 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2003-10-07 14:24
Just kidding. Trying to rattle the Buffet Mafia. Go ahead, break my reeds!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-10-07 14:45
By the look of some of them that come through my workshop I would tend to agree. The B12's are almost definitely Chinese and the quality control of the last couple fo batches of R13's in Australia seem to have that Chinese feel. I have personally seen 3 in the last month that had loose centre tenons straight from the importer. Re-corking will provide some sort of a fix but the wooden tenons themselves seem to be mismatched. I have heard from other techs of more of the same. There are millimetres between the inner tenon and receiver. The three I have seen are all on their way back to Buffet, unplayable!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-07 14:49
Mark Pinner wrote:
> The B12's are almost definitely Chinese
Either they are or they aren't. Please either spend the time to find out or don't say it at all.
The quality control that you've experienced - fine, it's objective since they were in your hands.
The origin of manufacture is not something for speculation - it should be readily identifiable. If it is not please contact Buffet directly and ask them.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-10-07 15:34
This is not the sort of information that they release. It is only due to the tightening of trade marking laws in various countries that have forced Yamaha, for example, to remove the "Made in Japan" markings from their instruments and replace them merely with "Japan". The actual country of origin marking is now on the box used for shipping. In the case of the instruments imported here they boxes are now marked "Made in Indonesia from Japanese Components". I believe they assemble in other places for other markets. Likewise Boosey and Hawkes have been forced to remove any reference to being made in England, Great Britain or the UK from their 600 series as they are made wholly in India. Many B12's pass through my hands and the quality control of those instruments that I have seen in the last year or so points to manufacture outside of Europe. Most noticeably in the matte ABS resin used, soldering technique on the bell ring and the quality of the pivot screws and leaf springs which bear a stunning resemblance to those used in the various permutations of J. Michael and or Artiste clarinets which are most definitely made in China. Pivot screws, rods and leaf spring screws are fairly much interchangeable with the B12. Nowhere on the newer B12's do Buffet claim that they are made in France. Eurpoean clarinet makers to the best of my knowledge are not currently working with matte ABS. The other option is that they are being made somewhere in South America as are the Kinder Klari brand, information from the local importer! There would be little productive discussion without subjective argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2003-10-07 15:50
Jeez, guys, I was just kidding.................But an interesting discussion has begun nonetheless ('mountain from molehill').
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-07 16:45
Mark Pinner wrote:
> Many B12's pass through my hands and the
> quality control of those instruments that I have seen in the
> last year or so points to manufacture outside of Europe.
You may believe so, and it may be true, but it is far from fact. Please find out rather than speculating. As you have seen, the Yamahas are labelled (the low end Yamaha clarinets are assembled in Grand Rapids, MI, here in the USA from Japanese components.) - the Buffets would have to be labelled somewhere, too.
> There would be little productive discussion without
> subjective argument.
Country of origin is by no stretch of imagination subjective!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2003-10-07 17:41
This, indeed, is a very interesting and important discussion.
I understand and respect Mark C's point of view concerning factual information versus speculation. However, as Mark Pinner has pointed out, certain "factual" information is not easily obtainable for various reasons.
I can understand where stating speculation as fact is wrong because facts are by their nature verifiable. However, I do believe that stating our beliefs, which on this BB is often noted by the letters "IMO", is not only perfectly acceptable but can certainly lead others to begin inquiring more for the actual verifiable "facts". IMO, stating our beliefs or suspicions is, indeed, very necessary for dialogue. I believe that the great majority of comments made on this BB are basically "opinions".
IMO, I believe that there is a huge difference between "this clarinet is made in China" and "I believe or suspect or am convinced that this clarinet is made in China".
I am thankful that Mark Pinner has brought out some interesting facts concerning how instruments are marked as to point of origin.
I think that it is vital that we share information whether it be in the form of verifiable facts or subjective opinions.
If we were to limit the information on this BB to absolute verifiable "facts", IMO, this BB would go out of existence very quickly.
I think what Mark C is trying to say is: state it as a fact only if you can prove it. If you can't actually prove it, then preface your statement as an opinion, a suspicion, or a belief.
Mark C, how close am I to what you're saying????
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-07 18:32
Dan wrote:
> However, as Mark Pinner
> has pointed out, certain "factual" information is not easily
> obtainable for various reasons.
Country of origin isn't all that hard. It's a requirement for most international trade.
What exactly "country of origin" means is somewhat less easily determined, since parts may be manufacturer in different countries and assembled somewhere else.
> IMO, I believe that there is a huge difference between "this
> clarinet is made in China" and "I believe or suspect or am
> convinced that this clarinet is made in China".
Coming from someone who is an "expert" (such as a repairperson) a statement such as this has more subjective weight, whether true or not.
> I am thankful that Mark Pinner has brought out some interesting
> facts concerning how instruments are marked as to point of
> origin.
I have no qualms about that at all, since he used a concrete example (and one that is easily verifiable).
> If we were to limit the information on this BB to absolute
> verifiable "facts", IMO, this BB would go out of existence very
> quickly.
But there is a distiction with a difference. There are a great many things that are and always will be subjective, since there's no "one way" to produce what we want and because we're all different. There is informed speculation where facts cannot be known (as in trying to date a clarinet where there are no records, or in trying to reconstruct a concerto with no manuscript extent, such as K622).
Then there are facts - those things than can be known - with a bit of digging sometimes.
Rumors tend to start by someone speculating where the facts should have and could have been gathered.
> I think what Mark C is trying to say is: state it as a fact
> only if you can prove it. If you can't actually prove it, then
> preface your statement as an opinion, a suspicion, or a belief.
Not quite, but close.
If you're an "expert", you should especially refrain from damaging speculation. You and/or a manufacturer may end up with a damaged reputation (or worse) from such things, especially when it turns into wild rumor. Instead it is much better to voice an informed opinion as to quality, etc., without resorting to such speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2003-10-07 18:57
"It was a dark and stormy night in Virginia. The motion activated light near the barn kept flickering as men in dark clothing kept slowly creeping toward the house. Suddenly the Donkey brayed! Would Dave hear it in time?....'Tune in next week
Bob A
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark P. Jasuta
Date: 2003-10-07 19:01
Just my 2 cents, but being that Buffet is now owned by the "Music Group" it would be interesting to see if they (the Music Group) have any interests in the "far east".
The reason is simple. Most large international companies have massive resources all over the world and make them available to new acquisitions. This allows them to cut costs while simultaneously keeping all manufacturing in house (meaning within the "group"). For example: Lets say the "Music Group" already has a factory in China that makes key-work for saxophones at a much lower cost. It would be a good business decision (not that we would agree with it) to make clarinet key-work there. The retooling costs would be minimal. It would be interesting to find out.
Regards
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2003-10-07 19:16
Mark said:
"If you're an "expert", you should especially refrain from damaging speculation."
I believe I understand where you're coming from, however, I rely heavily upon "experts" to inform me of their valued opinion. From my point of view, they certainly know more about a particular aspect especially if they work on instruments on a daily basis.
I think the key word here is "speculation". To me, this is unsubstantiated information. However, an "expert" who works on instruments daily and learns all of the negative aspects of a particular instrument through his or her work routine constitutes substantiated work knowledge (IMO).
I believe that qualified "experts" have a DUTY to warn others about their findings.
I do not look upon this as "damaging speculation".
Just my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2003-10-07 19:16
The Music Group was a new company formed specifically to acquire the instrument manufacturing interests of Boosey.
It is owned by Rutland Fund Management. It is possible that Rutland have interests in the Far East. So far as I know they have no other interests anywhere in the music business. Companies like Rutland do not generally bring their acquisitions together in the way Mark J implies. Rather, they buy ailing companies, improve their profitability, and sell them again after a few years. A perfectly honourable business: without the likes of Rutland, there would be more corporate bankrupties.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-07 19:48
Dan wrote:
> I think the key word here is "speculation". To me, this is
> unsubstantiated information.
Such as intimating that you know where something is built when you don't.
> However, an "expert" who works on
> instruments daily and learns all of the negative aspects of a
> particular instrument through his or her work routine
> constitutes substantiated work knowledge (IMO).
I have no qualms with your statement.
> I believe that qualified "experts" have a DUTY to warn others
> about their findings.
I'm not sure it's a duty, but it's fair.
> I do not look upon this as "damaging speculation".
And it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-07 19:54
Mark P. Jasuta wrote:
> It would be a good business
> decision (not that we would agree with it) to make clarinet
> key-work there.
Why woudln't we agree? If it's good quality (The Chinese have the capability - their missiles do just fine, BTW, and if you think developing nuclear capabilities, both commercial and military, is easy you've got another thing coming ...), do you really care where it's made?
Back in my youth "Made in Japan" was a pejorative. A decade ago the same was true for "Made in Korea". Neither is true today, and probably won't be true soon for China.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-10-07 21:04
Well, according to the Music Group (for what it is worth) the student and intermediate horns are manufactured in Germany, most likely at or near the facility where they manufacture Schreiber bassoons.
Yes, the Music Group has operations in the Far East, but that has exactly nothing to do with Rutland. The instrument companies that made up Boosey & Hawkes had/have a presence in China. Paesold and Schroetter stringed instruments, both divisions of TMG now, offer lines that are from China, as well as professional instruments manufactured in Germany.
Now, on the question of the condition of the instruments, particularly the pro line ones, you need to take into account how they arrive in-country (Buffet should take that into account as well). If they are shipped by container vessel down under, they are being exposed to environmental changes that can dramatically change the instrument for the worse. Even if they are air-freighted, temperature, air-pressure and humidity changes can also destabilize wood horns.
Finally, I would not be so quick to automatically ascribe negative characteristics to goods of Chinese origin. They are making a significant percentage of the goods that the free world uses, much of it under well-known and respected brands. Given their ability to turn out musical prodigies (of Western music) at an alarming rate, don't count them out in this area either. They clearly get it at some level. They may well be able to build a better widget than the Pan-Euro/American industrial establishment if they put their collective minds to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark P. Jasuta
Date: 2003-10-08 02:28
Mark Charette wrote:
>Why wouldn’t we agree? If it's good quality (The Chinese have the >capability - their missiles do just fine, BTW, and if you think developing >nuclear capabilities, both commercial and military, is easy you've got >another thing coming ...), do you really care where it's made?
Your history on Japan and Korea is correct. I remember that as well, however, I feel China has a way to go yet.
Being nuclear capable means nothing, India is nuclear capable and so is Pakistan.
Building a nuclear bomb is not that difficult. The hardest part is obtaining the nuclear material. (with the fall of the Soviet Union, who knows)
Here’s the deal. To create a nuclear bomb you need enough nuclear material (plutonium comes to mind or enriched uranium etc.) in a solid piece to achieve "critical mass".
Critical mass is defined as the amount of material needed to create a spontaneous, self-sustaining, uncontrolled, chain reaction, aka. explosion.
Obviously we wind up with 2 pieces of material that when put together reach critical mass.
All we need now is a way to put these pieces together remotely. (very remotely)
Well, there's the old way and the new way.
The old way was to have a ball of material with a hole part way into it, and it would be close to critical mass. A tube would extend from the hole about a foot and in the far end a small piece of material. The amount of which that would bring the ball to critical mass. All we need now is a way to propel the small piece down the tube and join with the big piece. A cherry bomb with a long fuse would be more than enough. (this would be a very "dirty” bomb)
The new way is to create a hollow sphere (about the size of a tennis ball) out of enough material to reach critical mass. It won't because it is hollow. We then place focusing charges around the ball. When they go off, they crush the ball to critical mass. (This is the way to go if you are concerned about fallout, as this one is very efficient and clean)
Do you now understand why we worry so much when nuclear material turns up missing somewhere in the world? It's too damn easy to make a bomb.
Sorry I got off the beaten trail.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-08 02:57
Mark P. Jasuta wrote:
...
Mark, I used to work in the nuclear industry.
There's a lot more to making a nuclear device than just the material, though getting the material is one of the more difficult parts. Dirty bombs are relatively easy, but they're not nuclear devices.
India has IIT. If you think their level of education or of technical and manufacturing prowess is behind the rest of the world, you're going to wake up surprised. It's harder to get into IIT than any other university in the world.
But this is way off track. Please, back on track. If you have clarinet facts to add, be my guest.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: CharmOne
Date: 2003-10-08 03:06
I always wanted to get a yamaha, but it's wood material is too expensive...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2003-10-08 07:40
Why aren't you guys lawyers??
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-10-08 14:06
[ On topic, please. Mark C. ]
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2003-10-08 19:15
Not to be obnoxious, Mark, but what was the topic? I inadvertently started this thread with what was intended to be nothing more than an absurd lie to needle all the Buffet fanatics who have been clogging the airwaves with every little detail of their pet instruments (there, now I've gone and p****d off still more clarinetists!).
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2003-10-08 20:22
.... Possibly a lesser dimension to the discussion, but in support of Mark Pinner, I've been reading his posts on the BBoard probably 2 years that I can recall. In that time, he's impressed me a musician who knows his clarinets and in my eyes, has earned 100% credibility. When stating he suspects B-12 parts and/or partial assembly is done in China (like many other fine professionals who post here) he is exercising "scholarly judgment" not "just any opinion". I will of course, look into it myself for my own edification but in the past, Mark has proven to me he is a knowledge craftsman/repairman. And in this instance readily supports his argument with persuasive logic evidentiary of fact.
Another qualifier on this BBoard that sways me with so-called, "opinions stated as facts" is a poster's consistency and proven expertise over time, and their restraint and responsibility when offering up those points of view. Add the sum of one's own industry experience and you don't necessarily need to have every piece of the puzzle in place and fit tightly every time to recognize the picture. v/r Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-08 20:29
ken wrote:
> When stating he suspects B-12
> parts and/or partial assembly is done in China (like many other
> fine professionals who post here) he is exercising "scholarly
> judgment" not "just any opinion".
Statements which have extremely derogatory connotations (which, considering the current crop of Chinese imports, Mark's statements had) must have a substantially higher degree of confidence than even "scholarly judgement". If you look at msloss's posting above, Buffet claims they are manufactured in Germany. If Buffet is incorrect in their claim, then they should be brought to task, but it should be backed up with fact rather than judgment.
I've spent the requisite 5 minutes to post an email to Francois Kloc of The Music Group/Buffet Crampon. If he answers I'll update this thread with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
