 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: as9934
Date: 2016-11-02 09:39
I was in my clarinet studio class today and had a very interesting discussion about the compromises of different makers when they make clarinets, and about different clarinets in general. My teacher Donald Oehler spoke about his experience using Buffets for many years and then finally switching to Selmer. Well, that got me thinking that I haven't ever seen any sort of guide or video that compares professional clarinets from different major manufacturers on the basis of technical specifications, sound characteristics, intonation and timbre/sound color. So I ran a quick google search but was unable to find anything. Can anyone point me to one or take a crack at it themselves? I would be interested in seeing a comparison about the following clarinets:
Buffet R13, Festival, Prestige, Tosca, Vintage, Divine, RC and Tradition
Yamaha CSG, CSV, CSVR, SEV
Selmer Signature, Privilege
Backun Protege, MoBa
Any other professional clarinets you would care to include
I have little to no experience playing any of these clarinets, so I would be interested to see what yall think. Eventually I may consider buying one of these clarinets if I become good enough so I would appreciate any advice you could give.
Thanks!
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Wind Ensemble
Buffet E11 clarinet , Vandoren Masters CL6 13 series mouthpiece w/ Pewter M/O Ligature, Vandoren V12 3.5
Yamaha 200ad clarinet, Vandoren B45 mouthpiece, Rovner ligature
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-11-02 18:18
I asked a similar question a couple years back. Still interested. Something like a Consumer's Guide article would be great. Not so easy to acquire all that data, though. One problem is the relatively few sales of these instruments in a year. Another is how different individual instruments and individual players are: there are great professionals who favor any of the instruments you listed.
You can find numerous posts making limited comparisons on this site, and also posts discussing virtues or faults of different instruments. For example, Bob Bernardo started an interesting thread about Yamaha instruments recently. Also see posts reporting on Clarinet Fests, where people tried out select examples of different makes and models of clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-11-02 18:43
You would need to do a lot of reading here and elsewhere, because most of what players say in comparing one instrument to another is based in opinion and individual reaction to qualities that are mostly subjective. Worse, the qualities that people judge when they compare instruments are things that can't be described adequately in words. None of what we talk about when we describe instruments' playing qualities is measurable.
There is no agreement on the meaning of words to describe tone or response.
The layout of keywork on a given instrument can be very comfortable for one player and miserably awkward for another.
The one parameter that might be measured is the note-to-note consistency of intonation, but I'd be surprised if these days there were very much difference from one modern clarinet to another. There may be different compromises chosen by each designer, but overall I doubt if there's much being designed today that doesn't strive for the most even intonation possible.
The reason why the biggest brands - Buffet, Selmer and (maybe) Leblanc - are the traditional favorites is that everyone knows they represent a well-established standard of quality. That Backun, Ridenour and Yamaha make really excellent clarinets that many players prefer to the big historic names means that historic reputation isn't the only consideration. But it still comes down to your finding and trying the instruments out yourself in one way or another. The basic quantifiable parameters - bore size (and shape), weight, type of material for body and for keys, extra keys (beyond the basic Boehm 17 keys and 6 rings) and maybe a couple of others - won't help you much to decide about how they play, and the things that really influence players' decisions can't be quantified or described.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2016-11-02 19:37
Karl is right that it comes down to what you like when you actually play it, however:
The people who make instruments and mouthpieces could do a much better job of selling their stuff with good information, rather than meaningless jargon like "free-blowing". For example, they could list things like...
Horns:
bore diameter
type of barrel
overall length
description of bore profile
graph display of intonation characteristics
graph of overtone/partial prominences (at low E, open G, long B, etc.) with a common mouthpiece
suggested "ideal" mouthpiece characteristics
Mouthpieces:
facing length/tip opening (in a standard format, measured in a standard way)
baffle shape (concave or convex - s/m/h - tip or overall)
chamber size (s,m,l)
chamber walls (parallel, "A", "V", or "round")
bore size
bore characteristics (straight, inverse taper)
overall volume (has effect on pitch)
Barrel:
bore size at top
bore size at bottom
bore type (straight, conical, or complex)
made for a certain purpose? (is it made for Vandoren M13s on a Buffet, or a Grabner on a Yamaha)
Reeds:
tip thickness
heel thickness
vamp length
overall length
tip width
type or profile (according to some meaningful and definable standard convention like "French", "American", "German", "Jazz" etc.)
Adding just a few of these would be very helpful.
Obviously, you wouldn't know what you would like, or if it worked for you until you played it. BUT it would give you some direction. "I like this so I would probably like that, or I hate this so I probably wouldn't like that." You might also be able to learn things like, "I probably need a mouthpiece with a smaller volume. Or, my throat tones are flat, so I probably need a certain kind of barrel." Randomly trying stuff is fine, but there is so much out there that it often ends up being a crap shoot, or whatever someone you know happens to have.
If somebody had the means to make one a comparison chart it would be great - even if it were only of clarinets from a single maker. "Why does Buffet have 20 different pro models?" "Which models are designed to compete with which models from the other makers?"
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-11-02 20:42
Matt74 wrote:
> Adding just a few of these would be very helpful.
>
Maybe, but the design choices reflected in those numbers, especially in the instruments themselves, are all meant to lead to a product that sounds and responds (and tunes) the way the designer thinks is ideal. The measurements work in combination to produce the result, and I don't know that you'd have any idea just from seeing them what the net effect will turn out to be.
Some of what you miss in the advertising is actually already there, especially for reeds and mouthpieces.
> "Why does Buffet have 20 different pro models?"
> "Which models are designed to compete with which models from
> the other makers?"
>
You've hit a couple of the most perplexing questions in my mind. I would like to know more about what makes a Tosca different from a Prestige or a Divine, Vintage or Traditional.
Vandoren mouthpieces are pretty open (no pun intended) about their facings, but not so much about whether (and how) the blanks are different internally among their long list of mouthpieces. There are relatively few dimensions in a relatively small area for the mouthpiece maker to manipulate, and most of them have somewhat predictable effects, so more of this information about mouthpieces might be useful.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2016-11-03 10:58
I don't get it. No one wins here. If you can afford $29,000 buy the Backun's. It's the American way. The more money you spend the better the horn and you will surely win that uncoming Clevelnad Orchestra position! Right? That's what the instrument makers want you to think. These instrument makers suck! Just a reminder that Marcellus played on a 1928 pre R13 horn. The cost was probably $100. He had a few other R13's but I'm sure he didn't pay much more than $300 each for them, in fact he probably paid more to keep the horns in fine repair during his long career.
The difference between an R13 and the Divine is about $4500 give or take $500 plus taxes, per horn. Lets get real hear, it's just a piece of friggin wood and metal. That's why most great players still play R13's. At an orchestra concert or even at an audition will the people in the audience or the judges say "Oh that's a set of $16,000 devil Divine clarinets, or a $29,000 set of Buffoons, lets hire him/her. That's such a sweet and special sound compared to the R13's." Don't think so folks.
It's like a car. Right now you can drive one of the fastest cars ever made for $80,000. The Dodge Viper. But only 300 sold this year. It can beat pretty much every model of the Porsche line. So you can spend $1 million and have that Porsche name, or the faster Viper. Sadly the Viper will no longer be made after this year, maybe because it should have listed for a half million bucks? I don't know, but I almost bought one, the American muscle car! I came really close, but backed off because of the lawsuit against Rico for using pesticides and getting REALLY sick. I have to pay my attorney, doctors, meds, all of that.
I'm NOT opposed to paying for what you believe in, just don't be a sucker. It's just wood. A gifted repairman can re-bore, undercut a few holes, on an R13 to pretty much match a Divine for about $200. Maybe even make it better! Hmmm that just gave me a thought! I'll have to do some bore measuring and make some reamers. :-)
What a great post. I got an idea!
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2016-11-03 11:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2016-11-03 19:01
"The people who make instruments and mouthpieces could do a much better job of selling their stuff with good information, rather than meaningless jargon like "free-blowing". For example, they could list things like..."
Some makers regard that stuff as trade secrets, even though you can figure it out yourself with the right equipment. It can also be deceptive. Some computers have great specs, but apps run really slow on them.
How wide you cast the net can depend on where you are, whether you need to get a job playing, and whether you're so much better than everyone else that playing on a weird instrument doesn't hurt your prospects. There are very good makers who don't advertise at all, at least in the U.S., and whom you mostly have to visit to try out their instruments: among them, Peter Eaton, Johanna Kronthaler, Schwenk & Seggelke, Leitner & Kraus, and these days, even Herbert Wurlitzer now that they no longer have an American agent. In that company, Buffet and Selmer are sort of like debating between Michelob and Heineken: they sure aren't Bud Lite, but at the same time, there's a whole wide world out there.
Marcellus wasn't the only great player to have an old Buffet and play it forever. Eduard Brunner also played a pair, with thicker walls than anything they sell now, in the Bayerische Rundfunk. He also fell into the category of being so good that playing a weird horn didn't hold him back any, because in Munich at the time, that was one weird set of horns.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2016-11-04 00:48
The others who have commented have said it well. A chart of specifications comparing different brands and models might be interesting, but there is no substitute for trying the different instruments.
It sounds to me like you want to see and try what's out there, and possibly buy a new clarinet. It appears that you're in North Carolina. If you are interested in a new instrument, I'd suggest contacting Muncy Winds in Vilas. I've ordered a number of things from them, and they're wonderful to deal with. On their web site, they list a number of professional clarinets from Buffet, Selmer, and Patricola.
Post Edited (2016-11-04 00:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: efsf081
Date: 2016-11-04 05:42
I can understand why most of the clarinet company don't want to give too much technical information.
Because most of the public, student or even teacher may easily misunderstand those numeric data. Playnick mouthpiece is a good example. When I buy my B2 I ask them about the tip opening and found out the B1 have the most close tip opening but need to use the softer reed. It is totality different to what I know before.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2016-11-05 23:18
Ask three clarinet players, get fourteen answers . . . .
I'm an amateur, but fwiw, I think there's no such thing as "best." Best for whom? We've got differently-shaped mouths, different lung capacities, different levels of musical education, different . . . everything. Ask Dick Vigorous the dirty rat (please don't . . .) and he'll say the best clarinet is the one that squeaks the loudest. The best clarinet for me probably isn't the best clarinet for you.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2016-11-06 01:26
Know how IBM back then sold their typewriters? With testimonials from secretaries who said they made less typos with IBM machines. Which means more Dear Customer letters per day. Which made bosses buy these typewriters.
Forget about ribbon length or end-of-line-bell loudness and whatnot. What counts is how well the instrument behaves in your hands.
I found out I haven't got Buffet hands, I have Leblanc hands. I make less mistakes when I play on a Leblanc. I don't care if my barrel is hourglass shaped or if my reeds has a Clark-Y profile.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: as9934
Date: 2016-11-06 21:52
I'm not really looking for a definitive best clarinet because as many of you have pointed that clarinet doesn't exist. I would just be really interested to hear from someone who has played all or some or any of these and get their opinions on them ie. "I like playing the R13/CSG/MoBA/Privilege for x reasons" That way when I do go to the shop someday with some money in my pocket/bank account, I can think about what others have said in addition to my own personal thoughts.
As Philip, Karl and Matt pointed out I also wouldn't mind seeing a few technical specifications just so I can compare them as a baseline to what I am using now. Some of y'all may be right in that those numbers might not matter at all, but just to satisify my curiosity I would like to see them.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Wind Ensemble
Buffet E11 clarinet , Vandoren Masters CL6 13 series mouthpiece w/ Pewter M/O Ligature, Vandoren V12 3.5
Yamaha 200ad clarinet, Vandoren B45 mouthpiece, Rovner ligature
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2016-11-07 01:11
There seem to be a wealth of choices for professional quality clarinets. Is that also true of other instruments? - like trumpet, violin, oboe, etc?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2016-11-07 01:49
The Selmer Mark VI (1954-1973) saxophone was the standard for the professional saxophone. Marcel Mule and Boots Randolph both played a Mark VI. However, I bought a Couf Superba I alto, because I liked its richer sound. As far as I know, there is no longer a preferred saxophone.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2016-11-07 06:36
The nearest thing I can think of to a guide to different clarinet makes is O. Lee Gibson's "Clarinet Accoustics," but it's not complete and way out of date now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
