Klarinet Archive - Posting 000416.txt from 1997/09

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: Re: Manufacturing deficiencies
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:24:12 -0400

At 10:37 PM 9/7/97 -0500, Clark W. Fobes wrote:
>1. Why can't I buy an instrument in peak condition when
> I am shelling out thousands of dollars for a new one?
>
>
> Actually, we clarinetists are spoiled. At about an average of
> $1900 for a brand new R-13 we pay far less for our instruments
> than most of our colleagues. We have come to expect that Buffet,
> Selmer, Leblanc, Yamaha will provide instruments at relatively low
> prices...

Bach Stradivarius trumpets LIST around $1900, and sell for much less. But
this is irrelevant. I do not consider the prices of professional level
instruments to be low. On the contrary, they may well be overpriced, given
the shameful quality control that seems to exist. Machine manufacturing is
no excuse; on the contrary, it should allow TIGHTER manufacturing tolerances!

> Further, the persistance of the
> large warehouses to flood the market with heavily discounted
> instruments has forced local dealers to come at least close
> to matching those numbers. The BIG PLACES are happy to sell you
> an instrument at less than $100 above cost because they will
> never have to see you again.

This is also irrelevant. The price a discounter charges for an instrument
does not influence what the manufacturer charges HIM.

If a local dealer sells an instrument
> part of his "package" is his individual service. If you expect him
> to provide it at the same or similar price as the catalogue people
> don't expect more than just a price. We all want to buy at bargain
> basement and get the showroom treatment.

Again, irrelevant. TRUE, but irrelevant.
>

> 2. If David Hite can make a very good mouthpiece for students
> under $40 why can't (any major brand) make a good mouthpiece.
>
I cannot help but believe that SOMEONE at Buffet thinks their mouthpieces
are great, even if only the designer who gets paid a royalty for each one.
And I have played perfectly fine mouthpieces by Selmer and Woodwind
(Leblanc), not to mention Vandoren. And some models I didn't like by the
same manufacturers. The next guy may very well LOVE the ones I hate.
That's life in the reed lane.

Again, in order to keep costs down all manufacturers tend to
> concentrate on the CLARINET and not the accessories. they are not so
> dumb as you may think. I believe they all know that most teachers will
> have their students switch to or even start on a better mouthpiece. Why
> should they supply a $30 mouthpiece when they can make a $2 mouthpiece
> just as a place holder?

You are assuming that all beginning students have private teachers who are
going to recommend new equipment right away. Even the manufacturers know
the parents aren't going to buy that scam. I have seen what a $2
placeholder looks like, and it isn't pretty. (Check out a Barrington (L.
A. Sax) soprano sax sometime. They were using Rico Royal mouthpieces
(ugh!) before. Now they are using absolutely unplayable trash!) The
mouthpieces supplied with new horns aren't necessarily inferior, although
they sometimes are. Yamaha's are just fine (NOT wonderful, but fine), and
actually, I am still partial to my old and well-grooved Goldentone,
although even I am too much of a snob to really use it any more.>
>
> 3. If the material of the clarinet has very little influence on
> sound why are makers NOT jumping on the wagon to save money
> and trees?
>
> Duh! If you haven't noticed the resistance to the idea of
> new materials on this list and recognized that this list is a
> tip of a huge iceberg then you must have your head buried in
> your keyboard. Clarinetists have always been resistant to change.
> 5 key clarinets were used well into the 19th century even though
> multiples over 10 were available after 1811? (Iwan Mueller).
> Clarinetists in this country persisted on with modified Oehler
> clarinets and Albert system clarinets well into the 20th century
> despite the development of the Boehm system by Buffet in the 1860's.
> Do you think hard rubber mouthpieces have always been in vogue?
> Wood was the material of choice for almost 200 years!
>
> Acceptance of change in design or materials takes many years. Manufactures
> recognize this and are thus somewhat slow on the uptake as well.
> A big shift into another material would be like Mrs fields committing
> to butterscotch chips instead of chocolate. Still tast, but just
> not the same!! Ok, you can come up with you won analogy. Still,
> a big financial risk.
>
> I think Buffet is to be admired for taking a very courageus step
> in making a professional quality instrument out of an alternative
> material.
>
This one I think you have 100% right!
>

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://www.concentric.net/~bhausman
Essexville, MI 48732 http://members.wbs.net/homepages/z/o/o/zoot14.html

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.