 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2002-02-22 18:41
Does anyone remember a relatively recent issue of The Clarinet that tackled the "blow-out" topic? I can't remember if it exists or if I read it here on the BB. If it was in the magazine could you refresh my memory as to the issue & date?
Thanks.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-02-22 19:22
I would like to reiterate my previous offer: Anyone who has a "blown-out" and thus worthless big four clarinet which has good outward appearance is welcome to send it to me. I will be pleased to pay reasonable shipping charges and even send you $25 for your trouble.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2002-02-22 19:34
No doubt it is a hot topic here. I read more than I could handle this morning from the BB archives. Those got me thinking about the magazine article that I vaguely think I remember seeing in The Clarinet. I can't find my last couple issues though and was wondering if it was in one of those.
Thanks.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-02-22 19:45
I vaguely remember something about blow-out. Perhaps in one of O. Lee Gibson's columns ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald nicholls
Date: 2002-02-22 20:35
i like a comment Herr Seggelke wrote to me on this issue- he said (referring to the wood prepared for most modern clarinets, but Yamaha in particular) that it was like "microwaved vegatables- best eaten straight away".
on the other hand, i played a Yamaha clarinet for years that sounded pretty good- a student in Wellington uses it now, it's still going ok. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't sound even better if it had been made with wood prepared in a more traditional way....
nzdonald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-02-22 23:31
My experience, notwithstanding the Leeson "arguments" which I consider framed in a biased manner and therfore bogus, is that lack of "scientific" evidence in the art is no reason to disount the phenomenon of blow-out.
Call the differences that occur to a clarinet over years blow-out or some other thing, they do change - and mostly not for the better. I and an overwhelming majority of my colleagues including my teachers and their teachers and my colleagues find the "contoversy" laughable at best - a tempest in a tea pot.
To me, as a player, that is what matters in the end no matter how much intellectualising goes on over it.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: terry
Date: 2002-02-23 12:52
some articles at: http://naylors-woodwind-repair.com <sponsor>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: terry
Date: 2002-02-23 12:53
On my part,
I will buy any "blown out" big 4 clarinet, which
is otherwise in good playing condition for $35.00
and will pay the postage.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-02-23 14:03
Oh, if your clarinet is blown out you have to buy a new one, right?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Becky
Date: 2002-02-23 14:23
Yes.......and send the ......(sniff sniff) older one to the Clarinet Grave yard.
Hey! (in a whisper) I see dead clarinets.
Sorry 'bout that. I haven't had enough sleep in the last three days. Just feeling a little goofy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe O'Kelly
Date: 2002-02-23 23:30
Clarinets get blown out!? Then I should put my 60s Evette Master Model with three noticablte cracks and very heavily used in the clarinet graveyard. The only problem is I prefer it to my very "unblown out" Festival. Some of the best clarinets I've played on were old and before an overhaul would be dubbed "blown out" by those of you who believe in that c#@$.
Some instruments that are neglected, old and abused do develop numoeous serioius problems that need costly attention and may not be worth the effort. A 15yo r-13 used and mantained by a professional (for example) would most likely be worth the trouble to overhaul. An ebay special clarinet by Bobs Music barn that needs a $130 overhaul would not be worth the trouble as the clarinet fully overhauled might only be worth $100. I often refer to these type of instruments as being "blown out" as they've been "blown" past their usefullness.
Refering to a "blown out" instrument as one whose bore has changed shape over time is outragious. Scientificly explain it to me.I've read stories on this board of kids who bought a new r-13 after four years because theye thought their old one was "blown out." Mabey a few or all the pads were past their prime and needs a repad and adjustment. Even a full repad would seem odd that early in life.
I'm going to grab my shovel and go grave digging in the clarinet graveyard. Mabey I'll even hit the oboe mausoleum, (nah, their better off there.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-02-24 09:31
I, too, would bid for the big-4 blown-outs in otherwise "good condition".
I believe a 'blown-out' clarinet is one that was either a dud from the start or it simply needs some DECENT attention - all technicians were not born equal! If it was a dud from the start there is a fair chance that this is because it was never adjusted right too.
But I suppose it is also possible that it is blown out because some misguided person has altered the bore and/or the tone holes, so I won't risk bidding after all.
I find it hard to believe it is anything to do with blowing though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald nicholls
Date: 2002-02-24 10:37
the thing is Gordon- when Greg Smith is saying a clarinet is "blown out" he is talking about something different than, say, a 15 year old from Takapuna Grammar School......
He (and other top players) are judging their clarinets at a very high level, and are paying attention to things that many of us lower down the food chain might only vaugely percieve. It's not that they are "picky" or "pretentious" but that they generally can percieve MORE than us. Sorry guys, i know that you're all really good players, but it's true. Sometimes it's not that WE can't hear/feel as good as them, but that WE aren't having to CONSTANTLY play at the extreemely high level that they are playing at (and being constantly judged by others, often unkindly and unfairly).
"Blow out" as i understand it being applied by the top end of the scale, is a very subtle phenonemon... it doesn't mean that the clarinet is now useless, but that it's not as good as it once was (like Herr Seggelke said, "microwaved vegatables"). My R13 was a tad more resistant than i liked when Ron deKant and i picked it out, but Mr deKant thought it would "blow/break in" and end up in the right place. This was a gamble but i trusted his judgement and it has seemed to work out the way he said. Other clarinets start out "perfect" and may end up not being what was originally wanted. Is this "breaking in" or "blowing out". My Moenig barrel didn't like the move from the US to NZ, did it just warp, or did it "blow out"? (i certainly got hours of great use out of it).
But the fact is, i have a lot of respect for the way in which people like Herr Seggelke (who spends his life making and playing clarinets) or Greg Smith relate to a piece of wood with holes in it, and i'm sure that no one would ever seriously suggest that "all old clarinets are blown out and thus useless" except perhaps for the sake of being the devils advocate. Certainly some of the postings above have interpreted things this way for the sake of a bit of comedy.
hey
comedy is great- and so is sleep (me having to get up to start my week in about 6 hours)
see you all later
nzdonald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-02-24 14:30
I guess my point was that we don't know why they have changed, they just have. And that's all we can go by. How it happens is irrelevant. What can be boiled down to scientific explanation (wear, warpage, molecular theory) is irrelevant. All that matters is that my clarinet changes. I and my colleagues have muscle and aural memory inherent to us that's quite necessary in our profession. That's all we have to trust.
It's not to say that there are those that prefer the clarinet in a condition that I and others do not (blown out if you will) - that is their personal choice. But if I play something that is better based on my tactile and aural memory of what my ideal is, and my older horn doesn't fit that ideal anymore as I keenly remembered it at one time, then I am musically obliged to get the newer one (and they are NOT free if that part worries you - at least not from the company that makes my clarinets).
The motto I live by is that of Duke Ellington who often remarked when asked about the quality or "goodness" of a sound or of a particular piece of music: "Hey, if it SOUNDS good, it IS good." The rest is all superfluous....
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-02-24 22:19
Gregory Smith wrote:
>
> I guess my point was that we don't know why they have
> changed, they just have. And that's all we can go by. How it
> happens is irrelevant.
I disagree, Greg. How it happens or if it happens is very relevant - if something really does happen to clarinets over time, then either we can change them to what they used to be, or find out we can't and that's that.
Or perhaps we'll find out that our hearing's changed and what we remember doesn't compare with our revised reality.*
In any case, I believe it is relevant to know, even if there's nothing we can actually do about it.
* My hearings changed enough that what I remember a Steinway piano sounding like no longer matches what I hear. My memory's sound is much better than what I hear nowadays.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbuter
Date: 2002-02-24 23:18
Wood will contract over time, so the bore changes. I think this is what concerns players and perhaps a postitive characteristic of the the "Greenline". In addition there are deposits that build up on the tone holes that can be removed. Polishing the bore does improve the response and sound quality of the instrument according to my ear, perhaps not yours. Much debate about this issue that will not be settled until there is a scientific study over a long period of time.
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe O'Kelly
Date: 2002-02-25 00:48
I will agree that characteristics of how a clarinet plays will vary over time, espessially after the first year or so. I think that a year or so after a clarinet is sold and played is the determaning point of how that clarinet will play, (as is my experience.)It may change for better or for worse.
I don't think a clarinet can ever become totally useless, however, unless totally abused.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2002-02-25 01:43
Mark said:
Gregory Smith wrote:
>
> I guess my point was that we don't know why they have
> changed, they just have. And that's all we can go by. How it
> happens is irrelevant.
I disagree, Greg. How it happens or if it happens is very relevant - if something really does happen to clarinets over time, then either we can change them to what they used to be, or find out we can't and that's that.
Or perhaps we'll find out that our hearing's changed and what we remember doesn't compare with our revised reality.*
In any case, I believe it is relevant to know, even if there's nothing we can actually do about it.
* My hearings changed enough that what I remember a Steinway piano sounding like no longer matches what I hear. My memory's sound is much better than what I hear nowadays.
***************************************************************
Hi Mark,
Yes, I agree that it is relevant if we have an interest, not to mention the ability, to change it back to something better. That is, if that something is measureable. That's for the scientists to figure out.
I only meant "irrelevant" in the sense that as a practical matter, as a player, some changes occur to the instrument to make it less desireable. The scientific end of the equation is what is irrelevant in the short term to us as performers.
The issue you raise of "revised reality" is an interesting one especially pertaining to this issue. I believe that the developed artists' ear, tactile sense, and other issues of feel remain much more stable, intact, and consistent (or change very much more slowly over time) than the instrument itself - hence the perceived change in the instrument. If an artist cannot trust the relative consistency of their own senses then that doesn't leave them anywhere except shooting at a moving target.....and to extend the metaphor - while travelling in the opposite direction!
That, as Mr. Leeson is fond of saying, is no way to run a railroad.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-02-25 10:50
Hmmm. I'd plug for the revised reality being the most significant factor. I can think of no perceived reality in my life that does not evolve. Furthermore there is the boredom factor if a reality stops evolving. It is a bit rough to blame my deloping boredom with my sound on the clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
