 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-09-24 15:09
The Buffet R13 clarinet has been around for a very long time http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/05/000002.txt but it is also a clarinet that remains in a state of evolution. I don’t think this is a bad thing by the way. Buffet in their strides to continually improve, innovate, and create a better instrument has altered the design, materials, sound, response, and intonation of the R13 countless times. I think this evolutionary process is natural.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the R13 clarinet has changed is due to the new people at the factory. Concepts, reeds, and mouthpieces have changed over the past 75 years or so.
It makes sense that an instrument manufacturer would make their instruments work best with the mainstream approach to playing the clarinet. What was fashionable 25, 50, and 75 years ago may be rather different than what is fashionable today. Perhaps what worked then, may not work as well today…or maybe not.
Is Buffet making their best instruments today? If you prefer an older instrument, what vintage is it?
I personally find Buffet R13 clarinets made from 1965-1975 can be extremely good instruments. Also, my R13 made in 1972 has a particularly small bore, for what it is worth.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2006-09-24 15:34
I've tested only 1936 (21xxx), 1938 (25xxx), 1967 (93xxx and 95xxx), and 1986 (286xxx).
I don't think most players have had the opportunity to test a really wide sample of Buffets.
I am prey to the notion that the late sixties marked some sort of peak. My two Buffets from 1967 are just unlike anything else ... concentrated but still the "Sweetest Clarinet Ever Made."
Funny that Buffet is the "orchestral clarinet." Every time I play one, I find myself more relaxed and expressive ... freer, jazzier, if you will. That doesn't happen on my "Benny Goodman" era Selmers.
Bill.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-09-24 16:03
Although I own 14 different R13's of varying vintages/years (1962 and later) and a few pre-R13's (1930's), it is interesting to see and feel the unique differences between instruments. After having spent a lifetime playing Buffet, there is definitely something very special about the Buffets from the mid 1960's to about the early part of the 1970's.
A "golden age" ? Maybe...
My 2 favorite clarinets, and the ones which I always gravitate back to, are 86xxx (1965) and 96xxx(1967). There is an undefined feeling of "oneness" with the instrument. The comfort level, blowing resistance, color, flexibility and warmth of sound just feels "right."
Next, in line of the ones I own, are the 1975 Buffets (154xxx and 162xxx). Again, great sound and projection, and possibly a bit more focused than previous years.
I do find that the Buffets I own in the 248xxx (1983) and 274xxx (1985)range definitely have a much different tonality and blowing resistance. Tighter, focused and more compact might be a way to describe it. Not better, not worse, just different. I suspect that the bore design is not the same as the 1960's and 1970's models.
The new Buffets over the past 3 years, which I have tried and picked out for students have been (after set up) amazingly consistant, but, for lack of a better term, tighter sounding and, for me, lacking a "personality," Of course there are exceptions, but many of these instruments, to me, now sound generic and sterile.
Then again, maybe I just hold them too much in comparison to the 1960's and early 1970's models.
Of course all of the above begs the question as to why the certain eras sound and feel different? Is it the wood, the drying and aging, the craftsmanship, the testing and quality control process? We do know that the design has been tweeked over the years? Maybe, it is all the factors combined ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2006-09-24 16:05
I don't do extensive testing, but I do get to play a lot of my students instruments , especially when they are upgrading to a new R13. Most of my student's R13's were made in the last 5-6 years. I've probably played 25 - 30 late model R13's in the last few years.
I much prefer my 1974 model. The intonation is much more precise on the 1974 model. I also prefer the tone on the older horn. The new instruments are good, I just feel that my older one is better - and thats not a scientific observation, just a personal preference - hard to quantify.
Maintenance wise, the plastic tabs on the lower joint left side levers on the new models is a problem - they tend to break. That is one design change I feel is flawed - sure the plastic is quieter, but at the expense of more maintenance.
I also see a huge number of students with newer instruments where the tenons stick - brand new instruments that need to go to the shop to have the tenons sanded so that they don't get stuck. I never see this issue with the older R13s. If you're paying $2700 for something, it shouldn't have to go into the shop 1 week after purchase. Whether this is a lack of precision and quality control at Buffet's factory, or a reflection of the current quality of the wood supply is hard to say - but I never saw this issue until recently - the last 10 years or so.
I imagine I'll eventualy wear out my 1974 horn and need a new one, but I hope not - its a fine instrument.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-09-24 16:25
A very important point to remember:
Unlike today, in the 1960's the R13 was the top of the line, most expensive Bb/A clarinet offered by Buffet. The most choice wood was used and more hand assembly time was devoted to each instrument. Today, with a number of models priced higher than the R13, wood with different properties are designated for certain models. Assembly is now highly automated and (I would suspect) clarinets are produced at a far quicker pace.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2006-09-24 17:02
My R13 is numbered 250XXX and is simply wonderful. It was selected for me by a wonderful New Yorker whose name I've forgotten. He had an upstairs clarinet store at the SW corner of 48th and Broadway. Simply everybody went to him. He also wrote a popular clarinet book. When he imported a batch of Buffets he would select the best three or four and send them out to Long Island to the Buffet distributor to have cork pads inserted in the throat and the corks and action fine tuned, and i got one of these. Damn! I wish I could remember his name!
I'm afraid I abuse the horn a bit though, as in, "I never saw a barrel I couldn't remove". It's been tight since new and if I leave the clarinet assembled between sessions I must pull the barrel out a bit or it really gets tight.
b/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Adrian
Date: 2006-09-24 19:16
I have my one and only B flat Buffet, made in 1954 (bought in 1956), and picked out by my teacher, Dave Weber. It was basically the same horn he was playing at the time.
The A/G# keys share the same rod, so it's not supposed to be a "true" R-13. However, the post above by Brad makes the point that Buffet made a professional clarinet for decades, and the catalogue descriptive of R-13 may actually be meaningless. I think this is probably true.
The only other Buffet I played for any length of time was also a Buffet professional model issued by the Air Force when I was in the Lackland Band in 1964. That horn was almost new and was identical in every possible way (tone, bore, key action) to my own instrument.
I auditioned everything Selmer brought to their party at Steinway Hall last year. Their clarinets were spanking brand new, but the sound wasn't even close to my 50-year-old beauty.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Imperial Zeppelin
Date: 2006-09-24 20:02
Have to factor in aged wood vs. kiln dried. Can't remember exactly, but in either the mid-70s ( I think), but it might have been the mid-60s Buffet switched from using wood that was aged 12 years to wood dried in a kiln for 6 months.
I can't comment on the impact on tone, but the process change did increase cracks, according to our local clarinet technician...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-09-24 20:14
I have owned 17xxx, 48xxx, 52,xxx, 60,xxx, 70,xxx, 80,xxx, 95,xxx, 103,xxx, 130,xxx, 134,xxx, 280,xxx, 345,xxx, 532,xxx. I guess that makes me crazy!
The instruments I have kept are: 17,xxx, 48,xxx, 52,xxx, 103,xxx, 130,xxx, and 134,xxx. I also will keep my fine 280,xxx C clarinet.
All the other vintages I have sold-off, because of some sort of issue. The 95,xxx had a GREAT sound with tons of focus and it indeed had a very sweet sound, but I couldn’t get the upper clarion B and C down in pitch to my satisfaction. I suspect other clarinets in the mid-90,xxx-range, could be excellent, mine just didn’t work for me.
The 80,xxx had a very happy warm full bodied sound that was very satisfying but it didn’t have that amazing combination of sweet, powerful resonance with personality that the later 60’s and early 70’s produced. I have played a couple of friends 80,xxx clarinets that gave me a similar impression.
The best A clarinet I have ever played was a 104,xxx instrument that a student has. It played like a Bb clarinet and just didn’t spread like most A clarinets tend to. My 134,xxx A clarinet is almost as good, but that old 104,xxx is special. Resonance without effort.
My older, early fifties models are very pleasing instruments that have a wonderful warm sound with lots of life, flexibility and personality. They don’t have the power of the late sixties and early seventies models though. I find these instruments to play with a higher upper clarion but due to their added flexibility, I can still play them in tune.
I do prefer the unplated nickel-silver keywork of the older models though, and I also find it interesting that the older models do not require pulling out at the center like the modern representations. I find that with most current models of Buffet clarinet I must pull out at the center a lot in order to make the intonation work across the break, but the older models don’t. This brings me to another observation…the LH pinky keys are shorter on newer Buffets. My hands are small and I find the older, longer keys make for a much more comfortable hand position. Add to this the fact that I must pull out a lot at the center with newer instruments and the distance to the LH pinky keys increases measurably.
I find all of the instruments that I have enjoyed offered a healthy working resistance. All of those clarinets invite me to play with a lighter reed as well. I love the fact that they help bring me to a place with my playing that is musical, effortless and makes me happy. I call it “having a relationship with your setup.” For me, the tell-tale sign of great equipment is when you can reflect on that fine clarinet or reed or mouthpiece and a smile or tear comes to the surface and you ponder the possibilities without it. Personally, without great equipment, I would rather sell shoes.
The clarinets that tend to deliver everything for me are my 103,xxx, 130,xxx and 134,xxx.. These instruments were made in 1968, 1972, and 1973.
My experience with the older clarinets helps bring me to the opinion that clarinet playing was different in the “golden-era.” I think clarinetists tended to use lighter reeds, played with brighter-clearer-more resonant-concepts, and managed their sounds with much more flexibility. This may be a big can-of-worms, but it is my own opinion without real research to back it up. I would like to add that it is rather exciting to play an old horn and in a sense experience the past, right here and now…today.
For me, the “old school” is right.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-09-24 21:05
Brad Behn wrote:
> I also will keep my fine
> 280,xxx C clarinet.
My C clarinet is 282xxx. (1986)
Best C clarinet I've ever tried or played.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-09-24 21:49
The retired long-time past president of Buffet was a close friend of mine for many years before he passed away a couple of years ago. Roland was president during this earlier age of Buffet and was a wealth of information insofar as understanding the company and it's practices were concerned.
He also possessed an excellent understanding of acoustics and worked very closely with Robert Carree and the top artists of the day having a very hands-on philosophy. In fact he was a worker at the benches of Buffet before becoming it's president.
Several of the key insights that I gleaned from my long friendship with this marvelous man:
1)Manufacture changed dramatically from the start to finish of his association with Buffet. There was much more handwork and individual artisanship involved at the start and an almost pure mechanization of production by the time he left.
2)Differing "vintages" of Buffet clarinets took on their own distinctive personalities because of the hands-on artisanship approach passed through the generations of families that worked at the "bench" in the Buffet factory.
3)The aging of the wood went from approx. twenty year aged reserves all the way down to what is now around a 5 year, partially kiln-dried process aging of the m'pingo wood.
4)Clarinetists of the day learned to play somewhat relatively intonation-challenged vintages while barrel and especially mouthpiece design evolved over the years. There was always R & D simultaneously going on with Buffet and mouthpiece makers of the time that key artisan/testers in the Buffet stable used to test prototypes or production line models.
5)That everyone had their favorite era Buffet. Why? Because while performers were individuals, each with their own unique set-ups, clarinets themselves were also individual works of art in many respects due to their higher degree of hand crafting. After awhile, a piece of equipment begins to *play you* (so to speak). One leans on it, plays around it, exploits it, compromises for it, evolves with it, etc. Like a good reed, it's flexible FOR YOU. The idea that there is a universal golden age is of course nonsense if anyone is going to give credit to the artistic sensibilities of any given *individual* performing artist. This applies to all equipment.
Sure, I thought that Marcellus' A clarinet from the late 50's was the best instrument I ever had the privilege of playing. But it was extensively rebuilt by Hans Moennig of Philadelphia over the period of 20 years to fit him. I couldn't play it in the CSO today because it didn't evolve for me or the needs of the CSO (ie. the period 1983 - 2006). There was a reason Marcellus continued to play that same old instrument. It and he were symbiotically linked - artist to instrument.
Tonal and other requirements demand that instruments, in fact all equipment evolve. Although it is nice to think back in theory with nostalgia about what we may want in today's musical world, as a performer one has to use what meets modern-day demands in real time. To make this point as obvious as one can, observe the evolution of the Stadler clarinet of Mozart's time to the modern day orchestral instruments.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
Post Edited (2006-09-24 22:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-09-25 04:41
About the shorter wood drying period, I can't really understand how it would affect the sound at all, but I'm interested to know, if that really makes the wood more likely to crack, why?
GBK wrote: "Assembly is now highly automated and (I would suspect) clarinets are produced at a far quicker pace."
I'm not sure if you meant to imply there is less quality control because of that, or just less quality, but I am guessing they have new equipment that allows them to do a lot of things faster without sacrificing quality control, or that actually allows to do some things better.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-09-26 20:40
Wood needs to cure (includes an expand/contract cycle) over long periods of time for it to become stable and more likely to keep it's dimension once cut.
About super ultra-homogenized *machine-made* things that eventually are meant to become pieces of art to be played by *individual* artists:
"False consistencies are the hobgoblins of small minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-09-26 20:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-09-26 21:04
"The only good Buffet is a dead Buffet".
Henri Leon Yamati
"I enjoy the lunch Buffet"
Homer Simpson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-09-28 00:30
Excellent comments from Greg and Brad here...I too feel the finest of the R13s are from the late 60s to about 1974...I have an old set here which still play beautifully and sound great in spite of the fact orchestrally I use Selmer clarinets...brand name allegiance is a bit repugnant to me so I keep away from that sort of bunk...
As to Buffet clarinets in general I do notice as of late the A clarinets not as consistent in tonal and tuning characteristics more so than the Bb's which I have tested. In many ways the Bb buffets have improved the most...but players should take time still in choosing right clarinet for themselves rather just buying a clarinet hot off the shelf...this can be disaster for some.
In fact, a friend of mine recently purchased a Buffet hot off the shelf and to my surprise... none of the pads seated properly so she brought it to me to fix!!! I am not kidding...she walked in bought and left in 20 minutes.
Here I am fixing a new Buffet R13 for a someone...I couldn't bring myself to charging here for the pads or the work so I settled for a bottle of Scotch.
On top of this it was in my opinion a very far cry from what I accept as an instrument with proper voicing. I did not let here know this because she was so proud of the clarinet...but I doubt she will ever use it outside of a concert band she is in..
One register I find a bit touchy on Buffet R13's is the throat E, F# open G and G# intervals which are fine test for any clarinet...I tend to look for a clarinet to have even colours especially when it is new... in many newer intruments a major change in the tonal colours here points to wood that is in my opinion still changing quickly or settling...but that is more an opinion I guess. Tuning is also important ...but even with a very new clarinet in a year intonation on a clarinet can change dramatically.
Another wondeful element I like about the R13 clarinets is eveness of voicing across the break... I also have an R13 A which I bought off Harold Wright which is very warm and sounds great still!! It was build in 66 and Moeniggized for Mr. Wright.
I think students should always consult a player of good quality on how best to get a good R13 (and /or )
go to the shop with other clarinetists to listen as well. I feel it good idea to get a second opinion in these matters when you consider how much money clarinets can cost!
I bought my first R13 for $800.00 dollars in 1978!!! ......you want to make sure you get a good clarinet that plays well..responds well and tunes at least decently.
David Dow
Post Edited (2006-09-28 00:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2006-09-29 02:26
Could I "nominate" this thread for the Keepers Forum? It's a real treasure!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-09-29 04:53
"Wood needs to cure (includes an expand/contract cycle) over long periods of time for it to become stable and more likely to keep it's dimension once cut."
Was it proven that 5 years is really not enough natural drying time? I recently read an article about Rossi (someone linked it on the clarinet email list) and it seems they dry the wood for 5 years also. If I'm not mistaken Eaton dries their wood between 7 and 11 years, and they are actually cheaper than Buffet or Rossi.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-09-29 05:07
For the "vintages" that are being talked about in this thread, aging took place for more than 20 years. I think that that type of time certainly has alot to do with stability and therefore it's quality.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-09-29 05:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-09-29 18:59
I'm a little cynical of all this talk about aging and drying of wood. I quote from my own posting from last May, which suggests that the wood used by Boosey and Hawkes, at least, may have had a rich and varied career:
From http://www.myatt.co.uk/art_012.htm
"...the ballast from ships arriving from Africa. This consisted of African Blackwood, soaked in bilge oil, and sold for next to nothing before being turned into 1010 and 926 clarinets, and oboes and cors anglais."
-----------
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.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2006-09-29 19:16
Greg has refered to "The spirit of the reamer" in prior discussions.
Perhaps that is one of the things at play in the various vintages.
Quick kiln-drying is also a factor, viz:
Rossi is aiming for a cache of wood with long natural drying cycles....10 to 20 years. A luthier in New Jersey buys up wood from old church steeples to make into fiddles.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2006-09-29 23:00
I have never enjoyed a better topic and not only because I happen to own a 1968 Buffet 103,xxx. I am still not good enough for the instrument and Ive had it 4 years. I often wonder how good it would sound being played by a professional. In my laymans terms, Its differant and as good as any Ive heard. I enjoyed Brads post especially because of the many differant years of clarinet mfgrs. he had to choose from.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2006-09-29 23:30
FWIW, in an email exchange that I had years ago with Alvin Swiney, he stated that one of the great Marcellus Bb clarinets was an 875XX vintage. I beamed. My 876XX clarinet might of been its classmate! Of course, the Marcellus clarinet went to graduate school after its birth in France; mine went to the playground. I'm sure they ended up as different as those twins in "The Parent Trap"! ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: calclar
Date: 2006-10-01 00:28
I think that we could all benefit from the experience and wisdom of Gregory Smith's posts. Not only does he know his stuff, he's obviously lived it in real time. It's first hand experience that we're getting from one of the world's great clarinetists. We are very fortunate that he is willing to take the time to share his experience and knowledge with us.
What more can you share with us about this subject Greg?
Post Edited (2006-10-01 00:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-10-01 07:30
calclar said:
"What more can you share with us about this subject Greg?"
&
Alan said:
"Greg has referred to "The spirit of the reamer" in prior discussions.
Perhaps that is one of the things at play in the various vintages."
________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that single fluted reamers of French origin are things of the past, things to get nostalgic about, or are really what are the sole basis of some of the earlier appeal of the Buffets made in the late 50's, 60's, and early 70's.
The single fluted French reamers were highly maintained and constantly sharpened. This provided a "scooping" action that modern day multifluted reamers cannot. One clarinet after another were made in succession rather than 10's or 20's of instruments made simultaneously by CNC machine upon CNC machine. The old fashioned instrument-by-instrument process allowed breathing room for the artistry of the Buffet family's magic to work.
In other words, what I believe more important were the artisan/craftsmen that applied their skills to each and every instrument in their own personal way - with the knowing oversight and guidance of their fathers, brothers, cousins, and even grandfathers.
With today's overwhelming assembly line-like mechanised production, much of the artistry within the science has become a thing of the past. Hence the reference to homogenization in my earlier post.
The goal of consistency for it's own sake eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns. By nature, it's not an artistic goal. Perhaps that is why I am so passionate about anything handmade. I don't care how many machine made mouthpieces or clarinets are turned out in the name of accuracy, I instinctively know that pure accuracy a piece of art does not make.
In artistry, the key is to trust yourself. It's a little like painting a wall and needing to paint the edge where the wall color meets the window frame color. If you believe there is an invisible line to which you must adhere as closely as possible - a line that is perfectly straight and perfectly centered in the corner - you will always create raggedy, non-flowing edges that fail to satisfy you.
Instead you must paint with confidence and realize that the act of painting the edge - the performance of the act itself - defines that edge to perfection. Wherever the actual painted edge runs (and it really should run a little off the physical corner), if it is painted with confidence, fluidity, and a degree of experience, it will seem to be the right edge in the right place.
The fact that it is not perfectly straight will give it beauty, character, conviction, and authority, just as a straight pencil line drawn by an artist on a sheet of paper will usually look superior to any ruler-guided line. Whether you practice sculpting or perform music, it is the performance that defines the truest course of the music. You aren't trying to follow it to perfection - you are defining it as you go along.
The failure in mechanized-like perfectionism isn't failure to paint inside the line. It is failure to abandon the quest to paint inside the line.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-10-01 11:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-10-04 15:34
Why is it that so many clarinetists cherish their old instruments? Today, the wood and aging process may be different, the keywork is different and undoubtedly the people building the clarinet are different. But beyond that, another difference is in the R13’s design. In my opinion, Buffet’s “ideal” has changed, and so have their instruments.
In the old days factory workers would handcraft a work of art. Today, modern technology/CNC machining is used to reduce/eliminate human error and create a clarinet “blank,” but it is hand-finished by factory technicians as well…to be a work of art. In the final analysis, both representations are beautiful to look at, play and hear, but for many, the “golden age” represents a combination of power, grace, ring focus and sweetness that is not easily found in modern clarinets.
A beautifully made clarinet, at the hands of a master technician can be a wonderful thing, but an instrument is only as good as its design/concept. The most talented factory technician, who may have come from a family ancestry of craftsmen, is still making a clarinet based on its design merits and limitations. Similarly, a painting is not a product of the canvas, the paint, colors and the technique of the painter, but I think it is more a product of the imagination, creativity and concept of the artist. Sure, technique and good materials are important, but an artist needs a good idea…inspiration…a good design/concept. Without it, much of the artist’s other talents may go to waste! Back to clarinets, modern R13’s measure differently than the R13’s of the “golden era.” I think those different measurements are the result of a different design/concept from the manufacturer. And I think the different playing characteristics of the old clarinets come more from the design than from which “artisan” made the instrument or what reamer was used.
Additionally, a good old piece of aged wood may be more stable and therefore resist deleterious climatic change, but if the bore dimensions, and tonehole locations/complexities are not ideal to begin with, the results of the many “artisans” dedicated to the production of a work of art, could be argued an irrelevance.
Sure, an artisan is an important part of the equation, but it isn’t everything. Those skilled technicians were making instruments at the behest of a very precise set of measurements. They were assigned the task of repeatedly making an accurate reproduction of the Buffet “ideal.”
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2006-10-04 18:30
Isn't it possible that vintage clarinets that we enjoy today are simply the clarinets that were good enough to be kept around and played for years, as opposed to being discarded a some point? I see many references to how much someone loves this or that particular vintage instrument of their own or someone else's, and then a comparison to a typical modern-day clarinet.
What I'm getting at is that there may well have been a similar proportion of "duds" back 20, 30, 40 years ago, but they haven't stood the test of time to be worth comparison today. By contrast, players go through 10 R-13s today, only find a couple that play particularly well, and then make the statement that they're not as well made anymore. I don't think it would hurt to also recognize that there are higher standards today, by and large, so an R-13 that might have been considered acceptable by the considerably smaller masses 40 years ago might have "made the grade" in a play-test of 10 clarinets back then, but wouldn't necessarily stand up today.
I'm not saying this had to have been the case, but I am saying it very likely was. Brad stated at the beginning fo the post that the clarinets seem to have changed with the different preferences of the modern player. This has to be true. I just find it unlikely that the quality has tanked as some people assert.
J.J.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-10-04 18:40
I really think that the arguements about what is best in a vintage Buffet is very simply there was simply less clarinets being made in the past and the production standard was simply much higher.
It is also very unlikely that modern clarinets are any less different but when you consider that the older growth of Grenadilla was still being used in the 50s and 60s for production then you have some claim to the idea that the older R13's were indeed a finer instruments.
Take into account the huge amount of clarinets that are being made currently and one realizes the resource of grenadilla is not limitless as players would like to think.
Buffet offers RC, R13, Prestige and then the Vintage model R13 and quite possibly you have a firm overtaxed in terms of quality control.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2006-10-04 18:55
D. Dow wrote:
"...there was simply less clarinets being made in the past and the production standard was simply much higher. "
How do we determine that the production standard was much higher? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Also, I don't believe that a more hands-on approach automatically translates into higher quality.
Furthermore, the fact that the clarinets were aged longer would seem, by everything weve been taught, to mean that the clarinets of old were "finer instruments." But as you say, we have some "claim" to this idea, and not any sort of evidence. Only a belief based on preconceptions.
"Buffet offers RC, R13, Prestige and then the Vintage model R13 and quite possibly you have a firm overtaxed in terms of quality control."
Again, possibly! It would seem reasonable, but I have a hard time translating that into reality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-10-04 19:27
Dear JJ
Obviously when a maker decides to make more lines and models they are producing obvioulsy more clarinets...plus in the past 50 years the population of planet earth has doubled. Has the amount of insturments increased?
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-10-04 19:57
I believe the clarinets being made today are much better constructed than the instruments of the “golden age.” One may criticize Buffet’s modern facility but the reality is that their current crop of clarinets perform at an artistic level right out of the box. That can’t be said of the past.
I remember when clarinets didn’t play from the factory. They required complete overhauls just to play. At that point one would realize after some considerable investment of time and money if the clarinet had potential.
I have owned some pre-war clarinets that required major key work in order for the mechanism to function properly. In fact I own an excellent R13 that was made in 1968 that required metal grinding just to avoid mechanical problems...but once fixed, it became and excellent instrument. Its smaller bore design has allowed for a very nice feeling and sounding instrument…for me.
A great clarinet is an instrument whose sound and feel work in harmony with the player’s concept. Because the R13 has gone through spurts of change, we now have a wonderful variety of excellent instruments from which your personal ideal can more easily be found. I think all of the instruments Buffet produced were masterpieces and they remain so today. I share those sentiments about many other manufacturers’ clarinets as well. The key is to do your homework and try many different instruments for the perfect fit.
In my opinion, there is no such thing an R13 “dud.” There is however the best clarinet for the individual. If that clarinet was made last month or thirty years ago, it is still a clarinet. The question I would ask is which one would you rather have a relation with.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KellyA
Date: 2006-10-04 20:16
Those golden era R13's are incredible. I found one for sale on consignment at a music store about 12 years ago, the manufacture year was 1972, and I purchased it for around $800. It was the best clarinet I have ever played. I foolishly sold it after just a few years of playing it. I have tried other R13's made in the 80's and 90's and found them very different. The 1972 model had excellent intonation and was incredibly fun to play, you just played it and it responded with an accurate voice. I put off buying a new buffet clarinet till I found one that plays as such. My answer was the Tosca (in greenline) which I found to have the right blend of tonal color and response.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-10-04 21:17
Dear Mark
I will be in touch with Buffet about the production levels they are at compared to previous decades.
Ill let you know what I can find out!
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-10-04 21:35
It would also be interesting to know how the price of R13s - or any other pro-level clarinet - has gone up compared to (a) general inflation (b) prices of other instruments.
-----------
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.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2006-10-04 22:03
Comparing the old to the newer instruments is always an interesting subject. I am in agreement with the opinions of the experienced posters and if the clarinet was MFGRD to Buffets specifications and top Quality Assurance procedures it will eventually be a good instrument for someone. It will probably have to be tweeked but If the tone and intonation is lacking it could be refered to as a Dud. Or sometimes it isnt the right instrument for the player or versa visa ![[toast]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley15.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-10-04 22:22
B. Behn said
"I think the different playing characteristics of the old clarinets come more from the design than from which “artisan” made the instrument or what reamer was used."
_______________________________________________________
From my POV it clearly comes from the symbiotic relationship between both design *and* artisan which was the whole point of my referencing the vast experience of my friend and past president of Buffet and his observations of that time (compared to the time he left the company). He referenced Carree, DePlus, and Delecluse, and all of the other testers of the day when passing along this concept to me.
GS
----------------
B Behn said:
" ...but if the bore dimensions, and tonehole locations/complexities are not ideal to begin with, the results of the many “artisans” dedicated to the production of a work of art, could be argued an irrelevance..."
___________________________________________________________
As referenced in my earlier post, the "perfection" (or lack thereof) in terms of acoustical design had very little to do with the resultant special quality of these earlier instruments. In fact it was the individual artisans and their human touch that made up for any super-industrialization and homogenization that would have, as a result, lifted that distinctive quality from individual clarinets. Today, there is none of that attention given to each clarinet on any assembly line that I'm aware of. "Hand finished" means practically nothing compared to the Buffet's of pre 1970. It might as well now be, by rough comparison, a sausage factory.
The only thing that's done by hand anymore is the master craftsman who polishes the bore at the very end of the entire assembly line - the only one that could possibly effect the "personality" of any given instrument as a work of art. The rest of the variability spoken of here is the lack of stability of the wood and of course the differences in the models with their own distinctive acoustical variations.
GS
--------------
B. Behn said:
"....all of the instruments Buffet produced were masterpieces and they remain so today.....do your homework and try many different instruments for the perfect fit."
__________________________________________________
An exemplary path to follow.
All too often the leapfrogging that's induced in response to the PR/ad copy, salivating quest to try the newest and the latest leaves many products that have been around for awhile in the proverbial dust.
It's also too bad that many do not follow this when it comes to *all* parts of the clarinet before exclaiming that they've found the equivalent of the Holy Grail. At least this month's Holy Grail.
The greatest clarinetists that I've known, played, and sat with have exactly the right equipment for them *precisely* because they are constantly trying to strive to meet that kind of ideal in their mind, setting aside their biases (and resisting ad copy) as best they can while simultaneously leaving no stone unturned.
It's probably a good model to follow for professional and amateur alike.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
On edit:
B. Behn said:
"....the reality is that their current crop of clarinets perform at an artistic level right out of the box. That can’t be said of the past."
_______________________________________________________
At an "artistic level"? What exactly is that? I'm sorry but my experience has been that most *right out of the box* don't even cover at all let alone play at a level that any artist would be able to ascertain what the instrument is capable of. That certainly wasn't the case even two decades ago when the distributorship was here in Chicago where I auditioned hundreds of clarinets (let alone two or so generations ago based on what my close colleagues and esteemed teachers have relayed to me).
GS
Post Edited (2006-10-05 00:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2006-10-05 01:21
Just to be clear, when I referenced David Dow's comment about the production levels of Buffet, I was disputing not that more clarinets are now produced, but the statement that "the production standard was simply much higher."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-10-05 01:31
J. J. wrote:
> Just to be clear
Also, to be clear, I was referencing the number of instruments produced, not Buffet's specific level of production. Buffet's level, if we can believe that serial numbers are consecutive, has gone up significantly over time. But - mthe number of manufacturers has dropped significantly with the result that, at least in the US, there is essentially only 4 with any sort of market penetration, and a few "boutique" makes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2006-10-05 14:13
Mark, I'm drawing a blank about which are the 4 makers with significant market penetration? I'm wondering because of the confusion I seem to experience whenever Selmers are mentioned. I never can remember which models are Selmer Paris and which are Selmer U.S. so I don't know if just one or both of the two Selmers are among the "Big 4". It seems that they both sell lots of clarinets, but if we are talking about more advanced, rather than student models, then I get the impression the pro market is dominated by 4 companies - Buffet, Leblanc, Selmer Paris, & Selmer U.S. Or does the list have a different makeup? Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-10-05 15:02
Most professional level players who played Buffet in the past always had some modifications done to their instruments. This in the 40s in Canada and the USA meant sending one's clarinets to Hans Moenigg or a repair tech of similar stature to have one's clarinet's souped up.
My arguement is rather about the quality of wood and workmanship not about tuning or playing issues fresh from the facory. I would also add that I would never play on an instrument fresh unless I was sure it was in perfect adjustment....but I am pretty sure no matter the insturment..a new clarinet is going to need pad, key, and tension modifications for me to play on.
The big issue today is about wood quality and this directly affects the way a clarinet performs and works...remember a clarinet that plays well on day one in a year could turn out a disaster.
David Dow
Post Edited (2006-10-05 15:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nickma
Date: 2006-10-09 19:29
Got to give it to the 220XXX and 230XXXs. Not fashionable to say so, I know, but the tone, dynamic range and purity of sound on the best of these are unsurpassed. I have a 232XXX and it is incredible. I also have a 220XXX to overhaul right now, and it's also amazingly resonant, controlled, pure, sweet, capable of great finesse....
Nick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2006-10-09 22:31
I've recently begun playing after a hiatus of many, many years.
About a year ago I started with a Maitre wood. I don't know anything about it except I paid $88.00 for it. Not too bad, but the keywork was brutal. After 2 or 3 months I located my old Penzel Mueller Brillante and worked with it for a while. The key work on it is elegant and really comfortable but I thought (after a few months) that it would never give me the characteristic tone I wanted.
Sooo...I upgraded to a buffet E-11. Improving but still (I thought) holding me back a little.
Now I've got a Buffet R13 Vintage and mostly satisfied...can't blame the horn anymore!
There's no musical thrill (for me, at least) like the sound of a clarinet played sweetly in tune!
I don't do much of that yet...but I'm working on it!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-10-10 03:39
Greg Smith wrote:
"Hand finished" means practically nothing compared to the Buffet's of pre 1970. It might as well now be, by rough comparison, a sausage factory.
The only thing that's done by hand anymore is the master craftsman who polishes the bore at the very end of the entire assembly line - the only one that could possibly effect the "personality" of any given instrument as a work of art.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I toured the Buffet factory (July 1999) I noted many people involved in the production of their clarinets. They had people hand-reaming, finishing and polishing the bores, padding the instruments, corking the keys, regulating the action, and yes, play-testing many of the horns.
Also I find it interesting that you yield to the person crafting the instrument as the only possible way that the clarinet could become a work of art. I think the designer of the instrument should get much of the credit as well. Just because Buffet has automated some major steps, doesn’t mean that their quality must drop. The technicians responsible for the solid models that are the core guides for Buffet’s computer numerically controlled machinery should get some credit too. Believe it or not, there is artistry in those numbers.
Yes, Buffet uses CNC technology and they are successful in repeatedly making their designs at a very high level of finish. On the other hand, in my opinion if they would program their machine and work with their technicians to produce the same tonehole voicing and (smaller bore) designs of the 60’s and 70’s, they would get much closer to the mark. I am convinced that the mark can be attained. A CNC machine is just another tool to help an artist realize his/her vision. In the old days they had chisels and knives, whereas today we have machines built, programmed and operated by humans. A tool or machine is irrelevant without the artistry and creativity of the operator. The end result can be the same. If the design is good and the execution (by human or machine) is correct, we have a fine artistic product…a work of art.
One can find art in many places. I find it amazing when I go to my machine shop. It isn’t a sausage factory at all. They do have amazing equipment but that isn’t what I see. Rather it is a place flourishing with the creative spirit. Drawings and blueprints cover the wall, and programmers transpose ornate concepts into programs that convert ones vision into reality. A program of nothing more than digitized 1’s and 0’s could be an awesome achievement, for it quite possibly represents the dream of an artist.
Although I sympathize with some of your points I don’t agree with all of your convictions. I agree that there isn’t nearly the same amount of personal attention dedicated to each instrument, and I think that this is an unfortunate reality of our modern society, but when I read your convictions it seems as though you are giving too much responsibility of Buffet’s success/failure to the artisans. In my opinion, one can not underestimate the importance of design.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to define the term artisan. The way I see it, the artisans were the master technicians responsible for the instrument’s manufacture. They also had some design influence, but they were primarily employed by the factory to reproduce Buffet’s ideal.
I assume after reading your comments that, the instruments you choose to play were also made during the time when artisans were on the floor and Buffet’s automated system was not yet in use? Greg, what vintage Buffet do you prefer? I would find it rather impressive to discover that you play instruments made in a sausage factory.
I do not dispute your assessment of the value of a good master technician/artisan, but I remain convinced that the design of the R13 of the 60’s and 70’s was an important factor in Buffet’s success.
On another thread there is a discussion about the Buffet clarinets of the thirties, and those instruments have so far received, as I see it, mediocre reviews. Those older instruments were created by master technicians/artisans but they were made under the template of a different design. Those technicians tried to make the instruments great, but they were limited by the design. Sure some technicians are better than others but a technician is only capable of so much….given the design parameters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding different designs, on a quick assessment, I think of Buffet clarinets in groups.
Pre-war clarinets: difficult intonation, warm, flexible sound, lots of color, Buffet was making a truly handmade instrument, clarinets made in the 1930’s are probably their best of the pre-war era.
Right after the war: Be very careful, wild intonation, Buffet was getting back on track after the war and these instruments were very inconsistent.
1948-1955: R13 clarinet was really becoming an instrument to define Buffet. This clarinet was still undergoing a lot of change. Their bore dimensions would fluctuate by as much as .05”, their sound was colorful, a little more powerful, round and accompanied by a lovely center/ring, their tuning was much better, but still not great.
1955-1960: These instruments were very good. They have better intonation and their sound is a little more powerful than previous versions, but still warm, full and happy. The core still didn’t have the incredible sweet power of the “golden years.” Their bores are more consistently rendered and their playing characteristics are more consistent as well.
1960-1975: The golden years.
1975-1990: These clarinets are often nearly as good as the previous group but some didn’t have the incredible mix of power, sweetness and intonation. Many of these clarinets went to a larger bore dimension and in my opinion that leads to a less desirable feel. The instruments were also made from wood that was not as stable. Many of these clarinets had very good intonation.
1990-present
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith wrote:
At an "artistic level"? What exactly is that? I'm sorry but my experience has been that most *right out of the box* don't even cover at all let alone play at a level that any artist would be able to ascertain what the instrument is capable of. That certainly wasn't the case even two decades ago when the distributorship was here in Chicago where I auditioned hundreds of clarinets (let alone two or so generations ago based on what my close colleagues and esteemed teachers have relayed to me).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that Buffet clarinets are better regulated today than in the past. They play right out of the box.
But to say “most *right out of the box* don't even cover at all let alone play at a level that any artist would be able to ascertain what the instrument is capable of.” seems rather inflexible. You don’t give the artist community credit for their abilities. I have recently been impressed by Buffet’s assembly quality. The instruments play. Twenty years ago however, in my experience, the clarinets didn’t play very well out of the box.
Modern instruments do cover. They may not have perfect suction, but an artist should be able to ascertain what the instrument is capable of. Sure some instruments play better than others and I am certain that many clarinetists will eventually personalize their instruments, but the point I tried to make is simple. Today, Buffet clarinets are set up to higher standards than in the past.
For those that care, an artist I would define as a really good player.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of “ad-copy,” the lines of communication are far more numerous than just one advertising medium. I would therefore suggest that caution be advised in all public and private formats. Disinformation is common in many different places. This bulletin board is cluttered with subjective opinion from people with great experience, and from people with little experience alike. In the end, if the equipment in question is great, it will far outlive the artisan that produced it. The long term success or failure of any piece of equipment will ultimately be decided on its own merit.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-10-10 05:13
It should not be surprising to anyone reading this thread as well as other threads on this bboard that we differ in our view of what role technology plays in the creation of art. Anyone that has had enough experience as a performing artist or perhaps an instrument creator knows that there are differences of opinion as to what constitutes good or even great art or artistry.
What is not open to question are individuals' real life experience of facts as they observe them. Noticeable differences in how we have experienced these facts are not that unusual in real life. Therefore I'm not surprised with the contents of your post (as well as mine) pointing out the nature of those kinds of differences.
What I am perhaps less inclined to be is "flexible" toward how add-copy is increasingly used to influence individuals' perception - about what to think instead of offering how to think about art - this in violation of and in direct contradiction to the sacredness of artistry.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2006-10-11 02:04
The musician (clarinet player) is the artist.
The music is the art.
Perhaps neither a clarinet, or a mouthpiece are really works of art. They are precision tools. I am inclined to have the most precision tools currently available.
Technological advancements are often met with consternation. In the mid 80s some die hards held onto those old wooden tennis rackets even though graphite comps were clearly better on many levels. Some people seemed to express anger when they realized that the new rackets were lighter better quicker stiffer etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-10-11 02:48
R.R. -
Perhaps they *are* precision tools for the artists who create their art.
I would also like to believe that there is room for artistry involved in the creation of those tools just like there is a little bit of art to the practicing sciences - medicine being a good example...creativity and imagination required.
(I've also commented in this thread and elsewhere that the tool's creation clearly stems from the symbiotic relationship between both design(er) *and* the artisan that finishes that tool - a point that seemed to be overlooked by others.)
At any rate, when it comes to creativity, the process of interaction between animate and inanimate objects is a subject containing a very deep well from which to draw. IMO it's a welcome, aesthetically pleasing discussion - especially when kept on track.
on edit:
But then I'm a performer who also happens to make mouthpieces in their "spare" time - so certainly don't take my word for it ! :^)
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2006-10-11 03:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarinet Lady
Date: 2006-10-23 22:51
Does any one know how to determine when buying a used instrument if it is definitely an R-13? I've seen instruments at estate sales, autions, etc. and there is no history of instrument or anyone available who is knowledge of the instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2006-10-24 00:31
The Bell shaped curve
it doth provide
A chance for lutiers
to hide their slide
Some new horms are good
Others are bad
And just like at Wal-Mart
Mediocrity aplenty to be had
The spirit of the reamer
So Greg Smith has entoned
Is found in short supply
We all do bemoan
I see a common thread here:
and it is three-tiered--
Custom is costly, however revered
With mediocre defining the middle,
and Cheap to be feared
Against the windmills of my mind
The jousting pole splinters
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kuteclar
Date: 2007-06-01 17:06
So, some say the the "golden era" was from 1965-1971, others say mid 70's, other 50's into 60's. And lots of changes have been made.
What about the clarinets in the earlier part of the 1960s? Where there any major changes that puts the 1965 clarinets into a different "era"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2007-06-01 19:02
My best clarinet is 134518, from 1973. It has everything I want as an orchestral instrument. However, I still miss my first R13, a 59XXX from 1959, which had a sweeter and more flexible sound. Unfortunately, a now dead Famous Repairman (not Moennig) decided to "fix" the bore, which he claimed had "collapsed," and ruined it.
My 59XXX had a smaller outside diameter than my current R13, making it lighter and easier to hold. The Buffet Vintage clarinets I've tried have the same feel and response I remember from 59XXX. The change in design, which was quite significant, happened, I believe, in the late 1960s. Brad or Greg can probably give a more exact date.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2007-06-01 20:13
I think the debate is consistency. There is alot of consistency with modern buffet clarinets due to cnc technology. There was probably a good amount of consistency in the golden years, but they also had a supple amount of choice wood. today's buffet clarinets are kiln dried "shock dried" in 6 months, leaving alot of room for instability etc.etc.... i bet if you let the modern clarinets age, you will find your golden buffet. remember, the older clarinets have the age edge over modern clarinets. i might be oversimplifying this, but that's my poke at the debate.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-06-03 17:46
The best clarinets were in the hands of persons who were willing and able to try hundreds of the same make and model, and then have an expert technician work them over. Portnoy, for example, tried out every one at the factory, many times during his long career.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: na1965
Date: 2007-06-04 19:38
I think you must be referring to Leon Russianoff. His shop on Broadway was a wonderful place for a clarinet enthusiast.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
