Klarinet Archive - Posting 000595.txt from 2001/03

From: rgarrett@-----.edu
Subj: Re: [kl] basset horn reeds
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:18:56 -0500

At 05:26 AM 03/22/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>It is 4:45 am and I have one foot out the door to get spinal surgery at
>the neurology hospital in Redwood City, CA so I really can't focus on this
>matter, nor did I want to. I was just minding my own business and a truck
>came around the corner and relocated my ass, which is why I have to go get
>surgery. (Notice that I am blaming all this pain of mine on Roger. Among
>his other faults he does not understand the value of guilt, so I shall
>spend my final few minutes teaching it to him.)

Oboy.

>While there may have been some very few basset horns made early on that
>did not have soprano clarinet bores or use clarinet mouthpieces, the
>standard for the instrument was just that. It was an attempt to
>introduce a new member of the clarinet family by the simple expedient of
>lengthening it so that it could play lower. In lengthening it, the early
>models did not have a significant change of bore size nor was anything
>other than a clarinet mouthpiece offered. Maybe they couldn't make
>them. I don't know why.

While there may have been some very few automobiles made early on that did
not have the standard 4 cylinder engines and accompanying bores (there were
several actually), the standard for that machine was just that. It was an
attempt to introduce a new member of the riding machine family by the
concept of simplicity in design so that it could travel further with less
trouble. By maintaining this standard, the early models did not have a
significant change of bore size nor was anything other than they typical
accessories offered. They definitelycould make them - but it is unimportant.

>I should add that it was an acoustical mistake because it introduced
>problems that we are still faced with. But what did work was that the
>character of the sound of the instrument was quite special, a sound
>character that I suggest is measureably different from an instrument as
>long but with a larger bore and a correspondingly larger mouthpiece.

I should add that it was not just the 4 cylinder that was the issue - it
was the design of the engine - compression, horsepower, etc. - and they
were mistakes at the time - that we are often still faced with (check out
the Festiva, the Pacer, the Chevette, and some other amazingly stupid
ideas). But what did work was that the automobile moved forward at speeds
that were faster and better than many other machines at that time with a
ratio of torque to horsepower that remains somewhat nostalgic to this date.

>But this was never the instrument's thrust. It was invariably marketed as
>a narrow bore instrument with a soprano clarinet mouthpiece until LeBlanc,
>recognizing the acoustical difficulties of the instrument,
>decided to use their design for an E-flat alto clarinet as the basic
>instrument that became their basset horn in F. That was not much before
>1940 if my recollection is correct.

But the ratio of torque to horsepower was never the automobile's main
issue. It was invariably marketed as a tool for the consumer until
Chevrolet, recognizing the mechanical possibilities of the tool, decided to
use their design for a truck as the basic instrument that became their
automobile for the standard consumer. That was not much before 1928 if my
recollection is correct.

>I'm not being critical of them. They made a wonderful instrument. But
>because the bore corresponded to that of the alto clarinet, and also
>because the mouthpiece supplied by them for that instrument was an alto
>clarinet mouthpiece, it is not unreasonable to suggest that what they
>market is an alto clarinet in F. I meant no disrespect to them.

I'm not being critical of them of them. They made a wonderful
automobile. But because the engine, transmission, chassis, and suspension
of the new vehicle corresponded to what had been considered best only for
trucks, and because the tire sizes supplied by them for that vehicle was
one that was also used on trucks, it is not unreasonable to suggest that
what the automobile makers were actually marketing was a truck in the shape
of an automobile. I mean no disrespect to the manufacturers.

>But what they make and sell in not a basset horn. Nor, since Buffet
>changed their design to emulate that of LeBlanc, do they make a basset
>horn. They call it that, of course. I don't care if they call it an
>accordion. It's a free society and if they want to call it a basset horn,
>I couldn't care less. It, like many Buffet instruments, is well made,
>sounds nice, works fine. They should live and be well selling their
>excellent instruments no matter what wrong names they give them.

And if guilt must be associated with hanging adjectives and labels on
things - then no guilt is experienced here. A modern automobile has more
in common with a 1928-41 truck than they do with the original
automobiles. Of course, I don't care if they call it a truck, an SUV, a
convertible, or a mid-sized sedan - all I care about is if it gets me where
I want to go and does what I want it to do without breaking down. And so
it is with modern basset horns - I want it to play easily and in tune,
respond well, allow me to perform the music of the masters with less effort
than a narrow bore horn, and still sound like a basset horn - which I
assert - it very much does!

>The single standard by which a basset horn is called that is the diameter
>of its bore and the nature of its mouthpiece. And Roger's analogy about
>the modern automobile and its relationship to the nomenclature used for
>basset horns and alto clarinets in F should win a prize for its irrelevancy.

The single standard by which an automobile is called that is the purpose
for which it serves in life and in everyday use - just as a basset horn
does. My analogy is not only relevant, it is appropriate.

>Personally, I don't care for the alto clarinet in F, but that is only
>opinion. I don't think that it sounds like a basset horn, but these
>things are probably as much prejudice as science. I played a LeBlanc some
>time back and did not find it as characteristic of a basset horn as I
>think of it, but this is all nonsense and probably due to my basset horn
>bigotry.

I'm glad that you recognize this and state it. Opinion is based on many
things - sometimes on bias.

>But from the viewpoint of what dimensions of bore and mouthpiece type the
>excellent LeBlanc and contemporary Buffet instruments have, they are
>wonderful alto clarinets in F, not basset horns.

And I must disagree with you. I'm sure you have played both - as I
have. They feel different, but the sound is actually quite similar. You
know, the modern clarinet sounds a bit different than it's earlier
predecessor too!

>I am trying to retain a sense of history with respect to the instrument
>that has given me so much pleasure over so many years. And if there was a
>technical or musical reason that a clarinet in C or a basset horn was
>used, I will try, wherever possible, to use what was called for, not a
>clarinet in A (or B-flat) or an alto clarinet in F. Roger's view is that
>expediency allows anything. And I say, capital bologna!!

Calling a newly designed instrument that performs the same function as the
old one in not wrong. It isn't wrong to call a new computer a computer as
compared to the card shuffling monsters of the 50's and 60's (which I know,
as a fomer IBM employee you are intimately familiar with). But do you own
a new one?? There must be some form of bias that keeps you from
recogngizing what actually is - but you have already said that.

My view doesn't allow for "anything." I don't call a French Horn a Basset
Horn - it's in the same key. I don't call an English Horn a Basset Horn -
it's in the same key. I don't even call an alto clarinet a basset horn in
Eb. I DO call a modern french horn a french horn - even though it's
length, added valves, and flare/size of the bell and design of the
mouthpiece (not to mention the sound) is very different from "natural"
horns that Mozart wrote for. But I digress........... capital
bologna????? Gee whiz - at least call it a high grade of summer sausage!

>I will send a picture of my operation to Roger so as to show him that I am
>not angry, just sore. I hope that he now understands the nature and value
>of guilt.

I think I understand your dilemma. I will send you the picture of my 8
year old son after he was mauled by a dog two years ago (now that he has
recovered from that - with only 58 stitches!!!!!). Then we will share
together in the experience!

I thought you didn't want to get into an argument?

On a serious note, I hope the surgery goes well - I'm sorry you have to go
through all of that. My father (about your age I believe) just went
through some issues with his back that are similar to what you describe -
the day spent with CAT scans, MRI, etc. were really a drag, and the pain he
suffers is not fun. Hope all goes well for you today. I am sure other
Klarinet subscribers join me in saying that we will be thinking about you
today.

And now that the paint is dry, I will begin putting up the cabinets.

Best wishes,
Roger Garrett

Roger Garrett
Clarinet Professor
Director, Symphonic Winds
Illinois Wesleyan University
School of Music
Bloomington, IL 61702-2900
Phone: (309) 556-3268
Fax: (309) 556-3121

From the London Daily News, circa 1926:

"The saxophone is a long metal instrument bent at both ends. It is alleged
to be musical. As regards markings, the creature has a series of tiny taps
stuck upon it, apparently at random. These taps are very sensitive: when
touched they cause the instrument to utter miserable sounds suggesting
untold agony. Sometimes it bursts into tears. At either end there is a
hole. People, sometimes for no reason at all, blow down the small end of
the saxophone which then shrieks and moans."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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