Contrabass Digest |
| To subscribe or unsubscribe, email gdgreen@contrabass.com |
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Why did the octavin become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comI understand that I was told not to talk about the
octavin but somebody else did first, and he set the
bar for everybody else. Besides, aren't we inclined to
do stuff we're told not to? Why else whould drugs be
so popular even with drug ed. in school?Anyway, why did the Octavin become unpopular? Was it
ever popular? It must have been fairly inexpensive to buy.
You know, I once tried to make an octavin (swear to
god) by putting a baritone sax mouthpiece into the
smaller of the two holes on the boot joint of the
bassoon. Sounded pretty cool, actually! Beautiful low notes.Did any composers write for the octavin? Was there
ever any other sizes built? I'm not going to rush
ahead stating "facts" because I honestly know nothing
about this instrument. BTW, no, I DON"T want to hear
any comment like "finally Adam learned." I really
already knew stuff about the sarrusophone; it was just
orchestration I was not knowledgeable about.-Adam
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:22:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com<<
But if one asks
questions and listens to the answers he will eventually know.
>>Adam wasn't asking or commenting--- he was proclaiming his incorrect opinion
as fact, and wouldn't listen to any evidence. Sometimes you just have to be gruff!Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------From: Heliconman@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:24:44 EDT
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comIn a message dated 10/03/1999 2:09:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jeanvaljean@ntsource.com writes:> Just curious. Do you know anyone who ever bought a musical instrument from
> Sears?
>
> Tom
>
I remember seeing a reissue of an old Sears catalog. If I remember,
Silvertone was (one of) their brand name for instruments and I believe they
were made by several fairly reputable manufacturers. I have a Silvertone
trombone right now (possibly for sale, but I might have a flame paint job put
on it) that was made in Elkhart, Ind. Lots of high end craftsmen in that town!
Cheers!
Heliconman@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------From: CoolStu67@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:26:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com<<
Well, 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. >>Of course, in Jr. HS and HS, people are beginners. But when the saxophone was
invented, there wasn't a local middle school with 20 people blasting saxes.
The professionals played them beautifully. He was trying to say that the
saxophone was invented to be loud and harsh, but if you base that off
experience with school, well--- that's just plain wrong.Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 18:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comThe fact that I'm in a school band does not make me
bad. I'm actually quite proficient and very far from a
beginner. It is simply that our band has an
overabundance of bad sax players.
Also, there's no reason to assume that I'm
incompetent because of my age. I happen to be
exceptionally insightful compared to the majority of
students who are unimaginably stupid.
And, why say that my parents would not allow me to
have books on orchestration? Yes, I have read none of
the reccomended books. But that is not, as Sarah
claims, because my parents won't let me. It's because
I live in a town where the "articles" in Hustler
magazine are considered to be fine literature, thus
making the above books unavailable.-Adam
--- CoolStu67@aol.com wrote:
> Well, 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. >>
>
> Of course, in Jr. HS and HS, people are beginners.
> But when the saxophone was
> invented, there wasn't a local middle school with 20
> people blasting saxes.
> The professionals played them beautifully. He was
> trying to say that the
> saxophone was invented to be loud and harsh, but if
> you base that off
> experience with school, well--- that's just plain
> wrong.
>
> Stuart
=====---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: merlinw@netcom.ca
Subject: Re: Why did the octavin become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comOn 10/03/99 16:17:22 you wrote:
> I understand that I was told not to talk about the
>octavin but somebody else did first, and he set the
>bar for everybody else. Besides, aren't we inclined to
>do stuff we're told not to? Why else whould drugs be
>so popular even with drug ed. in school?
> Anyway, why did the Octavin become unpopular? Was it
>ever popular? It must have been fairly inexpensive to
>buy.
> You know, I once tried to make an octavin (swear to
>god) by putting a baritone sax mouthpiece into the
>smaller of the two holes on the boot joint of the
>bassoon. Sounded pretty cool, actually! Beautiful low
>notes.Well, you do know something about the octavin. You're correct that it very closely resembles the boot of a bassoon in appearance. The bore is much smaller though, and the reed is close to a clarinet reed in size. The weirdest thing about the instrument is having the bell come out of the instrument just below your chin.
Merlin Williams
merlinw@netcom.ca
http://www.netcom.ca/~merlinw
A member of the Saxring and the Duke Ellington Ring.
---------------------------------------------------------From: PaulC135@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:24:27 EDT
Subject: Re: [Contra digest]
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comThere have been many fantastic misconceptions and misinformation about the
saxophone posted here of late. Too numerous, and some too ridiculous, to
comprehensively respond, but here are a few observations:The contrabass saxophone, in the eyes of the US military, was intended to
be used as a marching instrument. I have one of these instruments (mid 1920s
vintage, Evette-Schaeffer), and the guy hooks on the body, when fastened to
the original leather strap that came with it, perfectly suspends the horn
around the poor soul assigned to play it. These horns (Evette Schaeffers)
were imported through the Conn company to be sold to the Military as their
lowest woodwind instrument. Note that Conn did not make the instrument but
only imported them. When the spectre of the contrabass proved impractical
for marching purposes even to our military, they then commissioned the Conn
company to build a US contrabass sarrrusophone in 1921. This horn has a
similar range to the contrabass, and was supplied with an ingenious single
reed mouthpiece. These instruments play beautifully.<<<<When 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."
-Adam>>>>>As someone who is listed as a contributor to the Sax and Brass book, but
all of whose suggestions and recommendations for clarity and accuracy were
summarily ignored, I can only urge readers to enjoy the wonderful pictures,
but dismiss most facts and all summaries, conjectures and assertions about
the classical saxophone in this book. That they list one colorful reference
to a review where the saxophonist is referred to as a "saxophone operator"
has zero significance to the status of the saxophone at the time. There is a
much broader and deeper context to consider the role of the instrument at the
time than an isolated review. It is much like discovering a box score of Babe
Ruth from the early 1920s where he once struck out 5 times in one game. The
conclusion similar to the Sax and Brass Book is that Ruth was a terrible
player who could not have lasted long in the game.Sax's invention of the saxophone came about during the furious efforts
among instrument makers to perfect a bass reed or wind orchestral instrument.
Efforts such as the ophecleide, serpent, contrabassoon, bass clarinet, etc
were not successful at that time. The Saxophone was a perfect
invention/design for that role, and hence the first saxophone was a bass.
Its role as a military band instrument came later, (after Sax designed the
smaller sizes) and as much a result of Sax's success in convincing the
government about the superiority of families of instruments in an ensemble as
the desirability of the saxophones themselves.Be wary of the modern contrabass saxophone. Made by Orsi (though
customized for LA Sax for their line) it is a design not ergonomically
friendly, and with a tone that lacks the depth that one hears from the
Nuclear Whales' contra, or my own. (Evette Schaeffer for both, of which 25
were made). My contra can be heard on my CD "Paul Cohen's Vintage
Saxophones Revisited" where we premiere Henry Cowell's "Hymn and Fuguing Tune
#18 for soprano and contrabass saxophones. If you are interested in a
contra, I would suggest a trip to New York City, and try the one at Rod
Baltimore for a comparison.It is always fun to speculate on the origins of the saxophone.
Regardless of the physical form of Sax's first experiment/thoughts, the final
patents and production reveal a single, mature and brilliant concept of
instrumental tone and design well beyond the ophicleide-bass clarinet hybrids
so often mentioned. Look no farther than the mouthpiece sketches, which
illustrate a fundamental difference to that of clarinet. Sax's excavated
chamber helps to create a sound and response unique to the saxophone and which
defined the properties of the instrument.
Paul Cohen
---------------------------------------------------------From: JolivetDVM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:34:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: Orchestral Sax
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comThere is no saxophone part at all in Carmen. Bizet did use it in The
L'Arlesienne Suites. Michel Jolivet
---------------------------------------------------------From: "Aaron Rabushka" <arabushk@cowtown.net>
Subject: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 10:07:33 -0500
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comI showed an old (1902) Sears catalog to a string bass-playing friend once,
and he laughed long and hard at the way they hawked their brazilwood bows,
some of the cheapest imaginable. Sears may have had some really good
watches, tools, and cream separators--I've never heard of them touted as a
musical instrument vendor (Craftsman trombones, anyone?).Aaron J. Rabushka
arabushk@cowtown.net
http://www.cowtown.net/users/arabushk/
---------------------------------------------------------
From: JolivetDVM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:07:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: Why did the sarrusophone become unpopular?
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comAfter reading all of the postings on the sarrusophone and saxophone I
feel that I might as well throw my hat into the ring as well!!
I started out as a saxophonist some 30 years ago and switched to bassoon
around 1972 or so. I now play bassoon and contrabassoon in the Puget Sound
region with many ensembles - I recently recorded a duo for 2 contras with
Arthur Grossman for an upcoming CD, and I have recently performed the
Francaix bassoon concerto with a local chamber orchestra and also recently
performed the Beethoven septet and Schubert octet with Joseph Silverstein. I
have been seriously working with the sarrusophone for about 5 years since
acquiring my first one, although I have been studying the instrument since
1978 or so. I say all of this to give some perspective to my opinions as a
player of double reed instruments.
The reason for the sarrusophone's decline are many and have been covered
at various times by many people over the years. I feel that the main points
are that early sax players would have had trouble with a double reed
embouchure and could not do the sarrusophone justice (hence the availability
of single reed mouthpieces) and bassoonists would have had to learn new
fingerings (albeit significantly easier than bassoon fingerings - as William
Waterhouse once said, the bassoon's fingerings are "non-intuitive"!). The
target players were the military bassoonists and oboists as the bassoon and
oboe were not considered loud enough for outdoor band performance, which is
undeniable. At the time of the sarrusophone's invention, the military band
was tremendously important and committees were formed to formulate the
perfect instrumentation and contests were held to help determine the perfect
combination. Different band conductors had their own opinions often varying
by country.
Adolph Sax was the leading innovator of wind instruments and his
instruments were adopted by the French committee charged with determining
instrumentation. Consequently, all other intrument makers hated him and
attempted to drive him out of business. But I digress....
Bottom line is that the sarrusophone was built with the military band in
mind as a replacement for the oboes and bassoons which were too soft. it was
not designed with orchestra in mind, although the CC contrabass had a rather
significant period of usage as the contrabass of the orchestral woodwinds,
because of the difficulty making an effective contrabassoon ( the modern
German contra was not developed until the late 1800's by Heckel).
The military band eventually became less of a musical force, thereby
eliminating its primary musical venue. The EEb contrabass managed to hold on
longer than any other size as a regular band member for quite a while, but it
has also vanished from most bands.
There is no question in my mind that the sarrusophones, especially the
contrabass sizes, can fulfill a distinct need in the band, but the fact
remains that they are not called for anymore and they are hard to find.
Despite the fact that an occasional piece is written that calls for a
sarrusophone, I doubt that they will ever be made again in great numbers.
Few people would be willing to purchase an instrument which is rarely called
upon to play these days.
We can all lament these circumstances but that will not change them. The
sarrusophone remains a facinating double reed instrument which was developed
for a specific reason; they are neat to look at and played well they are well
worth listening to, but their heyday has passed and they never had even then
and never will have the popularity of the saxophone, clarinet, bassoon etc.
The nice thing is that people are still interested in them and have kept
them alive. Because of the internet, those of us who like arcane instruments
can get together and discuss them and learn from each other's experience.
Michel Jolivet
---------------------------------------------------------From: Grant Green <ggreen@iconixpharm.com>
Subject: RE: Sax patents
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:19:38 -0700
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com> 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.
>
I'd be interested to see the patents. The early Sax patents that I've seen
have shown the "ophicleide" form of bass sax as an alternate form, but
showed essentially the modern form for all the other sizes (including a
"normal" bass).> 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.)
>
Actually, I think Sax was living in Paris at the time he invented the
saxophone. He was Belgian by nationality, but set up shop in Paris for most
of his career.Grant
---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:55:44 -0700
From: Grant Green <gdgreen@contrabass.com>
Subject: Another sarrusophone in concert...
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comI've been asked to play contrabass sarrusophone with the San Jose
State U. symphonic band next week - and it looks like I'll actually
have the time to do so :-) They've programmed the Children's March
by P. Grainger, which apparently calls for Eb contra. I may also be
playing BBb contrabass clarinet on a few pieces - haven't seen the
parts yet. The program is:SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
SYMPHONIC BAND
KEITH BRION, CONDUCTORCONCERT HALL
Tuesday, October 12, 1999 7:30 PMBACH Chorale Prelude: "Wachet Auf"
BERNSTEIN Overture to Candide
deCABEZONE Prelude in the Dorian Mode arr. Grainger
GRAINGER a) Colonial Song
b) Children's March, Over the Hills and Far Away
GOULD American SaluteIntermission
HOVHANESS Symphony 20,Three Journeys to a Holy Mountain
I. Andante espressivo
II. Allegro moderato
III. Andante maestoso
PROKOFIEV March Opus 99
VILLA LOBOS Toccata from Bachianas Brasilieras No. 2
(The Little Train of the Brazilian Countrymen)
R.B. HALL The New Colonial March
SOUSA The Royal Welch FusaliersThe public is invited to a reception on stage at the conclusion of the concert.
Grant
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant Green gdgreen@contrabass.com
http://www.contrabass.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: merlinw@netcom.ca
Subject: Re: [Contra digest]
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com
Paul, thanks for the clarifications.I just saw Scott Robinson here in Toronto the other week. He was in town working on a recording with Dan Barrett. Scott used the Conn bass I have on some of the tracks. He really seemed to like that horn. He also showed me some more pictures of his contra.
Have any other Stowasser contras been unearthed?
On 10/04/99 01:24:27 you wrote:
> Be wary of the modern contrabass saxophone. Made by Orsi (though
>customized for LA Sax for their line) it is a design not ergonomically
>friendly, and with a tone that lacks the depth that one hears from the
>Nuclear Whales' contra, or my own. (Evette Schaeffer for both, of which 25
>were made). My contra can be heard on my CD "Paul Cohen's Vintage
>Saxophones Revisited" where we premiere Henry Cowell's "Hymn and Fuguing Tune
>#18 for soprano and contrabass saxophones. If you are interested in a
>contra, I would suggest a trip to New York City, and try the one at Rod
>Baltimore for a comparison.
Merlin Williams
merlinw@netcom.ca
http://www.netcom.ca/~merlinw
A member of the Saxring and the Duke Ellington Ring.
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Kent-Isaac <lokibassoon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Sorry about some of the stuff I said
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comYeah, I understand that some of the stuff I've said
lately has upset people or made them incredulous as to
my ignorance.A lot of the things I wrote about knowing that I knew
little or nothing about them. I did this deliberately
for the following reasons:To get corrections from people who did know about
these things ANDTo make things a little more interesting by having
somebody that everybody's against and this causes an
outpouring of personal attacks. Since I started
talking about the sarrusophone and saxophone, there
has been more mail on the List per day than ever
before.Before all this, lots of people were talking about
Hertz and Square Waves and sound reverbration and a
bunch of other technical stuff which maty be well and
good to some but bored me, because I view music as an
escape from the tedium of technical bull I go through
(I've never been good with science or math.)I wanted
to see something cool so I started something.If that's made anybody angry (as Mike's letter
suggested) then, sorry, I guess you guys are right and
I should think before I type that crap about
Saxophones being not featured in orchestras and other
things that I don't know too much about.
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: VirtualBouquet@VirtualFlowers.com
Subject: Virtual Bouquet contrabass.792167
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.comAdam has sent you a 'Virtual Bouquet' from Virtual Flowers
online Internet Bouquet Server. Your free Virtual Bouquet can
be picked up with any graphical WWW browser (like Netscape,
Internet Explorer or Mosaic) within 7 days from:http://www.virtualflowers.com
Your claim ticket is "contrabass.792167"
Sincerely,
The Virtual Bouquet Delivery Robot
PS for AOL users, Try:
http://www.virtualflowers.com/vflower_pickup.phtml?ticket=contrabass.792167---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:11:31 -0500
From: John Howell <John.Howell@vt.edu>
Subject: Cylindrical brass
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com>From: "Tom Izzo" <jeanvaljean@ntsource.com>
>In 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.Nobody's mentioned the one factor that probably makes more difference in
sound than the bore shape: the mouthpiece. ALL upper brass mouthpieces
were deeper than most that are used today. (The Bach #1C mouthpiece,
considered cavernous by many players today, was Vincent Bach's own favorite
to play on.)But comparing the trumpet and cornet mouthpieces at the turn of the 20th
century shows that the cornet mouthpieces were very deep--not like a horn
mouthpiece, but deeper even that the standard modern flugelhorn mouthpiece.
And this was the mouthpiece used by Herbert L. Clarke and all the other
great cornet virtuosos. (Very possibly it was used not just for its tone
quality but for added flexibility--at least those guys played with enormous
flexibility.)Since those days have died out here in the U.S., I'm curious whether these
differences still exist in the British Brass Band instruments. Certainly
their continued use of the solo Eb cornet is something that never caught on
in the U.S.--and therefore never caught on with U.S. band composers and
arrangers.Tom also asked:
>Just curious. Do you know anyone who ever bought a musical instrument from
>Sears?Hey! When you can choose from "Good," "Better," and "Best," how can you go
wrong!!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/howe
Next Digest ->
Previous Digest <-
Index
Top