 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: mattahair
Date: 2004-09-04 12:19
Hello. I am new to the BBoard so excuse me if this has been discussed previously. I am a "returning" clarinetist after a three-year sabbatical (ha ha). I have heard that the older R13's are much more desirable than the new ones because the wood is of a quality that does not exist anymore. Can anyone verify this? I just bought an R13 from 1957 and I must say the wood looks amazing relative to my R13 from the late '90s. Any opinions are welcome. I look forward to learning a lot with you guys!
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mystery science dieter
Date: 2004-09-04 13:48
>>>I have heard that the older R13's are much more desirable than the new ones because the wood is of a quality that does not exist anymore. Can anyone verify this?<<<
I am sure many will 'verify' this, but it is still a bunch of bs.
Everything was better (fill in the blank with any number) years ago. Reeds used to be 9 good ones to a box, antique mouthpieces are magical, etc. etc. etc.
There ain't nothing wrong with new Buffet clarinets that knowing how to actually play won't immediately fix. If you have concerns about the wood, buy a greenline. They are terrific.
Post Edited (2004-09-04 13:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-09-04 13:54
hmmm...some people know "bs" when they hear it. I don't know that one can make any generalizations regarding the subject comparison except that the older ones have been around longer than the newer ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-09-04 14:08
There are some very well-respected people around (Clark Fobes for one) who have characterized the R13s over the years. In most cases there isn't anything exceptionally wrong with any lot - it's more that the characteristics match. Buffet has been "fooling" with the design of the R13 for 50 years now ... different years are different. See http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/Intonation.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lllebret
Date: 2004-09-04 14:40
It is true that the wood was in some sense better as it was aged longer before and the R13 was the top of the line until recently so the best wood (heartwood) was reserved for the R13. However, the design of the bore changed somewhat over the years (see above link), and your take on whether the bore design or more dense wood is more important to your sound may be different than mine. I have a 60s R13 that I really like (#83k serial), but I play my important gigs on my newer R13 (300K), as the response is more even as is the tuning. I personally feel that when I have to move the pitch around more when playing the older instrument, the tone suffers on the notes which have to be favored, and that I can concentrate more on the music when I don't have to work so hard to play in tune. However, you might make a different choice feeling that the darker, more resonant sound is worth working for ( your vintage is known for having a "sweet " sound- more focused and pretty). If you prefer your 50s R13, play it and enjoy- there are compromises in all instruments, and only you can decide which ones you are willing to live with.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-09-06 06:29
i have a 1990s R13 bflat that was hand picked, has a carefully selected matching barrel, has reccently had very fine work done on it in addition to some "custom tuning", plus re-boring and undercutting by Mr Kloc, plus a new register tube that has greatly improved the upper register tuning.
ok
so the other night i played an old set of Buffets (in pretty shocking condition too) that a friend of mine bought from a symphony player some years ago....
darn heck if they weren't nicer than mine
they just had a nice sound, a really really nice sound
maybe if i played them a bit longer the intonation would annoy me (note, i said "maybe"), but the sound was better, no doubt about it. And many people who have played MY clarinet have made good comments on it.
anyone want to sell me a pair of vintage R13s?
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johnny Galaga
Date: 2004-09-07 02:26
My older R13 (from the 50's or 60's) has the rods (that hold the key rings around the holes) rather close to the surface of the wood giving it a more flute-like feel, but my newer R13 from the 90's has the rods noticeably higher off of the surface of the wood, giving it a wider, fatter feel. Also, the Ab-Eb key is shorter on the newer R13, making it easy for the right pinky to miss during technical passages.
The newer R13 has much better intonation, but notes in the altissimo register are easier to get out on the older R13.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2004-09-07 02:49
Donald
I, too, had an early 90's R13. It was good. John Butler did an o/h, as he's done on all mine, and it was better but not in the same league as my earlier ones (it seemed to have more of a Chamber Music sound......darker). I've tried a few others from the mid 80's upward and they didn't compare. Yet, I once tried an Anniversary model and it was a dog; worse than an ES I gave away.
I've 5 R13 Bb's and 2 A's. The Bb's range from 1967 -1971 and a 1974 that is phenomenal.
The A's are 1971 and 1959. The former, selected by Earl Hanlon. The latter, belonged to my teacher Russianoff and I got it 1964 while in HS. I won't even elaborate on it......but OH, Dances of Galanta.
The sound: resonance, color, eveness of scale, intonation is is something that (my opinion) is lacking in the later yrs. Or should I simply say, I'm happy with what I have.[happy happy]
I've had convo's with Chadash and he's expressed the same (wood quality was superior back then) and further mentioning that pre 1963 ones were iffy on intonation. In a recent convo with Clark Fobes, he ,too, mentioned (as a generalization) the older ones seem to be better.
I've also a 1973 ESMM that , like my R13's, has that coal black, tight grained wood. It's better than numerous R13's I've tooted on. That, too, was O/H'd by John.
There are, however, 2 sides to every coin. Manyyyy a player, symphony level or not , play a newer one. IMS even offers new ones 'hand' selected by Greg Smith, with "matching" bbl and mp, and then Brannenized. They are over $3,000 . Is it worth it & is 'it' for you??... worth is relative so who's to say.
Now, how does my set of Yamaha's compare. Later mid 80's for the Custom and 72A. They were selected at the Yamaha Grand Rapids facility by my late friend, John Denman, (Yamaha sponsor) and were his unused backups which he sold to me. They are good, real good. Again, that coal black, tight grained wood. One symphony player tried the Bb and remarked "wow".....nothing further. The A wasn't tried. I should sell the set as I rarely play them, perhaps someday. (guess I'm one of those R13 nerds)
So, now, we can start a Thread on wood density, tight/coarse grain.....after all, the bore and outside dimmensions are same......so what accounts for the differences????? I mentioned this to Clark and we agreed, it would be a good discussion.
dennis (:o)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-09-07 15:05
Your older R-13 will either be good, bad, or indifferent. You'll have to decide that for yourself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-09-07 15:12
There are pros and cons to every decision about an instrument. New ones are nice because they usually have great mechanical stuff going for them, but might not have the best wood. And, there's always the thought about the year it's made--some years are better than others--as has already been mentioned. Perhaps it's because of the people who worked on it a particular year, perhaps it's the batch of wood, who knows!
I've heard the 60s R-13s are pretty good. But, with an older instrument you're probably going to be looking at an overhaul and some fixing on the mechanical end to get it in shape.
My suggestion, if possible, is to try some older ones and try some newer ones and then decide.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mattahair
Date: 2004-09-12 11:59
Hello all! Once again, thanks to every one for contributing to this thread.
A few observations after a week or two with the '57 R13:
1. Intonation is obviously an issue. It's not too too bad, but just enough to hurt, you know?
2. At first glance the clarinet looks 'smaller' than my newer R13; guess that's at least partly because some of the reds and such are closer to the bore in the older modles, as per Johnny.
3. Once again the wood is obviously different from the newer R13. This horn is very dark, very tight, very nice.
4. The horn has an absolutely georgous sound! As previously described, it is very "sweet." Notes in the altissimo come so easy; everything just flows; very easy blowing.
The joury is still out as to wether I am going to keep this horn or not. Though the sound is so sweet, the intonation problems and small keys (I have rather large hands) might make me want to try a slightly newer horn, maybe from the mid-'60s. Thanks again for everyone's input!
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lllebret
Date: 2004-09-12 17:45
I had a clarinet from that vintage that I fell in love with because of the sound. After a couple of years I had to sell it because it was hard and tiring to play in tune. However, I am a doubler and clarinet is not my primary instrument, so ease of playing may be alot more important to me than it is to you. If your older clarinet is your primary instrument, it certainly can be played in tune and it will be hard to find a later clarinet that has the same kind of sound, although some of the 60s R13s are really great- just different (bigger sounding, not as sweet but more powerful). Intonation in all clarinets of any make or vintage can be an issue- each individual clarinet must be evaluated seperately and other factors such as resistance, eveness of response, flexibity of pitch, etc. also should be considered. Its always a balancing act.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-09-13 03:33
Why not accept the instrument, flaws and all, and have modifications made?
I don't think a sweet player should be easily discarded (at least until you find something better)... if you keep it in good condition, resale should be fairly easy for a good R13 A.
Small keys can be augmented by a competent technician.
On the flipside, the process of building a quality instrument has been improved. I wouldn't get to excited about the figure of the wood, with proper application of sealant and stain, it may appear as the finisher desired. Best R13 A I ever heard had three repaired cracks and looked like it had been used for a garden implement.
The owner won't part with it for any price - it's that good.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-09-13 12:31
Perhaps the ultimate solution is to find that gorgeous 60's R13 pair, have it 'voiced' etc. etc. for intonation and then get a whole brand new mechanism put on it. You'd be the new geek on the block!
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! ![[down]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley23.gif) Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-09-13 17:13
Matt -
Your size impression is correct. My first R-13 was made in around 1960, and it definitely had a smaller outside diameter than my current instruments from the early 1970s. I'm pretty sure the Buffet Vintage models have the original diameter, in addition to the other original design features.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mattahair
Date: 2004-09-14 01:07
Thanks again for eveyone's input. I think I am going to hold onto this '57 R13 a little longer. My new problem is who to send it to for repairs? I really prefer the Brannens, but they will not work on any horns manufactured before 1960 (I really wish they could do it; I consider them the best). So what I'm asking is, can anyone recommend someone to overhaul this horn? I'm looking for as-near-to-Brannen quality as is possible.
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: c@p
Date: 2004-09-14 03:40
How abouit the relatively new "Vintage" clarinet that came out a few years ago promoted as returning to the old style of the Buttet of the 50's and maybe the early 60's.?
For starters, I have played both and the Vintage feels like the finger holes are more separated while the R13 is a more compact feel and a little brigher sound.
Hype or true?
Any comments?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lllebret
Date: 2004-09-14 15:59
For restoration try Rick Sayre (first hand knowledge of his work), or Morrie Backun (reputation only, but I own some of his products- barrels and bell).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-09-15 12:52
John Butler is a sponsor of this BBS, and a capable technician for winds.
Why not drop him a line, and get an estimate - along with suggested mods?
I have also had tremendous results from Stephen Fox of Toronto, ONT.
He's a serious player, and well versed in necessary modifications to clarinets for his Basset conversions.
Either one will do their utmost to satisfy your needs, and fulfill your desires.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
