 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-04-08 00:06
Sure, put 2 clarinetists in a room and get 5 opinions; I'd probably as much to blame for that as anyone.
And better still, ease of play, while good, isn't something that I suspect any devoted player would be attracted to if it came at the expense of other important things like intonation and sound, etc.
But that said, is there any consensus *given a well set up instrument* (that's key here) as to which of the top manufacturers produces instruments (or particularl models) that require the least amount of work for an albeit accomplished player to play?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2025-04-08 22:20
Given how you are setting up the question, I'd say there may be some mistaken concepts.
When a new(er) clarinet is whisked away for tweaks, it is not because the manufacturer failed in any way, it is just that the horn CAN be "suped up" much like a professional race car. I doubt if any of those ever hit the track stock.
Back in the 70s, if you were anywhere near mid-west USA, you'd just take your new horn to Brannen to make your horn feel and play "like butter."
HOWEVER, I would say though that Yamahas and Uebels seem to demonstrate more attention to detail. Uebels also have an unusually thick plating on their keywork going for them too.
...........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-04-08 22:51
Thanks for your thoughts Paul.
I do agree that post purchase customization by recognized shops like Brannen was in the day--so much so recognized that "Brannenization" is all but a clarinetist recognized noun, but sadly, my faith in some manufacturers today (how does one cough "Buffet" out of their mouth) in producing new ready to play instruments is waning.
https://www.earspasm.com/pages/why-earspasm
Sure, Mike's tales above are just one, and of a somewhat motivated salesperson's, but some of the stories here of barely playable so called new instruments gives me cause for concern, deference to the idea that a new horn sent out to many prospective buyers for trial might also contribute to its demise from factory pristine condition as can lack of factory quality control. 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hy-Dex
Date: 2025-04-11 01:30
I will first respond to the title of this thread, "Easiest Pro Model to Play," based on my own personal, long-term experiences with Buffet R13, LeBlanc Concerto (I and II), and Yamaha CSVR and SEVR.
I found LeBlanc Concerto I easier to play than Buffet R13; LeBlanc Concerto II easier to play than LeBlanc Concerto I; and Yamaha CSVR easier to play than both LeBlanc Concerto II and Yamaha SEVR.
I base these findings on ease of playability right out of the box in terms of sound production/response, key-work, and mechanical fitness. I do not base these findings on tone quality or intonation, as that is a different discussion.
The Yamaha SEVR is not difficult to play; I simply find the CSVR to be more flexible, and therefore, more comfortable to play. I find the CSVR key-work to be very comfortable, and my technique is generally very solid and secure on it. Please note that it is my understanding that the SEVR has the same key-work as the CSVR, but the SEVR blows differently and I feel more connected to and comfortable with the CSVR. Although I believe that Yamaha gets a lot of things right and produces high-quality instruments made from high-quality materials, this is in no way a full-throated endorsement.
Concerning what I consider to be an artist-level overhaul, including the tone-hole planing or resurfacing, I have had this done to three clarinets by renowned regional masters. Although it certainly improved pads sealing and legato, it also seemed to remove some color and character, rather the essential essence of what had made those instruments unique in terms of color or character.
I have long noticed that the more perfect an instrument is - be it originally built that way or later modified/improved - the less of a soul it has. I do not refer to standard repair work that is necessary for proper mechanical function, but, rather, the tone-hole resurfacing that results in better seals and legato.
Again, per my own personal, long-term experiences, I believe that LeBlanc Concerto I was a more perfectly built instrument than Buffet R13 and consequently the former had less of a soul. Likewise, LeBlanc Concerto II was a more perfectly built instrument than LeBlanc Concerto I and consequently the former had less of a soul. For any offended by the soul analogy, I have found that more perfectly built instruments are comparatively more sterile in character.
While you may gain in one area, you may lose in another. Everything is a tradeoff, and no one make or model does it all for all of us. Concerning tone-hole resurfacing, going forward I will have to consider very carefully whether I want my pads to seal more perfectly or for my instrument to retain what I consider to be its essential essence in terms of color or character. In my experience so far, it seems that you can have one or the other but not both.
Hy-Dex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2025-04-13 07:15
Hy-Dex wrote:
"I have long noticed that the more perfect an instrument is - be it originally built that way or later modified/improved - the less of a soul it has. I do not refer to standard repair work that is necessary for proper mechanical function, but, rather, the tone-hole resurfacing that results in better seals and legato."
I cannot see how tone hole resurfacing can affect the tone/sound in any noticeable way- when done properly, resurfacing takes off very little amount of wood.
SecondTry wrote:
" m1964 wrote: http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=515904&t=515904
" Are you trying to say that once setup all models are pretty much the same, or perhaps are you trying to say this this thread is the same as the one I originated at the above link (which it is not, not even close), or yet something else?"
There are no objective measures by which ease of play, tone quality and response can be judged. Tuning may be the only aspect that can be compared objectively, and only if the same MP+reed are used when trying different instruments.
A few days ago, I tried five clarinets of the same model: each played slightly differently.
Slightly is the key word. I found the one I liked between those five.
Still, very possible that another musician who plays different MP and has different embouchure would choose different clarinet.
However, in order to compare, all clarinets that are tested, have to hold the air pressure/seal well and be set-up similarly (springs tension, tone hole venting, etc.)
Regarding this thread: I cannot see how this thread is different from the previous one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
