 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: srdu7993
Date: 2007-06-10 00:24
Why is it so bloody difficult to obtain information about this particular horn? No one seems to know for sure who manufactures it. Any 'solid' information would be greatly appreciated. It plays great by the way.
srdu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2007-06-10 00:33
srdu7993 wrote:
> Why is it so bloody difficult to obtain information about this
> particular horn? No one seems to know for sure who
> manufactures it.
Because it was a "stencil" brand - it could have been made by (and probably was) any major or minor manufacturer.
Even with major brands, it can become problematical to get any information. There really wasn't any reason to spend the time recording historical information for instruments made in the thousands.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-06-10 00:43
It would be interesting to create a "who made what" chart. You'll find famous manufacturers fuelling niche markets with temporary series, you'll find manufactuers who exclusively worked for other brands, you'll find a lot of people with (french) names who have nothing to do with instruments seemingly named after them...it's easier to find out how many pillows the pope lays his head on during the night than to find concise information about the stencilling business (and I'm not talking about musical instruments only - another treasure chest is the cosmetics business).
Your best bet is to make some pictures of your instrument, slap them on your web page and ask folks to supply gossip or facts about your instruments.
While the world is busy collecting information for you, enjoy your music.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2007-06-10 01:37
Mark,
Am I correct in assuming you draw this conclusion based on the absence of any information in the New Langwill Index?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2007-06-10 01:52
Jack Kissinger wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming you draw this conclusion based on the
> absence of any information in the New Langwill Index?
Both the absence in the NLI and personal correspondence with a member who had a Jean Cartier identical (including key stamp markings) to another unidentified stencil instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-06-10 13:50
I agree with Mark's conclusion, which [by the lack of any positive evidence] is supported by some of our "good books" which list cl makers over the years, Rendall is the best example I have without more "research". As Dave Spieg. has reported many times, to answer [as best we can] about the many Malerne "stencil names" he and I and others have encountered, there was a flood of these instruments imported into US in the mid 1900s, some excellent, fair and poor, usually bearing good-sounding French names, they were the best makers [along with some Germans] at that time. . Wasn't Cartier an early French explorer of our new world? , YES, Jacques, the St. Lawrence River etc 1530's - '40s, per my Enc. Brit. Our local music store has/had [?} a J C, with impressive logo-ing, a blue case, may get/buy it to restore, it appears similar to the Malernes and Martin-Freres I've seen, worked on. With no evidence, didn't a Fr-man say "do what is probable" and thereby started a new type of mathematics ??? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2007-06-11 03:54
I wonder if, 80 years from now, someone will look at mouthpieces by Greg Smith, Clark Fobes, Walter Grabner and others and conclude they must all be stencils by Zinner because the blanks all have the same markings.
The point I want to make here is a general one (without necessarily making any claims about Cartier instruments, in particular). I've been told by someone I consider a very reliable source that, in Paris, particularly up to WWII, there were a number of small manufacturers making clarinets and/or other instruments. Some of them were individuals probably moonlighting while they worked in a larger manufacturer's factory during the day. Some disappeared during the war. Some were bought out by other manufacturers.
It strikes me that the mouthpiece makers above find it inefficient to create their own blanks from scratch. Instead they buy Zinner blanks to use as a starting point, applying facings and often doing additional work on the bores, baffles, etc. to make the mouthpieces uniquely their product. Is it not possible, perhaps even probable, that small manufacturers of clarinets might also find it inefficient (impossible) to make all the individual parts for their instruments. Might they not instead have purchased keys and other parts, including even joints, barrels and bells from a common source and then assembled the instruments at home or in a smaller shop. Might not the better ones, like the better mouthpiece makers who do more than simply apply a facing, have done more than simply assemble the instruments, perhaps reaming bores, undercutting toneholes and making other modifications unique to them. If so, to call the resulting instruments stencils is, IMO, as incorrect as calling Greg Smith's mouthpieces stencils.
Another point I would like to make is the fact that finding some instruments with a particular brand name to be stencils is not proof that all instruments with that name are stencils. Consider Linton. They manufacture double reed instruments and have done for many years. During the 60's and early 70's, they wanted to add clarinets to their product line but didn't have the facilities to produce them so they purchased stencils from Malerne and Buffet. The existence of those stencils is fact but not evidence that all instruments with the Linton logo are stencils.
So were Cartier clarinets stencils? The absence of an entry in Langwill's is consistent with that conclusion, the existence of Cartier saxophones is consistent with that conclusion, the use of the same keys as are found on known stencils is consistent with that conclusion. Now, if one can come up with several pieces of evidence, all of which are consistent with the conclusion that Cartier's are stencils, one can say, well, it sounds like a duck, it smells like a duck, and it feels like a duck, so "it's probably a duck." Toss in "it looks like a duck" and "it tastes like a duck" and we may be able to say "it's almost certainly a duck." Each additional piece of evidence increases the likelihood. But absent records from a major manufacturer tying it to Cartier, I still find some room for doubt. Langwill's may have missed Cartier. Even if the saxophones are stencils, it's possible the clarinets are not. Cartier may have purchased keys from the supplier who supplied the maker of the known stencil or, indeed, may have purchased them from the company that made the stencil. From a standpoint of logic, however, this evidence does not "prove" that Cartier's are stencils.
Some of you may be satisfied with the weight of evidence already presented. And someone out there who has the clinching piece of evidence may not have come forward yet. But given the quality of workmanship in my Cartier and the testimony of other owners, I'm not ready to concede that they are stencils just yet.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2007-06-11 10:52
Jack Kissinger wrote:
> But given the
> quality of workmanship in my Cartier and the testimony of other
> owners, I'm not ready to concede that they are stencils just
> yet.
Jack - just remember that quality and stencil are not mutually exclusive. Stencil essentially means re-branded only.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2007-06-11 12:50
I have the same question about clarinets marked "Leon Trotte." Funny, I have had two of them in my life (one was my first "real" clarinet). I currently have one. Altissimo is 10 cents sharp all the way. No mouthpiece (and I have one or two spare ones) can tame it.
Bill.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-06-11 14:25
WOW, JNK et al, great Logic[al] discussion, duck analogy. I have a book on Logic ?somewhere?, my main use of L is in info retrieval using AND, OR, NAND, NOR etc. I was referring to Probability Theory above and its [possible] application to our "stencilling". Isn't a "stencil" just a written/printed inscription to title/describe or claim "authorship" of something? I believe the French name I was trying to recall is Descartes, but I tend to mix P T with The Calculus, attributed to Newton and Liebwitz, I believe. George Huba, please help us with your professional expertise. JNK, I'll get my hands on "our" J C and measure bores, look carefuly for maker "clues" and report findings [if any] . TKS, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-06-11 18:31
I can offer no insight as to who actually made the "Jean Cartier" clarinets, but for what it's worth, I've overhauled a couple of them (and played a third belonging to someone else) and all three were decent instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-06-11 18:47
TKS, Dave, I hope this may satisfy this thread's questions, I find it quite difficult to "prove a negative", dont'you ??? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
