 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: HP
Date: 2025-05-30 03:08
Do you think it would be possible to mod my Selmer CT Bb clarinet so it has covered tone holes? And how much do you think this modification would cost?
I love the sound of this clarinet, but since I have rather skinny fingers it squeaks quite often when one of the tone holes is not fully covered.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-05-30 03:21
It will be an expensive job due to the amount of keywork that will need to be made, as well as adding extra pillars and reshaping the chimneys to form bedplaces on them and countersinking the LH3 tonehole, plus some modifications to other keys to raise their touchpiece heights for much easier reach.
If you're only leaking off LH3 and RH3, you can have fingerplates fitted to just those toneholes as that will be far less costly than converting the main action to fully covered/plateaux action. And with CTs, those two toneholes are far larger in diameter than you'll find on many other clarinets which only exacerbates the issue.
Not that long ago I found an old Sterling (made by Selmer) plateaux action clarinet which I rebuilt and was snapped up immediately by a lady with arthritis who was struggling playing her early CT (which she also bought off me around 15 years back). While the older Sterling didn't have the same sound as her CT, she found it far easier from the outset and hasn't had any grief since then.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-05-31 03:58
I have a friend for many years I met thru clarinet playing.
Unfortunately, over the years, arthritis has bent her fingers such that it is an ever more difficult process for her to cover the tone holes of her non-plateau R13 such that we've discussed "plateuing" the instrument with Denmark's Lohff & Pfeiffer, who has a boutique business effecting such changes.
You might find this thread below interesting as it features a top line new Plateau clarinet being played, including with glissando formed via embouchure, rather the pulling away fingers from open tone holes, as is commonly done on non-plateau clarinets to achieve this effect.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=504122&t=504114
All this said, I'm curious just how much your thin fingers truly represent a congenital or developed impediment to play, like my friend's arthritis, and how much of this (and I don't know, I'm asking, so I don't mean to be offensive) plateau interest represents an easier route to achievement than practice.
You may very well have completely anthropomorphic reasons to desire this type of instrument, and again, I do not mean to offend.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2025-05-31 18:53
In the UK Hanson make plateau clarinets intended for both the student-level player and the professional or advanced player. A friend who suffers from arthritis that was affecting her ability to play bought one a year ago. I've examined and played it and I'm impressed with the quality of the instrument. You can get a new one for less than some of the wildly optimistic prices quoted on EBay and it will be a better instrument. They're also, in my experience, good people to deal with.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2025-06-01 02:22
Hi Tony F.,
In your opinion, how that model (I assume it was a T6 or T5) compared to Buffet models (or Selmer) ?
How was tuning?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: smokindok
Date: 2025-06-01 04:48
SecondTry wrote:
>
> You may very well have completely anthropomorphic reasons to
> desire this type of instrument, and again, I do not mean to
> offend.
My imagination is having fun coming up with “anthropomorphic reasons to desire this type of instrument.” (Much more entertaining than any anatomic reasons.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-06-01 06:12
smokindok wrote:
> SecondTry wrote:
> >
> > You may very well have completely anthropomorphic reasons to
> > desire this type of instrument, and again, I do not mean to
> > offend.
>
> My imagination is having fun coming up with “anthropomorphic
> reasons to desire this type of instrument.” (Much more
> entertaining than any anatomic reasons.)
>
Anthropomorphic measurements are used to assess the human body's size, proportions, and composition, that when they differ too far from what is considered in the statistically normal range, may become anatomical reasons.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2025-06-01 11:18
Author: m1964
Date: 2025-06-01 02:22
Hi Tony F.,
In your opinion, how that model (I assume it was a T6 or T5) compared to Buffet models (or Selmer) ?
How was tuning?
Thanks
Hi, Tuning wasn't bad. It's difficult to compare it with Buffet because of the somewhat patchy quality of what they are producing today. I can only say that it didn't tune quite as well as my R13, but it was better than that of a bandmate friend. One thing that it didn't have, at least with the mouthpiece/reed combination I was using, was the distinct Buffet "Ping", but that could be down to me. Keywork appeared to be quite robust and well-made.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-06-01 17:12
I'd have probably used the word 'ergonomic' as it has fewer syllables than anthropomorphic, or just 'fits your hands better'.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-06-01 21:17
Chris P wrote:
> I'd have probably used the word 'ergonomic' as it has fewer
> syllables than anthropomorphic, or just 'fits your hands
> better'.
>
There was a reason, albeit somewhat pendantic, that I chose the use of the word anthropomorphic...
...not nearly as pedantic I think as your critique or smokindoc's amusement with it, but I digress:
Ergonomic feel comes as a product of anthropomorphic measurements, which can vary widely in people, particularly ones with anomalous measurements, such as those with [disproportionate] dwarfism, or arthritis, such that some of the instruments considered most ergonomic with open tone holes, for example, can sometime not fit as well for these people as, say, less well ergonomically designed plateau instruments.
Ergonomic feel, anatomical reasons: these things are derived or concluded by taking anthropomorphic measurements. The are the byproducts of making such calculations.
Gee, maybe we could stay on point here and either come up with solutions for the OP or get to the heart of whether his interest in plateau instruments is born more of noteworthy difference in his finger structure that makes open tone hole clarinets reasonably too difficult for him to play, or simple desire to pursue an easy course of play.
If the latter, while entirely his right, I'd argue that if you are going to play the clarinet, and don't have special needs (which indeed the OP may have) that you better get use to practice rather than gear being the path to better play, or select another instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-06-01 21:43
If they're having trouble with their fingers leaking from certain tonehole chimneys, then hardly any other ring key clarinets will be the answer as finger spacing of the main action is going to be near on identical.
While narrow bore clarinets may have smaller diameter toneholes, maybe they don't like how they play compared to a Selmer CT - I definitely prefer how CTs play compared to Buffets and that's not just the tone, but how restrictive Buffets feel for me as well as how flat they are up top by comparison (plus many CT fingerings are flat as a pancake on Buffets).
Why buy a clarinet you don't like and live with it when you always have the option to modify an existing one? The modifications can either be a full on plateaux rebuild or adding fingerplates to the troublesome toneholes.
I've also made a raised bush for RH3 which is soldered to the top of the ring key and the underside is recessed to take a cork or foam gasket to seal against the top of the tonehole chimney which has helped a couple of players locate the RH3 tonehole much easier and the tuning of A/E isn't affected by it.
If clarinets were fitted with an A/E vent as standard that fully vents A/E, then the RH3 (A/E) tonehole won't need to be as large as it is in relation to the RH 1 and 2 toneholes - same with LH3 having a ring key and fitted with a D/A vent for a fully vented D/A (as you'd see on reform Boehms) as that too reduces the diameter of the LH3 (D/A) tonehole.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2025-06-02 00:05
Tony F, wrote:
"...Tuning wasn't bad. It's difficult to compare it with Buffet because of the somewhat patchy quality of what they are producing today. I can only say that it didn't tune quite as well as my R13, but it was better than that of a bandmate friend. One thing that it didn't have, at least with the mouthpiece/reed combination I was using, was the distinct Buffet "Ping", but that could be down to me. Keywork appeared to be quite robust and well-made."
Thank you- maybe Hansen's sound/tone concept is closer to Selmer's.
Do you know if it was a T5 or T6?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-06-02 19:49
Lohff & Pfeiffer's (L&F) website was down when I posted above about them, so I didn't include a link.
It's, as of this writing, up and running and I link below the webpage on their site that details their plateauing process, which includes, for the OPs sake, Selmer models.
I know somebody who did this (on a Buffet) for age related reasons. The modifications took months and the instrument, upon shipping back to the States (L&F is in Denmark) took quite some time to go thru customs, but YMMV. The player was, in the end, very pleased with the work.
Additionally, L&F, since then I believe, has established a US presence in Maryland, but I'm not sure if such presence now allows these instrument modifications to occur domestically.
I'm a huge supporter of such work where players truly have physical attributes, congenital or age related that make their playing their loved open tone hole instrument near impossible, allowing them to extend the life of their play, or even buying such an instrument new, as detailed in the link I provided in prior posts. I'm even ok with the hobbyist that uses a plateau clarinet because it's just easier.
But as mentioned, such instruments or work don't get my vote for those players seeking to advance their skills, simply seeking shortcuts to play over practice, otherwise anatomically capable of covering tone holes. Good shortcuts are rare in the clarinet world and those seeking them are likely to become frustrated.
https://www.clarinet.dk/content/show_content.php?id=101&cont=us&lang=en&instr=cla
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2025-06-03 20:37
Thank you- maybe Hansen's sound/tone concept is closer to Selmer's.
Do you know if it was a T5 or T6?
I'm not certain and unfortunately I don't have access to it now, but based on what she paid for it I suspect it was a T5.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: smokindok
Date: 2025-06-04 06:49
SecondTry wrote:
> smokindok wrote:
>
> > SecondTry wrote:
> > >
> > > You may very well have completely anthropomorphic reasons
> to
> > > desire this type of instrument, and again, I do not mean to
> > > offend.
> >
> > My imagination is having fun coming up with
> “anthropomorphic
> > reasons to desire this type of instrument.” (Much more
> > entertaining than any anatomic reasons.)
> >
>
> Anthropomorphic measurements are used to assess the human
> body's size, proportions, and composition, that when they
> differ too far from what is considered in the statistically
> normal range, may become anatomical reasons.
Hmmm, I know those measurements as anthropometric measurements. Anthropomorphic to me refers to attributing human traits, emotions, motivations, and the like to non-human animals. Guess I took too much psych and not enough anthropometry in college. Maybe if I had done that fourth year…
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-06-04 19:42
smokindok wrote:
> SecondTry wrote:
>
> > smokindok wrote:
> >
> > > SecondTry wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You may very well have completely anthropomorphic reasons
> > to
> > > > desire this type of instrument, and again, I do not mean
> to
> > > > offend.
> > >
> > > My imagination is having fun coming up with
> > “anthropomorphic
> > > reasons to desire this type of instrument.” (Much more
> > > entertaining than any anatomic reasons.)
> > >
> >
> > Anthropomorphic measurements are used to assess the human
> > body's size, proportions, and composition, that when they
> > differ too far from what is considered in the statistically
> > normal range, may become anatomical reasons.
>
> Hmmm, I know those measurements as anthropometric measurements.
> Anthropomorphic to me refers to attributing human traits,
> emotions, motivations, and the like to non-human animals. Guess
> I took too much psych and not enough anthropometry in college.
> Maybe if I had done that fourth year…
>
Couldn't let it go, huh?
The only definition of anthropomorphic as it relates to whether a plateau clarinet is right for a player deals in whether the function of that player's body, it's size, span, dexterity, etc. fits the instrument. Plateau clarinets don't, using your definition, animate like the enchanted objects in "Beauty and the Beast."
"For anthropomorphic reasons, little Johnny started playing on a smaller "C" pitched clarinet."
I think it's best we stick to when plateau clarinets are useful, their pros and cons, and ways of buying them as designed, or as a product of modified tone hole based instruments, don't you?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: smokindok
Date: 2025-06-05 06:37
SecondTry wrote:
> If the latter, while entirely his right, I'd argue that if you
> are going to play the clarinet, and don't have special needs
> (which indeed the OP may have) that you better get use to
> practice rather than gear being the path to better play, or
> select another instrument.
>
Even if the OP does not meet your anthropometric measurement requirements for using a plateau system clarinet, I still see no problem with the OP choosing to play a plateau instrument for ANY reason. Attempting to shame the OP into playing an open-holed instrument simply based on your personal bias seems inappropriate. There is no reason for the OP to "select another instrument." Is a plateau clarinet not as much of a clarinet as an open-hole instrument? Does your bias for open holes extend to flute as well? How about oboes. Since current professional oboes are plateau instruments, should I not be playing my old Howarth S2 open holed instrument?
My recommendation to the OP is to pursue the modifications they prefer. Full plateau conversion, partial conversion, whatever gives them a comfortable playing experience, regardless of anthropometrics. Chris P's extensive knowledge of these types of modifications is a tremendous resource for this board, and I am always grateful for his willingness to share that knowledge with us. Thanks, Chris P.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-06-05 19:29
That's an 806/N.6 spec. CT which is (fingerplates aside) the same spec Gino Cioffi played which has LH forked Eb/Bb, articulated C#/G# and LH Ab/Eb lever, so that proves full plateaux keywork can be fitted to these and full Boehms (808/N.8).
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-06-06 04:36
smokindok wrote:
> SecondTry wrote:
>
>
> > If the latter, while entirely his right, I'd argue that if
> you
> > are going to play the clarinet, and don't have special needs
> > (which indeed the OP may have) that you better get use to
> > practice rather than gear being the path to better play, or
> > select another instrument.
> >
>
> Even if the OP does not meet your anthropometric measurement
> requirements for using a plateau system clarinet, I still see
> no problem with the OP choosing to play a plateau instrument
> for ANY reason.
And that's your right. Not knowing the first thing about the OP, most good clarinet teachers would disagree with you in cases where nothing but good old fashion work stands between the student becoming more proficient on a open tole hole instrument.
> Attempting to shame the OP into playing an
> open-holed instrument simply based on your personal bias seems
> inappropriate.
What doesn't seem, but actually is inappropriate is you classifying my comments as shaming the OP.
Perhaps you missed my line above:
"I'm even ok with the hobbyist that uses a plateau clarinet because it's just easier."
But again, I know nothing about the OP and if the plateau choice is one of a budding student seeking to cut corners, the good teacher who wants best for their student, not to shame them, generally advises against equipment solving problems that practice can.
I don't have a bias against plateau clarinets as you describe. That's nonsense. I linked a video of Mike Lowenstern demonstrating one he sells, I sourced how to have an existing tone hole instrument converted. I've cited colleagues who've done it for age related reasons. Ironically enough, perhaps the one limiting factor of such plateau instruments making glissandos more challenging is even covered in Lowenstern's video.
Where my bias lies, and it may not apply to the OP, is the short cut approach to leaning the instrument, precisely because there is no short cuts and those choosing this path are wasting their most precious practice asset: their time.
>There is no reason for the OP to "select another
> instrument."
Yeah, aside from additional cost
> Is a plateau clarinet not as much of a clarinet as
> an open-hole instrument?
Are you smoking something? I have not disparaged the adult player not seeking much advancement just pleasure, or those where age necessitates this plateau instrument.
Why don't you ask teachers here how many would advocate their budding students playing tone hole instruments get plateau instruments when practice will solve the missing tone hole experience that motivates this desire?
Does your bias for open holes extend
> to flute as well? How about oboes. Since current professional
> oboes are plateau instruments, should I not be playing my old
> Howarth S2 open holed instrument?
You dissed my use of the word "anthropomorphic" and got schooled and now you're off the rails. Given their cheaper price I'd nothing but endorse the budding flute player to start on a closed tone hole instrument. Down the road, if they want to switch, that's between them, their teacher and their bank account.
I'm not going to entertain your conflation of legitimate teaching reasons to not switch from an open tone hole clarinet to a plateau one in the advancing student to other instruments and situations.
>
> My recommendation to the OP is to pursue the modifications they
> prefer.
And that would be bad advice for a budding student missing tone holes simply as a product of putting more work in.
Full plateau conversion, partial conversion, whatever
> gives them a comfortable playing experience, regardless of
> anthropometrics. Chris P's extensive knowledge of these types
> of modifications is a tremendous resource for this board, and I
> am always grateful for his willingness to share that knowledge
> with us. Thanks, Chris P.
>
Don't conflate Chris' knowledge of the hardware with when using such hardware is appropriate.
Post Edited (2025-06-06 04:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
