 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: bradfordlloyd
Date: 2012-02-19 13:14
There have been quite a few posts lately with poor unfortunate souls who are seeking advice and enduring the challenges of their precious, expensive clarinets cracking despite what sounds like herculean efforts to avoid just that. I'm genuinely surprised!
Perhaps it's because I've never been lucky enough (or wealthy enough) to purchase a newer uber-professional model clarinet (those Opus, Toscas, and Festivals sure look nice!), or perhaps because I'm satisfied with my 1960s vintage R-13, but I've never had any issues with cracks in it for the 30 years I've owned it even through the coldest of Chicago winters (and this year has been especially mild) or hottest of California summers.
I also now have several other vintage horns and only those that have seem to have been truly abused (especially, allowed to dry out) show any sign of cracks. Have I just been very lucky....or is the newer grenadilla wood used just that much lower quality (less dense? less seasoned? less something?) than older wood. Or is there another explanation? Just wondering....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bethmhil
Date: 2012-02-19 15:11
No, I don't think it's just luck. Back then in the 60's, Buffet's clarinets were made with much better quality wood. They aged & seasoned the wood better and didn't have to stain it to cover up imperfections. I also have a 60's era R13. It has never cracked, even after being dropped on concrete... That's a story for another time.
Nowadays, everything has to be done lickity-split. Wood is often not aged enough and the correct measures for seasoning the wood are not taken. As I said in my other post, there is a definite visual difference between the quality of the wood on the upper joint compared to the lower joint, which is shocking since both joints are supposed to come from the same piece of wood!
Unfortunately, even the "top of the line" models are made with poor quality wood. I cringe thinking about what Buffet does to R13's and the new french E11's. They think that all imperfections can be covered up by staining the wood. Not so much...
When I have a new upper joint sent to me, I will definitely explain this issue to Buffet and ensure that a new upper joint is made with "quality" wood (even though ALL Toscas are supposed to be made with the best wood... urgh). I mean, come on! I paid $6000 for the clarinet. The least it can do is not crack.
BMH
Illinois State University, BME and BM Performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-02-19 15:26
Or, as an alternative speculation without basis, the clarinets have always cracked at the same rate over time, but those that were irrepairable have been thrown out, never to be seen in future generation - making it appear as if older clarinets are of better quality wood that today's.
I offer for support of my speculation the relatively large proportion of older clarinets I have seen that have pins in them.
It's very hard to come to any reasonable and SUPPORTABLE conclusion without knowing the real rate over time. Today may be the real "golden age" when we look back 40 years from now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2012-02-19 15:34
bethmhil wrote:
> I mean, come on! I paid $6000 for the clarinet.
> The least it can do is not crack.
We've been down this road so many times ...
Some $3000 clarinets will crack, some $6000 clarinets will crack, some designer 'boutique' clarinets will crack. Always has been - always will. A price point is not a guarantee against cracks ... too many variables
As Mark said, there were numbers of 'golden age' R13's which have cracked, however over time they've been since taken out of circulation.
...GBK (who only owns 1960's and 1970's era Buffets)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Campana
Date: 2012-02-19 15:41
Disclaimer. I speak not as a clarinetist (I'm rubbish) but as a retired engineer who has designed plant for controlling temperature and humidity environments for demanding applications (silk screen printing, storing wood for up market bespoke furniture making etc.).
IMO what happened years ago was that for quality items the wood was allowed to season slowly such that it's emc (equilibrium moisture content) was allowed to settle at some midpoint between the extremes it was likely to encounter in it's working life BEFORE being worked on. i.e. If say a clarinet barrel was estimated to have it's moisture content vary between 5 and 10% due to normal storage and climatic fluctuations in later life it would be seasoned to 7.1/2 % before being cut and shaped. Very expensive process. Even in my younger days they were looking for ways to speed up the process.
Just can't imagine anybody today putting up with that sort of expense, everything being outsourced to the cheapest possible supplier...
I guess that's progress
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bradfordlloyd
Date: 2012-02-19 17:04
@bethmhill: I'm so sorry that you're going through this with your clarinet, and I share your expectation that if you pay $6,000 for a clarinet, it shouldn't crack at the very least!
@putz: I agree that this sounds like a very reasonable change and set of assumptions (I mean EVERYTHING is getting sped up, cheapened up, and cost reduced...)
@mark charette: I like your thinking here, partially because it just seems so possibly true.....and I've seen A LOT of pinned and otherwise repaired vintage horns as well (heck, check out the nefarious auction site on any given day). While a longitudinal study of the percent of clarinets that have cracked over time would help (but would be really hard to execute), I wonder if someone could simply test grenadilla samples (newer and older) and objectively determine the differences and whether that's likely to mean cracks are more prevalent.
As for me, I'm with GBK....I'll stick with tried and true (and uncracked) vintage horns...if they haven't cracked in 50 years, they probably won't crack today!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-02-19 23:13
Beth Hildenbrand wrote:
"both joints are supposed to come from the same piece of wood!"
I don't think you're correct about this, Beth. And I think you are drawing some bad conclusions based on your assumption that it is true. Where did you hear it?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-02-20 00:00
Time for more faith in the alternative materials....
I've played greenline clarinets, I've played hard rubber clarinets, and they both sound good to me. Maybe try a bunch of barrels and throw an aftermarket grenedilla or rosewood barrel on them to sweeten it up a bit.
I still say that the clarinet body has more to do with tuning and eveneness, while the tone-production is primarily mouthpiece/barrel combination. So given the opportunity, I would choose a greenline (or hard rubber material type) clarinet that plays in tune with good even resistance and manipulate barrels to find a match for my current mouthpiece that will get a sweeter tone. Or have a barrel custom made (I've tried two Allen Segal barrels, and while they weren't made for my instrument, they both had unique and positive affects on the tone of my instrument over the stock barrel - which further solidifies my belief that mouthpiece + barrel = tone, and clarinet body = tuning/resistance). Not to mention, some popular mouthpiece makers (Greg Smith I know for one), are now offering barrels that they selected to work well with a particular mouthpiece which means some more reputable people than "sfalexi from that bulletin board place" seem to have gravitated towards this idea as well.
Takes your standard cracking scenarios out of the equation, and if the barrel DOES crack, it's much easier to replace a 200 dollar barrel than a $3000 horn, not to mention, it's much easier to find abarrel for a quick replacement (let's say you have concerts coming up) than trying to get the crack fixed lickity split.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
Post Edited (2012-02-20 00:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bethmhil
Date: 2012-02-20 02:45
Jack, seems like I've gotten that understanding from others here on this forum, but I probably misunderstood.
One of my clarinet teachers has the same clarinet as Charlie Neidich (a german brand that I can't remember how to spell...), and he said both joints are made from the same piece of wood-- I guess I assumed the same goes for Buffet.
BMH
Illinois State University, BME and BM Performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-02-20 05:15
I see little point in speculating why something is happening without establishing IF it is happening.
1. Any such reading of posts here is entirely anecdotal.
2. The BBoard didn't exist 40 years ago, therefore we could never know if more people are reporting cracks now.
3. Nobody posts about how their clarinet hasn't cracked.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-02-20 05:16
>> I offer for support of my speculation the relatively large proportion of older clarinets I have seen that have pins in them. <<
Yes, I would say the % of cracked new clarinets I see is more or less the same as the % of older clarinets with repaired cracks. I didn't write down and calctulated exactly, it's just a general impression.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2012-02-20 05:27
In 2002 I did a quick bulletin board survey to see if certain years and clarinet models stood out as far as having a higher percentage of clarinets cracked.
The sample was about 150 responders and at one time I compiled all the data. (I no longer have the final tally) I do remember that certain years of particular models did stand out as having more people reporting cracks, although I again caution you to be aware that the sample was small.
You can read the entire thread here and draw your own conclusions:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=65813&t=65813 ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bradfordlloyd
Date: 2012-02-20 10:57
I'm sure that somewhere deep in the bowels of the major clarinet manufacturers, there's a locked drawer with the number of cracked clarinets they received back in a given year (or replaced joints, or whatever), but that's not likely to ever be shared with us mere mortals.
I like what you've put together GBK, but I agree with J.J.'s point about posts to the Board being fundamentally anecdotal -- but the researcher in me says that there's no good way to build a truly representative sample on this topic.
Which leads me back to my previous post...if there's a belief that the wood being used in clarinets today is inferior to wood used in the past, couldn't wood samples from then and now be empirically tested to see if there's any merit to this idea? No anecdotal evidence, just hards facts....
By the way, anecdotally, based on their Board, doesn't it seem like pretty much every wooden oboe top joint cracks at one point or another? (i.e., no matter whether its old or new). Since those instruments are made from the same wood, one might think they should either be included in our tests, or at least in our anecdotal research.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Campana
Date: 2012-02-20 12:29
...Which leads me back to my previous post...if there's a belief that the wood being used in clarinets today is inferior to wood used in the past, couldn't wood samples from then and now be empirically tested to see if there's any merit to this idea? No anecdotal evidence, just hards facts....
I would think that most clarinets, cracking or otherwise would have reached emc and stabalized by the time they have been owned for a while. The important thing, IMO, is, was the wood stable at the time of production and machining etc. This is something we can never know or find out.
However I would be interested to know the timescale then and now between harvesting and finished ready for sale.
Being facetious here but I bet if it could be plotted on a graph, there would be a step change in the period when accountants gained the ascendancy over engineers and craftsmen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-02-20 15:35
I'm not sure I believe the old rhetoric about wood being aged and more stable the longer they wait to put it into production. It sounds like an idea that makes sense, but has it ever been scientifically tested? How would one control for such a test?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LJBraaten
Date: 2012-02-20 16:02
I live in the midst of the forest industry, and logs have to be cured, or seasoned properly before they can be cut into good lumber. Otherwise the boards twist or crack. I have read reports on this forum from barrel makers about the changes in barrel wood before it stabilizes. Wouldn't the same apply to clarinet wood?
Leaving all that aside, after reading the various post and threads about cracking, I can't imagine why anyone would pay big bucks for a new instrument which has a good chance of cracking, involving added repair costs or compromising the lengthy selection process. What other major purcase (new car, TV, computer, etc) does one make while thinking "this will probably break soon." ? Wouldn't it be better to buy something used, or that has already proven to be stable? At least then if it still cracked, the repair would be easier to take, or at least within budget.
Laurie
(Mr. Laurie J Braaten)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bradfordlloyd
Date: 2012-02-20 16:10
It sounds like there are about three hypotheses forming here:
1. There really are no difference in the percent of clarinets that crack. They always have and they always will, but now we can all get together on the internet and complain about it (and convince each other that it's a growing problem).
2. The quality of grenadilla wood now is inferior to the quality of wood in the past, thus more cracks are likely.
3. Once today's grenadilla wood is aged properly (and emc is reached), the quality of the wood is on par with and the likelihood of cracking is no more than in the past. But the pressure to manufacture more/more profitably has lowered the amount of aging time for the wood and thus increased cracking.
There's a PhD student in engineering somewhere that could really dig his/her teeth into this, I'm sure....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-02-20 18:17
LJBraaten wrote:
> I can't imagine why anyone would pay
> big bucks for a new instrument which has a good chance of
> cracking, involving added repair costs or compromising the
> lengthy selection process.
Well, if you want a clarinet, oboe, recorder, wood flute, bassoon, or just about ANY thin-walled, wood instrument ...
You will HAVE to live with the vagaries of a non-uniform, non-linear system that is prone to crack, warp, bend, and otherwise deform and delaminate at any possible time. Being think-walled & having holes sure as heck causes a nice set of problems but even if they weren't thin-walled:
Do your doors ever stick in winter? Your cabinet doors drift open in summer? Your furniture get loose in the winter? The spaces between the hardwood planks on your floor shrink & swell with the seasons?
It's wood, for goodness sake, and wood moves. Ask any cabinetmaker about why the panels on a cabinet door have to float ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LJBraaten
Date: 2012-02-20 18:29
Mark, I'm in favor of buying wood instruments, but it seems to me that tried and tested *used* is less risky than uncertain & expensive new. (edit:) But admittedly, I'm very frugal.
LaurieI
(Mr. Laurie J Braaten)
Post Edited (2012-02-20 21:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2012-02-20 18:45
@Bethmhil I assure you that the same piece of wood is NOT used for the upper and lower joints of a clarinet even though they are both stamped with the same serial number from any of the four major manufacturers.
The brand of clarinet you are referring to is Schwenk and Seggelke and for a set of clarinets from them, you could expect to pay anywhere from 17k-20k.
If you're getting a new upper joint for your clarinet, I'd recommend finding a way to just see if Buffet will let you select a whole new clarinet. I promise you that changing the upper joint will change how the clarinet plays, for better or worse.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-02-20 23:04
Virtually all the wood that is supplied to clarinet makers is imported already cut into joint length sections so it would be be near impossible to find 2 pieces that came even from the same tree let alone 2 consecutive pieces.
It is possible that S&S have developed some way to overcome this but I have have never heard this assertion that they actually do.
In past centuries when all makers were handcrafters I do believe that they bought in wood as trees and the finest makers tried to use common wood for all parts of the instrument, but this is probably at least 100-200 years back.
What the finest hand makers today do is to personally select joints from wood that has matching characteristics as to grain, colour, density etc for each specific instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-02-21 04:57
Norman Smale wrote:
> Virtually all the wood that is supplied to clarinet makers is
> imported already cut into joint length sections so it would be
> be near impossible to find 2 pieces that came even from the
> same tree let alone 2 consecutive pieces.
>
> It is possible that S&S have developed some way to overcome
> this but I have have never heard this assertion that they
> actually do.
>
Rossi seems to able to get pieces long enough to make 1 piece bodies so it must be possible. My guess is that the longer pieces come at a significant cost premium however.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
