Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org!

Klarinet Archive - Posting 000322.txt from 1999/01

From: Bill Hausmann <>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Plastic - why?
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:05:19 -0500

At 07:11 PM 1/8/99, Dan Sutherland wrote:

> Plastic clarinets in order of my hypothetical preferrance:
> Artly [good scale mellow interesting sound]
> Vito [great key work decent pitch and scale. older models tend to break
>in the middle if you sit on them]
> Armstrong, Buffet [best attributes, completely uninteresting]
> Yamaha [shrill and thin sound, worst most closed stock mouthpiece]
> Bundy [serial killer]
Apparently our experiences of plastic clarinets have differed somewhat.
Just to present an opposing viewpoint:

Artley: Ridiculously sharp throat tones, high resistance, extremely thin
tone, prone to cracking (!) around the thumb hole. Newest version produced
starting in 1998 improved, but still resistant and thin. Couldn't pay me
to have one.
Vito: Good overall, but trill keys set curiously close in to body. DO
have one.
Armstrong: Same as Artley with different label, so figure it out.
Buffet: OK. (I have little experience here, but have heard no complaints.)
Yamaha: A little weak sounding. No problem with the mouthpieces, though.
Bundy/Selmer USA: Solid, dependable, good tone and intonation, although
the keywork is a little funky in places. I'd like to have one like the one
I used in marching band in college (in the ugly green case).

Note on your (deleted) complaint about the Bundy's sharpness: The new wood
Selmer 103, replacing the older Selmer 100 (Signet) which shares its design
with the Bundy, has been redesigned for A=442, so apparently it was not
sharp enough!

Bill Hausmann
451 Old Orchard Drive
Essexville, MI 48732
ICQ UIN 4862265

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

Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail:
Subscribe to the Digest:
Additional commands:
Other problems:

     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact