Contrabass Digest |
| To subscribe or unsubscribe, email gdgreen@contrabass.com |
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:07:32 -0700
From: Grant Green <gdgreen@contrabass.com>
Subject: Re: Marching contras...
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com> > and the idea of marching with the contra sax is
> > absolutely absurd.
>
>No, I don't agree. I think the idea is delightful. (for Sax players, of
>course).
>
>Tom
>(so us Brass players can laugh at the crazy guys for trying to march a
>contra!) :-)Actually, Don Stevens of the Nuclear Whales *dances* with the contra
hanging from his neck. Needless to say, the other players give him a
*wide berth* when he starts to pirouette ;-)Besides, the contra only weighs about 45 pounds. How does that
compare with a BBb sousaphone?Grant
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant Green gdgreen@contrabass.com
http://www.contrabass.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------From: SEMarcus@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:42:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Hoffnung
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIn a message dated 10/1/99 4:11:41 PM, jeanvaljean@ntsource.com writes:
<<of the Hoffnung Festival fame. Anyone own any LPs of these festivals??
> Cheers!>>I have a 3-LP set on EMI of the 1956, 1958, and 1961 Hoffnung Festivals.
Kindest regards,
Steve Marcus
BBb Bass, Prairie Brass Band
Director of Sales, THE BEAUTIFUL SOUND, INC. (630) 325-9999 (Steinway Piano
Dealer)---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron Rabushka" <arabushk@cowtown.net>
Subject: Re: Orchestral Sax
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:11:11 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comWhere does the sax come in in Carmen?
Aaron J. Rabushka
arabushk@cowtown.net
http://www.cowtown.net/users/arabushk/---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 23:09:44 -0400
From: Robert Howe <arehow@vgernet.net>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comGet a copy of Baines and read the chapter on Sarrusophones. Then you
will know. Obviously, the writer has not compared the playing
characteristics of a double reed instrument to those of a single reed of
similar size; say, English horn and alto Saxophone. And it is doubtful
that a particular size Sarrusophone was cheaper than the corresponding
Saxophone; Saxos had been out for 20 years longer. However, I will
check some of my old catalogs from late 19th century France and post the
results to this list.Robert Howe
Adam Kent-Isaac wrote:
> Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular? At the
> time, it was much cheaper to buy than a saxophone, a
> lot lighter, and probably slightly easier to play. I
> can see no reason for it to become obsolete. You could
> say it was wiped out by its competitor (the saxophone)
> but the sarrusophone has a tone all its own, and not
> at all like the saxophone's. It would also go better
> in orchestras with the bassoon, trombone and low
> strings section, blending smoothly and evenly. The
> saxophone was rarely used in orchestral works because
> it had a hybrid tone, and sounded too loud and harsh
> for it to be played with an orchestra. (One tenor
> saxophone alone in terms of volume equals one cello
> section)
>
> The contrabass saxophone is also MUCH too cumbersome
> and expensive compared to the Contrabass Sarrusophone
> ($40,000 for a contrabass sax vs. $2000 for a
> contrabass sarrusophone)
> and the idea of marching with the contra sax is
> absolutely absurd.
>
> For all intents and purposes the sarrusophone is
> simply more practical than the sax. Why then did it
> fade from existence?
>
> -Adam KI
> Bassoon, low saxes, low clarinets and bass.
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 23:23:18 -0400
From: Robert Howe <arehow@vgernet.net>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIf strong words offend you, delete this letter now.
To quote Adam Kent-Issac:
"When the saxophone was invented, there was no such
thing as a true virtuoso on the saxophone. There was
one way of playing it: loud. It was invented to be
loud and harsh, and to give a strong bass to the
woodwind and brass sections in the band. Back then,
players were not about to adopt new styles of playing."This sort of statement burns me up.
Adam, where do you get these stupid ideas? Read what Berlioz says about
the Saxophone in the 1860s in his Treatise on Instrumentation. Look at
what music Bizet and other early writers composed for the Saxphone--all
of it very lyrical, none of it loud or percussive. Read Wally Horvath's
book on Adolphe Sax, or Baines' description of the early Saxophone's
history or play some original Sax instruments (I own 7 of them
{1854-1890ish}, and another dozen by his competitors {1864-1890ish}) and
you will find that the early Saxophone was certainly not "loud and harsh".This is a common misconception that a given generation often has of
those before it. IN the 1930s it was common to describe the barogque
oboe, that most elegant of instruments, as loud and harsh. Again,
experimentation has shown this not to be true (and how could Bach and
Handel write so nicely for a loud, harsh instrument?)It is OK for everyone to have an opinion, but an opinion should have
SOME basis. Otherwise it is a bias. I can assure you, the early
Saxophones--despite the weight that they indeed added to outdoor
ensembles--are sophisticated, lyrical instruments.Do your homework before you spout off. I don't care what is your
background or your address or your age, you need to read more and write less.Robert Howe
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Orchestral Sax
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:22:38 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com> Where does the sax come in in Carmen?
It's in the orchestral texture, no solo.
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------
From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:44:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com<<
There was one way of playing it: loud. It was invented
to be loud and harsh, and to give a strong bass to the
woodwind and brass sections in the band.
>>Untrue. When the saxophone was premiered, it was reported as being beautiful
and soothing. How does this fit in with being loud?<<
Another point which supports my argument is that when
you hear the classical saxophone, it is in a concerto,
or an occasion where its distinctive sound is intended
to be heard. You would never hear a bass saxophone for
instance, playing with a large orchestra and never soloing.
>>Again, untrue. There are saxophones in many orchesstration (including bass
saxophone), and not everything is just a solo. Where did you get your
education?Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:51:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com<<
Actually, if I recall correctly, the original saxophone
was a mellower instrument than today's version.
>>Yes, you are correct... I had forgot about that. The original saxophone
mouthpiece was different, and much darker and softer. America modified the
mouthpieces to fit better in with dance bands, and the design has stuck.
Sigurd Racher's mouthpiece is the darkest available, and most true to the
original. Adolphe Sax's daughter commented once the Rascher's tone was
exactly what Sax himself wanted: smooth, uniform, and with extended ranges.
Not harsh at all. [to Adam] Read his books sometime, they are informative.Stuart
PS- The Bass in C was historically the first saxophone, I believe.
---------------------------------------------------------From: lawrencejohns@webtv.net (lawrence johns)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:08:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Orchestral Sax
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comLET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT!
ADOLPHE SAX 'S FIRST INVENTED HORN WAS A BASS SAX? WAS HE INTO LOW
INSTRUMENTS? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I SAW SOMEWHERE THAT THE LOOK OF THE
BASS CLARINET AS WE KNOW IT TODAY WAS MR. SAX'S INVENTION,TOO.
WHY DID THE BASS SAX LOSE ITS PLACE IN THE MUSICAL WORLD? WAS IT DUE TO
ECONOMICS OR WAS IT BECAUSE THE BARITONE SAX WAS MUCH EASIER TO TOTE
AROUND? I THINK ALL THE DIFFERENT SAXES HAVE THEIR DISTINCT SOUND.THE
BARITONE SAX TO ME GIVES THE SAX SECTION THE FULLNESS AND THE HARMONY IT
NEEDS WHEREAS THE BASS SAX WAS MORE OF A BEAT INSTRUMENT ADDING ANY
NOVEL WAYS TO WHAT THE BEAT COULD BE WHATS YOUR THINKING HERE TOM?
LARRIMAN
BRING THE BASS SAX OUT OF THE CLOSET-IT HAS ITS PERSONALITY-Lawrence "Larry" E. Johns-
---------------------------------------------------------
From: UrielsPoet@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:06:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Marching contras...
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIn a message dated 10/1/99 4:08:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gdgreen@contrabass.com writes:> Besides, the contra only weighs about 45 pounds. How does that
> compare with a BBb sousaphone?
The full-size college sousaphones we march with weigh between 55 and 65 lbs,
but they do rest on our shoulders.Laura
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Orchestral Sax
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:15:02 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comLarry,
: Re: Orchestral Sax
> LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT!
> ADOLPHE SAX 'S FIRST INVENTED HORN WAS A BASS SAX?NO! His first Sax was a Bass.
His Saxhorns (forerunners to Cornets, Flugels & Baritone Horns) came before
the Saxes.
WAS HE INTO LOW
> INSTRUMENTS?He was into improving musical instruments. He perfected the Clarinets &
Double Reed instruments, before he ever built anything new.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I SAW SOMEWHERE THAT THE LOOK OF THE
> BASS CLARINET AS WE KNOW IT TODAY WAS MR. SAX'S INVENTION,TOO.Yes, he improved the Bass Clarinet so much, it became an accepted often used
& written-for instrument of the Symphony Orchestra.> WHY DID THE BASS SAX LOSE ITS PLACE IN THE MUSICAL WORLD? WAS IT DUE TO
> ECONOMICS OR WAS IT BECAUSE THE BARITONE SAX WAS MUCH EASIER TO TOTENo, the Tubas were improved upon. The Serpent was the original Orchestral
Brass Bass. The (Bass) Sax was built to add more "umph" to the Serpent. But
then the Orchestral Tuba came along........> AROUND? I THINK ALL THE DIFFERENT SAXES HAVE THEIR DISTINCT SOUND.
Of course, no arguement here.
THE
> BARITONE SAX TO ME GIVES THE SAX SECTION THE FULLNESS AND THE HARMONY IT
> NEEDS WHEREAS THE BASS SAX WAS MORE OF A BEAT INSTRUMENT ADDING ANY
> NOVEL WAYS TO WHAT THE BEAT COULD BEI don't think the Bari will ever provide that deep richness in a Sax Choir
that the Bass offers. The Contra is even more rich, especially when the
Bari's are in Harmony & there's a Bass Sax in between.
Original "Big Bands" of the 20's & 30's used a 5 voice section of SATB Bs.
When the Brass sections were expanded from 3 & 5 to the 8-11 we're
accostomed to today, the SAx tonal colors were condensed to AATTB.
Too bad, I liked the full section of 5 different saxes.
The Bari sounds full & rich as the Bass voice only when used that way. It
can sound even more brilliant when used as a Harmony voice in a section that
includes B or CB.A correlation can be drawn to The OctoContra Clarinet that Lucien Calliet of
the Philly Orchestra, had built for him for use on the "Mission Impossible"
Soundtracks. We don't actually hear the OctoContra, but it makes the Contra
Bass Clarinet sound much fuller.WHATS YOUR THINKING HERE TOM?
> LARRIMAN
> BRING THE BASS SAX OUT OF THE CLOSET-IT HAS ITS PERSONALITYHere Here!
BTW Larry, You don't have to yell, I hear you fine. :-)
Tom
>
> -Lawrence "Larry" E. Johns-
>
> ----------------------
> end contrabass list
>---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Marching contras...
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:19:02 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
=========================
>
> In a message dated 10/1/99 4:08:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> gdgreen@contrabass.com writes:
>
> > Besides, the contra only weighs about 45 pounds. How does that
> > compare with a BBb sousaphone?
>
> > The full-size college sousaphones we march with weigh between 55 and 65 lbs,
> but they do rest on our shoulders.Very true, & are much easier to carry & more balanced. My Contrabass
Trombone weighs just under 40 lbs, but because of it's shape, is nearly
impossible to march with.Laura, you said you were small, too?
I commend you for carrying such a beast around. I carried one through HS (6
million years ago), but I'm not small, we had some of those then "new
fangled" fiberglass models, & I STILL thought it too heavy
>Tom
> Laura
> ----------------------
> end contrabass list
>---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: The First Saxophone
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comI understand that my comments about the saxophones
have given me a reputation as a harsh and yet
uninformed critic. Nevertheless I find it neccesary to
add to this conversation about the first saxophone by
stating ( and you can debate this to all hell but it's
right) that the first saxophones were quite unlike
anything we're familiar with.
This is an area where I actually do know what I'm
talking about, having viewed Sax's original patents
and diagrams for instrument production. The first
saxophone EVER produced was actually an Ophicleide
which Sax had fitted with a bass clarinet mouthpiece.
The Ophicleide being a C instrument with the
approximate pitch of the bassoon, it would thus be
correct that the first saxophone was a bass in C. This
is ironic because now all saxophone music is notated
in treble clef.
Anyway, Sax was satisfied with this ophicleide/bass
clarinet that he designed a whole line. These
saxophones were mysterious instruments and you will be
VERY unlikely to run across one today. These
saxophones were essentially Ophicleides in bass and
contrabass sizes (the other pitches came later) with a
single-reed mouthpiece.
It was only much later that Sax experimented with the
bass clarinet-style design of the saxophone, which he
liked because it was more natural for clarinetists,
and this design stuck.
By the way, saxophone production came to a standstill
in Germany and Belgium during WWII because Hitler
declared that saxophones were "instruments of Negroid
savagery" (not the first of Hitler's mistakes, as the
saxophone was invented in BELGIUM and only later was
adopted by African-American-influenced styles of
music.)
And by the way, when I read letters criticizing my
opinions or false facts which I have a habit of
stating, I could lash back out at you with an
incomprehensibly ferocious rage, but I usually write
at night, which is when I am more mellow and less
inclined toward anger (unless it's a full moon) ;
)_)...
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------From: lawrencejohns@webtv.net (lawrence johns)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 03:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Orchestral Sax
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comI didnt mean to sound like i am shouting,but i can see BIGGER PRINT
BETTER. thanks for the information. BTW I am going to make a decision
about purchasing a bass or a contrabass sax in a few months. I need to
get a Nuclear Whales Sax Orchestra cd and let this give me more insight
into what to purchase. I cant see myself buying both.it may test my
patience and my ability to delay gratification. Got to go and pull the
bari out for now and get to the basssaxs of living. todolou LARRIMAN-Lawrence "Larry" E. Johns-
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
First off…
What "strong words?" Obviously you have not seen
"Trainspotting" ; )Second, the Baroque Oboe has a ludicrously harsh,
penetrating, loud tone. It is equipped with a brass
bell which allows the sound to echo and gives it a
VERY loud tone sounding to me more like an alto
saxophone played with the mouthpiece fully inside the
mouth than any sort of oboe. Last time I heard it
played, (by Keith Collins, a local contrabassoonist,)
it supplied the most demented, gurgling,
phosphorescent tone quality I had ever heard. Maybe
you're talking about some other oboe (or maybe I am)
By the way, the Baroque Oboe I heard and saw was
actually very small and resembled a Sou'na in shape
and sound. It was by far the least double-reed
sounding member of the double-reed family I'd ever
heard.
By the way, don't you think bassoons would look nicer
if the keys were laquered in brass or gold? I've never
seen this but if I ever custom-ordered a bassoon I
should have to say I would have the keys gold-plated.Merry Christmas,
Adam
--- Robert Howe <arehow@vgernet.net> wrote:
>
> If strong words offend you, delete this letter now.
>
> To quote Adam Kent-Issac:
> "When the saxophone was invented, there was no such
> thing as a true virtuoso on the saxophone. There was
> one way of playing it: loud. It was invented to be
> loud and harsh, and to give a strong bass to the
> woodwind and brass sections in the band. Back then,
> players were not about to adopt new styles of
> playing."
>
> This sort of statement burns me up.
>
> Adam, where do you get these stupid ideas? Read
> what Berlioz says about
> the Saxophone in the 1860s in his Treatise on
> Instrumentation. Look at
> what music Bizet and other early writers composed
> for the Saxphone--all
> of it very lyrical, none of it loud or percussive.
> Read Wally Horvath's
> book on Adolphe Sax, or Baines' description of the
> early Saxophone's
> history or play some original Sax instruments (I own
> 7 of them
> {1854-1890ish}, and another dozen by his competitors
> {1864-1890ish}) and
> you will find that the early Saxophone was certainly
> not "loud and
> harsh".
>
> This is a common misconception that a given
> generation often has of
> those before it. IN the 1930s it was common to
> describe the barogque
> oboe, that most elegant of instruments, as loud and
> harsh. Again,
> experimentation has shown this not to be true (and
> how could Bach and
> Handel write so nicely for a loud, harsh
> instrument?)
>
> It is OK for everyone to have an opinion, but an
> opinion should have
> SOME basis. Otherwise it is a bias. I can assure
> you, the early
> Saxophones--despite the weight that they indeed
> added to outdoor
> ensembles--are sophisticated, lyrical instruments.
>
> Do your homework before you spout off. I don't care
> what is your
> background or your address or your age, you need to
> read more and write
> less.
>
> Robert Howe
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 01:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Marching contras
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comThe notion of marching with a contrabass saxophone is
absurd. See, it's difficult for me just to balance the
contrabassoon on the floor without it falling down
when I play, and I could NEVER march with one of
those. Supposedly the contrabass saxophone is heavier
than the contrabassoon, and if so, no saxophone player
would want to march with it. The popular marching
saxes are alto, tenor, bari, and occasionally bass.
Nobody marches with a contrabass.Besides, anybody strong enough to march with a
contrabass sax wouldn't be in marching band. They'd be
on the football team.
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Aaron Rabushka" <arabushk@cowtown.net>
Subject: Re: Orchestral Sax
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:06:45 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comCan you give me an example of where (i.e., which number) in the orchestral
texture the sax shows up in Carmen? Does it show up in the concert suite?Aaron J. Rabushka
arabushk@cowtown.net
http://www.cowtown.net/users/arabushk/
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Fmmck@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:32:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Help with physics!?!?!
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIn a message dated 10/1/99 1:10:33 AM, greggbailey@hotmail.com writes:
<< But since the particles simply move back and forth, I
don't see how there can even BE such a thing as wavelength for something
moving back and forth. What's the deal??
Anyway, assuming that the wavelength thing holds true, the wavelength of
this *Earth* note would be 524,288 feet!!! >>Gregg-
I think sound propagates at roughly 1000 feet per second in air. If you
divide that by the frequency, you will find the wavelength. In this case,
1000/0.002 = 500,000 feet, or about 100 miles. Therefore, your calculations
appear to be correct. However, this velocity of propagation is only true in
air. In other media such as might be found inside the earth, velocity will
be faster, so wavelength will be longer for the same frequency.The effects of wavelength show up in the variation in amplitude of vibration
at various points along the vibrating body. A vibrating body will have
points where vibration is at zero, and points where vibration is at a
maximum. The distance between two adjacent nulls or between two peaks, is
equal to one half of the wavelength of vibration. The difference between one
half-wavelength segment and the next, is that they are vibrating in opposite
directions at any given instant. (In other words, they are "out of phase".)If the body is vibrating at its fundamental frequency, the amplitude at each
end will be zero, and at the center will be a maximum, or just the opposite
depending on if and where the body is constrained. I suppose this relates to
the vibrating air column in musical instruments and organ pipes, depending on
whether they are open or closed, et cetera.Fred McKenzie
MMB
---------------------------------------------------------From: RBobo123@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 12:44:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Marching contras...
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIn a message dated 10/2/99 6:07:51 AM, UrielsPoet@aol.com writes:
>The full-size college sousaphones we march with weigh between 55 and 65 lbs,
>but they do rest on our shoulders.Are you sure, our sousas can't be much smaller than full size, and they seem
like they weigh maybe 20 pounds, although i've never checkled with a scale.
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 13:58:01 -0500
From: John Howell <John.Howell@vt.edu>
Subject: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com>From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
>
>Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?Adam, your question is based on an assumption that it had become popular,
and that simply isn't so. You may be in love with it. Composers in the
late 19th century were not. Nor the next generation, nor the next. Why?
Well, possibly for very practical reasons. Composers were writing for a
STANDARD orchestra, made up of musicians who had been trained at
conservatories on the STANDARD instruments. They were not especially
interested in novelty just for the sake of novelty. Granted, it's pure
circular reasoning to say that they wrote for the instruments they did
because they were in the orchestra, and the instruments were in the
orchestra because they wrote for them, but that was actually the situation.At the
>time, it was much cheaper to buy than a saxophone, a
>lot lighter, and probably slightly easier to play.Irrelevant. The Flutophone is cheaper, lighter, and easier to play than a
flute. Don't expect trained flutists to switch!I
>can see no reason for it to become obsolete.It isn't obsolete. Any composer who wants to score for it can probably
find a few people who would love to play. But it never became popular in
the first place.You could
>say it was wiped out by its competitor (the saxophone)You'd be wrong. They were never in competition. I believe the saxophone,
like all Sax's instruments, was brought out primarily in an attempt to sell
them to the French government for their military bands. It was a purely
commercial deal. Who invented the Sarusaphone and what was its intended
use? I don't actually know.>but the sarrusophone has a tone all its own, and not
>at all like the saxophone's. It would also go better
>in orchestras with the bassoon, trombone and low
>strings section, blending smoothly and evenly.I guess late romantic composers just weren't looking for a new
sound--except Wagner, of course, and he saw to it that the instrument he
wanted was designed and built.The
>saxophone was rarely used in orchestral works because
>it had a hybrid tone, and sounded too loud and harsh
>for it to be played with an orchestra. (One tenor
>saxophone alone in terms of volume equals one cello
>section)As others have pointed out, much too simplistic. French composers did seem
to like the sound. So did Gershwin. And it fit right into the military
bands--its original target market. Didn't Sax himself say that he wanted
an instrument that sounded as beautiful as the human voice? I seriously
doubt that he deliberately designed it to sound loud and harsh.>For all intents and purposes the sarrusophone is
>simply more practical than the sax. Why then did it
>fade from existence?(a) They were never in competition; (b) no instrument will be adopted
unless it fills a musical need; (c) it didn't fade, it was just never more
than a novelty.I would echo a question someone else asked: How old are you and how
knowledgeable about standard orchestration practices in the late 19th
century? Have you read Rimsky-Korsakov? Strauss? Berlioz?John
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell@vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Heliconman@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 14:17:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Marching contras...
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIn a message dated 10/02/1999 12:45:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
RBobo123@aol.com writes:> >The full-size college sousaphones we march with weigh between 55 and 65
> >lbs,
> >but they do rest on our shoulders.
>
> Are you sure, our sousas can't be much smaller than full size, and they seem
>
> like they weigh maybe 20 pounds, although i've never checkled with a scale.When I took my Pan American sousaphone to New Orleans on Amtrak, it weighed
in at 50.5 pounds in its wooden case. I had to remove the mouthpiece to avoid
paying an extra charge for being over 50 pounds. The case seems like it
weighs a bit more than the horn. 25 pounds seems about right for that one,
but there are much smaller and much larger sousaphones.
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: The Sarrusophone vs. Saxophone
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comThe key phrase here is "standard." If composers did
not write for the sarrusophone because it was not
"standard" then why did they write for the saxophone
which was also not "standard?" You're recalling a long
and meandering list of practical orchestral uses for
the saxophone, but then you say that the sarrusophone
is not "standard" and the saxophone is? Musicians were
just as unfamiliar with the saxophone at the time of
its invention as they were with the sarrusophone when
it came out.
IN FACT, one would think that because the sarrusophone
came after the saxophone, there waould be many players
familiar with the keywork and able to play it!John Howell wrote:
Composers were writing for a
STANDARD orchestra, made up of musicians who had been trained at
conservatories on the STANDARD instruments. They were not especially
interested in novelty just for the sake of novelty.
Granted, it's pure circular reasoning to say that they wrote for the
instruments they did because they were in the orchestra, and the
instruments were in the orchestra because they wrote for them, but that was
actually the situation.
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 15:21:47 EDT
Subject: Re: The Sarrusophone vs. Saxophone
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com<<
The key phrase here is "standard." If composers did
not write for the sarrusophone because it was not
"standard" then why did they write for the saxophone
which was also not "standard?" You're recalling a long
and meandering list of practical orchestral uses for
the saxophone, but then you say that the sarrusophone
is not "standard" and the saxophone is? Musicians were
just as unfamiliar with the saxophone at the time of
its invention as they were with the sarrusophone when
it came out.
IN FACT, one would think that because the sarrusophone
came after the saxophone, there waould be many players
familiar with the keywork and able to play it!
>>He never said composers were writing for the saxophone as much as they did
the violin or trumpet. It wasn't standard, and composers didn't treat it as a
standard orchestral instrument. That doesn't mean people didn't use the
saxophone, or didn't write for it, because they did. Sarrusophone also was
written for. But, realistically, the saxophone has a much more sweeter
tone--- composers [of that period] probably were not looking for a metal
contrabassoon. These days, we are much more contemporary and open to new
things. Remember that this was the 19th century, and if you think your
grandparents are old-fashioned, just picture your great-great-grandparents!Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:40:29 -0400
From: Robert Howe <arehow@vgernet.net>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comOne of the points Adam made was the relative cheapness of the
Sarrusophone vis a vis the Saxophone. I searched through my collection
of catalogs and found only one that sold instruments of both species.
This is the Gautrot Aine & Co catalog of 1867, which I think was the
year that the Sarrusophone was introduced. There is a long introduction
in French which I partially understand.Anyway, for a Bb soprano Sarrusophone, the price was 160 Francs
For a Bb soprano Saxophone, the price was 160 Francs
For an Eb alto Sarrusophone, the price was 170 Francs.
For an Eb alto Saxophone, the price was 180 Francs.
For a Bb tenor Sarrusophone, the price was 180
For a Bb tenor Saxophone, the price was 190 Francs.
For an Eb baritone Sarrusophone, the price was 190 Francs.
For a Eb baritone Saxophone, the price was 210 Francs.
Bb bass Sarrusophone was 210, Eb contrabass was 260 and Bb or C
contrabass was 300. Eb sopranino was 150 Fr.Prices were (as an example) 15 francs for 10 baritone Sarrusophone
reeds, 7 Francs for 10 bari Sax. As a comparison, the price for a first
quality Boehm clairnet with silver keys was 400 francs; roughly the same
as the current $2000 for a new silver plated Buffet R13. At 1 1867
franc to 5 1999 US dollars, the prices of the Saxophone reeds come out
right, but the Saxophones listed above are bargains if this conversion
is applied.We must remember that this was the year of the Sarrusophone's
introduction and that Gautrot and 14 other makers were trying to put Sax
out of business; it is likely, then that the price of the Sarrusophnes
was kept low to attract buyers. However, it is abundantly clear that in
1867, a Sarrusophone of a given size was cheaper, from this maker, than
the corresponding Saxophone. In practical use, this would be negated by
the prices of reeds.Read first, then write.
Robert Howe
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Mr. Josh" <themanfromutopia@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cylindrical brass
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 19:31:39 GMT
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com>> The most notable cylindrical brass instrument is the
>>English baritone
>
> If it is truly cylindrical, then it would have to overblow only
>odd-numbered harmonics. Is this the case???
> Someone once told me that the cornet is cylindrical. It's not, is it?
> -GreggHere is how it works
Trumpet: 1/3 cylindrical 2/3 conical
Flugelhorn: 1/3 conical 2/3 cylindrical
Cornet: 1/2 conical 1/2 cylindricalI might have the trumpet and flugelhorn mixed up
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 15:39:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Cylindrical brass
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
<<
I might have the trumpet and flugelhorn mixed up
>>Yeah, I think you do. We just used a flugel in a jazz gig this morning, and
it looked much more conical than their trumpets.Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Orchestral Saxophones
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comWhen the saxophone first became publicly marketed and
composers started writing for it, it was treated as a
rather expensive toy, instead of a true instrument. I
read somewhere (i think it was "the Sax and Brass
book") that the person playing the sax was referred to
in the program as a "saxophone operator" rather than a
"saxophonist." But when the tuba, for example, was
invented, they did not say "tuba operator." Why?-Adam
The foolish, arrogant guy=====
Next Digest ->
Previous Digest <-
Index
Top