Klarinet Archive - Posting 000179.txt from 2003/03
From: CBA <clarinet10001@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] More corporate shenanigans in the instrument manufacturing world
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:49:42 -0500
It is sad that all of these names are no longer competitors, but
in the case of some instrument makers who have specific
specialties, like Selmer, isn't it worth the company being
bought, as opposed to the company dying in a bankruptcy court if
they are out of capital? Selmer would probably have disappeared
if Steinway hadn't purchased them a while back.
I expect that half of these brinds will fade away. Some have
already been bought and rebought, and bear no resemblance to the
original brands, such as King, Conn, and Buescher. The reason
companies buy these worthless brands now is name recognition.
People would buy a Buescher saxophone now more readily than what
was once dubbed Selmer USA, although the horns will be stencils
of each other, and no real difference.
One particularly interesting merger that did NOT take this
approach was G. Leblanc's purchase of Martin saxophones decades
ago. The Yanagasawa line was nothing but Martin horns with a new
name and engraving. I loved the old Martins, and the curved
sopranos were some of the best of their time. The new Yanagasawa
curved sopranos are some of the very few reasonably priced
curved sopranos out there, and they play great.
Companies like Artley and Armstrong should have been burned at
the stake YEARS ago, and I hope the mergers kill them off.
The question is, if a company buys a dying competitor and sells
identical instruments under the two names, instead of one, their
production does increase, making them more marketable, PLUS
(hopefully) the better of the two instruments can live on. In
the case of professional instruments, in many cases, the
instruments are still made in the same factories, or at least by
the same machines, to make a similar product. It's the PEOPLE
making the instruments for decades, and who know their craft
well that get the shaft, and the quality suffers as the new
people learn a craft of making THAT instrument.
I think Walmart is a little extreme, as Walmart carries
instruments of the lowest quality, without a lot of brand
recognition involved. It is similar to the whole generic drug or
generic paper product scenario except that you don't need
skilled craftspeople to make napkins, so the generic of those
products are usable, without the brand name.
I think a more likely analogy would be car companies. Volkswagen
owns Bentley and BMW owns Rolls Royce. They are still built in
the same factories they were in before, and are now producing
cars with more technological advances along with the tried and
true hand finishing. This is the hope for Buffet in the merger.
More advancements while keeping the name true to it's roots.
Besides, a few drawbacks in an instrument and dropped sales
usually makes a major instrument company redesign its line. For
those who don't remember (which is most of us) Selmer used to
RULE the clarinet world. They are now redesigning instruments
and the world is recognizing the Signature and Recital for the
great instruments they are. Selmer hasn't been on top for
decades, but make wonderful instruments, albeit different from
the Buffet type in a lot of ways. The new lines coming out are
extremely wonderful, and I would consider purchasing them or
getting students to do so when they look for professional
instruments. Boosey and Hawkes 1010 model ruled a good portion
of the clarinet world at one time too. Howarth makes instruments
with many of the same tools as Boosey and Hawkes did (since they
bought the equipment from them) and the S2 Howarth is
essentially a holdover from those 1010s of old. I tried one of
the S2s at Clarinetfest in 2001 and thought it was great. It
played a lot like my RC Prestige Buffet. The S3 (Buffet R13
type) model did nothing for me. Then again, I don't play on R13s
either.
Blah blah blah...sorry for the long post. I think Buffet will
rise from the ashes and advance with new financial wisdom, as
well as new technological advances. We should all keep regular
correspondence with the new company to tell them what we like
and don't like about the instruments. This will be the best way
to keep Buffet alive.
Kelly Abraham
Woodwinds - New York City
--- "Lacy, Edwin" <el2@-----.edu> wrote:
> As of a couple of months ago, there is a new mega-corporation
> in the music world called "Conn-Selmer, Inc." This is true -
> I didn't make it up. The unlikely merger between these two
> former competitors means that one corporate entity owns and
> controls the brand names Armstrong, Artley, Bach, Benge,
> Buescher, Conn, Emerson, Glaesel, King, Ludwig, Musser, Scherl
> & Roth, and Selmer. Further, not mentioned on this list are
> other brand names that previously have disappeared in earlier
> buy-outs and takeovers by some of the above, including Linton,
> Lesher, White, and Cleveland. But, that doesn't even tell the
> whole story. Amazingly, the corporate entity under which this
> company operates is called "Steinway, Inc." That's right; the
> so-called "parent" is the Steinway piano company. Note also
> that all the names on the list of brands are also the names of
> formerly independent companies, some of whom at one time
> competed with each other.
>
> This seems to continue the trend toward larger and larger
> corporations. If the trend continues to its logical
> conclusion, there eventually would be only one company in the
> entire musical world, and perhaps even further in the future,
> only one corporation of any kind - and its name will probably
> be "Walmart."
<<SNIP>>
> Ed Lacy
> University of Evansville
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
