The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: Vandoren's date for introduction of 442 MP's ?

Author: NBeaty
Date: 2018-10-09 17:25

An M model isn't necessarily 440, since the M15 and M30 are offered in both 13 series 440 and standard 442.

I'm not sure of the exact date for the first M series mouthpiece, but I'd guess the late 80's/early 90's. All Vandorens in the three decades before the release of the M series were at 442. In the 50's, the Diamond Perfecta model was prevalent. I find most Diamond Perfecta Vandorens to tune closer to 440 than 442.

(Apologies for the rest of this post being only tangentially related)

Bob: "Even if you find a great Chedeville or a great Kaspar plan on buying a short barrel, because most likely you will be playing flat."

Maybe if you take every Cicero Kaspar out of the equation this would be close to something slightly resembling accurate.

Bob: "sometimes have to use a 63mm barrel on an A clarinet to to play in tune."

Never heard of a pro using such a short barrel, or anyone else non-jazz for that matter. I guess they're out there somewhere.

Bob: "I give a lot of credit to Ricardo with the Philly Orchestra for searching for the right setup."

Up until a couple months ago, he was using a crystal mouthpiece with an open tip (something you've railed against) with a hard plastic reed (pretty sure you've gone on plenty of rants about people using reeds that are too hard) and MoBa Cocobolo instruments (which you can't really argue is old school American sound). Despite this equipment, he sounds fantastic. I don't think that those who essentially copy his setup sound anything like him and in fact may sound closer if they were using a DIFFERENT setup than him.

So Bob, if you find that there has been a fundamental shift in equipment and sound preference in the last few decades, you'd have to attribute a fair bit to Backun and the subsequent creation of other companies doing similar things. It's really hard to say on one hand that Ricardo has helped to push against people wanting to change the overall American sound when the instruments and equipment he's given so much popularity to are changing the sound as much or more than anything else (for better or for worse...).

I see how you can argue that Buffets aren't as good as they used to be. I don't see how you can take that Buffet to Buffet comparison and conclude that they've been the root cause of the fundamental shifts in sound concept by many. Similarly, I can see the argument that 13 series vandorens are farther from ideal than standard. Again, I don't see how 13 series Vandorens are the root cause of fundamental changes in sound concept when you've had so many Zinner A blanks and hollow sounding babbitts out there in the same time period.

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics