 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-10-26 01:19
I hope the title of this thread isn't overly-provocative, (I only meant it to be a little so.)
I thought it might be interesting to go through a list of things that our clarinet community commonly states, dare I say, "believes?" - but which have not (and perhaps can not) be proven.
For starters: I offer the magical Buffet "Ping" we see/hear/read so much about. I've neither heard, nor felt that "ping" on the Buffets I've played or heard. Perhaps someone could share an example? Is there some other way to more accurately describe what I'm supposed to hear/feel? (I've never seen fireworks when I've kissed someone either - maybe it's the same deficiency?) Haha!
Other similar topics...clarinet body material, filing the back side of the reed, reed humidity/care, ligatures, open vs closed mouthpieces, large bore vs small bore, "Jazz" clarinets, cracks/repaired cracks, etc.
So much of what we discuss falls within the range of placebo effect. Belief alone can help facilitate improvement...so perhaps that's the reason for our rigidity (and the large number of products in the clarinet market). We believe it works, so it works...for us, and maybe for you...or maybe not. Haha!
Again - not trying to make anyone mad or hurt anyone's feelings, just interested in what others might find to be myth in our clarinet world. My intention isn't to start a venting session, but more of an honest window of what we are taught vs what we are indoctrinated with.
I feel this can be an important exercise at various points in a musicians progression...at least it was for mine - and quite liberating.
Warmest Regards,
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: super20dan
Date: 2025-10-26 01:38
i am not a die hard buffet fan and own at least a dozen pro quality wood clarinets that are not bufffets but i notice a certain ring in the sound not present in my other clarinets but present in my 1983 r13
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-10-26 02:56
I've been spoilt by older Selmers as those were the first pro level clarinets I bought. Had I not gone with '50s Selmers (BT and CT), then it would've been Leblanc LLs, even though Buffets have always been the most popular choice.
Whenever I've tried Buffets, I find them too preset, predetermined and predictable players. They're just 'nice' clarinets.
And whenever I work on a Buffet I've never done any previous work on, it's become such a routine and tiresome/tedious thing to have to address and redo the same old problems time and time and time again.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
Independent Woodwind Repairer
Single and Double Reed Specialist
Oboes, Clarinets and Saxes
NOT A MEMBER OF N.A.M.I.R.
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Eichler
Date: 2025-10-26 05:03
The fact that, ever since the inception of the Buffet R-13, a great many top professionals have preferred this instrument tends to mitigate against the claim of a "placebo affect." This particular instrument has a particular combination of tonal quality, flexibility, and projection that makes it a preferred choice of many, even today, when there are so many fine alternatives from which to choose. I speak of the wooden R-13. I was not impressed with the sound of the R-13 Greenline the couple of times I tried one, though they might just have been mediocre copies.
"Ping" is a pretty subjective term, and I am not entirely sure you mean. If you mean that Buffets tend have a certain ringing quality to their tone. I would say that at least the R-13 does, which I attribute to a certain brilliance and complexity of the resonance of the tone. That said, I would say that all really high-quality clarinets need to have a certain ringing quality, though some might tend to sound darker than others. Of course darkness does imply some degree of subduing of higher overtones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2025-10-26 05:53
David Eichler wrote:
> The fact that, ever since the inception of the Buffet R-13, a
> great many top professionals have preferred this instrument
> tends to mitigate against the claim of a "placebo affect." This
> particular instrument has a particular combination of tonal
> quality, flexibility, and projection that makes it a preferred
> choice of many, even today, when there are so many fine
> alternatives from which to choose...
> "Ping" is a pretty subjective term, and I am not entirely sure
> you mean. If you mean that Buffets tend have a certain ringing
> quality to their tone. I would say that at least the R-13 does,
> which I attribute to a certain brilliance and complexity of the
> resonance of the tone. That said, I would say that all really
> high-quality clarinets need to have a certain ringing quality,
> though some might tend to sound darker than others. Of course
> darkness does imply some degree of subduing of higher
> overtones.
I can hear the "ping/ring" in the sound of Buffet clarinets when comparing to Selmers.
In direct comparison, it becomes clear that two great clarinet manufacturers have different sound concept.
Not that one is better than another, but they are different: Buffets sound brighter, warmer and Selmers have deeper and fuller tone - to my ears, anyway.
Of course, you have to compare apples to apples: R13 to Presence, Prestige/Tosca to Muse/Privilege, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2025-10-26 06:40
According to the following article, it is primarily the presence and strength of the 12th overtone of the fundamental which defines the "ping" of a clarinet tone. The article also goes into the importance of hearing the 12th overtone to guide a player in the choice of equipment and tongue voicing to enhance the 12th overtone "ping" in one's sound.
https://rharl25.wixsite.com/clarinetcentral-2/old-new-french-school
I found it to be a rather comprehensive article.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
