Oiling a Wooden Clarinet or Oboe - A Discussion CASS Article

Oiling a Wooden Clarinet or Oboe - A Discussion

There are many opinions 'out and about' regarding the advantages or necessity of oiling the bore of wooden instruments, particularly clarinets and oboes. Some proponents are adamant that oiling must be done routinely or accept an increased risk of cracking in the wood. Others say never to oil as the wood will not absorb the oil applied. I have not noticed many contributors who try explain the contradictory advice. This is my brief summary attempt to address this. (for a more detailed discussion about care please see my blog entry Owning and Caring for a Wooden Clarinet, date of entry 27th Nov, 2015)

The coating of African Blackwood (Grenadilla), the material from which the bodies of most wooden clarinets and oboes are constructed, has been a practice of players for many years. When Grenadilla was first adopted for instrument construction oil was applied as a sealant to keep the wood from suffering the effects of moisture absorption through playing and to maintain, as much as possible, a stability in the wood to resist changes in both temperature and humidity levels. Since even this most dense wood is still a natural product it has a grain which is subject to opening up under stress.

• A light oiling, usually with almond or linseed oil was common practice on wooden instruments manufactured up until the late 1970's / early 1980's, and this was as effective a preventative treatment as was then available. 

The use of a small quantity of oil, carefully applied with a pull through swab or pheasant feather, was observed to reduce moisture absorption and lessen the occurrence of 'cracks' - the opening up of the grain.

It is good to bear in mind the following caveat: 

Do not oil apply in excess as the oil can run and will eat away at pad surfaces and attract lint which will affect the pad seating and keywork mechanism function.

Beginning around the early 1980's manufacturers began to use newly available technology to help stabilise their wood stocks. Pressure treatment and impregnation of the their 'billets' (the blocks of wood from which joints are cut) became common practice. Once wood has been treated in this way it has a much greater inherent stability and any oils that are applied are far less likely to be able to be absorbed and provide any useful additional protection to the wood of the instrument.

• It is not generally necessary to use bore oil on modern era instruments (post approx 1980), as their wood has usually been pressure treated prior to manufacture.

Indeed, if oil is used it may have a detrimental effect as a result of not being able to be absorbed by the wood - see the caveat above.

In extreme circumstances an instrument of any age could be completely stripped of keywork and subjected to an 'oil bath' for an extended period of time to attempt to complete rejuvenate a tired looking body and provide a new start. This is best done by an experienced repairer who will also remove all excess oil following the treatment, polish the body and return the keywork afterwards.

Everyone interested in this topic must judge for themselves whether it is oiling is likely to provide a beneficial additional 'belt and braces' protection.

• These days, for the purpose of most players, I believe that it is fair to say that oiling is unnecessary. 

Rest assured that should a 'crack' occur in most cases it can be successful sealed and stabilised by an experienced repairer and your confidence in your beloved instrument will likely be regained in a very short time.

---------------

The tips and comments above are the result of many years of providing help and advice, my personal interest and study, and the teaching that I have done during my career. I have many colleagues and teachers to thank for sharing their thoughts and suggestions on this and other topics. In addition I am indebted to Woodwind & Reed, Cambridge ( www.wwr.co.uk ) where, in the course of helping customers, many of these concepts have been refined and have proven helpful.
Thomas Dryer-Beers

Thoughts on Selmer Saxophone Models

Selmer Saxophones – a Short History and Personal Comment

Following the decline of US saxophone manufacturing after WWII and prior to the introduction and rise of quality from Japanese manufacturers (establishing themselves from the mid-1970's onwards) from the 1950’s to the late 1970’s Selmer Paris ruled the professional saxophone market with their Selmer MKVI model. This instrument evolved in both the qualities of the materials and details of manufacture sufficiently over this long period of time to bring about ‘eras’ of particular interest among collectors but it is fair to say that the MKVI model was the principal choice of serious players, both jazz and classical, throughout these decades and remains popular to this day. The ergonomics of the keywork operation, fleetness of touch, standard of intonation and tone projection are the hallmarks.

Following this era (as a result it is said of worn tooling needing replacement) the new MKVII instrument was introduced. Its design was heavily influenced by Frederick Hemke who, being a solely classical player and very large in stature, desired a heavier built instrument with a darker, heavier tone and more substantial keywork feel. While this suited some players it disappointed many and within a few years this model was dropped in favour of the Super Action 80.

The introduction of the S80 in 1981 was an attempt to regain the custom of both jazz and classical players but, while it is unquestionably more responsive and easier to operate than the MKVII and the lighter keywork feel and more ‘characteristic’ tone have being well received by classical players, the S80 did not persuade many jazz musicians – incidentally opening up the door for Yanagisawa to step-in and fill the desire for a brighter sounding lighter keywork feel model. Other manufacturers have also based many of their new introductions on the MKVI as well the current Reference 54, Cannonball and Antigua saxophones all being examples of the ‘nominal Selmer’ design.

Selmer introduced the model we know today as the S80 Series II in 1986 to try to improve on the original S80 and the biggest notable difference is that the individual key rods are ‘spring loaded’ to try to lighten and improve the key action. This model has been a huge seller to this day and is successfully played in all manner of styles – with appropriate mouthpiece selection.

The S80 Series III was introduced in 1996 following artistic input from Claude Delangle, the present leading classical teacher and performer at the Paris Conservatoire. He desired a pitch correction mechanism for the stretched octave of middle and high C# and the alteration to achieve this is the most obvious difference between the models. Further alternations to the tone hole placement (mainly in the palm keys) and the crook have meant that this model (Alto, Tenor and double crook Soprano) has appealed primarily to a limited, primarily classical players and it should not be considered an furtherance of the S80 Series II – rather more like a divergence to meet the requirements of a specific market.

Finally, to meet the too long overlooked desires of jazz saxophonists in 2000 Selmer introduced the Reference 54 (and for the tenor the additional 36) models. While keeping the crucial aspects of bore and crook taper the same as other models the Reference introduced a different weight (density) and thickness of metal and a significant remake of keywork in an attempt to recover the best and most favoured aspects of the MKVI model – the standard Reference against which all their subsequent models were being compared. In my opinion the current Reference offering is at least as good as most of the MKVI instruments that I have ever played and, as both the intonation and quality of manufacture are much improved over the worst examples of MKVI manufacture, the Reference will usually be found to be superior to almost all available examples of the now more than 40 year old MKVI.

The significant differences between the current Super Action 80 Series II and the Reference are in the body tube material used and its resonance (the Reference being the slightly lighter/brighter/more responsive), the slimmer profile and reduced weighting of the keywork and the less important finish options – Vintage ‘old gold’ lacquer being the most typical for the Reference, with more traditional lighter gold lacquer finish being standard for the S80 II. I do not attribute any significant difference in tone to the choice of finish but it cannot be denied that the Reference finishes looks much more like the original MKVI – so much so that it can be difficult to distinguish at a distance.

To summarise – I continue to think in terms of the S80 II as a wonderful ‘all round’ instrument capable of meeting the expectations of all playing styles with a reasonable favouring more to the Classical side, but able to be used for Jazz. The Reference is more of a Jazz instrument perfectly able to be used for Classical playing, as was the original MKVI (Marcel Mule, to whom all saxophonists owe so much was involved in the creation and development of the original MKVI). In my opinion the Series III is probably best considered the domain of the strictly Classical player allowing for the exceptionally musician who might prefer its tone quality or different intonation pattern.

Selmer has moved, since the introduction of the Series II (now in the Jubilee version), the Series III, the Reference and now the Axos (introduced in 2015 to meet a more affordable price point) models to a period of simultaneously offering more choice than ever before in their history. It is fair to say that as a rule Selmer remains the most often desired and equally most appropriate model instrument for the majority of professionals and aspiring students. The combination of the great tradition the brand represents and the overall quality of the product suggest that these instruments will continue to be used, preferred and appreciated for many years to come.

-----------------
 

The tips and comments above are the result of many years of providing help and advice, my personal interest and study, and the teaching that I have done during my career. I have many colleagues and teachers to thank for sharing their thoughts and suggestions on this and other topics. In addition I am indebted to Woodwind & Reed, Cambridge ( www.wwr.co.uk ) where, in the course of helping customers, many of these concepts have been refined and have proven helpful.

Thomas Dryer-Beers