Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-27 20:32
Here's one I've never completely gotten "my arms around."
Clearly, we can have opinions and disagreements on which ligatures are best, or even whether they matter as much to play as some of us think they do. And I totally respect that.
But an area which confuses me is the number and design of a ligature's contact points with the reed, and the degree to which the ligature is tightened around a mouthpiece.
Conventional wisdom and physics would tell me, like in the swimming pool diving board analogy, that the tighter I clamp down the "non-business" end of the diving board..in other words the part first walked upon when you climb a ladder on to it, (or its "base,") the more the business end of the diving board will NOT be able to transfer energy to it, resulting in the diving board tip's maximum vibration.
(I am assuming diving board tip vibration to be "a good thing," much that I recognize that in competitive diving, board length can be adjusted so that divers can customize the board's spring to their dive and vertical distance to the water.)
Of course the analogy to reeds is far from perfect. Reeds thin out as their tip and sides are approach, and are composed of entirely different materials (at least cane ones) than diving boards. As yet another example of many, how force is applied to the business end of the diving board, and its slower vibrational pattern only further speak to how "mini diving boards" would make bad reeds, and how some "genetically engineered supersize cane" would make a bad diving board (not the least of which reasons being its materials being compromised by water.)
But this said, engineers then use their craft, including knowledge of materials science and measures of an item's elasticity and failure pressures, etc., to bolt down the diving board enough, and with enough tightness, so that the addition of any more bolts is shown to have not only the least of marginal improvement in the rigid part of the board's stability, but perhaps even run the risk of the base of the board having so many contact points with its base vis a vis such bolts, that the amount of diving board material removed in order to provide space for bolts is so vast, that the structural integrity of [what's left of] the diving board itself becomes a likely reason it could fail.
So it would seem to me that if maximum vibration of the tip of the reed is our goal (and perhaps it is not, maybe there is an optimal point for play that is short of maximim vibration), stabilizing that base with a clamping device that covers nearly all of its "stock" or "bark," that is backed off from being so tight that any more force would risk breaking the mouthpiece, would be what would get the business end of the reed, all other things equal, to vibrate most. In fact, not that I'm suggesting this, but physics would again suggest that applying as much mass as possible to securing that reed, with the least ability to absorb shock, would not allow the tip to transfer as much of its energy as a light weight ligature that holds the reed, say, at two tiny points, with only the lightest amount of pressure applied to it, to keep the reed pressed against the mouthpiece table.
Even I, totally not "ligature specific," can note (or I think I can note) changes in the reed's play that is dependent upon the degree to which it is tightened against the mouthpiece. I tend to make my ligature (note my deliberate absense of scientific jardon) tightness "mouthpiece tenon cork, and the cork grease applied to it, specific." That's a ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) highly scientific measure of tightness that is a "smigen "(another "highly specific" amount ) tighter than "that needed to safely switch the mouthpiece between Bb and A clarinets in orchestral playing, so as to keep the reed, ligature, and mouthpiece intact when I move it from one clarinet to the other."
I admit to high probablity of "cause and effect" bias when I test a reed against a mouthpiece whose ligature I tightened, such that I know its degree of tightness. But I feel that I get suboptimal results when the "ligs too tight," and know, rather than feel--as any of us would--that "a loose lig ruins a gig."
This would suggest that I got the physics wrong, or my analogies don't apply [that well] here, or maximum reed tip vibration doesn't equate with maximum playabilty.
So what gives here? What are your thoughts on lig tightening and why?
And when I say "why," I am suggesting more than anecdotal evidence of what you have found to yield maximum playability, but maybe some science to back such feelings up.
Thanks.
Post Edited (2015-02-27 20:38)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
