 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Kenny G the chosen one
Date: 2026-11-03 14:44
I need to vent about a bizarre contradiction I keep seeing in the clarinet community, and I want to see if anyone else finds this as illogical as I do.
Why do so many players spend $4,000 to $8,000 on a high-end Buffet polycylindrical bore—like an R13 or a Tosca—specifically designed for that famous, vibrant "French ring" and projection, only to immediately panic at their own high-frequency overtones and try to muffle the instrument to death?
I constantly see people buying these vibrant horns and then immediately slapping on heavy-mass gear like massive Silverstein ligatures or ultra-dense Backun Fatboy barrels, along with thick rubber mouthpiece patches and stiff reeds, all in a desperate chase for an ultra-dark tone. By forcing the instrument to do something it wasn't acoustically designed to do, they are just fighting the physics. You add massive resistance, deaden the response, lose the dynamic range, and destroy the projection in a real hall just to make it sound "cozy" to your own ears in a tiny practice room.
If your tonal ideal is a pitch-black, covered, velvety sound, doesn't it make infinitely more acoustic sense to start with an inherently darker instrument and open it up, rather than choking a bright one?
A strategic approach would be starting with an instrument engineered for warmth and fundamental depth from the ground up:
• Yamaha CSGIII: Thicker walls, German-influenced bore, inherently dark core.
• Buffet RC Family (RC, Prestige, Divine): A smoother, rounder, more focused taper than the R13.
• Yamaha SE Family (SEVR, Artist): Designed specifically for that fat, warm, European orchestral warmth.
If you start with an RC, an SE, or a CSGIII, your baseline is already dark and full. If you need a bit more "ping," center, or brilliance to cut through, you can make an efficient acoustic adjustment: use a lighter, highly resonant ligature or a slightly more free-blowing mouthpiece. This reduces resistance, makes the horn more agile, and keeps the natural resonance alive. Adding brilliance to a dark bore works with the physics; throttling a vibrant bore with heavy hardware works against it.
Why are we so obsessed with treating the R13/Tosca as the only "default" option, only to spend hundreds more on heavy gear to cancel out the exact qualities we paid for? Let's discuss.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-11-03 20:15
I haven't observed the findings you've described, although I want to be clear that this in no way suggests they don't exist.
More specifically, by saying I haven't observed them, I mean that I haven't seen any greater or lesser degree of aftermarket customization among certain Buffet models than among other Buffet models or instruments from other leading manufacturers.
While we're on the subject, a brief editorial observation: I wish there were considerably less of a tendency among players to try to solve problems with equipment. That's not to suggest that equipment doesn't matter enormously, particularly at the highest levels of playing. Rather, my point is that 60 years ago, equipment changes were less readily available and, consequently, less frequently pursued. Players instead tended to look inward, seeking solutions through their own development and playing, assuming a solution was even necessary in the first place.
That said, I don't want to be a Luddite about this. Amid all the snake oil, there have been some genuinely remarkable developments in clarinet equipment: synthetic reeds, 3D design, new materials, and so forth.
With that preamble, I'd like to boil your question down to what I think are its most essential elements: Why do players gravitate toward certain Buffet clarinets when instruments from other manufacturers might actually be better suited to their particular playing objectives right out of the box?
My answer would be that old habits die hard. Players may still be influenced by the preferences and equipment choices of earlier generations of teachers (read Buffet), some of whom are considerably more rigid in their thinking about what instruments one ought to play.
It's perhaps a little like that old corporate-world adage: "Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM."
Like IBM, Buffet may not be the best choice in every circumstance. And despite being a Buffet owner myself, if I were buying an instrument sight unseen, I'd probably buy ten Yamahas before I'd buy one Buffet, simply because I believe Yamaha's manufacturing consistency is orders of magnitude better, and that's on top of the differences in playing attributes of each manufacturer you describe.
And yet, I also somewhat subscribe to Mike Lowenstern's thinking on this subject (while recognizing that, as someone involved in the internet provided instrument business, he may have his own biases): namely, that if all instruments were properly set up before being sold—as he has undertaken to have done on his inventory—there would likely be considerably less variation in playability and consistency at least within a manufacturer's model.
Your frustrations may emanate from an expectation that market forces and rational alone should dictate purchase decisions. They don't, particularly in an area like musical instrument selection that is so personal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David H. Kinder
Date: 2026-11-04 02:48
Kenny G the chosen one wrote:
> I constantly see people buying these vibrant horns and then
> immediately slapping on heavy-mass gear like massive
> Silverstein ligatures or ultra-dense Backun Fatboy barrels,
> along with thick rubber mouthpiece patches and stiff reeds, all
> in a desperate chase for an ultra-dark tone.
I think you mean a focused tone?
Only the fatboy barrels would seem to add more tonal focus in your list through its wood weight and density.
Silverstein ligatures are not that massive or heavy. In fact, they are to help hold the reed and encourage as much vibration as possible.
Mouthpiece patches are for two reasons:
1) Protect the mouthpiece from teeth marks
2) Lower the mouthpiece in your mouth for a better air stream.
Neither reason is for a greater focused tone.
Stiff reeds are to be matched with the mouthpiece. I play Vandoren Traditional #5 strength reeds with my Ridenour Homage while I play Vandoren Traditional #3.5 / #4 with my Ridenour MT-36. Weak reeds (depending on the mouthpiece) create a buzz and cause squeaking. Stronger reeds usually don't do that. (Behn may be an exception as recently discussed, but I haven't experienced his gear other than his adjustable barrel.)
Every player has a sound concept. There are lots of tools to help facilitate that sound.
Ridenour AureA Bb clarinet
Ridenour Artist MT36 mouthpiece
Vandoren Optimum black ligature (plate 1)
Vandoren Traditional #3.5 reeds
Brad Behn HR adjustable barrel
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2026-11-04 08:58
Kenny G the chosen one wrote:
"I need to vent about a bizarre contradiction I keep seeing in the clarinet community, and I want to see if anyone else finds this as illogical as I do.
Why do so many players spend $4,000 to $8,000 on a high-end Buffet polycylindrical bore—like an R13 or a Tosca—specifically designed for that famous, vibrant "French ring" and projection, only to immediately panic at their own high-frequency overtones and try to muffle the instrument to death?..."
I believe the popularity of the R13 in the United States has been influenced, at least to some extent, by the historical roots of clarinet playing on both sides of the Atlantic.
Unlike Europe, where the clarinet tradition developed primarily within the classical music world, the instrument gained much of its early popularity in the United States through jazz and big-band music.
In that environment, the clarinet had to compete with instruments capable of producing considerably more volume. Players needed an instrument with enough projection and brightness to cut through trumpets, trombones, and saxophones.
Add to that the fact that American players often perform in less acoustically responsive venues, such as school auditoriums, compared with the churches and concert halls traditionally used by European orchestras.
I think these differences may help explain why, when the RC model was introduced, it became widely accepted in Europe but never achieved much popularity in the United States. Even today, major European clarinet shops often have several RC or RC Prestige instruments available, while finding an R13 can sometimes be difficult without pre-ordering. In the US, the situation is often the opposite.
Of course, this is just my personal observation, not an expert conclusion.
As for my own experience, I have gone from an R13 to an R13 Prestige, then to an RC Prestige, and eventually to a Selmer. The reason for each change was essentially the same: my sound was overly bright on the Buffet clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hy-Dex
Date: 2026-11-04 13:27
A thin, clear mouthpiece patch helps to reduce or eliminate any vibrations felt, but a thick, black mouthpiece patch definitely contributes to a thicker, darker (more colorless) tone, in the case of more discerning ears, anyway. I only contribute this information in the interest of clarification, not argument.
Hy-Dex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2026-11-04 18:30
I would tend to agree with the OP!
Preferences in clarinet sound have certainly changed somewhat during my life as a professional player.
As many will know, the English clarinet school split with some players following the style of BBC Principal Frederick Thurston and others embracing the vocal style of Reginald Kell. Arguably, Kell's whole playing style now sounds very dated and hardly any recordings exist that seem to demonstrate the way Thurston really sounded.
It is now the philosophy that counts and Kell believed that the clarinet should follow the human voice, both in terms of inflexion and even vibrato. The 'straight' sound relies on other factors being of interest but the danger is of a monotonous, almost alien sound that is a far cry from the colours present in the human voice.
We all play the sound that's in our heads - the sound we believe is the 'right' sound. At least that should be how it works but then there is the physiognomy we're born with which might push us in other directions. A few players embrace a setup that may exaggerate their physical tendencies. I have known several otherwise fine players who tend to sound 'under the note' or have too 'wide' a sound due to equipment choices that actually worsen their tendencies!
This is all very hard to describe in words but you can hear that tonal philosophy difference when you switch between many present day American players and the best of the 'on the breath, vocal style players' that have emanated from the English school.
For a while, English players shunned the Kell heritage. I remember playing 2nd to a principal in a UK provincial orchestra and asking him if he ever used vibrato. "Very occasionally", he said, "I 'warm' a note!". Truth was he thought anything more would be unacceptable.
The R13 bore is capable of a rich, sonorous sound allowing infinite flexibility. I moved very happily from Boosey and Hawkes 1010s to Prestige R13s and I think I produce the same 'noise' as I did before. Although I've bought and played many mouthpieces over the years I now play mostly on a standard Vandoren BD5 with a light Rovner ligature. A V12 reed at just strength 3 . I couldn't be further away from the dark, inflexible sound the OP describes. I aim for flexibility, a vocal style and just that occasional 'warming' of a note that you might almost call vibrato.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
