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: articulated C#-G#

Author: jim lande
Date: 2001-07-30 03:59

All of my experience is with older metal clarinets, so take this for what it worth.

The two reasons stated for the articulated C#/G# are 1) better placement of the hole and 2) apparently it simplifies the addition of the extra trill key.

I have a Buffet which has the articulated mech. but no extra trill key, so at least one manufacturer did this for tone rather than trill reasons.

I have played Silver King and Silva Bet models that both had and did not have this arrangement. I am not convinced that the tone for the C# and G# are much better. Perhaps my ear is not good enough. (I have been fooling with a Selmer full boehm and I can't recall if my other one has the mech or not.)

Most interesting, each manufacturer had a different approach to making this key work. The Selmer is difficult to get to work right. The Buffet has flabby action and is really weird when you take it apart. In all cases, they are not as straight forward as the standard keywork and IMHO, based on a small and very vintage sample, appear to be more subject to problems. I'd be curious to hear what the pros think about this.

Buffet and some current makers have wood models with a single center section instead of two "joints". Most of the metal clarinets were made that way. Does anyone know of a maker who took advantage of the lack of a joint to locate a standard C#/G# tone hole further down the body? Why not? Was the tone hole placement more a matter of marketing than quality? Or is there some other reason besides the tenon explaining why the hole could not be moved without also having the hole in line with the finger holes? .

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics

Author

Date

articulated C#-G# new

Francesca

2001-07-29 03:12