 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jblair
Date: 2003-01-22 00:20
Can someone enlighten me on the differences between these 2 types of clarinets? Thanks for all feedback
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2003-01-22 01:42
The keys are arranged somewhat differently, the Albert having fewer of them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jean
Date: 2003-01-22 02:13
If you do a search on this site I believe you can come up with a fingering chart for an Albert. If not here, try doing one on google. Some of the old lesson books have both systems in the books.
Jean
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-01-22 06:02
The Rubank Elementary Clarinet book is still published with a two-sided fingering chart, "Boehm" on one side, and "Albert" on the other. Also, curiously, my most convenient edition of the H. Klosé "Celebrated Method for the Clarinet" has a separate fold-out sheet with rather extensive fingering charts, along with selected warm-up exercises tailored for both fingering patterns. It strikes me as odd because Klosé was one of the two inventors of the Boehm System.
Albert-style Clarinet fingering is, by the way, more similar to that of a saxophone than is the Boehm.
It's also of interest to many that the Boehm Clarinet predated the Albert by about 15 years, although Albert fingering is much closer to the earlier Müller Clarinet than is the Boehm.
There has been a lot written about comparisons between the two (and related instruments) here on the BB. A search for "Albert" should give you plenty to read.
Regards,
Joh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-01-22 16:48
To me, there is a greater similarity between the oboe's and the "Albert's" fingerings, because of their absences of a pad above the top ring-or-plateau which is activated by the first fingers of each hand to produce a half-tone "lowering" rather than a full tone. I find this hard to describe!! Also, both have fewer little finger "touches" than the better-crossfingered Boehm. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-01-22 21:33
Very true, J G, I recalled a number of discussions [in cl books]. I found a table, pg 29, in Lawson showing a number of maker's horns, chronologically listed. Brymer and Gibson also write interesting comments. However, here I believe we are discussing only "French" cls, as Albert was a Belgian, Klose/Sax/Boehm were Fr, [correct me if wrong, please]. With this interest, I measured TENON bores upper/middle/bottom on 4 horns, a Jerome [later associated with Thibouville/Lamy] 13 keys .575/.575/.800 [all in. "], a Kohlert-Graslitz [Poland?] 13 keys .580/.580/.750, 2 1950's, a LeBlanc Dynamic 2 .585/.585/.800, and a [later] Selmer CT .595/.580!/.840! . Because of the lower joint "flare", bottom measurements may be even greater by .005-.010. Lawson's table [in MM, multiply above by 25.4] says "bore at F hole", I assume the low F hole is meant. Just wanted to discuss this a bit, this may be BOR[e]ING to many. Any interest? Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2003-01-22 21:34
The bore is independent of the key system. Both Alberts and Boehms have been produced with large bores and with narrow bores.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lollypop Stick
Date: 2003-01-22 22:22
See if you can find this book, it is of great interest to any clarinet player who wants to know about the history of the damned thing(actually, I love it)
THE CLARINET. Some notes on its History and Construction by F. Geoffrey Rendall.
ISBN 0-510-36701-1 UK(I think)
ISBN 0-510-36700-3 Pbk
ISBN 0 393-02164-5 (USA)
I play both Albert and Boehm System a Bb Boehm(metal) in Jazz Bands, an Eb Albert in a New Orleans Marching Band and a C Albert in Folk Bands.
Barrie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-01-22 22:31
I am a dedicated simple system player playing currently on a couple Oehler systems I can tell you that the difference is more than just the fingering. The Albert system and by extension the Oehler system have a direct lineage from the original chalumeau and early clarinets. The fingering system, as with the oboe mentioned above, is based on the original six hole pattern with B/F# being fingered with the R1 and the natural scale based on six fingers like the fife, penny whistle etc.. The bore profile also tends to be more cylindrical only flaring after the lowest hole E/B. The consequence of this pattern gives rise to cross fingerings required to play F natural/Bb and the large finger spans required to cover the holes. Some of the cross fingering issues were addressed by the addition of side and chromatic keys quite early in the piece and some of the Boehm/Klose ideas were also utilised in thhe form of vent holes and finger rings to shorten the span. The bore shape remains largely cylindrical even in the most modern of Oehler's. Reform Boehm and German Boehm clarinets have reverted to this bore profile with Boehm keywork fitted with mixed success.
The Boehm instruments were devised early in the nineteenth century along with Boehm flutes. There was an attempt to bring the finger holes closer together and thus make playing easier while keeping accoustical integrity. The Boehm clarinet is a seven hole pattern requiring the second finger right hand to play B/F# and is more similar in scale to the recorder. The major divergence occurs in the bore profile. The trend has been to make the bore profile of the Boehm clarinet more and more cylindrical, in fact a cylindrical as possible without losing the overblowing characteristics of the 12th; remembering that accoustically the clarinet is described as being a cylindrical stopped pipe. This is generally achieved by stepping the bore as in the poly-cylindrical idea of Buffet. As said above there has been a move to return to a cylindrical bore via the reform and German Boehm idea. There is a constant problem with Boehm clarinets and undertones. Many students battle with the undesirable parallel twelfth whilst playing in the second register. This may be caused by the lack of a properly cylindrical bore.
The Boehm system began to become popular in English speaking countries somewhere around WWII and it is by no accident that some of this popularity may be attributed to the growing popularity of the saxophone and doubling both. The original saxophone double, especially in Europe, was actually Violin/ Saxophone the clarinet being stand alone. Another explanation, which applies largely to Britain, lies in the fact that a high number of British players prior to WWII played Albert and German system instruments but owing to wartime availablity were forced to convert to American and for a short time French instruments which were all Boehm. This may be anecdotal although I have this story first hand from my great uncle who was a professional player in Britain both sides of the war. He also tells of having to convert to a French open hole flute, complete with threepenny pieces soldered over the open holes, from the wooden closed hole British style of the pre war period.
The sound differences between the Albert/Oehler and the Boehm can be talked about ad infinitum. Writing about sound is a little futile you really need to hear it in the flesh. Needless to say there is a difference which may be described along the lines of intensity. The difference is further confused by mouthpiece types. There is a German size, an Austrian size and the French/American size all of which take different sized reeds and therefore have different characteristics. I personally use a French mouthpiece and American on all because I like the volume advantage it gives.
I have a couple of working Alberts which have their own characteristics, a pair of Barrett Action Clinton Systems and a number of Oehler clarinets; not to mention a variety of mouthpiece styles out of which I can make a fair variety of different sounds and produce different effects.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lollypop Stick
Date: 2003-01-22 22:31
Just for the sake of interest,I once read that a certain Mr E. J. Albert worked for a certain Mr Adolph Sax for some twelve years, who also made brass and woodwind including clarinets, Albert left to set up on his own, maybe he stole the fingering system from Adolph, so perhaps we should really call the Albert Clarinet 'THE SAX!'.
Just an amusing thought.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-01-22 23:45
Thanx, LpS, I have a copy of Rendall, should have mentioned it. Most of the larger libraries should have it and the companion Bate book on oboe. Golly, Mark P, what a fine "dissertation", I will have to study it [and recommend others do also.]. Sure found some interest, didn't I? Regards to all, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lollypop Stick
Date: 2003-01-23 00:43
Don,
You probably know this already, my 3rd edition (1971) of Rendall is a new edition revised by Philip Bate,
Regards Barrie.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-01-23 01:55
Discussions on this topic somehow always go rather deep.
The Boehm clarinet was patented in 1844, a preliminary model having won Buffet a medal at the 1839 Paris Exposition (the co-inventor of the instrument was a different Buffet, not the one of Buffet-Crampon fame). The Albert as we know it was not produced until most likely sometime in the mid to late 1860s. My "about 15 years" statement in the earlier posting is a bit off, as it likely would have been 20 or so. What we now call "Albert System" instruments were actually a bit of retrogression from Bärmann's 1860 Clarinets, except for added RH rings (late Müller design), "Patent C#" mechanism (Mahillon, 1862), and a third side key (Boehm). Per Rendall, the big deal about Albert's Clarinets was not the fingering scheme, but rather that their tone and intonation were "never surpassed." Oscar Kroll hardly mentions Albert at all, noting that the Deutschesgriff and Oehler instruments are descended from the Müller. Albert's fingering scheme was just a bit of a sidetrack along the way.
As for the "fork F/Bb" fingering, it's a result of pad/ring implementation. The RH joint has two rather large holes near the top. On the Boehm, the upper hole is a pad (operated by R1/2/3 rings), and the next lower hole is for R1. Other systems, ranging from late Müller through Albert's instruments to Oehler, have R1 on the first hole and a pad (operated by R2/3 rings or plate) on the second hole. Early Müllers, without rings, used a side key to open that second hole. Fingering was greatly simplified when the rings were added. Richard Keilwerth, at least, has produced some instruments that are German-configured except R1/2/3 fingerings are à la Boehm.
Two items to note:
E.-J. Albert was not the original builder of the "Albert" Clarinet as we know it. As I recall, this is erroneously stated by Dr. Pino in his generally fine book. E.-J. was a son of Eugène Albert, and I believe you will find that Eugène Albert built the first such instrument. Do understand that E. Albert was not trying to create a "system," he was trying to build excellent Clarinets. I have suspected that the "Albert System" became popular when other builders tried to copy Albert's success and sold them with the claim that they were 'just like an Albert." MOO.
Also, Kohlert-Graslitz (or Grasliz) was in Czechoslovakia (Grasliz having long ago been part of Germany), later taken over by Germany, and when (after World War II) Czechoslovakia again came into being and the town became a part of Czechoslovakia once again, Kohlert moved to Germany and the town's name was changed to Kraslice. Musical instrument manufacturing was then concentrated under the "Amati" banner, and when free enterprise again struck that part of the world, the facilities were sold to Denak. Later the Czech Republic and Slovakia went their separate ways. So now Amati Clarinets are made in Kraslice, which is where the old Kohlert instruments were made. I hope you could follow all that, as it was a bit tough from this end.
I have, as usual, said quite enough.
Regards,
Joh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stéphane
Date: 2003-01-23 08:20
JMcAulay wrote: "the co-inventor of the instrument was a different Buffet, not the one of Buffet-Crampon fame"
The Buffet-Crampon company as we know it was founded by Denis Buffet and wife Zoé Crampon (hence the company name). Louis-Auguste Buffet, co-inventor of the Boehm system with Hyacinthe Klosé was a keen instrument maker from the Buffet family and uncle of Denis, that is not to say that he was that different from the one of Buffet-Crampon.
Stéphane
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-01-23 17:09
Kudos to JMcAulay for an accurate, concise, and well written few paragraphs on some confusing historical points.
As cited, the Kroll and Rendall books should be in everyone's personal library as they are important reference sources. (Unfortunately the Kroll book is now a bit difficult to find)
Thanks John, for putting the relevant information together...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-01-23 17:53
GBK: Thank you for your kind comments. Your statement "Unfortunately the Kroll book is now a bit difficult to find" is certainly correct, at least in the English translation. My copy is a reprint in German and cost $8. At last report, the English translation would command about $100 in the rare-book market. And although I mentioned what appears to be an error in David Pino's book, it is definitely an essential (and very inexpensive) reference for Clarinet players and teachers. After all, as we know, there is no such thing as a technical book free of errors.
Regards,
Joh
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-01-23 18:17
Well said, GBK, I'm copying off this entire thread as supplementing my books, Rendall, Baines, Lawson [being referred to, by me, here] and others. Haven't as yet found Kroll! RE Rendall, LpS, yes, happily our local library has the early one ['57?] and Tulsa has the '71, and I have copied off the pages with differences, mainly in footnotes. Yes, J G, Baines, I believe speaks of Sax as Belgian born, associated with Albert [in Be?], and Klose [in Fr?]. Law. lists his patent BE 1560 of 1840 [a cl rings inventive-improvement] and all mention other patents in Fr, Be, GB, too early for US I guess, dern it!! {I have a bit of expertise in this "funny game".} Thanx to all contributors. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
