 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2021-01-02 20:23
I’ve barely posted to this Bulletin Board in the last several years as I think that much of what I have seen here is little more than noise - or, at least, I have reached that conclusion for myself. Sorry, but my time (and likely yours, too!) is much better served by practicing than reading a lot of this _______ (fill in your own derogatory term here!).
However, I did happen to come across a review of a couple of Brad Behn’s newer products which, obviously, have rubbed me the wrong way.
First, just to put it out here, I hold Brad and his products in very high regard and any comments I share are, in no way, critical of him or his products. I, myself, have purchased and used them. He is a class person and runs a class operation. Please keep this in mind as you continue reading my rant, ok?
I don’t know who Eric Bromberg is. And, perhaps, that’s my point. We get all these “reviews” on this site without benefit or knowing the source of these so-called reviews. Does this review come from a student? An amateur that plays in a community band somewhere? A seasoned professional? A university professor?
A review is only helpful, informative, and edifying if there is an understanding and acceptance of the source from where it comes. Anyone reading a review can either accept or dismiss any assessment of equipment, etc., but the source of that information lends credibility - or lack thereof - to any kind of review.
So, taking the review in question as an example, I have my own little quibbles concerning it. First, as I read it, it’s less of a review and more like advertising copy:
“.....exceptional craftsmanship is able to capture the traditional American clarinet sound.”
Perhaps I’m a bit dense, but what exactly is the traditional American clarinet sound? Harold Wright? Ralph McLane? Robert Marcellus? Mitchell Lurie? Frank Cohen? Ted Oien? The guy or gal who sits next to me in the orchestra? Ad infinitum...? Do/did all renowned American clarinetists produce a similar sound? I don’t think so. They are/were as individual as different colors of the spectrum as are players of today. And I’m not even delving into jazz, klezmer, ethnic players! So, Mr. Reviewer, which of these or any other players did you have in mind?
Next: “I believe this element is what makes the mouthpiece appeal to audiences with an older clarinet sound in mind.”
Really? In the literally thousands of concerts I have performed, I can honesty say that absolutely no audience member has ever commented to me anything close to their attachment and nostalgic yearning for the older clarinet sound they had “in mind”.
Lastly: “My Behn mouthpiece was crafted to allow me to perform at my greatest potential.”
Well, duh. Do any of us think that such a fine craftsman as Brad would choose to fashion something that will have you sounding like crap?
I’m not meaning to dump here on this particular post or poster - but it is the most recent example to cite as to what I’m speaking of.
I can’t tell you how frustrating it is when a student comes in with a new ______(fill in the blank), telling me that he/she read all about it on this or other Internet sites. Most often, it becomes a waste of $$$. I can’t help but wonder what the attraction was other than some unknown poster extolling the virtues of some piece of equipment that I would then explain was totally wrong or inappropriate for them.
We currently live in a world of Facebook likes, Amazon and Trip Advisor reviews, thumbs up, thumbs down, etc. Some are helpful, some are written with malice, some are totally bogus, and some are merely plants. How do we assess these without an understanding of the sources?
For example: my wife and I order a $150.00 bottle of wine while dining. She, with the acute palate she has, notes the hints of blackberry, chocolate, oak, etc. while my comment is akin to “tastes like cow piss strained through a dirty sock”. Do you really want me as your sommelier?
Anybody has license to post their feelings about anything here - that’s a great thing and we should all be grateful for everything that Mark has done on our behalf. That’s democracy (and we all know what happens when we are bombarded with misinformation and disinformation). But an understanding of the source of reviews can hopefully lend credibility to what is written - or not. Perhaps when you choose to post your opinions about anything, you might want to also share who you are and what your experience is, not to mention your self-assessment of your expertise and competence, so that those who read what you have to say can make their own assessment of what you have to say.
I’m not trying to imply censorship or anything controversial like that. I only seek clarity. I think you all should demand the same. Life’s too short, ya know?
Apologies for the length of this rant.
But thanks for reading!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2021-01-02 21:06
As a fellow (retired) professional I agree with this 100%.
Even worse is when a student's parent (non-musician) insists his/her child use a certain mouthpiece, barrel, reed, etc. because s/he read about it on the internet.
I use double pronouns although my experience is that 99.99% of the time it is the fathers who instigate this.
Oy!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2021-01-02 21:18
Sadly, we live in an age where even experts are ignored by large percentages of the population. And that's in science! The Coronavirus has shown us over and again just how goddamn stupid people can be.
When it comes to something objective, like a choice of Clarinet Product, just because Famous Player uses it, doesn't mean it will work for me.
So perhaps the only use for "reviews" here is to make us aware of products which we may not have known of before.
As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet"!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2021-01-02 21:38
Ironically, the incredible communications technology that is the internet has served to badly obscure and widely misrepresent reality. Evaluating online credibility takes a great deal of time and effort, almost continuously, and it's getting worse. Many fakes are now impossible to detect with standard tools.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2021-01-02 22:50
Looking at it the other way, how should a basically anonymous person express an opinion? Just say "I did/did not like this" and not attempt any explanation of why? Opinions can be useful, especially if the claimant has other posting history for comparison.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2021-01-03 00:04
When new products are introduced within a specialized market people are curious as to how the items stack up with the descriptions provided by the manufacturer. Having the item in your hand and describing it in detail, trying it out under real conditions, relating pertinent sales experiences — any of these things might provide useful information for someone, but obviously not for everyone.
As a clarinet player I might approach 4.5/10 on a good day. But I've developed enough knowledge over my sixty years of playing to interpret most of the commentary that accompanies these equipment reviews and not take offense. And I like to think that, when relaying my own experiences, I may provide a little bit of useful information for anyone who might share a particular interest in the subject. Actually, I think several informal reviews and the ensuing discussions are more informative than a single oracular pronouncement by a virtuoso.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kalashnikirby
Date: 2021-01-03 03:37
Ever heard of viral marketing? While I can understand how such brainless praises of a product (as the one cited above) can infuriate an experienced, professional musician, we just have to acknowledge the realities of today’s economy. And the internet is a huge part of it.
Now when I studied, I hade a side job repairing phones. Really enjoyed it, but it was tough handling these delicate devices. I’ve come to understand that people will buy a phone regardless of it’s repairability, usefulness and durability, just as long as it’s new and cool or whatever. Such is life... people WILL buy the iPhone 12 (and have bought any iPhone before that) like crazy despite Apple literally making 3rd party repair impossible. And this kind of information can be so easily found if you do your research.
But here’s the thing: Maybe 5% of the phone users care about such things. And I‘m not the one to go and try to convert them. Yeah, repairing stuff has become unpopular, I suppose.
So that’s the same with clarinets. If manufacturers like Backun or Buffet can make instruments for astronomical sums and you have „stars“ promoting them like crazy, the comon clarinetist will think they need these to sound better.
Nevermind the fact that so much work has to be done by YOU and no one else. Nevermind that an existing instrument can be improbed by a technician.
Mouthpieces are the icing on that ****-cake, really. If you feel like needing a 780$ mouthpiece made of historical vodoo rubber, go ahead and buy it. Oh, I’m sure it does actually have a superior quality ebonite. But does the price correlate with how much it is better than other stuff? Probably no. The fault lies also with the consumer buying this product.
To adress another point made by the initial poster: To demand „identifiable“ posters in the very anonymous world of the internet is problematic. Obviously my stupid sounding username won’t tell you anything about me. In fact, with this post I’ve revealed all I needed about myself. Go look up my other posts if you like. But guess what? Im not on anyones payroll and don‘t have a name to use to advertise stuff, like sadly many musicians (have to?) do. At the same time, there is a certain feeling of empowerment to being able to write my opinion, whether it’s differenciated or not and having these very experienced musicians here react to it.
There are great sources on the internet (like the earspasm youtube channel) that can help one deciding what instrument and Accessoires to get. But it is our very own job to filter these gems and ignore the trash that unfortunately pops up way too often. What can we do other than to accept this reality? At least I, on a personal level, am very happy to have access to this sort of technology and can say it has helped my life a great deal. While the spread of fake news (among with covid) can’t seem to be halted, I’ve come to think that maybe nowadays idiocy is just way more visible than it used to be. After all, knowing about a problem instead of being ignorant still doesn’t mean one is able to deal with it (again, see people believing covid is a lie).
But then there’s forums like this where interesting people from all over the world exchange their ideas. And I’m sure it’ll stay like this for while.
Best regards
Christian
Post Edited (2021-01-03 11:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Max S-D
Date: 2021-01-03 05:21
Well put, Christian. I think the diversity of opinions, experience and viewpoints is important in a place like this. There's a lot that has been shared here that I can't find anywhere else on the internet. One consequence of that freedom to post is that readers have to know to sort through the good content from the occasional drivel from idiots like me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2021-01-03 07:18
Eric Bromberg has a BM in Musical Performance from the Chicago College of Performing Arts.
I found Eric's background information on Brad's Facebook page.
However, I still don't know what "the traditional American clarinet sound" refers to. (Google only gave me the FB and BB responses.)
Post Edited (2021-01-04 23:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: igalkov
Date: 2021-01-03 08:17
I just can’t believe, that on this exact bboard, you’ve chose, out of all possible companies and makers, the exact Brad Behn to jump on with “rants” and stuff like that. As we Russians say, “it can’t be because it can never be”. So welcome to 2021.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dorjepismo ★2017
Date: 2021-01-03 08:22
On rants in general, Christian's opinion is close to mine. On Brad Behn, well, he does fantastic work and is a great guy. On appeals to authority (arguably a logical fallacy, but in music, often a reasonable approach nonetheless), the realities of the profession are such that nearly everyone who has an orchestra or university job is very good at what they do, but also that a lot of the folks who don't have one of those jobs are quite good as well. Comments should stand or fall on their usefulness and plausibility rather than their provenance, and at the same time, taking oneself more seriously than the market will bear has and should have consequences. "The traditional clarinet sound," well, good luck with that, but still, we should all be happy not to be judged by the least well-considered things we've said.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2021-01-03 09:04
I deleted my original post here due to my misunderstanding of igalkov's post. I felt certain that his comments were directed towards me since his post directly followed mine.
I see now how confusion can arise when a person's name, for whom the post is directed towards, is omitted from a posting.
Post Edited (2021-01-03 20:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2021-01-03 17:16
Following up on some of these responses, it seems as if not everyone has completely read or understood what I posted.
I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could glean from my comments that I had any criticism of Brad Behn. That is spelled out very clearly near the beginning of my post. Please don’t turn those words around to suit your own agenda.
Next, I did not imply or suggest that only “experts” comment or review on equipment, clarinetists, music, or anything, for that matter. Again, take the time to actually read what I have written (“ Anybody has license to post their feelings about anything here - that’s a great thing and we should all be grateful...”, etc.).
What I am asking for - hoping for - is a bit of context here. Understanding the source of comments provides us with information to further guide us in our “journey” (how I hate that word!) as clarinetists, as musicians. Certainly, the “experts” have all kinds of various and conflicting information and knowledge that is promulgated here, as do the “non-experts”. It’s up to us to take everything into consideration and make our own informed (such as they are) decision(s) as to how to act. You can believe what you want or disbelieve what you want. When you watch Fox News or MSNBC, you know from where the information is coming and the more-than-implied slant. Here, we really don’t (unless you know the poster). Do we want this site to be one where we share information and where we hope to learn things (new and old) and help our fellow readers/participants/colleagues navigate the world of clarinetistry or one which leaves us like this 😳?
Sure, the internet is akin to the Wild West. I’m simply asking that we act more thoughtfully and benevolently towards our fellow readers/contributors and work to make it less “wild”.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kalashnikirby
Date: 2021-01-03 17:51
I‘m sorry, but „understanding“ a source of what’s ‘s posted on the internet is virtually impossible. This bboard is so far away from the wild west; most threads are extremely mild mannered conversations and users not only explain themselves, with many openly posting their full names, but they excel at writing thoughful, almost literaty comments about the presented topic.
You cannot expect this from any user on the internet and that often isn’t the purpose.
What I’m sensing is a certain wish back to times where the means of communication were much more limited, basically „vis-à-vis“. But here we are, I’m from Germany, you’re from the USA.
Can we not enjoy the fact how easy this all is? There is an underlying bitterness in your posts, but what exactly is the issue?
BTW I personally (as do many others here) have no agenda, don’t care as much if I’m fully understood or not (sure wish this is the case though) and am not always looking to help someone posting here. Seriously, this is human behaviour on the internet? Ever looked at memes, watched funny Cat videos, trolled someone in an online game?
So to answer this:
„ Do we want this site to be one where we share information and where we hope to learn things (new and old) and help our fellow readers/participants/colleagues navigate the world of clarinetistry or one which leaves us like this 😳?“
Is: Certainly not always. These threads which other pieces besides Mozart need ornamentation were hilarious, for example, but not very educational.
Maybe these forums need more defined subforums (as ANY other forums habe them) and finally arrive in the 21st century. Just saying...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2021-01-03 20:43
If you want to see what forums with sub-forums looks like, you need only check out Gear Slutz. It is broken into all sorts of categories of audio equipment and skill levels.
Personally I find it a hot mess and never really know where to look for advice.
I think we (clarinetists that is) can ALL get along.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2021-01-03 21:19
Christian,
Thanks much for your response; however, you illustrate the limitations of the internet in your comments. Well, at least, to me!
First, it’s pretty difficult in most cases to ascertain one’s emotions or feelings through their comments. You state of an underlying bitterness in my posts. Really? Honestly, it’s anything but. I will admit to some concern but little else. The only bitterness I ever experience is when I’m unhappy with my own playing!
Next, I don’t spend an inordinate time on the internet. I have better things to do with my time (like practicing, reading, skiing, running myself ragged...). I don’t doubt what you have to say about how things are on the internet but, frankly, that’s not where I am in this discussion.
My topic is extremely narrow. I’m speaking only about “reviews” that are posted to this site and only this site. Uhh, see the title? “Review rant”. Other threads on this site, not to mention the internet in general, is not my concern. Please don’t broaden what I am saying to “human behavior on the internet” or humorous posts on Mozart ornamentation and the internet as an entity. I’m not looking at the fact that I “cannot expect this from any user on the internet and that often isn’t the purpose”.
Well, then what is the purpose of a review (again, keeping it as narrow as I intended)?
I’m not asking for people to identify themselves. What I am asking is for those who may be so bold as to review anything is to provide some context so that we who choose to read them can make better sense of what is posited here. For example, a community band player might post a review that a similar player would find apropos. Same with any and every level. I just might be interested in a review posted by somebody pushing 60 years of clarinet playing.
But probably not! 😂
A review, by it’s very nature, is intended to inform, to edify, to persuade - all subject to ones own take, ones own opinion. It is then up to the reader to discern what’s there. Context to the reader can either enhance the efficacy of such a review or cause one to dismiss it. It, in my opinion, would help to make these reviews more helpful and instructional to all of us.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2021-01-03 22:54
lmliberson,
With all due respect, I found your definition of "a review" to be a little bit too broad for me personally.
May I give you my definition? A review is simply a written or verbal report about the reviewer's person experience with a specific item.
Yes, I agree that the more context that is included can increase one's edification and can also be more persuasive. However, again, it is still a single report of the reviewer's own personal experience.
What I rely upon most of the time is getting at least 4 to 6 reviews of a specific item that are quite similar in nature. One review, no matter how well it is written, is simply not enough to truly persuade me. A group of reviews is what I call "reality checking" and this method has proven to be very effective for me.
It is also quite valuable to me that the reviewers have a fairly similar playing background experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2021-01-03 23:31
Hi Dan,
Actually, I not so sure that what a review means to you is much different, at all, than it is to me. I certainly don’t disagree as to what you have to say here.
It’s just that you, perhaps, are a bit more cautious in that you look for a consensus before you jump. That’s fine but it’s simply how you choose to approach things. And it’s a smart way to proceed.
I’m just as simply looking at how one represents themselves in any review they might post. And, of course, any review is totally subjective, right? (Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reviewers panned Tschaikovsky’s 5th Symphony...I think we’ve seen past that, eh? 😂). Hopefully, the reader is smart enough to recognize this subjectivity.
What I have unfortunately seen here - and from some of my own students over the years - is their gut and rash reactions to a gushing (perhaps undeserved?) review. And, just as unfortunately, it often costs them big $$$. Perhaps if that desired added context was present in these reviews, some forethought might also be present before those so inclined would part with their money!
Anecdotally, if my feeble memory serves me correctly, I used to buy reeds for fifteen cents apiece and a Vandoren mouthpiece ran around 15-20 bucks. I bought a Kaspar mouthpiece for $20.00 and one of his ligatures for $5.00! I guess I’m showing my age?
That’s a far cry from nearly a thousand dollars for a custom mouthpiece and half that for a barrel today. Heck, my first Buffet clarinet cost my parents less than $200.00 - and, believe me, that was a stretch!
If we are, indeed, some sort of a community here, let’s do all we can to help each other reach our goals. Not to beat a dead horse but, again, context helps.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2021-01-04 01:26
lmliberson,
Ah, yes, when you brought up the term "subjective", then I began to see that our definitions of "review" were actually the same. But, I wonder just how many future buyers of equipment have that at the forefront of their minds as well as the cost involved.
You stated that I'm cautious. Well, I might be, however, the way that I would describe my approach to reviews is that I'm looking for verification. This is where the search function on this BB was, and still is, so valuable for me. I did my "homework" and searched for a mouthpiece that had a very specific playability characteristic and I believe I found exactly what I was looking for.
O.T. My first clarinet had a strange brand name to me around 60 years ago...it was a Buffet Crampon and my mother paid $200 for it wholesale. (Let's just say she had connections.) The clarinet came with a very good stock mouthpiece. As for the reed, the only reed available to me was Rico which I bought one at a time for 25 cents. Lastly, next month I'll turn 74. (Good grief! I'm still finding it hard to believe that!) Hmm, maybe I need to look at my birth certificate again for verification! LOL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kalashnikirby
Date: 2021-01-05 09:56
Regarding prices back them.... adjusted for inflation, 200$ in 1960 are around 1600-1800$ today.... which still isn’t much. Which is exactly why good reviews should definitely take pricing into account. 20$ from back than shouldn’t be more than 200$ today and as such it’s easy to see why paying 4 times of that for a mouthpiece is insane, given that productivity has increased anyways.
So when Buffet (rightfully) gets criticised for secretly price gouging their product via new „premium“ lines, one should probably do that with Behn mouthpieces too. Keep in mind I never played one and do not want to take a negative stance on them, it is just that today’s market seems to be filled with these sort of high end options where the extra hundreds of $$$ don’t mean an adequate increase in performance. This is something the review discussed here didn’t mention either, I think.
OT: I‘m really amazed that you guys could as well be my grandparents and don’t struggle with a computer and even use emojis or „LOL“ Hats off!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2021-01-05 18:34
Kalashnikirby wrote:
> Regarding prices back them.... adjusted for inflation, 200$ in
> 1960 are around 1600-1800$ today.... which still isn’t much.
> Which is exactly why good reviews should definitely take
> pricing into account. 20$ from back than shouldn’t be more
> than 200$ today and as such it’s easy to see why paying 4
> times of that for a mouthpiece is insane, given that
> productivity has increased anyways.
In many ways, the clarinet world has only been catching up to the rest of of the woodwinds and the strings. Because, I suppose, there's more assembly line involved in clarinet production and less hand work, our instruments have historically been much less expensive than comparable oboes, flutes and bassoons or any high quality string instrument. Compare the prices of high quality bows to the price even now of high-end mouthpieces. The result, of course, is that other players don't flit so much from one product to another as do clarinetists.
>
> OT: I‘m really amazed that you guys could as well be my
> grandparents and don’t struggle with a computer and even use
> emojis or „LOL“ Hats off!
I, for one, was playing with and using computers in the 1980 when the newest thing for office use was a Z-80 processor running CPM or TRSDOS and the biggest thing in home computers was the Commodore 64. Probably before you were even born. So don't be amazed. Age and technology are not mutually exclusive. ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif) 
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2021-01-05 18:43
Kalashnikirby wrote:
> OT: I‘m really amazed that you guys could as well be my
> grandparents and don’t struggle with a computer and even use
> emojis or „LOL“ Hats off!
Hell, I'm probably as old if not older than your grandparents and wrote some of the software for this BBoard (not that I'm proud of a lot of it - but it's "good enough"), certified in the last few years on various pieces of AWS, and the servers for this BBoard migrated from my basement almost 20 years ago to the "cloud", and I still work in IT putting together different architectures and promoting security.
As in the Monty Python sketch ... "I'm not quite dead yet. In fact, I'm feeling much better now."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris_C ★2017
Date: 2021-01-05 19:33
What is this modern Z80 of which you speak?
My first computing experience was on an English Electric DEUCE (i.e. the second one they built). The size of a shipping container with a walkway down the middle for access to change the valves. 5-hole paper tape in and out. Main RAM was 2Kwords on a rotating drum and the "mass" memory was 4ft high mushroom shaped devices with tubes of mercury containing acoustic wave trains which were continuously recirculated.
Youngsters today... probably couldn't write a contouring package in assembler like we used to do...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Djudy
Date: 2021-01-06 14:10
Been there !
FWIW : I did all my stat classes entering data on a teletype machine (ker-CHUNK ker-CHUNK !) back in the early '70s and remember when the central computer for the whole university sat in a room that looked like a football field. Before I graduated that room was empty except for one small unit the size of a desk. I had the privilege to work on one of the 4 (count 'em !) first interactive terminals, which meant you could correct a type-o on the screen and not have to search for the card, type a new card with the whole command line over again, and resubmit the batch. We programmed everything ourselves for a decade, even after the arrival of the first pcs; it was nuts and bolts stuff but it worked. I wouldn't go back and today I'd prefer my phone to my pc if my thumbs weren't so big, but I often ask myself if today's programmers ever use their own software/apps. Lots of dumbing down and empty fluff there as well as poor construction. The day they eliminated printed user manuals for software was the beginning of the end IMHO, as no amount of hot links can anticipate the jumps and connections the human brain can generate and assimilate. After that users had no option other than to passively accept or abstain.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2021-01-06 22:13
I was taken on a tour of Yale University by a family friend in the early '60s. The "electronic brain" was housed in one entire building. We were told that the building didn't require heat in the winter because of the warmth generated by the computer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2021-01-08 18:38
According to my 1971 Selmer Band Instruments catalog:
"But the most outstanding feature of this instrument is its distinctive tone. The Series 10 was designed specifically for the American school of playing, and provides a tone neither as light as the French nor as dark as the German. This is the unique quality preferred by more and more of today's composers and conductors."
So there you have it. The traditional American clarinet sound according to Selmer. However, I bought a Couf alto saxophone in high school rather than a Selmer because I preferred its darker German sound.
While lmliberson's criticism of the subjective nature of sound description was valid in the past, today we are actually able to listen and decide the tonal characteristics for ourselves.
As an example, I have a couple of CDs from when "Saxophone Journal" was published. Bob Ackerman plays on a variety of saxophone mouthpieces.
Today you can go to YouTube and listen to mouthpiece & instrument comparisons of all sorts. However, I am finding that many of these comparisons are quite subtle when played by the same person. I have a good quality stereo system, too. It's still no substitute for personal experience.
"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: crvsp
Date: 2021-01-08 21:03
> While lmliberson's criticism of the subjective nature of sound
> description was valid in the past, today we are actually able
> to listen and decide the tonal characteristics for ourselves.
As a student, I definitely agree with this statement. I think many strive for the American sound but nowadays a lot of students have "variations" on the school of playing. Every other one of my peers has a totally unique sound, and this one only something I realized not too long ago.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: antaresclar
Date: 2021-01-11 18:47
Mr. Liberson writes:
"What I have unfortunately seen here - and from some of my own students over the years - is their gut and rash reactions to a gushing (perhaps undeserved?) review. And, just as unfortunately, it often costs them big $$$. Perhaps if that desired added context was present in these reviews, some forethought might also be present before those so inclined would part with their money!"
I have seen the same thing over the years as well...A student turns up with a $20,000 set of clarinets with gold keys not having a single concept of what they consider a clarinet sound to be and/or why they should or should not spend that amount of (usually their parent's!) money.
This brings up the subject of adverting/marketing and our susceptibility to blindly follow it. Most "reviews" are simply advertising in disguise.
It is important to remember that all of the clarinet manufactures, reed companies, and especially private mouthpiece makers can not be in business without the amateur market. There are are not nearly enough professional clarinetists in the world to sustain the business of any of these companies. So the flowery descriptive terminology that these companies and reviews use gets professionals, who have a lifetime of knowledge, irritated by what they read. And I would say rightfully so. The amateur however is sucked in by these "reviews" or simply by the publicity. And of course in this era it is not just the amateur, we are all influenced by advertising and marketing.
A very well known clarinet maker realized many years ago that clarinetists, and most especially amateur clarinetists, care much more about how a clarinet looks then how it sounds. The rest is history....We are all paying much more for clarinets by every maker now because of this revelation...
GZ
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OneWatt
Date: 2021-01-11 20:47
Review bias is as legendary in the music industry as it is in every other sector.
Getting pro endorsements and testimonials from relatable "ordinary folk" has been the backbone of marketing since ancient times. Today, merchants amplify this sales technique through their online presence (whether content is real or fake is often unclear).
In my experience with musical instruments, where possible, buy gently-used higher quality goods which typically offer a superior experience and greater lasting resale value - since someone else has "already driven them off the dealer's car lot."
Most importantly, study the terrain first. I've benefited immensely from reading many posts here - especially where respectful disagreements arise.
Thanks again to the pros who share their wisdom here, and to the students who ask all the right questions.
- - - - - - - - - -
Israel = Ancient Hebrew for "Wrestles with God"
Klarinet = Ancient Greek for "Struggles with Reeds"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lmliberson
Date: 2021-01-12 01:27
OneWatt said:
"In my experience with musical instruments, where possible, buy gently-used higher quality goods which typically offer a superior experience and greater lasting resale value - since someone else has "already driven them off the dealer's car lot."
Seriously?
There are plenty of used clarinets out there. Just because they've been purchased previously and/or are "gently-used" means next to nothing. It speaks nothing to the quality or playability of the instrument - assuming one knows what to look for in the first place.
"Thanks again to the pros who share their wisdom here, and to the students who ask all the right questions."
Ah, yes - but do you know which is which and who is who?
That was what my original comments were about - knowing who is doing the reviewing and what they bring to the table, so to speak.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2021-01-12 01:57
My Buffet Festival B flat was played professionally in the Sydney Symphony and London Symphony for 4 years before I got it (12 years ago)... it had a LOT of hours on it then, and many many since, but I'm perfectly happy. If I DO ever need another Bb clarinet, I'll pay for a restoration of my 1963 R13, played for 40 years by a US pro player. On this clarinet, the keys are totally shot but the wood is AMAZING, it sings like nothing I've ever found "on the shelf".
This doesn't mean all old clarinets are good- the A clarinet that was paired with the Festival still plays well, but the bore changed and it lost something. What it DOES mean is that a good piece of wood CAN (not necessarily "will") last so it's worth looking.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OneWatt
Date: 2021-01-12 04:27
lmliberson asked:
>Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
That's been my personal experience during 50 yrs of musical instrument enjoyment.
Best wishes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2021-01-12 05:28
Does anyone else find the irony of this post fun? A review of a review.
Plus these two tidbits:
"I’ve barely posted to this Bulletin Board in the last several years as I think that much of what I have seen here is little more than noise - or, at least, I have reached that conclusion for myself. Sorry, but my time (and likely yours, too!) is much better served by practicing than reading a lot of this _______ (fill in your own derogatory term here!)." - a review within a review of a review.
"But an understanding of the source of reviews can hopefully lend credibility to what is written - or not."
Yup!
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mihalis
Date: 2021-01-12 08:56
Fuzzy wrote:
> Does anyone else find the irony of this post fun? A review of
> a review.
>
> Plus these two tidbits:
>
> "I’ve barely posted to this Bulletin Board in the last
> several years as I think that much of what I have seen here is
> little more than noise - or, at least, I have reached that
> conclusion for myself. Sorry, but my time (and likely yours,
> too!) is much better served by practicing than reading a lot of
> this _______ (fill in your own derogatory term here!)." - a
> review within a review of a review.
>
> "But an understanding of the source of reviews can hopefully
> lend credibility to what is written - or not."
>
> Yup!
>
> Fuzzy
> ;^)>>>
Well said Fuzzy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
