 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jcm499
Date: 2021-11-22 21:31
I have gathered a general consensus that advances in acoustical design have improved the performance of modern clarinets—polycylindrical bores, undercut tone holes, and so on. Is this really so, to an appreciable degree?
My first clarinet when I started playing was a then-current model Buffet E12 (Schreiber-made, circa 1998) with a polycylindrical bore and undercut toneholes. As a teenager, when I needed an “A” clarinet to play in orchestra, I got a then-current model Noblet 45 (circa 2006). As an adult, I bought myself a Selmer Centered Tone R series (1958).
These clarinets all have basically the same tuning tendencies for me: sharp in the right hand chalumeau, flat throat E-F#, and sharp on both long clarion B and C and short clarion B and C. Most troublesome to me are the sharp lower clarion notes, because they are not very flexible and I can’t always voice them down as much I would like. I know many people complain of a flat bottom F, but I have not had that issue.
But if anything, the Centered Tone tunes the best of them, better than the polycylindrical Buffet. It is also the most even in tone and resistance across the registers. I know the Buffet is an intermediate model, and the Selmer was a pro model in its day. But the Buffet is allegedly still the inheritor of many alleged acoustic improvements over the intervening decades. And the average intonation results recorded for the new Selmer Privilege in an Arizona State University study are decidedly worse than what I get with my Centered Tone, a model with reputedly troublesome intonation. https://cloud.selmer.fr/index.php/s/jToPN9wDHHwoGeL#pdfviewer
Of course I would like to improve my tuning, but I am not convinced thousands of dollars on new equipment would help, nor am I convinced, based on my admittedly limited firsthand experience, about the acoustic inferiority of older clarinets.
What is the community’s firsthand experience with this?
Post Edited (2021-11-22 23:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2021-11-22 22:28
Not new (modern) but rather quality build. Old Buffet R13s back in the 60’s were great horns and the most recent ones are great horns. You need to invest in a well made horn (used is fine too) and find a superlative tech to keep it in good working order (sealing perfectly and all spring tensions at their best individual settings). You will be very happy.
…………….Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jdbassplayer
Date: 2021-11-22 23:51
I would say yes there has been significant improvement. My Golden Era R13 was great but my Tosca (Even though it was made in 2004 and has cracks) plays much better and more in tune.
-Jdbassplayer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2021-11-23 00:44
jcm499 wrote:
"I have gathered a general consensus that advances in acoustical design have improved the performance of modern clarinets—polycylindrical bores, undercut tone holes, and so on. Is this really so, to an appreciable degree?...
My first clarinet when I started playing was a then-current model Buffet E12 (Schreiber-made, circa 1998) with a polycylindrical bore and undercut toneholes. As a teenager, when I needed an “A” clarinet to play in orchestra, I got a then-current model Noblet 45 (circa 2006). As an adult, I bought myself a Selmer Centered Tone R series (1958).
...
the Centered Tone tunes the best of them, better than the polycylindrical Buffet...
...the average intonation results recorded for the new Selmer Privilege in an Arizona State University study are decidedly worse than what I get with my Centered Tone, a model with reputedly troublesome intonation...
Of course I would like to improve my tuning, but I am not convinced thousands of dollars on new equipment would help, nor am I convinced, based on my admittedly limited firsthand experience, about the acoustic inferiority of older clarinets.
What is the community’s firsthand experience with this?"
You asked a simple question (or maybe not so simple ) that requires not so simple answer.
Good points were given in the replies above.
I want to add that one or two particular instruments do not represent the whole line. The test done in AZ university was done on two instruments only and cannot be applied 100% to all Selmers.
Piano tuners rely on their ears, not on electronic tuner.
I asked one of them why and he replied: "It would not sound right if I tuned it (piano) with the tuner only". I believe that they make fourth interval a little wider, and fifth a little narrower, or vice versa...
Anyway, if you play in an orchestra, you need to be in tune with someone else, who may not be perfect. I remember how a timpani player was telling me that when he hit a specific note at the end of an aria he would have to hit the center of the timpani or it's edge, depending on what horn player was playing because that note was in unison with the horn. One horn player would be perfectly in pitch, and another one was always slightly sharp.
Regarding the money spent: there is a law of diminishing returns that (I believe) applies to the musical instrument.
$6K Tosca does not necessarily would be twice as good as a $3K R13. It could be but may not be as well.
Sometimes spending thousands of $$ may produce marginal improvement over your current instrument. Marginal for one player and great for another.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2021-11-23 02:40
I have owned Buffet R13s that were new in 1971, 1979, and my current one (1999). Other than the huge price increases, I have noticed no real differences in the three.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book--
tomheimer.ampbk.com/ Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001315, Musicnotes product no. MB0000649.
Boreal Ballad for unaccompanied clarinet-Sheet Music Plus item A0.1001314.
Musicnotes product no. MNO287475
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ursa
Date: 2021-11-23 05:02
Blanket statements about the tuning accuracy of modern versus vintage instruments don't take into account the many vagaries of mouthpiece selection and their effects upon intonation. To wit, I have about a dozen mouthpieces in my studio, and it won't take much testing to find one that will yield faulty intonation with any given clarinet.
Your '58 Centered Tone has undoubtedly gone through multiple overhauls in its 63-year lifespan, and possibly tone hole modifications as well. It might be a better clarinet now than it was when it left the Selmer workshop.
In any event, it would seem that you've got yourself one of the "good ones". Play and enjoy!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-11-23 10:32
My new clarinet plays in tune beautifully and is always just right in every way.
My 10 year old clarinet is always out of tune.
But when I compare the sound that they make, I always get the feeling that the old one has a kind of ethereal beauty to the sound, that the modern one doesn't have. It plays as though it was built for accuracy rather than magic. The old one is also smaller and lighter, which I really like.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2021-11-23 13:15
I would say that (disregarding CSOs) the "average tuning" has improved a bit, while the "average tone" has suffered a little. In the old days, the best clarinets sounded amazing and the worst clarinets were crazy out of tune. Now the best clarinets sound "ok" but the worst clarinets have intonation that's not a complete disaster...
That said, my 1963 R13 SOUNDS incredible, but has tuning that's not much different from the average NEW R13 off the shelf at the local store.
My 1973 R13 A clarinet has incredible intonation, but doesn't project as well as my 2008 buffet Festival.
This doesn't PROVE ANYTHING.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jcm499
Date: 2021-11-23 19:59
All good points. Generalizations have their uses, but at the end of the day what really matters is whether a particular individual instrument plays well, regardless of its age or provenance.
I don't know my Centered Tone's service history, though I suspect it was owned by a woodwind doubler. It was not heavily used; no play or wear in keys, no chips or cracks or scratches, and original logo gilding intact, but it had been fairly recently repadded with synthetic pads, which showed some use.
As far as mouthpieces, I have what I suppose is the original mouthpiece supplied with it, a Selmer HS* with an oval table, which actually is a very fine mouthpiece, but it has gone sort of chalky and tastes of sulphur so I do not use it. It played globally a little sharper than my other regularly used mouthpieces, a Ted Lane, a Grabner K14, and a Behn Prescott Close. They all work well, though.
The law of diminishing returns applies very much with musical instruments, but as musicians and artists who are constantly striving, I suspect our mindset is generally not the most businesslike in that regard.
I like the idea of instruments being "crafted for magic" vs "built for accuracy."
I'm thinking I will have a good tech go over my CT, which I have not had done, and then take it from there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-11-23 22:01
I was wondering a thing about very old clarinets which ties into what Donald says, above.
I kind of wonder if there can be good individual examples of clarinets of any age, and also bad examples, even with very old, very well regarded makers.
One reasion I wondered this is that my 100 year old clarinet sounds wonderful in its tone, but has been so well used that it is practically falling apart.
I have seem another copy of the same clarinet for sale online as part of a pair. Both clarinets of the pair are in more or less mint condition and have clearly been hardly used in a whole century.
I wondered - do you think there is something wrong with the mint conditions ones that caused them to keep being put back in the cupboard for all these years? They look lovely, but it seems to me that if they played well then maybe someone would have played them?
I could be wrong though. Maybe it was just a rich person who had the money to have something like that sitting around unused forever?
This is the pair:
http://www.clarinetsdirect.biz/EJAlberts-Fletcher.html
Mine doesn't look anything like that. Even the metal ligature has been so well used that it has literally split in half.
Photographs of my own copy are shown here for comparison:
https://lovelyoldclarinet.blogspot.com/2021/05/and-now-i-am-going-to-play-it.html
Post Edited (2021-11-23 22:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ursa
Date: 2021-11-23 22:39
jcm, regarding your Selmer HS* mouthpiece: A soak in room-temperature white vinegar and mouthpiece brush should take care of any chalky deposits on the internals. Then, after it's been rinsed in cold water and dried, polish the exterior of the mouthpiece with extra virgin olive oil to take care of the sulphur taste, avoiding the facing rails. The olive oil will remove the oxidation and help restore the mouthpiece to its original glossy black appearance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jeroen
Date: 2021-11-24 18:11
The Selmer R-series is imo the best tuned version of the Centered Tone. This late CT is quite similar to the early Series 9 that also tunes quite well for a big bore clarinet. It is only when you play softly that some tuning issues show up because of the big tone holes.
However there has been a lot of development since then. Not in the big bore clarinets but in the smaller bore instruments starting with the obvious Buffet R13. A lot of good clarinets have followed by Buffet but also by Selmer, Leblanc and Yamaha. Even a cheap student clarinet (Buffet E12) tunes excellent nowadays.
The point is that playing your CT is quite different than playing a modern small bore clarinet. You need another mpc, different way of blowing and different way of voicing to get the optimal result out of this new instrument. Probably you will not like the sound at all and feel restricted in blowing and dynamics. Finally resulting in going back to your CT and enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that btw.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2021-11-24 19:02
I still own and play on the same R13s (B-flat, A and E-flat)-- the same ones I used when I first played professionally in the orchestra beginning in the late 1960's -- and they are indeed excellent instruments.
I those days, Buffet made only the R13. The RC and Festival came later, as did the Prestige and all the other models.
I paid $200 for the B-flat, $220 for the A, and $350 for the E-flat. The old-style double case cost $15 extra.
Yes, I know, I'm a dinosaur.
Paul Globus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kalashnikirby
Date: 2021-11-27 18:15
What I've come to realize is that some brands, among them Buffet and later Yamaha set new standards in terms of quality. Many older instruments have such a bendy keywork, questionable axles and so on that I feel like even older R13 are (sometimes) lightyears ahead. Especially true for the german market, older Kohlerts, Keilwerths, Meinel and whatever their names are/were can't actually match the quality of a simple Yamaha 457. These Instruments have now been around for decades and are still going strong, while and older Keilwerth's plating will rot away and the keys are all bent.
So in that regard, modern instruments have really improved. I dare not comment 9n the acoustical design, for I know to little about that 😅
Best regards
Christian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2021-11-28 07:13
Paul Globus, let me know if you ever want to sell that A clarinet!!!! I'm looking for a partner to my 1963 R13....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jcm499
Date: 2021-11-28 07:52
Sunny-- I think there are lots of reasons a fine clarinet might not get much use. It could be a doubler's instrument, or maybe belonged to someone who suffered an injury or illness that impacted their ability to play not long after they bought it. It's also possible the instrument is fine, just not to that individual's taste. I also think even the finest clarinet can be seriously degraded by abuse or neglect, and by the same token, there are many ways to improve a clarinet that is lacking. I wouldn't at all assume an apparently lightly used clarinet is a bad one.
Ursa-- Thank you. I will try that. I had been thinking of sending that mouthpiece to Brad Behn for restoration.
Jeroen-- My teacher played an even bigger-bore clarinet, a Luis Rossi, which I think has a lot to do with how my sound concept developed.
Paul-- a new R-13 for $200 sounds great, but then again, the median household income in 1967 was only $7,300, so it's all relative. I have often heard that the new R-13s do not measure up to the ones of that era.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hugues Fardao
Date: 2021-11-28 12:29
I was talking about old horns with a sax player last summer : my old Selmer clarinet from 1931 is so easy to play when I compare to modern Selmer, and the sax player said to me he's got a '30s sax who is also very easy to play.
Was it the deal at this time ? Easy to blow and responsive ? Maybe.
But if I refer to the tuning, modern clarinets win, no doubt, the new Selmer Muse, the Selmer Récital, even a '70s or '80s 10S (and there are full Boehm 10S too), and Buffet Divine, Tradition, Tosca... I have to be careful with my tuning on my old Selmer (now I know how to play with it after one year, fortunately).
I believe clarinet is a balance, there is always somthing better in one model compare to another (tuning, clarion, low ends, resonnance, projection, free blowing or resistance, power, eveness,...). Clarinet is an extension of our mouth, our talk, our voice ; I have an awful sound with some clarinets and a great sound with others, whatever the age or price. Or maybe not awful sound, but a sound I dislike.
At least I'm sure modern clarinets from Yamaha, Buffet, Selmer, S&S, Backun... are way better when talking about tuning. When we talk about ergonomy and sound, it's a more personnal taste, and about those particuliar points one can feel old clarinet are better.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Globus
Date: 2021-11-29 01:26
Sorry, not looking to sell my instruments. The reason? I still play them every day, even though my time as a professional player is long gone. The instrument I do not play every day, but probably should take out of the case at least once in a while, is my R13 E-flat.
I have tried more recent Buffets and it seems to me that the venerable company is still making first-class horns. I know there are lots of other makers these days -- back in 1960's when I first got into the professional ranks, you chose between Selmer and Buffet (Leblanc was a distant third), that was about it. I didn't know anyone who played anything else. I played Selmers myself before I got my set of R13s.
Buffet instruments had a distinct sound back in the day and I think they basically still do. I don't know how I would describe it in words but, to my ears at least, it's extremely appealing.
Paul Globus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
