 The Fingering Forum
|
Author: Theboy_2
Date: 2003-08-28 17:53
Does anyone know of any companies still making the metal clarinets? And which brand is good to buy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: richard
Date: 2003-08-29 03:50
As far as I know, there is no manufacturer in the world still making metal clarinet. Most metal clarinets were made before the 2nd world war when plastic materials was not common in those days. You may find some old ones at ebay. The price is not expensive at all. But you need to repair the springs, replace the pads before you can play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Theboy_2
Date: 2003-08-29 04:06
Thats what i was afraid of. I've heard a popular brand was cavalier, if anyone knows if it is/was any good?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gnomon
Date: 2003-08-29 06:49
As far as I can tell, none of the metal clarinets were any good.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-08-29 17:05
Many of the metal clarinets were quite good. The Haynes double wall silver clarinet was considered outstanding and today they are collector's items going for thousands of dollars.
Selmer also made some professional metal clarinets (double wall) that were quite good.
Another maker was Conn although they were not in the class of Selmer. Their double wall was aimed at the professional market so is probably OK. Their student models were poor.
Noblet made metal clarinets until sometime in the 1970s and they aren quite good. Cundy-Bettony made some good ones. The Silva-Bet is highly prized and achieving collector status.
Stay away from anything Italian made. Tuning is awful.
Cavalier was a popular student model but I don't know what the quality was.
Metal clarinets got an undeserved bad reputation. They are no better and no worse than comparable wood or plastic instruments. The problem was that there were a lot of makers of cheap, junk, student metal instruments back then just as there are a lot of makers of cheap, junk, student plastic instruments today. The junk sounds like junk regardless of material. These junk instruments are seldom in tune with themselves. Then add that to the fact they were being played by beginners and the result is disaster. And guess what you will mostly find in flea markets, eBay, etc. The tons of cheap junk clarinet shaped objects thus perpetuating the myth that metal clarinets were awful.
The metal Noblet played equally as well as the wooden ones (I have two by the way). The Haynes was considered the equal of any pro instrument available by those who tried them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d-oboe
Date: 2003-08-30 16:26
I cannot understand how a metal clarinet could even sound like a clarinet, even if it is very good, and "top of the line". Plastic is bad enough, and hell if you're going to get a metal clarinet, go buy a soprano sax for cheaper! Clarinets were, and still are and will be made out of wood...don't ruin a good thing! (these are my biased oboist views)
D-oboe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-08-31 00:40
Sorry but the characteristic sound of a clarinet is determined by the fact that acoustically they act like a cylinder closed at one end. The material is irrelevant. The research has already been done. What does matter is shaping of the bore, tone holes, barrel etc.
The problem with plastic instruments is not that they are plastic but that they are designed to be cheap. Once upon a time, there were cheap wooden student horns and they were awful too because they were cheaply made. I will take a modern plastic Vito over an old wood Pan American any day. I've played both and the Vito wins hands down.
Another problem with plastic instruments is that they come with awful mouthpieces and the student does not know that he/she needs to get something better to sound decent.
The final problem with plastic instruments is that they are played by beginners. Beginners will not sound good for quite some time. They have a lot of development to do.
For outdoor concerts, I've put my good mouthpiece and high quality reeds on a Vito that I have for a backup in case of bad weather and played it. When the others were worrying about damaging their good horns, I showed them what I was playing. They couldn't believe how good it sounded. But I explained it was in the mouthpiece, reeds, and player not the horn.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: richard
Date: 2003-08-31 15:24
I can see that a plastic clarinet plays good tone and good music when using the correct mouth piece and top quality reed. Its the poor playing of beginner that makes people think that plastic clarients are no good.
I have three clarinets i.e. a buffet R13, a leblanc sonata and a plastic "Jupiter" that made in Taiwan. I consider the buffet R13 has the best tone and most fluent in fingering. The leblanc sonata is also a very good instrument too but the tone is a bit darker and the key work is not as good as the R13.
However I also see that the Jupiter plastic clarinet has a rather good tone and fingering not very much inferior than the the R13 and the sonata. Of course I have replaced the original inferior mouth piece that comes with the clairnet with a Vandoren M40 and I also use a Vandoren 2 reed.
My major instrument is flute and doubling with the clarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: richard
Date: 2003-08-31 15:52
I do not mean to harm the clarinet beginner in my last mail by saying,"Its the poor playing of beginner that makes people think that.......". A beginner will play good and even become a professional player through years of practice and playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d-oboe
Date: 2003-08-31 17:19
I do agree that the material doesn't make the instrument...but how many professionals do you see playing on metal clarinets? In my opinion, if you take and construct 3 clarinets: one of plastic, one of metal, and one of wood, and have them constructed with the same delicate care and craftsmanship, the wood one would be chosen, (unless they have to play in cold damp weather or something) simply because wood has the correct resonating properties for an instrument. For clarinets, and oboes, what I have found is that plastic doesn't resonate enough, where as metal (i haven't heard a metal oboe though) resonates too much.
I don't completely hate these types of instruments, because they do serve purposes, like when having to play outside or whatever, I just think instruments can be their fullest potential when made of wood.
For "Theboy_2" who needs to play outside, I would recommend looking into what is called "Greenline". It is a clarinet produced by BuffetCrampon of France, and this greenline material is made of 95% granulated grenadilla, and 5% epoxy/resin. Since there is no grain in the instrument it won't crack due to temperature changes. You get the benefit of wood, without the worry of cracking.
Happy playing,
D-oboe
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-09-01 15:12
d-oboe you are incorrect. It is all in the design, construction and finishing plus the playing ability of the performer not in the materials.
The reason that instruments like the metal clarinets didn't catch on was consumer resistance pure and simple. In this case the instruments looked noticeably different and there were too many inferior ones produced. As I said previously, the reports of those who played the top flight metal clarinets (the Selmer pro and the Haynes double wall) praised the instruments. Unfortunately that wasn't enough to overcome the market resistance.
Control of brightness of sound, etc is easily achieved by proper selection and matching of reeds and mouthpiece.
However, I would not propose that someone buy a metal clarinet today for regular use as they simply aren't made anymore. Thus you are looking at maintenance issues. Also of course you will be fighting the "everyone knows that metal clarinets are no good" attitude. An attitude, that while not justified, still exists.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-09-01 15:17
Sorry but the Greenline is a filled resin. The filler could be anything and will NOT make any impact on the sound. The epoxy resin must completely coat the SAWDUST. Therefore if material makes a difference on "resonant characteristics" it will be the epoxy that controls it not the sawdust. In addition, if material makes a difference, then the fact that the Greenline material is homogenous rather than grained would make a difference in sound.
In blind tests, the listeners have consistently failed to separate comparable wood, plastic, and metal instruments unless they knew in advance what the order of playing was. Then of course it's not a valid test when you know what's being played. You can search the clarinet bulletin board for links to the tests.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d-oboe
Date: 2003-09-01 17:24
I think most people have the negative attitude towards metal replications of wood instruments due to the simple fact that they are *not wood* I'm a stuck up snob when it comes to wood, and I won't have anything but. Having said that, a wood instrument also carries a certain amount of prestige as well. Frankly, let's be honest, which is more beautiful, a deep black-purple grenadilla wood, or metal. (I know that has nothing to do with the quality of sound, but...) I understand where you're coming from Dee, being a clarinetist (I assume) trying to break the mold of "only wood". But it's that teaching an old dog a new trick paradigm...most private instructors were taught that wood was the best, and now they pass it down to their students. It's a vicious cycle, but it's almost a fact of life, when playing a woodwind.
D-oboe
p.s. what's the link to those tests?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-09-01 19:24
d-oboe, that is precisely the point that I was attempting to make.
Don't have the link, you'll have to go to the clarinet bulletin board and do a search. The info was posted years ago.
And yes I am a clarinetist and I too love the wooden ones. But being an engineer, I cannot, in good conscious, be swayed by opinions but must instead look at facts. Now that is not to say that I wouldn't pick a wood over plastic or metal. There is no harm in following one's aesthetic preference. It is a valid element to factor into the purchase of an instrument. Afterall how many people make the final selection between two cars based on aesthetics? Quite a few.
If Leblanc ever comes out with a pro plastic designed and manufactured with the care and precision of their pro wooden ones, I'd buy it in a heartbeat just so I wouldn't have to worry about cracking.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TorusTubarius
Date: 2003-09-03 05:52
Because it was talking about clarinets, I just now looked at this thread, but now I'm intrigued.
I also thought that the material made more of a difference than what you say. If it does not, then I have two questions which I previously thought I had the answers to:
1) I realize you're not an oboe player, but if the material makes so little difference in the sound, how come rosewood and violetwood oboes sound so much different than a grenadilla wood oboe?
2) I thought people began making flutes out of metal in order to increase the size of the tone and allow the instrument to project. Is it not the metal that causes the change?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-09-04 00:44
1) Are they identically designed by the same manufacturer? I.e. the exact same bore taper, hole taper, undercutting, smoothness of bore etc? I'd bet there are some subtle differences that could account for the sound. And how much is the self fulfilling prophecy, people expect them to sound different and so to them they do. Players might even unintentially be causing the effect by embouchure changes.
2) No it's not really the metal. Making them of metal allowed the designers to change the way the blowhole is designed. This leads to a louder and more brilliant sound. Going to metal also made it much more feasible to have the holes sized to be acoustically correct and the placement to be acoustically correct as now the instrument was sturdy enough to allow large pads and the associated operating mechanisms to be mounted on the instrument. Large toneholes result in a substantial difference in volume and tonal characteristic. So it was not the metal per se but the design changes that could be made once metal was chosen.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kamikaze
Date: 2005-04-15 05:31
You so totally rock, Dee you point out different parts of the process, not just the 'pretty' aspect. I personally play on an artley with a vandoren B45 mouthpiece and it sounds beautiful, whereas I have a buffet wooden clarinet from like the 40s and it sounds bad for an hour till it warms up. Doboe- oboe player, wood warps, causing an unreliable tonal quality in its later life, I just got a plastic oboe and it sings like my tutor's really expensive blonde oboe. But hey, asthetics, no? I'm so getting a metal clarinet, even the asthetics are awesome, and anyone who doesn't think so is insane, that and the one at the pawn shop is like 10 bucks and I love taking my clarinets apart... That's why my wooden clarinet actually PLAYS, I had to repad it and unbend a bar or so... And fiddle with springs... It was pretty bad, but my mom bought it (at *gasp* a pawn shop!) In seattle and it has a crack in the barrel that is fixed with superglue, hence the warming process. And about the beginning players issue, its true, I've played the same clarinet for at least 5 years and it sounds so different now, because of the reed/ligature/mouthpiece/mature player combo that no one ever believes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
