 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2001-12-06 02:48
I hope someone can offer enlightening comments on eBay Item 1491013902, which sold for over $200 today. It doesn't appear to be in the direction of an Oehler instrument, but it's surely an "Albert-and-a-half."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2001-12-06 03:11
I have an old Conn simple system plastic clarinet that has a C#/G# key that operates a pad on the lower body and is connected to the other left pinky keys as I remember. A similar clarinet was offered for sale with other instruments by Robert Howe on 8/27/01 as a 14 key+5 rings, patC#, plastic, 1890's, the earliest model plastic clarinet made, for $800. While I don't know if these are the same as what was sold, they quite well could be.
These C#/G# mechanisms, while interesting to a collector, are not as simple and efficient as the modern mechanisms and have fallen out of use a long time ago.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-12-06 14:23
J McA - - I have a similar [identical?] Old plastic Conn, doesnt look as nice as the pics, barely playable because of the complex mechanisms!! I was uncertain of its diffs. from the usual Albert-Muellers of the 1890-1910's, so asked an expert, Al Rice of Claremont,CA who informed me it is the Pupeschi [IT] version of the turn of the century Conns, fairly rare! It has a number of "extras" including the above-described C#/G# [patented] keying. LOL, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2001-12-06 15:18
Noticed that one. I've seen a couple of similar clarinets. There have been many flash-in-the-pan keywork design alterations over the years. They function okay but cannot be considered worthwhile improvements; otherwise, they'd have endured. Interesting from a historical angle though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2001-12-06 16:48
I was especially interested in the first finger right hand arrangement, which quite honestly I have not figured out. I wonder: is its fingering à la Boehm or Müller/Albert for B and B-flat? [There are some German instruments made today that generally follow an Oehler pattern except for those notes -- so their fingering patterns are almost identical to a saxophone.] Also, the throat B-flat appears to be produced with a hole other than the register hole, through use of a left thumb ring mechanism. Interesting.
And ron b, we have a significant philosophical difference. Worthwhile technology does *not* necessarily endure. There are countless examples, and the situation is well-described by the dictum of H. L. Mencken: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." Convenience and conformity are precious to most consumers, indeed even to professionals, often more so than the idea of acquiring and using a truly superior item. There may be a number of clarinet improvements out there that are thoroughly great but haven't made the grade for any number of reasons far removed from the question of "worthwhile," primarily market forces that have almost nothing to do with technical superority. Today, Steve Fox builds to order (and plays) Benade clarinets, among other instruments, yet no one else does. Is the Benade design in some way inferior? I don't think so.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-12-06 17:25
The link is http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=1491013902, but it will disappear in a few days.
It's a very interesting instrument. There are 5 trill keys, but the top one has no touch button for the right index finger. Instead, it's operated by the throat Bb mechanism, as on the Mazzeo design, to give a solid note. The other trill key pads are also in odd positions, much closer together and lower than usual.
The right hand mechanism definitely has the forked, German fingering for Bb/F, with B/F# played with just the right index finger. The sure sign of this is the pad between the right index and middle fingers. The "sliver" key for the right ring finger has an alternate lever for the left little finger. The C#/G# is articulated, and the right index finger has a double ring mechanism that looks like it lets you play the B/F# (and the altissimo Eb) with the right middle or ring finger.
There's a *big* auxiliary vent operated by the right ring finger key, which almost certainly means the instrument has a large, German bore, since this vent is needed only on large-bore instruments.
Finally, the "patent" mechanism for F#/C# has the extra hole on the right side -- something I've seen only on Selmer instruments.
Anyone know who the buyer "Soundrose" is?
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-12-06 19:02
Ken - Your analysis of the P Pupeschi Conn [US Patent 512,449 of Jan 1894] is very well done, as best I can recall my trials of it. Will see if I ever acquired a copy of the pat. In the 1949 Woodwind ?magazine?, two views of lower joints of clar and ?oboe? are shown with brief description in the "Translated by Himie Voxman and Emended by Harry Bettoney" The Clarinet, Wilhelm Altenburg, Part 4, Cl Improvements [19th Century]. Al Rice provided me with pages from "Ancie BattentiStoria-Fisica-Letteratura" [Firenze 1943], a "rare book" by Temistocle Pace [in "fluent Italian" beyond me!!], showing a number of P's innovations, the more-complex ones ?apparently? licensed to Conn. Researching this here would be beyond curiosity, more suitable to the "Early Clarinet" site perhaps. On the failure of "improvements" [prob. worthy of a separate thread], I ran across a 1950's article by Vito Pascucci of LeBlanc,"Musicians, Not Makers Discourage Improvements", which I'll read with interest having a Stubbins, Mazzeo, McIntyre and full-Boehms and join in that discussion. This is about all I can think of now. Have Fun, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2001-12-06 19:22
JMcA -
Apology offered. I used an incorrect word, using 'worthwhile' when 'commercially practical' would have more accurately expressed my thought.
I meant worthwhile in the sense that the innovation may not have proven commercially worthwhile. I've seen several design alterations made up by home hobbyists that are truly worthwhile improvements. Whether commercially 'cost effective' is another matter. I don't know whether it's for reasons Don mentions, complex, hard to keep adjusted, or just the economics of tooling setup to produce them that, somewhere along the way from concept to finished product, is/was the drawback.
I didn't mean to challenge anyone philosophically because I agree that many innovations are worthwhile. I've seen and touched some. But, I maintain my viewpoint that for some reason they weren't found commercially practical to mass produce.
The instrument we're discussing May be a wonderful playing instrument but costly and a nightmare to produce. Maybe Soundrose will inform someone about it ?
- ron b -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2001-12-06 19:34
Ken, you are correct, of course, in that if the first finger right hand is *below* a pad, it makes B-flat/f; if it is *above* a pad, it makes B/f#. However, I'm wondering about that linkage between the pad where the first finger would be and the right hand ring (or rings). If that causes the middle finger ring and the pad above it to drop when the first finger is depressed, the first finger would make F or B-flat, same as a Boehm. Alternatively, I'm still looking at a curious possibility: if that linkage is opposite, so that the first finger pad is dropped when either the second or third ring is depressed, might this instrument be played by someone who has no right index finger? If the pad between first and second fingers is not depressed by the third ring, it'd work (looks to be a rather remote possibility, however). I don't see anything unusual about the "Patent" F#/c#. The two holes seem to be located just where I'd expect them. However, I am mystified by what you describe as an "auxiliary vent," sort of underneath the right little finger keys, as it appears to duplicate the G#/d# key. Any ideas on this? I'm not sure what activates it, although it does appear to be linked to the third ring, for whatever reason.
I would enjoy owning that piece, but -- cheapskate that I am -- not for over 200 bucks, I fear.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2001-12-06 20:09
Hi, ron b, no apology required. Philosophical differences are okay by me. But since you offered, it's accepted. My problem with technological innovation and "commercial practicality" is that so often, it's other market forces that drive acceptance of one product and rejection of a technically superior one which may be equally producible, readily available, even less costly, and have a wealth of other advantages, yet be unacceptable to potential buyers for non-technical reasons which may seem insignificant even to an intent observer. My favorite example in this arena is the Sony Beta videotape system, which most electronic and video experts agreed years ago was superior to VHS. However, as originally designed, a Beta tape could not store an average movie. Then, introduced somewhat later, a VHS tape could. But Sony's bigwigs sat back and decreed that they would not compromise picture quality just to get two hours on a tape. So despite its comparatively deficient reproduction and initially higher price, VHS increasingly overwhelmed the market. It could provide greater convenience, and consumer convenience topped everything Beta had to offer. By the time Sony decided to modify their system so that it could reproduce a whole average movie without forcing the consumer to get up and change tapes, it was simply too late. The higher price of VHS also helped them out. In the days when practically nobody really understood the products (including most sales people), when a potential customer entered a store and said, "Say, that Sanyo Beta machine is $279, but the Panasonic VHS machine is $369... is it really that much better?" What would you expect a salesman on commission to say? Hey, it isn't a clarinet, so not all of this applies. But I'll bet many clarinet buyers begin wanting something "better" as soon as they discover that a Buffet R-13 can be bought for less than $1600.
I still like that old Conn. 
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark P
Date: 2001-12-07 23:23
I have the low pitch A clarinet version of this dating to 1905. Unfortunately it's not playable right now due to rotten pads so I can't address it's virtues.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-12-08 17:34
Mark P - I think we should "work-up" our Pupeschi-Conns to playability so we can sort-out the fingering "improvements-difficulties". A fair examination of mine seems to show multiple pad-rise keying to give a good mid-staff Bb from several note sequences. The left-little-finger operation of the better-located C#/G# pad is [to me] an early version of the "modern" artic. keys. The "Patent F#/C#" is much as earlier shown. On the lower stack, the combined -separated upper ring and pad, I BELIEVE, must be to provide some alternative operation re: the B nat./F# and Bb/F, a major diff. of Albert from Boehm systems. It is much like a similar key on the oboe [of the several Tribert models?]. The larger side-mounted pad is likely for additional venting of notes in the lower Chal. and Clarion, as has been carried over to the larger modern Boehms. If others like Ken have thoughts, I hope they may add before this interesting thread before it goes to the archives. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark P.
Date: 2001-12-09 00:43
Don, So many instruments and so little time!! I just got my matched pair of Buffet A and Bb full Boehms (1902) back from the shop. My big curiosity on the Conn is the ring key on the thumb hole that connects to the extra trill key on the top joint.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
