My experience is that there’s a huge amount of conservatism among classical instrument players.
One part is the sound change. If something changes the sound of their instrument in a way that isn’t clearly positive it’s very hard to convince people to switch to it. Sometimes this is pretty rational, (I don’t think anyone thinks plastic brass instruments sound better) but other times it’s a kind of superstitious audiophile sort of logic. For a flute, I think bending a formerly straight tube will always have some effect on the sound. If the tube is already bent one or more times (as a bass flute must be even if the play orientation of the concert flute is maintained, because you have to have a certain length of tube which would be completely unwieldy if kept straight), a different or additional bend is lower impact. We see this with brass instruments, where you can fit a tuba into a significantly smaller volume without changing the sound significantly, so long as the bell is not shrunk too much and the mouthpiece remains the same size, simply by bending the tubing in more and different ways, so that the overall lengths of the main tube and each of the valve tubes remain the same.
The other part of it is muscle memory; people have spend thousands of hours playing an instrument with a very specific configuration. They don’t want to change how they hold something even if it would be more ergonomic because it would mean a bunch of re-learning, not on their main instrument. I’ve encountered this myself as a pianist. If you change anything about the piano keyboard too much, it trips me up. The whole part of my brain that handles the movements for piano relies on the keys being in very specific positions relative to each other (and me) and responding to my touch in specific ways. I once botched a recital because the piano provided had too high an initial actuation pressure on the keys and I hadn’t been able to do enough practice on it to adjust. I would love a piano with keys about 60% the size of the standard ones, because I have small, slender hands. But actually switching to such a piano if it were to be made would be a painful process, and getting up to speed on it would likely mean that I would lose facility with pianos that have standard-size keys.
The exceptions I’ve seen to this, where ergonomic innovations have been readily accepted, are triggers on trombones and 4th valves on some other brass instruments. Those have become very popular over the years. I think the reason for the difference is that a trigger or 4th valve is completely optional to use. You can still play everything exactly as you would have before, you just now have an additional option which makes certain things more convenient. There’s a gradual adjustment process where you integrate the new feature into your play and you don’t experience a phase where you feel hampered by the change. That makes switching costs much, much lower.
My experience is that there’s a huge amount of conservatism among classical instrument players.
One part is the sound change. If something changes the sound of their instrument in a way that isn’t clearly positive it’s very hard to convince people to switch to it. Sometimes this is pretty rational, (I don’t think anyone thinks plastic brass instruments sound better) but other times it’s a kind of superstitious audiophile sort of logic. For a flute, I think bending a formerly straight tube will always have some effect on the sound. If the tube is already bent one or more times (as a bass flute must be even if the play orientation of the concert flute is maintained, because you have to have a certain length of tube which would be completely unwieldy if kept straight), a different or additional bend is lower impact. We see this with brass instruments, where you can fit a tuba into a significantly smaller volume without changing the sound significantly, so long as the bell is not shrunk too much and the mouthpiece remains the same size, simply by bending the tubing in more and different ways, so that the overall lengths of the main tube and each of the valve tubes remain the same.
The other part of it is muscle memory; people have spend thousands of hours playing an instrument with a very specific configuration. They don’t want to change how they hold something even if it would be more ergonomic because it would mean a bunch of re-learning, not on their main instrument. I’ve encountered this myself as a pianist. If you change anything about the piano keyboard too much, it trips me up. The whole part of my brain that handles the movements for piano relies on the keys being in very specific positions relative to each other (and me) and responding to my touch in specific ways. I once botched a recital because the piano provided had too high an initial actuation pressure on the keys and I hadn’t been able to do enough practice on it to adjust. I would love a piano with keys about 60% the size of the standard ones, because I have small, slender hands. But actually switching to such a piano if it were to be made would be a painful process, and getting up to speed on it would likely mean that I would lose facility with pianos that have standard-size keys.
The exceptions I’ve seen to this, where ergonomic innovations have been readily accepted, are triggers on trombones and 4th valves on some other brass instruments. Those have become very popular over the years. I think the reason for the difference is that a trigger or 4th valve is completely optional to use. You can still play everything exactly as you would have before, you just now have an additional option which makes certain things more convenient. There’s a gradual adjustment process where you integrate the new feature into your play and you don’t experience a phase where you feel hampered by the change. That makes switching costs much, much lower.