 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-16 22:00
We have our differences on whether material with which a clarinet is made out of, in and of itself, holding craftsmanship constant, affects (or perhaps should I say compromises) sound.
When I say materials I'll stick with things like wood, plastic, rubber, and some synthetics like carbon fiber. My point being that I'm not here to argue that "swiss cheese's" holes or limited life span makes it a good material out of which to create a clarinet: clearly it doesn't.
But--and this is the essence of my query: do we really have a choice? Or to rephrase, does anyone take issue that the supply of quality African Blackwood can no longer sustain demand?
(Does anyone take issue with the fact that R-13's of the past were made with qualities of wood that Buffet now only uses in more expensive models, and was this decision unaffected by Blackwood supply ?)
Clearly their are other woods, but will they allow the production of professional or pre-professional clarinets at reasonable prices. Perhaps my focus here being Rosewood, whose beauty in appearance and sound may come at the cost of it being finicky to work with.
And assuming you subscribe to the materials affect sound school, is the sound we get our of wood, that so called desired "Ping," (assuming it can't be achieved with other materials: an idea I don't subscribe to) an object of our own bias on what a clarinet should sound like? I say this because few dispute the origins of clarinets being made out of African Blackwood were based on primarily keeping manufacture cost low, more than sound.
http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/the-grenadilla-myth.html
Yes, Tom Ridenour's a salesman if you want to claim bias, but one I've known to prefer win-win transactions, sourcing fact in his white papers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-05-16 22:31
Well, I probably shouldn't wade into this one - as all of my wooden clarinets are in storage, and (as a rule) I don't play "classical" music other than hymns in church each Sunday. However, I'm not convinced material matters much. The sad part is - this far into a technological world, we haven't even scientifically compared the sound to know whether it's all in our heads or has some basis in reality.
Artie Shaw, on what was arguably his most famous recording - recorded on a plastic reed. George Lewis recorded Burgundy Street Blues on a metal clarinet. (Not that I love George's sound, but it sounded the same as his wood clarinet to me - granted, the recordings aren't of the highest quality by today's standards.)
I play on metal/hard rubber clarinets almost exclusively because it got tiresome for me to worry about the temperature range of the various venues. (The Greenline-type of clarinets seem odd to me - once wood becomes sawdust and is slathered in epoxy, I can't imagine that it has even remotely the same properties of unprocessed wood...for instance, particle board has very few of the properties that wooden planks have.)
To me, the problem is this: by the time we're capable of performing pieces which would best showcase the various characteristics (if any) of the various materials - we've formed a personal bias towards one over the other. So - even a "blind" test would most likely become biased due to the performer's bias.
I'm not entirely convinced wood shortages couldn't be overcome if that's the direction people want to go. For decades we've been told that usable cane is rare and in short supply - yet...here we are. From an environmental standpoint, I would think that wood is about the least-processed product out there.
To answer your question "Do we really have a choice?": I'm not sure we truly have enough independently substantiated information to know if we really have a choice or not.
Cheers,
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-05-17 02:11
Isn't rosewood also on the endangered list? I think for now cocobolo and mopani are still off the list. Not sure about ebony, although I don't think it's as sturdy as grenadilla. A couple makers now use boxwood. However, if one or two big manufacturers started buying in large quantities, any of those woods would probably run into the same supply difficulties. However, it seems like makers have barely scratched the surface as far as the possible human-made materials that could be used, and at some point, price and availability will cause them to come up with more options than there are now.
I'd always heard that the origins of moving from boxwood to grenadilla wasn't cost, but better stability and a louder sound, which was needed because of bigger halls and similar changes occurring in the other orchestral instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2017-05-17 02:37
dorjepismo wrote:
> Isn't rosewood also on the endangered list?
What, exactly, is rosewood?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-17 02:37
I'm concerned that if quality granadilla (African Blackwood) is in as short supply as claimed...
and original chosen for the lowest production cost without sacrificing quality (perhaps given the absence of materials like plastic and even rubber-vulcanization 1700's? when first produced)....
that even if the other woods are in ample supply, that the cost in real dollars of making instruments is subject to spike in the future.
There's always metal. ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
Does anyone have stats of how many professionals who play Buffet chose the Greenline models over the conventional ones?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-05-17 03:06
Dave,
Thanks for the "metal" shout-out!
Honestly, though - I do wonder what might happen if manufacturers put as much effort into metal clarinets - as they did around the late 1800s - now that technology/manufacturing has improved so far from where it was when the last "pro" metal clarinets were attempted.
I know I've offered it before, but it's fun to revisit: http://www.theclarinet.net/History/metal-clarinet-test.html Yes, there are some tell-tale signs of metal in the sound from time-to-time, but after all, these instruments are 60-90 years old. Manufacturing has come a long way since then.
I know my personal metal clarinets wouldn't fit into a pro orchestra...but neither would most wooden/hard rubber clarinets built in the same time frame. (I have much newer hard rubber and wooden versions of clarinets with the same keywork - and they wouldn't fit into today's modern orchestras either).
Of course, metal is a terrible environmental choice - unless overall environmental impact was positively affected by the instrument's longevity. Haha!
Still, I wouldn't rule metal out entirely...it works for flutes, saxes, the contrabass "paperclip" clarinet, and all manner of brass instruments. 
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-05-17 07:58
Karl, I believe there are a few species of Dalbergia called "rosewood," one or more of which have been used for clarinets, basset horns, and base clarinets. I think Rossi has used it, as has Patricola and some others, although I don't know whether they mean the same species by the name. There's this thread: http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=318753&t=318753.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ursa
Date: 2017-05-17 11:08
Eh, I think it's entirely possible--likely, even--that the best material for clarinet building has either not yet been developed, or already exists but nobody's tried making clarinets out of it yet.
Let's face it--builders of metal-bodied wind instruments are forever fiddling with alloys in their quest for perfection. Along those lines, Conn and Pruefer did try making clarinets out of a wide and divergent variety of materials and had some successes. Whatever happened to that spirit of innovation?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2017-05-17 11:27
> Whatever happened to that spirit of innovation?
That spirit got choked by the market (basically) sneering at everything non-wood. But, thanks to CITES, this will change and gain momentum.
Looking at composites like Buffet's Greenline, who sez it need be powdered blackwood shavings that land in that mix? Maybe there are other (local) woods that have desired qualities but were unfit for manufacturing due to branch knots and stuff like that.
I see a lot of "suppliers" (as opposed to consumers) who bemoan these "modern" times and make everyone but themselves responsible for their struggle. Well, Darwin and/or capitalism posit that these manufacturers will eventually falter and die unless they start being innovative again. But an investment company consisting of bean counters arent entrepreneurs in the classic sense, so I am cautiously pessimistic.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jdbassplayer
Date: 2017-05-17 15:50
I think the future of clarinets lie in fiber reinforced plastics, These materieal are very dense, highly durable and have some of the lowest coefficients of thermal expansion of any synthetic material. In most cases the coefficient of thermal expansion is even lower than hard rubber. These materials seem ideal in every way, yet no one is willing to make instruments out of them.
-Jdbassplayer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-17 16:56
tictactux wrote:
Looking at composites like Buffet's Greenline, who sez it need be powdered blackwood shavings that land in that mix?
-----
My sentiments too.
There's nothing to believe that Grenadilla powder (when mixed with epoxy--i.e. Greenline Clarinets) has magical acoustical properties even if you think that "regular" Grenadilla clarinets do.
As has already been cited in other threads, sadly, the marketplace apparently, and sadly does subscribe to this.
Here's what I think happened.
* Originally Grenadilla was chosen to make clarinets given it being a good inexpensive source material that could be machined reliably. And assuming you buy into the school of thought that says "materials matter," people have come to associate the sound that Grenadilla makes with beautiful clarinet playing.
(Of course the player makes the sound, but Martin Frost couldn't play my aforementioned clarinet made of Swiss cheese, so materials do play a role.)
* And, because they are in business to make money, clarinet makers touted, or perhaps never debunked the idea that Grenadilla was chosen by manufactures mostly for its sound qualities rather than to minimize production cost (maximize profit).
(I'm not saying I find well played, well machined Buffet conventional clarinets anything other than wonderful sounding. I'm saying that such acoustics, while important to manufacturers, shadowed the originally cheap machining of Grenadilla as its primary reason for use--perhaps in fairness, in a day and age before materials like plastics and rubber.)
* And now, with what appear to be dwindling supplies of quality Grenadilla, my hat goes off to Buffet as fine marketers, if not fine corporate citizens, for quite literally (this is not in dispute) taking the left over Grenadilla from conventional clarinet making, and rather than feeding it into their furnaces, making Greenline instruments out of it, so people will pay top dollar to have this magic wood in their clarinets....a market perception that manufacturers like Buffet are in part to blame for, with profit motivation having them not debunked the notion that Grenadilla is magic.
Buffet's in a bit of a bind of their own creation. They can't right now make high quality plastic or rubber clarinets using processes available for decades. To do so sheds light on a reality that Grendilla was known all along to not be the magic that Buffet (or other manufacturers) was happy to have customers believe (and pay for that) it was.
I'm sure that clarinet manufacturers will claim, in truth, to simply producing clarinets that people want, while not pointing out that such misguided market preferences for Grenadilla powder clarinets, may have origin in less completely informed consumers that they could have educated.
Here's how I see things playing out. In time, perhaps long after many of us have passed away, materials like carbon fiber, or perhaps stuff yet to be invented will replace Grenadilla in clarinet production to keep manufacturing costs in check.
Pundits (or so called ones like me) will ask why clarinet prices in real dollars haven't gone down if lower production costs with such materials are achieved.
Manufacturers like Buffet (like Pharmaceuticals) will tout the costs of the market research involved in finding the perfect material, not the marginal cost of manufacturing the X+1th clarinet (or pill).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-05-17 17:15
Regarding the spirit of innovation and all, I have a pen the body of which is made of a resin containing about 40% pumice from Mount Etna. Sure, it's a marketing gimmick, but at the same time, it's dense, sturdy, and extremely resistant to heat. It's even the right color. And imagine the fun of playing a clarinet made out of that in the Dies Irae from the Verdi Requiem! Anyway, once you start looking at potential materials without any preconceptions, the sky's the limit. You'd probably need a strap for one made out of meteoric iron.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2017-05-17 22:48
Material makes a HUGE difference, but it is what the player is looking for in the material that matters.
Sound, feel - both are affected by material..........
Some materials are easier to deal with, and more accurately drilled.
Make a Backun Barrel out of a Fence Post, and it will be crappy.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-17 23:28
I respect your opinion Mr. B., although I feel less strongly than you on the matter.
But back to point, do we disagree than quality Grenadilla stocks are dwindling with no clear solution to develop a sustainable African Blackwood population at hand, or are such shortages your belief to be more myth, or perhaps less than substantiated fact?
Any thoughts here? I know you to be quite knowledgeable in things clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2017-05-18 02:06
We ll (I would think) do agree that the supply is dwindling, thus the Conservationists are working hard to keep it going. Probably eventually it will either disappear, or get expensive to the point of having a $20K Clarinet just because of the rare material.
There are other materials such as Cocobolo, etc that they can be made from. Carbon Fiber is another very good material, as is Hard Rubber, though each has it's own distinctive sound.
btw - the Fence post thing was actually done by Morrie B and played by Corrado G.
It was the flop that I would think it would be.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2017-05-18 02:44
I have recently purchased a Treble Recorder from the French Recorder maker Vincent Bernolin. It cost me $Aus700 and is made of a synthetic polymer type resin material. Not the usual industrial produced plastic recorder. This material is more dense (heavier) and harder than the usual plastic. The sound is as far as I can tell , identical to that of Ebony ect. I can imagine that it would make excellent Clarinets and Oboes. Check out his site on Vincent Bernolin Recorders.
Skyfacer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2017-05-18 03:25
Dalbergia melanoxylon was not listed because of its conservation status, or because woodwind manufacture is threatening it.
It was listed by CITES only because it is in the Dalbergia genus. They "banned" all 500 some members of the genus because a few are endangered, and many are hard to distinguish from one another. Instrument makers are not to blame. Most of the endangered species were already under protection, or totally banned. Poaching is rampant for the furniture trade.
I don't think that it is necessary for student models to be wood, or that pros have to use wood. It's just that there is no Blackwood crisis. The CITES listing had nothing to do with the available supply of Blackwood, or the impact that woodwind manufacture is having. It's entirely because of poaching of other species in the same genus.
The following links are from conservation organizations:
http://globaltrees.org/threatened-trees/trees/mpingo/
http://www.mpingoconservation.org/index.php?id=1[url/]
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/32504/0
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2017-05-19 19:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ursa
Date: 2017-05-18 05:23
Matt brings up a good point about wooden student clarinets. There are untold thousands of used wooden clarinets out there that would be out of place in a modern collegiate or professional setting, but still offer students a wonderful learning experience on the instrument. Couldn't more be done to encourage keeping these instruments out of closets and in productive use?
Seems to me that teaching good stewardship of a dwindling resource should come naturally to any programme of arts performance and appreciation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-18 20:52
Complete agreement Ursa...as sure as instrument manufacturers will counter with campaigns to buy their new wares, in a marketspace unlike say, cars, fashion, or technology where faster design and innovation changes render existing merchandise obsolete.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2017-05-19 02:40
WhitePlainsDave wrote:
> Complete agreement Ursa...as sure as instrument manufacturers
> will counter with campaigns to buy their new wares, in a
> marketspace unlike say, cars, fashion, or technology where
> faster design and innovation changes render existing
> merchandise obsolete.
Well, that *is* one of the problems, isn't it, especially in the clarinet world. Why do new models hit the market every couple of years? How many different versions of essentially the same thing does Buffet market? How many models have Selmer and Leblanc put out and discontinued over the last decade? What instrument other than a clarinet is "blown out" after six years? There have no doubt been advances made over the past several decades in tuning and response, but are those improvements the reason for every new clarinet that comes down the pike?
And consider, too, that there are only two standard orchestral instruments made from Grenadilla/Mpingo/African Blackwood. Few flutes are made of wood today. Bassoons are generally made of other woods. Bassoonists preserve them indefinitely with maintenance and repair so that players prize instruments their teachers handed down to them. And well they should, given the price of a top-level bassoon.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-05-19 03:37
Karl,
Good points - but (on a slightly negative undertone), I must admit that I believe part of the problem is that too many folks are taught to be "gear junkies" - at least when I went through high school and college (and judging from this site, the trend continues).
To me, it seems folks get really hung up on "brand B" clarinets with "brand x" ligatures, and "brand Y" mouthpieces. My instructors (one of which was truly a great instructor), all wanted their students on specific equipment.
It seems that folks (especially the education sector) believes less in student abilities, and more in equipment abilities. Yet, even in sports - time and time again, it is proven that masters can play inferior quality equipment and make it sound spectacular. We need only look back at earlier sports records, or earlier music recordings to realize that it is NOT all equipment...past a certain usefulness point - it becomes entirely about technical abilities.
As long as we keep teaching folks that it is their gear that is holding them back, we'll see the trend continue.
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2017-05-19 04:30
I agree 100% that we should promote used instruments, and that the "gear" thing is out of hand, including the make/model predjudice. I want all instrument makers to thrive, and innovate, but there is no reason for 27 different Buffet models. 32 different barrels and a gold plated ligature won't sound any better than one that works.
About used instruments... Unless you are established as a repairman or dealer, people online pay only for brand. They will pay unreasonable prices for a student Yamaha in any decrepit condition, but little for a completely overhauled Vito. (I like Yamahas.) Boosey and Hawkes go for spare change. Some older wooden models sell, but not really for what they are worth, especially restored. Then there are the new cheap horns everywhere....
One place I think we could begin is by educating band directors. They really should know better than most of them do.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-19 04:59
Regardless of market, multiple model offerings exist to, as we economists say, "capture the market, " which is the process of offering models at various price points so that customers who can't afford "the Tosca" (i.e. the top end model) don't as frequently walk away empty handed, but rather buy a cheaper model.
Or conversely, those that might have paid more do so with the higher end model.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2017-05-19 20:46
Different price points are good. I just think that there is something wrong with the trend. I count the following number of models of Bbs... The first number excludes obvious variations on the same thing, the second is total. (Variations on the same address price points, like nickel vs. silver, better finish, etc.)
Ridenour: 2
Backun: 5
Yamaha: 8 (14)
Buffet: 9 (13)
Selmer: 12 (17) {includes 2 Vitos and 1 Bundy, IDK about other acquisitions}
Many of these are wood. The larger companies will naturally try to compete with everyone resulting in more models.
Overall, what I see is a very "consumerist" approach. I would rather see a more "craftsman-like" approach, where fewer models are sold, but recieve greater attention. There is something to be said for having a company philosophy or tradition and putting out a few good horns with a particular character. Hardly anyone has anything bad to say about Ridenours. They all make great horns (I gather), but one company can only spread themselves so far. To me it suggests an attitude which is not conservation minded, but I could be wrong. I do see HS students on the forum bewildered now, where before they had a few obvious solid, and often less expensive, options.
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2017-05-19 20:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-05-19 23:10
I guess I'm on the other side of the fence...I'd love for there to be 100k options offered. I'd like the market to choose which of those options succeed based on their worth/functionality/performance, personal preference, etc. If the artistic guy cranking out 100 perfect clarinets per year is what the market is looking for - then he will succeed and start pushing some of the others out as he grows.
However, I feel the education/music industry becomes too gear-specific and pushes only "Brand B" - far after "Brand B" quit making the best clarinets. Brand recognition is great, but it seems that (at least for clarinets), brand recognition has helped foster poor quality for too long; and created a false barrier for the competition. This creates an artificial lag where higher quality (or equal quality at lesser cost) instruments are available from other companies - yet those companies are held at a disadvantage due to a programmed bias towards the earlier make. The lag is extended...partially by instructors like we've seen recently on the BBoard - telling students to go into debt in order to "get the brand"...that the student is being held back by their gear, and the only solution is "Brand B", etc. This serves to artificially prolong "Brand B's" success and viability - past when the product offered might not be as good as other brands. Cottage industries have even broken out to fill the gap: folks earning income for filtering "Brand B" and modifying "Brand B" prior to the customer even receiving the instrument.
That's not entirely normal.
I can't imagine buying a new car, but having to have a pro go select one for me - then customize it - just to get it to perform the way it should as compared to other manufacturer's cars coming straight from the factory. That would be odd. I don't see that kind of car company being successful, or being recommended by people for very long. Yet, in the clarinet world, we've come to accept this as "normal." That's just odd to me.
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ursa
Date: 2017-05-20 00:04
Matt, I'm with you on the "craftsman-oriented" approach. In the world of brasswinds, we have Schilke and Kanstul here in the USA, both of whom consider their instruments to be lifetime investments. A few superbly engineered models are offered that cover every possible playing need. And--get this--both manufactures have made servicing their instruments an integral part of their business. Want a 50-year-old Schilke trumpet rebuilt to better-than-new? No problem, just call ahead to set up the job and then send it in!
The only clarinet builder offering anything close to that kind of commitment is Tom Ridenour. But, he's going to retire long before I am done playing clarinet.
And Fuzzy, it is absolutely not normal that Buffet gets away with sending out instruments that aren't completely assembled and adjusted. It's stupid that clarinetists accept this as normal. Should a dud brass instrument--or, for that matter, a dud Gibson guitar or Heckel bassoon--slip by quality control and end up purchased by an unsuspecting musician, such an instrument would immediately be returned under warranty--and, chances are, we'd hear all about the manufacturer's quality control going to hell all over Internet forums. It's time for clarinetists to get fired up about this and demand higher standards.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Barnhart ★2017
Date: 2017-05-20 00:18
I think I fall into the camp that believes materials "can" matter, however in most cases the variables are so complex that it is not really possible to have two absolutely identical instruments that vary ONLY in their material for a truly objective test. However, I can say that I owned a set of Ridenour hard-rubber instruments and their sound was quite different (generally more mellow/darker) than the Buffets I own or the Yamaha I now play.
One wild thought occurs to me that perhaps some specialized makers could consider. I recall stories of how Moenig turned down an instrument whose bore Ralph McLane loved, and inserted that bore into a matching cylinder removed from another instrument, thus creating a hybrid of two instruments.
Along similar lines, it might be possible to "reuse" some of the wood from older instruments by boring out their tone holes and even their bores and replacing those with synthetic materials. Of course the junction of the materials and the adhesive used would be critical, but but once merged one would have a hybrid "blank" that could (possibly) be re-machined to create a new instrument still largely made from now-endangered/prohibited wood.
Of course, the Buffet folks might just say grind it up and mix it with glue, but I find that thought distasteful.
Food for thought...
Bob Barnhart
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2017-05-20 01:58
fuzzy wrote:
> I guess I'm on the other side of the fence...I'd love for there
> to be 100k options offered.
I'm not sure you aren't straddling that fence. It seems to me that 100k options, unless there are maybe 30 or 40 manufacturers making them, are what create this market. If one maker is producing a dozen models (counting American and Euro versions on the same one), the attention to detail in production will probably, almost certainly be reduced and the quality off the production line lowered. It used to be that the rationale was that Buffet and Selmer (and maybe Leblanc) were less expensive than their counterparts in the other woodwinds. But the prices of Buffets have risen to match the prices of Loree and Haines.
I didn't intend to start the Buffet vs the world debate again, but it seems to me the problem of material might be somewhat mitigated if we just kept our clarinets longer.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-05-20 03:41
Karl,
You're right, of course.
I didn't explain myself too clearly. I was referring to growing the number of manufacturers - not spreading the already limited resources of the existing manufactures.
I would rather have too many choices than too few. Luckily, for me - I think these choices exist right now - due to the used instrument marketplace. (I find Bob's idea fascinating!)
However, each instrument company seems to be content to be gobbled up by the next bigger instrument company - this doesn't really help the consumer in the end. Resources get spread very thin by the big company, then models get dropped, quality sags, etc. I agree with what you state as the expected result.
I'd love to see more (not fewer) Ridenour-type folks out there fighting in the marketplace with the older names. However, as long as we remain loyal to old names - based (mostly) on name recognition and historic relevance; and not on the current quality/product - then we handicap the few Ridenour-types out there willing to take on the challenge; and lessen the success/number of any such new businesses in the marketplace.
Looking at the previous century - there was an explosion of manufactures and ideas. We still find these in museums, attics, auction sites, etc. - some are quite good. Most of my preferred daily-play clarinets are these sneered-upon historic footnotes. There is a decent-sized market for many of these discontinued makes/models. (The Improved Selmer, for instance, has quite a following.)
Now that we're in the technological revolution - it would seem to be a prime time to see another explosion of manufacturers and ideas. I hope it happens.
Respectfully,
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-05-20 10:53
Thanks for the link, Dave.
What made me chuckle is that while he endorsed non-new instruments...he avoided indicating he'd play on "used" instruments!
"Well, I don't necessarily buy late[st] models. I buy something...something that a...that I know is good. It may...it may be an older instrument that hasn't been used!" - Harold Wright
He then goes on to explain that he is currently playing a 20-year-old set which has never been used.
I guess we better start hoarding! Oh, wait - perhaps that is contrary to the thread?!
;^)>>>
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2017-05-20 13:14
Just had a small 2 day get together with Guy Chadash, Steve Barta recently retired from the Baltimore Sym, Boris Allakhverdyan, the new principal with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and a few very gifted students.
Guy has a new, very good, hard rubber upper joint Bb clarinet. All of us played it and it sounds as good as a Buffet R13, actually better, because it plays in tune. I think Guy was excited with the response from all of us, so expect to see him come out with a complete hard rubber horn in a very short time. He's pricing it at $5500 or so. For a handmade clarinet this is a give away gift. Silver plated keys, cork pads, plays in tune, has that old 1960's sweet sound, easy to play upper register, it will last for decades.
The weird part is it looks, feels, weighs, the same as wood. I had no idea it was rubber. The sound quality is there. I didn't have to make any adjustments. It's simply a great horn. Guy handed the horn to me and said "Try this!" I thought it was a wood clarinet. A new model or something.
So if Guy can do this with hard rubber there is no reason why we need special wood.
Call Guy and place your order if you really want an R13 that will last the rest of your life. (917) 497-4600.
I did buy 2 adjustable pitch barrels for my Yamaha's. These barrels are also pretty amazing. I tested a few before finding the right one then WOW! Seems like every note pitch wise on the Yamaha is dead on. The sound also warmed up even more. Steve Barta commented on it. Guy is doing it right! So there were a few of the best players around admiring his horns, his barrels, the bells. It's surely worth calling him.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Maddmatts
Date: 2017-05-20 17:50
Aramid fiber composite might also be a good material as it's more easily layered in tight compound curves than graphite fiber (bells). And being less in demand, it's considerably less expensive.
Yamaha would actually be a good company to pioneer the use of composites as they already have personnel experienced in using them in it's motorsports division.
The one downside to composites of any kind is that the fibers will wick moisture deeper into the material. By itself it shouldn't be that big of an issue. But if it's ever allowed to freeze, the expanding ice can cause the layers to delaminate. Which is something most of us are already used to avoiding.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jthole
Date: 2017-05-21 01:25
As said before, there are many variables involved, so it's hard to say how much difference material makes. Is the "thin" sound of my Yamaha plastic clarinet due to the plastic, or to the (beginner friendly) bore? I can imagine that the density of the material influences the stability of the air column inside the instrument, but I'm not a scientist (and even then, it's probably difficult to measure the materials influence, given the differences between clarinets of the same model).
My "belief" is that denser materials give a fuller sound and a better response, but again, there are so many variables involved.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2017-06-29 08:07
I'm waiting for someone to make clarinets out of Ipe, which is a farmed wood mostly used for decking in this country. It does have some checks in the wood which detract from appearance but has no effect on strength. Ipe has a high silica content which makes it not great for cutting tools but also means the wood barely burns. It is dense enough that it sinks. It is supposedly rated as 100 years for ground contact (compared with pressure treated that can rot away in 40 years. The stuff is an attractive brown but not showy. It is incredibly strong. Of domestic woods, I'd be curious about Osage Orange.
I'm with Fuzzy except i'm playing boehm system metal clarinets mostly from the 1930s. Sold everything wood because I couldn't tell much difference. Some, but not much, and I suspect the differences are due to geometry of bore, placement of holes and undercutting. I think Bonade did research and concluded that maybe the barrel material makes a difference (and surprise -- lighter more porous wood might be better. Except that it warps and cracks. And the mouthpiece clearly makes a difference. I don't think i sound much different on a Silva Bet or Conn 524N than on the 1970s Vito I restored for someone. I find the pro metals easier to play but people sitting across the room might not notice anything.
Seems like Howarth made a pro model ($4000) made from PVC. I have a 3D printed PVC tenor sax mpc that plays better than the $160 Tone Edge I used to use. And it is less than half the weight. (It is not better than my much more expensive Theo Wanne, but I could live with the PVC one.)
So yeah, I'd love to try a carbon fiber clarinet. And I'm looking forward to print your own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2017-06-29 09:16
Bob,
Now that is news. Chadash coming out with an all rubber clarinet! I almost missed this; maybe so everyone will notice, you should put it up again as a new thread?
Since Ridenour's continued success with rubber clarinets, many have been wondering when Buffet, Selmer, or Yamaha might jump in with a pro rubber model. But now Chadash is going to beat them to the punch.
So how would you compare the sound of the rubber Chadash you tried with the Yamaha CSVR? It is as "room-filling"? I can imagine a slogan for it, "Rubber with a ring that can sing." If the rubber Chadash begins to catch on with the pros, that could really shake up things. No more status quo.
Post Edited (2017-07-06 19:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-06-29 17:42
"Ipe has a high silica content which makes it not great for cutting tools"
not great for cutting tools sadly = slower manufacturer and more frequent blade replacements and sharpenings which = $
Grenadilla, or so Tom Ridenour (who yes is baised as a hard rubber clarinet salesman) http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/the-grenadilla-myth.html claims was originally chosen by the clarinet making community based on cheaper machining costs, more than sound quality.
=======
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2017-06-29 18:39
WhitePlainsDave wrote:
> "Ipe has a high silica content which makes it not great for
> cutting tools"
>
> not great for cutting tools sadly = slower manufacturer and
> more frequent blade replacements and sharpenings which = $
>
> Grenadilla, or so Tom Ridenour (who yes is baised as a hard
> rubber clarinet salesman)
> http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/the-grenadilla-myth.html
> claims was originally chosen by the clarinet making community
> based on cheaper machining costs, more than sound quality.
>
> =======
Check out the workability/hardness etc. of the 2 woods here.
http://www.wood-database.com/ipe
http://www.wood-database.com/african-blackwood
ipe: pronounced blunting effect on cutting edges
blackwood : extreme blunting effect on cutters
Mopane is another candidate that Amati made some clarinets from a few years ago.
http://www.wood-database.com/mopane
Post Edited (2017-06-29 19:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-06-29 18:50
Tried a German system mopane Bb at S&S. Couldn't tell much difference in sound and feel between it and grenadilla. They say the density is about the same but the grain is "shorter" and the sound has fewer high partials. Really beautiful wood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2017-06-29 19:25
The blunting effect on cutting edges of materials was a factor in Hans Colbers, mouthpiece maker in the Netherlands, giving up on Zelltec mouthpieces from Leitner and Kraus. He liked the sound of the very hard Zelltec wooden composite pieces but could not reface them without ruining his tools. Leitner and Kraus followed up by finding a way to injection mold Grenadilla mouthpiece blanks, which, according to Colbers, produces a beautiful sound and can be easily refaced without detriment to his tools. And, he points out, Leitner and Kraus have found a way to make the Grenadilla impervious to water without using chemical coatings, sealants, or other chemical methods.
As a result of these improvements, most of Colbers' mouthpieces are now made of the L&K process Grenadilla wood. http://www.hanscolbers.com/material.php?LN=0.
Post Edited (2017-07-01 20:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-06-30 00:55
Dibbs:
My comment was directed at Jim Lande's assessment of Ipe, which may differ in workability than he reports.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-06-30 00:57
@Bob Bernardo:
Bob...ever play a Paulus and Schuler Zoom Barrel such that you might share with us a comparison of it to Guy's (Chadash) adjustable barrel?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-06-30 03:01
Quote from WhitePlainsDave:
Quote:
Grenadilla, or so Tom Ridenour (who yes is baised as a hard rubber clarinet salesman)
"Based" or "Biased"?
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-06-30 07:46
Biased.
But since you raise the question, either can apply.
A manufacturer based in hard rubber clarinet sales is apt to believe in his product with more than complete objectivity (not that I don't have complete respect for RCP and its wares.)
And a manufacturer biased towards a clarinet making material is apt to be production-based in that material.
But all of this speaks to the obvious.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2017-06-30 08:10
People who make rubber clarinets are biased in favor of rubber??!! You might as well say that Thomas Edison was biased in favor of tungsten when after much trial and error he settled on that material for the filament in his incandescent light bulb. If Thomas Ridenour and now Guy Chadash, after years of designing and making clarinets of wood, turn to rubber instead of (or at least in addition to) wood , isn't it much more likely that they have been led by empirical evidence and inspection of the objective properties of the material to overcome their former bias towards wood and to discover the virtues of rubber of which even they had not at first been aware? Isn't it more likely that they started out with the usual assumptions that wood is better than rubber and by hard effort and honest questioning found reasons to believe otherwise?
This is not bias; it sounds more like the unbiased search for truth to me.
Post Edited (2017-06-30 20:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sax panther
Date: 2017-06-30 14:12
It's great news that Guy Chadash has started to make hard rubber instruments. I'm in the UK and we don't see a lot of ridenours here (Leslie Craven does import them though), but I'd love to try one out.
Personally I'd love to see all the major manufacturers have a go at making a pro level hard rubber instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-06-30 17:31
Seabreeze, have you played one of the Colbers composite mouthpieces, and if so, what were your impressions?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2017-06-30 18:07
No, I haven't tried them yet. Actually, he rejected the composite L&K blank (the Zelltec) for the newer injection molded Grenadilla one by L&K, which he can work on without dulling his tools. I haven't tried his mouthpieces yet but have corresponded with him. I plan to try a couple of his before the end of the year (the two that have facings somewhat similar to--but longer than--the Vandoren B40 lyre and the Vandoren CL6). His prices are quite reasonable compared with prices charged by makers of handmade mouthpieces in the U.S.
Post Edited (2017-06-30 18:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-06-30 19:46
Seabreeze:
As a RCP clarinet owner, my support for Ridenour's products, not to mention my belief that there is nothing special about the sound granadilla clarinets make (all why I am a tried and true Buffet owner/player) is well established on this very thread, let alone in numerous historical bboard posts I've made. I've always claimed craftsmanship over materials, while equally accepting of the fact that clarinets can't be made out of swiss chese (i.e. many but not all materials may be acceptable.)
I also own Chadash barrels and have enormous respect for Guy. He and I share close friends. (That statement is not to brag, but to expose even the appearance of conflict of interest--which is what this post is really all about.)
It nevertheless becomes important, as someone who wants to convey information on the bboard that others might read and act upon, I think at least, to furnish the caveat, even if it might be obvious to others, that we all come to life with biases, that rather than deny, it's better to be honest about.
It is likely that Tom and Guy tout their wares with even greater acclaim than they deserve, which is to in no way denigrate their products. Because, at the end of the day they are salesman. They may not even realize they are doing it or deliberately do it.
That their claims are largely true, speaking as a consumer of their products, I've never taken issue with. In fact, if anything, I have bias towards RCP products. And the reason I furnish this fact is for the same reasons I cite Chadash/Ridenour biases: to convey the humility that consumers take my suggestions (or Tom's or Guy's) with the appropriate weight they deserve, rather than as gospel.
Maybe it would help to say I believe all clarinet manufacturer's biased, with Tom being one of the least so? But it would be only rehashing my original unbiased claim that we all have biases: which does not equate with lying.
I made this claim as the last sentence of my opening to this thread. Why no chime in then?
Post Edited (2017-06-30 20:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-06-30 21:12
Seabreeze, thanks! Let us know how they work. I really wish more of the European makers did PayPal or cards, because the SWIFT system is a colossal pain to use here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-06-30 21:21
Quote from WhitePlainsDave:
Quote:
Grenadilla, or so Tom Ridenour (who yes is baised as a hard rubber clarinet salesman)
Tom was a clarinet manufacturer (of wood clarinets) who, through observation, and decades of experience came to the professional opinion that rubber is a superior material for clarinet manufacturing.
The term "bias" normally implies a decision made without reason, experience, or thought before-hand.
His outlook on hard rubber clarinets is more of an informed professional opinion than it is a bias.
I know your posts are always thoughtful, and carefully worded - that's the reason the word "biased" hit me oddly in this particular context. Perhaps it is simply a regional difference in the usage of the word?
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetRobt
Date: 2017-06-30 22:23
I kinda had the same thought when I read "baised". Although it was probably an honest typo (I know I have plenty), but I enjoy the thought that it's Freudian slip of biased + based.
Tom's Rod Rubber horns are great instruments. After his experience with grenadilla, he concluded rod rubber is better for various reasons Tom talks about.
I guess my thought is we need more of a renaissance to improve the manufacturing process and add consistency to the end product versus finding a better "carrot" to make the instrument. Yamaha seems to get this idea. Buffet was finally force to follow suit after decades of sub-par product (I suspect this thought about Buffet is still disputable and make some mad. But I'm no fanboy of the brand - yes I play one - so I admit my conflicting bias.) Furthermore I could be wrong with my assessment here, to improve manufacturing, and I just don't appreciate how hard it is to make a clarinet.
Maybe we need technology to 3D print a clarinet out of Rod Rubber to the exact specs of Marcellus' or Frost's, or anyone's, clarinet. But alas, I know it's not that simple - different raw materials would change the specs.
~Robt L Schwebel
Mthpc: Behn Vintage
Lig: Ishimori, Behn Delrin
Reed: Legere French Cut 3.75/4, Behn Brio 4
Horns: Uebel Superior (Bb,A), Ridenour Lyrique, Buffet R13 (Eb)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-07-01 05:03
Fuzzy - I see and meant the word bias in a less binary way, and more as a matter of degree, especially since we all have them.
The are so many biases that there are many categories of bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Glad we better understand each other.
==
As for Mr. Schwebel's wishes
"I guess my thought is we need more of a renaissance to improve the manufacturing process and add consistency to the end product versus finding a better "carrot" to make the instrument."
Sometimes we can have both. Sometimes even, the carrot can improve manufacturing consistency--as I believe is the case with the use of hard rubber for instruments and the ability to machine to tolerance that are impossible with less dimensionally stable wood
===o
I am just waiting for Buffet to start making clarinets of non grendilla or its pixie dust variety (Greenline).
Alllow me to write the sales copy:
"Through careful and rigorous material and engineering study Buffet has found a way, not available before, to replicate the craftsmanship and sound qualities of its product offering into other natural (rubber) and proprietary synthetic materials (Backun speak for the plastic of which his Alpha is made.)"
Translation: were selling craftsmanship more than that both craftsmanship and materials as the good grenadilla is to expensive for us to compete with other vendors who have made the transition away from it.
The "not available before" hype is to avoid Buffet loyalists from saying, "why didn't you just make clarinets out of these material before, and pass along the savings to us?"
Post Edited (2017-07-01 05:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: smokindok
Date: 2017-07-01 18:49
ClarinetRobt said:
"I guess my thought is we need more of a renaissance to improve the manufacturing process and add consistency to the end product versus finding a better "carrot" to make the instrument."
For those not familiar with the carrot ClarinetRobt is referring to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BISrGwN-yH4
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: toffeeman3
Date: 2017-07-02 05:24
I think that a lot of the perception comes down to our attitude to wood and plastic as desirable materials.
A smartphone will be made of plastic and be desirable but a piece of furniture will be made of wood and be desirable.
my question is that why do only student models be made of plastic but professional modles be made of wood.
This is not the case with mouthpieces where the best modles
Vandoren Riffault are made with synthetics.
07469847273
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-07-02 08:13
Toffeeman3:
Once upon a time, there was no plastic. Clarinets were made out of wood, and the wood primarily chosen, grenadilla, was done so because it machined easily (read: cheaper to make) more than for the beautiful sound it made/makes.
As plastics good became popular, people came to associate such hand made or at least hand finished clarinets with better quality than plastic ones, so people would not pay the same for plastic. Plastic items in other good were seen as cheap subsitututes for the metal they replaced.
Like you said, a lot of it is perception with respect to wood and plastic, and what each is used to make: clarinets, furniture, or water proof coating. For the latter, plastic might be seen as more desirable.
Meanwhile it was craftsmanship, more than wood or plastic that defined a good clarinet. But since people wouldn't pay top dollar for plastic, the price of those instruments were kept lower by making them with less quality, further perpetuating the myth that plastic (rather than poor craftsmanship) makes for bad clarinets.
Crazy world: if you perceive it to be inferior, you'll pay less. Manufacturers won't make that you believe to be inferior with quality, so it will be inferior. Perception drives quality.
Meanwhile, plastic and rubber are probably more dimensionally stable than wood, and likely easier to a more pitch accurate clarinet out of.
As good grenadilla becomes too expensive, as mentioned in a prior thread, manufactures will start using plastic, and rubber, and carbon fiber, promoted in slickly worded marketing glossies that code name these materials, and/and claim that only through space age research can they now use these materials, mock justifying why the couldn't use them all along (because cost and profit had to be less as the market demanded.)
Markets can be thrown out of kilter by misconceptions and hoarding of supply by the few, like in the diamond trade.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2017-07-02 22:28
Plastic is crap for a Clarinet........ Does not have the tone that good Wood has period.
Hard Rubber has a very nice sound, but is not the same as Wood either. Hard Rubber is a lot easier to work with though, so the construction can be more accurate for less $'s. Sound wise, it can sound very good, but different than Wood, just like Cocobolo sounds different than say Grenadilla.
Carbon Fiber I haven't tried much at all, so can't comment, but it does look very promising, and I have heard players sound very good on it - except there is some Carbon Fiber in my Backuns.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2017-07-03 00:02
Loree has made so many good wood oboes. But they have also made some hard rubber oboes which have been very fine and desired instruments.
A few years ago, I attended a discussion on materials with several makers and wood suppliers. One of the wood suppliers related that he knew that there was a very large supply of wood, but that it grew in places that were difficult to access. He said that it was so hard to find workers who would go to those sites, cut down the trees of extremely hard wood, and transport the heavy wood to places of civilization.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2017-07-03 00:59
When the Leblanc Bliss clarinet first came out eight or nine years ago, it was available in three versions, composite body and barrel, composite body with wood barrel, and wood body and barrel. At the time, Morrie Backun was still working for Leblanc, and he and Julian Bliss developed the composite material.
http://www.1800usaband.com/page/view/68
Leblanc was very proud of it, claiming the material was a "new proprietary material with better acoustic profiling and strength".
As far as I can tell, the all-wood Bliss is the only one still being made. I wonder if the old Bliss composite material is currently being used by any clarinet makers or if it will find its way into future clarinets.
Post Edited (2017-07-03 01:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stringguy
Date: 2017-07-03 01:28
What about using maple for a clarinet? It seems to work for violin backs and ribs. I wonder how it would sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-07-03 04:53
"I wonder if the old Bliss composite material is currently being used by any clarinet makers or if it will find its way into future clarinets."
I wonder if Backun's Alpha might be made of that material?
a "new proprietary material with better acoustic profiling and strength".
This was the marketing hype I spoke of that vendors will use for non-wood clarinets.
Nah, I doubt it.
Morrie's is "made from a proprietary synthetic material chosen for its excellent tonal qualities"
https://backunmusical.com/collections/clarinets/products/alpha-bb-clarinet
Couldn't possibly be the same stuff, could it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2017-07-03 08:36
Could someone explain to me as to why you can hold an old stencil Clarinet from the 1920 s or there abouts and other old makes of Clarinet way back then and feel the weight (heft) of these and then you pick up a modern and often expensive Clarinet and there really isn't any noticeble 'heft' Could it be that there is only second grade wood available and being used. now and that the really heavy dense quality granadilla (mpingo) is now almost depleted.
Skyfacer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2017-07-03 14:46
>> Could someone explain to me... <<
It depends on the model. Some new clarinets are especially heavy. I don't remember many new clarinets that are very light compared with old ones. I mean statistically, there are exceptions of course.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-07-03 16:59
"Couldn't possibly be the same stuff, could it?" Probably depends on what his lawyers told him. Doesn't sound like he's been sued, so there's probably been some care taken over patents and trade secrets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2017-07-03 17:40
Enjoying a new Greenline R13 ... I tried a few (3) and all were very similar. They are more consistent than the all wooden versions, I think. Actually very surprised at how well the old R13 design holds up when you eliminate the wood varibility ...
The thing about using a clarinet made of nontraditional material (such as rosewood, cocobolo, hard rubber, plastic, Greenline) is that yes, the material matters, but you can adjust your setup (reed, MP, barrel and other tweak items) to tailor the sound to you liking. The Greenline is denser and heavier, and the sound seems more concentrated, but I use a Scott (new slim design, lightweight plastic) barrel and Pilgerstorfer Dolce (not a trace of harshness) reeds to soften the sound ... The Libertas is warmer/darker, so I can use a brighter/lighter setup to add some ping.
IMHO, the most important specifications for material is stability and consistency, of which 100% wood is the worst choice.
I'd love an R13 in hard rubber or delrin plastic. I'd eschew a Lyrique Libertas in blackwood.
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2017-07-03 18:11
Barry: I disagree about weight, as my impression is that many makes of clarinet have got heavier with time. For example, here are 3 Buffet Bb's (without mouthpiece): 1936 715g; 1959 734g; 1982 749g. I don't have exact weights for recent models, but they feel similar to my 1982 model, whereas 1936 in particular is obviously lighter - you don't need scales to know this. My guess is that this trend arises because the walls of the instruments are thicker today - but obviously it's still possible that the density of the wood is changing. I agree that the older wood with its natural deep black colour and tight grain looks like it could be denser, but this needs to be measured directly - I wonder if anyone has done so?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2017-07-05 14:47
Buffet Greenline Festival 809.86g (1 lb. 12.57 oz)
Weight including Vandoren 5JB mouthpiece, Binade inverted ligature, and Vandoren reed (actual playing weight) 852.90g (1 lb. 14.09 oz). This model has the auxiliary Ab/Eb lever.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: shmuelyosef
Date: 2017-07-06 05:49
I agree with John Peacock...my late model Selmer is noticeably (both perception and measurement) heavier than my Series 9 or Centered Tone. I like playing lighter horns as it is just less wear and tear on the hands and shoulders.
...seabreeze said:
"when Buffet, Selmer, or Yamaha might put jump in with a pro rubber model"
I think the Leblanc Bliss experiment mentioned above provides a great metric, although I have not personally gone to the trouble of hunting down a wood and composite version to test, although I'm looking for a composite clarinet for 'unfortunate' outdoor gigs and it's come down to probably either a composite Bliss or a Buffet B12.
The Ridenours have a following but the cheaper ones have been plagued (reportedly) with keywork issues. Everyone agrees that they are spectactularly in tune (I don't understand why that has not been accomplished with wood, but in may come down to the shrinkage variation amongst instruments and the fact that the fully dry bore is generally oval, not circular...however, that non-linearity in the air column might just provide the 'ping' that has been declared desirable.
I would jump on the chance to get an instrument identical to my Series 9 (perhaps with some intonation correction) in a high quality lightweight composite. My scientific background makes me believe that the material contribution to sound is negligible (as has been amply demonstrated in flutes) as woodwinds are just air columns; the wall texture is potentially the only effect of material and that is easily imitated (if desired) in composite (like the finish on some of the Leblanc Bliss instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2017-07-06 17:13
Maybe Buffet will come out with a line of Urban Clarinets in tasteful neon colors! More seriously, nearly everything depends on sales volume rather than objective merits. With the large corporate owned makers, a new initiative has to demonstrate it's worth at the bottom line within a limited time. It does look like educated attitudes have moved a long way in the past couple decades, but the willingness to spend two or three grand on something other than wood needs to percolate into the mainstream before it will be sustainable. It looks like Greenline has started to do that, but that probably means that some other company will need to take the next step.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
