 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-05 23:00
or maybe “it” wouldn’t be,
or maybe “the tests” are themselves so inconclusive that they don’t mean squat.
======
Or maybe I should first tell you what the heck’s on my mind: reed strength…or should I say cane based reed strength, as opposed to synthetic reeds.
======
Here’s my understanding, right or wrong, and feel free to correct. All reeds of a particular manufacture’s make and model are cut the same way; the strong reeds and the weak ones alike. To rephrase, it is not the way they are cut that gives them their strength, but rather, mother nature, and the properties inherent to a particular piece of cane.
Once cut, reeds are individually subject to some form of testing where pressure is applied to them at a uniform place on the reed, and at a known pressure level, to slightly bend, but by no means break them, or have them unable to return back to their initial unbent state. The degree to which the reed responds to this pressure helps the manufacturer classify them among their own less than perfect, and unique classification system, complete with its own number of strength categories and gradations. The presumption must be that the more the reed bends to this pressure force, the weaker the reed.
Now, I suspect the methods for doing this pressure test may differ among manufacturers, each claiming their way provides the most accurate results; whether those results come from touching and bending the reed (e.g. via machine), or, for example, blowing known forces of air at the reed, and measuring through a tonometer the reed’s resistance to the air: not much differently that a glaucoma puffer test.
Manufacturers may argue, legitimately or not, successfully or not, that their tests are geared around their cane, growth, cultivation, and cutting practices, allowing for “more gradations and more accurate gradations between 2 whole number reed sizes” (e.g. 3, 3.25, 3.5, 4).
But wouldn’t it be nice (or not) if there could be industry standards that say, for example, “when you puff this amount of air, at this pressure, at this distance, at this ambient air pressure and temperature, using this aperture size nozzle, etc.,” at the back of your reed, at these specific distances from the tip, here are the tolerances of what defines of level “3” reed, and a level “4.5” reed, etc.?”
Such standards wouldn’t take away from manufacturers ability to use their own propriety methods of production, strength testing and quality control, but rather, like in the nut and bolt industry, be able to standardize what a grade 2 steel un-galvanized ¼”, 20 threads per inch, 2” length standard bolt should look like, across any manufacturer claiming that their product conforms to this standard.
…or maybe not. Maybe we all shave down reeds to balance them, and adjust for differences among manufacturers and strengths through more or less shaving as we test them on the mouthpiece. Maybe manufactures are trying to do this standardization already, as they, rather than create their own numbering systems involving whole numbers only (e.g. 1 – 15), tend to use the “5 different standards” model, and simply add fractional components (e.g. 3.25 strength reeds) to them, all why they publish conversion charts to other manufacturer's brands and strengths.
Maybe there’s yet still something to be said about good clarinetists being able to get the most out of a reed, weak or strong, that otherwise falls within a relatively large acceptable range of strength to play, or the limitations of such standards translating well to actual experience over the life of a reed....so
....to heck with such precise and uniform measurements.
Ideas, thoughts?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BartHx
Date: 2014-12-06 00:04
Given that cane is a natural product, its characteristics can vary from place to place within a single piece. I would be happy if a manufacturer could come up with a way to produce uniform flexibility of the shoulders of the vamp and reduce or eliminate the need for the user to balance the reed to improve its performance. There are some manufacturers who are getting much better at this but there are always a few reeds that need attention out of the box.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-12-06 01:09
Wouldn't it be nice if Clarinetists were as capable as Oboists in fashioning their own reeds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-06 02:43
Mr. Vincent:
It's hard to judge tone in written words. Maybe some tongue in cheek forms part of your thoughts, and if so, that's fine. Maybe clarinetists really would benefit in finishing purchased reeds, having first perfected how to make them from scratch. Still more, whether intended as your message or not, maybe clarinetists should appreciate that compared to oboe players, they have it good in the reed deparment--the premise of my last paragraph above's ideas of "sucking it up," and adjusting for reed differences with some tools not unlike those of the double reeders.
If clarinetists aren't, as you indicate, as capable as oboists in creating their own reeds, a premise I certainly suspect that on the whole is true, maybe that's because they've been "spoiled" relative to double reed players with an single reed producing industry's ability to provide them with a decent base product upon which they can make slight and quick modifications to, and be ready to play.
But this said, and to address your question from the practical view of things, as to whether it would be nice, or if I may, "make sense" for clarinet players to be able to make their reeds with a skilled oboist's proficiency, at least as the way they get most of their reeds, this I'm not sure of.
As we're all aware, TIME...time to practice, perform, fix our reeds, (single or double though they may be), is a limited resource that we have to prioritize well in order to maximum the improvements in play we can make with it. And making good reeds takes time.
Further, some single reed making equipment is expensive, and still won't give us the precision that precise reed cutting machines, in humidity controlled buildings, with computer automated quality control can deliver.
I think you know this. Frankly (tongue in cheek) I think us reed players should gang up on those winy flute players. Can you imagine if they had to make the adjustment we do just to get a sound (wink).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BartHx
Date: 2014-12-06 06:38
Other clarinetists I play with have trouble believing that I typically get eight or nine good reeds out of a box of ten. My only secret is that I have taken the time to learn how to adjust them. I do not have any major investment in equipment. The only equipment I use is a flat surface, a single edge razor blade, some 600 grit sandpaper, and a reed clipper. With those, I am able to balance a reed and make small changes to its strength and response. When people ask, I suggest that they start with a small pamphlet called "Dr. Downing's Clarinetist's Reed Doctor" by Peter Moore and Sandra Downing. Then practice, practice, practice adjusting reeds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-12-06 07:52
Yes WhitePlainsDave, you're certainly correct in what you're saying. The main problem with making reeds is the time factor. I usually find myself spending as much time fashioning Oboe reeds as I do actually practicing the Oboe, the upside is that it is very enjoyable and satisfying (well , most of the time)
The other element that comes into play here is where does one obtain good lengths of cane suitable for making Clarinet reeds. I'm thinking of blanks that are already cut to length just as an Oboist obtains reed material already gouged , shaped and sometimes even profiled thus eliminating the need for very expensive gouging tools ect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2014-12-06 08:49
I remember reading many years ago the memoirs of a man who was a prisoner of war in Germany during WW2. The prison camp had an orchestra, with instruments provided by (I think) the International Red Cross. The writer played clarinet, and as received their clarinet was an old Albert system of unknown origin with rotted out pads and no reeds. He replaced the pads using leather cut fron an officers Sam Brown belt and successfully made reeds for clarinet, bassoon and oboe from cane obtained from an old cane and rattan chair.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-12-06 10:04
Tony. That POW must have been the origin of the saying "Necessary is the Mother of Invention"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-06 19:32
Tony F. That's a great story of perseverance I think the over-complaining player be privy to, while concurrently, the legitimately struggling player because of instruments/reeds in true disrepair should not be afraid to speak up about, fearing shame, having heard that story.
Another similar and more recent story lies with the original Land fill harmonic orchestra of Paraguay, prior to their being discovered by the media and, I'm glad to report, philanthropic funding.
...cellos made of old oil barrels. It's an easily Internet searched and interesting/inspiring reed...or should I say read.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
