Contrabass Digest |
| To subscribe or unsubscribe, email gdgreen@contrabass.com |
From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Cylindrical brass
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:03:47 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com----- Original Message -----
From: Mr. Josh <themanfromutopia@hotmail.com>
>
> Here is how it works
>
> Trumpet: 1/3 cylindrical 2/3 conical
> Flugelhorn: 1/3 conical 2/3 cylindrical
> Cornet: 1/2 conical 1/2 cylindrical
>
> I might have the trumpet and flugelhorn mixed upYes you do.
Oversimplificated, however, but you should get the gyst:
Trumpet 1/3 conical, 2/3 cylindrical
Cornet 1/2 conical, 1/2 cylindrical
Flugelhorn 2/3 conical, 1/3 cylindrical. I n other words, the "modern"
cornet, is a cross between the modern Trumpet & the modern Flugel.
Note I typed "modern". The true cornet was closer to the modern flugelhorn.
But the true cornet hasn't been made since the time of Sousa. Like the
Sousaphone, which was made for his band, the cornet was altered to be not
quite as dark, brightened up a bit.If you look at older band arrangements, you'll find both Trumpet & Cornet
parts. Why? Because the instruments used to sound much differently than
todays models, there was a nice contrast bewtween the two sections. Todays
school band directors, don't seem to care about using colors properly, &
have no qualms about putting Trumpets on both Trumpet & Cornet parts. I find
that a shame. If the two instruments were the same, why would composers &
arrangers write different parts?Tom
---------------------------------------------------------
From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 22:39:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Cylindrical brass
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com<<
If you look at older band arrangements, you'll find both Trumpet & Cornet
parts. Why? Because the instruments used to sound much differently than
todays models, there was a nice contrast bewtween the two sections. Todays
school band directors, don't seem to care about using colors properly, &
have no qualms about putting Trumpets on both Trumpet & Cornet parts. I find
that a shame. If the two instruments were the same, why would composers &
arrangers write different parts?
>>Funny you should mention. Our past 1st trumpet player owned a cornet, and
played it full time. When ever we would get mixed orchestrations, the lower
trumpeters always played the cornet parts, and he would play first trumpet.
It was the darnest thing to see a cornet player play the trumpet part, and a
trumpet player play the cornet part.Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 22:41:34 -0400
From: jim and joyce <lande@erols.com>
Subject: Is this the Klarinet list?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com>>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?48, zilch, no, no, no
I didn't realize we had any standards.
(Hopefully 48 is old enough for this list.)>> Adam, where do you get these stupid ideas?
He probably listened to me play sax in college. (Bad pads and a steel
mouthpiece with 1/4 inch gap for the reed. Good enough for a rock
band.)>>At the time, it was much cheaper to buy than
>>a saxophone, a lot lighter, and probably slightly
>>easier to play.Does anyone know the relative prices of alto saxes vs roughly same pitch
sarrusophone? I seem to recall reading on this list that the same length
sarrusaphone was higher pitched. That fact might offset any
weight/cost advantage. In any case, while you could get a single
reed mpc, I also recall reading that the sarrusophone sounds
better (or more distinct) with a double reed.Finally, the gravaman (sp?) of this post: I suspect BAND music,
not ORCHESTRA music drove the markets for brass & woodwinds.
Why else would there be so many metal clarinets in the world (for me
to collect). In my highschool band, the oboe & bassoon players
used clarinets for marching season. Did anyone out there march
with a double reed instrument? Is this because it would be hard to
play marching, or because you couldn't get a cheap enough
horn to take out in the rain? If a sax could march and a
sarrusophone couldn't, then I think I know the real reason one
was common and the other rare.jim lande
---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Orchestral Saxophones
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:11:05 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>> 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?
>Oooohhhhhhh, dare I?
Well you see Adam,...The Tuba, is a ...............REAL instrument. :-)
Now before get flamed, PLEASE notice the smiley face. It's a joke, folks.
Of course, I know the Saxophone to be a real instrument, too.But to answer your question....
The Tuba's predecessors were the Serpent & the Ophicleide. The Serpentist,
not the Serpent Operator (tho that almost would have been more apprapo),
term was used; as was the Ophicleidist, or Ophicleide player, but not
Ophicleide "operator". So I'm guessing, that the Tubist as a term came
mainly from tradition.
There really wasn't a predecessor for the Saxophone. It was a toally new
sound added to the Orchestral pallette of colors.
ALSO, the word "tuba" already existed as early as ancient Rome.
A Tuba in ancient Rome & Greece, was what we would call a Natural Trumpet,
in the Soprano range, too.Tom
---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Cylindrical brass
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:13:12 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com----- Original Message -----
From: <CoolStu67@aol.com>
> =========================I typed earlier:
> <<
> If you look at older band arrangements, you'll find both Trumpet & Cornet
> parts. Why? Because the instruments used to sound much differently than
> todays models, there was a nice contrast bewtween the two sections. Todays
> school band directors, don't seem to care about using colors properly, &
> have no qualms about putting Trumpets on both Trumpet & Cornet parts. I find
> that a shame. If the two instruments were the same, why would composers &
> arrangers write different parts?
> >>
>
Stu replied with:> Funny you should mention. Our past 1st trumpet player owned a cornet, and
> played it full time. When ever we would get mixed orchestrations, the lower
> trumpeters always played the cornet parts, and he would play first trumpet.
> It was the darnest thing to see a cornet player play the trumpet part, and a
> trumpet player play the cornet part.
>
And backwards too.
Too bad, because the contrast can sound very nice when used apropriately.Tom
---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Marching WW
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:18:05 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
>
> Finally, the gravaman (sp?) of this post: I suspect BAND music,
> not ORCHESTRA music drove the markets for brass & woodwinds.
> Why else would there be so many metal clarinets in the world (for me
> to collect). In my highschool band, the oboe & bassoon players
> used clarinets for marching season. Did anyone out there march
> with a double reed instrument?In our case, The Oboes & Bassoons (& F Horns) marched with whatever
instrument they started on. So most of the Oboes & Bassoons marched with
Clarinets, tho not all. One Bassoonist always marched with a Tenor Drum,
because she had started on Percussion. We usually had 4 F Horns, 3 of which
started on Trpt (or Cornet) so would march with the Horn mp's taped into the
receiver of the Trpt or Cornet. The 4th horn? He started on Bass Clarinet,
so he marched with it!Tom
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 04:59:31 -0700
From: Robert Martin <rnm@azstarnet.com>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comAt 03:40 PM 10/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>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 $2000 for a new silver plated Buffet R13. At 1 1867
>franc to 5 1999 US dollars, the prices of the Saxophone reeds come out
>right, but the Saxophones listed above are bargains if this conversion
>is applied.
Although the current exchange rate is not far off from 5 FF = 1 US$,
you can't extrapolate this back to 1867. They aren't even the same
FF! There was a complete revaluation of the FF in the late 1950's
by a factor or 100. So actually, 500 old franc = 1 US$ currently.
Since 1867, there have been several major wars run over French territory
and several changes of constitution (republics). It is not surprising
that the currencies have changed parity.A better comparison would be to relate the prices in 1867 to some
stable, common commodity; the price of meat, gold, silver or
bread for example.Bob
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 06:43:13 +0200
From: Sarah Cordish <cordish@internet-zahav.net>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
> <snip
> 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".
> <snip> This is a common misconception that a given generation often has of
> those before it.<snip>
Do your homework before you spout off. I don't care what is yourbackground
or your address or your age, you need to read more and write less.
<snip>I recommend going easy on Adam. Sometimes the only way to learn something
is to say something or ask a question and to sound stupid. But if one asks
questions and listens to the answers he will eventually know. And, really,
Adam is a still a youngster, how many of these recommended books are his
folks likely to let him buy? I doubt if they would be in a regular
library. He would have to go to some special music library.
Adam is not alone thinking that saxophones were meant to sound nauseating.
This being the result of actual experience.
I think the thread has been interesting because I don't know all this
already, either.Sarah
---------------------------------------------------------
From: RBobo123@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 12:21:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comWell, if Adam's like me, most of his experience of Saxophones come from Jr.
High and High School bands. And in band, Saxophones are nauseating and loud.
Our first year we had 20 Alto Saxophones (Compare that to 15 flutes, 30
clarinets, and 10 trumpets) and we couldn't hear anything else at all.
Luckily, 12 of them quit after the first year, and we could actually hear
other sections. And I'm not even gonna mention the Bari Sax who would
routinely out-blow the entire band as a whole. So, there is a reason to
consider Saxophones loud and obnoxious. However, there are a very few
saxophonists that can play with restraint and get very smooth, beautiful
sounds out of that "loud, harsh instrument" Just my 2cents.
---------------------------------------------------------From: RBobo123@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 12:24:06 EDT
Subject: Note Notation?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comOkay, i've seen this before and i was wondering the protocal (Lack of a
better word) for naming notes. FOr instance, i know that a CC, means a c
below middle C. And i'm prettty sure that c' means the C above. I hope i've
made my question clear. ANy help will be appreciated.
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 13:41:38 -0400
From: Robert Howe <arehow@vgernet.net>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comPerhaps I was unclear, I used the price of a first class clarinet (then
400 FFr, now $2000) for my comparison and thus derived 5 Fr in 1867 to 1
US$ now. The last time I was in Paris, the Franc ran 6.1 to the dollar.We've had some changes in the value of the dollar since then, too. My
1901 Sears catalog sells clarinets for $20.Best wishes,
RObert Howe
Robert Martin wrote:
> >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 $2000 for a new silver plated Buffet R13. At 1 1867
> >franc to 5 1999 US dollars, the prices of the Saxophone reeds come out
> >right, but the Saxophones listed above are bargains if this conversion
> >is applied.
>
> Although the current exchange rate is not far off from 5 FF = 1 US$,
> you can't extrapolate this back to 1867. They aren't even the same
> FF! There was a complete revaluation of the FF in the late 1950's
> by a factor or 100. So actually, 500 old franc = 1 US$ currently.
> Since 1867, there have been several major wars run over French territory
> and several changes of constitution (republics). It is not surprising
> that the currencies have changed parity.
>
> A better comparison would be to relate the prices in 1867 to some
> stable, common commodity; the price of meat, gold, silver or
> bread for example.
>
> Bob
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 13:52:58 -0400
From: Robert Howe <arehow@vgernet.net>
Subject: Re: The Sarrusophone vs. Saxophone
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comFurther thoughts on the Sarrusophone vs. Saxophone war. It really was
not what we have ben discussing it as, one vs. the other. As I read my
textbooks of orchestration and of history and my old catlaogs, it is
apparent that by the 1880s or so, the higher Sarrusophones and lower
Saxophones had become marginalized. A 1901 Martin catalog lists
Sopranino, soprano, alto, tenor, bari and bass Saxes (including bari in
F and bass in C!), but no contrabass. Likewise, it lists Bb soprano,
contrabass in Eb and Bb and C Sarrusophones. The only overlap is thus
at Bb soprano, where the Saxo is cheaper, incidentally, probably due to
economies of scale. The Bb soprano Sarrusophone is thinner in profile
and uses less metal that its cognate Saxophone, as is true of
corresponding Sarrusos of every size.Looking at orchestral scores, those indicators of composers' common
usage, we see that Saint-Saens, Dukas and Ravel wrote for CB
Sarrusophone until the 1920s (L'Apprenti Sorcereur, Rhapsody Espagnole,
L'Heur Espagnole), although in certain pieces (Bolero, Mere d'Oye) Ravel
did instead specify contrabassoon. Clearly, the two axes were
coexistent in turn of the century France.So the much-abused Adam Kent-Issac might restate his question as, why
did the contrabass Sarrusophone die out, not in favor of the Eb
contrabass Saxophone, but rather in favor of the contrabassoon.As always, Baines has a fascinating analysis of this question, and
Forsyth has a hilarious opinion; anyone who has followed this thread
should consult these authors for enlightenment, and the answer to the
initial and restated questions.Let's not even think of extending this thread to Rothophones and
octavins...Robert Howe
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Aaron Rabushka" <arabushk@cowtown.net>
Subject: Re: Cylindrical brass
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 13:11:42 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comRoger Norrington's recording of the Symphonie Fantastique points up the
richness that is gained when using both trumpets and cornets.Aaron J. Rabushka
arabushk@cowtown.net
http://www.cowtown.net/users/arabushk/
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 14:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: merlinw@netcom.ca
Subject: Re: The Sarrusophone vs. Saxophone
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
On 10/03/99 13:52:58 you wrote:>Let's not even think of extending this thread to Rothophones and
>octavins...Gee, why not? I can actually speak with some authority about the the octavin - not only do I know what they are, I've actually played one.
Merlin Williams
merlinw@netcom.ca
http://www.netcom.ca/~merlinw
A member of the Saxring and the Duke Ellington Ring.
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 14:08:07 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comBob,
>
> Perhaps I was unclear, I used the price of a first class clarinet (then
> 400 FFr, now $2000) for my comparison and thus derived 5 Fr in 1867 to 1
> US$ now. The last time I was in Paris, the Franc ran 6.1 to the dollar.
>
> We've had some changes in the value of the dollar since then, too. My
> 1901 Sears catalog sells clarinets for $20.Just curious. Do you know anyone who ever bought a musical instrument from Sears?
Tom
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Next Digest ->
Previous Digest <-
Index
Top