THE GRENADILLA MYTH
by Tom Ridenour
If large numbers of clarinetists were asked why Grenadilla wood was chosen for clarinet making ninty-nine out of a hundred (perhaps more) would say, "Because of the sound."
They would, in point of fact, be wrong.
You see, most end users believe uncritically that manufacturing decisions are made according to the criteria they themselves regard as the most important in the use of the product. All too often this is not the case. Rather, manufacturers will make many products a particular way, with certain features or choose certain materials, not because it then gives the best result for the end-user, but because it is the easiest, cheapest way or because it is most convenient for their manufacturing processes. Clarinet manufacturing is no exception to this upspoken but widely practiced manufacturing rule.
The fact is there are many other woods that have better musical qualities than Grenadilla wood; woods that have a better, more stable tone; woods that have a better response. Honduran Rosewood immediately comes to mind in this regard. It produces a darker, more coloristically stable tone of greater beauty than Grenadilla and the response is quite superior throughout the dynamic and pitch range of the clarinet.
So why was it not used rather than Grenadilla?
Very simple: it was not used because it was and still is highly problematic from the manufacturing (not the performing) standpoint, requiring many more manufacturing operations than Grenadilla. First, it does not machine nearly as well as Grenadilla. As a consequence, there is much more waste involved in processing it, and waste is lost money and time. Secondly, the tone holes of the natural wood are so pitted that pads leak terribly and the clarinet will not play. In order to provide a leak proof surface for the pad to seat the tone hole must be counterbored, inserts of hard rubber or some synthetic material must be glued into them and then they must be machined. Next, and most critically, Rosewood cracks much more readily and easily and at much higher per centages than does Grenadilla. Finally, because the wood is so porous, it absorbs great amounts of moisture and this causes the bore dimensions of the upper joint to be very unstable, tuning to go "wacko" and the tone to can feel "blown out" after only a short time of playing. Consequently, as much as half or more of upper joint must be lined with a hard rubber sleeve to stabilize the dimensions and reduce the frequency of cracking in the upper joint. Honduran Rosewood barrels are also usually lined in hard rubber for the same reasons.
Each one of these problems is frustrating to manufacturers, each is difficult, time consuming and costly to solve.
By this point it should be clear to you why Honduran Rosewood was not chosen by manufacturers as their wood of choice? Put simply, it is a manufacturing nightmare, and therefore unsuited to large scale production.
These and many other problems made Honduran Rosewood and other similar woods impractical for the manufacturing of clarinets, from the manufacturer's point of view, but not from the player's!
As a consequence, Grenadilla was chosen above other woods because of practical (and monetary) concerns: it was comparitively stable, machined like metal, and did not crack as often as other woods.
Because of these qualities, Grenadilla wood made it possible for manufacturers to produce wood clarinets on a large scale. There is no doubt these features inherent in Grenadilla wood are all critical and important issues for clarinetists as well as manufacturers. No one wants a clarinet that cracks or is dimensionally unstable. But as important and practical as these issues are, none has anything to do with the artistic concerns of the clarinetist; beauty of tone, responsiveness and stability of tone in dynamic changes, etc.
In my own clarinet design experience I have had the rare opportunity to design clarinets in Grenadilla wood, Rosewood and in Hard Rubber. It has been an eye opening, almost shocking experience to say the least. What I have found to be consistently true is when a well-made hard rubber clarinet is compared, playing feature for playing feature, to a clarinet made in Grenadilla wood that, from a design standpoint, is its acoustical twin, the hard rubber turns out to be the unequivocal better in every case.
The fact is, most of us operate all too often on the unexamined assumption that hard rubber clarinets are just like plastic clarinets. But the truth is that hard rubber is not at all like the plastics used for clarinet building. It is, therefore, not according to reality to equate high grade-hard rubber clarinets with synthetic, plastic clarinets.
Why?
For one thing, hard rubber is not synthetic at all, but just as natural as any piece of wood in any forest. Hard rubber, in fact, comes from the very essence of a tree. But besides being natural, it is superior to plastics in every possible respect, whether pragmatic or parnassian, mundane or musical.
In point of fact, pure, natural, high-grade hard rubber clarinets possess many critical playing and tonal qualities that are almost identicle to those of Honduran Rosewood; more so than any other material presently used for clarinet making, including Grenadilla wood!
In other words, when comparing Grenadilla and hard rubber clarinets from a pragmatic, logistical standpoint, hard rubber clarinets are consistently more stable, much more uniform from clarinet to clarinet, take and hold much more precise and uniform bore dimensions, and are virtually crack-free. On the acoustical/aesthetic/performance side well-made, well-designed, high quality hard rubber clarinets have a quicker response, more even blowing resistance, better, more stable tuning, a darker, sweeter tone and are coloristically much more stable throughout the full pitch and dynamic range of the clarinet. In short, hard rubber clarinets give you the best of both worlds, satisfying the logistical needs of the manufacturer and the artistic needs of the clarinetist.
Many players will be resistive, perhaps even outraged and scandalized at these conclusions. Many will reject them out of hand, without sincere inquiry.
Why?
Perhaps they have had bad experiences playing older hard rubber clarinets of antiquated acoustical design; perhaps they have had the bad experience of playing many of the execrably designed hard rubber clarinets presently coming from the orient. (Who can blame them? With few exceptions, these clarinets are to clarinet acoustics what the Titanic was to sailing.) Or perhaps they would simply rather operate on unexamined bias rather than take the time and energy to test out these claims in a fair-minded way (I believe that is called prejudice).
However, those who are open-minded enough to investigate acoustically well-designed clarinets in hard rubber may well find themselves as amazed (shocked really) as I was at how well they both sound and play.
Over the past several years I have played nothing but hard rubber clarinets of my own design. Because I have grown so used to the friendly, "gemutliches" response and sweet tone of hard rubber, whenever I test Grenadilla clarinets they sound harsh and feel, by comparison, uneven in resistance, "hard" sounding and bright (especially in the high register), reticent in response and more unstable than my hard rubber clarinets.
Over the years I have both serendipidously and systematically conducted blindfold tests with other clarinetists, musicians and even non-musicians regarding the comparison between Grenadilla and hard rubber clarinets. I conducted a lot of these when I first began designing clarinets in hard rubber as a kind of "reality check". My tests consistently revealed one plain fact: if I am out of touch with reality it's not in regard to my views on the playing qualities of fine, well-made hard rubber clarinets. There reason and sanity prevail
I try to avoid anecdotes but sometimes it is the quickest and clearest way to make an important point. Of the many I could relate on this subject I will take just this one.
I play in a clarinet quartet here in Dallas with several very fine players, one of whom teaches at a top notch music school here in one of the Dallas/Denton area universities. He is a very fine, artistic clarinetist and we share the first parts in the quartet.
Our quartet plays to very appreciative audiences in hospitals and nursing homes (the best audiences anywhere!) mostly in Fort Worth. One Monday we had two performances and I invited my wife, Gay, a former band director, to come and hear the group. She had never heard us before and I was curious what she would think, because she has a very critical ear for woodwind tone. I had also done several arrangements for the group (some of which are available on this web site) and I wanted to know what she thought of them.
We played the morning performance went to lunch, then played the second performance and headed home.
On the way home I asked my wife lots of questions about the group and the music. She had never heard the clarinetist I mentioned above so I asked her what she thought of his playing. I'll never forget her response.
She said, "He's a very fine player. Very artistic. But this morning his sound was too bright for my taste. This afternoon I thought his tone was much nicer and his phrasing was also much smoother with a better legato."
"Really?", I asked.
"Yes," She responded, "was he doing anything different this afternoon?"
I answered, "This morning he was playing his R-13 and this afternoon he was playing one of my clarinets. He asked me to bring it along. He wanted to try one because he liked a lot of the qualities I was getting out of my own clarinet."
True story...one among many I could relate regarding the comparison of Grenadilla wood and well-made hard rubber clarinets.
The bottom line is simply this: there is no magic in Grenadilla, especially from the artistic/aesthetic point of view so critical to the performer. It was a material that was chosen at a time when technology did not afford us the whole range of options we presently have. Of the ones we had then in Europe, Grenadilla was the most pracitcal for large scale, comparitively trouble-free and economical clarinet manufacturing. Over the years clarinetists became conditioned to its feel and sound, and this conditioning has for some decades become fossilized into a wide-spread, full blown bias.
Many of the players who have bought my hard-rubber, Ivorolon barrels to use on their wood clarinets tell me they experience an increased darkness and stability of tone and an improvement of response with these barrels. Often I am tempted to (and sometimes do) say to them, "If you think a hard rubber barrel is better than your wood barrel, you should try a whole clarinet made from it."
Some do and are amazed. Some buy them and others subsequently sell their wood clarinets.
Many nowadays are worried about both the availability and quality of Grenadilla wood for the future. They wonder, "What will we do when there is no more Grenadilla wood fit for clarinet building?"
I not only know the answer to that question, I am doing the answer to the coming wood crisis right now!
There are many things I am worried about regarding the future, but first class, natural materials for clarinet building is not one of them.
It is a plain fact for those who honestly inquire: a well-made, acoustically well-designed and finished hard rubber clarinet is, quality for quality, a peerless instrument, providing the player with a fully satisfying, effortless artistic experience, second to none.
As far as I'm concerned, the future is now.
author's note:
Only a few days after first posting this article I received an email from a professional clarinetist who had bought one of my Arioso Bb clarinets about eight months ago. He wrote these words to me:
"Dear Tom,
Your article "The grenadilla myth" is very interesting.
I can verify the features of your Arioso clarinet.
Since I have the Arioso I don't play my Grenadilla clarinet,
because I love the sound, the evenness and the responsiveness of the Arioso.
Best regards
S."
Nuff said.
