Tom Ridenour comments on Les' article on Ridenour Lyrique clarinets

Dear Les

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