 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-08-24 13:21
Some while ago I was given an old leaflet produced by B&H in 1962, entitled "A word of Advice on the Clarinet". This amusing little pamphlet raises two issues which I would like to know more about: reeds and mouthpieces.
Reeds: It says: "Reeds should be made only from thoroughly air-seasoned cane, and the growing habit among certain manufacturers of cut-priced reeds of kiln-dring their cane in order to shorten the period needful for complete natural seasoning has resulted in the market being flooded with reeds of such dubious quality that the percentage of playable ones is now deplorably small as compared with those of a generation ago, when it was usual to discover at least six or eight acceptable reeds in each dozen, whereas there are many highly publicised makes nowadays where one could search in vain for more than half-a-dozen good specimens in a hundred."
Phew! That was a long sentence.
Anyway, they go on to say they only stock the good reeds and give their brand names:- Deru; Oscillator; Var. I have never heard of any of these. Note the absence of Vandoren. But 10 years later Vandoren had total market domination in the UK. When did they start? Has anyone played Deru/Oscillator/Var? What were they like? Anyone got any old boxes to try?
And mouthpieces:- You will be pleased to learn that B&H felt able to comment in respect of their mouthpieces that: "we may justly remark here that these specialised products are very, very good indeed. Modesty compels us to refrain from saying more, except that we are entirely content that they should rest on their established reputation among the finest artists in every branch of the profession". Personally I do not recall from the 1970s that there was really any alternative when playing a 1010 or 926 than to play on B&H mouthpieces, which should explain why the finest players did indeed use them. In any case, the leaflet explains the three numbered facing system (just like Pomarico today).
"The No.1 aperture is the shortest and closest normally available and it is especially useful where drawing room playing or chamber music is the particular ideal of the artist." So, it seems they did not offer a close but long facing in those days.
"Those who need a greater 'resistance' find their needs met with the No. 2 lay......." But the description says nothing as to how the greater resistance is achieved.
"Those who are either accustomed to a soft reed; or who require the greatest reasonable volume of sound find that the No. 3 lay offers the most satisfactory solution to their problem." From this we can infer that B&H saw those favouring an open lay as having "a problem".
What I wonder is, what were the standard measurements of these three facings? We know that, in the early part of last century the average tip opening was 1 mm, far closer than the increasingly common 1.25mm or thereabouts prevalent in the UK now. But does that compare with the No. 2 or with the No. 1 described above in 1962? And what were the dimensions of the No. 3; greater or less than 1.25mm?
If anyone has measured the length and opening of these B&H facings, I would be interested to know what they are.
To those who say these measurements must have varied sample to sample, I leave you with this further extract: "The basic aperture curves on B&H mouthpieces are controlled absolutely by devices that allow of no discernable variation."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-08-24 14:26
Graham -
Like you, I'm old enough to remember 1962. I think I tried every available reed and mouthpiece that came into the U.S. music stores at the time, and I can't remember seeing a reed labeled Deru. Oscillator sounds vaguely familiar, but probably only because it sounds like the infamous Vibrator brand. The Var region of France where the cane is harvested, and, again, I have a vague memory that it may have been a brand name. Certainly these brands didn't last long.
I don't remember seeing B&H mouthpieces. either, but at that time they probably existed only with the British 1010 bore. These were unlikely to be exported, since they wouldn't play in tune on a French bore instrument.
In his Menuhin Guide book, Jack Brymer wrote about the evolution of his mouthpiece, which he had refaced many times over the years, eventually getting a metal inlay for the rails and tip. I doubt that any professional player would use a stock mouthpiece just as it came from the manufacturer, without having it tweaked by a mouthpiece specialist.
As to the possibility of finding a box of Derus/Oscillators/Vars that play like magic . . . complaints that "reeds aren't what they used to be" were as loud and frequent in 1962 as they are today. Nostalgia for an ancient golden age probably began with Denner's second batch of reeds.
However, I, too, would be interested if someone has such relics. Thanks for the nostalgia trip, and good luck.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Piercy
Date: 2004-08-24 14:52
I have several B&H mouthpieces. Each of them the #2 model.
They were owned by and refaced by Gervase De Peyer to suit himself, and after he gave them to me, they were again refaced by him to suit me.
I do not know the exact measurements, but they are in the somewhat of the medium open range by my sight measurement and how they feel to play.
Tom Piercy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2004-08-24 15:17
I think I still have a few oscillator reeds, but haven't played one for many years. I don't recall that there was anything remarkable about them except for the small incomplete hole drilled into them When I have some time I'll post a picture if anyone is interested (and if I can find them).
Regards,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-08-24 16:07
Thanks for the interesting comments. Actually, I cannot remember 1962, but I do remember the 70s.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2004-08-24 19:18
Thanks, GBK. I had forgotten that. I've go to take more vitamins.....
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
