 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Kai
Date: 2000-03-21 17:16
Has anybody here used a Boosey & Hawkes 1010 or a Peter Eaton? I would like to know more about them.
Regards
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 2000-03-21 17:39
I have a 1955 1010. What do you want to know about it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kai
Date: 2000-03-22 09:31
Hi, thanks for responding. I would just like somebody who uses a 1010 for his/her comments on the instrument and perhaps, compare it with a few other brands / models.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 2000-03-22 11:39
I am not helpful on comparisons because I have played so little on the modern crop of instruments, I could not draw valid conclusions. However, at the risk of being controversial I will say that, both playing a 1010 and hearing others play these wide bore instruments, I think they can be very effective in dynamic ranges from p to mf or even f. But push them hard and the sound often disintegrates into something harsh raw and unpleasant. It is not that they cannot go loud, or are difficult to play loud; it's that they often sound nasty when they go loud. I have always thought that narrow bore instruments were a safer bet although perhaps something is lost in expressiveness in return for a safer more homogeneous performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cyril
Date: 2000-03-22 15:17
About 5 years ago, I had a 1975 1010. According to one of the repairman, the post war 1010s aren't as good as the pre war 1010. I found that with the 1010, finding a suitable mouthpiece was difficult because of the bore size. Apart from being out of tune, most mouthpieces made it sound thin (esp the throat notes) and made choosing a perfect reed quite difficult. Sound produced was big but can be harsh. Peter Eaton made me a good mouthpiece which fixed the thin sound but it was rather expensive and took quite a while. The key work I found was poor although the leather pads were really good. I would advise you not to purchase a post war 1010s. If you insist on a wide bore Eglish instrument, Peter EAton clarinets are much better. They are modelled on the 1010 with more improvements. The Eatons that I have seen certainly had much better key work than the 1010 that I had.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Graham Elliott
Date: 2000-03-22 16:43
Further to Cyril's point, pre war 1010s are generally thought to be the best, with a much clearer lighter sound, but the 1950s instruments are thought by some to be better still, with a tighter, nuttier sound. Post 1960 instruments usually sounded bloated stuffy and lacked resonance, and were particularly prone to sounding bad when pushed hard. But if you like the sound of de Peyer, or Brymer post c. 1965, then these were the instruments they used.
Cyril wrote:
-------------------------------
About 5 years ago, I had a 1975 1010. According to one of the repairman, the post war 1010s aren't as good as the pre war 1010. I found that with the 1010, finding a suitable mouthpiece was difficult because of the bore size. Apart from being out of tune, most mouthpieces made it sound thin (esp the throat notes) and made choosing a perfect reed quite difficult. Sound produced was big but can be harsh. Peter Eaton made me a good mouthpiece which fixed the thin sound but it was rather expensive and took quite a while. The key work I found was poor although the leather pads were really good. I would advise you not to purchase a post war 1010s. If you insist on a wide bore Eglish instrument, Peter EAton clarinets are much better. They are modelled on the 1010 with more improvements. The Eatons that I have seen certainly had much better key work than the 1010 that I had.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
