 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2002-12-23 04:57
So who is responsible for all the bad clarinets reaching the hands of the consumer? Is it the manufacturer or the retail seller?
My vote goes to whomever sells it to the consumer. If the manufacturer sells it direct, then it's their fault. If the manufacturer wholesales it to a retailer who then resells it to the consumer, then the blame falls upon the retailer.
Any comments?
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2002-12-23 09:50
Difficult call. All instruments should be pre-serviced and tested which is probably the domain of the wholesaler, importer or manufacturer. The retailer builds a warranty repair factor, or should, into their pricing. The world is currently caught in a total environment of greed. Cost cutting and price gouging are seen to be legitimate business practices. Maximum profit is the name of the game and if this includes cutting corners then in the name of the almighty dollar let it be so. All of the supply chain are in some way responsible. My big bugbear is with the proliferation of Chinese and Taiwanese rubbish that are being pushed as a musical instruments. Everybody with an ounce of commonsense knows that they can't possibly produce even a reasonable student quality instrument for the price charged. It is like buying a $300 car. Nobody in their right mind would dream of it. When it comes to musical instruments reason disappears. Strangely enough the Chinese military and police bands do not play on Xing Hai or J. Michael instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2002-12-23 10:17
Everybody at least once in their life even as careful as they are will get taken on something but it's also the "consumer's responsibility" to educate themselves and beware when in the retail market--as for clarinets, smart people on the BBoard are asking questions and doing searches here all the time. But, on the other hand (speaking of America) the miserable trade deficit and "irresponsible", open policies with garbage-producing countries like China, South Korea etc. don't help the quality of goods either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Kelly - Australia
Date: 2002-12-23 10:31
"Any comments"!?
Yes - what exactly are you talking about?
What is your definition of a bad clarinet then?
And to answer YOUR question. Obviously it is the comsumer - for buying it in the first place. Ever heard of the old phrase "Buyer Beware!"? It applies to clarinets as much as it does to the politicians we elect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: James
Date: 2002-12-23 11:51
Okay... I have had no sleep in the last twenty-four hours so this may not make sense. Let's a clarinet like the r13. Terribly inconsistent. Most clarinetists in the US buy r13s. Ranging from our top symphony players to our oblivious jr and sr high band students. Personally. I don't think it's a big deal if the high school students who don't have a clue about how to play clarinet get a bad one. They will never use a good r13 let alone a bad r13 to its real potential.
In my high school band this kid has the most amazing r13. He can't play above the 3rd g. If one is good enough to pick out a good clarinet, they should have it. If one is not good enough and picks out a bad clarinet. That is suited for them.
Sorry if this sounds wrong or offends anyone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-12-23 11:51
Claiming that these are 'pushed' on unsuspecting consumers points to the root problem - uneducated buyers have demanded less expensive instruments that meet the basic requirements for less $$.
The TRUTH is that most 8-10 year olds are capricious and give up any instrument within a few months, so these cheapo horns meet a genuine demand.
The real crime is that it derails the progress of promising kids.
There is a chasm between kids demanding 'bright and shiny' for under $400 USD and 'Buffet or bust' for less than $1400... the music shops are hard pressed to make any profit on the latter.
As with many things, you get what you pay for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ALOMARvelous12
Date: 2002-12-23 13:16
the consumer is definately responsible the most. manufacturer's are somewhat responsible. retailers, however, cannot be blamed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-12-23 14:06
ALOMARvelous12 wrote:
>
> the consumer is definately responsible the most.
> manufacturer's are somewhat responsible. retailers, however,
> cannot be blamed.
The manufacturer of shoddy goods is to blame; the almighty (dollar, peso, euro, ...) is what the manufacturer is after, not the satisfaction of the end customer.
The wholesaler/distributor of shoddy goods is to blame; they know what they're doing - the almighty (dollar, peso, euro, ...) is what the distributor is after, not the satisfaction of the end customer.
The retailer is to blame; they ordered the junk from the distributor after looking at it, and saw they could make more of the almighty (dollar, peso, euro, ...) with every sale, customer satisfaction be damned. Many of the retailers of junk instruments are "experts", no less - some even put their name on them. How can they be blameless?
The consumer knows that everyone in the chain must make some money, but expects that the markup will be reasonable for the goods purchased. However, without education, the consumer has little appreciation for the true cost of the goods (and in some cases the true costs are so well hidden they'll never be known!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bryan
Date: 2002-12-23 14:48
Judging from some of the recent posts on this board, even the more reputable makers have been having serious quality control problems. The problem of cost-cutting isn't limited to the cheap imports (though if someone is offering a new clarinet for less than what it would cost to have a tech overhaul an old clarinet, you really have to wonder how much effort was put into it, even allowing for cheaper labor costs).
The blame for this can be spread around. Part of the essential difficulty is that most people want their own labor paid for at the highest possible rate but don't want to pay for other people's labor. Given a choice, many people will take the cheaper one even if the choices are unequal in quality. The manufacturer and the reseller say, it's not our fault the people want cheap crap. The retailer could say, I don't want to sell defective junk, I want to give the customer some value, but he knows the guy down the street is willing to run a con game.
If there were two music shops on the street, and one sold everything for the lowest possible price, and the other guy serviced every instrument before it was sold but charged more, who would you buy from? Which do you think would sell more clarinets?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-12-23 15:15
I would like to see a break down of the complaints.
People use PC's and Operating systems that function marginally -yet rarely complain or make a product switch.
It seems to me that this is venting (*shocking for this BBS*) that has little basis in reality.
It isn't making the papers.
I'm far more concerned about public schools eviscerating the teaching of music in the schools, rather than the quality of student instruments (which have always been barely adequate) that find their way into beginner's hands.
Anyone who has tried to convince a 10 year old that a refurbished Bundy at $200 is better than a Bright/New clarinet smell badly made import knows the futility of the exercise.
Consumers have a CHOICE and if they buy presents to stuff under the tree from the Mars debacle, they voted with their wallets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2002-12-23 16:05
One poster said, in part "garbage-producing countries". That is true only in part. My brother-in-law owns a large furniture store. Most, if not all, of his goods are made in the USA. At least 75% of the stuff he receives needs repair BEFORE he puts it on the floor. The net cause is the lazy attitude on behalf of the workers themselves coupled with bad, or no, quality control. Anything for the buck!
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick
Date: 2002-12-23 17:11
Wow, interesting thoughts. By post graduate training I'm an economist but I've been involved in wholesale distribution, manufacturing and to a degree retailing. From strictly an economists point of view, ultimately the folks who lay the blame on the consumer are correct, but from the comments, I think for the wrong reason.
It is really beyond reasonable debate these days to not say that making zero defect items as a goal is the cheapest possible manufacturing process. I say this knowing that many of you aren't in manufacturing or versed in QC statistics and will introduce arguements to the contrary, but if you allow me this one provision on faith, I'll illustrate my point.
Zero defect becomes cost effective in light of stiff competition and a demanding client. Example, a car is produced which is defective and the buyer demands it be fixed. In the face of wide spread expectations of high quality, the cost of repairs exceeds the cost of doing it right in the first place.
Now, if buyers are willing to acccept sub standard goods without complaint, then there is no financial or market pressures to cause the manufacturer to improve quality. Not to pick on Buffet, but I keep hearing comments here and on klarinet about the iffy quality control, yet people keep buying them. If however people say, to heck with that and start buying other brands with better quality control, then Buffet is faced with a simple issue. Increase quality or lose sales. In this respect, everyone who buys a Buffet and has it repaired or tuned at their own expense is to blame for the quality.
Historically this situation will continue until people determine that the brand loyalty issue isn't as strong as the desire for a first rate item. Classic example is Samnsonite Luggage. At one time they were premiere as a quality item. They were then bought by a financial conglomerate which cheapened the product as much as possible while holding the retail price fixed. That is until Samsonite lost its brand appeal.
Value Added vs. Price:
It is fairly obvious to me after having just purchased a professional grade clarinet that claims of shop testing or play testing are dubious, at least in the case of my dealer. However, what is the true value of this service and is the buying public willing to pay extra for it? Would for example, a buyer be willing to pay $50-$75 per instrument to have one hand selected by a professional muscian? In fact, there could even be a cottage industry possible for a person who could sell this service to buyers as an independent consultant. Pay me $50 and I'll go to whatever big dealer and pick you out a primo instrument! Just a thought. Hoever to finish this line of thought, rarely do lowest price and highest quality and service go hand in hand. It can be done, but if you are strictly a price buyer, then it isn't totally reasonable to expect it.
Regarding beginning instruments I have mixed emotions. As an economist I perfectly understand the need for the low end instrument. However as a player I really don't like it. I've recently been looking around for a reasonbly good plastic clarinet to use in a community band. The idea of doing outdoor concerts in 110 degree heat and 90 percent humidity with a $3k wood clarinet isn't overly appealing. However, I tried a variety of plastic models and most were marginally playable and some were flatly unplayable in certain registers. So, assuming these same instruments are destined for beginning players, what effect does this have on a child who cannot play a note above open G or below C?
It would seem to me that as a matter of self survival and the possibility of upgrade sales the sellers of these instruments as well as the manufactureres should take provisions to make sure they are playable. Band directors and teachers should also test every instrument that shows up. A kid that quits stops being a customer.
Just a few opinions, so flame on!...g
Best
RW
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bryan
Date: 2002-12-23 17:43
Rick wrote:
>Band directors and teachers should also test every instrument that shows up. A kid that quits stops being a customer.
Just a half and hour ago I sold my old Bundy to a junior high school teacher who had been shopping on ebay for used instruments for his students. He had 70 players and 40 clarinets. And of course the school has no money for band. He does all the repair and maintenance himself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: steve
Date: 2002-12-23 18:06
As a child I chose the clarinet because my dad played one and I used to take it out of his closet and "look" at it. When it came time to start elem. band my dads 1941 buffet was to good to go to school with a 4th grader. We went to tha local music store and asked what was a good but not "really spendy" instrument. I got an Olds Parisan Ambassadar (brand new @$150 in late 60's). My folks thought they had really done a fine thing for me and I was happy as could be. I played all through high school. I sat in the top 10% of the bands. When my daughter wanted to play clarinet I told her she could have my fine Olds (that I still played). I took it down to that same local music store to have it reconditioned and adjusted. The owner (the grand son of the guy that owned it when we bought the clarinet) told me that his grand dad had by mistake ordered a truck load of those "junk" instruments. He said that they were so bad that he wouldn't even try to work on it! That you couldn't make them play good know matter what you did. I took it elsewhere and found the same thought. I took my daughter to a store with a large selection and let her "play and pick". The one she picked wasn't top of the line , but it does play "easy" sound is "ok". I have since tried several and now own Buffet's and Noblet's. Everything plays better than what I grow up playing and I woulder how I ever stuck with it? This doesn''t answer the question but tells how it happens. I do disagree with the guy that about the boy with buffet and plays at a third grade level. At least he was given the best opper-tune-ity to develop his talent! Better young than at 40+!!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-12-24 01:04
Rick wrote "I tried a variety of plastic models and most were marginally playable and some were flatly unplayable in certain registers"
I have serviced many hundreds of plastic Yamahas (direct from Japan). I play test them after servicing. Unless they have reached the stage of repadding, servicing is minimal, the most being within the first year, perhaps 20 minutes. I have NEVER play tested one that did not play VERY easily, in all registers, with a good sound, with a Yamaha mouthpiece. I am nothing more than an out-of-practice, self-taught, reasonably capable player.
When I play test them listeners notice very litle difference between these and expensive wooden models, also well serviced.
Is this saying something about the servicing in your vicinity, Rick, or about how Yamahas available in USA (?) are set up very poorly, or have I misunderstood you?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2002-12-24 01:07
My thanks to all for sharing such an incredible wealth of insight and knowledge. Such diversity of opinions--all revealing an "economic street smarts" that I didn't possess. Thank you all for taking the time to share what I sense has taken a long time to learn. A keen sense of insight,IMO, is not learned overnight.
The reason I started this thread was because I had 3 brand new clarinets in my home and they were all defective. On 2 of them, I had to sand down the lower section tenon so that the bell could fit on. Without the sanding, it was impossible to put them on. On the same 2, I also had to sand the upper tenon on the upper section so that the barrel could be placed on the instrument. All 3 of them were, to varying degrees, unplayable basically due to the same problem: poorly seated pads on the 2 normally open keys on the upper section. (Along with a poorly seated trill F# pad on one of them.)
May I bring up an old fashioned concept that seems to have vanished from off a large chunk of this planet? I'm talking about---PRIDE. Doing something extradinarily well because it reflects upon one's self. Do you really think Charles Bay would knowingly sell you a defective mouthpiece? But, you might say, his mpc's are high-end, expensive models. Well, how about Clark Fobes? I've heard that his inexpensive plastic mpc's are in demand as jazz mpc's. I believe that probably all of the sneezy sponsors take great pride in the work that they do. Their professionalism is to be commended.
Many of the responses have indicated that profit is KING. It, unfortunately, seems to be that way with many around the globe.
Many of you blamed the consumer. Even though I agree with those who stated that everyone has a share in the blame, I am becoming more and more convinced that the consumer not only has the burden of most of the blame, but, more importantly, as has been noted above, the consumer holds the ultimate key in turning things around.
Before I began this thread, I made up my mind that all 3 clarinets were going back. Now, I am more convinced than ever, that I have made the right decision. (And they are being shipped back at THEIR expense.) After all, as has been noted above, if I pay extra fo fix the one I like best--their shoddy workmanship will probably continue.
The question that still bothers me the most is: how did I, a presumably educated consumer, wind up with 3 defective clarinets? What could I have done to prevent this from happening? I know that playing them before you buy is the best solution, but these 3 came from all over the globe. How can people in more rural areas resolve this dilemma?
Again, my thanks to all of you and may your holiday season be full of joy! (and with clarinets that actually play in tune!!!)
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2002-12-24 03:29
I have to agree with Mark on this one. With all the false advertising about products and expectations, companies should deliver products and services as advertised.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-12-24 10:35
The fit of tenons into sockets, with the low quality, none too dimensionally stable timber that is commonly used, depends on the climate where the instrument resides. I have heard that some makers fit tenons differently for given destinations if there is an ongoing problem and they are requested to do so.
It could well be that by the time the tenons are checked when you return them they will fit again. :-)
Jamming tenons are pretty well standard for all new Selmers and Buffets that enter New Zealand.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick
Date: 2002-12-24 10:50
Gordon:
The place where I tested the instruments didn't have Yamaha, which I do very much want to try. So my comments on un-playable plastic instruments did not include Yamaha.
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-12-24 21:23
The same applies to other 'respectable', common, plastic, student models, but for me, a lesser extent.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
