Klarinet Archive - Posting 000215.txt from 1997/10

From: Jrykorten@-----.com
Subj: Re: Leeson's query on different sounds of Clarinets
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:54:56 -0400

Allow me to don my asbestos suit and contribute an attitude or two.

In a message dated 97-10-04 12:09:12 EDT, Dan writes:

<<
>> While they
>> retain the Leblanc "sound",

>What is the Leblanc "sound" of which you speak? Can you give me
>some of its characteristics? What do the manufacturers do to
>the instrument that create this identifiable sound?

I has been written by O. Lee Gibson*, that the reverse taper - achieved by
polycylindrical construction in the Buffet - is less in the Leblancs and
Yamahas. The rather confused and varied sound of a Buffet may come from the
more complicated bore (some notes ring, others sound like they are played in
a bathroom). The more cylindrical construction of a Yamaha or Leblanc allows
the clarion register to ring equally well with all the other notes in the
compass of the clarinet (I am thinking of G a twelfth above middle C up to C
two octaves above middle C).

The more "complicated" sound of the buffet - maybe caused by polycylindricity
imparting several fundamental resonances within the bore (Cohler will
elaborate I'm sure) at the same time. It also creates a larger sounding low
end. (Or does it filter the high end?) But to ears that are sensitive to
partials I tend to get distracted by the changing character of the Buffet
sound throughout the range of the instrument. The design of the Buffet is
such that the diameter of the lower joint is a step larger than the upper
joint (in order to try to keep the instrument in tune), this may also
contribute to the discrete nature of the sound (that is notes changing
character over the range of the instrument). The Leblancs I have measured are
extremely close in tolerance between the upper joint and lower joint - does
this lead to greater consistency in sound across the range of the instrument?
Probably in my opinion.

I find the low end may be also somewhat dependent on the bell construction as
I can put a Buffet bell on a Leblanc and get some of that low end power.

According to marketing literature, the Opus is more polycylindrical than the
Concerto. Similar to a Buffet. This is perhaps why some people think it has
"projection" and the Concerto has "flexibility".

>> they are very even in terms of scale and have
>> the kind of resistance one often looks for in a clarinet.

> What kind of resistance does one look for in a clarinet? Is it
> possible that what you meant here is that the particular Leblanc
> clarinets on which you played happened to have the kind of
> resistance that YOU look for in a clarinet? And that is fine
> with me. It is the leap that you infer about all Opus and Concerto
> models having the "kind of resistance one often looks for" that
> leaves me puzzled. I don't know what kind of resistance is
> universally accepted as the sort that one looks for.

The Buffets are known (by me, and those I have spoken with, and Leblanc
marketing department so maybe to others as well - this is not a fact but
smells like one) to have a higher resistance when playing that portion of the
range from B a seventh above middle C to G a twelfth above middle C. Leblanc
claims that their reverse taper barrel acheives this eveness of resistance.
But something else is at work here as well because the Moening barrel helps a
Buffet yet the increased resistance is still felt.

> As for the note to which you were responding (from Andrew Goret),
> that also puzzled me, but that has nothing to do with what you
> wrote. You were trying to be responsive to his comments and
> I congratulate you for having done so. However, what you wrote
> left me unclear as to what I would do if I were Andrew. It's
> a sort of vanilla answer.

Oh yes we all like to talk or we wouldn't be on this list.

> And Andrew, what did you mean when you said that the Sonata is
> a "good instrument for the basic school"? Your statement that
> the Leblanc instruments run hot and cold (you said "inconsistent
> intonation") is a perfectly valid criticism, but could it not
> also be argued that all clarinets have this flaw? As fine an
> instrument as many Buffets are, they also have inconsistencies in
> intonation, as do Selmers, Wurlitzers, and Chinese bamboo clarinets.

I agree. The variability from instrument to instrument is really not
forgivable in this day and age of CNC machine tools. I know people are of the
opinion that wood will not hold dimensional stability and that this is an
explanation of why the bore in NEW CLARINETS OF SAME MANUFACTURER can vary by
way more than the differences in bore size between different models. Why even
say a bore is 0.574" if it can be measured to be between 0.571 and 0.575 out
of round?

It is entirely possible to age the wood, do an initial boring and wait until
the dimension of the wood stabilizes (like we do with reeds). The
manufacturers could even use tools made in the 20th century to bore the
instruments to a close tolerance. (This is a dig as I really don't know what
type of machine tools they use, only they must not be late generation given
the variability I see in bore dimensions).

It would even be better to skip the wood and use a totally dimensionally
stable material for construction.

I do find the Leblanc more conducive to unbridled music making as it seems so
lyrical. More like singing. This is due to the consistency of resistance and
timbre throughout the compass of the instrument. Perfect for chamber music
and practicing.

I also find the sound of the Buffet more "symphonic". A more steely higher
horsepower sound. Expected (?) in an orchestra (and in the land of those that
buy 4X4's).

I would like to find an instrument that does both well.

I would also add that the Leblanc line now offers instruments that span a
range of tone qualities (Buffet like sound of Opus, to the old fashioned
"light" sound of the LL). So I wouldn't agree that there is a single "Leblanc
sound" any more.

It also appears (though I haven't tried them) that Buffet also offers a range
of sounds with the RC, festival etc.

Jerry Korten
NYC

* "written by" is used on purpose here. Because of my background, I am used
to seeing some sort of supporting data when making a claim about something.
Such as a table of figures, or citing some kind of research. But the
supporting data in O. Lee Gibson's writing are scant. Not that I doubt what
he says, but cannot really get behind it in the same way as if I could see
some supporting data.