 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2012-11-19 21:06
I have Buffet 714H (1894) back from the shop -- a wonderful restoration job done by a competent tech who really went "above and beyond" with this instrument and did as outstanding a job with it as could be done -- but am having serious intonation problems with the throat tones. Open G is so sharp it registers on my tuner as G# (a half tone above). A is bad too.
As luck would have it, I own a good selection of old mouthpieces but was wondering, more broadly, what I'd need in a mouthpiece to help with this (beyond its being "old"). With the tuning problems stated above, I am actually using a very old grenadilla Buffet barrel.
So my question is: do I need more volume in the chamber of the mpc? Less volume? Longer barrel (I hadn't actually considered this ... yet). I was using a Chadash 66 mm and tried the original barrel from a 1936 Buffet but that didn't really help at all. The clarinet, prior to work done on it, had the barrel as part of the upper joint. Because of the extensive cracks, this has to be redone and now the UJ uses a removable barrel.
Maybe it's a lost cause, but it's a nice old Buffet and I'd love to crack the code of the throat tones and be able to play it.
Thanks.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2012-11-19 22:23
Okay this is interesting. I'm slowly beginning to be able to play it more in tune. It's definitely getting better. With a tuning ring (between barrel and UJ) and firmer reeds it's really starting to grow on me.
Having fun!
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
Post Edited (2012-11-19 23:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-11-20 01:56
Is there any chance that this was originally a high pitch instrument?
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2012-11-20 13:00
>Is there any chance that this was originally a high pitch instrument?
>
Given the age of the clarinet, if it was made for the British or American market, it was almost certainly built as what we call a high-pitch instrument today. A clarinet of this vintage wouldn't have "HP" engraved, because "LP" hadn't happened yet.
I write the caveat "almost" because 1894 was toward the end of the pitch-wars in Europe, when instruments were being built to inconsistent standards. England's standard had stretched to nearly half a tone sharper than the standard in France, for instance, and musicians who frequently travelled back and forth, as many of them did, were not happy about the lack of standardization. If Buffet, a French company, made this clarinet for the French market, then it would probaby be French pitch. That's still higher than concert A=440 but can be brought down to A=442 without wrecking its scale.
For more information: The British tenor Sims Reeves strongly advocated for standardized (lower) pitch in England, and wrote extensively about this problem in one of his autobiographies that's now in the public domain and available free of charge online:
J. Sims Reeves, My Jubilee, or, Fifty Years of Artistic Life. London: London Music Co., Ltd,. and Simpkin, Marshall & Co and Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1889. LOC ML420 .R33. Online at Open Library, http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7209371M/My_jubilee
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2012-11-20 13:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-11-20 13:31
Lelia Loban wrote:
> standardization. If Buffet, a French company, made this
> clarinet for the French market, then it would probaby be French
> pitch. That's still higher than concert A=440 but can be
> brought down to A=442 without wrecking its scale.
Actually I think what is referred to alternatively as "French Pitch" or "International Pitch" is actually A=435Hz and was one of the competing standards from 1859-1939. I have an old GH Huller clarinet built around the same time as Bill's Buffet that was made to play at A=435Hz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2012-11-20 14:38
Fascinating information and I thank you! Incredible that I was -- sort of -- able to lip this down, except for a few notes!!! There are some tones that are dead-on at 440. I'll try playing with my tuner set to 442.
Thanks again!
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2012-11-20 17:50
I think hacking off the all in one top joint and barrel is what made it sharp. The tube is probably slightly shorter now hence the higher pitch. I've tried these and they should play between 435 and 440 though there are many exceptions.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2012-11-20 23:00
Yeah, sad that the UJ with its barrel had to go. The tech hadn't forseen this but cracks through the socket made it necessary.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-11-21 00:13
If the top joint and the barrel are a single piece, there's little you can do short of bottom-filling the top socket so that the mouthpiece sits higher.
If you have the standard top-joint-plus-barrel, the solution is a longer barrel. Kal Opperman told me that for early Buffets, the barrel length was significantly longer than the current length. The one he made me for my 1908 set is 68.5 mm. and earlier barrels may have been even longer. See http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=371364&t=371346.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2012-11-21 00:59
Ken ... thanks so much for this info.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
