 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-02 19:47
My understanding was that soprano clarinets were originally developed to have an upper and lower joint because it was easier to come up with more quality pieces of wood when designing for the limited length of a left or right hand section, than to design a clarinet in wood, in one piece, for its entire length.
Please correct that if it's wrong. But it is with this understanding that I was made to rationalize by teachers why a smaller Eb clarinet could be made in one piece.
I was also made to understand that in putting the clarinet into 2 sections, that some compromises needed to be made, particularly in the position of the C#/G# key, so as to keep it reasonably in tune, but distanced enough from the bottom of the upper joint such that the tone hole not crack to the point where the top joint ends.
Again, assuming these things true, wouldn't the case (read: argument, not "thing to hold your instrument in") for single joint clarinets be a good one when designing clarinets made of non-(directly) wood materials, as evident in Buffet's Greenline, or hard rubber, as evident in most of the Ridenour product line up?
I realize that in doing this, a clarinet maker risks the marketing pitfalls of diminishing his or her 2 joint models. And maybe for, say, some plastic clarinet makers, it's easier to not retool keys, even if 1 piece clarinet instrument bodies were straightforward to make.
Maybe consumers expect a more square like clarinet case (read: the thing that holds your instrument) than one whose adjacent sides differ considerably in measure.
BTW: I do not seek to criticize either manufacturer, particularly Tom Ridenour, who prides himself on making clarinets that get the intonation right, irrespective of 1 or 2 piece bodies.
Thanks.
Post Edited (2014-12-02 19:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-12-02 20:15
Well I hope you get a lot of different opinions on this one.....because there ARE a LOT of factors to consider.
I'll start with the Rossi clarinets that are "uni-body" horns. They are able to take advantage of the proper placement of the "C#/G#" tone hole as you say. I have always been LONG enamored of the sound from most of the players I've heard play them live (some adherents, not so much).
Given the sound, and the minor intonation correction why doesn't EVERYONE just play Rossi? For me there is a a major practical issue of diagnosing and repairing leaks that WILL come up. It is MUCH harder to find the ONE pad on an entire clarinet that is leaking rather than do that one half at a time. Also you are wielding the whole clarinet as you do repairs and that (for us clumsy folks) make for still more repairs!
Yes, then there is the "aesthetics" of carrying around a clarinet case that looks like your getting ready for hunting season (not so much an issue once you graduate to a double case). Of course if I could get over the repair aspect I wouldn't think twice about the case really.
And there IS an issue of finding a good billets (free of cracks, holes, and any other imperfections) long enough for a uni-body. Since it is MUCH easier to find two smaller decent pieces of wood to make into one horn, I think that it may just be an unnecessary strain on everyone (maker, player, repairer) to add that complication.
If there truly where any serious negatives to the two piece design, I think you'd see far more uni-bodies out there.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2014-12-02 20:38
I brought up a similar point in a thread years ago. When I first got my GeenLine I recalled my childhood clarinet teacher who owned two old uni-body Buffets and wondered why Buffet wasn't making their GreenLines in one piece — and, by extension, why Ridenhours (or any other modern composite instruments) aren't made that way. The consensus seemed to be that the major factor was the cost of re-tooling. Mr. Aviles brings up an interesting point as far as diagnosing leaks goes but I don't know if that would be as much of an issue for repair technicians who work on other one piece instruments — saxes (less keys, I know) and some oboes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-12-02 22:31
Maybe yet another reason why no one should play the saxophone.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-12-02 23:48
One factor against 1 piece construction is the difficulty of making those fine adjustments to the undercutting of toneholes and to small areas of the bore when access has to be done through a very long tube.
A second factor is the problem when a serious crack occurs which in normal models entails replacing just one joint.
There is absolutely no reason why the C#/G# tonehole cannot be in correct place with a 2 piece design - it already exists on all models with articulated C#/G# but the mechanism does not have to be articulated. Some designs of clarinets 100 years ago already offered this option.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tiagocunha
Date: 2014-12-02 23:57
In a few time I wil be able to post a better opinion when my uni-body (an Orsi Milano) cames from the repair shop but one of the main issues I see is finding a decent case for it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelW
Date: 2014-12-03 02:29
Attachment: Silver King.JPG (161k)
Attachment: Goulding_a.jpg (117k)
Most metal clarinets are "two piece" with barrel, one piece body and fixed bell (e.g. H.N. White Silver King) or „three piece“ (barrel, body, screwable bell, e.g. Buescher); on the other hand, the most sought after Bettoney Silva Bet model is „four piece“ with separable upper and lower joints. Early 19th century clarinets could be „five piece“ with three body joints, the upper joint interchangeable with different lengths („corps de rechange“) for changing tune.
Post Edited (2014-12-03 02:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hurstfarm
Date: 2014-12-03 03:15
One slightly off-topic consequence of the preponderance of two joint instruments is that it leaves us open to that old (and cruel) trick, discovered on returning from a rehearsal break, where a "friend" has secretly paired your Bb top joint with your lower one in A, and vice versa...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-12-03 03:28
There's a WAY better prank. Put a piece of cellophane in between joints or between barrel and top joint......you don't see it looking up the bell.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-12-03 23:05
Love it! Probably just as well I didn't know about either of those pranks back in my school days, when dinosaurs ruled the earth.
Re. the one-piece body, I'm an amateur and no expert on this stuff, but for whatever reason, my 1931 Buffet soprano in A with all the keys on one joint is more in tune with itself than any other clarinet I've played. That's especially noticible in the throat tones. Also, when I play that clarinet, I have to remind myself constantly *not* to compensate for wide 12ths. If I lip up the chalumeau, it's sharp. If I lip down the clarion, it's flat. If I play them both the same, with a vintage mouthpiece (slightly shorter than a modern mouthpiece) -- wow. I love that clarinet so much that most of the time I practice on other instruments, for fear I'll do something stupid to damage my favorite.
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: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-04 03:18
Chris/All:
Q1: Do people report less intonation issues around the G#/C# key in Rossi 1 piece body clarinets?
Q2: Recognizing that experienced Eb (Efers) players report many issues with intonation and need for alternative fingers that are simply inherent to this smaller instrument, this fact notwithstanding, as it appears that many Efers are of single body design, are there less G#/C# key intonation problems, at least relative to other intonation issues inherent to this "little guy?"
Q3: Allow me to assume, perhaps widely incorrectly, that the tone hole for the G#/C# key could have been placed anywhere there was space, along the infitinte set of points that form the same distance from the top of the clarinet as what is the center of the G#/C# key we know. Complicated levers and keys notwithstanding, wouldn't placing it closer to the top of the clarinet have helped with reducing the water that collects in it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-12-04 04:39
Q3. absolutely no problem with water on my articulated C#/G# Leblancs and lovely full tone on that low C#.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: katiemules1
Date: 2014-12-04 21:21
"This would be God's gift to the world if clarinets were only one piece" is sure easy to think. But remember how we tune by moving the middle and lower joints. The C#/G# keys will not resonate as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-12-04 22:30
How many of us actually pull the middle tenon out to tune? On some clarinets that will cause the joints to wobble due to how poorly fitting the tenons are.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-12-06 21:25
>How many of us actually pull the middle tenon out to tune? On some clarinets that will cause the joints to wobble due to how poorly fitting the tenons are.
>
Years ago, I tried pulling out the middle tenon very slightly, on a 1957 Conn Director (student-quality) clarinet with a tight enough cork for the joint to stay stable. That clarinet has all sorts of intonation problems to begin with, which was why I tried the experiment, but pulling out the center joint made matters worse. The throat tones, especially, went so flat that I couldn't lip them up enough to be usable, even though I only pulled out about as much as a tuning-ring would have done. A better experiment turned out to be: playing on a better clarinet!
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
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
