Vintage Selmer
Kneel Jung
I play an R-13 from the late 60's but would like to buy an old Selmer
Radio Improved, Balanced or Centered Tone Clarinet for Jazz playing .
My Question :
If the wood is in great shape ; no cracked or warped toneholes , and I had
it serviced ( oiled , etc.) by a _good clarinet tech_ , can I be assured that
it will hold up , with regular play , despite it's age ?
Are there any risks with 50-60 year old wood , or if taken care of could the
wood be potentially `` better w/ age`` ??
Thanks in Advance .
Dave Williams
Stephen Howard
I'm afraid that few wooden things get better with age - but at least
after 50 or so years the wood will have 'proved' itself, and you'd
have to expose it to some pretty extreme conditions for it to crack.
Not so sure you can be 'assured' it will be alright - but providing
the wood has been well looked after you'd be extremely unlucky to find
it developing cracks at this stage.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
Emails to: shwoodwind{who is at}gmx{dot}co{dot}uk
JOE SAX 95
I have a Selmer BT Bb clarinet #L4701 w/ 2 barrels. No cracks or crack
repair. (I see a hairline check from the register vent up to the end of the top
joint, does not extend into the tenon, only the wider body, so I don't think it
will develop into a crack. These checks are fairly common.
This BT has an articulated C#/G#, so the mid tenon has a tone hole thru
it, the mechanism is on the lower joint. Upper joint has 3 rings. No other
combersome artic keywork.
Pads are older, I intend to overhaul prior to selling. Care to make an
offer?
Thanks,
Joe Sax
www.joesax.com
joe...@catskill.net
Lelia Loban
My best clarinet is a 1937 Buffet. It has no cracks and seems like a terrific
clarinet to me, but it's hard to generalize about old instruments because they
haven't all been treated alike. I've seen old ones (and young ones, too!) in
such bad shape through heavy use/abuse, neglect, damp storage, insect damage or
accidents that I didn't think they looked worth salvaging. But I think that
kind of damage is *visible* and you can rule out those death-dogs just by
examining them carefully. Weaknesses in 50-60 year old wood have had time to
show up by now, so with the old clarinet, I think there's less risk that you'll
get unlucky with wood that looks fine and then suddenly starts popping open.
If that were going to happen, it would have happened by now. My 2 cents.
Lelia
Please delete TOSSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
Rich R.
The others have answered your question quite well. I used to play a
Selmer Series 9R (1956) and it did great. However, the technology and
equipment have improved so much in 50 years that a bit newer one might
do you best. I would suggest a Selmer 10G (or if you cannot find one
a 10W is close both at .574 bore) for Jazz, if you wish to go that
way.
Simpler yet would be changing to a more open mouthpiece to produce the
different sound needed - and flexability. Might be more what you
really need to do. Now days I play a Yamaha CSV with a B-44 for my
Swing/Jazz arrangements and B45 for Concert. Slightly different tone
qualities results from the two mouthpieces. The CSV is still a bit
restrictive for me for Jazz work, but tone is consistent and always
on. - probably should have gone with the SEV (Larger Bore .574 vs
.565).
The older clarinets (Like my Series 9) did have tone problems that
later technology and cutting equipment have improved on greatly. Try
for a newer horn for that reason.
Rich R.
Vinnie
I'm afraid that few wooden things get better with age - but at least
after 50 or so years the wood will have 'proved' itself
WHAT?! I suppose clarinets are made of a different Grenadilla/Rosewood,
but piccolos definately mature with age...as do wooden flutes.
Stephen Howard
wrote:
In what sense do they mature then?
Basically as soon as a piece of wood is hacked from the tree it starts
to decompose.
Sure, there is much that can be done to slow down that process - but
you can never halt it. A lot of the work I do these days is to do with
precisely that problem - the preservation of old wood - and even after
my efforts there will be a number of instruments that will see out
their days in a cabinet that is sealed from the outside environment.
Outside in the real world wooden instruments are exposed to the
punishing effects of bacteria, fungi, pollution and plain old wear and
tear - and this will deteriorate them over time. Flutes in particular
will show a greater degree of wear on the head joint, even more so on
the embouchure hole which bears the full brunt of the chemical and
environmental attack that is what we call blowing.
These are undeniable physical factors - and eminently measurable in
every sense.
How then do you prove the assertion that woodwind instruments mature
with age?
I guess you, as the player, could state that the instrument plays
better now than it ever did - with more breadth of tone than ever
before....but would that be true of a player picking up your
instrument for the very first time? Would it not be more accurate to
say that the player has matured? If such instruments truly did mature
then why do so many of the instruments I am privileged to be asked to
restore sound so, well, average in comparison to their modern
counterparts?
It's a nice notion you put forward, but a romantic one, and I'd be
failing my clients if I advised them that woodwind instruments got
better with age. You just get used to know them better.
terry
If you find the tone enjoyable (serviceable?) then a "vintage"
clarinet is a delight, especially once the wood is treated!
I bought a pre-R13 Buffet (1953) from eBay, groans here...now stop,
and sent it into a person who developed a trade secret organic
oil bath. Immediate improvements were stunning. check out
http://naylors-woodwind-repair.com
I am still very happy. Now if only I could play in church without
getting rattled!
terry
knee...@aol.com (Kneel Jung) wrote in message news:<20010808085515...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
Rich R.
> Basically as soon as a piece of wood is hacked from the tree it starts
> to decompose.
> Sure, there is much that can be done to slow down that process - but
> you can never halt it. A lot of the work I do these days is to do with
> precisely that problem - the preservation of old wood - and even after
> my efforts there will be a number of instruments that will see out
> their days in a cabinet that is sealed from the outside environment.
>
{...SNIP...}
>
> It's a nice notion you put forward, but a romantic one, and I'd be
> failing my clients if I advised them that woodwind instruments got
> better with age. You just get used to know them better.
>
> Regards,
Just curious. In my Jazz band we have several Sax players who double
on clarinet. Their clarinets are badly maintained and look it. The
bores of two of them are really no longer cylinderical - looks as of
areas have been "eaten away". One gentleman showd me his older Buffet
and the inside looked like a series of waves - for want of a better
description. He said that he had never oiled or maintenanced the horn
for as long as he had owned it.
My own old Selmer (1956) and Leblanc (1962) look as new from that
perspective. The Selmer developed a crack which was repaired - due to
lack of care for 15 years when I put it on a shelf.
The question is just why does this occur and will good care
(maintenance, oiling, etc) slow or stop the detioration you indicated
in your post. The only thing I can tell different on my Selmer (Owned
since 1970) is the action is a bit rougher that I remembered. Tone
and sound quality seemed the same, though now days it seems to play a
bit sharper (especially at the higher tones) than I had remembered.
Really interested in your comments and appreciate the time you have
already taken in your explanation thus far
Rich R.
Stephen Howard
>Just curious. In my Jazz band we have several Sax players who double
>on clarinet. Their clarinets are badly maintained and look it. The
>bores of two of them are really no longer cylinderical - looks as of
>areas have been "eaten away". One gentleman showd me his older Buffet
>and the inside looked like a series of waves - for want of a better
>description. He said that he had never oiled or maintenanced the horn
>for as long as he had owned it.
>
>My own old Selmer (1956) and Leblanc (1962) look as new from that
>perspective. The Selmer developed a crack which was repaired - due to
>lack of care for 15 years when I put it on a shelf.
>
>The question is just why does this occur and will good care
>(maintenance, oiling, etc) slow or stop the detioration you indicated
>in your post. The only thing I can tell different on my Selmer (Owned
>since 1970) is the action is a bit rougher that I remembered. Tone
>and sound quality seemed the same, though now days it seems to play a
>bit sharper (especially at the higher tones) than I had remembered.
>
>Really interested in your comments and appreciate the time you have
>already taken in your explanation thus far
>
When the natural oils present in the wood dry out they leave behind
them a void. The structure of the wood itself becomes dry and that's
when the moisture present in the atmosphere moves in - along with a
whole host of nasties such as fungi etc.
In its living state the wood is being constantly replenished with
natural oils - and once its removed from that source the oil has to be
manually replaced or the process of decomposition will take hold in no
short space of time.
As you have seen from that gentleman's clarinet, when the wood dries
out it's left free to absorb all the water it likes, which
subsequently evaporates just in time for a whole new dose. This
constant cycle of absorbtion and evaporation makes its presence felt
in a cycle of expansion and contraction of the wood - some of which
will leave permanent damage. Out of round bores are the most common
sign of badly maintained wooden bores.
This will lead to tuning problems eventually, followed by an increased
propensity for the wood to crack or split. More subtle effects include
rotting of tone holes and the loosening of fittings ( rings, pillars
etc.. ).
Replacing the lost oils prevents water from entering the structure of
the wood and maintains its stability. Using a non-drying oil ( as
opposed to the dreaded linseed oil ) allows the wood to breathe and
discourages the growth of the microorganisms that constitute part of
the decomposition process.
Vinnie
> with age?
> I guess you, as the player, could state that the instrument plays
> better now than it ever did - with more breadth of tone than ever
> before....but would that be true of a player picking up your
> instrument for the very first time? Would it not be more accurate to
> say that the player has matured?
I'd first have to that when comparing two different grenadilla piccolos, one
old, one new, the older one had a sweeter charm and a more lucious tone. My
piccolo is by no means shabby, but the older piccolo just sounded a bit better.
So yes, I'd say depending on the player, they would recognize a difference...I
did.
> If such instruments truly did mature
> then why do so many of the instruments I am privileged to be asked to
> restore sound so, well, average in comparison to their modern
> counterparts?
Average? Why? Because the newer clarinets are brighter and have more edge to
them? Or the sound is more vibrant? If that's what you look for in a horn, then
fine...your point is absolutely valid here. And I say this whole-heartedly,
because I'm the same as you with my regard to pianos...I'll take a brand new,
bright Steinway over a darker sounding, vintage Steinway.
However...The brighter horns, IMO, are not as well-suited for blend. Likewise,
I've heard the same solos played on vintage Buffets and played them myself on
new Selmers...I just like the sound of the older horns better...
Romantic? Perhaps...but you seem to want to only review your particular
sampling. Granted...the modern counterparts as you say, are beautiful horns...I
enjoy playing them, as mechanisms are really cool on some of them and their edge
really cuts into jazz licks quite nicely...but to 'preach' a truth that is only
a half-truth, is, IMO, close-minded.
Vinnie
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>> How then do you prove the assertion that woodwind instruments mature
>> with age?
>> I guess you, as the player, could state that the instrument plays
>> better now than it ever did - with more breadth of tone than ever
>> before....but would that be true of a player picking up your
>> instrument for the very first time? Would it not be more accurate to
>> say that the player has matured?
>
>I'd first have to that when comparing two different grenadilla piccolos, one
>old, one new, the older one had a sweeter charm and a more lucious tone. My
>piccolo is by no means shabby, but the older piccolo just sounded a bit better.
>So yes, I'd say depending on the player, they would recognize a difference...I
>did.
>
The problem here is one of consistency. In order to quantify a
comparison there has to be a point of reference - and as any player
will tell you the point of reference stops at the fact that what you
have in your hand is a clarinet, or flute etc..
Even two seemingly identical and brand new instruments will exhibit
different characteristics despite having been made perhaps by the same
man/machine to the same specifications.
How is it possible then to say that the one instrument plays better
than the other solely because of its age?
The only way you'd be able to test this assertion with any real hope
of credibility would be to purchase an instrument - leave it untouched
for fifty years, and then test it against a newly purchased instrument
built to the exact same specifications ( a difficult feat in itself ).
You might then be able to say 'aha..this one is better because it has
matured'...if that would indeed be the case.
You can't realistically expect to draw any comparative conclusions by
playing two different instruments that have been manufactured to
different specifications and led entirely different lives.
Sure - you can say 'ooh, this one is better', and you might even be
able to point to factors such as build quality and workmanship - but
to assume the difference is due to a process of maturation is so much
snake oil.
>
>> If such instruments truly did mature
>> then why do so many of the instruments I am privileged to be asked to
>> restore sound so, well, average in comparison to their modern
>> counterparts?
>
>Average? Why? Because the newer clarinets are brighter and have more edge to
>them? Or the sound is more vibrant? If that's what you look for in a horn, then
>fine...your point is absolutely valid here. And I say this whole-heartedly,
>because I'm the same as you with my regard to pianos...I'll take a brand new,
>bright Steinway over a darker sounding, vintage Steinway.
>However...The brighter horns, IMO, are not as well-suited for blend. Likewise,
>I've heard the same solos played on vintage Buffets and played them myself on
>new Selmers...I just like the sound of the older horns better...
Average because what I look for in an instrument is depth of tone.
It's not true to assume that a modern clarinet is brighter - some of
the early five and six key boxwood instruments are so shrill as to be
quite painful on the ear.
As for vibrant, I'd place an old Albert or simple system up against
any Boehm system any day.
Depth of tone, however, implies a broader set of criteria -
particularly the ability to enable the player to choose whether to
emphasise the brighter or darker aspects available within the
instrument's range - something that isn't often an option on many
instruments.
The reason an older instrument sounds the way it does isn't down to
some mystical improvement due to the mere fact it's been in existence
for any length of time - it's purely and simply down to the
specifications it was made to.
This is why vintage saxes ( for example ) are so popular - they were
made to a set of parameters that modern instruments no longer
use...and thus they sound different.
>
>Romantic? Perhaps...but you seem to want to only review your particular
>sampling. Granted...the modern counterparts as you say, are beautiful horns...I
>enjoy playing them, as mechanisms are really cool on some of them and their edge
>really cuts into jazz licks quite nicely...but to 'preach' a truth that is only
>a half-truth, is, IMO, close-minded.
>
The truth of the matter under discussion is that the moment you
separate the wood from the tree it begins to deteriorate - and will
continue to do so until the last grains of wood dust are blown away in
the wind. This is a fact, a truth ( and we all wish it were otherwise
) and the degradation that ensues from this natural process will have
a deleterious effect of the properties of a woodwind instrument from
day one.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'my particular sampling'. Given
the nature of the work I undertake my sampling was confined to a range
of woodwind spanning the last four centuries.
As for 'preaching' a truth, I do no such thing. The information given
here is factual - based on practical observation and measurable ( and
demonstrable ) factors. Given that it's my job to counteract these
factors I'd be quite remiss in my duties if I chose to ignore them.
It's not my job to persuade players to ditch their old instruments in
favour of shiny new ones - but to preserve and maintain the ones they
own now - and a great deal of that work involves holding back the
physical process of decomposition...and always to be painfully honest
when a much loved instrument has reached the end of its practical
life.
Dee D. Hays
"Vinnie" <wmae...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3B748B42...@optonline.net...
>
> I'd first have to that when comparing two different grenadilla piccolos,
one
> old, one new, the older one had a sweeter charm and a more lucious tone.
My
> piccolo is by no means shabby, but the older piccolo just sounded a bit
better.
> So yes, I'd say depending on the player, they would recognize a
difference...I
> did.
>
But how do you know that the difference is due to aging rather than design
changes between the years or the inherent differences between two different
instruments that occur between ones of the same brand and model?
Dee Hays
Michigan
Razzpy
Alot goes into the making of an instrument. Many different factors go into
making that instrument sound as it does. That was one of the reasons I
recommended not so old an instrument. The technology in making a clarinet
these days is such that almost any major brand is an improvement over that 50
years ago.
My Selmer Series 9 is a very bright sounding instrument - to much so for
concert bands. This goes against your assertion that newer horns are brighter.
I switched to a Leblanc to blend better. This after switching mouthpieces and
using a Rovner Dark ligature. My Yamaha I can make brighter or darker
depending on how I blow the horn, mouthpiece used and so on.
In short you do have to be careful in what you are comparing.
Mr. Howard's explanation does (and very well) explain what I've seen in
clarinets. Some clarinets used by my contemporaries in the Jazz band are
really no better than museum pieces or kindling - maybe spare parts holders.
Yet they still play and one can get a reasonable sound from them. That still
amazes me. I took one of the older and crummier horns from one of the Sax
players and added my mouthpiece and barrel. The sound I got out of it was
amazing - piece of junk horn still played nicely with good tone. The bore was
pitted and showing signs of neglect - the pads were badly in need of change.
But there was a difference and no matter what I tried I could simply not get
the fullness that came from my Yamaha.
There is so much to making a horn play and sound. It becomes a difficult
process to really determine the cause - or causes. I can give my Leblanc,
Selmer or Yamaha to another clarinetist and it will sound totally different.
For me - The Selmer was my baby - used it for 30 years. I learned to
compensate for its difficiencies. With the newer horns (Buffet R13s, Selmer
10s, Yamaha YCL72 on, Leblanc IIIs) I now find that I do not have to make the
adjustments that were needed on the older horns. Their tones are much truer.
Why is that - age of the wood is one reason - but only one. More critical was
the placement of the holes and how they were cut. In the Yamaha also the bore
and shape of the bell.
In a followup - I've heard alot on oiling in this newsgroup. I tend to oil my
horn more than most - I'm in a severly dry climate. Using the correct oil,
does that reduce the detioration process and how do you know when to oil the
bore. I was told (years ago) that whan the bore looks dull to give it a light
coat.
One side. When I do oil my clarinet the tone drops slightly for a day or two.
After that it comes right back. Very noticable on the Selmer, not so on the
Yamaha or Leblanc.
Rich R.
HOST Comp Tanker
We (and others in other fields) are always looking for a "better" angle on what
we do. This incessant quibbling over the external factors that affect playing
ability and the search for a "scientific" means to evaluate these factors is
peripheral to the real problem, that of the person making the music in the
first place.
Within certain limits, procurement of "equipment" can help. But, there is only
so much that can be done with the "equipment", and in the end it comes down the
man or woman behind the controls. Ironically, the thing that makes that person
"better" is the least expensive thing of all...practice.
In addition to my other "talents", I've also been a union bricklayer from way,
way back. And, one of the marks of a "good" bricklayer was that he (or a very
few shes) used a Rose trowel.
Rose trowels aren't all that expensive, but they are the Cadillac of their
breed: well balanced, hold a good load of mortar, are angled just so as to be
perfect for "clipping" brick with the edges, properly conroured handles set at
the right angle. In its way, it's the R-13 of its industry, perfect in form and
function for what it does.
So I, the young "cub" bricklayer, made it a point to take a significant part of
my first paycheck and acquire a Rose trowel. But, the same tool that seemed to
fly effortlessly along in the hands of the old guys, making wall with easy
grace, was (in my clumsy hands) no better than the no name tool with which I
had started.
A few years down the road, with months of bricklaying (and blocklaying, and
(dare I say it) even some stonesetting), that same trowel that felt clumsy in
my young hands would then too fly along the wall, acting as an extension of my
then skilled hands.
Those of us cursed with the saxophone affliction hear a lot of this "What is
(so and so's) set up?" stuff. I guess that's there's a natural human tendency
to seek the quick fix, something that we can 'quantify'. In the final analysis,
the best thing to look at are all of those etudes and scale studies...that's
the true route to the perfection that we all seek.
Ranting perhaps, but the truth nonetheless...
Terry L. Stibal
HOSTCom...@aol.com
Doug
Tanker <hostcom...@aol.comnojunk> writes
It is the truth. I have been preaching this sort of thing since I came
onto this N.G. My two expressions have been repeated many times on
this NG.
First is, Everybody is vainly seeking the Holy Grail no matter what the
item is..
True tone and true expression comes from inside you, from the heart.
I have many times through the years played with a chap who has a
trumpet.
He always gets a tone which sounds like a corncrake - and he knows it.
It is nasal sound and quite unattractive. He has tried all the outlets
and all the different mouthpieces, trumpet brands and different makes
but every time he tries something new - out pops the nasal sound as
before.
I depped last week in a brass band concert and he was there. (He,- and I
there, together?? they must have been desperate, I hear you say!)
Anyway, the same old whoopy cushion sound. I tried to feel sorry for
him, - but resisted it.
When he played for me I used to give him a list of gigs, which he
accepted, but he was sometimes prone to ring me up at five p.m. and tell
me he couldn't make it. He'd forgotten that this wife wanted to see a
certain film that night. ("Gone with the Wind", probably.)
BTW, - An old chestnut from the dance-band world. :-
"He plays the trumpet," = He happens to have the ability to play the
trumpet.
"He has a trumpet," = He happens to have a trumpet.
That may be nasty of me, but I was, and am, always in my seat properly
washed, shaved ,dressed, tuned up and ready twenty minutes before the
baton comes down.
Not sitting in the front row thruppenies in some bug-hut bioscope and a
bandleader somewhere else tearing his hair out..
Doug.
Rich R.
You really got it!. I've worked with people trying different
mouthpieces, ligatures, reeds, barrels - even clarinets! They forget
what it is that really makes a clarinet sing. Once I took a student's
plastic horn and gave her my Yamaha (not to smart here). There was
very little difference in her tone quality at all - plastic or my CSV.
As you said it all comes from within.
One adult friend of mine tried mouthpieces galore - then went for all
the ligatures - in an attempt to get better. The results were all the
same. No difference at all - though now she can say that she plays on
a "Hite".
What I try to get through to students and fellow players is that there
is a difference between playing the notes and playing music. Most
just stare at me. Some never figure that out....
Just finished a performance where I did a duet with a singer - where
the clarinet and the voice intertwined and blended in and out (great
jazz arrangement). It was all timing and very critical for it to come
out correctly. For the first time we really hit it and you could just
feel the difference. The audience appreciated it as well. Hopefully,
I'll be able to work with her again in a couple more performances.
Was really wonderful. She has one great voice.
Doug - just keep on trying - maybe some day you will be heard.
Rich R.
JB
mature well, the instrument needs to be played.
--
John B.
"Stephen Howard" <sees...@email.uk> wrote in message
news:4nq9nt04cgc49sjdn...@4ax.com...
TJ
Centred Tone Clarinet and I was surprised not to see any reaction to
this consideration....he said that he was interested in playing jazz.
On a personal note I play an old 1953 Henri Selmer (P5156) which I think
some experts refer to as a pea shooter. I use a K9 m'piece. The horn has
been frequently overhauled...always well maintained and today is still
in excellent condition......and I love to play this horn and it does
what I like it to do. I play jazz...swing and dixie...a little bop.
On the other hand in 1980 I acquired a Selmer Centered Tone (1956-Q3066)
clarinet that had always been superbly maintained and I continued in
that same vein. Every once in a while I keep reading about how this horn
was designed(larger bore etc) for playing jazz and I think ok...let's
hear the jazz come out....well the results in my case are even less than
underwhelming. My fascination over the years with the Selmer CT is and
has always been short lived....never lasts longer than a week.....I then
go back to my Henri Selmer and the world is all of a sudden a good place
I cannot play the CT horn in tune and the top register above D leger
line is hard as hell to get up to pitch. The high Ebb without the fork
just does not play and Bb forked fingering (1st leger line) is
non-existent. The whole area of of range north of the D second leger
linme is a veritable mine field. I think to be able to play this horn
with a decent tone and to play it in tune......I would have to practice
10 hours a day....and develop super magnum chops.
Any comments? On any of the above?
TJ
Razzpy
Probably about correct. I've had mine for a lone time Rxxxxx Series. Does
take some adjusting. However, I've made it as have many others. My own
problem is above C - The horn tends to get a bit sharp.
With the newer horns and the better tschnology (Which I replied earlier in the
same manner) of the newer horns, it is not worth the effort to learn the horn
and it's idiosynchracies (Bad spelling...). That is whay I went to a newer
horn (2000 brand new Yamaha). I still play the Selmer, but not so much -
probably never again in a performance.
Rich R.
Kneel Jung
>The original poster had mentioned the possibility of acquiring a Selmer
>Centred Tone Clarinet and I was surprised not to see any reaction to
>this consideration....he said that he was interested in playing jazz.
that was me ..
>On the other hand in 1980 I acquired a Selmer Centered Tone (1956-Q3066)
>clarinet that had always been superbly maintained
<<snip>>
>My fascination over the years with the Selmer CT is and
>has always been short lived....never lasts longer than a week
I tried a Q series CT in similiar condition
a coupla years ago and got about the
same results .. so I bought a late 60s R-13
instead to learn on .
But I'm still searchin for a Jazz horn .
checkin out some older LeBlancs at the
moment .
dave williams