Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-18 21:59
Cassie:
I must be in a party pooper mood today, this being my 3rd, "think twice before buying suggestion today."
So let me start on a positive note by saying this: as a relative newcomer to the instrument, I applaud your curiosity, and as a fellow liker of nice looking things, I appreciate your visual attraction to rosewood.
But as a clarinet purist, seeking that you have the best sounding and playing instrument, I can't justify visual appearance with nearly the high priority of how the clarinet functions/sounds in your hands.
Chinese instruments....
By no means have you offended me. Many Chinese instruments are not the "pick of the litter," but I think this has to do with the fact that clarinet manufacturers at the lower end of the price spectrum seek to keep production costs low, and pay minimally for it. Needless to say, manufacturers in all nations won't be able to commit to high quality, and still make money, when paid minimally.
But take Ridenour clarinets for example. They DO spend on production costs, have close relations with select Chinese manufacuters, and have strict quality standards. This results in quality instruments, albeit more expensive than the plastic pink clarinet you may find at "that auction site," but far cheaper than some fine wood clarinets of, IMHO, comparable or less quality and often superior price. Plus, if comparing the sound of grenadilla to other things (not just rosewood) is what you're after, most of Ridenour's product lineup, otherwise made with hard rubber, would give you that chance.
Which brings us to clarinet construction materials.
I've seen some rosewood clarinets whose beauty seems only surpassed by the elegance of the sound their owners make with it. I'm in no way anti-Rosewood.
But that said, (and others will disagree) I am of the camp, and by no means its sole member, that says that once a decent material for clarinet construction is chosen (grenadilla, hard rubber, Buffet's Greenline, plastic, rosewood), the clarinet's attributes are more about the abilities and commitment to quality of its maker and player. We could spend pages discussing what makes for a good material, but its air tightness, ability to be machined with precision and limited breakage during production, and the material's stability over time play large roles.
And yet I conceede that on the whole, I think plastic clarinets are NOT as good as wood ones, but most so (IMHO) because manufacturer's aren't going to invest as much in production of plastic clarinets, resulting in higher prices, because buyers/retailers have the perception that (in Tarzan-speak) "plastic bad, wood good," and believe that the market won't support, and in fact people won't pay too high a price for plastic models.
I'll get off my soapbox on this in a moment, except to say that I believe that a vicous market cycle is formed where perception becomes reality in self-realized prophesy. To restate, "people think plastic clarinets are inferior, and/because they hold this belief, they have price ceilings on them that motivate manufactures to invest little in their production, resulting in cheap clarinets."
It's one of those "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situations.
Put plastic and money in the hands of one skilled craftsman/manufacturer, irrespective of country, and I think you'll find exceptional clarinets.
On rosewood
It's harder to machine than grendilla, both of which are harder to machine than plastic or hard rubber. This raises prices, which may result in lower end rosewood clarinets that haven't undergone the very procedures, or with the necessary rigor, like sealing the bore, that rosewood can require. (I know nothing of Schiller instruments and don't wish to disparage their rosewood models.) Rosewood clarinets, some say, are more prone to warping, and need of more frequent adjustment. And a lot of people who own rosewood clarinets also own ones of non-rosewood as well, having bought them first.
Oiling
You might want to search that here. The search button's near to the top of the screen. Lots of opinions exist on the subject matter from people who have forgotten more than I know about such procedures.
Barrels
Also good to search. Different barrels exist (among other reasons) because:
1) different length ones help with tuning, and
2) The materials and designs they are made with help carry the sound of your air making that reed go up and down real fast, and
3) There are different desings of the chamber inside, such that the diameter of where the air goes in may differ from that where the air comes out, using methods of changing the aperture size that may or may not be constant for the barrel's length.
And is there a mouthpiece that is especially good for the E11 or is it a more personal preference?
I'm of the school of thought that seeks to find matches of mouthpieces with players and their reeds, more than the idea that "clarinet model X, gets mouthpiece model Y." And when I say "match," I think you change reeds to accomodate a liked mouthpiece, not change mouthpieces to accomodate a designed brand/strength f reeds.
I have changed mouthpieces, within the group I like, to sometimes accomodate a particularly free blowing or resisitant clarinet, but that's as far at least as this clarinetist will go.
I have TMJ
Which would suggest to me, all other things equal, that you should seek a mouthpiece in which less, rather than more jaw pressure is required, so as to not impose further strain. As a starting point for seeking such a mouthpieces, but by no means the last word, the mouthpiece with a smaller tip opening, or the distance from the reed to the tip of the mouthpiece, should be sought.
I do wish to point out that many factors combine in a mouthpiece's attributes to define the air pressure and bite needed to make it shine. Many manufacture's have recommendations on the window of strength of reeds best used with a particulatar model of their mouthpiece. I'd lean towards lower numbers (weaker reeds) within this window that otherwise don't compromise your ability to play.
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
