 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: avincel
Date: 2004-09-17 21:03
I have returned to the clarinet after almost 40 years. I bought a used but nice Buffet E11 from e-bay. Then after reading a post on the BBoard, I bought a "new oldstock" Ernst Riedl from a liquidating music dealer in New York. The opportunity to buy wood clarinet for $150 seemed too good to pass up.
I would like to pass along my comparisons between the Buffet and the Czechoslovac-made Riedl. The quality of the wood seems very similar. The grain on the Riedl is just as tight and uniform as on the Buffet. The metalwork, however, is inferior. It is not finished as well and has some rough edges on the screws. The action seem about the equal of the Buffet but is significantly noisier. My impression is that the Riedl is a little easier to "blow" than the Buffet and, according to my amateur ear, it seems to play in tune. The tone is bright and seems a little harsh compared to the Buffet. It seems to lack something in the sound that the Buffet has. But, still, for $150 the Riedl is quite adequate and somewhat of a bargain for anyone on a budget who has to have a wooden clarinet.
This leads to my question: What makes one clarinet "better" than another one? Difference in workmanship and materials certainly counts for something, but why is an R13 better than an E11? In this age of computer driven lathes and precision engineering it should be possible to accurately reproduce the metal and wood work. Are there narrower tolerances for the R13? Is the quality of the wood and metalwork that much better? Does Buffet make one model deliberately inferior to another? Would it matter? And why are there differences among the same model, i.e, some R13s play well and others don't? Could it be that much of the difference is in the head of the player? Learning that Artie Shaw made his recordings with a plastic reed leads me to think that the instrument, assuming a reasonable level of quality is less important than the player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-09-17 22:24
Welcome back after 40...me too. I can understand why you have all these questions. How nice it is to be able to come to a place where they can be answered....haha. After thinking about these questions for some time my opinion is that what makes a clarinet better than another lies in finding out what the Pros play. Only the pros really know what's better because their survival depends on knowing. Reliability is a key issue followed by repairability. The E-11 is a great horn...for an amateur but I don't think you'll find many Pros playing them because the R13 and its offspring are better. The Riedl is probably a very good horn as are some of the Amatis...but do the pros play them? You could spend a lifetime trying out various horns by why bother.....play what the Pros play if you can afford it.
If you can't then the E11 is a good substitute. All my opinions and no charge.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: avincel
Date: 2004-09-18 00:04
True, the pros must have a reason for playing what they do. It is their livelihood. I have no doubt that the professional horns are better than beginners or intermediate horns, but I wonder just what makes them better. And is the difference in quality (tone, playability, etc. ) something that would be apparent to a nonexpert ear. I mean to say, if I played an R13 would I sound better than if I played the E11. Or would the difference be apparent only at a higher level of virtuosity?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-09-18 13:09
I've owned and played 3 each of the R13 and E11 models. Strictly from a sound standpoint the only comment I have is that the R13 models seemed to have better intonation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2004-09-18 13:49
Vince,
I have two wooden clarinets, one a professional level and the other of lesser quality, and my wife can tell easily which one I am playing. She has a strong preference for the sound of the "pro" clarinet. Maybe I should get a third one to make it more interesting...
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-09-18 14:27
I have several "good woods", LeBlanc and Selmer, and am awaiting a Sel [US?] Omega for another "go at the best" of the 50's-80's pro sops. Would like to do that with basses and altos, but that would require much more "investment" for the pleasures. Thots?? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MikeH
Date: 2004-09-18 14:53
I have had a top of the line Noblet and a Selmer Centered Tone. Also, as in the post above, my wife could tell the difference by listening, with the Selmer having a richer and the at the same time more alive sound. In addition the Selmer is more responsive and smoother. The transition from C3 into the highest register is effortless. Also the throat tones are fuller and brighter. The notes pop out of the horn and arpeggios just ripple. Altogether a great clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
