Klarinet Archive - Posting 000197.txt from 2003/03

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] More corporate shenanigans in the instrument
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:09:07 -0500

At 12:45 PM 3/4/2003 -0800, Kelly Abraham wrote:
>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.

Keep in mind that Selmer (Paris) is an entirely separate entity from Selmer
USA, which is the US IMPORTER for Selmer (Paris) instruments as well as
making their own lower-grade instruments. If Selmer USA went out of
business it would not affect Selmer (Paris) except that they would need a
new importer. This is NOT the case for Leblanc, although it began that
way. Selmer USA is one of the stronger competitors in the US market and
was not and is not in danger of folding.

>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.

The King factory in Eastlake, OH is still operating. UMI was (and I hope
Conn-Selmer continues) rebuilding its line, eliminating some of the
redundancies. For example, instead of selling identical flutes, clarinets
and oboes under both the Artley and Armstrong names, they recently divided
the lines so that Artley sold clarinets and oboes and Armstrong sold flutes
only. They have so far kept both Conn and King names for brasses and
saxes, but both had been well respected at one time in those lines. Some
of the classic horns by those companies, like the Conn 88H and King 2B and 3B
trombones and Conn 6D, 8D, and 10D French horns are still made. Bundy and
Buescher student saxes were for many years identical except for lacquer
color and brand stamp, and based on the Buescher Aristocrat design of the
1930's (both their strength AND weakness). CURRENT Buescher saxes are
Taiwanese imports.

>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.

I'm not so sure about this. The current Martins are pure Yanagasawa, that
is to say, basically Selmer copies, with not a hint of the old and
absolutely unique Martin design in them at all.

>Companies like Artley and Armstrong should have been burned at
>the stake YEARS ago, and I hope the mergers kill them off.

The Armstrong name for flutes should survive. I have no problem with your
suggested disposition for Artley. :-)

>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.

The PROFESSIONAL lines don't seem to work that way. When THEY are bought,
the purchasing company usually degrades their new acquisition to
student-line status, as Selmer did with Buescher and Leblanc with
Martin. I think it is to keep the new line from directly competing with
the old one. That is why I don't expect to see a new pro-line sax from
Conn or King.

>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.

I, too, am inclined to believe that Buffet will survive. I just hope the
MBA's who took it over are smart enough to leave the operation to the
people who have a clue about the business! After all, I seriously doubt
that the Buffet division was what was dragging Boosey and Hawkes down.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

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