 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: lucas inc.
Date: 2013-03-08 02:22
So i recently got a large bore selmer series 9, at first i wasn't sure on how i felt about it also not knowing too much on large bores or the series nine at all.But anyways i was talking to my private teacher and he mentioned most people goig in to music professionaly have 2 (or more) clarinets. i kinda knew this but didnt really think it mattered. now looking at it i think it would be a good idea to get anothe because my selmer is too...dark? And i was looking around and forund Backun clarinets. has anyone played these? and if i decide to get one which one and would it be a good idea to get a cocobolo wood clarinet seeing that i have a grenadilla wood clarinet already. how different are the two woods really anyway? any help would be appreciated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2013-03-08 14:39
Backun products are EXPENSIVE, however, if money is no problem, they certainly are the current 'rage' among clarinetist's.
But if I had the financial resources, my *dream* set of clarinets would be American bore Rossi's. Other than an old 1930's Buffet Bb--owned by a Chicago pro--the best clarinet I ever played was an American bore Rossi Bb at the old International Musical Suppliers. I've been wondering ever since how I let that one slip through my fingers.
But no matter what the brand, or how much it costs, try before you buy. There are great clarinets "out there" made by all manufacturers and they are not necessarily the more expensive ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-03-08 20:35
"Backun products are EXPENSIVE..."
The new Backun Protege (considered an entry level pro model according to the Backun website) can be bought from a number of dealers for around $2,000 (US).
Prior to the release of the Protege models (and there's also a new student instrument), Backun only had "artist" model horns and, they are expensive ($7,500 and up).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Taras12
Date: 2013-03-09 03:58
Call Dave Kessler at 1-888-830-0474. He's got the Protege's in stock and what looks to be good prices. I'm a beginner and play for pleasure. He's very reputable and won't sell you what you don't need. He's got both the grenadilla and cocobola.
I do woodworking as a hobby...cocobola is a wonderful dense wood. It's beautiful. Ricardo Morales of the Phila Orchestra, plays a cocobola clarinet and it sounds sweet! (Of course, he probably can make a PVC clarinet sound like a million dollars.)
Tristan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rickwbliss
Date: 2013-03-09 15:05
Backun clarinets are pretty good from all the articles I've read and from some of the instruments that I've played. But they are really expensive. There are the new Protégé and those are impressive clarinets. But Backun is only making TOP pro clarinets beyond that, and when I say TOP I meant by Backun clarinet by Backun, and MoBa by Backun, and those cost $7500, and $8000 for the MoBa at Kesslers. If you want to know the difference between cocobolo, and granadilla go to YOUTUBE and type in "difference between cocobolo, and granadilla" and you'll find Backun Musical Service's video on these clarinets with different wood. But from what my teacher says Series 9 are real good instruments, and are indeed lucky to have one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bobby McClellan
Date: 2013-03-15 02:41
Rick,
Backun is also making the new Alpha series clarinet, I ordered one to use in place of my R13. I had it delivered to my home with the black nickel keywork for 1100.00. This is the Composite clarinet that is considered his new Entry level.
Bobby M. McClellan
Flowood, MS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-03-15 10:51
I'm a proud owner of a Backun MoBa Bb and I'm awaiting my A. I have to say that if your in the market to spend money in a new instrument you sol joule certainly try the Backun instruments. I've had my Bb since Monday and already the quality of the instrument is shining through. The intonation is second to none and the sound is extremely even throughout the entire range of the instrument. The keywork is so smooth that everything connects beautifully.
The best piece of advice is to try as many different makes.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2013-03-15 20:40
Who makes these Backun clarinets? Does the Backun workshop make them themselves or are they outsourced? At one point, they were made by Leblanc, but I don't know what is left of Leblanc; nothing here in France, at any rate.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2013-03-15 21:06
Here is a sound sample that I recorded this morning. 3 clarinets = R-13, a Protege in Grenadilla, and an Alpha (plastic) Backun. All played with the factory barrel and bells, and all played as good as they good be and the Best take was chosen from multiple takes on each clarinet. I'm not going to say which order they were played in you can be the judge. Trust me don't listen through your little mac speakers and think you will hear the difference.
http://soundcloud.com/klezmertom/an-r-13-protege-and-alpha-walk
This post will probably be deleted but I think this goes pretty far as to answer some questions that people are having about these new instruments.
Tom Puwalski- Backun Artist and owner of Clarinetgourmet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-03-15 22:17
ruben wrote:
> Who makes these Backun clarinets? Does the Backun workshop make
> them themselves or are they outsourced? At one point, they were
> made by Leblanc, but I don't know what is left of Leblanc;
> nothing here in France, at any rate.
>
The are made by Backun at their workshop in Canada as were the Leblanc-Backun clarinets from a few years ago. The Leblanc factory in Kenosha closed in 2010 and I believe that all Leblanc clarinets are now made in the Conn-Selmer factory in Elkhart.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2013-03-15 23:37
Dear Tom,
Thanks for making the effort to record on 3 different instruments and put it up for us to hear. I'm always interested in experiments like this.
I'm not sure if it's the way you recorded, but unfortunately all of the recordings sound quite "dead" to me. The sound quality is more like a midi-clarinet sound, rather than a real instrument. If I really had to choose, I'd choose the 2nd recording, which sounds least like a computer.
I apologise if my post sounds overly critical!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Heather G
Date: 2013-03-20 03:07
Yes, Backun clarinets sound beautiful and are the "rage." However, I find that these clarinets lack any sort of character, I'd say in fact that it is TOO pretty.
My advice would be to not waste your money on them. Maybe adding one of their bells or something of the sort is fine but the sound their full clarinets make to me are just boring.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-03-20 07:24
I have to disagree with you Heather. They have loads of character. They take on the characteristics of the player which at the end if the day is what every instrument does. It doesn't matter what clarinet you play on if the player is characterless then the instrument will reflect that.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-03-20 17:26
Re: Tom's post - three great sounding horns (with Tom playing, which is important to keep in mind for us students and hobbyist).
From the business view, as it pertains to the R13 vs. the Protege (both wood): The R13 sells for around $3,000 (US) and the Protege can be bought for around $2,000. Both are made of good quality wood, have excellent reputations behind the manufactures and, sound great. Why the difference in price?
My guess:
The R13 is made in France with the associated labor and overhead costs (including the marketing budget of Buffet Crampon).
The Protege is made in China (not Canada where Backun Musical is based), where labor and overhead costs are much cheaper (not to mention the lack of any significant environmental laws).
So Tom, any chance you'll tell us which horn is which?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2013-03-20 17:35
I think what Morrie has done is absolutely wonderful.
He has modernized the an industry the desperately needed it. He started making instruments of a truly high quality. Comparing clarinets and flutes there really wasn't a high end of quality like there was in the flute world.
Backun Musical is like the Brannen Brothers, Burkhart, and Powell of the clarinet world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2013-03-21 11:52
Sorry guys I forgot to mention what the order of playing was: in this order
1. Backun Grenadila Protege (straight out of the box)
2. R-13 (played by an amazing clarinetist (not me) and recently overhauled by Brannan
3. Backun Alpha (plastic) straight out of Box.
Now a few things about this demo. One thing to keep in mind is that it is very difficult to try to apply "scientific methods" to something like this. So let me describe what I did. I played the exercise 6 times on each clarinet, I recorded the last three three of the six. I then switched clarinets repeated procedure. So by the time I was on the last clarinet (which ever that was when I recorded it) I had at least 12 run throughs. For me, playing something the 18th time and trying to play it like I did the first time, is by nature not to "learn" anything.
I used the same mouthpiece and reed for the each recording, each clarinet felt like it could have used a slightly different reed from the other if I was to play on any of the clarinets on other recordings. But as Yogi Bera so aptly said "Everything changes Everything"
My conclusion: I thought all three clarinets sounded remarkably similar in sound. I don't think you can reach a conclusion that:
" these clarinets lack any sort of character, I'd say in fact that it is TOO pretty".
I didn't hear that 2 clarinets "lacked" character and one "Had" it based on THIS recording. Though now that the "results" are in, I'm sure I will hear that one truly did.
The one thing you can't hear on this demo is how each clarinet was to play. My favorite was the #3 the Alpha, the least expensive and made out of plastic. There is something really neat about how this one feels to play. This clarinet has a little less resistance than the other two, but it is a very even resistance. This is my opinion, based on how I play and my approach. I also tend to play and have had gigs where the clarinet is in my pie hole for hours, I've never had a gig where I count rests so a clarinet that is easy to play is going to be OK with me. I also think it will be very welcome by beginning students too.
So we are in an age where one can get quite a good instrument at a very reasonable price what's all the kvetching about?
Tom Puwalski- Backun Artist and owner of Clarinetgourmet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarinetist
Date: 2013-03-21 12:33
I don´t know exactly why, but somehow the first one sounded the best for me. I listened the recordings before i knew which one was which.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-03-21 15:46
When compared to one and two, horn three (Alpha) seemed ever-so-slightly flat, above the break, at about .57 of the recording (probably needs a different reed).
All said, the larger dynamic of the "world economy" is being witnessed in the clarinet world. Great design by BMS in Canada, manufactured in China. Will the R13 always be made in France, or will it go the way of the German made camera (some of us might be old enough to remember when)?
I'd also like to add currency differences to my prior cost variance analysis.
Thanks Tom, for the test and details!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2013-03-22 18:22
Joe, something youforgot to mention when discussing hte hifgh price of Buffets is that Buffet sets a minimum price for all their resellers in the US. They may not go below this price and retain their dealerships. This keeps the price of R13 and higher models of Buffets artificially high, regardless of the realities of the world. But since the Buffet Mafia still sems to dominate the clarinet world, they can get away with it.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-22 19:06
OK, another test: in another thread, I posted a link to my recording of the Goehr Paraphrase:
http://snd.sc/XuTSPE
What instrument was that performed on?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2013-03-22 22:53
Tony- that's a tough one. I mean, you haven't even given us 3 options to choose from. But I'm prepared to take a wild guess:
Ophicleide?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2013-03-23 01:25
I suspect Tony is making the point that the player is more important than the instrument.
Tony sounds amazingly good on anything but I'll have a pointless guess:
Selmer 10s or some 100 year old clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-03-23 01:45
Everyone will have their opinions and thoughts about this or that clarinet. The only credible 'attack' on Buffet R13s is that they aren't set up well (and the price, as previously discussed). I KNOW, regardless of how it's setup, I will have to have it adjusted to fit my hands and playing style (I keep my rings pretty low, among other things).
So, to me, the setup of an instrument is sort of meaningless, since I get it customized to me anyway. Sometimes the shape of the key work is not comfortable or adjustable to my hands (some selmers are this way), but that's not the first thing I would look for in an instrument.
Additionally, the low F and\or low E correction keys are not a good enough reason on their own to warrant the serious price difference (Backun\Tosca etc). If I don't feel like I can sound the way I want to, I'm not going to buy the thing.
Philosophically as well as aurally, I want to sound as honest to myself as possible. I'd rather worry about a low F being a little flat than worry about sounding "dishonest". Sounding true to yourself and true to your own musicianship is more important than any "Bell" or "whistle".
I've heard it said many times that "the closer it is to your mouth, the more important it is". This is important to remember. I've worked long and hard to find the best possible mouthpiece\reed\ligature combination and I keep that in mind when trying clarinets. A few questions I ask myself are:
1) Is this clarinet changing the type of sound my setup and current clarinet are meant to produce? If so, is it an improvement or a negative?
2) Is it possible to "sound like me" in a variety of musical situations? Is it changing the sound of my articulation, legato, or dynamic range? (again, positively or negatively?).
3) Does the instrument have an even tonal and tuning scale? Any dead notes or areas of the horn? Does it seem like the instrument is compensating for something I don't need help with? (Toscas tuning a bit lower in the left hand, for example)
4) If I'm playing for those that know me and that I trust, is there a significant enough improvement to warrant a change (and a rapid depletion of my checking account balance)?
5) Is there something that I liked about a particular clarinet that could be achieved through a setup change? Often a new barrel can achieve these small changes.
FWIW and to the OP: The Backun clarinets don't allow me to sound the way I want. So not going to happen...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-23 03:54
I recall playing La Bohème on a short-ish tour with a former orchestra....
I arrived at the hall(s) some hour and a half before the call (it isn't Tosca, but come on, I do have a conscience) to choose what mouthpiece/reed combination would best suit the music in the given acoustic environment. Unfortunately, I was 'too poor' to employ various clarinets at the time.
Perhaps my chosen combination sounded most like me; I don't really care about that. I wanted to convey Puccini, and not me.
Why do we want to sound like ourselves when the portrayal of the composer is the end goal?
Why should we look for a setup that sounds "like us" when we are playing the composition of a genius? (they are "A Genius" if we aspire to perform their music, no?)
Tony, clear all this mess up.... what they heck did you play on so all can stop guessing about meaningless garbage and start digging into the actual composition?
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-03-23 18:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-03-23 12:03
I know what Tony will have recorded that on but I won't give the game away :-)
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-23 12:52
I suppose my post was motivated by a few considerations.
The first one, actually, was that I found it difficult to find differences between the instruments that Tom played, because he didn't REQUIRE much of them. For me, the difference between instruments lies in what I can make them DO; the Goehr is demanding in various ways, and I wondered if that gave anyone ideas as to what sort of instrument it was.
Also, I wanted to say that I was initially uncertain as to which instrument would suit the piece best. Alan's first performance was on an instrument that I subsequently bought from him and then owned for a time: it was a cocuswood E J Albert, with a bright, crisp response that was ideal to my ears.
Anyway, I no longer had that instrument, so I practised the Goehr on a rather similar 1889 Buffet. In the end, though, I came to the conclusion that, though the sound and response was good, the piece was a bit too demanding for various reasons on that clarinet.
So, I switched to a slightly less 'characterful' modern instrument: a Howarth clarinet, slightly modified by me. (What I did was to slightly narrow the bore at the top of the bell using black Milliput. This -- contra what I regard as the fairly ridiculous equation 'nearer-the-mouth = more important' -- alters the response of the instrument significantly.)
I made a further change to what I'd envisaged, after recording and listening to a few snippets of the piece in the hall. I was able to get a slightly more homogeneous sound at varied dynamics using a German-cut rather than a French-cut reed on a Vandoren CL5.
These reeds are the ones I habitually use on my Grenser copy period mouthpiece. They're a bit wide for that mouthpiece, but narrower than the Vandoren facing width. Sometimes I narrow them for the Grenser, but often they work quite satisfactorily as they are, giving the lie to another dogma occasionally promulgated here, namely that 'too-wide' reeds are a no-no. (I believe that that was according to a great guru. Do what works, say I:-)
All this is intended to put 'what an instrument is like' into a richer context. What all serious players do is to fool about with different tweaks in search of a sufficiently flexible outcome.
Notice the choice of 'flexible' over 'good' here. Of course, 'flexible' is a part of 'good'; but it's possible for some people to have a too-limited concept of 'good' that doesn't include 'flexibility'.
I did try a Backun clarinet once, and it seemed OK to me.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2013-03-23 15:14
Ok Tony got it. He didn't hear much difference in the timbre because there wasn't much of a difference. To my ear either. I want to further state that if I wanted to change the ways each clarinet played, I would mess with different reeds and mouthpieces to achieve different results, but that wasn't what the experiment was about. Many times people on this list make "pronouncements" on equipment as though things were somehow based on some scientific truism. I've gotten emails from list members saying "plastic clarinets suck" or I could pick out a plastic clarinet out of a line up in 3 notes. Well I recorded one, and I couldn't. I really couldn't "hear" anything that jumped out as "plastic" sounding to me.
Now could I have played more things spent more time trying to demonstrate the "differences" sure I could. One thing I think Tony would agree with me on is this: if one particular instrument allows you to do something or sounds a certain way, it just might change how you play the piece your playing.
I don't understand this "Buffet Mafia" talk either. That company has been making damn fine instruments for lots of years. No one is forced to play or buy one. They keep refining and making better instruments as do other smaller manufacturers. The net result is there are better instruments around to play on than there was 10 years ago. So pick one and practice.
Tom Puwalski- Backun Artist and owner of Clarinetgourmet.com
Post Edited (2013-03-23 15:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joe Bloke
Date: 2013-03-23 15:47
Jeff - "Buffet sets a minimum price for all their resellers in the US."
Good point. In addition to the effects you stated, I'd guess this policy provides some protection for the small dealers too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-03-23 17:16
Tony,
I hope you don't mean to imply that I don't think the instrument is important or that it has little to do with the end result. The rest of my post should make that pretty clear. It is not to say the clarinet doesn't matter or that it plays not a very big role in the end result product, because it does. Considering you played around with different reeds on your Vandoren CL5 to get what you felt was a better product, I don't think you feel it is ridiculous to say that the mouthpiece and reed setup is inconsequential.
As it is, most people don't have multiple sets of instruments at their disposal at any given time. Most people do have access to all sorts of different mouthpieces, reeds, ligatures, and barrels to try\use since the cost is so much less. Because of that, having one set of horns means we have to choose them very carefully so that they can meet the requirements of all sorts of musical situations (opera one day, mozart concerto the next, Berio Sequenza, etc).
I personally don't feel it is necessary to carry around a bunch of mouthpieces to choose one for each thing. A mouthpiece that has good material, good internal design for even tuning and ample focus, and a facing that is comfortable and works with the desired reed cut\strength will provide the most comfortable and flexible experience for the player, accommodating to a wide variety of music. Having a variety of reeds, even just a variety of strengths within the same box, is most helpful to meet the demands of the music. Some variety of cuts that work well on the chosen mouthpiece is also useful, although sometimes the difference is too great to feel comfortable switching right before a concert).
The instrument does matter a lot, and should be chosen carefully. The flexibility of the instrument to accomplish a variety of sounds while maintaining a high quality sound is also important, as you said.
A bad mouthpiece\reed fit will make the instrument a non-factor. A great mouthpiece\reed setup will allow even a vito plastic instrument to sound halfway respectable. Saying that things are generally more important the closer they get to your face is not meant to say the clarinet doesn't matter or isn't important. It's meant to say that if you haven't found a good fitting\sounding mouthpiece and reed setup, the clarinet isn't going to matter a whole lot, nor will you be able to tell the differences between them as accurately.
Generally, there is less importance placed on the mouthpiece\reed setup in Europe than there is here in the states. Some people in the states will get overly engrossed in mouthpieces trying to sound like Marcellus or some other idle that they worship. People can sometimes also search after every new instrument to find a particular sound, or in the case of the US, a "darker" sound.
The reason I said a lot about "sounding like you" and making sure the setup is as true to yourself as possible is because so many people sacrifice feel to try to get a certain sound that is not their own. This isn't a matter of not wanting to fix problems in fundamentals by just saying "this is my sound", it's a matter of coming to terms with what you want the clarinet to sound like, what makes your sound unique. Things like "a harder reed makes a better sound", or "a kaspar is what gets you to sound good like Marcellus", or the dozens of other similar comments that aren't really what will make us sound great, they just lead us down roads that aren't philosophically or many times physically healthy.
I'm sure Tony will still disagree with me on as many points as I've made, but I hope one day to say something that we'll find common ground on. =)
Happy practicing
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-23 20:58
Pretty much all I ever want to say here is: listen to what people say, by all means; but then 'suck it and see'. I sometimes make suggestions myself.
My only real point is that your 'see' needs to be related to your own MUSICAL concerns, which of course will always be in development. It DOESN'T however need to be related to what 'people' say you SHOULD BE DOING -- particularly if the people doing the saying are some people here.
I have to counter what they say you SHOULD BE DOING in order to let you be in that situation.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2013-03-23 22:11
Honestly, I picked the center one as the R13 because of it's sound and the last one as the least expensive with a less focussed sound. The center one's sound was familiar to me as I play R13s. Thanks to Tom who is a fine performer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-26 14:02
Jason wrote:
"Why do we want to sound like ourselves when the portrayal of the composer is the end goal?"
You've started from an oversimplification, J, assuming that a mere portrayal of the composer's thought is always and everywhere the goal of scored music. Leonard Bernstein pointed out this wasn't the case, back in 1955 in "The Art of Conducting":
"The first real conductor in our sense of the word was Mendelssohn, who founded a tradition of conducting based upon the concept of precision, as symbolized by the wooden stick we call the baton. Mendelssohn dedicated himself to an exact realization of the score he was conducting, through manipulation of that baton. There soon arrived, however, a great dissenter named Richad Wagner who declared that everything Mendelssohn was doing was wrong and that every conductor worth his salt should personalize the score he was conducting by coloring it with his own emotions and creative impulse. And so out of the clash of these two points of view the history of conducting was born; and there arose all of those great names in conducting, as well as all the fights that go on about them right up to our own time. Mendelssoh fathered the "elegant" school, whereas Wagner inspired the "passionate" school of conducting. Actually, both attitudes are necessary, the Appolonian and the Dionysian, and neither one is completely satisfactory without the other. Both of them can be badly abused, as we know from having heard performances that seemed clear but were dry as dust, and others in which passion became simple distortion."
This is true of instrumental playing as well. Beyond this, it helps that Bernstein was talking not only about two conductors, but two major composers.
The trouble with your underlying assumption is this: some composers had no desire for you to reproduce, solely or exactly, their musical thought--they wrote with an understanding that their score would be a meeting place of their musical thought and yours--not an infallible recipe that had to be followed rigidly or perfectly (some even felt that such a rigid approach would kill the music they intended to convey--Ives' writings are relatively clear on this point, for example. There are many others). In the end, there is no getting away from it: sounding like "yourself" is often an artistic necessity. And you'd better know what that is and be able to do it if you want to perform the music 'properly.'
Some of this explains, by the way, the horror and fury of some clarinetists express at the "liberties" taken by others. I've known clarinetists to revile performers like Richard Stoltzman, for example, for his "liberties" ("How dare he think he can improve upon the score!" shouts Rollo, not realizing that Stoltzman was often only doing what the composer intended: making the music his own). Talk to the composers whose music he has played. I have, at least on one occasion--I've read others' comments. They are usually deeply grateful for what Stoltzman "brought" to their scores.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: moma4faith
Date: 2013-03-26 21:50
To the original post, you need to go play a bunch of clarinets. Be open minded and go for the best quality you can afford. I've played the Backun Artists and Protégés. They are both fabulous. There is no such thing as a tone that is "too pretty". It is up to the performer how pretty you want it to be. I play an R13 with a Backun MoBa barrel, bell and mouthpiece. I've met Morrie Backun and have enjoyed doing business with him and his company.
I know I would want to go with a Backun or an R13 sent to Canada and adjusted in the Backun shop. You might play them and not be amazed. So, play a ton of instruments and compare them as much as you can.
The Backun cocobolo instruments are beautiful, but I'd have to go for whichever horn sounds the best, regardless of wood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-26 22:07
"Why do we want to sound like ourselves when the portrayal of the composer is the end goal?"
I do agree that is an oversimplification, and was stated to address another end...
Speaking on a purely personal note, I feel like I actually started to mature when I realized a simple fact: that I cannot not sound like me, regardless of the equipment I'm employing. I am me after all.
The thought and investigation done to govern how that interacts with what is present in any given composition is where the art truly lies for me.
And the burden of proof falls on my shoulders.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-27 02:45
Are we not back to the "Goehr Paraphrase" discussion with Eric's quote "some composers had no desire for you to reproduce, solely or exactly, their musical thought--they wrote with an understanding that their score would be a meeting place of their musical thought and yours--not an infallible "
Where does this leave us? How do we decide how liberal we can be with the composers text?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-27 03:07
Yes, we are back where we started John.
As for liberty with a composer's text...
If you have the ability to speak to the composer, make your choices and be able to explain why you played what you played.
If you are not afforded that opportunity, you still have the same responsibility.
The intellect employed is the key.
And be willing to accept your own short-comings when needed. We are all maturing musicians until we hang up our instruments.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-28 17:47
I'm not sure anyone has to be able to explain why you played what you played. It's over and done. Frankly no one cares unless you are on the world stage. Even then responding to critics is very difficult.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-28 19:52
John wrote:
"How do we decide how liberal we can be with the composers text?"
"I'm not sure anyone has to be able to explain why you played what you played."
*
I'm not sure anyone can parse ultimate meaning of every note or every sound--can account, that is, for every timbral inflection, etc. If music could be argued in words that eloquently, there would be little reason for actually doing it.
But it's interesting to note that "justification", whatever it's worth, is not always a one way street. There have been times, historically, when a composer was pressed to justify his notes to the performer--Shostakovich being grilled by Mravinsky, for example, or Brahms changing the opening to the F minor sonata on Muhlfeld's insistence, or Copland rewriting the ending of the Concerto cuz Benny didn't want to play a double C....
I remember working with a famous composer (not gonna name drop, cuz it ain't important) who had scored aleatory sections, to be timed, in a major orchestral work. The conductor cut the aleatory timings in half, at least. His reason: "Composers these days always ask for more time than they really want--listen to the recording of the piece he supervised! He chops it down too! No one can stand aleatory sections for that long!" The composer was there for several rehearsals and a performance--sure enough, he preferred the conductor's timing to his score's indication.
Good musicians make informed musical choices, sometimes altering or heavily pushing the score in a distinct direction as they go. Sometimes they find themselves having to answer to an angry composer (Vaughan Williams bellowed at Sir Malcolm Sargent for messing with his score too much in a rehearsal), sometimes they improve the piece, as far as posterity is concerned (as many feel Baermann improved Weber's first clarinet Concerto), sometimes they earn the composer's gratitude for improving the balance or musical thought of the piece (there are historical examples of RVW again with this--particularly his relationship with Sir Adrian Boult), sometimes they mess with things to the point of rescoring (as Mahler did to Beethoven, Stokowski did to Mahler, Vaughan Williams did to Bach, and Szell did to Schumann--all four composers survived, by the way, so it's NO BIG DEAL in the end. If you don't like what their liberal interpreters did, don't listen to them).
As Bernstein pointed out, there have been rival interpretive camps on these issues for centuries. My opinion: know who you are as a musician (are you an elegant puritan? are you an inspired wild man? Are you somewhere in between?) Then BE it--and don't snivel and whine that not everyone does it your way. There's room enough for all--and if your way of playing is obviously the best...well, then, prove it by doing more of it--and don't waste time tearing others down.
[bizarre this ended up in a "Backun Clarinets" thread, but there you have it. fwiw, I am still waiting patiently for the MoBaZooKa...the return of the North American large bore.]
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
Post Edited (2013-03-28 20:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-03-28 20:16
MarlboroughMan wrote:
> fwiw, I am still waiting patiently for the
> MoBaZooKa...the return of the North American large bore.]
I'll keep my fingers crossed. Unfortunately the likelihood of this happening are about the same as Selmer releasing a "Reference 54" clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-29 14:52
>> My opinion: know who you are as a musician (are you an elegant puritan? are you an inspired wild man? Are you somewhere in between?) Then BE it--and don't snivel and whine that not everyone does it your way. There's room enough for all--and if your way of playing is obviously the best...well, then, prove it by doing more of it--and don't waste time tearing others down.>>
That might be good advice for a jazz player, I imagine, or for a composer.
But the decision as to 'who I am' for the performer of other people's music can be done, and needs to be done, on a case by case basis. I don't have to be 'an inspired wild man' in Mozart's music, or 'an elegant puritan' in Xenakis's. I don't have to decide to be anything between, either.
Rather, part of whatever excellence I might possess lies in my ability to see which music requires which, and also in my ability to respond accordingly.
Developing that latter ability frees me from my small self, because I may learn not to be ME, but to be pious, passionate, delicate or ferocious as the music demands. The 'great composer' -- I'm not primarily thinking of the sort of composer who is grateful for what Richard Stolzman brings to their music -- can be my teacher:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2005/08/000322.txt
So, I'm not asking that people 'do it my way'. I'm asking that they not behave like bulls in china shops, or like mice in bullrings.
People obviously differ in their judgements as to whether a performer has succeeded in a particular case. But, those judgements can be subject to criticism and discussion.
I'd say that if someone offers an public accolade to what I regard as an obvious mismatch between performer and carefully notated text -- and you can't get more public than top hit in a google search on performer and composer, whether you intended that or not -- then you must expect criticism and discussion of what you say. That criticism and discussion lives, not in the world of performance, but in the world of words and theories.
So don't YOU snivel and whine when you are asked to justify yourself, chum.
See, it matters, in the world of musical commentary, that Kell's way of 'making the music his own' is celebrated by clarinet aficionados across the board. It allows him to get away with other things, like letting his accompanist play a Cb MINOR chord in bar 6 of his recording of the Debussy Rhapsodie, ruining the magical moment when the clarinet plays the seventh of what should be a Cb major chord in bar 7. That might be thought trivial -- as far as I know, no-one apart from myself has noticed, perhaps because Kell is hogging the limelight so comprehensively at that moment that you can hardly hear the piano -- except that it betrays how intensely aware he is of himself and how superficially aware he is of the constitution of the music throughout the rest of the performance.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-03-29 15:54
In the world of musical commentary has Kell been severely criticized? If so did he respond?
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2013-03-29 16:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-29 16:22
Tony,
Regarding interpretation, not everyone shares your modesty in the face of a great score. Your sentiment might be personally admirable; certainly it has its merits. But many haven't shared it, and they weren't all a pack of jazz musicians, and they weren't all named Kell. Mahler rescoring Beethoven, Vaughan Williams doing things to Bach that you would probably find abominable (and verbally abusing positions you probably hold dear), Szell re-scoring Schumann, Baermann treating Weber almost as a basis for an expanded piece: these and others like them are commonplace in the history of music. If you object, go ahead and object--there is plenty of room for difference of perspective and expanding our concepts of musical approach. But if it's your quest to denouce other great musicians for having differed from yourself, don't expect the rest of us to take it seriously when you do--or bother engaging you in argument when the battle is so ridiculous.
In my opinion the art of music is best served when we know who we are as musicians--what level of creativity we possess, what our particular gifts are to share--and pursue them sincerely, whichever perspective we take on these issues. I can respect both your approach and the approach of the artists listed above--and I can get something valuable out of all of them. By contrast, I don't think it does any good at all to waste time denouncing musical approaches or musicians that others find moving and valuable.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2013-03-29 16:36
When Backun first showed their clarinets in Musikmesse someone asked me if I've tried the Bacon clarinets...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-29 17:26
>> Mahler rescoring Beethoven, Vaughan Williams doing things to Bach that you would probably find abominable (and verbally abusing positions you probably hold dear), Szell re-scoring Schumann, Baermann treating Weber almost as a basis for an expanded piece: these and others like them are commonplace in the history of music...if it's your quest to denou[n]ce other great musicians for having differed from yourself, don't expect the rest of us to take it seriously when you do.>>
I don't know what you're claiming by saying 'the rest of us'. Most good musicians take my line.
Actually I have little difficulty with any of your examples. Mahler and Vaughan Williams's efforts don't much interest me, but I respect them. Szell could have tried reassessing how his players 'read' the music in order to make it work better, but probably he couldn't see how he could possibly do that, and rebalanced it the best he knew how; Baermann was so closely involved with Weber that he could be regarded as a collaborator; or at any rate something like Pound to Eliot in the Waste Land, say.
And, Stravinsky completely recomposed some Pergolesi (or perhaps music of some of Pergolesi's contemporaries) and Tchaikowsky too, in 'Pulcinella' and 'The Fairy's Kiss' respectively. Good for him.
What I'm talking about is much more low level and 'in your face' than any of these. And Kell was in no way a 'great musician', compared to Stravinsky and Debussy. He was just a great clarinet talent with a jumped-up ego.
Can you imagine Stravinsky listening to Kell's recording (not his Wigmore Hall performance, of which we know nothing) and being GRATEFUL for what Kell had BROUGHT to his Three Pieces?
I suggest that what you call 'my approach' to great compositions is nothing more than the common-sense thought that I might have something to learn from taking seriously what is written, rather than applying my own collection of performance quirks to it -- if I had such a collection.
You suggested without explanation that Kell was doing something different than the latter, but I cannot see what.
The notion that making the music 'your own' is what is required of a performer is too prevalent among common or garden clarinet players. When I encounter it in a student, I try to have them look at the matter differently, both for their own good, and hopefully in order to change the ratio of deep and insightful performance to tacky flashiness in musical life.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-29 17:56
Tony,
I'm really not interested in your Kell obsession any longer. I would have thought that was obvious by now, but you can't seem to let go of an argument I have neither time nor inclination to return to. Please believe me when I say that, while I think I might be able to support my enjoyment of Kell's performances in words better than I have, I realize that such a task would be difficult and extremely time consuming. That's not my focus in life, and trying to convince you of his value as a performer beyond what you already feel is not important to me. Again: it is of absolutely no consequence to me whether you love or hate Kell's recordings.
Why on earth would it matter to you that I like them?
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-29 19:31
>> Why on earth would it matter to you that I like them? >>
You write well, and to that extent are convincing.
What you say about Kell's contrarian and egocentric behaviour doesn't make sense. The other people you mentioned are mostly at least trying to make what the music IS, work, in some honest way. You try to lump them all together.
I think the issue is important.
I don't want you to be believed -- here or anywhere -- so I argue against you when you bring the subject up, again, the way you did in this thread.
You've taken down your eulogy, so now it's your obsession, not mine.
You stop, I'll stop.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-29 20:30
MY eulogy:
Who first rehashed Kell in this thread?
I hacked Google's algorithm so Eric's post was the first found: blame it on ME; he deleted it so we can all let it rest. Please?
Who qualifies as a great composer?
If Stoltzman, whom with I rarely agree, enhanced the work of a composer in their own estimation how can we disagree? Doesn't a composer know what boundaries are laid out by their own composition?
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-03-31 02:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-29 21:07
>> My eulogy:
Who rehashed Kell in this thread? >>
Eulogy????
The answer to your question is:
'I did.'
I did so because the thread has come to be about what counts as an acceptable performance of a piece of music. Eric seems to claim that 'anything goes', in the abstract. He most notably claimed that Kell's performance of the Stravinsky was 'an essential recording'.
Given the history of the discussion on this BBoard, I want to ask: if, then, Kell's performance IS a performance of 'the piece', where do we draw the line?
Does standing in front of the music of the Stravinsky on a music stand, holding a clarinet, and spitting on the floor, count as a performance of the Stravinsky?
Of course not.
But how many of the notes are necessary for a performance to be 'of the Stravinsky'? How many of Stravinsky's instructions, clearly marked 'to be followed', can we ignore?
I've indicated my own answers to these questions elsewhere. Those answers effectively rule out Kell's performance, but accept an infinity of other, much better ones.
In this discussion, BECAUSE OF ERIC'S CLAIM, the Kell performance is pivotal.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-03-29 21:34
Eric deleted his claim, so in some measure it is moot.
Is Alan Hacker's recording of the "Goehr Paraphrase..." likewise wholly unacceptable?
-Jason
Post Edited (2013-03-29 21:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-29 21:51
Tony,
You write gibberish and expect it to be answered and respected as reasonable discussion when it is nothing of the kind.
You'll drop Kell if I drop Kell? Except you won't drop Kell?
You're furious by my writing which is no longer there?
Gimme a break.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-29 22:02
>> Is Alan Hacker's recording of the "Goehr Paraphrase..." likewise unacceptable? >>
That's an interesting question.
Alan was a student of Kell's, and always revered him. When Alan joined the LPO, Kell apparently said that he should be first clarinet, if and when Bernard Walton left. (In fact, Jack McCaw then became first clarinet, and Alan second, which he always resented. He left the orchestra soon after he had the accident that left him paralysed.)
Alan, like Kell, was a contrarian. But, here, we're talking about an instrumentalist WORKING with a composer, not just an instrumentalist dealing with a TEXT. In fact, next week, I shall be visiting Sandy to talk with him about his relationship with Alan -- and Alan's relationship with me -- both of which were involved in the creation of the Paraphrase:-)
What I would say is that Alan's recording of the Paraphrase is an unacceptable model for someone looking to play the piece. You can learn something from it; but you should go back to the score to find what there is there that Alan ignores.
That having been said, Sandy's attitude to his scores is very different from Stravinsky's, and that was probably a significant factor in what Alan then did with the piece. But not certainly; he always went his own way, in my experience.
I'll report back on all of that here after the conversation.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2013-03-29 22:03
Considering that the question was kinda
" i was looking around and forund Backun clarinets. has anyone played these? and if i decide to get one which one and would it be a good idea to get a cocobolo wood clarinet seeing that i have a grenadilla wood clarinet already. how different are the two woods really anyway? any help would be appreciated."
This thread took a really esoteric veer off course. I tried to answer the question with a quick recording, becuase I have experience with these instruments and I thought I could answer a question with an informed demonstration that would allow others to have an opinion based on some kind of scientific method. Or better yet generate some more questions along this topic, as long as it didn't venture into ligatures.
Tom Puwalski- Backun Artist and owner of Clarinetgourmet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-03-29 22:26
Eric wrote:
>> Tony,
You write gibberish and expect it to be answered and respected as reasonable discussion when it is nothing of the kind. You'll drop Kell if I drop Kell? Except you won't drop Kell? You're furious by my writing which is no longer there? >>
I'm furious it was EVER there.
By the way, I told you that you were revealing yourself more than you thought:-)
>> Gimme a break. >>
Take as long as you like.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-29 23:49
"By the way, I told you that you were revealing yourself more than you thought:-)"
Sad that this is what you resort to when people don't agree with you--or when they've had the nerve to point out your misrepresentations. It's impossible to have a real discussion with someone who acts this way.
At least with me, you know that when I agree with you, it's honest agreement. When I disagree, I can disagree without malice. Do you really want to throw that away by behaving in such a persistently petty manner? Because that's what you're doing right now, and have been doing for quite a while, all because I had the nerve to like a recording by Reginald Kell. It's very sad, really. I wouldn't wish your attitude on anyone--and I hope you reconsider.
It's not too late, you know.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-03-30 22:54
To lighten the mood a bit: Most of the time these two things go hand in hand, even today.
"He was just a great clarinet talent with a jumped-up ego."
Just assume that Tony will object to anyone with an opinion different than his. I do the same thing many times on this board about equipment matters (many of which are a matter of physics than opinion).
It should be apparent by now that no one will "win-over" Tony on any issue. His success and general knowledge have given his name much credibility compared to many on the board. Although it is not safe to assume he's right on any given matter just because of those things.
It's very much obvious that his delivery of ideas and responses is many times lower in quality than his information and ideas. While differences of opinion do cause frustration in general, it should be taken into account that most of his posts have been met with serious anger and frustration just by the way they are delivered. So, don't be surprised by this- it's just his way of communicating and I don't think it's always intentional.
Does it matter if Kell is not considered to be a "great musician" by a group of musicians today? Does this mean that someone having had a great musical experience listening to him play should now think that their experience and feelings are rendered invalid because someone else doesn't agree? Probably not...and probably not something worth beating into the ground.
In my experience with equipment (being someone who does mouthpiece refacing and is always curious about all setup related matters), I have objections to many who say "Marcellus played...." or "Harold Wright played...." so it must be great and\or it must be a key to their success. It's been demonstrated by many successful musicians that their setup and thoughts related to it often are not factually based (i.e. it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that item A does not cause result A). Does this mean they shouldn't be successful or that they don't know what they're doing? Generally this is not the case. It just means their knowledge of music and ability to play the instrument doesn't necessarily mean they know what they're talking about with mouthpiece or reed design.
But the question for me (similar to Tony's objections to thoughts on musicians and clarinet in general) is not whether or not I'm right, because I've done my homework- not just something that is a general opinion of respectable people. The question is "how\when\should I communicate this information in a meaningful manner to others?". I think this is the question that causes the most frustration with Tony's thoughts. It's not always the information itself, it's the delivery of the information to have the most meaningful impact on those he's trying to communicate it with.
If I were to tell someone who loves nothing but Kaspar mouthpieces that they could do much better and should at least get past this idea that the diamond in the rough Kaspar should be the focus of their search for the best equipment, I don't think they would listen to me, and I don't think I would if I were them either.
What would be meaningful is to discuss what characteristics are common to each Kaspar vintage, the variations in facings, and deciding if their chosen Kaspar has been modified (or many times heavily modified). What is it that they really like about the mouthpiece? Isolating those positives and explaining that they could likely get those qualities in a better mouthpiece and make significant gains in other aspects. I think those types of discussions are far more meaningful.
(Disclaimer: There are great Kaspars out there and great players that play them).
When communicating on an issue where there's a difference of opinion, it's important to do a few things:
1) Figure out that there is a difference of opinion without offending the other (since they probably won't listen to a word you have to say if you do)
2) Decide what validity there is to what they think
3) Examine your thoughts and opinions and decide what the most meaningful way would be to express them.
4) Seek to understand what the other person has gotten from you
5) (MOST IMPORTANTLY) Understand yourself that not everyone will be instantly won over, and often just letting the idea settle in will leave them on a path to a better and more meaningful understanding of what you are trying to communicate to them.
These are things I try to think about when I'm teaching. These are also things I'm aware of when I'm taking lessons.
Keeping in mind that it's possible to respect someone even though you may think they are full of.....it....on a particular issue.
Tony Pay is a successful, talented, and valuable member of the clarinet community worthy of all of our respect. We can disagree with him (which I do in some instances), but we should remember to be careful in arguing with him, as it has lead very few positive places so far. His delivery can induce very emotional responses, which aren't always for the best.
Many thanks to those who've bothered to read this post, as it was not short! I did my best to not throw stones in a glass house!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-03-30 23:31
As I re-read things...yet again.
I don't find Tony to be "writing gibberish".
I also don't think "I don't want you to be believed" is helping Tony make his point, either.
I think Tony has a point about performance practice. It would seem that people are going to extremes to get Tony to "budge" and take a more liberal stance on what is acceptable.
WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY (and has said to some extent): It's more important to start with the composer than yourself. It doesn't mean you don't get to perform in a meaningful way to yourself, it just means the composers' meaning is of high importance.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING WITH: "You think the performer isn't important??? I like Kell, who the h*** are you to say he sucks?"
My previous post should have a few valid points on ways to move this conversation in a meaningful way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-03-31 00:01
Nathan -
Thanks for helping clear the air. I agree with you 100%.
In music, as in any activity worth doing seriously, there are many truths rather than a single Truth. When Brahms heard one of his works played in a way that critics called, bizarre, his response was "Ah, so it can be done that way, too."
I grew up listening to Glen Gould and love the way he played Bach, even though I also love "historically informed practice," which Gould had no idea about. My wife (who has a Ph.D. in Performance Practice) can't stand him. She doesn't like his constant variations in tempo and hears only the constant splicing of different takes together, which I barely notice, even when I listen for them.
Artur Schnabel said that he chose to perform only music that was greater than any single performer could make it.
The same goes for hardware. When I took several mouthpieces to Everett Matson, he heard me play and knew exactly what to do to make significant improvements in the way they played for me. He then handed me one of his own personal mouthpieces, remarking that many people liked them, but that I probably would not. He was right. I tried several reeds on it but couldn't make it work at all.
I love Reginald Kell's playing, even with the errors that Tony accurately points out. For him, these errors spoil everything. For me, they are blips that I can forgive. We're both right.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-31 00:07
Nathan,
When Tony says that I brought Kell back into the discussion, then says if I drop it, he will; then admits it wasn't me who brought Kell back in, then says he won't drop it because it's too important, I call that gibberish. I don't know what you call it.
As for this:
"WHAT PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING WITH: "You think the performer isn't important??? I like Kell, who the h*** are you to say he sucks?""
I have never responded to anyone, on any topic on this Board, in this manner. It's not even a position I would take. To suggest that I would is a misrepresentation.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2013-03-31 00:45
Eric,
I think this is, at best, the way that Tony sees it. As all of his posts indicate this to a large degree.
Did you mean that intentionally? No. Do I think that's where you were going with it? Not really.
I was jumping to the way both sides were going and trying to take it to its final, as well as attempting to note the emotion behind the above posts.
It is not my intention to misrepresent, only to try to put a turnicate on the thread...
If you agree with Ken 100%, and he agrees with me 100%, then why don't we agree? Hopefully this clarification will bridge the gap =) (I use these percentages jokingly, but I do hope this clarification is to your satisfaction).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-03-31 00:58
"If you agree with Ken 100%, and he agrees with me 100%, then why don't we agree?"
Well, I think you've got me there. Who am I to argue with such eloquent logic? Consider it an agreement.
"It is not my intention to misrepresent, only to try to put a turnicate on the thread..."
Clarification noted and appreciated.
Peace, man.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rickwbliss
Date: 2013-03-31 03:33
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Alphas, but if I had $1100 to spend on I'd rather get a Leblanc Bliss lb210 wooden clarinet that is also designed by morrie backun, and get a MoBa cocobolo barrel to go with it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2013-03-31 09:56
Rick, have you played both clarinets? If so how would you describe the differences? If you haven't, what do you base your opinion on? Also what effect do you imagine a MoBa cocobolo barrel would have on 1b210 and how have you come to that conclusion?
Tom Puwalski- Backun Artist and owner of Clarinetgourmet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rickwbliss
Date: 2013-03-31 17:04
Dear Tom,
Yes, I have indeed tried them both, but I am not saying that the Alpha is a "bad" clarinet, it is a great clarinet. Well, the thing is the Bliss do have a better sound, if that is the way to describe it, I contacted Morrie about the barrels, and the MoBa in cocobolo is what he suggests, my musical instrument store also have them, and the cocobolo is superior than the grenadilla musical wise. The price for the MoBa is pretty expensive tho, so I have to get a Fatboy cocobolo, instead of the MoBa. By the way I got my Bliss with silver plating on ebay brand new for $700, so that is that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pjenkin
Date: 2013-04-20 14:44
Tony,
Well that could be tricky. I reckon its next impossible to pick a particular make of instrument. As you rightly point out. Far easier to pick who is the clarinetist which is what it is all about.
Pete J
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2013-04-22 13:40
Just as a matter of interest, going back to the Stravinsky, does a performance I heard of it at a major London venue by a player who shall be nameless but could not recognise as that work (especially the last of the pieces) count as a performance of it?
Vanessa
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-04-22 18:18
Rickbliss -
Backun barrels are always up on eBay at what is, for them, bargain prices.
Vanessa -
A very poor performance is still a performance. As long as the player didn't stop in the middle, burst into tears and run offstage, it still counts.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-04-22 21:14
A. A. Milne's Christopher Robin made a brake for his toy train that "worked with a string sort of thing."
"It's a very good brake, but it hasn't worked yet," said Christopher.
We can see that his brake 'counts as a brake', even though it's defective -- that is, even though it doesn't work.
What makes it a brake is his INTENTION that it work as a brake -- just as a child's drawing 'is' a drawing of a man even though it bears little relation to any man.
Similarly, I say that a defective performances of the Stravinsky counts as a performance UNLESS the performer has no intention of it being a performance of Stravinsky's text.
Then, I would say, it DOESN'T count.
The relevance of this analysis to the discussion of a certain performance of the Stravinsky is obvious.
Whether it applies to the performance you mention we don't know. You'll have to tell us more:-)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paula S
Date: 2013-04-22 21:22
Come on Tony, put your money where your mouth is and record the Stravinsky for us? You could do it on a Backun? ....... Although you would probably sound good on anything with a reed attached ;-)
Post Edited (2013-04-22 21:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-04-23 09:15
The Stravinsky doesn't _need_ a recording in the way that I thought the Goehr did. The Stravinsky is a deservedly famous work that's performed by the best players in the world, so its identity is fully established; whereas the Goehr is definitely compromised by inadequate representation -- particularly for some students.
As I said somewhere else, you can have a different slant on either work in concert without going against the text, and I'm content with that flexibility for myself.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ConnieR
Date: 2021-02-01 08:10
If must agree with Heather, albiet 7 years later. They all lack something. No matter who is playing, no matter what type of wood, or barrel, or bell, or mouthpiece or reed... It almost like listening to something over-controlled. Like a clone of a beautiful person who lacks that certain passion. Sorry folks, it is still anathema to speak like this about Backuns but they lack that pre-war Paris soul.
drconniephillips@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
