Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-02 19:47
My understanding was that soprano clarinets were originally developed to have an upper and lower joint because it was easier to come up with more quality pieces of wood when designing for the limited length of a left or right hand section, than to design a clarinet in wood, in one piece, for its entire length.
Please correct that if it's wrong. But it is with this understanding that I was made to rationalize by teachers why a smaller Eb clarinet could be made in one piece.
I was also made to understand that in putting the clarinet into 2 sections, that some compromises needed to be made, particularly in the position of the C#/G# key, so as to keep it reasonably in tune, but distanced enough from the bottom of the upper joint such that the tone hole not crack to the point where the top joint ends.
Again, assuming these things true, wouldn't the case (read: argument, not "thing to hold your instrument in") for single joint clarinets be a good one when designing clarinets made of non-(directly) wood materials, as evident in Buffet's Greenline, or hard rubber, as evident in most of the Ridenour product line up?
I realize that in doing this, a clarinet maker risks the marketing pitfalls of diminishing his or her 2 joint models. And maybe for, say, some plastic clarinet makers, it's easier to not retool keys, even if 1 piece clarinet instrument bodies were straightforward to make.
Maybe consumers expect a more square like clarinet case (read: the thing that holds your instrument) than one whose adjacent sides differ considerably in measure.
BTW: I do not seek to criticize either manufacturer, particularly Tom Ridenour, who prides himself on making clarinets that get the intonation right, irrespective of 1 or 2 piece bodies.
Thanks.
Post Edited (2014-12-02 19:49)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
