|
Dear Leslie
That is the most generous of reviews and I receive it gratefully.
I
have not a single point of significant divergence with you on the
points you made so well. I only have a few comments on a statement
or two, not disagreeing, but explaining the "why" of it, as I
understand it.
1. You are right. The Opus, like the Buffet, does have a bit
more
resonance in the low register than the Lyrique. The cause of this
phenomena is acoustical rather than related to material. The idea is
to favor the clarion register because of its solo status. This is
done, in my estimation, by making it as dependable and effortless to
play and control as possible and to make it as stable as possible in
pitch color and shape in dynamic change. This, I believe, minimizes
the player's labors in embouchure/air pressure exchange to deftly
create well-shaped, expressive phrases with confidence and aplomb. I
always feel like the less I have to think about controlling the
instrument the more spontaneous and imaginative and expressively
"improvisational" I can be with the phrase.
With that in mind I concluded
it was easier in actual performance for
the player to compensate for the somewhat less resonant chalumeau
than an uneven, unstable solo register - that the clarion bears
most
of the expressive and exposed weight of the clarinet's phrases and
the fact that no one complains (non-clarinetists I mean - the
comments
of non-clarinet playing, acute listeners are those I pay most
attention to when it comes to criticism of the end-result) about the
low register, while the upper gets lots of negative feedback from
clarinetist and non-clarinetist alike; these two additional
considerations made it easier for me to decide to opt for efficiency,
stability and dependability in the clarion and make a small sacrifice
in the chalumeau.
2. One thing that struck me as possibly mis-leading was
your use of
the term "cheap" in the review. (note - wording now changed in article)
Cheap to me indicates a clarinet
that has shoddy workmanship, is rock-
bottom in price and has the acoustical features that indicate it was
apparently designed by an arachnid on acid––or a committee.................
The fact is, these clarinets have, as you point out, very fine acoustical
design, and each one leaving my shop has been given considerably more skilled
and careful attention than any clarinet leaving the more famous clarinet
manufacturers........ Plus, my clarinets are not rock-bottom
priced. So, I tend to say they are acoustically high quality,
mechanically adequate, cosmetically passable inexpensive clarinets.
3. The mechanism
is something I'd like to improve in a number of
respects, but I only have so much clout and factories get too busy
making money to be bothered about actual quality. As long as it's
selling it's, in their estimation, not broke, so they have no
interest in fixing it. With as preface, I'll say I've found the
present mechanism, with reasonable care, to be durable and stable,
requiring little or just minor adjustment over several years use.
The models have fared pretty well in school situations for years.
Harold Wright insisted that his clarinets lasted only about 8 years,
max, acoustically. Then they were blown out. I'm positive this will
not be the case with hard rubber - that they will perform with
consistency for years, even decades. So I might ask which would one
prefer: a clarinet that has a long-term, durable mechanism that gives
out acoustically in less than a decade, or a clarinet that has a
reasonably durable mechanism that lasts indefinitely acoustically?
Keys can be replaced, but once it's gone acoustically, it's gone.
Of course, the idea thing is to have acoustics and mechanic to be
equal, and I would love for that to be the reality and have pushed
for it.
best regards
Tom
|
