 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: KenAbbott
Date: 2001-08-17 00:25
I'm looking at an older (65+ years) Buffet full Boehm. Anybody have any opinions about Buffets from the 1930's?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-08-17 00:42
Different bore. Many of these instruments have held up well over time, which speaks well of the quality of manufacture, I believe. I think they are nice instruments, but everything I see is (somewhat) overpriced for their age. Obviously, I subscribe to the theory that newer is better on keywork. I also like the poly-bore better than the older pre-RC bore. I had a 17/6 regular 30,xxx that JButler overhauled for me. It turned out quite nicely & was easy to play. mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Horlick
Date: 2001-08-17 04:33
Ken,
I love mine. Nice sound, plays easier than my R13. I haven't played it in the orchestra yet. It also makes my thumb numb. I am going to try a fu-fu pad on the rest (I used to tell my daughter only a fu-fu used those, but she insisted it was needed... now I have to admit she was right and I wasn't). I also bought an adjustable rest from Buffet to fit on there if the padding fails to fix the problem. It will require two new holes. The old thumb rest was mortised into the back of the horn so there will be a spot to fill in(dag-nab it!).
I don't know where to find one, watch e-bay and keep looking.
Terry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-08-17 14:21
We had several threads earlier re: "pre-Carree" Buffets, where I related my good friend's experience with 2 '30's Buffs, briefly, major problems in the Articulated C#/G# mechanism on the Full Boehm, the 17/6 wasquite satisfactory. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-17 14:49
Don't pay much for it, whatever you do.
I was discussing this with a colleague recently. Neither of us could figure out why some people insist that older Buffet clarinets are particularly desirable.
The best clarinets Buffet has ever made are the ones they are selling right now, in my opinion. This opinion is shared by the majority of professionals known to me.
Thus my advice is, make sure that whatever you pay for a used Buffet (including the undoubtedly necessary overhaul) is far, far less than what a new one would cost.
Good luck.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-08-17 14:55
David -
I'll be happy to let you play my Buffet Bb # 3675 or my Buffet C # 2525 (both from 1929). Then you can decide what's better.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-08-17 15:13
I have a question to the Buffet players out there (especially David H. and Ken S.) --- I recently repadded two R-13's, one less than 5 years old and one maybe 20 years old, and both were excellent clarinets. I don't personally play a Buffet clarinet, instead I play on whatever "off-brand" I overhaul which catches my fancy, and I've made this observation: The biggest difference I could detect between my better "off-brands' and the R-13s was that the R-13s didn't have nearly the tendency to play sharp at low volumes in the lower register. I'm not downplaying this at all, it's a significant difference when playing in any kind of ensemble. So would y'all care to comment on my latest thought, that the polycylindrical bore of R-13 and later Buffets (and the recent 'copycat' polycylindrical Leblancs and Selmers) is mainly an advantage for intonation? As far as tone, response, key feel, and general workmanship, I believe that my humble "Jacques Robert Professional" clarinet was every bit the equal of the two R-13s I tried, but that the Buffets definitely had more stable intonation with variations in dynamic level.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hat
Date: 2001-08-17 19:37
I am not speaking necessarily about general workmanship issues.
There are basically two major issues that I, as a professional, and perhaps the majority of my colleagues address when selecting an instrument. These are
#1 intonation
#2 general response characteristics and evenness of sound throughtout the range of the instrument.
There is no question in my mind that the current issue of Buffet clarinets, whatever model, play better in tune than any issued previously by Buffet. Some will need some after-purchase undercutting, etc.
There is also no question that certain other clarinets have better mechanical setups. Particularly handmade clarinets like Wurlitzer. No comparison.
This being said, it must be understood that no clarinet PLAYS in tune. There are only varying degrees of out-of tune-ness. With the current Buffet, one can get very, very close. With some other models by other manufacturers, one really can't. But the situation now is far better than it ever has been before.
Of course, the design changes necessary to get these intonation can compromise certain response charactaristics to some degree. That may be why some people prefer older clarinets. They may seem easier to play and be 'close enough' intonationwise for non-professional purposes.
For me, intonation must come first and everything else must be adjusted for that.
My perspective.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-08-17 20:52
But David, isn't a professional such as yourself very adept at compensating for slight intonation deficiencies while playing? Hypothetically-speaking (and I know this is tough to answer like all hypothetical questions), if clarinet "X" had a preferable tone quality compared to clarinet "Y", but "X" had intonation deviating more from perfection than clarinet "Y", might you be inclined to select "X" anyway, knowing that you could compensate for the intonation while benefitting from the more desirable tone color? Or is (as I interpret it) your approach to optimize intonation by instrument selection, then adjust the other parameters such as tone, response, and dynamic range by selection of mouthpiece, reed, and ligature? Just a nosy inquiry into the thought processes of the professional musician..........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-17 21:50
Good questions, actually. Here is my answer: Perhaps the most important thing to remember about being a professional as opposed to an amateur or afficionado (or whatever) is that I don't play just for my own satisfaction. I have to satisfy others as well.
If I were to take 10 different clarinets and 10 different mouthpieces to work without telling anyone what I was doing, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would notice any tonal difference in my playing (unless an instrument was of decidedly inferior quality, but let's assume that isn't the case). This is not to say there would be no tonal difference, but at its most extreme, the difference would probably only be noticable to another clarinet player. I would hear a difference, but you would be amazed at how little non-clarinetists (even those with very fine ears) notice very subtle tonal character changes.
However, any intonational deficiencies caused by a difficult to tune setup would be noticed immediately by all better musicians. This is something you can count on every time. Slight tonal colors make little difference in (at least the early rounds of) an audition, but play out of tune? You're out. . .no second chance. That's how important it is.
In the big picture, one's sound quality is determined far more by internal concept than by equipment. The final 5-10% can be enhanced or altered (or disturbed, I suppose) by changing physical equipment, but the basic sound is inside. Again, this particular portion is unlikely to be noticed by anyone besides the person doing the playing.
Also, of course subtle adjustments must be made while playing to get certain things in tune. However, if one has to do extreme embochure deviations to get, say, a soft low register note low enough, that will affect the sound quality anyway. And it's dangerous!
Thus, my advice is: find equipment that is easy to play and sounds good, but MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T PLAY OUT OF TUNE. You'll get your sound regardless.
Another comment: the external perception of a clarinetist's tone quality is inserperably linked to the player's intonation. It is virtually impossible to 'sound' beautiful or even good if you play out of tune. Try it as an experiment when you play with a pianist. Tape yourself playing flat or sharp on purpose and see what your tone sounds like. You'll be impressed at how your perception is affected, I believe.
Finally, of course I try to find a clarinet with that nice 'pingy' quality that I like. I just choose the nicest sounding ones from the in-tune clarinets I have selected. I don't fine the best in tune of the nice-sounding clarinets. Does that make sense?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Danielle
Date: 2001-08-18 04:32
I've got a buffet made in 1936 that I use all the time, as it's the only clarinet I own. I'm getting it overhauled soon, as a spring recently broke, as I want to make sure that nothing else happens. Also, the keys are too high. But, overall, it's a great clarinet, and I get a great sound out of it.
Danielle
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2001-08-18 16:04
I agree with Hat--intonation is most important in playing, then sound. I have always thought that we clarinetists tend to get "too hung up" going through tons of new mps, ligs, reeds, and etc looking for "the sound" while our audiencies really only want to hear the correct notes played in the correct places (rhythm) and--most importantly--IN TUNE (with acceptable musical pharsing). No amount of technique or musical skill can compensate for not being able to play in tune and contribute to the harmonius sound of the ensemble, rather than being "sightly out" and harmonically destroying any ensmebles effort at sounding beautiful. Basic rule: an "in tune" note is a "beautiful" note. So, clarinetists of the board, get out those tuning meters and learn the tuning characterists of your instruments--and then you will all sound as good as you look, maybe better (or worse, but whose pc is watching anyhow) TUNE UP--and Good Clarineting!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jerry McD.
Date: 2001-08-19 00:27
To David.......forever and ever, amen! The one caveat I would put to William's post about tuners. Everyone should do themselves a favor and not become slaves to their tuners. Yes you have to know where "in tune" is on your clarinet; however, once you get into an ensemble we all know how the pitch can fluctuate and it is imperative that we can move with it. I recently played a piece in my community orchestra (where pitch is a difficult matter to begin with) where I had a solo line in unison with a muted trumpet...ouch. Same piece a little later, unison woodwinds in the altissimo register...I was in tune and it sounded terrible...double ouch. The question is in tune with what? You can be in tune all day long in the practice room and sound terrible in an ensemble. That is one of the things that makes playing in an ensemble difficult. Can you tell that pitch is one of my pet peeves? Have fun, play in tune, and be flexible!
Jerry McD.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2001-08-19 00:38
HAT sure hit the nail on the head. Every Buffet I've tried sounds different but maybe no one else cares as long as it is in tune enough. Everyone seems to be looking for a "dark" sound but, for the conductor and the co-players, it is necessary to phrase musically and play in tune.
I have a 1912 full Boehm Bb clarinet and a 1921 full Boehm A clarinet(with low Eb). They both sound great but not the same as R 13's. The bodies of these clarinets seem to be thinner and, thus, they don't weigh as much as the R 13 counterparts. Someday, I will probably sell them as an upgrade to a student at a reasonable price.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-08-19 06:05
I would like to associate myself with ALL of the extremely perceptive remarks posted by David Hattner! I only wish that I had many of the same abilities to express them so convincingly and with such clarity and perspective.
Sure you don't do some writing for some respected journal on the side David?
Compare his prioritising and real world explanations to the usual hype put out by the PR depts. of any instrument manufacturer (what is "playability" anyway, and what is the genesis of such utter, euphemistic nonsense?) and if it isn't clear who knows what, well, what's the saying? - "If one hasn't any sense, it's for a long, long time".
Gregory Smith
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dave
Date: 2001-08-19 11:58
I personally have tried a large number of new R-13s and have to say that the quality of these instruments is down right poor. Most are out of tune and/or uneven and unrefined in sound compared to earlier R-13s.
I do not especially feel like sinking a mint into tone hole surgery with an uncertain result, or buying a generic sounding clarinet that plays "perfectly" in tune. The tone holes could be adjusted to my current setup, but what happens to the pitch if I switch mouthpieces and/or barrels later on? The whole thing could possibly go off kilter. Tone hole surgery is very dangerous and I wouldn't want to risk it.
I would also rather fight pitch a bit with a great sounding clarinet (within certain limits) than play perfectly in tune with a generic or not as good sounding instrument, sacrificing sound. Aren't we supposed to be artists like the rest of the musical population, striving for the most beautiful sound possible? (as I said, within limits of course)
My Bb is an R-13 made in 1968 and I purchased my most recent A in 1995. They are very well in tune as far as Buffets go, not perfect but close enough that I can adjust pitch comfortably. I love them because they have the sound and flexibility I like and match each other well. I have probably tried 50 or so R-13s of all makes in the past few years; prestige, festival, silver plated, nickel, etc and haven't found anything worthwhile. Once in a while I find one that is descent but none have the sound that I like in a good Buffet. My opinion is that the quality control at Buffet is out to lunch. These clarinets just don't have the same quality craftsmanship that they once had.
These are just my thoughts and I do not intend on ruffling any feathers out there. I have decided to abandon Buffet and invest in Chadash clarinets. Guy's clarinets beat Buffet hands down; good intonation, flexibility, evenness and a great sound. Many big name orchestral clarinetists are using them now. For those of you who do not know him, Guy Chadash is probably the finest repairman in New York city. He is the maker of the Chadash barrel for Buffet and now makes his own clarinets. You can visit his site at:
www.chadash-clarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-08-20 14:11
Dave said:
"I have decided to abandon Buffet and invest in Chadash clarinets. Guy's clarinets beat Buffet hands down; good intonation, flexibility, evenness and a great sound.
*******************************************************************************************
With all due respect, you seem to be comparing apples to oranges. The superb abilities of Mr. Chadash to handmake a clarinet to your liking seems irrelevant in the face of comparing such to a Buffet where everything but putting the final touches in the bore is now accomplished by machine. And I say this as a Buffet artist. IMO, this would be the rough equivalent of comparing a machine made Vandoren mouthpiece to a fine handmade mouthpiece.
G Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: B.F.
Date: 2001-08-21 14:42
One of the most interesting and pertinent exchanges I've read in the on-line clarinet community since I started checking things out in 1994. The old vs. new thread is constantly recurring. I agree with everything said, yet I can't dismiss from my thoughts the obvious dependance that some present-day makers have on using about the "old" names when presenting their products. So many times I've asked, without an illuminating reply, why those working now in mouthpieces (as well as instruments) continue to relate their products to the old-time equipment, yet without disclosing in what specific ways the new products bears technical resemblance to the old stuff, whether's it's "Kaspar," "Chedeville," or "Buffet Vintage." B.F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-08-22 22:53
Bill,
There are some general characteristics that one or more makers could relate about Kaspar and Chedeville (and all would differ to some degree) but to get specific to the point that you perhaps may be enquiring about enters the realm of propritary information. The general things aren't of much use but may be somewhat interesting.
G Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
