 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Carl L
Date: 2002-09-16 12:56
Good morning,all. There seems to be a trend on some threads (tuba, sax, fiddle) to spend a great deal of time discussing vintage instruments. The prices of, say, a Chu ot Top Hat sax have gone crazy. Old Martin tubas we tubists would have used for birdbaths twenty years ago are commanding huge money. Do clarinets "hold their value"? Is there truth to the old addage: A clarinet will eventually blow out? Have a grerat day!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: steve
Date: 2002-09-16 14:16
Clarinet blow out is something that nobody can agree whether or not it exists... For what it is worth, it is my opinion that a wind instrument made of wood does not age in a similar fashion when compared to, say, a violin or a guitar, when the physical and chemical changes in the top plate lead to a change in the nature of the sound instrument produces over time.
There is an interest in vintage clarinets. The Buffet people have reissued the R-13 of the mid-to-late 1950s, and some people swear by certain vintage serial number ranges on buffet clarinets.
In my opinion, this is idiocy. These instruments are essentially factory made, and our ability to factory make precision instruments is far superior to what it was in the 1950s or the 1930s. It is my opinion that we are in a golden age of factory and small shop manufactured instruments... Look at the beautiful instruments that are made by Buffet, Selmer and Leblanc, the wonderful guitars made by the Martin guitar Co., which in many ways are superior to the instruments made in the 1920s and 1930s, and the cost a lot less, and the radical new designs in brass instruments, such as the Monette trumpet.
I believe that when musicians start to blow the air about vintage instruments, it takes valuable time away from playing music, and suggest that the BS level in the field is beginning to increase.
As to whether a clarinet will hold his value, professional instruments are still valuable on the used market, but of course cost less than the new ones. Investing in musical instruments is really a good way to lose money.
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-09-16 18:16
Steve's right on, in my opinion. Vintage instruments are Old instruments and woodwinds eventually wear out. Notice I did not say 'blow out', I said wear out. After a few decades it becomes more trouble, and expensive, to fix them than to replace them.
There is no inherent value to old woodwinds or brasswinds. They don't play any better with age, as Steve points out, as would possibly some string instruments... and the debate goes on and on and on.
Nostalgia's an odd thing. Some of us collect antiques and old time valuables today that our forebears were more than happy to get rid of because they couldn't afford anything better. I've heard many times, "You paid WHAT for that? Why, we were glad to get rid of old junk like that!"
I've seen many wonderful historical musical instruments on display as collections but I've yet to hear any wonderful sounds emitted from their display cases.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-09-16 18:20
Steve: Had I kept my Leblanc Symphonie of 50 years ago, I could sell it today for twice its original price. In fact, if I could find that same stick, *I* would pay today twice the $ it originally cost. A better deal than Enron stock, eh?
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-09-16 18:22
Oops, sorry; I meant to say... our forebears 'had to live with...such and such, because they couldn't afford anything better.' When they could afford something nicer, they either handed down or dumped the old stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Larry Liberson
Date: 2002-09-16 21:07
"Had I kept my Leblanc Symphonie of 50 years ago, I could sell it today for twice its original price."
Doubtful -- as far as true value of the dollar is concerned.
For example, a new Buffet R-13 sold for $395.00 in 1966, which is equivalent to approximately $2,194.44 in 2002 dollars.
So, let's say that I sold my "vintage"(?) Buffet for "twice" what I paid for it, that being $790.00.
Looks like a big loss to me.
Unless you possess a clarinet of some sort of historical significance,you're not going to make a "killing" on a sale unless you blatantly take avantage of some poor unknowing soul. Clarinets are, for the most part, depreciating assets (if you could call it an asset!).
We're not talking about del Gesus here, you know?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nzdonald
Date: 2002-09-16 21:53
i find myself agreeing with everything written here- everybody makes a good point, here are a few of mine.... that might appear to contradict some of the above, that is the nature of both "truth" and this business we're in....
....it is possible that in some cases "hand made" instruments (as oposed to the modern factory made instruments that are produced to a high standard of precision and design) could be better or very good for the following reason- a really skilled and experienced instrument maker will be able to make allowances for the qualities (and quality) of the wood he/she is working with. Variation to the design specifications CAN be to the advantage of the end product when dealing with a material that is inconsitent.
how often this was/is the case is of course entirely moot, but to illustrate the point- no experienced reed-maker imagines that copying a template reed exactly onto any given piece of cane will achieve perfect results.
but this all by-the-by, there are no end of great modern instruments to chose from, and some nice old ones that happen to be much cheaper. There it is.
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2002-09-16 22:44
Some people, including a famous maker of new metal flutes, claim that metal instruments improve with age due to "work hardening" of the metal from years of vibration. The metal is said to become stiffer with age. This effect on non-ferrous metals can be observed when you move or bend a copper tube, causing it to stiffen and, eventually, break. I know nothing about this claim.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-09-17 01:09
Wes, work-hardening of some metals is a genuine phenomenon, although I hardly think the vibrations of a clarinet body will harden it. And as you alluded, crystalline metal fatigue is real, also, even with some metals that do not work-harden. But likewise, I wouldn't expect a brass Clarinet to disintegrate due to having been played a lot. Now, that would be *unarguable* "blowout."
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aussie Nick
Date: 2002-09-17 01:14
What are the symptoms of a worn out (blown out) clarinet? Does the intonation start to go haywire? Does it lose its tone? And how long could you expect for this to happen?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Carl L L
Date: 2002-09-17 03:16
Well, here is a coincidence. I was browsing clarinet
pages in search of others who play early clarinets.
I dont play "vintage" but instead on modern reproductions
of early clarinets. Check out www.danieldeitch.com.
I play on a J.C.Denner (1690) Baroque clarinet in C at A=415, and also on the Amlingue Classical Bb (1790) with 5
keys at A=430. That maker also produces chalemeaux
as well. Sometimes Im tempted to pick up one of the
originals from eBay.com or from Lark In the Morning store
but havent quite yet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Willie
Date: 2002-09-17 04:32
One major factor with the clarinet is that they are still evolving. Older models didn't have polycylendrical bores and undercutting of the tone ports. I DO like the quality of wood used on some of the older models. Tighter growth rings, denser wood. If it has been played to death, this may not be a factor anymore, but if you can find an older quality model with very few "miles" on it and good tight keywork. I say it may be worth looking into.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-09-17 13:34
Ouch regarding comments about metals. If anything, vibrations in these metals would tend to reduce internal stresses vis a vis "work hardening" them. ALL metals commonly currently used for instruments are crystalline. The old hack that metals fail by crystalizing(or crystalising!..or two l's) has long ago been scientifically proven incorrect. Fatigue failure simply reveals the already existing crystalline structure. Work hardening of the metals and alloys usually used for flutes and clarinets requires stressing the metal above its yield strength...which would change the shape of the part(s) affected and thus impair their function.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-09-17 18:07
Aussie Nick -
In my opinion a clarinet is worn out when its major mechanism become worn beyond reasonable repair. I mean, if you need to replace key hinges and posts and steels etc. to make it functional, the cost might exceed the price of a new instrument. If tone holes become chipped or cracked so badly it would require hours and hours, expensive tools and setup time, to fix them - there's really no point trying to save it any more. That's what I think 'worn out' means.
One could restore such an instrument as a labor of love or a hobby project and it would probably play again good as new. In the real world however, economically speaking, it wouldn't be worth it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2002-09-17 20:39
Let's forget all this scientific stuff and instead just BELIEVE!!!! that your clarinet IS BLOWN OUT and......you must immediately buy another one from me. Today. There, that was easy, wasn't it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarinetgigman
Date: 2002-09-17 23:49
I played an E.J.Albert. Albert system for many years and it had a wondeful broad tone, I now play a Selmer Centeredtone Boehm System, for technique reasons, it is a fine instrument but I miss the wonderful tone in the high notes, no matter how I try I just fail to get the sound of my old vintage Albert, I still play vintage Albert System Eb and C and they sound very fine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2002-09-18 12:19
On e bay anything more than 20 years old is commonly referred to as "vintage." I disagree.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-09-18 12:33
"Vintage" as used on eBay is pretty meaningless. It's not that good a word for anything except wine ... and then you specify a year.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-09-18 17:39
According to my old and worn Webster's simple paperback school dictionary, Mark, vintage [crop] is used *only* in reference to wines (by years). In this context you're absolutely correct. In the real world it seems "vint-age" is misused more than ocassionally in referring to antique items but at eBay the term, applied indiscriminately, is totally meaningless... unless they're auctioning wine
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Metalclarinetgigman
Date: 2002-09-18 18:59
Is the word Vintage in the clarinet or other stuff context related to the word veteran, in the UK if you are a cyclist or a runner and maybe other sports I have not been involved in when you are 40 years old you are known as a veteran, so perhaps a musical instrument has to be that old to be vintage
God I do post some boring stuff!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Malaya
Date: 2002-09-18 22:06
I play on a 50 year old Boosey and Hawkes that is absolutely wonderful. The wood is in perfect condition, the keys shine like new, and it sounds amazing. In my opinion, it plays better than a brand new professional grade Buffet! I think the determination of whether or not a clarinet has "blown out" depends on the individual instrument. My grandmother purchased the instrument when she was 12, (payed 90$ for it), and played it through middle and high school. 5 years ago, when I was 11, I got it repaired for 260$, and have played it through 3 years of middle school, and this is my second year using it in the marching band. I've had it in the shop a total of 3 times, and now I'm told it's worth nearly 2500$. It's held up better than most other wooden clarinets I've seen, and I believe it has better tone quality. It all depends on how the instrument was put together, and how it has been taken care of.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-09-18 23:08
Bob: I am astonished that brass, as formed, is crystalline. I would have thought it to be amorphous. And if you could provide one or two references to the effect that "crystalline metal fatigue" is not a real failure mechanism of metals, I would appreciate it. My metallurgy is a bit... well... rusty, you might say.
And when anyone gets tired of watching "Baywatch," have a little fun by searching on eBay individually for "vintage," "rare," and "old." Then come up with your own really superb adjectives and see just how many thousands of items are so described.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-09-18 23:46
Bob: Never mind. I reread your comments on metal fatigue, and I agree. The failure is not caused by crystallization, but rather due to separation at existing crystal boundaries. And of course for this to be the case, a crystalline structure has to be there, even though irregularly structured and not noticeable as a surface phenomenon -- but it's not amorphous. Hence, I'm not so bloody astonished after all Maybe I spent too much time working with semiconducting stuff. And maybe I should think more before typing. :Þ
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2002-09-19 16:37
There are two factors which could perhaps make an older clarient a better bet on tone:
If you believe that the quality of the wood affects the tone, then older wood was usually denser, so that would change the tone. If, like many, you do not accept that, then move on to the following.
Many old clarinets were made to a design not now used. A combination of a medium bore size (e.g. 14.9 mm) and heavy undercutting (yes, they did undercut tone holes 100 years ago, and often by much more than now), together with a straight (not wiggly) bore, gives a different acoustic shape. Whether it makes for a better or worse sound is a matter of taste.
When I think of my older clarinets these thoughts strike me. Yes, the tone is different, and not by small degrees. The tone is lighter, so will not power over an orchestra as well as a modern clarinet, the tuning is not up to modern standards so you have to work at it, they are less tractable to play (may be a surfeit of upper partials) and by comparison a modern clarient seems almost to play itself. These downsides are enough to put the modern maker off trying to sell a modern version of these instruments, even though the tone may seem beguiling.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2002-09-20 13:22
Dear Freinds:
Some very interesting notes above..... I would say that older clarinets had certain qualities which gave a number advantages over more powerful modern instruments.
These older models(50s and 40s) had a certain ability to sing and spoke quickly. However, In the area of tuning the older models were certainly alot fussier and a player always had a few very bad notes.
Usually on older clarinets I have found the throat e and f to be strange in tuning tendencies. Also before the war (WW 2) the Buffet clarinets we're much less popular than Selmer so much of the pre war models on recordings usually heard are Selmer or as in England Boosey--only in france and USA did a few people work on Buffet.
It was not until the 50s Buffet came in to it own so to speak.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2002-09-21 00:57
I don't mind them misusing the word vintage. What I mind is when they use the word antique incorrectly. The seller is often trying to inflate its value by the use of the term. Although there are some exceptions, antique is normally used in the context of items that are 100 years old or more. But sellers will call anything more than a couple of decades old an antique.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
