Klarinet Archive - Posting 000692.txt from 1999/01
From: "Ed Maurey" <edsshop@-----.ca>
Subj: Re: [kl] Buffet R-13
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:17:44 -0500
Awhile back one of us in this group asked a very good question that was
never answered. The question was more or less this: Is there another
reason, presumably acoustical, for the register tube to extend into the
bore other than to keep water out?
P.S. It's terrific to hear some sound criticism of the R-13. That model
is regarded as a holy cow by entirely too many clarinetists.
> From: TOM RIDENOUR <klarinet@-----.net>
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Buffet R-13
> Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 10:55 PM
> >RE :
> >> From: GrabnerWG@-----.com
> >> To: klarinet@-----.org
> >> Subject: Re: [kl] Buffet R-13
> >> Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 10:47 AM
> >> Tom......That was an excellent discussion of the inherent flaws in the
> >> I still own my R-13 Bb (Vintage 1966, lots of memories, couldn't ever
> >> myself to sell it), but essentially replaced it in the late 70's with
> >> 10-G which Shifrin was promoting at the time.
> >> Could I possibly have the same type of discussion about the 10-G, like
> >the one
> >> you did on the R-13? Thanks in advance.
> >Don't suppose that you would have the time [and inclination!] to answer
> >but if you should, could you include comment's on the 10S #B1615 - the
> >#C8294 and the 10G "A" #C8253 series?.
> >The 10S and 10G are what I call a "matched set". since I am lucky to be
> >able to
> >use the same barrel and m'piece on both [Hite D, aprox 20 years old]
> >I enjoy reading your postings, and look forward to having you back
> >Hopefully, you will get your problem's sorted out with the people in
> >Kenosha. I
> >represented two American companies for nearly 40 year's, and I think I
> >vizualise the scenerio!
> >I must say though, that I played on a "LL" from 1960 - 80, and found it
> >great horn.
> >Even Russianoff [who I used to see infrequently during my trips to NY]
> >stated it
> >was OK!
> >Regard's and Good Luck
> >Peter Randell. Toronto. Canada
> I am often reluctant to voice an opinion about clarinets here, because of
> the fact that what I share might be misinterpreted since I also make my
> living in the clarinet business.
> What I shared about the R-13 was not just subjective, pejorative
> statements, but ones which are founded in hard core acoustics and are
> empiracally demonstrable. So I hope no one thinks I am just knocking the
> R-13 because of my feelings. I do not criticize the R-13 because of what
> feel about it, but because of what I know about it.
> If emotions enter into it, it is because I spent so many years as a
> and teacher trying to make an instrument play well that fights you every
> step of the way.
> Having said that, I really only have a passing knowledge of the models
> mention above....... But I'll share what little I know.
> The 10-G went through several incarnations, and it's hard to say what
> France made and what was then altered in Elkhart.
> As I understand it, the 10-G was to be a copy of Gigliotti's clarinet
> (Buffet) which Moennig had worked on considerably.
> The only problem with this, is that it was a Pre-R-13, large bore
> Whether that is true or not, the reality is that the 10-G's from the 60
> 70's had a larger central bore than the R-13. The original R-13 being
> 14.65 or thereabouts, and the 10-G being 14.85.
> Now the enlargement of the bore of 14.85 causes one frustrating and
> uncorrectable problem in those particular 10-G's: right hand shapness in
> the low register; very sharp low "A", Bb, B and even C; virtually
> impossible to play in tune with a piano, though prehaps good enough to
> slide by the vagaries of orchestral pitch.
> Subjectively speaking, I played some 10-G's that had attractive tones,
> played over the middle break better than most R-13's (but not the
> upper.....it was just as uneven!), had better tone color in the upper
> clarion.........but the sharpness of the right hand low register made
> useless to me....especially since 95% of the playing I did was chamber
> music and with piano.
> The Recital has also gone through changes over the year of which I am not
> privvy. Recently I played a set and the tuning was excellent, good fluid
> middle break, excellent dynamic response, still not as even as I would
> in the high break, but certainly wonderful instruments.
> What they lack for me on the subjective side was resonance, not due to
> darkness, but they seem a bit dull to me. I could of course, compensate
> that with reed/mouthpiece set up and could have played them very happily.
> One might say, but you have to compensate! True. But Buffet players
> been doing that for year..with mouthpieces, reeds, barrels, bells and so
> on, all attempts seeing to mask the problems which really lie in the bore
> and tone holes.
> This dullness I sense in the Recital evaporates with the Selmer
> it is clear, vibrant and live, but the tones stay round and dark
> throughout. I have never seen or heard instruments which maximized
> anomalous elements so well.
> The Concerto, as a genre, did it well, but the Signature retains color,
> shape and pitch stability better than any clarinet I've ever played or
> heard. What the Concerto does offer is a wider color pallate and more
> variability in shape.
> But play the German clarinets we all admire and see how much color and
> shape variability you get! ZIP.
> German orchestra players want the instrument to be more "set", while only
> the German jazz players play the Buffet, because they can bent and shape
> the tone better.
> I mention the Signature in this context because it tunes similar to the
> excellent tuning of the Recital, but plays smoother and more securely
> the high break.
> The Selmer 10S I am not so familiar with.
> One sleeper of a clarinet for many is, in my opinion, the Selmer
> very fine tuning and a rich, dark tone, and rounder, more pleasant upper
> clarion tones than any R-13 I have played..... that is, if pleasantness
> sound means anything to us as clarinetists. It has come to mean more
> more to me, in any case, because it makes playing the clarinet a more
> satisfying and less painful experience......and since I have actually
> discovered that it means a lot to listeners, that they can actually
> tone color, and that they are pleased by pleasantness and put off by
> bright, thin tones......especially when they are "high", harsh, bright
> The Prologue and the Leblanc Sonata are both instruments to consider for
> the advancing player. They both have their virtues. The Prologue _may_
> sound a little richer over all , the Sonata may play more securely and
> better, though the Prologue's tuning is quite good; these are just
> observations, and not a matter of examining each individual clarinet.
> There are most always exceptions to the rule....except when it comes to
> larger bore clarinets: They always have sharp low register, right hand
> If anyone else has anything to say about the 10S or any other of these
> clarinets you asked about I would be all ears myself, since I have never
> studied them in any detail.
> I am glad to be back on line, and would like to put the little I know at
> the list's service. If one person has a better experience playing
> as a consequence I am happy.
> I apologize ahead of time for such perfunctory comments. It ain't my
> style. Sorry for the typos too.....I just don't have time to edit this.
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org