Klarinet Archive - Posting 000000.txt from 1999/05

From: "Dee D. Hays" <deehays@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re:Albert clarinet evolution
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 00:08:07 -0400

The simpler keywork would of course have been cheaper to make, would have
been less prone to breakdown and easier for the players to repair for
themselves. All would have been valid points. And I certaily agree that
being an extension of the Muller would have been attractive to many players.

These discussions are always intriguing. I would like to make an additional
comment on metal costs though. Brass was a fairly common, readily available
material. It was one of the less costly metals. Steel and nickel alloys
were relatively dear (although iron was reasonable). Clarinet keywork is
not now brass. Some of the very early clarinets (pre-Muller) may have used
brass, but by the time of both the Albert and Boehm systems brass was not
used for clarinet keys. More expensive metals seemed to be more suitable
for the demands of forming clarinet keys especially once the "cup" design
for holding pads was implemented. We also forget in our modern times how
very valuable needles were (like our needle springs). Housewives guarded
their sewing needles almost with their lives. Again brass is not an
appropriate material for needles or needle springs.

To really come to some good conclusions, one would have to thoroughly dig
into the ecomonics of the times, manufacturing costs, etc and do some
detailed economic models. Anyone out there game?

Dee Hays
Canton, SD

-----Original Message-----
From: arehow <arehow@-----.net>
Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 9:42 PM
Subject: [kl] Re:Albert clarinet evolution

>Dee Hays argues, very neatly, that Albert and similar systems kept sway
>because of the relative prices of metal and wood. I suspect that her
>argument, while elegant, is not correct. The same time that the Albert
>system was developed was the beginning of the heyday of Brass Bands,
>with cornets and bombards and bourdons and Saxhorns made all of brass.
>The price of metal was not an issue here; Shaw noted that cedrtain
>districts of England had 10s of 1000s of amateur bandsmen before the
>20th century, mostly playing brasses.
>
>But Dee then mentions the retention of the Muller characteristics in the
>Albert and later Oehler. This, I think, hits it on the head. THe
>Muller system is really incorporated into the Albert, allowing a player
>to make the switch easily. To go to Boehm, very fundamental
>things--(second register) thumb note is C versus C#, , four fingers is F
>versus F#--must be relearned. These are the same on Muller, Albert and
>Oehler. And, the keywork on an ALbert variety is simpler than on a
>Boehm, thus cheaper to make, and less prone to breakdown.
>
>I love the history of woodwinds and point out to all, that the AMerican
>Musical Instrumetn SOciety, which has its own website, is a natural
>organization for very many readers of this list.
>
>Robert Howe
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
>Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
>Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
>Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org