 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2002-10-26 05:14
What are these different fingerings? I never knew there were all these different fingering clarinets till I saw the latest posts. I have a buffet E-13. What fingering is that? And is there a place I can look at and compare the fingerings/keys of these other systems? Also, are the sounds different? Or is a clarinet a clarinet no matter what system?
Just curious.
Alexi
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kat
Date: 2002-10-26 05:24
Alexi,
Your E13 is a Boehm fingering system. This system is used everywhere but Germany and Austria (and a few players elsewhere...Michelle Zukovsky of the LA Phil being one American...). There are also several modifications to the regular Boehm system. I have one which is called "Full Boehm." It has a low Eb key, a L.H. G#/D# key, and an "articulated G#" mechanism.
The "Albert" system is an older fingering system. If you have a Rubank Elementary book lying about, it should have a fingering chart with Boehm on one side and Albert on the other. Albert is also sometimes called "simple" system. It has fewer keys than Boehm.
German system is a whole 'nother ball of wax! There are many different German fingering systems. The one big thing about "German" instruments is that their mouthpiece is verrrrry different from the French style ones that Boehm system players use. The mouthpieces are NOT interchangeable...
I'm not sure where there are good pictures which compare the main fingering systems, but there is also a guide to Albert here on Sneezy...it's at http://wfg.woodwind.org
As far as sounds...well, I'm pretty sure that for tone quality it's what you've got in your head that determines what comes out the clarinet. That said, I DO believe that different fingering systems CAN create different sounds BETWEEN notes. For example, when you finger low B to low C on the Boehm, you only move one finger. When you play these same two notes on Albert, you move THREE fingers. This can cause a different sort of sound between the notes...
I'm not sure how clearly I explained my last point, so if anyone needs me to be a little less vague, let me know!
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2002-10-26 12:28
The Albert system has incorrectly been called the simple system. And technically speaking today's German system should be referred to as the Oehler system and it is a descendent of the Albert.
The basic "geneology" goes like this. Of course there were side trails and variants along the way.
simple system --> Mueller system --> Albert system --> Oehler system.
However outside of Germany, the predecessors to the Oehler were produced with French style mouthpieces.
The Boehm system was an independent development. It was actually developed BEFORE the Albert system but took a while to catch on.
For more details, there are books on the history of the clarinet to which you can refer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kat
Date: 2002-10-26 17:49
Thanks for the correction, GBK...
Dee, thanks for clarifying the weird history of the "other" system. I still can't keep it straight!
And John M., thanks for the compliment, but I just realized that I must correct something I wrote in the last bit of my post. Actually, the fingering for low Bflat uses three r.h. fingers on the Albert, and only one on the Boehm. So much for posting at 12:30 at night! LOL...
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-10-26 18:21
While I seldom play a simple, Muller or Albert, except for the much-improved cross fingerings of the "long notes" on the Boehm, the principal diffs I have to think-out and finger are the half-tone vs full tone of the F#/F[in staff] and the B/Bb[below staff] and their 12ths, where IMHO the added pads of the Boehm are far superior, to the several fingers otherwise required. To each his/her own. DON
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-10-27 00:00
Kat, it was close enough. I had to pick up an instrument to be sure that I couldn't figure out how you could be correct, but it seemed rather unimportant. Anyway, the Bb can be played with R1 and R3 (the "fork" fingering) on most Clarinets other than Boehms, while the Boehm requires only R1. The main point which you made is that a difference does exist.
And Dee, once again we clash regarding the history of the Clarinet. I recall that you have stated previously that you do not believe anyone who posts on this BB is expert on that topic, and I do not claim to be so. But at least please examine my posting on the recent thread "Albert Clarinet Question." It's at http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=93445&t=93445. If you offer any information contrary to what I have written, and that information can be substantiated by any reputable source, I'd be glad to read it. I'm always willing to learn. Who knows, perhaps a good dialogue might develop better understanding.
By the way, the common references which I trust most are Rendall and Kroll, which are far from consistent agreement. But I consider Brymer to be minimally reliable. As I have not read Brymer's book, I would not normally take such a position (which seems on its face almost ridiculous), but I have seen too many citations from Brymer's book which are straightforwardly in opposition to comments by other authorities.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2002-10-27 11:47
JMcAuley,
My post does not conflict with the info that you have provided and I also rely on Rendall. I have purposely left out dates since there does seem to be disagreement on those but the sequence is the same in the various references.
Ando of course confusion will always arise when older designs are produced for decades after a major improvement has been introduced.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-10-27 17:29
Dee, my primary disagreements relate to your suggestion that the sequence of clarinet development which you show is a genealogy of Clarinets leading to the Oehler, as well as your comment that the German system should be called the Oehler. Not all German system Clarinets are Oehlers. I own a German system Clarinet (an expanded "Deutsches Normal") which is definitely not an Oehler, at least according to anyone I have found who is knowledgeable about German Clarinets. Furthermore, I know of no reputable reference claiming that the Oehler is descended from the Albert. Such a contention would likely have Oskar Oehler himself rotating in his crypt. I do commend your perception of the mouthpiece situation, as I agree that most "Albert" instruments made in countries west of Belgium used French-style mouthpieces.
You and I agree in our opposition to bandying about the term "Simple System" very loosely, as various sources use the term in various contexts. It is almost as if the term means whatever the writer wants it to mean, and in any specific paragraph that may change. But if we presume that the "simple system" refers to anything preceding the Müller, then yiour diagram is indeed correct as a sequence of events. But it is *not* a genealogy. The sequence of occurrence of some historical events does not guarantee any causal relationship. I believe the 1860s Albert is the one meant as a reference when we speak of an "Albert System" instrument. Anything built by Albert before that time was pretty much indistinguishable from late Müller fingering. This 1860s Albert was not directly descended from the Müller.
Rendall suggests that Mahillon used the "Patent C#" in 1862, prior to Albert's incorporation of this feature. Use of the two right rings (which may have been initiated by Müller himself in 1845) is an alteration of the original Müller fingering which results in easier right-hand fingering with essentially no disadvantages to the player, but this was certainly not a "first"by Albert. The application of two left rings may have been initiated by Albert, but perhaps not. In any event, these rings are used to operate one small pad which results in improved intonation; they do not alter the fingering of the instrument. Which builder first implemented three side keys rather than two, I am unsure. But these four things are all that I recall as distinguishing differences between what we usually call "Albert" from a Müller instrument *in the fingering department*. So Albert hardly revolutionized the instrument's fingering. Perhaps I have missed something important, but I have yet to notice any citation claiming E. Albert's instruments to be at all remarkable except for Rendall's insistence that they were *the best ever* from the standpoint of intonation. Hence, I would prefer to avoid referring to any "Albert System," since I find it hard to believe that Albert's Clarinets had their own "System." It's almost as difficult for me to understand why we call those instruments generically "Albert" as is our referring to the Klosé/Buffet instruments as "Boehm." As frequently happens, perhaps it was all just marketing.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
