 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: tims
Date: 2014-10-13 06:05
I'm a little bothered by the excessive number of typos in this article. It also reads like it was a poor translation from another language. I say this simply because it made it a little hard to read and not meaning to be a grammar nazi.
Sherman Friedland, may have a point in a way, that is, we place too much importance on instruments rather than how we play them. None the less, I doubt if even he would really suggest that having a quality instrument is not important, though that appears to be what he actually does say. To say the instrument is just a piece of wood is an insult to the decades of efforts by skilled craftsmen to build instruments which play better in tune, have greater dynamic range, better response and are able to give variety of subtle tone colors that before where not available for any price well within the period of my own lifetime.
Perfect (or exquisite) may be too much of a superlative. I think most clarinetists would agree that they simply want the best they can afford. The key is that what is best for one person may not be the best for another.
I've always been envious of the embarrassment of riches available to flute players in terms of the wealth of extremely fine instruments they have available from dozens of exceedingly talented flute makers. Flute players are also not nearly as brand conscious as clarinetists. I've also never heard a flute player being advised to play on the same instrument brand as their principle so they "blend" properly, or play better in tune in the section. Personal experience and decades of listening has clearly taught me that tonal quality on the clarinet is far more effected by how the instrument is played than the instrument itself. Intonation should never be an issue except with the poorest of quality clarinets. If you can't play in tune with your principle, you haven't yet learned how to play.
That said, instrument quality does make a difference as does the particular design characteristics of one horn as compared to another. The question must always be this, "does this instrument help me achieve my goals as a musician". The question should never be "is this the perfect instrument".
Many people buy instruments because they believe that a particular instrument is what they are supposed to play. My scientific nature makes me aware of how easily people are swayed by popular fallacies such as appeal to authority (great clarinetist A, B and C played on brand X), appeal to tradition (brand X has been the leading instrument since the stone age), confirmation bias (seeing only the positive qualities of brand X and not its negative qualities and likewise only seeing the negative qualities of Brand Y and not its positive qualities), argumentum ad baculum (appeal to fear - do you really want to stake your career on brand Y when brand X is a much safer choice) and the bandwagon fallacy (everyone knows brand X is the best). Yet these are always the types of arguments I hear people present.
You need to know what it is you want. What is most important to achieving your goals. At NASA they used to say (with regard to designing spacecraft) your options are Good, Fast, Cheap - pick any two. The same is true with clarinets - Tone Quality, Intonation, Ease of Playing, Dynamic Range, Mechanical Precision, Reasonable Cost - you cannot have all of them in one instrument. You need to rank these qualities based on what you personally feel are most important and then find the best fit for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-13 07:57
Sherman has written for years about various makes and models of clarinets, and is well aware they are not all created equal. I'm sure he's just engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make a point.
First, any serious musician needs a quality instrument. (Some artists have achieved great things on inferior equipment, but I would ask, why should they have to? Economics, ignorance, malice? Whatever it is, I am so sorry it happens.) There are a great many makes and models of clarinets, old and new, that (if in good repair and adjustment) would serve any clarinetist well. Certainly they differ. But unless and until the artist reaches a very high level of ability (for some of us, probably never), whichever one of these nice instruments happens to randomly end up in his/her hands will not be a hindrance compared to any of the rest of them. Conversely, and notwithstanding all the hype, switching to another good one will not really help either.
There will be exceptions to this generalization. But not nearly so many as I think is commonly assumed. Just like a few years ago I thought a "big bore" clarinet would feel and sound better to me than the very nice pro level Yamaha I was already playing. So I got a Leblanc Dynamic 2. Different? ...yes. Better? ...not really. I switched again to a new Ridenour. Again, different? ...yes. Better? ...only in reliability, and knowing I could now forget the whole instrument issue and move on to more important ones.
The player IS more important than the instrument, just as the race driver is more important than the race car. So long as the race car is good enough.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-13 08:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: James S
Date: 2014-10-13 08:07
Tims,
I could not have said it better; it's also lovely to see some logical fallacies being included in your analysis! Perhaps we should include the good ol' "No true Scotsman." I tend to see that one show up in regards to very particular psychical characteristics of a horn. A lot more people need to know what they want. I can certainly help explain the nuances and personalities of horns A, B and C, but at some point everyone needs to judge what's important to them
James
Owner, James' Clarinet Shop
www.jamesclarinetshop.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ErezK
Date: 2014-10-14 14:24
When I was a teeanger, the only clarinet-related marketing material I saw was the following:
1) Posters at the local music shop.
2) A Leblanc catalog that I got when I bought a new case, which I had on my bedroom wall for years.
2) Vandoren reed box tuck-in pamphlets.
3) Advertisements in my teacher's subscription of "The Clarinet".
Compare and contrast to what we have today.
Take a look at youtube. Like with any other industry, it has marketing commercials that range from home-brew videos to professionally produced films, some are subtle and some are far from subtle.
"Product X will increase your chances of success" <-- create fantasy
"Product Y will minimize the risk of failure" <-- instill fear
One commercial had both in the same 4 minute video. As an adult, I can take it in proper context. Then you read the comments, by teeangers, and you see that they believed it. One poor girl got scared she might be penalized in an audition for not having the correct clarinet that plays in tune... it made me sad.
There are of course other online environments, such as product reviews either on forums, online retail product pages, etc. Some reviews are made without an agenda, not all.
For perspective on online media : $50 will buy you 10,000 followers on twitter (fake accounts).
I am not saying that modern instruments are not up to the hype - some are outstanding (not all). I also don't blame the makers for making such commercials. Development costs money. Production costs money. They need to generate revenue so they can pay themselves and their employees. They sell a product that carries a certain value. If the customer at the end of the day feels the value was worth the asking price - perfect. Otherwise, that is what a return policy is for.
So where's the harm? the harm comes when people focus their resources (time, energy, money, emotions) on the wrong things .
A parent can put things in perspective, but the parent is not the subject matter expert (just the wallet expert). The teacher is the expert. I believe that putting marketing hype in perspective has become a new responsibility for a teacher.
I think that, in part, was what motivated Mr Friedland's article.
Post Edited (2014-10-14 14:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-14 18:28
A while back I read about a photographer who had heard, "That's a wonderful photo, you must have a really nice camera" one time too many. After a fabulous dinner party, he told his hostess, "That was a wonderful meal, you must have a really nice stove". And neither of those statements is very different from "Your clarinet playing is wonderful, you must have a really nice instrument."
The reason we object to such a statement is that it implies, "The only reason your photo/meal/music is so good (or better than mine) is because you have a finer / more expensive / better than mine camera/stove/instrument." Which is rather insulting, even if not intended that way. And it's untrue!!!
I think that was the spirit behind-
"Of Heifetz, it is said When his admirers remarked how beautiful was the timbre of his Strad, Heifetz opened the instrument’s case, listened, and said ' I don’t hear a thing' ".
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2014-10-14 18:50
7th grade (pretty advanced) student who's played for over 5 years was at Mike Hammer's with me over the weekend, and I had her try various brands - buffet had the best sound.
Though a prototype of a Clarinet that I brought came close.
Prototype was $1500 less though.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-14 19:47
David,
Was the scatter among the sounds of the various brands from your 7th grader as large as you would expect from a variety of (all high quality) mouthpieces? ...or even from a variety of (all valid and sound) embouchure or other playing adjustments? Would which one sounded "best" be a universal judgement, or a matter of taste that would vary among skilled listeners?
And further I ask- would you expect to reach the same conclusion about which clarinet sounded best, if there had been the opportunity to find, for each clarinet, the optimum mouthpiece and embouchure/player adjustments? If you are a believer in barrel and bell effects (I am doubtful, but I'm just an amateur among seasoned pros), what if you had the chance to find the optimum barrel and bell for each clarinet? Or do you think the basic clarinet sound variations transcend such secondary changes?
In what universe would the extra $1500 be justified? Just askin... ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-14 20:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
