Klarinet Archive - Posting 000246.txt from 2004/01

From: "Keith" <100012.1302@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] RE: American move to the Boehm system
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:43:18 -0500

Dan

Dunno about heavy thinking, but here's two cents.

I was one of those who at age 11 could not stretch to a Bb clarinet. =
Only
Alberts (or as we called them in England, "simple system") were =
available
for beginners in my school band. The one Boehm system there was ancient,
ebonite turned green, and jealously guarded by the best player. I think
there is something in the stretch being greater but will have to check. =
So I
learned on an Albert system Eb. I do remember being impeded by the lack =
of
alternatives especially for the little fingers, and that frustrating =
C-Eb
slide for RH4. But I still quite enjoy the eefer, and the power one has =
over
the flutes in front.

A few years later I got a Boehm system - a metal one - and did make =
faster
progress in more complex fingerings and keys. In many ways it is easier
fingering. I do think one has to work harder to produce a good tone. In
particular, I remember never really being satisfied - from my first
experiences right up to this day - with the tone quality of the C above =
the
stave on the Boehm compared with the Albert.

There are some legacies of my early years in my fingering still, 50+ =
years
later. I don't use the LH4 mid-stave C and RH4 B nearly as easily as the =
RH4
C and LH4 B. But if I ever have to slide, boy, I can outpace most
professionals who have only played Boehm.

I once saw the differences in fingering system described as: in the =
Boehm
system you have more choices but have to think fast to make the right =
ones.
In Albert/Oehler you have less choices so have to develop greater finger
facility, but you don't get slowed down by thinking. I don't recall all
sharp keys being the main bugbear, actually G is easier than C on the =
Albert
because of the non-forked F#, but "extreme" keys are indeed harder,
certainly the 18th century illegal keys.

On tone quality, there are many variations. I also own a "real" Albert =
now -
made by Jacques Albert of Brussels, a younger scion of the family - and =
can
play it. It's quite nice and I'll bring it over in February if you want =
to
try it. It has a wooden mouthpiece that needs a #5 reed. The bore is =
pretty
huge; I don't recall the number (I can measure it when I am home next =
week)
but it is bigger than current Buffets/Leblancs. It's the same type as =
was
used by Lazarus. I believe (but this needs checking) that the Alberts =
mostly
had largish bores and this was the main departure with the developments =
of
Oehler and Wurlitzer, who I think used narrower bores. Is Nick =
Shackleton
listening?

Of course it was not only the US that went Boehm. France and then =
England
did. Holland I think tended to go Schmidt-reform Boehm, which is the =
system
that Nick himself likes best (his Wurlitzers are peachy).

On your other questions: the main acoustic difference is that the Albert =
has
fewer tone holes penetrating the walls. This will inevitably lead to a
different air-column vibration system and a somewhat different sound. =
The
Oehler system though, has a lot more holes than the Albert, and I don't
recall the exact number (indeed I don't think it is quite as standard as =
the
Boehm). Oehlers are played with German mouthpieces, which have a =
different
internal cavity shape and a much longer narrower lay. My Albert =
mouthpiece,
which looks original, seems more German than French (using modern day
comparisons).

I am sure specialists like Tony can add much to this.

Keith Bowen

>=20
> Interesting answers but lots of holes. Is there any evidence=20
> that one=20
> system or the other has superior intonation? Is either significantly=20
> more or less expensive to manufacture? Were mouthpiece consideratons=20
> involved in the technological change? Were there any other=20
> manufacturing considerations? Is it cheaper/better/easier to=20
> add keys to=20
> one clarinet system as contrasted with another.
>=20
> In other words: what on earth caused this extraordinary shift?
>=20
> In what way are Albert systems not truly chromatic? That is a=20
> statement=20
> begging to be better explained. Also I would argue that the=20
> need for A=20
> clarinets is well fixed and unrelated to a need for chromatic playing.
>=20
> C'mon people! We need some heavy thinking and serious contributions=20
> here, or are we going to spend the rest of our lives asking=20
> about which=20
> mouthpiece or which reed gives us the darker sound?
>=20
> Dan
>=20
> --=20
> Dan Leeson
> leeson0@-----.net
>=20

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org