 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: David Pegel
Date: 2002-04-04 03:14
Okay, I don't get this, and I'm not looking for any explaination (For once), But I want to share my observation that, of all the clarinets I have "sampled", I have found the two clarinets I played best were a Buffet something-or-other-professional-model-that-I-didn't-catch-the-name-of, dating about 1961 (A good friend's clarinet); and an old plastic Selmer Bundy Resonite, dating 1962ish. (My horn.)
I have tried more recent clarinets, and they just don't feel right to my fingers. The older models feel more broken in, more used, maybe even more loved. But they definitely give me a better sound IMO.
Does this affect anyone else? What makes new clarients so different? Or am I just weird?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2002-04-04 03:23
Many new clarinets have the rings adjusted too high and the springs adjusted too strong. The older clarinets have probably had these adjustments made.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-04-04 10:58
Interesting to me that you said "that I played best" rather than "that sounded best". I've had same experience that on some clarinets all my fingers seem to fall in place more easily and the "mechanics" of playing just seem more fluid. Surely the adjustment is a good part of it. I've heard that some instruments are made for "larger fingers". I find that my fingers seem to like silver better than nickel or unplated keys too. No, I don't think you're weird.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2002-04-04 11:18
There certainly were some very good instruments around in the 60's, (at that time I was playing Boosey & Hawkes) but are the manufacturers happy to keep producing the same, perfectly good, model for ever? Sadly not, they know that a good marketing ploy is to bring out a new "improved" model every few years because they know that we, as a breed, will be tempted to rush out and buy them, whether or not there is any improvement. Some excellent models of clarinet have simply disappeared, while I struggle to find what real benefits the "improved" versions offer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2002-04-04 13:37
In particular an entire class of clarinet seems to have disappeared entirely, namely those with a bore of c. 14.8 - 14.9 mm. There are some 15mm and at least two makers do a 15.2mm, to go with the legion of designs at 14.6 - 14.7mm. Second thoughts, Noblet is a 14.85mm but that's the only one I can think of, and it is a less expensive model. Personally I do not understand why this is so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-04-04 14:24
FYI--When Selmer first began producing the (Bundy) resonite clarinet (around 1955) it was supposed to be the material "of the future", unaffected by weather, and was manufactured to "professional" standards. One was actually featured in Selmer's, "The Benny Goodman Story" as young Benji is first tryhing the clarinet at Hull House, in Chicago. I have always felt, like you, that my first Bundy was the clarinet that I had the most fun with and that it was a exceptionally good "player." Today, of course, we have the Greenline as the "material of the future", but I still miss my old 1955 Bundy. And, I do have my old Buffet R-13 clarinet (1964) which I played just last night for a bunch of middle school all-city honor band clarinetists. It "sings" so well, I don't know why I insist on using my newer clarinets at all--except that my "newer" LeBlancs are more even and possess a "deeper" quality of sound. But that old Bundy.............
Good Clarineting!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2002-04-04 18:20
I'm reminded of the time when a Buffet bul***it merchant spent a long time trying to convince me (with a completely straight face) that the fact that the pillars of some new model were gold-plated would make that elusive difference to my sound!?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: classy
Date: 2002-04-04 23:52
I think that the people above are correct because I recently bought a clarinet from the 1800's and it is a standard B flat clarinet don't let the age fool you. But the key posts were so low that it was just plain weird holding it. Now I have a bundy clarinet from the 1960's and it still has lower posts but they are still lower than the newer ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Pegel
Date: 2002-04-04 23:53
In retrospect, I realized the contra-alto I borrowed from my high school was an older Bundy. I don't know if it's exactly 1960's but nonetheless it's the best contra I've played. Then again most of the contras around here are in need of an overhaul.
I think the 1960's was the "Bundy's" decade!!
I do feel less like "this horn sounds better" and more like "I can play this horn more easily and more comfortably." I don't think it's a question of sound. It's just those clarinets feel different under my hands, and I've noticed again that with the pro-model 1961 Buffet I tried, the wood felt smoother and the keys felt slicker. I don't why, but that made me feel more secure, which is counter-intuitive if you ask me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
