Do Recorders Wear Out ?
Thomas Bergel
_not_ wear out,
but their edge is much less fragile than that of a recorder. The only
reason I can think of for wearing would be erosion of the edge by saliva
droplets at high speed.
Thomas Bergel
Palimpsest
wrote:
Generally, unless treated badly, recorders don't "wear out" as such.
Wooden ones do, however, occasionally need to be revoiced: the block
tends to absorb a *lot* of moisture and may eventually swell to the
point where it blocks or alters the shape of the windway (the opening
of the beak). Ideally, revoicing is done by the recorder's maker, but
there are a number of repair agents who can do it nearly as well (this
is *not* a job to attempt at home!).
The common but deplorable practice of blowing through the head chamfer
(the slanted part) to clear the windway of saliva also contributes to
deterioration of the quality of sound produced.
http://www.iinet.net.au/~nickl/recorder.html is a terrific page with
lots of links explaining about the care (among other things) of
recorders. HTH! :)
Arlene
Thomas Bergel
>
> Crap! It was utterly ruined by Arnold D who replaced its delicately
> curved and finely voiced windway with something you could drive a
> truck through. You can look at the very same instrument for yourself
> where it languishes in London's Horniman Museum. I'd say that this
> particular recorder had definitely passed its use-by date :-(
>
I did not know that AD had reworked that Bressan, although I did know
that the recorders
he ans Carl made had a wider (and less temperamental) windway than
Baroque originals. But could it not have been restored to its original
state by replacing the block again ?
I believe that routine revoicing, a relatively inexpensive operation,
involves only shaving down the soft wood of the block where it has
swelled into the windway. but not cutting any of the hardwood.
There are Baroque originals with quite worn thumbholes which still play
well.
So I still doubt if normal use can irreversibly wear out a recorder.
THomas Bergel
Thomas Bergel
>
> - removing the block and ensuring that all the surfaces of the windway are
> clean and smooth and properly shaped to ensure the air from the windway is
> arriving at the edge correctly,
>
> - perhaps re-cutting the chamfers at the exit end of the windway, with the
> same objective,
Perhaps the chamfer on the block, but rarely if ever the chamfer on the
hardwood,
I think. Even replacing the whole block should not be such a big deal,
and is
not an irreversible change.
>
> - if the edge is damaged or swollen, re-cutting it.
>
Now _that_ sounds to me like a very big deal, changing the distance
from the
end of the windway to the edge, as well as the sounding length. I cannot
believe that this is done very often.
Thomas Bergel
RuneT...@aol.com
taken care of properly. It's easily enough to avoid by rubbing mineral or
baby oil into the wood once or twice a year (depending on how dry your area
is) so the wood won't dry out and crack. Otherwise, the recorders should last
for quite some time.
Rachel
Richard ElGuru Howland-Bolton
exactly how does one "revoice" the instrument?
Barbara
Richard E. Howland-Bolton Cornell University
Manager Publications Computing Publications Guru
Internet: re...@cornell.edu ftp: 132.236.39.28
Compuserve: 71041,2133 AppleLink: CUGURU
Voice: (607) 255-9455 Fax: (607) 255-5684
Post: Publications, East Hill Plaza
353 Pine Tree Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you're in town, come play soccer at Northeast School
--Wednesdays at 5:30, Saturdays at 10:00 and Sundays at 3:00
(DeWitt Middle School is our alternative venue)
-----------------------------------------------------------
tlst...@tpgi.com.au
(Barbara Shuwarger) wrote:
> Please forgive a dumb question from a novice recorder player, but
> exactly how does one "revoice" the instrument?
>
> Barbara
It should be reiterated that this is a task not to be undertaken by
anybody other than the maker, or by a person with proper training,
experience, knowledge and expertise. The process may involve:
- removing the block and ensuring that all the surfaces of the windway are
clean and smooth and properly shaped to ensure the air from the windway is
arriving at the edge correctly,
- perhaps re-cutting the chamfers at the exit end of the windway, with the
same objective,
- if the edge is damaged or swollen, re-cutting it.
--
Cheers!
Terry
Nicholas S. Lander
>>Do recorders wear out ? I am told that grenadilla piccolos simply do
>>_not_ wear out,
>>but their edge is much less fragile than that of a recorder. The only
>>reason I can think of for wearing would be erosion of the edge by saliva
>>droplets at high speed.
>>
>>Thomas Bergel
>
>Basically no, they do not "wear out." They can be damaged, like any
>artifact, and the wood can crack or the wax in an impregnated instrument
>boil out if basic heat and humidity standards are not maintained. But I
>believe the first alto recorder played by Arnold Dolmetsch was an 18th
>century Bressan, still in good shape after more than a century.
Crap! It was utterly ruined by Arnold D who replaced its delicately
curved and finely voiced windway with something you could drive a
truck through. You can look at the very same instrument for yourself
where it languishes in London's Horniman Museum. I'd say that this
particular recorder had definitely passed its use-by date :-(
>They do lose their voicing in time, but revoicing is a standard procedure.
But not one to be attempted by amateurs, perhaps. It requires great
skill and experience. And revoicing an original instrument is
considered by many to be a questionable practice. What evidence might
be destroyed in the process? Better to make a copy, surely.
Old recorders, especially those made of boxwood, often curve with age
and the bore tends to become oval rather than circular in
cross-section. If extreme, this may affect the playing
characteristics to the extent that the instrument might be said to be
"worn-out", no?
Nicholas Lander
ni...@iinet.net.au
Nicholas Lander
ni...@iinet.net.au
Thomas Bergel
I don't doubt that they last, at worst, "quite some time". The only
thing I think could possibly wear is the edge itself. I know
professionals who are sure that even plastic recorders can be worn our
by normal use. But I doubt it, and I know professionals who are wrong
about a lot of things.
Thomas Bergel
John Howell
>_not_ wear out,
>but their edge is much less fragile than that of a recorder. The only
>reason I can think of for wearing would be erosion of the edge by saliva
>droplets at high speed.
>
>Thomas Bergel
Basically no, they do not "wear out." They can be damaged, like any
artifact, and the wood can crack or the wax in an impregnated instrument
boil out if basic heat and humidity standards are not maintained. But I
believe the first alto recorder played by Arnold Dolmetsch was an 18th
century Bressan, still in good shape after more than a century.
They do lose their voicing in time, but revoicing is a standard procedure.
John
John & Susie Howell (mailto:John....@vt.edu)
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
John Howell
>>
>>Basically no, they do not "wear out." They can be damaged, like any
>>artifact, and the wood can crack or the wax in an impregnated instrument
>>boil out if basic heat and humidity standards are not maintained. But I
>>believe the first alto recorder played by Arnold Dolmetsch was an 18th
>>century Bressan, still in good shape after more than a century.
>
>Crap! It was utterly ruined by Arnold D who replaced its delicately
>curved and finely voiced windway with something you could drive a
>truck through. You can look at the very same instrument for yourself
>where it languishes in London's Horniman Museum. I'd say that this
>particular recorder had definitely passed its use-by date :-(
And I reply:
Interesting. I had read that the recorder was stolen and never recovered
(Edgar Hunt's book). But in any case, you are talking about incompetent
rebuilding, not about the condition of the instrument when it came into
Arnold's hands.
You are absolutely right about the ethical questions of restoring truly
antique examples. I assumed that the questioner was asking about modern
instruments.
john
Barbara Shuwarger
John Howell
>exactly how does one "revoice" the instrument?
>
>Barbara
Some excellent answers already regarding HOW revoicing is done. As to WHY
it is done, one of the most critical factors in making a recorder is the
precise way the air stream hits the sharp edge, where the tone is actually
produced. (Look through the windway and you'll see the edge just as the
air stream sees it!
Now if the maker favors one side of the edge (I've never known which side),
the instrument will favor the low register, and if the maker favors the
other side, the instrument will favor the high register. "Perfect" voicing
is a matter of what the make believes to be correct and the player is happy
with, but it generally involves a delicate balance so that both the lower
and higher notes will speak easily and with full tone.
Wood is a living material and changes over time, especially when moisture
and constant cycles of wetting and drying are involved, so eventually the
dimensions of the windway change from what the maker intended, and the air
stream is no longer hitting the edge at the optimal angle. Revoicing
returns the instrument to its original setup and sound.
John
Nicholas S. Lander
>>It was utterly ruined by Arnold D who replaced its delicately
>>curved and finely voiced windway with something you could drive a
>>truck through. You can look at the very same instrument for yourself
>>where it languishes in London's Horniman Museum. I'd say that this
>>particular recorder had definitely passed its use-by date :-(
>Interesting. I had read that the recorder was stolen and never recovered
>(Edgar Hunt's book).
It might have been better for that particular instrument if that had
been so. However, it was indeed recovered and subsequently
drastically altered by AD.
>But in any case, you are talking about incompetent
>rebuilding, not about the condition of the instrument when it came into
>Arnold's hands.
Its block and ivory mouthpiece are not original, and the narrow,
curved windway of Bressan recorders that produces their
characteristic focused, reedy sound is now absent, replaced by a wide,
straight windway like that adopted by Dolmetsch for recorders
emanating from his own workshop. Initially, Dolmetsch and his
associates made recorders of this un-historical design for his family
and others in their circle to play, subsequently offering similar
hand-made instruments to the public at large. The recorder figured in
the first Haslemere Festival in 1925 (Hunt 1977).
>You are absolutely right about the ethical questions of restoring truly
>antique examples. I assumed that the questioner was asking about modern
>instruments.
I didn't get that impression. But I thought you were being subtly
provocative in order to widen the discussion to that rather more
interesting ethcial question :-).
It is, of course, very much a practical question, too. If we
drastically alter the work of a Bressan original we will have lost
irreplacable information about the past.
I have no idea why AD replaced the block of his Bressan. He also
replaced the ivory sleeve around the beak which had become cracked.
You can see this in early photos of the instrument held by AD himself
in which the original sleeve has a retaining metal band around it (see
Hunt 1977: plate XXIII). It is possible that the instrument was so
much damaged (ie worn out) that drastic measures were required to make
it playable. We shouldn't be too hard on AD. We have much to thank
him for.
There is a published article on the matter which readers may find
informative as follows:
Meadows, H. (1994). "Happy Birthday, Whenever that may be".
Further thoughts on Mr Loretto's article. Recorder Magazine 15 (3)
87-88.
It might help to get matters in perspective by noting that few if any
Stradivarius violins survive in anything like the condition they left
his workshop. Which of them looks, feels, plays, sounds like anything
the maker might have recognised as his own handiwork? One such
instrument languishes in a glass cabinet in the Ashmolean Museum
(Oxford, UK), but if my memory serves me correctly even that has had
its bass bar removed and replaced with something else . . . . . .
Charles Stroom
>
>Basically no, they do not "wear out." They can be damaged, like any
>artifact, and the wood can crack or the wax in an impregnated instrument
boxwood recorder which he got from his teacher: it was dead and it was
not damaged at all.
The sound was dead and it had lost all its characteristics
(that's why he got it I suppose); I am not a good player myself
at all, but I had to agree with him. He told me that it has
happened to other players as well and that they did not know
why it happened on some recorders while others, having the same
treatment, did not suffer.
On somebody other's remark: yes of course, replacing the block
may not be irreversible, but certainly can change the recorder
drastically and it's very difficults to keep a lose (or is it
loose?) block with the recorder, so don't do it on a valuable
one.
--
Charles Stroom
email: cha...@stroom-schreurs.demon.nl
url: http://www.stroom-schreurs.demon.nl/
Frances Palmer
<John....@vt.edu> writes
>Interesting. I had read that the recorder was stolen and never recovered
>(Edgar Hunt's book).
I can confirm that the Bressan recorder which was owned by Arnold
Dolmetsch is now in the Horniman Museum (where it "languishes" in 5-star
luxury air conditioning and honourable retirement). The instrument was
lost in Waterloo station after a concert and was later bought by
Geoffrey Rendall, best-known as a collector and scholar of early
clarinets, in a junk-shop close to the station. Some years later Rendall
showed it to AD who immediately recognised it, having, in the meantime,
designed and constructed a replacement based on his notes, drawings and
recollections of the Bressan. Rendall returned the instrument to AD and
was given a newly-made reproduction in exchange.
AD bought the recorder in the Taphouse sale and, while I have no
indication of its condition at the time of the sale, he was certainly
accustomed to working on the instruments in his collection to bring them
into playing order. Views on the restoration of historic instruments to
playing order have obviously changed and developed over the last century
and he may well have carried out procedures which might not be
undertaken today.
The instrument is now preserved in its last playing condition. Any
changes which the recorder has undergone in its long life are now part
of its individual history as an 18th century instrument, a part of the
earliest moves towards historically informed performance in the 19th and
20th centuries, and the catalyst for the modern use of the recorder as a
teaching instrument.
The recorder is currently on view in the Music Room here at the Horniman
Museum. That gallery is due to be dismantled later this year as part of
a major rebuilding exercise but plans for the new gallery include the
display of this instrument. Scholars who would like to examine the
recorder while it is off display should contact me to make an
appointment - I should warn you, however, that access may be limited by
considerations of space and demands on the time of the collections
management staff - the spirit is willing but the resources are
stretched!
Best wishes,
fp
>
Frances Palmer, Keeper of Musical Instruments
The Horniman Museum & Gardens
100 London Road, London SE23 3PQ
pal...@horniman.demon.co.uk
dt king
>Wood is a living material and changes over time, especially when moisture
>and constant cycles of wetting and drying are involved, so eventually the
>dimensions of the windway change from what the maker intended, and the air
>stream is no longer hitting the edge at the optimal angle. Revoicing
>returns the instrument to its original setup and sound.
Because of that traumatic wetting/drying, I've resigned myself to the fact
that someday -- maybe this year, maybe well into the next century -- my
favorite wooden recorders will crack. I'd count that as the point they've
worn out.
When I bought my boxwood soprano from Von Huene, I recall it came with an
agreement for a free revoicing at some point in the future. This is the
recorder I keep on my desk for decompressing after work, so it gets used
pretty regular. It's a couple of years old and must have changed a bit from
its original purchase condition. However, I suspect that I'm unconciously
changing my playing style to adapt. I'm thinking that it will have to reach
an almost unplayable condition before I'll notice that it needs servicing.
dtk
Mark Siebert
>
> The only recorders I've known to wear out would be wooden ones that weren't
> taken care of properly. It's easily enough to avoid by rubbing mineral or
> baby oil into the wood once or twice a year (depending on how dry your area
> is) so the wood won't dry out and crack. Otherwise, the recorders should last
> for quite some time.
>
> Rachel
1. There are some precautions to be taken, such as rigorously avoiding
oil on the block.
2. There is considerable disagreement among experts, with strong pro-oil
and anti-oil factions.
3. Certain woods either should not be oiled or do not need oil (e.g.
northern hardwoods that have been wax impregnated in the bore).
Kenneth Wollitz gives some information in his "The Recorder Book." The
Recorder Homepage recommended above has articles, etc.
Mark
Thomas Bergel
>
> Because of that traumatic wetting/drying, I've resigned myself to the fact
> that someday -- maybe this year, maybe well into the next century -- my
> favorite wooden recorders will crack. I'd count that as the point they've
> worn out.
>
Grenadilla clarinets and oboes _don't_ necessarily ultimately crack
(although
an unseen defect in a particular piece of wood may eventually develop
into a crack).
But I know at least one professional who claims that even plastic
recorders
will eventually "blow out".
Thomas Bergel
dt king
>
>Grenadilla clarinets and oboes _don't_ necessarily ultimately crack
>(although
>an unseen defect in a particular piece of wood may eventually develop
>into a crack).
>But I know at least one professional who claims that even plastic
>recorders
>will eventually "blow out".
I have an old Yamaha I purchased about 20 years ago that plays much sweeter
than new -- of course I suspect a few years of experience makes most of the
difference. It's unimaginable to me that a plastic recorder could develop
any flaws that couldn't be fixed with warm water and soap. Still, I'm
willing to accept that a professional may hear and feel differences that I'm
blissfully unaware of.
dtk
Gary R. Kern
> .... and the narrow,
> curved windway of Bressan recorders that produces their
> characteristic focused, reedy sound is now absent, replaced by a wide,
> straight windway like that adopted by Dolmetsch for recorders
> emanating from his own workshop. Initially, Dolmetsch and his
> associates made recorders of this un-historical design for his family
> and others in their circle to play, subsequently offering similar
> hand-made instruments to the public at large.
My old Dolmetch tenor recorder (serial number 267) has a narrow, curved
windway. Is this unusual for "production" instruments?
-- Gary
Thomas Bergel
>
> 1. There are some precautions to be taken, such as rigorously avoiding
> oil on the block.
>
I've read this, but why ? Preventing water absorption by the block
should _reduce_
swelling that might make revoicing necessary.
I've also read that oil should be kept away from the edge. But I have a
Carl Dolmetsch
rosewood alto c. 1960 that has the edge carefully varnished.
Polymerizing oils (linseed, tung) will polymerize to form a
water-resistant film
upon exposure to air. But if wood is _impregnated_ with linseed oil,
that in the interior of the wood can never polymerize.
The good thing is that it doesn't seem to make much difference --
everybody seems satisfied with their own system, and occasionally an
instrument cracks in spite of everything.
Thomas Bergel
Ihere is too much misinformation and strongly held but unsupported
opinion
floating around.
Dan Grunberg
revoiced by Robert Turner. Robert is a flute and recorder maker (and
performer). Robert has a studio in Carlottesville, Virginia USA.
I've followed Robert's advice about recorder care, and I've been very
pleased with the results.
Per: Robert Turner 201 2nd Street, N.W. Charlottesville VA 22902
(804) 29FLUTE (293-5883)
Oil Monthly as follows:
Remove (and of course DO NOT OIL) the recorder's block.
Oil EVERYTHING in and on the recorder EXCEPT THE BLOCK, with a mixture of
4-parts of mineral oil to 1-part of STEAM DISTILLED turpentine. (The
steam distilled turpentine is hard to find. I got mine at a small family
run lumber yard near my home). Don't use any but steam distilled
turpentine.
Allow the mixture to soak in overnight. Wipe away the excess. Dry out
the tone holes with Q-tips (cotton swabs from the drugstore).
Clean the top of block with 1 drop of Dr. Bronner's liquid Castile soap
(I found it at Fresh Fields, an organic-oriented supermarket) per
tablespoon of water.
Use inexpensive(!) vegetable shortening as cork grease.
Actually, Robert said that he oils his recorders prior to each
performance. (The mixture Robert recommended seems to work
better than any other "bore oil" I've used for the last 30 years.)
Additional note: The oil+STEAM DISTILLED turpentine works better than the
mineral oil alone recommended by their maker for the butcher block table
and cutting board in my kitchen.
MWindi4108
London. One day a lady walked in with 20 plasic descants in a box. "These are
no good" she said. My friend looked at them and they were all gnarled and
twisted. She gave the lady 20 new ones and sent the others back to the makers
who could find nothing wrong with the material.
Two months later in she comes again with 20 ruined recorders.
My friend said carefully "How do you clean them?"
" Oh I boil them for at least an hour.We don't want germs do we?"
Mark Windisch
If music be the food of love - play on
Tom Permutt
techniques erode the margin of the hole less than others, but surely this
is the part of the recorder most subject to wear. It can be lived with up
to a point, though, and then repaired.
--
Tom Permutt
tompe...@home.com
Nicholas S. Lander
> Mark Siebert wrote:
> >
> > 1. There are some precautions to be taken, such as rigorously avoiding
> > oil on the block.
> >
>
> I've read this, but why ? Preventing water absorption by the block
> should _reduce_ swelling that might make revoicing necessary.
As I understand it, the block of a recorder is deliberately made of cedar
because that wood can absorb moisture with minimal distortion or swelling.
Over time, repeated wetting, swelling and drying of the surface of the block
that forms the floor of the windway raises the fibres on the inside surfaces
of the block making them rough. This hinders the passage of air through the
windway, altering the tone, reducing response, etc. It's easily fixed and
any experienced teacher, maker or repairer should be able to show you how.
The following references may prove useful in this regard:
Brown, A. (1989). The Recorder: A Basic Workshop Manual. Brighton.
Kottick, E.L. (1975). Tone and Intonation on the Recorder. McGinnis & Marx,
New York.
On the other hand, the merest trace of oil on the inside surfaces of the
windway or on the chamfers (the tiny sloping ledges on the bore-side of the
block facing the window) will allow beads of moisture to collect,
interferring with tone and response to the distraction of player and
audience alike. This happens anyway with all recorders, which is why we
recorder players have to suck discretely from time to time in idle moments.
But a recorder player's life is a continual battle against the enemy within
our instruments, especially in a humid or cold environment. We must strive
to do all we can to keep the windways free of oil or dust or food or small
animals (yes, I've seen these in instruments brought to me for first aid).
A number of technological solutions have been tried to mitigate the
perennial problem of condensation in recorders including blocks made in
whole or part from absorbent ceramic materials and blocks with longitudinal
grooves to assist the flow of moisture away from the windway (in plastic
recorders). Perhaps the most successful device aimed in part at correcting
the effects of condensation in the windway is the adjustable block adopted
by a number of makers, notably Mollenhauer.
It is a common observation that all-plastic recorders are especially prone
to condensation problems. Plastic is, of course, largely impervious to
water. An el cheapo school recorder marketted by Hohner has a wooden head
and block but a plastic insert forming the upper surface of the windway and
the sharp edge of the labium. I assume that the point of the plastic insert
is to reduce the cost of voicing the instrument by hand. It has nothing to
do with condensation per se. The point is that this cunning design leaves
the wooden floor of the windway (formed by the block) exposed to do its
work. This instrument has the look and feel of a wooden recorder -- but it
is, in effect, a plastic one!
> I've also read that oil should be kept away from the edge. But I have a
> Carl Dolmetsch
> rosewood alto c. 1960 that has the edge carefully varnished.
I have a matching soprano. They were beautifully made.
In my experience oil or varnish on the labium or ramp (the edge as you call
it) or on the inside surfaces of the cut-up (the vertical or slightly
splayed sides of the windway) has no effect whatsoever on the playing
properties of recorders. Some maker's varnish these; others leave them bare.
> Polymerizing oils (linseed, tung) will polymerize to form a
> water-resistant film
> upon exposure to air. But if wood is _impregnated_ with linseed oil, that
> in the interior of the wood can never polymerize.
There are some excellent published articles on oiling recorders. The best
I know is Ray & Lee Dessy's "Wood, Oil & Water" which you can read at
http://www.iinet.net.au/~nickl/wood.html
to which there is a follow-up article at
http://www.windworld.com/wq/12/dessy-12.htm
Another useful article is Lee Colins' "Oiling Recorders" which may be found
at:
http://www.windworld.com/gallery/collins/oiling.htm
and his article "Moisture Clogging in the Recorder Windway" at:
http://windworld.com/gallery/collins/moisture.htm
The instructions that come with your recorder are probably worth reading,
too. Failure to follow them may void your warranty! And many makers supply
oil for use with their instruments. You could do worse than use these.
> The good thing is that it doesn't seem to make much difference --
> everybody seems satisfied with their own system, and occasionally an
> instrument cracks in spite of everything.
Recorders are indeed robust. But like all musical instruments they will
live longer and perform better with appropriate care.
> There is too much misinformation and strongly held but unsupported opinion
> floating around.
Is there, now?
Thomas Bergel
>
> Odd that no one has mentioned the thumb-hole. I am aware that some
> techniques erode the margin of the hole less than others, but surely this
> is the part of the recorder most subject to wear. It can be lived with up
> to a point, though, and then repaired.
>
Wear of the thumb-hole has virtually NO effect on anything but
appearance.
Thomas Bergel
MWindi4108
smooth laminar flow of air giving it a "frog in the throat" effect. Once there
is oil on yoy cannot ever get rid of it completely. DON'T TRY IT
M
Martin Pergler
I find this surprising. Playing in the high register can require
precise control over the amount of (partial) opening of the thumb hole.
This is one of the reasons some people advocate pinching versus rolling
(or vice versa). One would expect that a gouged-out thumb hole through
years of (perhaps over-)enthusiastic thumb use would be harder to
control precisely --- or is your argument that the process is gradual
enough that the player adjusts?
Martin
Martin Pergler per...@math.uchicago.edu
Grad student, Mathematics http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~pergler
Univ. of Chicago
Thomas Bergel
>
> One would expect that a gouged-out thumb hole through
> years of (perhaps over-)enthusiastic thumb use would be harder to
> control precisely --- or is your argument that the process is gradual
> enough that the player adjusts?
>
I've never seen a thumb-hole actually enlarged, or even close to it --
generally only the outer edge gets a little rounded off. In that case,
the thumb motion required
might change slightly over the years, but that's all. The thumb-hole
directly affects only one note, and only the wall thickness and the hole
diameter at the bore matter
very much.
Thomas Bergel
Tom Permutt
Thomas Bergel <tomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I've never seen a thumb-hole actually enlarged, or even close to it --
>generally only the outer edge gets a little rounded off. In that case,
>the thumb motion required
>might change slightly over the years, but that's all. The thumb-hole
>directly affects only one note, and only the wall thickness and the hole
>diameter at the bore matter
>very much.
I believe this is incorrect. The most usual way to play high notes (above
a'' on an alto recorder) is to open the thumb hole partly. The amount of
opening affects not only the pitch and quality of the sound but (together
with the breath pressure and the strength of tonguing) whether the high
note will sound at all rather than some tone in the lower octave. As the
hole wears, it may become difficult to get just the right opening. As I
said, it can be adapted to, up to a point.
--
Tom Permutt
tompe...@home.com
Alain Naigeon
> Mark Siebert wrote:
> >
> > 1. There are some precautions to be taken, such as rigorously avoiding
> > oil on the block.
> I've read this, but why ? Preventing water absorption by the block
> should _reduce_
> swelling that might make revoicing necessary.
AFAIK, the block is just designed to absorb water ! That's why plastic
recorders have so many problems with this water...
--
Alain NAIGEON - Strasbourg, France - anai...@club-internet.fr
Visitez le site musical http://www.club-internet.fr/perso/anaigeon
(Barbireau, Brumel, Josquin, LaRue, Monteverdi, Sermisy, etc...)
Nicholas S. Lander
<tomb...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I've never seen a thumb-hole actually enlarged, or even close to it -- generally only the outer edge gets a little rounded off. In that case, the thumb motion required might change slightly over the years, but that's all.
There must be national differences in these things. I've played and
taught recorder in Australia and Europe have often encountered
instruments with extensive wear around the thumbhole. Perhaps it's
different in your country. Must be insecticide or something in the
food softening your thumbnails :-)
>The thumb-hole directly affects only one note, and only the wall thickness and the hole diameter at the bore matter very much.
Thousands of recorder players would disagree with everything you have
written about recorder thumb-holes!
To a greater or lesser extent, the size of the thumb-hole opening of
the recorder affects tone, tuning and response of virtually all notes
in the second and third octaves. Thus the size of the hole itself
and the feel of its edge under the thumb can be of critical importance
to the player. For those using the pinching method, wear and tear on
the edges of the thumbhole can be extensive, especially with
instruments made of softer woods. Many players (including myself)
have bone, ivory, teflon or brass bushes fitted to the thumbholes to
eliminate the problem of wear.
I expect you've noticed that you can use one of the first three
fingerholes as an octaving vent on the recorder, leaving the thumbhole
closed.
Nicholas Lander
ni...@iinet.net.au
Thomas Bergel
>
> Thousands of recorder players would disagree with everything you have
> written about recorder thumb-holes!
>
I don't care ! That's _their_ problem !
NSL:
> To a greater or lesser extent, the size of the thumb-hole opening of
> the recorder affects tone, tuning and response of virtually all notes
> in the second and third octaves. Thus the size of the hole itself
> and the feel of its edge under the thumb can be of critical importance
> to the player.
>
Yes, but the actual opening depends as much on the thumb placememt as on
the diameter
of the hole. If one plays several instruments, even of the same size,
each one is different.
Consider an instrument with a badly worn thumbhole, playing any note for
which the thumbhole is closed. Then the wear of the thumbhole
contributes only infinitesimally
to increasing the interior volume and lowering the pitch.
Now consider that same instrument playing a note for which the thumbhole
is completely
open. The wear of the thumbhole will make it equivalent to a
_very_slightly_
larger diameter hole. Again, the effect is surely infinitesimal. The
diameter of the hole _at_the bore_ is by far the most important factor.
As for notes for which the thumbhole is "cracked" open, the fraction of
the hole which is opened will inevitably be a little different each
time, even for the same note, surely washing out the effect of what is,
at most, a slight bevel of half the _outside_ diameter of the hole.
But the _real_ way to to find out is to buy a dozen plastic sopranos,
carve them up in various ways, and see what happens.
Thomas Mergel
Heikki Levanto
: The thumb-hole directly affects only one note, and only the wall thickness
: and the hole diameter at the bore matter very much.
On a F-recorder, you have at least f#,g,g#, and some alternative fingerings
for a where you leave the thumb hole completely open.
Even it the hole "only" wears a little at the outer edge, it must make it
more difficult to control the opening with the precision required for good
intonation in the higer end...
--
Heikki Levanto LSD - Levanto Software Development <hei...@lsd.dk>
Thomas Bergel
>
> On a F-recorder, you have at least f#,g,g#, and some alternative fingerings
> for a where you leave the thumb hole completely open.
>
completely open.
For F# _and_G_ the thumbhole diameter matters a lot. But for G# it does
not.
Thomas Bergel
E.H. Terwiel
>Oil EVERYTHING in and on the recorder EXCEPT THE BLOCK, with a mixture of
>4-parts of mineral oil to 1-part of STEAM DISTILLED turpentine. (The
Is this not breath-taking ?
Turpentine stinks like hell, does it not ?
tlst...@tpgi.com.au
(Alain Naigeon) wrote:
> Thomas Bergel a écrit:
>
> > Mark Siebert wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. There are some precautions to be taken, such as rigorously avoiding
> > > oil on the block.
>
> > I've read this, but why ? Preventing water absorption by the block
> > should _reduce_
> > swelling that might make revoicing necessary.
>
> AFAIK, the block is just designed to absorb water ! That's why plastic
> recorders have so many problems with this water...
But if you play a cedar-block recorder for long enough, it absorbs as much
water as it can take. After that, it's no different from a plastic-block
recorder or a cedar-block recorder which has been coated with varnish (or
dried linseed oil, which is the same thing, incidentally).
There's more to this than it seems at first. Personally, I've taken the
view that I don't want the instrument to change much during the course of
a recital, so I play it until the block is good and wet, then I swab the
instrument out and THEN warm it up. I then feel that it will be stable for
the concert. To me, it seems that the instrument is most troublesome
during the time it's in transition from wet to dry.
--
Cheers!
Terry
piper
It's also a strong carcinogen.
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only! If you send a commercial solicitation, I will boycott the product.
David Grosvenor
<t...@cc872757-a.hwrd1.md.home.com> writes
>Odd that no one has mentioned the thumb-hole. I am aware that some
>techniques erode the margin of the hole less than others, but surely this
>is the part of the recorder most subject to wear. It can be lived with up
>to a point, though, and then repaired.
-- I can't see why the thumb-hole should wear any more than the finger-holes. I
maintain that you should *NEVER* put your thumb-nail into the hole. Far better
control is available if you use the skin of the side of your thumb to control
the size of the opening. After all, the thumb nail has no nerves (you can cut
your nails without pain), but the skin is rich with nerves. You can feel the
edge of the hole and can make very sensitive adjustments - especially when
exploring the third octave...
Another subject - anyone interested in a 5-day recorder course in the Highlands
of Scotland April 19th to 23rd? e-mail me if interested...
David Grosvenor
tlst...@tpgi.com.au
> >4-parts of mineral oil to 1-part of STEAM DISTILLED turpentine.
After a detailed study of this matter of oiling recorders, I have
established a strong preference for raw (ie. unboiled) linseed oil. It is
a drying oil, and has a very tolerable (even pleasing) odour. Very light
oiling, and wipe most of it off, leaving just a VERY thin film to dry on
the instrument. Allow 24-36 hours for it to dry.
--
Cheers!
Terry
jim mcnamara
>established a strong preference for raw (ie. unboiled) linseed oil. It is
>a drying oil, and has a very tolerable (even pleasing) odour. Very light
>oiling, and wipe most of it off, leaving just a VERY thin film to dry on
>the instrument. Allow 24-36 hours for it to dry.
I'm sure linseed oil will not have cured in 36 hours.
I'm not an expert on repairing recorders, but I do know about wood finishes
and drying oils. Mineral oil is not a drying oil, by the way.
Flaxseed (linseed) oil is a drying (polymerizing) oil, but it takes a really
long time to dry. It's non-toxic. Boiled linseed oil (in North America) is
not boiled - it has metallic (manganese, cobalt, calcium)
driers added - which are not edible as long as the oil is uncured.
There are actual boiled linseed oils available e.g. 'Tried n True'. These
should be used if someone wants to get faster drying times. Don't use the
ones with metallic driers.
There are lots of drying oils, but these are the common edible in raw form
ones that have been in use for several centuries (in the order of rate of
drying, from fastest to slowest)
Oil approximate curing time as 20C
-------------------- ----------------------------------
-------------------
Lavender oil 8 days
Walnut oil 10 days
Linseed oil 30 days
Poppyseed oil 90 days
Clove oil months
Tung oil (raw) is not really edible, as it was used as a cure for
constipation. It works a little too well. Completely cured tung oil is
edible. Sunflower is not a drying oil.
The orientation of the grain in the block effects expansion/contraction
also. The coefficient of tangential expansion of wood is always larger than
the coefficient of radial expansion. In plain English, this means that if
you orient the grain (as it grew in the tree) so that the tree rings run
from left to right with the recorder in your mouth, there will be less
expansion/contraction in the opening on exposure to moisture and drying.
The coefficient of expansion is species specific, so I'm certain recorder
makers have figured out which species work best - they have certainly had
ample time to do so, anyway.
The reason turpentine is sometimes added to drying oils is that it acts as a
drier. Terebene, a powerful drier, is an extract from turpentine.
In the US, there are several standards (ASTM-74, ASTM-88) for film finishes.
Both of these standards require that a completely cured film be non-toxic.
Note that non-toxic is not the same thing as edible.
That means you can use a toxic solvent (like turpentine), but it goes away
leaving a relatively safe film. All wood finishes conform to one or both of
these standards.
Edible, cured finishes: any of the above drying oils, shellac.
Behlen's Salad Bowl finish is certified edible by the FDA.
jim mcnamara
Heikki Levanto
: I'm not an expert on repairing recorders, but I do know about wood finishes
: and drying oils.
Thank you for a clear and informative article.
: I'm sure linseed oil will not have cured in 36 hours.
Maybe not completely, but could it be that the process has started, and has
got to the point where playing the recorder will not matter too much? Or
that 24-36 hours is the right time to wipe off excess from the surface,
leaving only the oil that has been absorbed in the wood.
: Edible, cured finishes: any of the above drying oils, shellac.
I do not see why the oil should be edible. There will only be a microscopic
amount of it on the outside of the beak of the recorder. Of this one can not
absorb more than trace amounts, I'm sure.
What do you think of almond oil? I have had it recommended by some recorder
teachers, and it has worked fine for me.
Thanks
Heikki Levanto
Terry Simmons
<csi_jimm@coopserv*.com (remove *)> wrote:
> I'm sure linseed oil will not have cured in 36 hours.
>
> I'm not an expert on repairing recorders, but I do know about wood finishes
> and drying oils. Mineral oil is not a drying oil, by the way.
>
In a thin film, linseed oil will have turned into quite a tough gel in
36 hours. A "complete curing" takes longer of course, but the important
thing is not to have to wait until curing is complete, but until the
film is sufficiently tough not to be easily wiped off in the
swabbing-out process that usually follows a bout of playing. You'll find
that 36 hours is a very practical recommendation in other than freezing
climates.
I recommend RAW linseed oil rather than boiled for the obvious reason
that one can't be certain what one is really buying: is it the one with
the metallic drying catalysts (and therefore to be avoided), or is it
the so-called "Tried 'n True"? It's always difficult to know, and the
labels don't usually help. Therefore I say "a plague on them -- use raw
linseed oil".
It was somebody else that raised the subject of mineral oils, not me! I
regard them as totally unsuitable for oiling the bore of woodwinds, and
certainly I don't recommend them. As you say, they aren't drying oils,
so that only adds to the list of characteristics that make them
unsuitable.