the best clarinet material because it was the first--as synthetics were not yet invented--and that is the "sound" we all learned to accept as "good". Like cane, we are kind of hooked on tradition that is hard to give up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-03-02 15:45
All materials have their perks and short falls.
Just an anecdote.........nothing more.
I ran into a Buffet R13 Greenline that had come back from Iraq (you know, 130 degrees fahrenheit in the shade) and must have been placed down on its side (propped on the left side paddle key posts) out in the sun during a gig. The lower joint actually melted into a curve from the point of those posts making the clarinet look rather odd (bending down and to the left), though it still plays quite well.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2013-03-02 16:34
I have Tom's hard rubber Lyrique and it's a fine instrument. For the money, it's an excellent clarinet.
That being said it is a back-up horn for me as I prefer my wooden horns.
I have had several students buy Lyriques for various reasons and they've been remarkably consistent through the years. Tom's finishing work (done by him in the states) is very good.
Tom may espouse his hard rubber beliefs consistently, but even he has started offering a wooden version of his clarinet in the past two years.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2013-03-02 16:47
I would love to have some of Tom R's hard rubber run through the manufacturing system at Yamaha. I'll take a matched pair of CSGIIs, thanks.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-03-02 17:53
William,
Grenadilla wasn't the first. What about boxwood, maple wood, rose wood?
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2013-03-02 18:32
Quote:
Tom may espouse his hard rubber beliefs consistently, but even he has started offering a wooden version of his clarinet in the past two years.
James I can't speak for Tom. But I think eventually he would've had to do this anyway if he wants to stay competitive in the market. Whether any one person believes his thoughts on hard rubber vs wood to be true or not, economically speaking, it's a supply and demand issue. Clarinetists have demanded wooden horns and are influenced by society, teachers, etc. that a "wood" horn is better. So he went where the market is. Either way, the guy knows how to design and tune a horn as evidenced by his history, his offerings, and testimonies to those who have played his horns or the leblanc horns designed by him.Quote:
I would love to have some of Tom R's hard rubber run through the manufacturing system at Yamaha. I'll take a matched pair of CSGIIs, thanks. I know. I'm still waiting for that small company to offer exact same design with different materials. Buffet has greenline and wooden designs, and unfortunately the tenon cracked off our greenline tosca before I could do a play comparison with the wooden tosca I've been issued. But I have played a wooden festival and currently have a greenline festival and both were great (currently use the greenline festival for everything) which leads me to believe that a clarinet body's material really isn't the big factor some believe it to be.
Actually, didn't Rossi line his bores with hard rubber at some point (or currently?) for dimensional stability? Or maybe it was when refurbishing/fixing a clarinet he'd drill it through and drop in a rubber bore as a way to "add" material so that he could re-tune it?
Personally, I believe in the grenedilla myth being just that....a myth. I've concluded through my VERY unscientific method of "contemplating" over the past years that tone is a mouthpiece/barrel combination, and tuning/voicing is done through the clarinets tone hole placements, measurements, etc. And I consider the material of the clarinet is essentially negligable since I believe the tone is made from the barrel/mouthpiece.
Since I think tone comes from mouthpieces and barrels, I think a better test for whether material makes a difference or not is to find a barrel maker willing/able to make VERY accurate measurements to BARRELS of different materials and seeing if THAT affects the tone. We've already heard people talk about differences between thinner barrels and thicker barrels (aka, backun fatboys and MoBa barrels being more prefferred over thinner protege barrels, other makers following suit with eliminating tenon rings and providing fat barrels). Let's see when those MoBa hard rubber clarinets or barrels come out..........lol.
Alexi
PS - FWIW (probably not much), I do think material makes a difference in tone. I just don't think the clarinet BODY makes much of a difference on tone, but just really on tuning. My "ideal" from what I've tried in the past would be a reed friendly crystal mouthpiece with a custom cocobolo barrel and bell on a well tuned dimensionally stable clarinet body (thinking greenline festival body as all the festivals I've tried lately have been VERY good). With the stock barrel/bell on standby for gigs in less than favorable weather.
PPS - In Tom Ridenour's article on how to select a clarinet, he advocates finding the best clarinet of a bunch, then taking the barrel and bell and using those with the OTHER clarinets in the bunch to ensure that you just didn't fall in love with the sound of the barrel/bell and to ensure that the clarinet itself is good. This leads credence to the tone being a product not of the clarinet, but of the barrel/mouthpiece combo (in here also putting it in the bell), and the clarinet body being tested primarly for tuning and resistance throughout.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-03-02 18:43
Paul Aviles wrote,
>> I ran into a Buffet R13 Greenline that had come back from Iraq (you know, 130 degrees fahrenheit in the shade) and must have been placed down on its side (propped on the left side paddle key posts) out in the sun during a gig. The lower joint actually melted into a curve from the point of those posts making the clarinet look rather odd (bending down and to the left), though it still plays quite well.
>>
Beware. Whether the instrument plays well will depend on where the warping occurs and how bad it is. I've seen a number of hard rubber clarinets for sale (none of them Greenlines, fwiw -- these were older) that were banana-shaped from being displayed outdoors at flea markets right here in the USA. If the clarinet has been displayed on an unlevel surface, it can not only warp but elongate in the downhill direction. That type of distortion will ruin the intonation. Also, depending on where the warping occurs, the key posts can sink (or lean or both. I've seen keys sunk pad-first into the tone holes. IMHO once the tone hole is warped, the clarinet is kaput.
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: Buster
Date: 2013-03-02 20:20
Lelia,
Give me a heads-up if you happen upon any more banana-shaped/deformed clarinets; that would make for a killer lamp! ...if I can keep the thing upright that is.
(Plus, there would be no guilt from taking a instrument in that condition out of circulation.)
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-03-02 20:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2013-03-02 23:50
Eons of subjective reports and arguments back and forth will never "settle" anything.
The only way to compare the sound qualities of clarinets made with different materials is to have two sets (that is, a good sample) of clarinets in each material manufactured to identical specifications played by the same player and played with the same mouthpiece, ligature, and reed, etc. in the same environment and with a good sample of listeners. In short, with only one variable to test: the body material.
This isn't going to happen, and even if it did, changing the environmental variables and listener variables and player variables, as they would be changed in the real world, would likely change the results anyway.
To debate the sound qualities of various body materials under "the usual conditions" is a waste of time and always has been.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2013-03-03 00:54
This particular gentleman is an excellent salesman. I also saw this article and asked him why he was making and selling a grenadilla wood clarinet if he states that hard rubber is better and he replied that some people will always want clarinets made of grenadilla wood and that is why he sells them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2013-03-03 01:39
Quote:
Tom may espouse his hard rubber beliefs consistently, but even he has started offering a wooden version of his clarinet in the past two years.
Mr Ridenour dealt with this matter on another posting on this bb quite recently, and said that it was a business decision to provide the customer with what they ask for.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2013-03-03 02:07
Given the high incidence of cracking these days, I'm surprised there haven't been more offerings of grenadilla clarinets with sleeved upper joints. Bassoons do it, Selmer used to do it. I'm very interested in Greenline instruments and almost bought a Greenline bass, but I'm concerned about stability over time. One thing about resins, they degrade over time, even if they stay dimensionally stable. A synthetic liner might be the best of both worlds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2013-03-03 02:46
Yet nother anecdote, which I hate, but I've played two Rossi "Andino" ABS student clarinets at some length over the last few months, and their sound is nearly indistinguishable from my blackwood Rossi Bb.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2013-03-03 03:07
For what it's worth, I have a B & H Emperor in grenadilla, another in hard rubber and a B & H Imperial in grenadilla, all in excellent condition. The best sounding of them is the hard rubber Emperor.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-03-03 04:54
"The only way to compare the sound qualities of clarinets made with different materials is to have two sets (that is, a good sample) of clarinets in each material manufactured to identical specifications played by the same player and played with the same mouthpiece, ligature, and reed, etc. in the same environment and with a good sample of listeners. In short, with only one variable to test: the body material."
Seems to me that the best this experiment could do is determine which material is better for a particular player, mouthpiece, ligature, reed etc. in a given set of environmental conditions. There would be no way of knowing, whether the material would still be optimal if the player changed or the mouthpiece changed, or the temperature went up (or down) by 5 degrees, or the humidity changed, etc. In other words, while the experiment might have internal validity (one could trace a difference in outcomes to the material used) it would lack external validity (the ability to generalize results). Any attempt to address this question in a meaningful way would probably require large-scale randomization to control for other variables.
"Giving the customer what s/he wants" is sometimes referred to as "consumer sovereignty." As a general rule, is "consumer sovereignty" adequate justification for a professional to sell a customer a product or provide a client a service that the customer/client requests (demands) but the professional knows or, at least, strongly believes, is not in the customer's/client's best interests? Or are there circumstances when a professional's integrity should demand that s/he refuse to serve the customer. In the face of strong belief, is it enough to inform the customer that there is a better choice? Is the desire to make a buck sufficient justification? (I don't consider these to be trivial questions.)
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2013-03-03 05:57
Quote.
"Giving the customer what s/he wants" is sometimes referred to as "consumer sovereignty." As a general rule, is "consumer sovereignty" adequate justification for a professional to sell a customer a product or provide a client a service that the customer/client requests (demands) but the professional knows or, at least, strongly believes, is not in the customer's/client's best interests? Or are there circumstances when a professional's integrity should demand that s/he refuse to serve the customer. In the face of strong belief, is it enough to inform the customer that there is a better choice? Is the desire to make a buck sufficient justification? (I don't consider these to be trivial questions.)"
I can see situations where it might not be the most ethical choice to offer a product which you know to be inferior to another, but this implies a demonstrable means of quantifying the inferiority.
In the case of Mr Ridenour, I do not consider this to be the case. His clarinets are available in two different materials. The difference in the performance of these materials is largely in the mind (or ear) of the player, and it is the player who makes the decision as to which one to buy. The protagonists of these materials are sometimes quite certain that their choice, whatever it is, is the correct and logical choice.
Likewise, if the purchaser is not certain which is best, both materials are available for him to choose from. This being the case, then why would he not offer both materials. By all accounts Mr Ridenour makes an excellent product, and for myself I appreciate being able to make my own choice as to which flavour I want it in. When offering a product it is reasonable to expect the customer to take a major part tn the matter of choice. As long as both choices are available I do not see that there is any problem here.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-03-03 15:41
Metal was used by some principal clarinetists. Ray Adams' timbre was superb to my hearing. He played a metal one for decades when he was the Allentown band principal. There are others. Clarinet material formants appear to have little effect on timbre, according to Gibson and others.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-03-03 16:43
Jack Kissinger wrote:
> Seems to me that the best this experiment could do is determine
> which material is better for a particular player, mouthpiece,
> ligature, reed etc. in a given set of environmental conditions.
> There would be no way of knowing, whether the material would
> still be optimal if the player changed or the mouthpiece
> changed, or the temperature went up (or down) by 5 degrees, or
> the humidity changed, etc. In other words, while the
> experiment might have internal validity (one could trace a
> difference in outcomes to the material used) it would lack
> external validity (the ability to generalize results). Any
> attempt to address this question in a meaningful way would
> probably require large-scale randomization to control for other
> variables.
This is exactly why there have been no serious attempts to do such an experiment. Even if the results from such an experiment showed clearly measurable differences many people wouldn't accept them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2013-03-04 01:52
Jack, that's kinda the point I was trying to make.
It's nearly impossible to test the broad hypothesis, and any answer would depend on who was playing anyway, yet people persist in holding strongly to one view or the other, so the myths persist.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarnetamaphone
Date: 2013-03-04 17:42
For the record in the Grenadilla Myth I did not say that hard rubber was better than wood in regard to sound and response, though I think it is. What I said was hard rubber is the equal of wood. Where hard rubber is superior is in consistency from one clarinet to the next, in tuning, in stability of dimensions, in durability (hard rubber plays well for decades, long after a wood clarinet is blown out) and logistically; it will not crack or warp like wood can, and in seasonal stability (wood moves all over the place in seasonal extremes while hard rubber does not).
Regarding selling of wood clarinets: I stand behind my statements regarding hard rubber and how it compares to wood. BUT, many people really wanted a wood clarinet who liked the grenadilla clarinets I did acoustical designs on in my tenure at Leblanc. So, we are in business to satisfy our customer's demands as best we can, not to try to impose some particular "orthodoxy" on others in a "take it or leave it" fashion.
Considering this I see no principled conflict between my own views of hard rubber and wood clarinets and trying to respond to our customer's requests.
Ridenour Clarinet Products
1-888-AKUSTIK
ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-03-04 18:22
A side note. I have owned many clarinets of the popular makes. Most were average, as to be expected, but a Ridenour hard rubber 147 was the best overall for my playing- in tune, and even blowing resistance over the full range.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
