 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-15 21:20
Recently I have learned it is impossible to play clarinets outdoors in Canadian weather for most of the year.Exposing my plastic Jupiter to extreme temperatures even in the car often renders it unplayable for two or more days due to leaks and seizures.Now more than ever I desire a simpler clarinet with a lot less keys or possibly no keys. Over the past two years I have learned that there is no used baroque clarinet or chalumeau market. New instruments are rare and well beyond my budget. Over the past two years I have gathered a fair bit of rosewood to make Denner clarinets but cannot find measurements or tutorials on how to make them. Is there a good book with detailed measurements of popular historic chalumeau and early clarinets ?
Last week I discovered the phenominal world of ocarinas and multi chambered ocarina flute hybrids. A simple shirt pocket wood ocarina can sound identical to or better than a premium clarinet. I was stunned by the deep smooth base tones of some of these very small instruments. One player had a three barreled flute with an ocarina resonating chamber . One 3 hole barrel for base notes, one 3 hole barrel for soprano and a drone tube with one hole. As he played it the feedback through the common resonating chamber made it sound like an orchestra of a dozen flute and clarinet players. This outstanding instrument was only about 1.5 x3x6 inches.Unfortunately there seems to be very little useful information on making ocarinas.
In the quest for clarinet sound in harsh outdoor enviroments I plan to make wood ocarinas . Starting out with scrap lumber projects I hope to learn the fundamentals of tone hole design.After the making of a few ocarinas I hope to make a few baroque clarinets. It would be nice to have something more than guesswork and intuition to guide this quest.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2018-11-15 23:08
Have you tried those completely plastic student clarinets? I don't know much about them but have seen them at a music store. If you're down to ocarinas, they might be a step up. Also I noticed some all plastic gizms offered by Woodwind Brasswind in their latest mailer. I would guess these might also offer more........notes?
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-16 05:03
Although the Boehm clarinet has a wide range of notes it has a narrow range of quality tones in harmony. I find it difficult to maintain consistant color over more than 5 or 6 notes maximum. In listening to chalemeau, Baroque and Denner clarinets i find that the harmony between notes is much wider than it is in modern clarinets.I believe that too much quality of tone has been sacrificed to the quest for broader range.If the evolution of the clarinet could be turned back at least 200 years I believe we would have many more players and much wider appreciative audiences.
Quality of tone over a wide range of notes was what impressed me most about the wood and unglazed ceramic ocarinas I heard over the past two weeks. 12 to 16 notes in harmony with each other is more than enough to satisfy me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2018-11-16 08:11
Hello Dennis,
>Over the past two years I have gathered a fair bit of rosewood to make >Denner clarinets but cannot find measurements or tutorials on how to make >them. Is there a good book with detailed measurements of popular historic >chalumeau and early clarinets ?
The curators of the Bate Collection of early clarinets (Oxford University) sell detailed technical diagrams of some of their clarinets, chalumeaux and basset horns.
https://www.oxforduniversitystores.co.uk/product-catalogue/music-faculty-bate-collection/music-faculty-bate-collection/technical-diagrams/clarinets
When I bought some of their technical diagrams about 10 years ago, they were sent by regular mail.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jordan.1210
Date: 2018-11-16 21:33
If you want some information on ocarinas in general or how to make them, The Ocarina Network is a good place to start:
https://theocarinanetwork.com/ocarina-making-f47/
Speaking of ocarinas, I have too many :P
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-17 20:02
Thanks Simon
I spent a fair bit of time looking at their collection and others.Listening to classic instruments can be a real brain teaser as you try to figure out how they produce the sounds they do. I have heard 8 inch chalemeau with deep broad base tones and horribly shrill 30 inch early soprano clarinets. I think the secret to obtaining my desired sound is to create a spherical section within the barrel. Sort of a cross between an ocarina and conventional clarinet barrel.In studying classic instrument collections there seems to be no standard of length or width within families. It seems that most makers followed their instincts and intuitions rather than learned sciences.A few years ago I made bamboo Qenas ( South American flutes) , Cherokee Courting flutes and Japanese flutes. Using rules of body geometry or folded string it is pretty easy to make a good sounding instrument with balanced tones that play in harmony with each other. For a higher pitched flute you choose narrow and for base you choose wider bamboo. I look forward to proving that quality of tone lays within resonating chamber barrels.
I am going to start by making a few simple chalemeau from scrap lumber . Once the basic science is known and proven I will move onto Rosewood and then maybe classic reproductions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-17 22:18
Thanks. Jordan
I have reviewed several tutorials there and elsewhere. I wonder about the two small holes that some have on the bottom. Do they provide higher or lower range to the top tone holes ? Their function would probably be relative to the angle of the blowtube and their closeness to it. I plan to add a clarinet mouthpiece and a key or two to one so that it would meet the defintion of a clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2018-11-19 16:19
An ocarina behaves as a helmholtz resonator. The sound is due to the "springiness" of the air which rushes in and out of the open tone holes. It is not a standing wave in a tube like most other woodwinds.
The pitch is approximately proportional to the total surface area of all the open holes and inversely proportional to the volume of air enclosed by the instrument. It doesn't depend on a the holes positions or the angle of the "blowtube".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2018-11-19 16:36
> I spent a fair bit of time looking at their collection and others.Listening to .
>classic instruments can be a real brain teaser as you try to figure out how they
> produce the sounds they do. I have heard 8 inch chalemeau with deep broad
> base tones and horribly shrill 30 inch early soprano clarinets.
The early baroque clarinets mostly play in the second register whereas chalumeaux only play in the first. A 30 inch baroque clarinet would play in a similar range to a 10 inch chalumeau.
You may also be confusing timbre with pitch a little here. The length largely dictates the pitch. Timbre is affected by things like bore diameter, bore smoothness, tone hole size and geometry and mouthpiece geometry - particularly near the tip.
>I am going to start by making a few simple chalemeau from scrap lumber . Once
>the basic science is known and proven I will move onto Rosewood and then
>maybe classic reproductions.
The basic science is well known. Fundamentals of musical acoustics by AH Benade is a good place to start.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimellonet
Date: 2018-11-19 21:15
Hi all, jumping in here as someone who performs extensively on baroque, classical, and romantic clarinets, and builds them as well.
The "deep broad bass tones" on a soprano chalumeau or the shrill nasal quality of some period instruments have little to do with the actual instrument itself and are much more a function of the way the mouthpiece or mouthpiece/barrel and reed interact to create the initial sound before the rest of the body and bell act as resonators. In my ten years of experience measuring and building these instruments, I've found that there is no "magic formula" to fix all of the individual issues on an instrument, BUT there are a few basic principles that can be applied that make it easy to understand why certain instruments respond in certain ways:
1) Certain 18th and 19th century clarinet makers purposely made mouthpieces with exit bores wider than the bore of the barrel and rest of the instrument. The wide mouthpiece bore would provide a "broad" and "darker" sound, but the 'step' at the top of the barrel where the mouthpiece meets the barrel bore would create an area of higher pressure and intensify the sound which in addition to the register tube makes overblowing quite a bit easier. The end result is an instrument that can take a lot of air and project over a relatively large 18th and 19th century orchestra, but that can also play as quietly as one would need in a ppp passage with little effort. The baffles on these original mouthpieces are generally concave on two axes, though the degree of vertical concavity varies depending on the "national school." There is of course much more to 18th and 19th century clarinet mouthpiece geometry, but this is just a start.
2) Baroque chalumeaux designed to play the lowest register almost exclusively are excellent examples of a perfect symbiosis between a well crafted mouthpiece and instrument body. While there are examples in the repertoire of the chalumeau overblowing (Fasch requires a Bb-C trill, Graupner requires a C AND D, etc), the main purpose of the chalumeau is the play in the fundamental register hence the SATB sizes in order to cover a wide range. Interestingly enough, most chalumeaux have mouthpieces that match the bore of the instrument because one presumably would have little use for the accelerated high pressure air to overblow. The baffles of these are relatively straight with little conavity and are perfectly suited for this sort of playing.
3) The reed above or reed below debate factors heavily into the design of these mouthpieces, but not the instruments themselves. The main obstacle to overcome with reed above playing is retraining the embouchure to respond more like an oboe or bassoon. In general, a higher angle of insertion is needed to get the reed to respond, and of course, a slightly different reed will make all the difference. The main difference in these type of mouthpieces is that the baffle and chamber are much closer to that of a chalumeau with the reed above in terms of relatively little vertical or horizontal concavity, a rather tight throat where the bore meets the base of the chamber, and a very shallow beak angle. That said, there are many surviving mouthpieces that function equally well as reed above or reed below. The earliest mouthpieces by Amlingue, Baumann, and even Lotz basset horn mouthpieces that were clearly initially stamped to be reed up work remarkably well with the reed below as long as one adopts a more "early clarinet" embouchure and approach to the air. However, the more "modern" mouthpieces of later makers such as the latest examples of Heinrich Grenser, Griesling & Schlott, and Georg Ottenstiner are very clearly meant to work exclusively as reed below, and feature baffles and facings meant to aide this sort of playing.
To say that "makers followed their instincts" would be be correct, but to imply they ignored "learned sciences" would be a gross underestimation. While there may not have been mathematical information to calculate exact frequencies and internal airspeed and pressure, the fact that makers were able to come to basic designs that were easily reproducible, consistent from instrument to instrument (from the same maker), and employed basic principles that 20th century makers would continue to use and write about endlessly in acoustics books would seem to imply that the scientific method was alive and well for these makers. Simply tracking the evolution of the instruments of a maker such as August Grenser, one can see a clear evolution of design, each one building off the successes of the previous generation while doing away with the less successful features of a previous instrument whether that be a single body, an integrated bell and stock section, or even the size of the swell for the RH pinky. As a maker in the 21st century I have binders upon binders full of measurements and calculations, but they don't mean anything if I can't consistently produce an instrument that responds the way I want it to and doesn't make me worry when I walk out onstage. I would argue that the 18th century makers were the same way, keeping notes and scribbles of what worked and what didn't and their guesses as to why, as well as the steps they took to rectify certain issues on their instruments. That these notes by and large don't survive is unfortunate.
However, we can learn a lot about how these makers worked through surviving correspondence with individual players. My favorite example is that between the Meiningen clarinet section and Ottensteiner when they first received their instruments. Reif and Mühlfeld wrote about the good tone of the instruments, but complained about the metal facing mouthpieces as well as intonation in the top of the clarion register going into the altissimo. Ottensteiner wrote back that those notes were made purposely high because over time they would go flat as the instruments broke in, offered to send new mouthpieces based on whichever model they decided would work for them (presumably those are the mouthpieces in Mühlfeld's case now) and also told them with practice, everything would come into focus.
it would seem makers back then as of now occasionally got tired of the constant complaints which could easily be solved by some time in front of Baermann Book 3.
Thomas Carroll
Historical Clarinets and Chalumeaux
http://carrollclarinet.com
lotzofgrenser@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2018-11-19 21:38
Tom Carroll,
Welcome to the Clarinet BB. Your comments above are very insightful (loved the reference to Baermann 3) but then I snuck a peak at your website. Amazing stuff particularly this link.
http://www.carrollclarinet.com/media/
Bravo!
HRL
PS Check out the Der Hölle Rache arr. Harmoniemusik.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: shmuelyosef
Date: 2018-11-19 23:50
Quote:
Clarimellonet said:
"Certain 18th and 19th century clarinet makers purposely made mouthpieces with exit bores wider than the bore of the barrel and rest of the instrument. The wide mouthpiece bore would provide a "broad" and "darker" sound, but the 'step' at the top of the barrel where the mouthpiece meets the barrel bore would create an area of higher pressure and intensify the sound which in addition to the register tube makes overblowing quite a bit easier."
This is quite interesting to me...I have noted that as design has moved to smaller bores, so have the mouthpieces become smaller-bore. In general, if one plays larger bore instruments (I am partial to Selmer CTs and Series 9) generally obtainable mouthpieces have smaller bores than the input to the barrel. Do you know if these large-bore clarinets were purposefully designed to use smaller bore mouthpieces? Even period mouthpieces from the 40s, 50s and 60s (20th century) appear to be <15mm for the most part. Clark Fobes San Francisco series is one of the few modern pieces to be found right at 15mm exit bore, but even this is smaller than the barrel inputs on the CTs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarimellonet
Date: 2018-11-20 00:29
shmuelyosef wrote:
> This is quite interesting to me...I have noted that as design
> has moved to smaller bores, so have the mouthpieces become
> smaller-bore. In general, if one plays larger bore instruments
> (I am partial to Selmer CTs and Series 9) generally obtainable
> mouthpieces have smaller bores than the input to the barrel. Do
> you know if these large-bore clarinets were purposefully
> designed to use smaller bore mouthpieces? Even period
> mouthpieces from the 40s, 50s and 60s (20th century) appear to
> be <15mm for the most part. Clark Fobes San Francisco series is
> one of the few modern pieces to be found right at 15mm exit
> bore, but even this is smaller than the barrel inputs on the
> CTs.
>
This is a bit beyond my scope of knowledge, since I don't do much with building modern clarinets except for the odd reface here or there. However, I would assume that the big bore CT (I think I remember them being around 15.00 according to the original specs) would perform ideally with a big bore mouthpiece that matched the bore exactly. The Selmer "Oval" mouthpiece in my collection clocks right in a 15.00 so I'd assume that was the original intention there. The Kaspars (Frank L, Frank Chicago, and Frank Cicero I have examples of all of them) in my collection certainly have smaller bores, but are still wider at the exit bore than the stock barrels on my Buffet R13s. I believe this is one of the reasons Hans Moennig designed specific barrels to facilitate a smooth transition between the mouthpiece and top joint, a synthesis of German and French bores and resistance. Personally, my main modern instruments are Herbert Wurlitzer 185 Reform Boehms from the 80's (made the year I was born actually), so I don't deal much with French instruments anymore.
This brings up an interesting question of resistance and velocity that is applicable to 18th century instruments. The two most famous makers at the end of the 18th century were Theodor Lotz of Vienna (most famous for the basset clarinet that Stadler used) and August Grenser of Dresden. While there are numerous differences in their designs in terms of tone hole placement, conical taper in the bell, etc, the most striking difference is in the mouthpieces and their relations to the bore. The one surviving Lotz instrument in Geneva has a bore of 15.00 and a mouthpiece bore of 15.00, and the nine surviving basset horns are similar as well, with bores and mouthpieces at 15.50. Viennese clarinets by Tauber, Griesbacher, etc have similar dimensions and the mouthpieces always match the bores. As a result, Viennese instruments have relatively long barrels to compensate, and the tone holes are relatively low on the instrument body, allowing them to be proportionally larger. In comparison, the Dresden instruments are completely different. August and Heinrich Grenser clarinets measure around 14.40 with mouthpieces coming in at 15.00 to 15.20 creating the "step" I mentioned above. As a result, the barrels are shorter, the tone holes are more spread out, and smaller, and the sound is a bit "brighter" as compared to the Viennese instruments. While the Viennese instruments have less resistance and a "darker" sound owing to the big bore and corresponding mouthpiece which itself has a straight bore, the Dresden instruments with a smaller bore and slightly conical chamber in the mouthpieces have more "projection" and can fill a larger room. However one should note that both of these designs were perfectly acceptable and produced stellar instruments that laid the groundwork for future makers. Again, there is no one right answer for mouthpiece acoustics as I'm sure makers far more knowledgeable than me would attest to.
Thomas Carroll
Historical Clarinets and Chalumeaux
http://carrollclarinet.com
lotzofgrenser@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-20 12:37
It is a major encouragement to hear from a chalemeau enthusiast and maker like yourself. If I acquire any influence in the local music world I hope to see a lot more chalemeau and simpler clarinets in the future. I meet far too many broken hearted ex clarinet players that abandoned their love of clarinets. The almost universal reason given is that they were broken by teachers obsessed by complex fingerings for rarely played notes combined with their teachers unwillingness to help them improve their art and style in the fundamental register . I play only 14 notes on the clarinet. When I tried to hire teachers they refused with added insult and ridicule. In Canada it seems that anything other than a Boehm clarinet is perceived as either a toy or outdated novelty that belongs in a museum. Styles of play other than orchestral classic are all too often regarded as nothing more than childish nonsense.
Despite the prevailing academic attitudes that I have witnessed and endured there appears to be a strong local demand for chalemeau and early baroque clarinets locally . When I discussed the issue of making folk imitations of them for my own use my local shop said make two of everything you do.Bring the second one here and prepare to take orders. They enjoyed my simple crudely made bamboo flutes and said that chalemeau and simple clarinets made to the same level of skill would fly off the shelf.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jordan.1210
Date: 2018-11-21 01:56
Attachment: 0e8576b0-24b6-11e6-9808-edcd6bca3f55.jpg (39k)
Sorry I didn't reply to your earlier question but generally the holes on the back (covered by the thumbs) are there for the last few notes at the top of the scale (D to F on a 10 or 12 hole transverse oc or D to E on a 6 hole pendant oc). Like previously stated, the holes' position isn't important for producing notes, just the equivalent area that is open, so a several variations in fingering systems and hole positions exist, you can get away with only 4 holes to play an octave chromatic scale. I don't know if you've seen this yet, but because of the very limited range of the oc (1-1.5 octaves), multiple chamber ocs were created (ocarinas generally can't really overblow).
Funny you should mention adding keys to ocarinas because there are some old ocarinas that have keys to play higher notes and tuning plugs.
Sorry, for any rambling, I am as interested in ocarinas as I am clarinets and other woodwind instruments (I have about 40 ocarinas)
Post Edited (2018-11-21 01:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-21 06:25
Thanks Jordan
I had hoped the two small bottom holes were more. The keyed ocarina is interesting. With all the reading listening viewing and writing of the past week I' ve lost track of notes of points to return to. There was a good article through which you tune the blow tube and them tune each of four holes to a separate note with three holes covered.With that ocarina you obtain 12 precise notes by playing different hole combinations.I assume that you obtain frequencies of color by coarseness of interior wood finishing.The finer the finish the brighter the color. The thought of having the best sound qualities of a clarinet in a shirt pocket ocarina is thrilling.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: M_Chavez
Date: 2018-11-22 04:59
Windy,
Depending on where you are in the world, I believe there is a baroque clarinet making course in England (Oxford I think).
I've got a few Bate collection plans and they are not nearly as detailed as I would like... To make things worse, most instruments won't be A=440.
I do want to try my hand at chalumeaux one day =)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-22 06:06
Thanks Chavez
That course is too far away and too expensive for me.
As I understand it classic music was not written for A440. If modern orchestras do not tune to the standards of the original composers we cannot know what that music is really supposed to sound like. That may be why I consider so much classic music to be intolerably high pitched. My ears ache and throb if forced to hear it or violins for too long.
If you have tools and some expendable wood why not try something experimental ? If you failed you would at least improve your skills in the process. You could just as easily create something that exceeded your expectations.I have been told that locally even failed facsimilies would sell as wall ornaments or conversation pièces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-28 19:13
A new question on tuning home crafted chalumeau and baroque clarinets.
Over the past several days I have learned that most classic compositions were written to widely divergent tuning standards.It seems that + or - 420 are the most common.I have chosen to strive for 420 as a standard for personal enjoyment. Can an instrument tuned to 420 be adjusted to 400 or 440 by switching barrels or by aternating extensions between the barrel and body of the instrument ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jdbassplayer
Date: 2018-11-28 20:17
That's almost a semitone in either direction so the intonation would suffer.
-Jdbassplayer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Windy Dreamer
Date: 2018-11-28 20:55
When I was more excited about flutes an Irish friend showed me a 5 piece Irish wood flute. He claimed it was a classic professional flute. He claimed you could alter the range and key by changing the order and direction of its interchangable components. Asuming his assertions are true I thought similar instruments might exist in the clarinet world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jdbassplayer
Date: 2018-11-28 22:31
In order to make something like that you would need to make extra body sections in different lengths. Chalumeaux are generally one piece instruments so to do this you would have to make an entirely new instrument.
-Jdbassplayer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
