 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-02 23:49
Despite no affiliation with anyone musical, I have posted comments on the bboard that have put Ridenour Clarinet Product’s best foot forward. I like what they do, from their choice of using hard rubber for consistent and great playing clarinets, to their pricing and business model, to their leading the industry along with Buffet in sourcing other things than just pure grenadilla to make instruments out of.
This is important as experts believe grenadilla supplies are dwindling, and won’t stabilize, let alone flourish for many years to come. Its shortage is well covered on the bboard, and many indigenous to the African countries from which it's sourced are not the better for this, often at the hands of the few who made good money cutting down faster than growing.
But let me get off my environmental soapbox and ask myself if I’ve been fair and balanced.
For if grenadilla was still plentiful it would still be wood: subject to the changes in size with temperature and weather, affecting intonation. Even clarinets made out of materials which don’t change shape as easily as wood represent a challenge to tune, where compromise regarding the placement of tone holes in the clarinet’s body finds two or more notes less than 100% perfectly in tune, so that one cannot be perfect, while the other is wildly off pitch.
With this said, if you would like, consider watching this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CpQ5QLTCJc&list=UU0NwQkfx27kBNtzGsZwKkzQ
I played along with my beloved 1960s Buffet R13, custom tuned by known techs, and had to make plenty of embouchure based intonation adjustments.
People say Ridenour clarinets are very consistent. Please see what you think. Granted it’s somebody else playing, not you—but it’s the same person on all the clarinets.
To be fair, this is not to say, or so I’ve heard, that other vendors like Selmer haven’t done some pretty fine work in the past getting wood clarinets fairly consistent. But I’d like to see reports of other vendor’s instruments, even 4 ready to be sold like these, just as consistent.
Then, I’d like to see them do it in a material other than the grenadilla they’ve used, as experts say granadilla isn’t forever. My interest is particularly at Buffet’s Greenline, which you have to admit, is pretty expensive, but one we would hope more dimensionally stable that their pure granadilla line.
What do you guys think? Were these hand picked instruments? If so, how would this vendor survive with their “ship and try” marketing if it took repeated round trips for people to find the right instrument.
Have people tried numerous Buffets of 1 model at a store and found them all wonderful?
Have their Yamahas played with the reliability of accurate time pieces? I don’t know, so share with me your success storied to make this fairer.
Thanks all.
Post Edited (2014-04-03 01:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-04-03 04:24
I can't imagine how discouraging these videos are for folks who work for other manufacturers. And you KNOW they're looking, and they hope not too many others are listening.
Tom is the 4 wheel disc brakes when everybody else is still drums all the way around. And when they get discs (as they all will one day) they will act like they invented them.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-04-03 04:35
First off, if Tom has batch of AT 12s around he's willing to sell .....I'M BUYING !!!!
Yes, this is to a degree an impressive demonstration. Although it was on the "slow response setting," and Tom was watching (compensating with....?) the meter. For me, I harp on the problem notes; throat Bb and A, the F just below, the first clarion F#, and what happens in the altissimo is pretty important too.
It's worthwhile to mention that we ALL COMPENSATE in various ways at different places, so one horn that is good for one player may be the bane of another's existence.
That said, these horns do seem consistent from one to another in pitch tendencies. The reason wood has issues it that it is 'finalized' in France (across The Pond) at some point in the past with goodness knows what prevailing weather conditions. Since it is less likely that the wood is allowed to age and settle enough with all the demands we put on product, by the time we try them here, the dimensions usually shift somewhere. This is why the Greenline and hard rubber are better media for pitch (inherently stable).
I seriously doubt ANY clarinetist lives with an instrument for which he/she has not settled with at least a few good compromises (good example is Alphie's test fire of the Eppelshiem).
As long as real effort and time is put into a synthetic horn, it should be a legitimate professional grade horn. But make NO MISTAKE !!!! This does NOT equate to inexpensive, it only means there will be clarinets long after we've killed the last tree.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-03 02:28
Actually, I'm making very little adjustment to play--no adjustment whatsoever in the clarion. Very, very minor voicing adjustments were made for the throat tones in a few instances clarinets, which are more sensitive than most other parts of the clarinet's range, as any clarinet player knows. Outside of minor voicing adjustments for a few of the throats, playing these clarinets in tune is ezee-peezee--absurdly so, actually.
I didn't do a full chromatic review--because I was trying to keep the tuning tests as concise back to back as possible. A chromatic test up to high A above the staff yields nothing much different. And by the way, the middle finger F# clarion on these clarinets is as good in tone color, tuning and response as the chromatic fingering--really cool.
Second, these were not hand picked clarinets from a dozen or more, or even four out of five or six; they were just the four clarinets I happened to be processing this morning--nothing out of the ordinary or unusual.
Since I had already done one video of the tuning of a Libertas I just picked off a stand, I thought, why not take what I've got here and compare all four so people can see my testing of an individual clarinet was not an anomaly or something just cherry picked---this is what our customers routinely get, period.
The point: building a spectacularly tuning clarinet is not an accident, IF your 1) materials are superior and 2) your processes and 3) design are superior. All three of these are necessary for success. Failure or lack in any of the three will yield inconsistent results---which the experience of non-hard rubber clarinets has constantly revealed in the past---regardless of price.
I really don't know about how to "make the test more fair," or whatever the phrase was. There are no tricks here: 4 randomly picked clarinets, playing in a cramped, poorly lit processing area with lousy acoustics, while your daughter holds a camera behind you and another runs unattended in front of you, while the air conditioner is going, and picking up each clarinet, one immediately after another, with no "testing" or "adjustment time" for each clarinet in between tests, and running the test on one take and publishing with no cuts--no second, third, or fourth tries to get it right. I've never seen any one do anything analogous with other brands. And I don't really have time to practice any more--so it's not like I've been training for this.
Exactly what might one deem "more fair" conditions?--Tying one lip behind my back? ( I play double-lip).
Tom Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-04-04 03:15
Over 100 years back firms including Boosey & co and also Hawkes (long before merger of these firms) were offering professional level clarinets with the option of either wood or ebonite, in fact the ebonite models were usually slightly more expensive than wood so players have long had the ability to choose.
Empirically it seems the wood came to dominate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-04 03:49
Rejecting hard rubber based off designs from 100 YEARS AGO is.....rather close minded.
Also. The issue of why it came to dominate is conspicuously absent. Most players would tell you Grenadilla wood was chosen because players thought it sounded better. They would be false on two fronts
A. Players didn't make the choice
B. It wasn't chosen because of sound
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-04 03:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-04 06:34
I respect your right Mr. Smale to conclude that wood, primarily grenadilla, came to be the material of use through consumer choice, even though I believe it was manufacturers who sourced wood originally for production cost savings and the consumers who adapted.
But regardless of which of us has the more accurate picture looking back, looking forward, would you agree sir that manufacturers best shop around for materials to make their clarinets with other than this wood, because you share my belief in its ever growing scarcity?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-04-04 18:41
interesting and relevant article in The Clarinet about 20 years ago on quality control of clarinet manufacture. As I remember it there was little, and final tuning/adjustments were allotted a minute or two.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-04-04 15:03
Ted, I was not rejecting hard rubber, merely commenting on fact that ultimately players make the choice with their chequebooks, and if a manufacturer does not meet their demands they take their custom elsewhere.
(Witness sad demise of B&H who manifestly failed to meet the players requirements over past 30 - 40 years).
I happen to possess several models of B&H professional Imperial clarinets in both wood and hard rubber - to my limited abilities I find the hard rubber versions somewhat more responsive but the wood having greater depth of tone.
If better instruments can be made from synthetics then ultimately players will vote for them.
I suspect at the very highest level wood will dominate for some while yet and if grenadilla was reserved for just that volume of production then supply is likely to be quite adequate.
Richard, I agree - in fact the amount of time allocated for most clarinets is zero. I suspect that is why the boutique makers such as Rossi, Eaton and the small German firms win out. Having worked with one of those for several years I can say that their tuning time was measured in many hours and for instance Schwenke and Seggelke suggets the buyer come back after a year to have even more tuning work done.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2014-04-04 20:42
what if wood was chosen over hard rubber because it's easier to machine and won't turn green and won't tarnish silver keywork? What if a majority of clarinetists grew up with (comparably cheaper) wood and its "sound qualities" and thus conclude that "that's what a clarinet must sound like"?
Maybe we got it backwards and confuse cause and result, I don't know.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-04 21:56
Wood is not easier to machine than hard rubber....at least according to every machinist and engineering professor I've ever spoken with.
Hard rubber clarinets turn white or fade, when the color does fade which is rare. This "problem" has no effect on performance qualities and can be easily reversed.
I agree with you about "conditioning" being a factor, it's an excellent point. However just because someone is conditioned to something, it could be anything...not just talking about clarinets or even musical instruments, does not make it better.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-05 00:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2014-04-04 22:07
maybe I confused hard rubber and greenline or resonite re machineability - I seem to remember a discussion about that topic. ???
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-04 22:25
Mr. Smale:
If the consumer market for professional clarinets was both as transparent and as consumer driven as you seem to claim, and if grenadilla were sourced solely for instrument creation, I would be willing to accept your ideas, in fairness, as at least plausible, given the lack of data to prove otherwise.
Sadly though, the market for wood clarinets isn't like buying a well known quality controlled commodity like, (pardon the example) Oreo Cookies, where consistency from store to store can allow the customer to focus on price alone.
Still more, even if the quality of wood horns were consistent, fair markets would also require their being numerous well known competiting professional brands to choose from, forcing the manufacturer to compete for the customer's dollar with quality and price incentives.
Good bad or indifferent, the market of large makers of professional clarinets, IMHO, runs more like an oligopoly (a market with a limited number of well known big suppliers). New purchasers into the market are often highly influenced in purchase decisions by their teachers, who like their teacher's teacher, played a particular brand. Information about what these companies are doing is not transparent to a consumer that even if it was, is often sent in one direction by a teacher who may not be as in tune with the overall clarinet production marketplace and strongly support 1 legacy brand.
In some ways this lack of consumer information is not unlike the US market for matresses, where the same matress secretly goes by several different brand names in competing stores, so each can claim their own unique label, and customers can't comparison shop. IMHO, in the same way, a company loyal to its consumers wouldn't keep hush the diminishing quality standards of a model over time (cough R13) using the dimishing supply of quality grenadilla original used for this (increased real dollars price) model, on higher end models.
Now, is there competition in an oligopsony? Of course. Like you point out, clarinet makers can come and go, but a consumer driven market? I don't think so. It's not even a fair market between manufacturers and buyers. It's IMHO far more driven by the few large professional clarinet manufacturers.
Again, consumers don't act on all information, some of which is intentionally kept from them: a necessary part of truly free markets.
In fairness, you haven't claimed the market to be free, just perhaps freer than I believe it to be.
Couple that with the fact that one of those clarinet makers gets subsidized by the French government to stay afloat, and you have a situation where free markets don't exist.
Speaking of free markets, sadly, although I share your wish to save grenadilla for instrument making only, in reality, markets will (and should) have said wood going to the highest bidder, be it a funiture maker or any other consumer of the wood. Restricting the use of this wood to one manufacturing sector (musical instruments), while well intentioned, overall hurts consumers.
"If better instruments can be made from synthetics then ultimately players will vote for them."
I believe that if wood instruments (i.e. grenadilla) can't be made as the wood stock is depleted (something I do believe will happen), the transition off of wood to something else, synthetic or otherwise, will be "mother nature's doing," not the consumer's or maker's.
(Mother nature: please accept my apologies. You are merely reacting to the rate at which we used a particular wood you provided us with, relative to the degree to which we replanted it.)
Although I would agree that Buffet's Greenline is a synthetic, I'm not so sure that I'd bucket hard rubber clarinets, no less sourced from trees (only you don't have to chop down the trees to do so) is. Then again, synthetic need not be a "four letter word." If technology can give us material to make great clarinets out of, I'm all for that.
===
All this said, the hard rubber clarinet of discussion here was that of a particularly brand, of course you realize not a statement about all hard rubber clarinets, whether of today or days past. A fair test of intonation and sound would dictate you try this brand against several copies of a brand you might own, or atleast 1 copy of the various clarinet models you own, with both yourself and blind audiences as judges. This manufacturer spends considerable time in manufacture and finishing with respect to many quality factors including, of course, the tuning we saw here. And I believe in every way measurable, it deserves to be bucketed under the "boutique maker" label you've used (except for price)--not that in any way you've said otherwise.
Right or wrong, I draw these observations about the market with no affliation to anyone in it.
Post Edited (2014-04-04 23:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-04-04 18:52
Some German clarinet makers are waking up to the merits of ebonite instruments and barrels. One of these is Herbert Neureiter, who advertises that "every model" of German system clarinet he produces is "available in ebonite" upon request. He also offers a very attractive line of ebonite clarinet barrels in several colors, including "emerald green marmorite." He has high praise for the intonation, tonal clarity, and fine machining qualities of ebonite for both clarinets and clarinet barrels.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-05 00:48
I find it hard to accept the validity of economic analysis from someone who can't even get basic terminology right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2014-04-05 01:58
About 15 years ago, I heard the head of a major German grenadilla wood supply company say that he saw no shortage coming of grenadilla wood. He said, however, that it was quite difficult to find workers who were willing to go to the remote desert-like sites where the trees grow to harvest it. The places where the trees grow were said to be very miserable to work at, the wood is hard to cut, and transport of the wood to shipping ports is not easy.
On the internet, one can find sites that refer to the planting of new trees and reforestation efforts. Is there any specific data or studies by wood suppliers that support the contentions on this thread that the supply of grenadilla wood is disappearing?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-05 04:19
Mr. Kissinger:
If you are referring to my incorrect use of "oligopsony" when I should have said "oligopoly": the former being few buyers not sellers, I have corrected that.
Since I explained what I meant, and few know these words but those with degrees in economics (which I do hold), I trust the mistake--assuming its my analysis, and the aforementioned mistake being what you refer to, doesn't detract from my message.
But since you seem to know what I meant and disagree--which is fine--why not share with us not only where you believe I am wrong, but what you think is a better way of looking at the market for professional clarinets. In absense of you explaining yourself Mr. Kissinger, people won't know why you feel the way you do, and be more swayed to agree with you.
I'm all ears sir. The floor is yours. I don't have an issue being proven wrong or that better explanations of this market exist over mine. I just don't like people saying my ideas are flawed and not explaining why.
I'm trust that "if the shoe was on the other foot," you too would want not just assertation, but justification as well from dissenters.
Wes:
It takes 30 years to grow a tree from which grenadilla is souced. I only hope the reforestation you speak of eventually does provide supplies that are forested responsibly. I respect that you merely ask, and look for evidence, not that you question the validity of such shortage claims.
If you search the internet (or here) you can find numerous independent agencies documenting the diminishing supply of this wood. We find Buffet introducing its Greenline as an answering to "easing the stress" of grenadilla supplies, and its use of less quality wood on its R13 line that in years gone by, all while raising its real dollars cost.
I don't think a company whose business centers around such wood would want to acknowledge problems with its supply unless it was already recognized industry wide, and impossible to hide from.
"A German grenadilla wood supply company say that he saw no shortage coming of grenadilla wood."
Maybe he even claims that today. But I'd like to ask him whether, of the wood he sees, if quality has gone done and/or price up.
This of course speaks nothing to whether such wood, even if abundant in supply, can generate as consistent intonation results as the Ridenours claimed in their video--which I personally see as highly legitimate.
Post Edited (2014-04-05 01:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-05 05:18
TPR, you write:
Since I explained what I meant, and few know these words but those with degrees in economics (which I do hold), I trust the mistake--assuming its my analysis, and the aforementioned mistake being what you refer to, doesn't detract from my message.
Apparently there are even some people with degrees in economics who don't know the words. Careless use of technical terms (and oligopsony isn't the only example in your analysis, I think) and careless presentation detracts from your message in that it raises questions of credibility. You've given me very little factual evidence to support any of your opinions. And, economics degree notwithstanding (and we only have your word for that), I see no evidence that you have expert knowledge in this area. IMO, all you've presented is unsubstantiated, inexpert opinion. Others may choose to agree with you, especially if what you have to say fits their maps. I don't and it doesn't fit mine.
But since you seem to know what I meant and disagree--which is fine--why not share with us not only where you believe I am wrong, but what you think is a better way of looking at the market for professional clarinets.
There is another possibility that you haven't considered. Maybe I don't have an opinion. Perhaps, it's not so much that I think you are wrong. (Though I have to admit that, given your overall S/N ratio, I'm headed in that direction.) It's rather that you haven't convinced me that you are right. Your analysis doesn't pass my smell test.
I didn't start this thread. I'm not the one trying to sway others to my way of thinking. I don't feel that need. I'm simply saying that, if you want to convince me that I should take you seriously, you'll have to do better. Maybe below, I'll tell you what I need.
In absense of you explaining yourself Mr. Kissinger, people won't know why you feel the way you do, and be more swayed to agree with you.
I don't care whether people agree with me or not.
I'm all ears sir. I don't have an issue being proven wrong.
By now I hope you understand that I don't think it's my job to prove you wrong. I think it's your job to convince me that you're right.
I just don't like people saying my ideas are flawed and not explaining why.
OK. I'll point out what, in my perception, are red flags regarding the credibility of your economic analysis in particular and your overall credibility in general. Be warned, it's a long list. But, IMNSHO, if you "don't like people saying your ideas are flawed and not explaining why," take more care when you present those ideas so that: (1) people are less likely to consider them flawed, and (2) they take you seriously enough to think you're worth the trouble to explain why.
1. You tell Norman Small that if certain conditions were met, you might be willing to grant his point of view as a plausible alternative "given the lack of data to prove otherwise." But "otherwise" is your position so you've now admitted up front that there is no evidence to support your position. Not a good start.
2. Next you introduce an analogy to Oreo Cookies. You seem to like analogy, BTW, though, IMO, you're not very good at it. Generally, when someone resorts to analogy to make a point in this kind of discussion, I figure they're in trouble. And here you confuse the seller with the product. (You've done this before, BTW.) A particular brand and model of a clarinet is the same product whether I buy it -- at a local store or WWBW or Weiner. I have two decisions to make: (1) what store am I going to, and (2) what brand and model clarinet (cookie) will I buy. Will I buy an R13 (regular Oreos) or a Prestige (double-filling Oreos) or a Tosca (Mint flavor filling Oreos). Or will I buy a Yamaha SEV (fig newtons). If there is a point to your analogy, I don't see it. I don't think you did a very good job of thinking it through. But maybe I'm just dense.
3. You list some requirements of "fair" markets. I would like to see a reference that corroborates your conditions: "numerous" "well-known" "competing" "professional" brands as necessary to a fair market economy. I've never seen that set before. Perhaps it would help if you gave us your definition of a fair market economy. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to remove "professional" from the list and stipulate instead that we are talking about the market for professional clarinets. Still how numerous is numerous? 2 brands? 3? 6? 27? (Citation?) Why must producers be "well-known" if the materials and quality of workmanship is capable of observation, and the customer can try the instruments? Finally, what evidence do you have that major manufacturers don't compete against one another?
4.(a) You observe that because of some dominant manufacturers, the industry has elements of oligopoly. For the little it's worth, I'm inclined to agree. But surely you remember from your economics courses that an oligopoly can be a free market. Under what conditions is it a free market? Under what conditions is it not? What tangible evidence do you have that the conditions that preclude a free market are present?
(b) You suggest that many purchase decisions are influenced by a teacher. Assuming an honest teacher, I would think the teacher will be inclined to recommend something that has worked for him/her and his/her students in the past. That's not necessarily going to be limited to one instrument/model. And it's not necessarily going to be a bad recommendation or lead to a bad decision, even if it isn't what you'd recommend. When I look at the recommendations on this Board, often from teachers, I generally see a list of suggestions. What objective evidence do you have that teachers are not open-minded? That they won't recommend a good thing if they have experienced it personally? And would they be acting as a professional if they recommended something they hadn't tried themselves? Will the student always get the best clarinet at the best price? Perhaps not. Will the incremental improvement a buyer might achieve by further search exceed the cost of searching further? This is ultimately an empirical question. Good luck trying to find research on it. (My priors are that the incremental cost will usually outweigh the incremental benefit but that's just my personal opinion.)
I must be dense because I don't understand what you mean by "Information about what these companies are doing"? What information are you talking about? How is it relevant to a purchase decision when the instrument and price are available for inspection? Can you diagram your last sentence in this paragraph?
5. "In some ways this lack of consumer information is not unlike the US market for mattresses" Oh, oh. We're in trouble here. Another analogy AND a double negative. In what way is a lack of information like a market for mattresses? For your analogy to work, you would need to demonstrate that there is one big manufacturer stenciling professional clarinets for Buffet. Yamaha, Selmer, Hammerschmidt, et al. Well, there is at least one big Chinese company stenciling professional hard rubber clarinets. Is that what you're talking about? I doubt it. The truth is that your analogy has nothing to do with the main point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, you missed an opportunity here to provide some specific concrete examples instead of vague generalities. Is information suppression a general problem across manufacturers or is there just one in particular? And, again, can you cite some tangible evidence to conclude a general decrease in quality (as opposed by a specific problem that is more than offset by general improvements in design)?
6. What evidence drives you to think that the market is dominated by the manufacturers? Why don't consumers have a fair chance?
7. What information is being kept hidden from consumers? Are they being forced to purchase clarinets blind? Are they being lied to about warranties? What are the specific sources of information asymmetry in the market for professional clarinets? What is the impact of information asymmetry on a free market? (Citation.) What can buyers do to overcome it?
8. In a number of places, you write "IMHO" or "I believe." I'll be blunt here. Without support, I really don't care what you believe. And, without support, you shouldn't care what I believe, either.
9. You mention a French government subsidy. My first thought is, "so what?" The French economy works differently than ours. But I'd like to know, if there is indeed a subsidy, under which French subsidy program does it fall? How much did Buffet (the company Tom Ridenour identifies) receive last year? Why is this a problem? Give me some facts, not innuendo.
10. You mention the impact of using African blackwood for clarinet manufacture on the eventual viability of the species. Can you refer to some specific studies to support your concerns? When Wes requests this information from you, you write, "If you search the internet (or here) you can find numerous independent agencies documenting the diminishing supply of this wood." If that's the case, why didn't you provide a few links? Help Wes accept your position. And why do you assume that he didn't already do some searching on his own? Have you considered whether there are externalities associated with rubber production, particularly rubber in China?
Had you spent a little time editing to tighten your analysis and answered a reasonable number of questions like the ones I've raised with relevant facts, you might have convinced me that your analysis was worth taking seriously. Or maybe, you would have modified your position.
Edited to correct a few late-night typos and clarify a few of my comments.
Post Edited (2014-04-05 15:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-05 17:21
Sir--I acknowledge receipt of the above, but I don't have the time right now to carefully read your thoughts and reply. I will though, hopefully by the end of the weekend.
Not to in any way imply this being an act of distraction or diversion from replying to you, I hope focus (especially in the meantime) could turn back to what's really the premise of this thread, that being people's thoughts on the uniformity (much like, in all the good ways, my Oreo cookies among stores reference) in intonation of 4 clarinets, and comparisons to other vendors clarinets, as highlighted in the video referenced at the top of this thread.
Perhaps you or others can speak to your own experiences with intonation on your clarinets, and whether they found consistency amoung clarinets of this brand.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-04-05 18:56
Read the article by Snavely in The Clarinet on how to choose an artist clarinet. If you are in the market for one, you can likely reduce the amount of time and effort required by trying one, or more, which has been pre-adjusted and tuned by the seller. And, as always, try before buy. If value for price paid is a consideration as well, I suggest including Ridenour clarinets, on all counts.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2014-04-05 21:45
The late clarinet expert Glen Johnston told me that he would use a very inflexible mouthpiece when tuning clarinets to avoid compensating for the clarinets out of tune notes. He also did not own or use a tuner, but used an A tuning bar. He never mentioned perfect pitch. The mouthpiece he used for tuning would have a very short lay and a small tip opening. The Heckel company used to use a single reed mouthpiece for tuning their bassoons, perhaps for the same reasons, as a bassoon reed can be quite flexible.
It would be interesting to see another tuning video with an independent less capable player not being able to see the tuner, using an inflexible mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-06 10:36
“Apparently there are even some people with degrees in economics who don't know the words.”
We agree. I said that “few” know these words but those with degrees in economics, not that only economically train people do. You’ve wasted space going off on a non clarinet tangent stating that which I’ve already stated.
Perhaps you should know why I said “few” and not “only.” This is because I’m of the believe that, oh, I don’t know, Phd CPAs with 25 years experience teaching at the college level might also be well versed in such terminology too.
Might these be your credentials sir?. The internet seems to suggest so.
“Careless use of technical terms (and oligopsony isn't the only example in your analysis, I think) and careless presentation detracts from your message in that it raises questions of credibility. You've given me very little factual evidence to support any of your opinions. And, economics degree notwithstanding (and we only have your word for that), I see no evidence that you have expert knowledge in this area.
IMO, all you've presented is unsubstantiated, inexpert opinion. Others may choose to agree with you, especially if what you have to say fits their maps. I don't and it doesn't fit mine.”
In my opinion you are sounding like a college professional grading papers. This is a bulletin board, and I am not your student. I switched one word with its opposite, explained what I meant, corrected it before you even specifically pointed it out, you were probably the only one to catch it (so others weren’t confused) and that throws you off the deep end? Plus, you think it isn’t my only mistake, but don’t point out the others?
Sir I don’t have to give you factual evidence on a clarinet bulletin board that Buffet, Selmer, Yamaha and LeBlanc have much of the professional marketspace for clarinets anymore than I have to justify myself on a bboard about oil that it will burn if you take a match to it. If you don’t already know this, then please consider critiquing here less. My point: some things about clarinets, or a clarinet bboard, can be taken for granted. By analogy, I don’t have to prove to you on a clarinet bboard that throat Bb isn’t one of the best sounding notes on most clarinets.
You question my credentials. If it’s important to you I’ll send a picture of my diploma, complete with its BS degree in Economics to the moderator if you like--not that I think it’s relevant--and you can ask him about it. What will you do in return? Will you sooner seek to disprove someone’s credentials on your own before you ask them to substantiate them to you?
I give you little factual evidence to support my opinions, but—let me get this right--you don’t necessary disagree with me, (so you expressly say further down in your reply “perhaps I don’t think your wrong,”) all while on top of your post you say “I don’t [agree with your opinion]?”
How should I treat an individual that is so quick to judge me, all while he contradicts himself? Is it that, in your opinion I’m wrong, right, or haven’t proven to you that I’m right, or haven’t proven that you disagree with me (yesh!-- all stances you took immediately above) and accordingly, you’re going to give me a “D” grade?
Let’s go with I’m wrong (your sentiments at top.) Well what’s right? Oh, that’s right, you think “it’s [my] job to convince [you] that [I’m] right.
Sir, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, this is not a term paper. If I did all
the things you ask, which I am very capable of doing, my post would be longer than its already long self, and because of this length, ironically enough, even less people would likely read it and let me get my message through, all while I would waste bboard space talking about things so utterly disconnected to this “reed on a stick” that is supposed to be the object of our discussion.
Then what would you do, complain that I should be more concise and get my point across quicker?
“There is another possibility that you haven't considered. Maybe I don't have an opinion.”
Oh, I’ve considered it; just not perhaps in a way you’d like.
I have a better idea. You know best what you need. Why don’t you do the research yourself and share it here? I’m not here to convince you in specific sir, (not that I can’t answer every critique you raise) therefore it’s not my job to meet your laundry list.
“I don't care whether people agree with me or not.”
And yet you seem to think my getting you to agree with me should be my priority.
Here’s where I think you’re wrong sir. On this board you and I are peers, we don’t bear a student to professor relationship where I need to prove my arguments to you. I voiced my opinion, its well backed up by threads already discussed on these matters that are a waste of storage space to rehash for you. If you think I’m wrong, kindly don’t sit with your metaphorical legs up on the desk and your arms behind your head saying “prove it to me,” as if you control my grade, instead, do your own legwork and bring forth your own evidence as to why.
Granted that would be so much harder than critiquing.
“OK. I'll point out what, in my perception, are red flags regarding the credibility of your economic analysis in particular and your overall credibility in general. Be warned, it's a long list. But, IMNSHO, if you "don't like people saying your ideas are flawed and not explaining why," take more care when you present those ideas so that: (1) people are less likely to consider them flawed, and (2) they take you seriously enough to think you're worth the trouble to explain why.”
Right. I said oligopsony when I meant oligopoly. I’ve kept fellow board members up at night with this mistake that I realized as soon as you didn’t even expressly point it out and corrected. Better, I have to present myself credibly enough to you so that you’ll even be willing to hear me defend my positions?
1. You tell Norman Small that if certain conditions were met, you might be willing to grant his point of view as a plausible alternative "given the lack of data to prove otherwise." But "otherwise" is your position so you've now admitted up front that there is no evidence to support your position. Not a good start.
I disagree. I said if certain conditions held, since I don’t have personal data to disprove a bboard contributor’s thoughts, I wouldn’t be inclined to assume he was wrong or expressly disagree with him. Doing so, I feel, would make my expectations more like yours: expecting the contributor to waste his time selling me on his idea rather than my spending the time to research why he might be wrong or right, rather than first thinking it’s my right to critique him.
I think I conducted myself with this poster the way I would like and should be treated here by you.
“2. Next you introduce an analogy to Oreo Cookies. You seem to like analogy, BTW, though, IMO, you're not very good at it.”
You’re entitled to your opinion. I’ll explain to you why I believe you’re wrong.
“Generally, when someone resorts to analogy to make a point in this kind of discussion, I figure they're in trouble.”
When I resort to using analogies the last reason I do so is because I’m trying to bluff my way through something, but paradoxically enough because I do know what I’m talking about, but the issue may be complex, so I use a reference more likely to be understood by the masses.
Oreo cookies was a brand most could relate to, at least in the States. It’s likely to be, as I mentioned, consistent from one store to the next, allowing the shopper to focus on its price when making a purchase decision, not its differing quality among stores. They are analogous in their consistency, at least I believe, to Ridenour’s hard rubber clarinets, as shown in the video above.
I hope that makes me clearer.
“And here you confuse the seller with the product. (You've done this before, BTW.) A particular brand and model of a clarinet is the same product whether I buy it -- at a local store or WWBW or Weiner.”
No—here’s where I think you confuse what I was saying. The premise of this thread was about a curiosity as to whether people felt other brands of clarinets show consistency like those in the video. In terms of the clarinet's quality, I don’t care how those clarinets are sold, be it directly from the maker/designer, like the Ridenour’s do, or though dealer networks, like most other makers do, or a combination of both. Thank you for supporting my premise by agreeing that the product doesn’t change based upon how it’s marketed to the end consumer.
“I have two decisions to make: (1) what store am I going to, and (2) what brand and model clarinet (cookie) will I buy. Will I buy an R13 (regular Oreos). a Prestige (double-filling Oreos) or a Tosca (Mint flavor filling Oreos). Or will I buy a Yamaha SEV (fig newtons). If there is a point to your analogy, I don't see it. I don't think you did a very good job of thinking it through. But maybe I'm just dense.”
You didn’t read all the threads on this post did you? Sigh. That’s okay even if it is the case. Sometimes I don’t either, but then I usually don’t comment in those threads, let alone critically.
See if you follow this one sir. When wood clarinets are consistent like Oreo Cookies, I submit my opinion that people won’t need to try 6 of them to get a good one. You’re trying to equate different models of a brand with different varieties of a base cookie product. Is it any wonder I haven’t convinced you. You don’t get my point. As you may be aware if you’ve been reading recent posts and threads, Ridenour sells one hard rubber clarinet at a time by "mail and try" policy to a customer, and has very few returns. (In fairness they have institutional sales too, but I’m talking about the marketing for individual consumer sales here.)
If this could be done with wood clarinets, (and maybe it can) I’d like to think the expense of a dealer network at which people can personally try clarinets might not be as necessary, and we would see more of a direct marketing paradigm from manufacturer to player, where each side of the transaction could profit from lower prices and expenses of not paying for such a dealer network. And why do I feel that way: simple economics. Manufacturers and buyers don’t want to share the cost of a dealer network (and they do, it’s just a matter of who pays more) if that dealer network isn’t (at least as much) needed and adding value to the purchase.
3. You list some requirements of "fair" markets. I would like to see a reference that corroborates your conditions: "numerous" "well-known" "competing" "professional" brands as necessary to a fair market economy. I've never seen that set before. Perhaps it would help if you gave us your definition of a fair market economy. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to remove "professional" from the list and stipulate instead that we are talking about the market for professional clarinets. Still how numerous is numerous? 2 brands? 3? 6? 27? (Citation?) Why must producers be "well-known" if the materials and quality of workmanship is capable of observation, and the customer can try the instruments? Finally, what evidence do you have that major manufacturers don't compete against one another?
My requirements for fair markets are the same one finds in any introductory textbook on the subject. You know what oligopsony and oligopoly mean but you’ve never seen that list before? Ok, on this one I’ll indulge you.
In the study of microeconomics, perfect free markets don’t exist. But we learn about them in economics so we can appreciate the way real markets differ from them. In such perfect worlds the goods and services of those markets are offered by many competing sellers to many competing buyers. All information about those goods and services is known in the market (i.e. the market is transparent) and buyers/seller act on that information in rationale ways.
I’m glad you’re willing to remove "professional" from the list and stipulate instead that we are talking about the market for professional clarinets?????????????
In exchange I agree to remove circus clowns from the list of things to discuss and stipulate instead that we are talking about circus clowns only.
(I guess it’s not so funny where you’re the recipient of critique that’s probably just a typo on your part.)
The rest of your questions immediately above have already been answered by my definition of free markets, and my explanation of the main players in this oligopoly.
4.(a) You observe that because of some dominant manufacturers, the industry has elements of oligopoly. For the little it's worth, I'm inclined to agree.
Really? I thought I was required to provide you with proof. I thought you disagreed at top. I thought I shouldn’t assume what you think, and that maybe you neither agree or disagree, or fail to agree or disagree.
But surely you remember from your economics courses that an oligopoly can be a free market.
What economics courses? The ones I have to prove to you I have taken? First you ask me to define free markets for you and then you admit to knowing enough about economics to tell me that an oligopoly can be a free market, which by the way is a lot of bunk.
That an oligopoly is a free market is as oxymoronic as jumbo shrimp.
Again, perfectly free markets don’t exist, anymore than if they did, would a market with a few sellers (oligopoly) and many buyers, or vice versa be one.
One the other hand, an oligopoly isn’t a market were buyers hands are completely tied. They have choices, and the oligopolists most certainly compete, just not as much as in markets where there are many sellers to choose from.
Under what conditions is it a free market? Under what conditions is it not? What tangible evidence do you have that the conditions that preclude a free market are present?
Kindly follow this reasoning. You’re inclined to agree with me that an oligopoly exists here, or so you say immediately above—(you’ve changed your tune on this several times so I am not sure.) Oligopolistic markets by economic definition preclude the market from being as free as "which supermarket you shop in"—-which itself is not a perfectly free market if for no other reason than all information in the marketplace is not known. Supermarkets are just a heck of a lot closer to being free markets than are oligopolies, oligopsonies, monopolies and monopsonies (1 buyer).
(b) You suggest that many purchase decisions are influenced by a teacher. Assuming an honest teacher, I would think the teacher will be inclined to recommend something that has worked for him/her and his/her students in the past.
Agreed. The past. Have you heard this term sir: innovation? Better instruments that aren’t played by instructors not open to change, like so many clarinet players aren’t, are not themselves recommended.
That's not necessarily going to be limited to one instrument/model.
When it came to buying professional model clarinets, my experiences, and so many of my peers experiences were Buffet or nothing. Maybe that wasn’t a bad thing, but that was what it was.
And even if it wasn’t Buffet, which it was, it almost invariably was one of the brands I mentioned. See my talk about oligopolies and their affect on the consumer. Less companies supplying the wares, all else equal, means less competition among these suppliers, which means consumers suffer.
And by the way, I’m being nice in my economic descriptions. The professional market for clarinets might be better described as one big player in an oligopoly.: a Saudi Arabia in the OPEC cartel. Or was that analogy no good, showing my need to bluff that I don’t know.
And it's not necessarily going to be a bad recommendation or lead to a bad decision, even if it isn't what you'd recommend.
As the premise of this thread seeks to find, locate for me 4 other clarinets of a particular model. Reproduce the intonation test. I doubt it will do as well, but I’ve been proven wrong before. Assuming it does even as well, compare its price to the clarinets of the maker of this video. Then feel free to talk to me about good or bad decisions. You like giving homework. Instead, why not do some?
When I look at the recommendations on this Board, often from teachers, I generally see a list of suggestions.
Wow, up to now I really thought I defended my premises well, but (with sarcasm) you really got me with this one.
You mean when a poster asks, “what are some of the really good top professional brands of clarinets,” people answer with more than 1 brand?
Really? Wow, that’s proof positive? So people who name a brand not already mentioned, by definition also recommend that brand to their students. Really?
And so you do check this board, correct? Well then look up some answers yourself to your snide critiques.
I can accept criticism just fine. Come at me with facts though that suggest my premises wrong, not facts that I haven’t convinced you I’m correct.
“What objective evidence do you have that teachers are not open-minded?”
Gee I don’t know. That most people, good bad or indifferent who can afford professional clarinets buy Buffet? That most don’t realize that models like the R13 were reduced in attributes that Buffet defines as quality (wood density), that quite a few teachers look at you sideways when you express interest in a hard rubber clarinet, my own experiences and those of nearly every one of my peers as a student.
What objective evidence do you have that teachers are open-minded?
Oh that’s right again, it’s my job, or so you see it, to convince you.
That they won't recommend a good thing if they have experienced it personally?
Ah, yea. Exactly. Precisely.
“And would they be acting as a professional if they recommended something they hadn't tried themselves?”
I hope not. The problem I think is that the wording of your question isn’t optimized.
This is the question I think best be asked and answered: “Would they be acting as a professional if they recommended a brand they trusted and not one that might very well be a better value if only for the fact that they never bothered to try the other brand, and presume it not worth a try before ruling out, especially if it’s more affordable?”
Will the student always get the best clarinet at the best price? Perhaps not. Will the incremental improvement a buyer might achieve by further search exceed the cost of searching further?
If they haven’t reviewed material like the video above, my answer and opinion would be a big fat yes.
This is ultimately an empirical question. Good luck trying to find research on it.
No luck needed. I think I found some pretty good stuff in the video above. You’ve seen it?
(My priors are that the incremental cost will usually outweigh the incremental benefit but that's just my personal opinion.)
I must be dense because I don't understand what you mean by "Information about what these companies are doing"? What information are you talking about?
I think it’s unfair to call yourself dense, although I doubt you mean it. I prefer to say misinformed. I’m not going to waste space in this thread reposting for your ease stuff recently discussed on the reduced quality (at last as Buffet sees it) and increased real price of the R13. I’m not going to rehash things independent agencies have concluded, whose links are on this bboard, about the exploitation of the African Blackwood Tree from which grenadilla is sourced. I’m not going to point you to threads that quote people who’ve spoked to Francois Kloc (Buffet’s USA representative) who said if you want the wood of the old R13, buy the Prestige. I’m not going to refer you to numerous posts, on this bboard and elsewhere that talk about how much of the purchase price of your clarinet goes into legacy costs of some of the long time manufactures, not quality, that many people who buy don’t realize.
But normally I would had you not been so snide.
How is it relevant to a purchase decision when the instrument and price are available for inspection? Can you diagram your last sentence in this paragraph?
I gave you a taste above.
Normally I would be thrilled to take posters who were nice to the very places I sight. I new poster who asks the same question I've seen 20 times gets an answer from me as if it were my first time answering. You want proof? Again, search me on the bboard.
5. "In some ways this lack of consumer information is not unlike the US market for mattresses" Oh, oh. We're in trouble here. Another analogy AND a double negative.
Really, your improving the style of my grammer? Is that your issue, really? Would it make it better if I said “like,” even though the word “like” and the words “not unlike” have subtlety different meanings and that’s why I chose the words I did?
Sir, “not unlike” connotes “many but not all aspects are the same,” while “like” connotes, “most to nearly all aspects are the same.”
And in what way is a lack of information like a market for mattresses?
This one I clearly spelt out. Sigh. I’ll try again. By mattress manufacturers concealing the true make and model of a mattress by slapping a store specific brand name on it, as is often done in the mattress industry, consumers lose the ability to make comparisons on price between stores because they can’t compare what is really the same mattress, marketed under different names. The consumer can’t get the best deal because they lack information.
Clear now?
For your analogy to work, you would need to demonstrate that there is one big manufacturer stenciling professional clarinets for Buffet. Yamaha, Selmer, Hammerschmidt, et al.
No, for my analogy to work I’d have to demonstrate that all the facts about what the clarinet making companies are doing and why, and complete truth about the differences between clarinets, i.e. information, is—like in the mattress industry—lacking--better--deliberately withheld. I’ve done that already.
Well, there is at least one big Chinese company stenciling professional hard rubber clarinets.
That might have actually made a compelling argument if you could have honestly said “only one,” not at least one. You’re right, there is at least one, if fact more than one, in fact several, with several on the way, each competing for dealer and buyer business. What is your point?
Is that what you're talking about? I doubt it. The truth is that your analogy has nothing to do with the main point you are trying to make.
This should be good: what exactly do you think is that main point I am trying to make? That’s right, you’re not required to tell me, I’m required to tell you, right?
Unfortunately, you missed an opportunity here to provide some specific concrete examples instead of vague generalities.
Yep, I should have written a post tailored for you, so long that no one will read it, with even more fodder for you to come down on right? Go read the posts, there are plenty of specific concrete examples that I, and others smarter than me have written.
Is information suppression a general problem across manufacturers or is there just one in particular?
Search it on the board. Look it up and get back to us. I’ve already submitted to you that an oligopoly exists, which you don’t deny (I think—one has to check what section of your post they like most) and that information is withheld in the marketplace. Both these factors detract from the market’s fairness.
And, again, can you cite some tangible evidence to conclude a general decrease in quality (as opposed by a specific problem that is more than offset by general improvements in design)?
I already gave you one here, and it’s discussed on the bboard. I’ve explain why it wasn’t included, and I’ve explained why I’m not going to be “Johnny on the spot” to help you find it.
6. What evidence drives you to think that the market is dominated by the manufacturers? Why don't consumers have a fair chance?
You concur it’s a oligopoly (I think? I mean you say you do, but your opinion changes several times here.) Economic fact says that when oligopolies face many buyers (as opposed to a monosony or oligopsony) all other things equal (which they are not, they’re mostly in favor of the oligopolies) consumers suffer.
7. What information is being kept hidden from consumers? Are they being
forced to purchase clarinets blind? Are they being lied to about warranties? What are the specific sources of information asymmetry in the market for professional clarinets? What is the impact of information asymmetry on a free market? (Citation.) What can buyers do to overcome it?
First, I’ve covered it. Second, they can acquire information from places like the bboard, and the video cited above. Third, I’ll bet you’re already aware that information helps markets overall, so why are you asking me?
8. In a number of places, you write "IMHO" or "I believe." I'll be blunt here. Without support, I really don't care what you believe. And, without support, you shouldn't care what I believe, either.
Sir, the intention of the bboard is to where possible link people to information, not rehash it in an already long post. Those who seek information ask, “from where did you conclude the grenadilla stock is in shorter supply,” and I’m glad to tell them.
Those that tell me, “you are false until you prove yourself true to me,” on stuff recently published on the bboard at that, can use the search feature all by themselves.
I am though at the service of those who read the bboard and still publish much more humbly than you have here. That I haven’t personally proven to you information that which already exists in this bboard, numerous other sites on clarinet, and sites of independent ecological watchdog groups on the internet, for example, who have no vested outcome in the instrument product marketspace, doesn’t make my words false (just unproven to you--got it.)
.u mention a French government subsidy. My first thought is, "so what?" The French economy works differently than ours. But I'd like to know, if there is indeed a subsidy, under which French subsidy program does it fall? How much did Buffet (the company Tom Ridenour identifies) receive last year? Why is this a problem? Give me some facts, not innuendo.
First you know economics, then you don’t. I’ll try to keep this one simple. If you and I exchange some good for money, of our own free will, knowing all there is to know about the things being exchanged, say a pack of M&M’s (i.e. a known commodity) that you sell me for a US dollar, by definition, you valued that pack for less than a dollar and me for more than one. Our exchange benefit is known as the gains from trade. We each walk away happier than had we not done the exchange.
(Kindly do not insert remarks here about the unknown costs of such sugar on obesity, and other costs not considered by the consumer. I’m trying to keep this simple, aware that the example isn’t 100.000% perfect, and will not appreciate such remarks on your part.)
And since gains from trade are good, anything that reduces the ability to trade detracts from that. So far so good?
When a government subsidizes a private company, can we agree that the money to do so didn’t grow on trees and ultimately came from tax payers? Can we agree that paying taxes leaves people with less money to trade with? And can we agree that less trade means less gains from trade?
Now, don’t get me wrong. Taxes are a necessary part of democratic society. When they go to fund things in the social interest, whose benefits outweigh the loss from the less transactions in the market I describe above they are justified. But when you subsidize a private company, those that fund it, not to mention its competition that doesn’t get such funding suffer.
So—are we still “so what” here, or do you now understand that government funding of a private company, regardless of amount, comes at a cost?
10. You mention the impact of using African blackwood for clarinet manufacture on the eventual viability of the species. Can you refer to some specific studies to support your concerns?
When Wes requests this information from you, you write, "If you search the
internet (or here) you can find numerous independent agencies documenting the diminishing supply of this wood." If that's the case, why didn't you provide a few links?
You know, I think this is the first good point you make, really. Upon reflection I think Wes got the short end of the stick from a poster like myself that’s (if you checks my posts you will see) normally glad to provide just such links, even though Wes can hit the search button here, or search engines externally just like anyone else.
Sorry Wes. Really, I’ll send you such links privately. I was dealing with a difficult poster who has nothing better to do than critique rather than provide any of his own ideas.
Help Wes accept your position. And why do you assume that he didn't already do some searching on his own?
Why don't you let Wes speak for Wes. Still more I assumed nothing. I knew it’s not hard to find such information.
Have you considered whether there are externalities associated with rubber production, particularly rubber in China?
Have you read posts where I discuss some of this, and my desire to deal with the recycling of rubber, what’s being done in the field of recycling and repurposing such material, and my concern that workers in China be afforded decent rights, just for starters? You know what, perhaps you’re right. I haven’t mentioned here how I contacted the latex trade association a few days ago and got answers from a Phd at Hopkins specializing in such studies, how latex allergies don’t apply to hard rubber clarinets. But I hadn’t got around to sharing that yet, and since I know now it’s never going to come up, I thought there was no rush to share it.
And you know what you didn’t mention sir that I did, that you have no affiliations whatsoever with anyone in the music business.
How quick you are to pose claims of absense of important data in my thoughts, yet so oblivous to including this imporant disclaimer in your words.
Had you spent a little time editing to tighten your analysis and answered a reasonable number of questions like the ones I've raised with relevant facts, you might have convinced me that your analysis was worth taking seriously. Or maybe, you would have modified your position.
And if you had bothered to do a bit of research of your own on the bboard before commenting, you would know that I, and others like me have addressed these questions that a long post like mine had no more reasonable room to rehash.
If you wish to take this further, kindly do so off the bboard. My email address is public. You challenged me in the open, and so I answered you there. But in my opinion this topic is just too distant from the meat and potatoes of what gets posted on a clarinet bboard, to occupy space on it with either of our further opinions on this matter.
That is of course, unless you'd like to inform me of a greater effort on your part to act with humility here going forward.
Post Edited (2014-04-06 20:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-04-06 19:40
Jumbo (adv) "very large of its kind" so why not a jumbo shrimp ?
I fear Mark is going to need to buy some more disk space if these posts continue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2014-04-10 10:37
Many thanks for the links to the grenadilla article and the extended link to the detailed TRAFFIC report and analysis of the timber business in Tanzania. It made for some interesting reading. I had seen the grenadilla article but not the large Tanzania timber report.
The timber business in Tanzania (and Mozambique) is an extensive and complex situation. Corruption and illegal activity are very extensive, despite the protection of the mpingo tree (grenadilla) by the government. Grenadilla wood is a quite small part of a very large hardwood business, although it is an exotic and interesting part of it. A lot of grenadilla is harvested for the carvers of art works and tourist articles, who do not need the highest quality wood. The music business gets and needs the best of the wood. China and India were mentioned as major customers for wood but France and the USA were not noted, as far as I could see. There are reforestation activities, of course. I conclude that I can have few further comments on the status of grenadilla wood supplies.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sax panther
Date: 2014-04-10 15:25
to satisfy the demand for wood, and meet the desire for ethically sourced materials, it's entirely possible to be FSC accredited as a manufacturer of woodwind instruments. Sadly, only one company that I'm aware of has made the effort to gain FSC accreditation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-04-10 15:08
Mark Twain: "generally, the fewer the words that fully communicate or evoke the intended ideas and feelings, the more effective the communication."
Polonius: "Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief."
Ecclesiastes: ""I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
Geo. Orwell rewrote it thus: "Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."
Will you guys please read Strunk's "The elements of Style" before your next post?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-04-10 19:34
I don't think that major clarinet manufacturers are oligopolistic, it's just that the market for clarinets is not very large when compared to, say, the market for Oreo cookies [just off the top of my head there] :-)
Of course you "economists" wouldn't be expected to recognize such an insignificant metric.
B>
P.S. No need to comment on the smiley above. It's just that he has esotropia.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-10 17:51
Mr. Deecy:
Absense of your email address prohibits my addressing you privately. So instead I'll be brief and clear. You seem to want that.
* If the issue of clarity is your concern, consider saying what's on your mind in your own words with common language, not quoting others or using terms like esotropia. I think you're coming across as obtuse, not worldly--others may disagree. But don't worry, as a son of an Optometrist, I knew what it meant, or could have looked it up if necessary. Cleary the purpose of the board is to debate clarinet issues, not the people who report or side with them. But if I can't understand your true position, other than you don't agree with me, my ablity to do that is compromised. Perhaps it's my lack of understanding.
* I'd be glad to check Strunk's "The Elements of Style" of it existed. I think you mean Strunk & White's....and no, with 40 years of its use under my belt I didn't need to fact check that. I agree with your premise that where brevity can address an issue, it should be used; but often issues are too complex for the writer to be both effective and terse. Many of my posts are very short.
My point in making this clarification here is not to be picky, but to question just how much you practice you what you preach, referring to a title in a way I've never heard used before. My experiences can be summarized by a writer saying, "is this correct," and an editor saying, "what does Strunk and White say?"
* You think the markets for professional clarinets isn't a competition of few major sellers (oligopoly). Maybe you mean that it's more like a monopoly, or an oligopoly with a clear leader (e.g. Saudi Arabia is to OPEC as Buffet is to professional clarinets), to which I would agree to. And I don't know where you stand precisely because you don't articulate, all while you criticise others who do. Regardless, you have a right to your opinion. Now back it up with a list of these sellers and their market share.
* Both Nabisco and the leading professional clarinet makers do enough business that either, even if Nabisco's Oreo Cookie business may be larger, transact enough that their differences in size is not what's at issue here. I think you miss the point, which is that the cookie product is so universal and consistent, with substitute products available, that even though Nabisco may be its sole supplier, the consumer can shop for the commodity based solely on price, choosing one store over countless others on this metric alone.
* When dealing with 2 large markets, even if one is substantially bigger than the other, determing the degree to which fair markets do or don't exist in each of these segments, and whether those markets approach monopolies, monosonies, oligopolies, or oligopsony's is about the number of buyers compared to the number of sellers, not about its size. Sure there are other factors like tarriffs and legislation,etc., but they belong on a bboard about the economy I think.
I agree: us "economists" wouldn't be expected to recognize such an insignificant metric (relative market size) if in fact it was irrelevant: which it is here. I do though believe that it would be a factor when dealing with enormous or tiny markets relative to, say, the market for all goods and services (i.e. GNP) in a country in which business is transacted.
Perhaps we can both get back to discussing the intonation characteristics of a particular series of clarinets of the same brand, and compare the results to the video.
Another post on this matter, not of my initiation, discusses the fairness of the test, not despite, but BECAUSE tuning meters were visible.
I agree..some posts are too long. I publish my email address in part to try to address that. You don't.
Post Edited (2014-04-10 22:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-04-11 01:24
Why would I want to make my email address available to a poster who can't make a point in less than a thousand words and cavils at my saying "Strunk" instead of "Strunk and White"?
And what made you infer that I was referring to you? I guess where there's smoke there's fire. Please don't bother to respond. I'm outta here.
b>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-11 02:32
Sir, your choice to respond or not is of course your right, as is mine. Only moderators get to tell us what to do, not each other.
It seems that you like writing really terse statements. This seems to come in handy when people challenge you, you claiming then that you were misunderstand. For example:
"And what made you infer that I was referring to you?"
When you say "Will you guys please read Strunk's "The elements of Style" before your next post," in a post of yours that dealt with brevity, on a thread where Mr. Kissinger and I soley had such long posts...let's just say "you do the math." Were you referring to Mr. Kissinger and his brother? This is where you will likely go silent.
Right, it's my comments that lead you to not answer why the marketspace for professional clarinets isn't a competition amoung few suppliers. I read today that Buffet has 87% of the market. Clearly, you have the data to support your claims to refute me, it's just that you just refuse to bring it forth because I exceed your word limit.
And how about those claims that market size dictates the degree to which they are free. Right, me again. It's not that you have no good answer, it's just that you're not going to say.
I challenge ideas sir like the market for professional clarinets, and questioning whether it's right for you to assume I haven't read a book you, from your description of it, quite possibly haven't [in a long time].
You in turn take pot shots at me above, not my ideas. That's not what the bboards about.
Sigh. I guess if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
And as it regards email addresses, publishing your email sir is for everyone, not just me. Just as my publishing mine is not just for you.
Should you do so I'll be glad to send you examples of your quick "1 jab posts," directed to others, not just me.
I'm going to play my clarinet now and calm down now. Maybe you want to do the same. And come back here not so quick to express quick comments of disagreement without willingness to back those comments up. The Elements of Style deals with omitting unneccessary words, not keeping topics short--the latter being something I'd be glad to do when I don't have to defend long attacks against my ideas.
Oh, and because you've read it you know that rule 6 in Chapter 5 suggests the avoiding the use of ornate prose, right?
Cavils? try "makes petty comment at.."..not that I agree with the sentiment.
Post Edited (2014-04-11 02:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derek_b
Date: 2014-04-11 03:05
Personally I find what "ThatPerfectReed" wrote to be logical, informative, coherent and interesting. As opposed to what "Jack Kissinger" wrote. Just me, of course.
Complains about length are, for me, rather amusing - must be something American I do not understand (I am not a native English speaker). There are many articles, books, professional papers, etc., etc., which are longer than a few paragraphs. I do believe that often (not always!) if something can be simplified to one very short sentence, it is not worth saying at all, or is patronising.
People with shorter attention span and dislike for longer items should consider skipping paragraphs, reading selectively some sections only, or even skipping full threads - this approach never fails to work.
My favourite quote from "The Elements of Style" (128 pages, so not really a short one) would have to be:
"most readers are in trouble about half the time".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dibble
Date: 2014-04-11 15:09
I second the response of hard rubber and the more dense sound of wood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dibble
Date: 2014-04-11 19:31
Deep, dense.....thick? I don't know the perfect word, sorry.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-04-11 23:17
I like the 'full bodied' sound of Ebony AND Ebonite.
Ebony/Mpingo (wood) , is said to have more 'projection that Ebonite (rubber) but I guess it all depends on who's breathing into any particular Clarinet at the time. It's all very subjective.
With my Ebonite Clarinets , matched up with suitable mouthpieces and reeds I get all the 'dense' 'deep' 'thick' , Ok , lets just say 'full bodied' sound that I could wish for.
BJV
"The clarinet is not a horn"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
