Author: SecondTry
Date: 2023-03-28 18:59
lydian wrote:
> @Second Try
>
> I'm well aware.
OK, but your prior thoughts might have suggested otherwise. You wrote that reed strength is just a number. It's IMHO not. Most I think would agree.
Now, there are different ways of taking your thought---one of which is to not get bogged down by the strength numbers--which I agree with.
But another is to imply that the strength number is arbitrary and worthy of being ignored. That's an extreme I disagree with. It may not be terribly accurate but I do believe it better than nothing. I think most players will find the most strength appropriate reeds, even if those reeds require adjustment, by sticking with a manufacturer's strength that they've found the most historically amenable to their play, than accepting a desired manufacturer's arbitrary strength box.
I completely respect that this may not be your finding. In fact only once (so this is an anecdote and proof of nothing) I started with a box of Vandoren 5's (much stronger than my "3") figuring "I sand down reeds anyway so what matter is it how much stronger a reed is out of the box than my taste."
I found myself sanding the reeds to such thinness to get them to my strength likeability that they were fragilely thin.
If I may, I'd like to recommend that you try Tom Ridenour's ATG system of reed adjustment. Maybe you have. For me, YMMV, no system of reed adjustment has given me as many good playable reeds.
I do completely agree with you though that if a player requires stronger reeds over time, there's nothing wrong about that provided that a softer setup would compromise their artistry.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
