 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-07 23:10
I was recently thinking... the "better" of the clarinets are made from wood for that "woody" timbre. What if we lived in a world where the plastic timbre was viewed as "better" and plastic was more valued than wood? Would all of you be playing on plastic clarinet? If the wood clarinets were commonly treated as beginner instruments and tossed after getting a plastic one, would you do the same?
Buster, can you analyze with physics about this topic?
Post Edited (2011-12-14 03:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-12-08 00:21
Is this physics or is it history? James Brown, although not normally known as a clarinet player, said, 'What it is is what it is.' And my inclination is to agree with him on this point. I'm assuming that your question to Jason was open and if it wasn't then I apologise for crashing the party. But, yes, there's always a but, there is another way to look at the problem (if it is a problem).
The development of the clarinet has been driven by what we know as classical music even though the instrument has been used to great effect in jazz, blues, popular music and many other styles. Jerry Coker, in 'Patterns for Jazz', makes the point: "In the jazz idiom the emphasis is on content and feeling, rather than getting instrumentalists to sound like the instrument they play - or more accurately, the way in which the instrument has been handled by composers and arrangers." I realize that this is debatable but the truth of what he is saying isn't the key thing here.
If the development of the clarinet had been driven by a musical style that focussed on "content and feeling, rather than getting instrumentalists to sound like the instrument they play", would plastic clarinets be more highly regarded?
If I'm stealing the thread, please ignore me. I'm used to it from my teenage daughters, it won't hurt me here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 02:56
Tony M,
You need not apologize. I was a bit surprised to see myself "called out" by this post (as well?); I had nothing directly to do with the genesis of it. Again, I brutally hijacked a thread of yours, and I again apologize for that. That I let my mood here be governed by outside issues is at times out of place. For that I again apologize.
oca,
I'm not sure what you want from me.
I do appreciate being called out to run the gauntlet- as it would seem. If this is the intent, I would beseech you grant me my final wish and at least address me by my first name.
***Short answer: no with a maybe.
------------------------------------------------------------
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 03:27
***Long answer: yes with a but........
-----------------------------------------------
First, I can say little with the subjective term "woody" re. timbre. Equally, a "plastic" timbre does not say much; and I assume you use it in the pejorative sense.
Leaving any Physics out of the question for now: I cannot speak for anybody else, but my usage of a wooden clarinet is not for its' "woody" timbre. Think pragmatically, have you ever played a plastic instrument made with the same care and craftsmanship as a wooden counterpart? I surely have not.
I have played an old silver Haynes clarinet that was quite good. The tuning was a bit suspect, but I would attribute that to a mouthpiece mismatch and perhaps less precise quality control in manufacturing. The tone quality was not "metallic", nor "woody", nor "plasticy"; it sounded like a good clarinet. And though it could be played as such, it was not inherently a "Dixieland" instrument. (There is a recording of Gaston Hamelin performing Debussy's Premiere Rhapsodie on a metal clarinet- I would challenge anybody to guess that without prior knowledge.)
I do not proclaim (or have not meant to misrepresent myself) a Physicist. That I studied the discipline, and also wished to learn how my instrument functioned, makes me a Physicist not. I am a clarinetist whom has read/studied a differing discipline and can speak with some knowledge about it.
Am I of the equal of Planck, Schrodinger, Feynman or Penrose? Certainly not. I read their work, extrapolating from what I do know an understanding of as it fascinates me. Can I claim to be an "expert" in that Quantum world and fathom it all, hell no. It speaks in a quite complex language of pure math. Actually no one truly can claim to know it all- as some of the "answers" are not yet provable and the questions are not known. (But the answer is 42.) However, much of that lies in a realm that really need not be considered in the Physics of sound.
Do I at times need to reference outside material as my knowledge has grown a bit fuzzy through a lack of use and am not "active in the community"? Certainly so!; but I will cite as needed. My Spanish has grown a bit slower and fuzzy through lack of use in the same vein.
(Though if a "plastic" sound equates to that of an oca, I would prefer not use it.)
Without getting into a constructing a pure proof to your question as I haven't the desire, energy, nor all my reference materials, I would say this: The design of the clarinet far outweighs that of the material.
But that being said, the design can also exploit a particular "flaw" in material for better ends.
Perhaps you have not considered that a perceived "flaw", such as the texture of the material itself, can be exploited for a positive ends.
Or an instrument that doesn't seal tightly may not play poorly. (and I am referencing Benade a bit here.) The composite harmonics of any note are integer multiples of the fundamental, but the resonance peaks of the instrument are not. (They are altered in design to aid with tuning.) For notes to "sound the fullest" they need have their harmonics line up with said resonance peaks, and thus be strengthened in the resultant sound. A tightly sealing instrument has "tighter" resonances.... i.e. they are smaller, and thus the harmonics of a certain notes will not match as well in some cases: they will sound weaker than surrounding notes- an un-even sounding clarinet in some cases.
When there are small leaks, the resonances are widened and they will more easily strengthen harmonics. The quality from note to note will be more "even." A flaw may benefit things. Of course you may find response issues, and I don't know anybody that would purposely setup a clarinet with small leaks. (Though some bassoon repairmen do.) This would be considered "less-efficent" in the math of Physics.
A mouthpiece that is slightly asymmetrical may perhaps work quite well even though it is "flawed". (I have 2 mouthpieces that are slightly crooked. That is inefficient in the world of Physics, but those flaws are something I can exploit for positive ends. Though there are limits to how much asymmetry I can function on.)
A reed that is slightly out of balance (a balanced reed is the perfect demonstration of F=ma) may play well as that slight imbalance is the only thing keeping it from collapsing; or it adds a slightly different color.
I have Kaspar's and Ched's that play incredibly well, but I don't believe so because they are made from magic rubber.- They are well designed. I have a crystal/glass mouthpiece that plays just as well as they do, and even though I'm told crystal is too dead and dark a material, no one can tell when I'm playing it out in the hall. I feel the difference and adjust, so, I'd prefer think the variable is my skill and not the material.
The same goes for ligatures (which is why I believe you called me out in this thread.) Do they exert some difference? yes. Is it far less that most assume? yes. The energy transfer/loss in the ligature is quite small in comparison to that of the physical acts that are involved in playing. And it seems not to be mentioned that the feedback-loop set-up by the ligature is at play.
Perhaps I have a bug up my ass about how much pointless discussion on ligatures I see on this BBoard. I should perhaps look the other way, but it is difficult after a while. If my posts or contributions (or lack thereof) are not desired than I will cease from participating in any discourse here. It certainly doesn't help me sleep better at night.
---------------------------------------------------------
***But for a small summary
Does, material make a difference? Yes. Does design matter far more? Yes. Does intelligent design with the material at hand matter? Certainly!
Can a plethora of Physics equations determine all of these things? Yes. But you'd still need leave room for variables as no 2 pieces of wood, nor plastic, nor metal are the same. You would need delve into the world of Calculus (probably multi-variable), and you'd end up with "answers" in the pure language of mathematics- quite complex "answers" that would be difficult to rationalize into qualitative/subjective aspects of sound/instrument quality.
That being said, if you put a plastic clarinet in my hands that was world class, I'd gladly donate my wooden ones to the Salvation Army, or my fireplace.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-08 03:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oca
Date: 2011-12-08 03:42
Thank you for the amazing response Jason.
I did not mean to offend you by calling you out or by doing so with your user name.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-08 03:53
oca,
I do apologize if I over-reacted.
Tony,
Tell your daughters to be nicer to you.
-J
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2011-12-14 00:24
This topic resurges quite frequently and has not yet, to my knowledge been definitively settled. However I did some experimentation a couple of years back recording the same note sequences on several different clarinets - wood, plastic and ebonite. I used the same MP, reed & ligature setup for each. Looking at the resulting waveforms there is very little difference between any of them. I don't think anyone else will change whatever opinion they hold but I'm satisfied that the material of the clarinet body by itself doesn't make a significant (or even detectable) difference except in the mind of the player. That said I much prefer a fine wood clarinet with beautiful wood and polished silver keywork - just so much more visually interesting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-14 00:48
I don't believe that it can be "definitively" answered.
At some point, subjective interpretations/extrapolations of the Physics of all of it (or the Fournier machine you had at your disposal) must be made. That is where the weak-link in the chain, our ears, can fail. Not that that is actually a problem at all.
If playing a visually beautiful clarinet with polished key-work gives more confidence, and thus decreases nervousness in performance; by all means exploit it!
I would think all of us have experienced the confidence proffered by being "well-dressed"; even if it is only a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-14 00:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bethmhil
Date: 2011-12-14 01:49
The argument of plastic vs. wood is so biased that no one can truly form an objective opinion on the matter... my guess is that someone came up with the 'elitist' notion that wooden instruments are "better" than plastic ones... instrument makers probably encouraged this notion because they made a heck of a lot of money off of wooden instruments as opposed to plastic instruments... it's all a marketing strategy.
I was recently in a Bassoon Methods course, and the professor was talking about the difference between a polypropylene bassoon and a wooden bassoon...
He said, quote, "There was someone along the way who said that wooden instruments are better than plastic ones [despite all the physical issues with wood]. If I weren't so afraid of being chased out of ensembles, I would perform on a plastic bassoon all the time".
BMH
Illinois State University, BME and BM Performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2011-12-14 06:22
Jason/Buster writes ''.....and at least address me by my first name.''
I have to say that I too, look at the ''Author'' name and take that as being the correct salutation.
Others, as well, sign another name here and there, I notice. Given that some sign-in names do not read as actual names, one would, probably, drift to the end of the post for the actual monniker (that's Australian for signature, if you please) of the poster, but the non-de-plume seems fairly popular. My sign-in and user name is my actual 2nd name.
I don't think there's a call for anyone to be upset..........................unless you have been misquoted perhaps...........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-12-14 10:58
Beth wrote:
"The argument of plastic vs. wood is so biased that no one can truly form an objective opinion on the matter... my guess is that someone came up with the 'elitist' notion that wooden instruments are "better" than plastic ones... instrument makers probably encouraged this notion because they made a heck of a lot of money off of wooden instruments as opposed to plastic instruments... it's all a marketing strategy."
I know we are supposed to have passed the end of history and all that but didn't wooden instruments precede plastic instruments? So wouldn't it be reasonable, before we start to attack those money making instrument makers, to assume that plastic clarinets needed to become more popular than wooden clarinets to redress the historical circumstance? And haven't they done that within a particular sector of the market?
To be less rhetorical, if plastic instruments weren't making so much money for the big four clarinet makers then what would be financing the developments in elite wooden instruments. I certainly don't know the figures and I am guessing here but, judged on sales figures, couldn't we say that people like to buy plastic instruments because cost and convenience are a significant factor when weighed against timbre? Statistically speaking, are professional musicians a majority of the clarinet playing/using public? I really don't know the answer to that question. I have no investment in being right here. I'm just trying to think it a bit further.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2011-12-15 00:54
one should not forget that Grafton acrylic saxes were pretty good horns in their day with excellent intonation and tone. And inexpensive (relatively). Today if you can find one they're quite high-priced - I saw an alto on sale for $4500.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-12-15 01:53
I appreciate the defense ned (John) over name usage. In inconsequential threads, Buster suffices as it's a nickname I've had for years, and I don't always sign my true name. In other cases, where subject matter is of more importance- at least in my estimation- I do try and sign my actual name.
What sort of ruffled my feathers here was that the title of the thread (which has since been edited) was "A question to think about (Buster)". Perhaps feeling as I was being called out, I was a tad miffed at not, at least, being referred to by my actual name. (Before my perhaps untimely demise.) The case has since been clarified by the editing of the title and a subsequent reply of oca's. A blood no foul.
------------------------------
Graftons served Ornette Coleman and Charlie Parker (at times) in their day. (Bird's reasons were different than Ornette's, but that is not a story-line for the BBoard.)
I have never played one; yet from what I have heard the greater problem was not the fact the body was plastic, but rather that the body was quite thin. -Key adjustments reportedly were a nightmare as they would "go out of whack" with the slightest bump.
This fact, and their limited production, I think is what relegates them to the "Instrument Museum"- and the commensurate high prices.
-Jason
Post Edited (2011-12-15 23:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
