 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Kyle Jubenville
Date: 2001-08-01 23:34
Ok, I am in desperate need of a new clarinet of Professional quality. I have recently stumbled on Patricola clarinets. Seen a few pictures and heard comments from a few people. and I was wondering how they stood against
THE R-13. I mean I want quality and a quality sound for large orchestral settings. I am considering the Full bohm system Model 4, or the Rosewood model 2. I was also wondering what the difference is between Rosewood and Granadilla. I mean their price is JUST RIGHT. but I also don't want to get poor quality with a lot of bells and whistles. That is how I got stuck with an Amati Clarinet...which I recommend buying for high quality fire wood, or a interesting Lamp. Cause they are good for NOTHING. Thank you anyone for your imput. it is greatly appreciated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-08-02 00:05
Kyle,
Without meaning to be rude:
Stick with one of the big four until you can really answer the question for yourself. The chances are that you'll be "different" than the rest and you're going to need a lot of self confidence in yourself and complete confidence in your instrument. That'll come with time and experience, and at that point you'll be <b>giving</b> us all advice rather than asking for it. But, at this pijnt in your life, you'd have to be positive that it's the right instrument and have the financial wherewithal to absorb a loss if six months down the line you find out you've made a mistake.
Used pro clarinets would be a better option for you.
Mark C.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-02 01:10
There is no point in buying a Patricola if you want a professional level instrument. The difference in cost between Patricola and Buffet is negligable when you consider what you are getting.
There are no professional orchestral players in the USA playing Patricola. That should tell you something.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Josh
Date: 2001-08-02 02:34
However, there are many professionals in Europe using them. I'm sure there was a time when Buffet clarinets were only well known in France, and now look...people are obsessed with them. (A bit too much, sometimes, I think...)
But again, to each his own...but I really do think, especially in light of the fact that Patricola is a sponsor of this site, that perhaps we could refrain from bashing them, non?
I think you should get your little self right on the phone with Lisa Argiris and get a Patricola (and a Buffet, if you're so inclined) to try and figure out for YOURSELF what works best for you instead of relying solely on what a diverse group of people who all have different preferences tell you. You'll never get anywhere that way, and you'll just end up more confused than before. Remember, you're the one that's gotta play it...try a few out, and don't be in a hurry. The worst decisions are always made in haste. Good luck!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Anji
Date: 2001-08-02 03:20
I'm in agreement that professionals should not be overwrought about the price of their tools, quality will cost.
The Rossi clarinet might be a nice alternative to the 'Big 4'.
I just bought a Yamaha YCL-SEV in A and it is everything I hoped for.
Like the big dogs just said, ya gotta play the horn!
The R-13 and derivatives have earned their reputation, because they perform.
The 'Hertz factor' (Who does Number 2 work for?... Sorry, that's Austin Powers) means that the competitors will really apply themselves over limited market share.
I would STRONGLY urge you to consider the sponsors of Sneezy who offer refurbished horns. Many of these have had intonation deficiencies addressed by previous owners.
I too understand the appeal of a new axe, but anything over $1500 better have a steering wheel and engine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-08-02 11:47
For the steering wheel & engine and fuel injection have you considered Howarth?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-02 12:34
Please give some names of the players in Europe who play Patricola and which jobs they occupy. I have never heard of one.
Buffet clarinets have been played in the USA for well over 100 years. Only within the last 20 years have any other brands made serious inroads among professional orchestral players, and those brands are Selmer, Leblanc and Yamaha (and Rossi in a few isolated cases). In virtually every case, these instruments cost more than Buffet.
Patricola might be a sponsor, but $50 does not buy a good reputation.
Incidentally, I went ahead and looked up the prices of Patricola horns at the Woodwind & Brasswind website and they are the same price basically as Buffet. No bargain there.
Yamaha makes a fine instrument. The new Selmer Signature is excellent as well.
Howarth, again, outside of England, who plays them?
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-08-02 13:24
About professionals playing Buffet:
Their instruments are often considerably altered to personnel specifications. These alterations means that the overall costs is not necessarily less than buying a top of the line instrument from a "boutique" manufacturer.
Buffet has great distribution channels with cost points enabling advanced students to get a Buffet horn early in their musical lifes (the legendary R-13 as they say). Any product with first leg in the market (going back to the 50's), acceptable performance, great distribution, and aggressive customer's acquisition strategy will become the gorilla in the market place. This is Buffet. It has become a reference point for all (for orchestral musician, it can be said that the R-13 is the minimum required as tool of the trade). But that does not mean Buffet is the best at building horns; it only mean Buffet is the best at marketing them.
Do not take me wrong, Buffet horns are acceptable (you cannot become the gorilla without a product meeting minimum standards), but there are better ones even in the Buffet port-folio proper (the Elite for instance, which is a superb instrument for chamber music).
My advise: try many, and choose what is best for you. Conductors and auditors really do not care what horn you play, as long as you are an accomplished musician capable of blending with the team.
A last note: people playing solo career as their main stream professional activities actually rarely use standard Buffet. While there is a lot of transformed Buffet at this level, the Buffet market share is much more fragmented there with top level artists using an array of solutions. When it comes to deciding what a great horn is, looking at what the recital soloists do is a better reference than looking at what pure orchestral musician do.
Other options I know besides the big 4:
Rossi
Fox
Horwath
Eaton
Wurlitzer
Patricola
Another Italian manufacturer whose name escape me at the moment
Hammersmith (do they have Boehm horns?)
In all cases, even these horns need to be tweaked a bit in order to get to their full potential (it took one year of expert TLC to get my two Rossi's to be as go as they will ever be).
One last point: we clarinetists always complain about ** costs **. I do not assume that, as a group, we are less prosperous than other musicians. It is therefore a problem with the value we associate with our passion. Clarinetting is one of the least expensive way to create beautiful music. Try to buy a half-decent piano, or a quality flute, or a professional-level violin, etc. This constant whinning about a few dollars here and there tell me, that as a group, we value our instrument less than other group. Why? The most expensive clarinet in the world is the German Wurlitzer (about 6K US). You can get a Rossi for 3.5 K US. Excellent Buffet go for under 2 K. Gosh! A car mecanic spend 20K before his tool kit is up-to-snuff with modern requirements. If you are an individual aiming at a professional career, investing 3.5 K twice (for your Bb and your A) once in a life time (our horns last forever if taken care off properly) is simply nothing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2001-08-02 14:39
Thanks Mario; those points were right on target. One further thought. If we really want Buffet et al. to become complacent about their monopolistic market share, with the inevitable downgrading of their product quality, all we have to do is say "I only have the nerve to buy big 4, and I won't even try the others", and before you know it we will have got the poor quality we deserve. B&H thought they had the UK market to themselves in the 1960s and 1970s and let quality slip (plus a relative lack of research into different acoustic solutions). For years UK players accepted that this was the only provider of a clarinet they could play. By the time they actively started to shop around B&H had become so complacent, it was too late to turn them around.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Josh
Date: 2001-08-02 14:41
Celia Craig, English hornist of the BBC Orchestra of Wales uses a Patricola English horn, as does Giacomo Calderoni, EH of La Scala. Kiss Laszlo, of the Budapest Festival Orchestra uses a Patricola, as does Luciano Battochio, professor of clarinet at the B. Marcello Conservatory of Venice. Giuseppe Magliocca, Emanuel Elisei, and Gabriele Mirabassi of Rome and Peraglia also all use Patricola instruments.
Mark, I agree with you about the fact that just because they're a sponsor doesn't mean they're immune from criticism, but there is a difference between criticism and outright bashing.
And Mario...thank you! I agree with absolutely every syllable you typed. What you said was most eloquently stated, and I couldn't concur more. Also, I believe the Italian manufacturer you may be thinking of is Romeo Orsi. He makes several models of clarinets, two of which I have coming to try in about a month or so. (I can't wait!) I'll let you know if they play as prettily as they look If you wanna check them out, they're at http://www.orsi-wind-instruments.it (I'm personally kind of enamoured with the 21F...it's so cute!)
Wouldn't it be nice if someday musicians could stop arguing about whose horn is better and just play the damn things? Food for thought...
Ciao, bellos and bellissimas!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Larry Liberson
Date: 2001-08-02 15:31
"Celia Craig, English hornist of the BBC Orchestra of Wales uses a Patricola English horn, as does Giacomo Calderoni, EH of La Scala. Kiss Laszlo, of the Budapest Festival Orchestra uses a Patricola, as does Luciano Battochio, professor of clarinet at the B. Marcello Conservatory of Venice. Giuseppe Magliocca, Emanuel Elisei, and Gabriele Mirabassi of Rome and Peraglia also all use Patricola instruments."
Well.....I'm certainly convinced.....
(It's amazing what information one can retrieve when visiting a web site, isn't it?)
Now, perhaps you can further enlighten us on the above's playing and artistry (and the difference that Patricola instruments has made in their playing and life). After all, since you dropped their names, shouldn't we all assume that you're intimately familiar with them?
Quoting both Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: "Who are those guys?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-08-02 16:00
Orsi is effectively the clarinet maker whose name escaped me earlier. Their instruments are amazing, full of technological innovations that are out of the beaten path. And they play very well (essentially as good as my Rossi). For instance:
Unibody constructions (like Rossis)
Pieces like the barell are screwed in (not just lid in)
A lot of mechanical improvements (almost as good as the Wurlitzer mechanically)
Impressive looks. You recognize in the Orsi the Italian desire to produce beautiful things.
They are on the Web. Their instruments are worth trying.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-02 16:04
Buffet clarinet popularity has nothing to do with fear or 'bandwagonism.' Professionals play them because they are excellent.
That being said, if you are interested in a career playing 2nd clarinet, it is not a bad idea to audition using an identical model as the principal player of the section. Not because another brand won't work, but because the individual tuning idiosycracies are simiar.
True, most professionals, including myself, have custom work done on Buffet clarinets after purchse. This can easily run as high as $500. However, with the exception of hand-made instruments (where the maker will customize as part of the much higher initial purchase price), this will be necessary on any clarinet.
Someone said 'solo artists rarely use Buffet.' I would like to see some statistics on this. Incidentally, the number of 'solo artists' who earn their entire living from playing solo clarinet is extremely small, making them a terrible reference! The vast majority of clarinetists who make their living actually PLAYING do so in orchestras.
The list of Patricola artists posted is not particularly impressive. If I were to name Robert Marcellus, Harold Wright and Clark Brody as Buffet artists, it would only represent the tip of the iceberg.
I don't argue about equipment much. I have always said that playing an instrument is 98% the player 2% the equipment. But someone asked for information about a new instrument, and I thought I would offer my professional opinion, for what it is worth.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbrachrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: spencer
Date: 2001-08-02 16:05
i am just curious, you mentioned the names that play patricola horns, would you mind putting in all the people that play buffet?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2001-08-02 17:01
This is an interesting thread. A couple of things.
Any product goes through a life cycle whereby a few pioneers get a new solution in the field where it goes though its initial proofing. With the right approach to marketing the product, and the right management of its life cycle, this product then move to the mainstream market where people buy it because everybody else is. The product has become the "safe" choice. Many products fail to navigate the transition between a speciality item to a main stream item. The success of the transition has more to do with marketing management than strict product leadership. Marketing is everything, even for clarinets.
This is what Buffet was able to do superbly well. Before the 50's, they were out there competing with everybody. Nobody had a clear lead. Selmer in particular was quite poweful and in many cases was the reference (in jazz for instance). Briefly, the market was segmented in smallish units with specialists taking care of each.
Then, Buffet introduced its polycylindrical bore configuration. This was a breakthrough for the integration of tone color, intonation, response, etc. The R-13 was sufficiently ahead of its competitors to create a definite difference in the mind of customers (especially the classical crowd). With astute marketing, the R-13 was introduced rapidly and was able to establish a critical mass of lead users sufficient to carry the rest of the market (yes, people follow the leaders - why do you think everybody is so keen to enlist the support of leading musicians).
This lead has never been relinquished since the 50's because nobody else has a technology, or the marketing savvy, or the financial power, to dislodge the leader. As long as the Buffet product remain "good enough" in comparison to others, their lead can be maintained. They do not have to be the best; they merely have to be good enough. Buffet is a rich Company, but recent innovations are minimal. As it is the right thing to do, most of their money goes to Sales and Marketing instead of R&D or Production.
Take the Rossi. Clearly a superior instrument, but not so good as to make all give up their OK solution to travel unchartered territory. It is hand-made and its quality could not survive mass production; It is a bit more pricy; it has no distribution channel to speak off. Rossi does not have the $$$ to intiate a marketing war with Buffet. Rossi will remain a speciality item.
But take the Rossi design; find a way to mass produce it in a new material (say greenline), make sure it plays perfectly all the time; invest tons of money to incente players to switch; spread them around in schools and orchestra. Work hard at killing your competition, and maybe Buffet could be dislodged. Unfortunately, these breakthrough are easy to reproduce, and it is likely that Buffet could react quickly with similar offerings and maintain their leadership. See how Microsoft can fend off competitors in new spaces by being a fast follower. Buffet IS the Microsoft of the clarinet world (at least in the Orchestral segment - see later). They could also react quickly.
The key argument in favor in the Buffet is the so-called need to blend. A marketing word for this is to say that the Buffet is the Industry Standard. It is bandwagoning at its best. Use the Buffet and you are safe. Deviate at your own risk. This happens all the time. In software for instance, we use Microsoft because it is everywhere, not because it is the best. MS is good enough to meet functional requirements. The rest is Marketing, Channel, Market Shares, Financing, etc. Nothing to do with the insinsic value of the product itself. Buffet is good enough, so it is used. But there are better choice out there for those who are not trying to blend.
As far as earning a living playing classical clarinet is concerned, in my City (Montreal), there are only 2 clarinetists earning a living playing in reputable orchestra. Everybody else is living free-lancing and teaching. In fact, I know personally 5 other clarinetists who play regular recitals, are never close to the OSM or the OMM (the two most active orchestras). The same holds for Ottawa, another city I know well. If you include those playing jazz or pop, or doubling on the sax, MOST clarinetists earn a living outside the confine of a symphony orchestra. Those free-lancers use all kinds of horns (including the Buffet) and I cannot say that one model dominate.
So, the Marketing strategy of Buffet is clear: They focus on the Orchestral Clarinetist as market segment, create (and maintain) the perception that orchestral musician MUST play Buffet and dominate this market. It is working very well for them. They will remain in the lead in this segment until somebody comes along with a breakthrough product (supported by lot of $$$$). Until then, this OK horn will continue to be number 1 in terms of market share (I believe they own 80% of the Market of orchestral clarinetists. If I remember properly, they own 60% of the market of so-called pro-horn. Note how their market shares decay when all pro-horns (not just horns played in orchestra) are counted. If you factor out of this 60% the horns played in orchestra, you see that their market share is less than 50%. Not bad, but that means that one out of every 2 professional free lancers IS NOT playing a Buffet.
In my life, I went from Bundy, to Selmer Series 9, to Buffet R-13, to Rossi, with definite, measurable improvements at each changes.
Bottom line: Buffet is the safe choice of you want to play in an orchestra. But if you want the best horn for you, try many others and you might be very surprised.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-08-02 17:08
Kyle -
David Hattner makes a very important point, and he's a professional clarinetist, making his living as a player, which gives him tremendous authority.
A small number of professional clarinetists in the United States play Selmer and a slightly larger number play Leblanc. However, by far the largest number of professionals play Buffet and have for a long time.
If you want to get a job playing clarinet in the United States, you have to match the intonation, sound and even the look of what conductors and section players are used to. As a practical matter, that means Buffet. The situation in Chicago, with players using Leblanc, Yamaha and Buffet, is very much the exception. Unless you can play like them, you can't get away with it.
I have played Patricola clarinets and liked them. I continue to play Buffets because I like them better. But even if I preferred Patricola, it wouldn't be by much, and their sound is different enough from Buffet that I would have to work hard to match what other people produce on Buffets.
The other thing to consider is that the big-name players who play and endorse Leblanc and Selmer (and Buffet) don't play on what's in stock at a music store. They play on carefully selected and extensively tweaked instruments that have about as much relationship to a standard instrument as a racing car does to what you would find at a dealership. They only look the same on the outside.
The joker is that there are a number of "tweakers" of Buffets in the United States, but very few who do the same for Leblanc or Selmer.
Buffet makes great instruments, on which you can sound practically any way you please. Unless you play a Patricola (or an Opus, a Signature or a Rossi) and fall in love with it, and are willing to take your chances on auditions, it's best to go with Buffet.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-02 18:34
I completely disagree that the Rossi is 'clearly a superior instrument.' The Rossi clarinets I have played have all had intonation difficulties, uneven response charactaristics and an unexceptional sound quality. The one-piece body seems like a good idea but when one is expected to play in tune all the time, one needs the ability to pull at the center joint. For me it is crucial.
You state as a matter of fact that Buffet's market share is a factor of its marketing and of 'bandwagonism.' Yet you provide no proof of this. . .none. Professional players try new things all the time, we're hardly afraid of innovation or new things. Marketing is not 'everything.' It is unlikely that there is one professional player who chooses an instrument based on its marketing. However, the fact that professionals choose to play a particular instrument is a very valuable tool in marketing a product to others. Don't get confused on this issue.
You accuse Buffet of being lazy or unwilling to innovate. I find this to be untrue. In the early 90s, when forced really for the first time to compete with a truly competitive product from another manufacturer (the Opus) Buffet improved its quality control and introduced the greenline and the Festival clarinets. And it accomplished this without raising prices.
I have yet to hear of any clarinetist in the USA being denied a position because of the brand of clarinet he or she played at an audition. . not one. There might be reasons related to a candidates choice of instrument (intonation, registrational difficulties, etc) but no one asks what clarinet, what mouthpiece, etc. Other instruments besides clarinet is a different story, however.
Please explain how Buffet forces orchestral players to play its horns. I have not heard any facts here, only rambling assertions.
Free-lancing is not solo playing. I am a freelancer and I know. You said 'soloists' and I am still waiting for the facts that back up any of your assertions. Names, please.
I find it amusing that so many clarinetists who choose not to play Buffet clarinets seem to wish the company ill. Why would you want Buffet to be 'dislodged?' Would it make you feel better about not playing their clarinets?
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Forest Aten
Date: 2001-08-02 23:11
Slip in quality?
The Buffet clarinets that I have played (many) in the past several years have been better than ever.
R&D?
How about expanded lines of professional clarinets:
R-13, R-13SP
RC
Prestige in both RC and R-13 configs
Festival
Elite
(Great!) Greenlines in both R-13 and Festival configs
Classic
World class bass clarinets
Addition of C and Eb clarinets to the E-* line
Just because we finally have a few new good choices when selecting a professional instrument, doesn't mean that Buffet has "slipped". Buffet is the dominate clarinet manufacturer because they manufacture a great instrument. Just ask the many TOP PROFESSIONALS (and conductors and audiences) who prefer them.
Add to this the hard work by Francois Kloc, interfacing with players (of all ages and levels!!), and you have a very aggressive and positive position by Buffet.
As far as I can see, Buffet is working hard.
F. Aten
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike B.
Date: 2001-08-03 02:47
Well -
I don't play a Buffet clarinet, and I wish them all the best. A day doesn't go by (getting a bit teary-eyed here), that I don't worry about the health and well-being of Boosey & Hawkes . . .
Regards,
Mike B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike B.
Date: 2001-08-03 02:57
Seriously, though. It's in our best interest that a number of manufacturers successfully make and sell top quality clarinets. If one maker completely dominates the marketplace, innovation and quality inevitably go down. All of the recent products B & H came out with were the result of an increase in competition. This is good for us, the player.
A similar situation exists in the saxophone world, where Selmer dominates, and is somewhat effectively competed against by Yamaha, Keilwerth, and Yanagasawa (and, some would say by the ghost of their past). Not to mention the proliferation of so-so eastern clones (something we don't seem to have in the clarinet world).
The point about an assumed expectation that a serious player use an R-13 is, however, I think true. Regards,
Mike B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Josh
Date: 2001-08-03 03:20
Ok, since this is obviously turning into a gigantic flame war and sarcastothon, ("shouldn't we all assume that you're intimately familiar with them?" How very mature.) I move that this topic end, and soon, because, to quote nearly every drag queen I've ever met who's broken a heel, "Girl, it's about to get ugly up in here."
As a final blanket statement, YES, we are VERY well aware that a vast majority of clarinetist, both bread-winning and hobbyist, use Buffet horns. I myself used them for quite some time. They did not work for me, and I do not in general like them. They do not work for many people, in fact. However, they obviously also work for many people. Wonderful. I think the main point of all of this is...USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU. Some of you have spoken of the "Buffet sound" and matching everyone else's sound. Darlings, if we all sounded the same, music would be a boring business indeed, wouldn't it? We are all individuals, and we all produce different sounds. It's why we do what we do. The equipment you use is but a tiny, tiny part of what comes out the end of it. I think we all agree on that (at least I hope so), so can we please move on to something constructive that will benefit the silent and lurking readers of this forum who turn to it for information and guidance?
In closing, I would like to apologize to anyone whose feathers I have ruffled, and to all of you die-hard Buffetphiles who have viewed others preferring different brands as personal attacks. They're not. Different stuff works for different people. I would never disparage an artist who played on a particular brand of horn and view them as less of an artist for their choice of equipment, and it's rather painful to watch others do it. Let's not, shall we? Now, we're all going to shake like good grown-ups and go get ice cream
Also, I would like to extend a big cyber-handshake to Mario, who has most eloquently and with even temperament expressed every thought and argument that has popped into my mind, but which my hotheadedness prevented me from properly giving life to. Thank you, you seem like a very fine person, and a true asset to your art.
Off to practice! (no matter what horn y'use, this is what ties us all together, people! )
Happy clarinetting!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Larry Liberson
Date: 2001-08-03 13:50
"Ok, since this is obviously turning into a gigantic flame war and sarcastothon, ("shouldn't we all assume that you're intimately familiar with them?" How very mature.) I move that this topic end, and soon, because, to quote nearly every drag queen I've ever met who's broken a heel, "Girl, it's about to get ugly up in here."
Well, since you're not the moderator, I guess I can still get (more than) a couple of comments in here....and apologies to those who thought it was over.... 
Josh, my lad, I believe there's a wide gap between flames (which I, personally, would never be a party to) and sarcasm (of which I cheerfully participate--with no malice intended). Now, I hope you're able to distinguish between the two; nevertherless, if what people post on this board is that disturbing to you (and this is just supposition), you either have a very thin skin or are lacking a sense of humor--or both. These are both necessary attributes for survival in the business of performance. I sincerely hope, as far as you're concerned, that this is not the case.
But my earlier post (that, apparently, you took exception to) makes a valid point: if you are going to make an example of something--or somebody--please have the first-hand knowledge (intimacy, so to speak?) of which you speak. If you can honestly state that you have heard these aforementioned individuals and are enamored with both their artistry and the tonal beauty (we are, after all, speaking of sounds, are we not?) that they are able to elicit from their instruments (Patricola), well....in that case, you have my sincerest apologies for my comments and for doubting your experiences.
If, on the other hand, you simply visited the Patricola web site and listed what you (and I, also) saw....well, shame on you.
You make another curious (and might I add, lightly sarcastic) comment in your last post:
"Some of you have spoken of the "Buffet sound" and matching everyone else's sound. Darlings, if we all sounded the same, music would be a boring business indeed, wouldn't it?"
First, only my bride of almost 27 years calls me 'darling,' lest I get myself in r-e-a-l trouble!
Second, matching sounds isn't the point, nor is having us all the same. I suspect you know as well as anyone that this is hardly the case. David earlier cited the playing of Robert Marcellus, Clark Brody and Harold Wright, Buffet players all (and, btw, players he has known and heard!). Do you honestly believe they sound(ed) the same? Do you really associate Stanley Drucker with Frank Cohen tonally? Last I looked, they were sporting Buffets. Last I heard, there were polar differences in their sounds. In my own section, we have four guys--all (save the bass clarinet) with Buffet sopranos. None of us has ever felt any internal or external pressure to have the same instruments. We choose/chose them because they are, at this point of our lives and careers, the instrument that best delivers what we require. And we don't all sound the 'same.' But we have the ability to play well together when called for and the ability and flexibility to stand out. Imagine that! Clarinets that not only can blend, but be individuals!
My wife has a very nice Steinway piano (and she wasn't a victim of marketing, either!). I remember vividly what our piano technician said many years ago: "The Steinway is a personal piano." Using a combination of the player's ears and desires and the technician's expertise in regulating the instrument, it can be turned into almost anything the pianist wants. After all, there must be a reason that a technician is on duty, in the hall, each and every time there is a piano soloist. It's not just to tune the damn thing! Underlying all that, however, is the kind of resonance and qualities that only (supposedly) a Steinway possesses.
I, and my colleagues, feel similarly about the Buffet clarinet. Not only is it a personal preference (as are other makes to other people) but it is a "personal" clarinet. We bring our own desires and biases to how we play and how we have our clarinets set up. What the Buffet has brought me, for more years than I care to remember, is that it possesses a kind of resonance and beauty that I have yet to experience in another brand of clarinet.
And I'm not a 'Stepford' clarinet player. I try them all; I keep hoping to find something 'better,' more 'attractive,' etc. For my way of thinking and hearing, I haven't yet found it--my plain vanilla R-13s' have served me very well. Despite that, as I go on my next search (in the coming year, hopefully), I will be looking carefully at all comers. But, should I end up with Buffet, I will hardly believe I'm just settling for the status quo. It will be because I perceive it as the best I can get my hands on. And, not meaning to sound immodest or egocentric, I do know the difference.
It is true that we are all individuals (hey...now, there's a deep observation, eh?) and we each deserve to choose what makes us the happiest. I have done this--as have you--and will continue to do so in the future. Frankly, none of the clarinet makers puts out a 'perfect' product, do they?
I may very well pick out a Yamaha or a Chadash clarinet the next time out...who knows. It might yet be Buffets again. I know it won't be Leblancs or Patricolas. They may be fine instruments for some, but I find them inadequate and unplayable. My opinion.
But should it be Buffets that end up in my case, it'll be for the same reasons that each and every one of my colleagues across the country selects them: because they are the best choice that delivers what we seek and desire for our personal and professional music making.
And that is the only criteria that matters.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-08-03 14:34
Well said, LL, and I will state for the record that you are a member of a superb section, which does indeed consist of widely diverging tonal concepts (which nonetheless work very well)! Indeed, a section that has been admired for many years. I hope your conductor situation works out!
Off topic, LL, I lost your amazing chocolate cake recipie, any chance of getting another copy? I will trade you a cd for it!
Also for the record, I never did meet Harold Wright, although I was blessed enough to hear him live in both chamber music and orchestral playing. I worshiped him so deeply that I am not sure what I would have said to him! Again off topic, his playing has an instuctive quality to it. Just listening to it over and over makes you a better musician. He is missed and unreplaceable.
I was lucky that I met Marcellus when I was only 15 ( I didn't start studying with him until I was 18), and he put me at ease right away in any case. Clark Brody is one of my favorite people on the planet, one of the gems of humanity. I had dinner with him last month and at 87 he is still doing great.
Josh, I am sorry that you feel ganged up upon, I don't think anyone intended that. Nor was it anyone's particular intent to bash Patricola clarinets. Again, remember why this thread started; someone wanted to know if he should buy a Patricola clarinet, and honest opinions were given. Declaring a thread dead is not the answer in this case. This has been one of the few interesting discussions on the BB lately!
I say again, if you are going to put forth information as fact, and fact that is not general knowledge, you have to back it up somehow. I am still waiting for statistics and facts.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2001-08-03 16:30
I have seen many people bash buffet wooden clarinets, but indicate the greenline is a fine instrument. It must be conceded that no two instruments are alike. I know (from a PBS program---The Tree of Music) that Buffet has said in the early 90's that it was having some difficulty obtaining high quality wood that would not crack during the manufacturing process. The greenline was their answer. I suspect that envirnonmental issues will become more important as time wears on. Oneday greenline type instruments may be all that is affordable, who knows
Any comments or observations from David H, Larry L, Ken S, Mario, or anyone else on this issue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2001-08-03 17:15
One thing is that the program you speak of mentioned nothing of the aging process used for this increasingly limited amount of 'mpingo hardwood.
The Buffet (and Selmer and LeBlanc, so on and so on) 'mpingo of yesteryear - 20 or more years ago - went through a natural aging and curing process that lasted 20 years or more. This allowed the wood to stabilise before ANY cutting even began.
Now it's down to 5 or less, with a year or two to speed up the process artificially in a special kiln.
I'm a Buffet artist and feel obliged none the less to let you know the other reasons greenline instruments were produced - to keep up with the incredible demand - the kind of demand that all of these manufactures have bowed to in deference to the quality of their most prescious commodity....the wood itself.
G. Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2001-08-03 18:33
To G Smith
Thanks the useful and interesting info.
What is your opinion of the Greenline?
I have heard a lot of things about them, some good, some bad.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-08-03 19:36
Wow! I'm swimming in information overload!!! But, what great people to enter into the conversation!
Greg, if you read the above question--I'd like to hear the answer. I own both greenline and regular wood Buffets--the Festival (wood) and R-13 greenline.
Also, having been a player for 40 years, althouth of lesser quality than Gregory Smith or Larry L., I've noticed that my older model Leblancs have a tone to die for--but the newest models do not. My new Buffet Festival sounds great as does my greenline. Actually, my greenline reminds me of my old Leblanc LL.
The wood aging time being reduced is a matter that should be of some concern to younger players purchasing newer instruments. Perhaps, as JButler and mw and others have mentioned in some of the threads around lately, we should consider reworking some of the older models before jumping into some of the newer--mass produced clarinets. With a really skilled repairperson, some of these can actually experience a "revival" of sorts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lisa L
Date: 2001-08-03 21:31
I totally agree. Buffet clarinets are great. I've got a Buffet B flat and A, and I had another Buffet B flat before!!!
Didn't Buffet make those plastic-version of clarinets, i.e., the ones that are part plastic and part wood?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lisa L
Date: 2001-08-03 21:37
can you elaborate on what the buffet greenline version is?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2001-08-04 01:00
Greenline Formula - Start with grenadilla wood that would probably not be suitable for normal clarinet manufacture (length, diameter, flaws, etc.). Grind it up into a powder and mix it with a resin (think "glue"). Form the mixture into billets of proper size to make clarinets, and then do so. It takes different equipment, so it isn't easy or cheap. But you have removed the internal stresses, flaws, and weaknesses that could later cause a piece of wood to crack.
In short . . . a good way to make use of unusable wood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2001-08-04 12:58
"greenline" is simply wood-filled plastic that is molded into a block that they refer to as a billet which is then machined. Just because it's not real 100% wood doesn't mean the "billet" won't have residual stresses in it that could lead to cracking down the line. Using the "scraps" from the manufacture of all-wood clarinets to make wood-filled plastic ones is good business sense and is probably what all clarinet mfgrs. will eventually be forced to do. Eventually we may all be playing keyboards.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2001-08-04 13:09
"greenline" is simply wood-filled plastic that is molded into a block that they refer to as a billet which is then machined. Just because it's not real 100% wood doesn't mean the "billet" won't have residual stresses in it that could lead to cracking down the line. Using the "scraps" from the manufacture of all-wood clarinets to make wood-filled plastic ones is good business sense and is probably what all clarinet mfgrs. will eventually be forced to do. Eventually we may all be playing keyboards.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-08-04 16:46
IMO, the description of "wood-filled plastic" for the Buffet Greenline clarinsts is _incorrect_. mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-08-04 17:00
I don't know - it's an analogue to the mica-filled bakelite used years ago for electronic instruments, or fibreglas - glass-filled resin.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RonD
Date: 2001-08-04 20:52
Why use wood at all why not use just resin? would it make any difference if say, maple, oak or even pine was used? the use of wood in the manufacturing process seems to be a marketing tool used to placate dedicated wood instrument players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-08-05 02:05
RonD wrote:
>
> Why use wood at all why not use just resin? would it make
> any difference if say, maple, oak or even pine was used? the
> use of wood in the manufacturing process seems to be a
> marketing tool used to placate dedicated wood instrument
> players.
IMHO, you hit the nail on the head. Right now market resistance among professional players to plastic/resin instruments would kill them no matter how well they played or how well they were made. So make a grenadilla sawdust based plastic/resin/whatever and voila! The Marketing department has a sales strategy. I hope they succeed actually so that other makers will follow their lead. I would love to have a pro level composite Leblanc as I personally do not like the way the R-13s play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Small
Date: 2001-08-05 02:39
I would be first in line for a pro level composite Leblanc Opus or LL.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-08-05 03:35
Resin looks & feels like Resin. Plastic looks & feels like Plastic. Hard rubber looks & feels like hard rubber.
The Buffet Greenline R-13 looks & feels EXACTLY like any other GRENADILLA WOOD. If it weren't for the Green Script Logo ... you wouldn't know any diffewrent. I have had one on separate occasions for entire day(s) at a time. I had picked one up at a show several times before. Not the same --- you need time to really evaluate this horn. IT IS BEAUTIFUL.
(IMO) This _IS_ what the marketplace wants!
best,
mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-08-05 14:33
I agree the greenline has a rosey future--and as an owner of both the wood Festival and a greenline R-13, I can tell you there is a difference between the greenline and a plastic instrument. I wouldn't use a plastic, but the greenline fills my bill for need for an instrument to use in extreme temperature changes and challenges for outdoor concerts in and out of different countries and on and off of airplanes, etc.
But, mw, the greenline doesn't have a woodgrain--so it isn't exactly like the wood R-13 in appearance. It does sound great and plays exactly like my R-13.
You've gotta try one of these. If someone came up with an innovative way to use materials that would otherwise be tossed--good for them!
I have to agree also that Buffet has come alive in the last few years. I got really upset with them a few years ago and said I'd never own another one--but this year I came back to them because of the great quality of R-13s I started finding. And my Festival is great!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-08-05 15:25
The Buffet Greenline R-13 looks like the finish on many wood instruments.
Brenda, I think that your comment about woodgrain is (probably) LEBLANC 'driven" as the wood Leblanc uses (say on the Opus) is definitely a PREMIUM wood .... same with the very high-end Buffet & Selmer.
The Buffet (regular) R-13 doesn't have much real grain at all. It's been dyed. Of course, you can find a piece of wood here or there, from a different billet, where the wood absorbs it differently. Looking to the Yamaha line of clarinets YCL-34 up to YCL-Custom they are dyed "jet black" so are the Buffet E-11, E-12 & E-13.
The Buffet Greenline R-13 has a soft BLACKwood lustre with no woodgrain, but it looks & feels like wood to my eyes & touch. a Buffet B-12 in woodgrain or a Yamaha YCL-20 don't look like wood to me. I KNOW INSTANTLY they are made of plastic or resonite materials.
I will be interested to hear the experiences of anyone else who studies this horn. I do think it is catching on much quicker these days. I have recently heard of several top pros who are playing the Greenline.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Kinder
Date: 2001-08-05 16:18
I played a Greenline about 5 years ago. I found that there was very little resistance in the bore to define my (for me) wood characteristic sound. It played like it was plastic, yet it was a professional horn with great intonation and key action. However, this was one of the first Greenlines that came out. I've found that the wood grain in the bore really helps to define your sound, while the Greenline has no real grain. That's why it felt like it was plastic. They MUST have improved upon them by this time, or they wouldn't be so popular.
The wood didn't (obviously) show any wood grain like my R-13 did. My R-13 had a gorgeous wood grain, but compared to the greenline, the greenline looked like molded wood - which is EXACTLY what it is.
I'd love to have a greenline as a backup horn, but for me - my Festival will remain my primary Bb instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2001-08-05 16:21
You know . . . I'm really not in the market for a brand new horn right now (being very satisfied with my 1966 R-13), but if I were . . . I think the Greenline "line" is where I'd look first. Mainly because I hear of so many horns cracking today . . . far more than when mine was purchased . . . it would be a great insurance policy. Other horns may play great, but the risk is always there for cracking and losing a ton of resale value . . . not to mention repair costs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-08-05 21:42
David Kinder wrote:
> I've found that the wood grain in the bore really
> helps to define your sound, while the Greenline has no real
> grain
OK, I'll bite - how do you know this? Or is it just guesswork on your part? Or is it that you've tried a few hundered clarinets for a few hours each and have determined that the grain helps your sound? OPr is iot really because out of the 10 or 20 you've tried over the past few years that the iones with obvious graining sounded better to you?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-08-06 02:06
David, I am willing to bet that with equal setups you couldn't tell the difference. Not everybody wants a resistive horn. Yes, its is (very high pressure made) molded wood. NO questoion. What is the serial number of your R-13? There ain't much wood grain to be found these days. I have a 475,xxx serial. R-13 and looked at hundreds before I chose the one I have. R-13's and other pro horns are painted nowadays. (again, outside of the OPu-like exceptions I noted earlier) Best, mw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Kinder
Date: 2001-08-06 06:52
The R-13 I was playing at the time was made in 1982 (serial #225419) and had a gorgeous grain to it - no matter what the dying process did. I've been using the same Vandoren M13, Eddie Daniels Rovner and either Vandoren V12 reeds or Rico Grand Concert Thick blank reeds for the past 2-3 years. I'm no expert by any means, but I know what I feel as I play a clarinet.
The bore felt more open to me and much more freeblowing than the current R-13 I had been playing. I believe it was because the bore was molded (a characteristic of plastic) and not needing a high polishing. Because I'm not "professionally trained", I rely more upon the characteristics of my instrument to get me a better sound. The Greenline bore was much more freeblowing, (and I have a lot of hot air due to my large capacity lungs), it was giving me a sound that I didn't care for. (For me it was more like a goose.) I need more resistance in my horn to help me get a better clarinet tone.
Now, I've sold that R-13, and now I have a brand new Festival. All this is what I remember playing when the greenlines first came out, and they (or even I) have improved over the past 5 years.
Please keep in mind that these are MY CONCLUSIONS AS I PLAYED ONLY ONE 5 YEARS AGO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mw
Date: 2001-08-06 12:34
That's fine --- never thought it was anymore. Please keep in mind that comparisons to, or review of, 1982 Buffet clarinets (to present day R-13) as to exterior woodgrain is definitely oranges to tangelo's. Comparison of that 1982 R-13 to a 1960 as as far as the wood might be more difficult. As I said, today they PAINT.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-08-06 13:15
David Kinder wrote:
>
> Please keep in mind that these are MY CONCLUSIONS AS I PLAYED
> ONLY ONE 5 YEARS AGO.
Wow. A conclusion based on a sample size of one. Cool.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2001-08-06 13:18
Mark C
You may recall we had a lively debate a while ago about wood v. plastic. You took the posiltion that material was irrelevant. I was on the other side---i.e., it made a difference in tone. UNTIL I found a Stanford U. study on flutes that compared Gold, Silver, Platinum and Wood flutes and concluded that the material was irrelevant and that differences in tone dealt more with the style of the piece.
As you suggested in another posting---perception of performance can effect tone. I think some of the comments above about woodgrain defining tone could be just that. The player has the perception that it will not be as good and that perception translates into reality for that player. I personnally think that a clarinet can be made of almost anything and yield an acceptable tone. As I understand it thickness of the wall of the tube is relevant on some notes so that it might not be acceptable to use the same standards as are used for a wood clarinet for a plastic or metal clarinet. If sufficient r&d time were devoted, a world-class plastic or metal clarinent could be made. This may have occurred with the Greenline
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2001-08-06 13:26
Mark C
This topic began with Particola clarinets and has really been an eductional topic. There are 49 replies (not counting this one). I am just curious---is this a record?
i.e. what is the most number of replies that you know of?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-08-06 13:41
Roger wrote:
>
> As you suggested in another posting---perception of performance
> can effect tone. I think some of the comments above about
> woodgrain defining tone could be just that. The player has the
> perception that it will not be as good and that perception
> translates into reality for that player.
It may very well be the reason - but still, a sample size of one?
I have some <b>beliefs</b> on why the Greenline is more acceptable - wood dust in the mix, coefficient of heat transfer very similar to wood (it <b>feels</b> like wood!), weight, hand-finishing, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Kinder
Date: 2001-08-06 15:32
"You only get one chance to make a first impression."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2001-08-06 16:42
Mark C is right
Actually from everything I have read you can get a lemon in an instrument (just like you can get a lemon in a car).
The real test is sound, etc. in aggregate numbers. This is where Buffet has won out over the years and will be the ultimate test of the Greenline.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-08-06 20:34
My Festival has a beautiful woodgrain like the high dollar Leblancs mw mentioned. And yes, the greenline R-13 is obviously a wood product. It does look much like the wood R-13--especially in color. But, in the wood R-13s I've purchased lately there is a distinct woodgrain. Although the R-13s, as mw mentioned, have been stained dark.
The Opus is unstained dark grenadilla. I think the Festival must be as well. Both are very nice instruments.
The new greenline I just purchased is very, very responsive. In fact, more than some of my higher dollar instruments. It will make an excellent back up instrument--or even a very good main instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Forest Aten
Date: 2001-08-07 04:22
"Grain" may, in fact, have something to do with the sound a clarinet produces. If this facet of wood does have an effect on the acoustical properties of the clarinet, the information on the WEB page below might help to explain why. In the engineering world (and in manufacturing fine musical instruments), they don't worry much about how "beautiful" the grain looks, but they may consider "grain" important and something to control, if the surface of the bore or tone holes affects the output of the instrument.
Manufacturers can't count on "grain" of the wood to be a constant in the manufacturing of clarinets. Each piece of wood is different. If the "grain" in wood could/would effect the final product, I believe that you would find manufacturers finding ways to minimize the effect. A more predictable environment would be more desirable.
You can go to the page below and get a pretty good idea about what is really important when considering what the bore of a clarinet "should be like". Every clarinet manufacturer considers many of the elements described on the referenced WEB page when designing their instrument. (or should ;-)) The WEB site referenced deals with metrology (study of measurement), and is a large part of the engineering work necessary when building a musical instrument.
http://www.predev.com/smg/intro.htm
At the very least, this page gives us all a common vocabulary to discuss issues related to the surface of the clarinet bore and tone holes and gives us some basic information on how some of the physical elements of the clarinet are measured.
I have long suspected that clarinet manufacturers have measured and tested many "surfaces" for the interior of their instruments. I also believe that once they decide that one finish is "better" than another, that they try (limited by material and technology) to duplicate that preferred surface in every clarinet they build.
A clarinet bore may appear to be finished as hard and smooth and be as brilliantly polished as a mirror....but "the truth" in the bore is far more complicated than what meets the eye.
Enjoy,
F. Aten
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: robertnsmith
Date: 2013-06-10 19:28
I have been a Buffet clarinet player since I began playing clarinet in 1996. However, I recently stumbled on a Patricola clarinet and actually prefer it to my Buffet Festival Bb. Let me give you my reasoning and some pros and cons of these instruments:
Pros:
1. Intonation on the Patricola is actually better than my Festival (which Buffet says has improved tuning)
2. The sound. I am able to blend with Buffet players but I feel the Bb sound. especially when pushed, remains confined enough to not sound spread. I liken it more to an A clarinet than a Bb. I really enjoy this and it will be great for chamber playing
3. The wood of the Patricola clarinet is by far superior to that used on my Buffet Bb. Although it's comparable to the wood on my Buffet Festival A.
4. The Patricola on which I stumbled has the vented Bb key which I really like. It does almost nothing for the tone but the pitch is much better. I think Buffet should have considered this option instead of moving the Festival register tube up.
5. Tonal stability. The notes on the Patricola find a center very easily and do not spread as the Buffet does (While some may state that the Festival is worse than an R13 about this, I would beg to differ since I've played both and have had similar feelings.)
Now, onto some cons. While no clarinet is perfect, I do feel that the Pros in the scenario outweigh the cons...
Cons:
1. Key work is not as solid as the Buffet. The action is nice, however, the material just doesn't feel as solid.
2. Key structure is a bit different than Buffet. The four right-hand pinky keys of the Patricola incorporate some strange spacing but I'm sure that'll be nothing really hard to get used to.
3. vented Long B and Long E. The Patricola has a vent key for Long B and Long E that opens for these notes automatically. I'm not a huge fan of it as I feel it adds an airiness to the Long E. I may just cover the hole completely and make it a non-issue. I've noted that in large halls it doesn't seem to have the same quality as it does in an intimate setting.
As we all know, a clarinet is a very personal choice and what works for one person will not work for others. The above is just mainly stated to provide an unbiased opinion on Patricola horns and how they work for me. I think that if you are considering new clarinets that the key work on these is similar to a Leblanc in quality (Not the same as Selmer, Buffet or Yamaha). That being said though, I believe that these do really deserve some consideration if doing clarinet trials. The wood quality is amazing and the sound is very nice if it's what you are looking for. I have also tried some of their A clarinets and they are lovely as well. I expect to see great things from them in the future!
Best Regards,
Robert
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-06-10 19:55
Many makers offer excellent models, over a considerable price range, but most of their offerings are, of course, average, not artist quality. Try before buy, and be prepared to try many, as some of the great professionals do ,sometimes by visiting the factory.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GaryH
Date: 2013-06-14 17:13
Selmer, Leblanc and Buffet are all good clarinets. They are different. I own several examples of each. I prefer Selmer personally. That being said, if I were going to buy one clarinet, and am as concerned about what other's think, I would buy a Buffet. You really can't go wrong with an R-13. There are many great used Buffet's on the market with little wear at great prices. Go play a few and pick one out. If you don't like it, you can usually sell it and get most or all of your money back. Depending on what you pay for a used one, you might even make a few bucks if you sell it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: super20bu6
Date: 2014-04-25 17:19
I will state first, that clarinet is NOT my primary instrument...but I am a competent doubler..and have recently been tasked with playing 2nd Clarinet in a local community orchestra. This February, I was looking for an Oboe and stumbled across Patricola instruments. I got a Patricola Oboe for a trial...and fell for it. The workmanship and intonation on the Patricola Oboe just blew me away. I was getting a wonderful sound out of an Oboe after not playing for 30 years. When I recently encountered Robert Smiths Patricola (mentioned 3 posts above), I jumped at the chance to get this Clarinet. My previous clarinets were all "stencils"...and not the greatest quality. Maybe just pure luck...but the key layout on this Patricola suits me just fine. I haven't measured the pinky key layouts as compared to what I've played previously...but I'm having no trouble adapting to this Patricola. I got it Wednesday and used it that night in a pit orchestra rehearsal. I'm able to blend with the 2 Buffets that are being used and am perfectly in tune with them. I used to think it was just me when I had trouble going over the break...but I now know it was the instrument I was using. Runs that I could never play easily now come out perfectly on this Patricola. I even had the Reed 1 player turn around to see if it was me playing and what the heck I was doing differently. I'm no professional...never was a clarinet major...but I truly enjoy playing on this Patricola. I still want to experiment with mouthpieces a bit...I want to bring out this best of this well built and lovely sounding instrument. I only hope that more people will discover and enjoy Patricola instruments as much as I do...they're truly worth checking out. Robert...THANK YOU again!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-04-25 19:19
I might be wrong but I believe that Ron Odrich plays a Patricola.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-04-26 09:41
Josh: I find that bassoonists are a lot less conformist than us clarinetists. Many of the top ones use Heckels, if they can afford one, but others use all sorts of brands In the 70s, IBM used to rule the computer roost by brainwashing big clients: if you didn't use IBM, you were headed for disaster-this is the message they got across. Buffet seems to bring across a similar subliminal suggestion. Steinway still leads in the field of pianos because it remains the best (in spite of having been bought up more than once). I think Bufet leads for other reasons. If I stay in a hotel, I avoid impersonal chains hotels. I avoid mediocre chain restaurants. For similar reasons, I avoid chain clarinets, mouthpieces and reeds.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-04-26 09:42
Josh: I find that bassoonists are a lot less conformist than us clarinetists. Many of the top ones use Heckels, if they can afford one, but others use all sorts of brands In the 70s, IBM used to rule the computer roost by brainwashing big clients: if you didn't use IBM, you were headed for disaster-this is the message they got across. Buffet seems to bring across a similar subliminal suggestion. Steinway still leads in the field of pianos because it remains the best (in spite of having been bought up more than once). I think Bufet leads for other reasons. If I stay in a hotel, I avoid impersonal chains hotels. I avoid mediocre chain restaurants. For similar reasons, I avoid chain clarinets, mouthpieces and reeds.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-26 16:08
Ruben, aren't (or weren't) you affiliated with JL-Clarinettes, a French manufacturer of ... clarinets?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-04-26 16:18
Jack...yes, still am. I am by no means attacking Buffet (they haven't much to fear!), but I think small, independent makers have their place and their use.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
