 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-07-16 13:23
I know that it is a contradiction in terms, but does there exist a "one-size-fits-all" period clarinet? What I mean by this is something that would enable one to play, let's say, music from the period of the Mannheim school through to Schubert. I am speaking here of copies of instruments, preferably affordable. What pitch should one aim for: A-428? Thank you. The subject of period instruments seldom comes up on the BBoard. I personally have zero experience in this field.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-16 14:20
A five key clarinet would be the nearest. You might want two or three more keys to make life a little easier. You can have them added later if you want and you don't have to use them if you want to be really hard core. I'd go for a chalumeau B natural correction key (which also gives me a usable Bb on my Simiot copy), a C#/G# and a Eb/Bb key. Without them, the chalumeau register is a bit of a nightmare.
As to pitch, I've never heard of A=428. Usually it's A=415 for baroque pitch and A=430 for classical but if you want to play together with modern instruments you'd want one at A=440.
I made my own here:
http://www.cambridgewoodwindmakers.org/info/courses/classical-clarinet-making+162.html
It was an experience that I can heartily recommend.
Post Edited (2014-07-16 14:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2014-07-16 21:20
Dibbs - If you are I.D. from Leeds, I responded to your email about my "T" chalumeau, but the email, sent from two different servers, was refused at your end.
The long and short of my responses was:
Don't get a "T" chalumeau.
No I didn't have the time to make a C#/G# key for my Simiot copy. I would have liked to.
Incidentally, Emily Worthington and I are trying to arrange a chalumeau-making course with Daniel at Cambridge Woodwind Makers at the end of August, in case you are interested.
All the best,
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-18 14:43
Thanks Simon. That was me, yes.
I may well be interested in making a chalumeau. I need to have a think about it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-07-18 18:35
You play a period clarinet to understand the sound the composer expected and to balance in the ensemble the way the composer intended.
Even playing the last movement of the Beethoven Trio on a dreadful Steinkopf clarinet, I discovered many things about the music that were not obvious on the modern clarinet http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=75975&t=75842.
Schubert's clarinet was as different from Beethoven's as it was from a modern clarinet. If you've ever played a Steinkopf clarinet, you'll know that it was an amateurish approximation of nothing in particular. Playing it was interesting - even revelatory - but playing an accurate reproduction of a Beethoven-era clarinet would have been much different. The same goes for a Schubert-era clarinet.
Playing Schubert on a Beethoven-era clarinet is no closer to the original than playing a modern clarinet. Alas, one size doesn't fit all. Even worse, one size doesn't fit anything.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2014-07-18 21:35
Hello Ruben.
As a professional player of both modern and period instruments, permit me to offer a few thoughts on your question.
>does there exist a "one-size-fits-all" period clarinet?
It depends on what your intention is. It is possible to get a period clarinet that will allow you to play at A430 from Mannheim school to Schubert.
I often see modern clarinetists get Tutz classical clarinets with many keys so that they can say they are playing a period clarinet. This way they do not have to learn the instrument's cross-fingerings; fingerings that make classical-period clarinet technique challenging, yet are a crucial and beautiful component of that instrument's essence and nature.
I play classical-period clarinets in a variety of ensembles (ww quintet/quartet/trio, orchestra, etc). I have amassed a number of instruments, some of them with varying numbers of keys, and I experiment with them in those ensembles. (I always return to an instrument with a minimum number of keys, incidentally an instrument that I made.)
It is not untrue to say that with each added key, the sound of the instrument becomes slightly more "modern". A key installed for a note that was previously cross-fingered provides that note with more focus, volume and homogeneity with its neighboring notes. Those qualities are important to the modern clarinetist because they have become professional requirements and are necessary for sonically filling large halls. Thus many modern players approach a period clarinet for the first time with a similar mindset.
I have found that if I approach the classical-era clarinet with musical and instrumental attitudes held at that era, it opens musical doors that never get opened to me as a modern player. (I say this as a clarinetist that does the majority of his playing on modern.) These new avenues are one of the many reasons a musician might be drawn to period instruments. My period orchestra is currently doing a Beethoven cycle. Having played those symphonies in modern orchestras for decades, I find the musical experience of playing them with classical-period instruments infinitely more rewarding and visceral.
This is all to say that if the sound-world and aesthetic of the composer is important to you, I would resist the temptation to get a single classical-period clarinet to cover the period from early classical to early romantic. The sound of a Mozart clarinet is worlds away from that of a Weber clarinet, despite having only 25 years between them. The bore and tonehole sizes are different and the increase in number of keys makes the two instruments' nature, character and sound inherently different. This difference is effaced if you get a many-keyed clarinet for Weber and play Mozart on it.
Of course this does not mean that a modern player cannot sound beautiful playing Weber or Mozart on a modern clarinet. We are talking about two different universes.
Modern instruments are all about homogeneity, power, focus, projection and gloss. Stamitz ends up being played like Mozart which ends up being played like Weber ends up being played like Brahms, Strauss, Nielsen, Francaix, Elliott Carter.......
I think it is fair to say that on modern instruments there is an attempt to possess oneself of a sound and approach that is standardized. That means we have the same method and manner approaching music written almost 300 years apart. As Lorenzo Coppola put it in an interview, "I have been playing modern clarinet many years in orchestras and chamber music ensembles in Italy. I have always found my musical activities somehow superficial, unsatisfying or disappointing. I was always surprised considering the very little effort that my colleagues and I were doing in general in analyzing and interpreting music. We did not pay much attention to style and the general approach to pieces made no difference between Mozart and Poulenc, for example. We used the same patterns, same definitions, and same words to pieces that could be 200 years apart from each other. We had only one vocabulary, universal, and valid for everything. We had no idea of what were our instruments before being as they appear today. So I decided to go a little bit further and, being also a recorder and cornetto player and knowing quite well the repertoire of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I started studying the early clarinets in order to acquire some stylistical knowledge for interpreting pieces of the classical and romantic period."
In my experience, it has been informative, fascinating and enriching to approach earlier music with its attendant aesthetic. Often, the instrument for which that music was written is a part of the aesthetic, even if its sound is not that to which one has been conditioned. As Charlie Neidich said in an interview, "The point with old instruments is to have them lead you in the direction which makes them speak most easily and best in tune even if the sound is different from what you would expect."
To be continued and if so, here's hoping the tone stays civil. Period-instrument discussion on modern-instrument forums has been known to bring out people's claws
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-07-18 22:49
Dear Simon,
Thank you for your remarkable exhaustive, but not exhausting sum up. That pretty much covers it. What emerges from your analysis is this playing these instruments is a highly rewarding, but time-consuming task. It would represent a major investment, not in terms of money, but effort. All things considered, I think I'll leave it up to the younger generations.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-18 23:06
>> Schubert's clarinet was as different from Beethoven's as it was from a modern clarinet.>>
Well, I don't know how you can possibly say that.
Anyway, there was no 'Schubert's clarinet', nor 'Beethoven's clarinet'. (Players didn't upgrade their clarinets year by year like iPhones:-) As the instrument developed, some players added keys, others stayed with what they'd always known. There was a mixture of equipment at any given time. But the fundamental character of the instrument was relatively unchanged between Beethoven and Schubert.
That's not to say that there were not marked differences BETWEEN PLAYERS. I'm sure that different people fiddled with their reeds, instruments and mouthpieces just as they do today. And I can imagine that the best players, as today, did that more than most.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2014-07-19 00:24
Dear Ruben,
>That pretty much covers it.
I would not say so. Other period players will have differing opinions and perspectives. What I mused was more like the tip of the iceberg (in a good way).
I meant to be encouraging in my post. I hope it did not have the opposite effect.
>What emerges from your analysis is this playing these instruments is a highly >rewarding, but time-consuming task.
Because it is highly rewarding, like any other passion I don't feel it time-consuming. Perhaps it is a question of perspective. Rehearsals and concerts with a modern orchestra and a mediocre or bad conductor: I see that as time-consuming. That is time spent that doesn't give back. That takes me away from my family and music and ensembles I feel are important.
>It would represent a major investment, not in terms of money, but effort.
But it is worth it. And unlike other musical ventures, it actually does give back. And if you love it it doesn't seem like effort.
I see a HUGE difference in attitude and overall happiness between my orchestral modern-instrument and period-instrument colleagues. Most of the former have calcified and are going through the motions. The paycheck is what fuels them and they have passions on the side. Nearly all the latter are passionate about what they are doing. The music fuels them and is their passion. I realize that sounds like a naive and eccentric over-generalization, but I am calling it like I see it, playing in both modern and period worlds.
The flipside is that most modern players are easier to deal with professionally because they are business people first and foremost (emails are returned, professional decorum is less-often absent, etc.). Perhaps that is part of the charm of period players
>All things considered, I think I'll leave it up to the younger generations.
Aye, there's the rub! No disrespect to the younger generation, but it often takes a decade or two to realize that the uniform, systematized, cookie-cutter playing that characterizes most modern orchestras is no longer personally compelling. So period players are often a decade or two older than student-age.
There is an abiding belief in students that if they win an orchestral position they will be living the dream. But after a decade or two in the orchestra, they sometimes feel that the repetitive, conformist nature of their day job is no longer musically fulfilling. And if composers such as Mozart and Beethoven are important to them, they might look for ways of bringing that music to life in ways modern instruments and attitudes cannot. But it invariably takes years in the "modern world" before feeling this.
If I am not mistaken, your company, JL, makes period clarinets. So you seem well-positioned to experiment with them, if not one day make them!!
All the best,
Simon
Post Edited (2014-07-19 22:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-07-19 01:02
As Schubert's and Beethoven's lives overlapped and they lived and worked just a few hundred yards away from each other, I see no reason why the "Schubert clarinet" and the "Beethoven clarinet" -if there was such a thing- should have been radically different. One would imagine that Schubert heard a lot more of Beethoven than Beethoven did of Schubert; all the more so as poor Ludwig was deaf.
Simon: you've opened the door to the important question of the sociology of music making in the present-day Classical music world. It is my experience that free-lancers, by and large, take a more idealistic attitude to music than well-fed "routiniers" with cushy jobs; but there are mercenary free-lancers just as there also exist idealistic "civil-servant" musicians. I do agree that "a searcher" tends to be more of an artist than a hack.
We at JL do make period instruments. Ours are beautiful to look at, but don't sound very good unfortunately. This is for want of having had a first-rate, specialised tester. Do I get points for honesty?!
I'm glad this thread is finally raising at least a little interest.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-19 01:40
>> As Schubert's and Beethoven's lives overlapped and they lived and worked just a few hundred yards away from each other, I see no reason why the "Schubert clarinet" and the "Beethoven clarinet" -if there was such a thing- should have been radically different. One would imagine that Schubert heard a lot more of Beethoven than Beethoven did of Schubert; all the more so as poor Ludwig was deaf.>>
I've already explained why there were no such things. It's got nothing to do with the composers themselves.
However, I want to talk about something else.
Just last month, I played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony with the Academy of Ancient Music. I used a pair of Simiot instruments; the Bb has 9 keys, the corps de rechange (A) 8 keys. The C clarinet has 6 keys.
Yet, over ten years ago, I played the same piece with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment in the Promenade Concerts with Franz Bruggen – so, no small deal – using 5-key instruments.
Why not this time?
Of course, I don't know what Beethoven's players did. But that didn't really interest me all that much in deciding between these two solutions.
How I look at it is: I have to decide, "What is Beethoven's clarinet?"
And, I can't get anything from HIM. HE didn't know.
I have to decide on the basis of what I judge to be REQUIRED by his Ninth Symphony.
Of course, I CAN play it on a 5-key instrument – I proved that - but I found that there are moments when the clarity and potency of certain notes is needed by the music, and the simpler instrument is found wanting in that regard.
So my answer is that what is 'Beethoven's clarinet' in the Ninth Symphony gets to be determined by ME.
I chose the Simiot.
And, I can imagine that something of the sort might well have occurred to the players of the first (or at least the best subsequent) contemporary performances.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-07-20 00:44
Dear Tony Pay;
I was wondering if conductors, like Eliot-Gardiner, Norrington,Bruggen, etc. ever express a preference for this or that period clarinet or whether they just let you get on with it. What do you, as a conductor do? I shouldn't think anybody actually dictates to his or her musicians what instrument to play, but as they/you are responsible for the whole, it is only reasonable that they should express preferences.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-07-21 01:00
There are some very interesting points here. In particular, I note that much of the discussion is from the player's point of view, rather than the listener's. It would be good to hear from experienced period performers how much difference they feel it makes to the appreciation of the music purely to have the correct hardware used.
As a listener to period performance, I sometimes hear a big difference between old and new instruments. The leading example is probably the baroque oboe, where the sound is utterly distinct, and undoubtedly much more suited to the music. There is no danger of mistaking it for a modern instrument. But even with ears well attuned to the clarinet, I don't hear such a big difference in the sound of period and modern clarinets. To be more specific, at one time you could tell easily that a period instrument was being deployed, but mainly because it sounded like a modern one played badly: out of tune and with a unpleasant cutting tone. But years passed and standards rose, and now good period clarinet playing often seems to me to sit within the range of sounds that you would find from modern German clarinets - although it would never be mistaken for a 1010.
Maybe the experts disagree, and feel that the period clarinet sound is as distinct as the period oboe - I'd be interested to hear their views. But if they agree that the difference is not so large, then why is this? Is is just that all period performers have heard the modern sound and the really good ones can get even a technically primitive instrument to sound quite like the modern norm? Also, a lot of a player's sound comes from their physiology, and you frequently find players making radical changes in their equipment and still ending up sounding like themselves. Or maybe it's down to mouthpieces: the range of possibilities means that a wide range of sounds exist, making it harder to be sure what kind of pipe is attached lower down.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-21 02:45
Ruben wrote:
>> I was wondering if conductors, like Eliot-Gardiner, Norrington,Bruggen, etc. ever express a preference for this or that period clarinet or whether they just let you get on with it. >>
There was once a strong effort by Eliot Gardiner to police the details of the instruments his wind section were using. (I think the initiative came from a particular wind player who happened to have access to a variety of instruments themselves, had stolen a quick look at what their colleagues were using and had reported back to JEG, who is a control freak in any case.) Indeed, though not a member of that orchestra myself, I remember being asked on the telephone by the fixer of the time what _I_ thought appropriate for a particular piece, as a sort of outside expert. I thought this presumptuous, and declined to answer in detail, for the reasons I outlined in previous posts. "Ask your principal player!" I said.
I'd say that most people make a strong and sometimes quite costly effort to use appropriate instruments. But occasionally the requirement to do the music justice trumps using an instrument of the exact period that just isn't an excellent specimen.
I want to say something else, too. Though Simon Aldrich says that Mozart's instrument has a completely different nature from Weber's instrument, it's easy for a non-player of the instruments to misunderstand that.
First of all, you have to translate that into saying that a 5-key instrument has a different nature from a 10-key instrument (what Baermann used). And that's true – in the sense that you can push the 10-key instrument in ways that you can't push the 5-key instrument.
But it doesn't really mean that if you want to capture the nature of the 5-key instrument on the 10-key instrument (9 keys, in my case), then that's an impossibility. It may be that the people he describes as playing on Tutz many-keyed instruments as their only experience of early clarinets fail to do so; but _I_ know what it's like to play even Beethoven 9 on 5-key clarinets, so I'm well placed to attempt it.
The other thing I want to say is that I strongly resist being technocentric about all this, just as I strongly resist being technocentric about modern playing here on this BBoard. Yes, the simple instruments have tendencies; but when I hear people saying that 'the instrument teaches me things about the music' then I want to question them very closely about the degree to which they understand the music in the first place.
Mozart said that he had to work hard at the clavier 'in order to make the passagework flow like oil,' and it seems to me to be unreasonable to assume that he didn't want his wind players to do likewise. That means that we need to be able to equalise the responses of unequally responsive notes on our instruments. Sometimes we need to highlight an unresponsive note, sometimes to suppress an overly responsive note.
A well-played early instrument will have a character, both because we can use its unevennesses to expressive effect, and also because the necessity often to PRODUCE an even scale makes demands on reed and mouthpiece setup and therefore indirectly on intimacy.
It will also COMBINE with other instruments differently, as I said earlier.
So I think that when John Peacock says that he can't really tell the difference between the SOUND of a well-played period clarinet and that of a modern German clarinet, then – particularly if he's talking about recordings – I celebrate that, in a way. The differences between the instruments should lie in other dimensions of music-making than sound in and of itself.
Do you remember our discussion of Bernard Walton's playing in Rachmaninov II, John, that I found so disappointing; and you said that though you could see what I meant, the actual ease of sound-production was so compelling for you?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-07-21 17:25
Tony:
I'm not sure from your reply whether you feel that you personally could always pick out a period clarinet just from sound on a recording. But I think I infer that you agree that the difference purely in terms of sound is much less marked than with modern vs period oboe.
If so, that's a pity. I do recall the Rach 2 debate, and I would still say that there is a purely physical pleasure to be had from a special quality of sound, even before one gets to considering musicality. A single note from a baroque oboe can send a shiver down my spine, as indeed can one note from a few special clarinettists.
But if the period clarinet in itself doesn't guarantee such a unique sonic experience, then of course musical issues can amply justify playing these instruments. But I could see two arguments: (1) understanding the sound world of the first players, which the composer would have had in mind when writing; (2) changing the way you play in order to overcome technical limitations, which changes the way the music comes out. You have made a good case for (2), but how about argument (1)? It's quite common these days to find modern-instrument orchestras trying to play in a historically informed style, so can a modern clarinet be played successfully in a way that takes on board the musical lessons of knowing what a period instrument is like, without actually needing to perform on one?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-21 19:10
John Peacock wrote:Quote:
A single note from a baroque oboe can send a shiver down my spine, as indeed can one note from a few special clarinettists. Yes, for me too. But I then very quickly move on to listen to what the player has to say – or rather, to how what they do contributes to the music, which is what I'm mostly concerned with listening to. (I don't want to be trapped into listening to BERNARD WALTON, do I?-)
If I hear a beautiful voice on the radio, say, then a similar thing occurs, whether it's in play or poetry.Quote:
But I could see two arguments [to justify playing these instruments]: (1) understanding the sound world of the first players, which the composer would have had in mind when writing; As I've pointed out here before, the sound of the instrument isn't determined by the instrument. See for example the discussion in:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=302940&t=302700&v=t
...after turning on 'threaded view'.Quote:
It's quite common these days to find modern-instrument orchestras trying to play in a historically informed style, so can a modern clarinet be played successfully in a way that takes on board the musical lessons of knowing what a period instrument is like, without actually needing to perform on one? Harnoncourt has maintained that it can, and has stopped working with period instruments as far as I know. That's not to say that I entirely agree with him, or indeed like his performances, very often.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-22 14:53
>> We at JL do make period instruments. Ours are beautiful to look at, but don't sound very good unfortunately. This is for want of having had a first-rate, specialised tester. Do I get points for honesty?!
Ruben,
Full marks for honesty. Are you sure they don't sound good? I was a bit disappointed with mine when I made it. I couldn't get a good sound, intonation seemed a bit dodgy and getting my fingers round it seemed impossible.
Fortunately, Colin Lawson had been to the workshop and I'd heard him play a similar instrument. He was all over it like a rash and made a great sound, perfectly in tune. Having witnessed that at close quarters I was determined to give it good go.
Nine months on, I'm getting a good sound from it myself. There are still a lot of fingering challenges but I'm getting better slowly. I had to add a thumb rest initially because I couldn't figure out how to keep it aloft without one. Now I'm using a strap because it was giving me pain in my right hand.
Tony,
You wouldn't happen to know of anyone withing striking distance of Leeds that could give me some lessons on this thing would you?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2014-07-22 17:06
I have a Mousetter copy that Steve Fox made, it's pitched at A=440 (something I have not found to be useful as I had hoped, as my experience has been that it doesn't "match" a modern piano). It has 10 keys, though the original was a 5 key instrument- his explanation for this being that it was not unusual for keys to be "retro fitted" as repertoire demanded....
I LOVE the tone quality of this instrument, and it is definitely quite different from the sound I produce on my modern instruments. But I definitely have to work on it- it is actually embarrassing to play it in front of people unless I've had good practise time on it. I once used it as my "teaching instrument" for a week which proved interesting.
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-22 19:16
Dibbs wrote:
>> Tony, you wouldn't happen to know of anyone withing striking distance of Leeds that could give me some lessons on this thing would you? >>
The obvious answer is Lesley Schatzberger:
http://www.york.ac.uk/music/staff/instrumental/lesley-schatzberger/
I'm sure she's in the York phone book, and if she isn't, her husband Alan George the viola player will be. I don't know whether she takes private pupils, but she's a lovely person, and if anyone can help she can.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-07-22 20:17
Dibbs,
Thank you for your encouraging words, and you might be right; maybe they're not so bad after all. I am basing myself on what one person who actually plays period instruments told me, but that's just one person and I'm not sure how well he plays. We need to find an adequate mouthpiece. Would you, or anybody else, have any suggestions? If ever you're in this neck of the woods, do come and see us and judge for yourself. We have discontinued the production of period instruments, but could easily start again if we were at all successful.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-07-23 19:02
ruben wrote:
> Dibbs,
> Thank you for your encouraging words, and you might be
> right; maybe they're not so bad after all. I am basing myself
> on what one person who actually plays period instruments told
> me, but that's just one person and I'm not sure how well he
> plays. We need to find an adequate mouthpiece. Would you, or
> anybody else, have any suggestions? If ever you're in this neck
> of the woods, do come and see us and judge for yourself. We
> have discontinued the production of period instruments, but
> could easily start again if we were at all successful.
>
My mouthpiece is from Daniel Bangham at Wood, Wind and Reed in Cambridge. He has had some injection moulded. I don't know whether he's selling them. He might need them all for his clarinet making courses. It seems to work well for me on my but not necessarily for another instrument. It doesn't take modern reeds. I have to start with a German cut reed and make it narrower with a plane. The mouthpiece actually works surprisingly well on a B&H 1010 if I wrap tape around the tenon. (I only tried that to find out how much of the sound was down to the mouthpiece and how much the instrument.)
Failing that, I know Ed Pillinger makes mouthpieces for Stephen Fox's early instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2014-07-23 23:54
Dibbs- that's interesting that you you tried your "period" mouthpiece on the modern clarinet, I did the same thing (for the same reason) with mine (on a buffet) and was really surprised to find it was more or less in tune (not up to performance standards, but better than some of my students...). dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-07-24 11:15
Dibbs: Thank you for the information. You're as helpful as always.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2014-07-25 08:44
Dibbs - The chalumeau-making course in Stapleford will not be happening this summer.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
