 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: JackOrion
Date: 2002-10-25 18:37
After much thought I have decided to skip looking for a 1010 and for a good quality albert. I'd like to spend more time learning trad. jazz style and the albert seems to be the prefered system of these old players. Most likely because it's the system they learned on, but non the less I have read that the tone is different on the albert.
I have an old Hawkes and Son superior class albert that needs an OH. The question I have comes from this horn. The bore is very small and a standard mouthpiece will not fit the barrel. I do have the original mouthpiece for it. The problem with this horn though is the Ab throat key doesn't bridge over, its long and needs to be played with the middle finger, plus I do not want to be stuck to the original mouthpiece.
So my question is, are all albert systems (Buffet, Conn, Selmer, ect.) smaller bored and require a special mouthpiece?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-10-25 19:52
Jack, as I see it, there are no easy answers to your several questions. You speak of "small" bore and mp "fitting?", if you read the books you will see that bores [and other features] varied widely in the later 1800's to the early 1900's when the "Albert-Muller-Oehler" vs Boehm battles were going on among the several "majors" Buffet, Selmer, Kohlert and many "minor" makers. Rendall's book comes to mind and a bit later Brymer, as being comprehensive. I'd suggest your asking specific questions on the Early Clarinet site to contact more "collectors". HELP, please, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-10-26 04:34
JackOrion: Speaking of an "Albert System" Clarinet has become almost a foreign language to me, because there seems never to have been consistency as to just what the term means. Rendall writes that E. Albert's instruments had large bores, as well as incomparable accuracy of intonation. What we today call "Albert System" is modeled on, *in my opinion*, E. Albert's instruments made in Brussels some time in the 1860s, about the time "expanded" Boehm instruments were first gaining articulated C#/G# and fork Bb/Eb. These Clarinets made by Albert had three side keys, the "Patent" C# mechanism (which was not an Albert patent), and either two or four rings. Some later writers deny that the current Deutsches Normal (German standard) and Oehler Clarinets descended from Albert instruments at all, but were rather normal outgrowths of the Iwan Müller 13-key Clarinet. Oskar Kroll's book, in fact, makes only a single mention of E. Albert, totally ignoring any possible contribution by Albert to later Clarinet design. It is true that the 1860s Albert Clarinet's fingering differs rather little from the 1845 Müller design which had two rings (on R2 and R3), except for addition of the Patent C# mechanism.
While your Hawkes has a small bore, I believe that Boosey's instruments from around the same period were rather large bore. I would be grateful if anyone can supply actual measurements to confirm or deny this. One Albert labeled Boosey and Hawkes which I measured (length only) was the longest Bb Clarinet I have ever measured at 27 inches (686 mm) overall length. One would presume this length to result from its having a rather exceptionally large bore.
There are several conjectures as to why many traditional New Orleans Clarinetists used "Albert" instruments (as some few still do), and perhaps the most compelling one is simply that their teachers used them. This design was, by the way, the standard British military band Clarinet until well after the World War, so perhaps its popularity had something to do with ease of acquisition. I find it interesting that there is little likelihood of any New Orleans player in the 1900 time period having used a genuine E. Albert-built instrument.
My playing on instruments of this type is very limited. However, I am currently trying to improve my skills on a Richard Keilwerth German system instrument (22 keys, six rings) which is related in its fingering to an Albert instrument (as well as to a Müller Clarinet). I find that sliding (as opposed to cleanly slurring) from note to adjacent note is -- for some reason which I still do not understand -- almost uniformly easier with the German instrument than with a Boehm. And it is true that this instrument has a lovely sound, which is, however, unlike that of any Boehm instrument I have ever played.
While many "Alberts" used mouthpieces that were also usable on Boehm instruments, the German instruments of today require special mouthpieces and even reeds of slightly different size and shape. While I do not know, I could suggest the possibility that your Hawkes might also be able to use a modern German mouthpiece. And some builders used the long straight Ab key until quite late.
Do consider that buying a good used "Albert" that's more to your liking could be less expensive than getting your Hawkes into the shape you'd like. In fact, it may never get there, because of the throat Ab key.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Kelly - Australia
Date: 2002-10-26 09:39
I have just had my 1930 Hawkes & Son "simple" system overhauled. It's great. Yes that side key will take some getting used to, I use the second finger and sort of roll it on to the key.........not a good description, I'm still working on it, I just picked it up from the shop less than a week ago. Make sure that the repairman knows about Albert/Simple systems too.
As for mouthpiece, my 5JB fits quite well, but you may have to get the man to ream out your barrel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2002-10-26 16:54
Wouldn't it be better to turn down the cork end of the mouthpiece? There should be enough material there to reduce its diameter quite a bit. In my opinion any alteration to the main instrument is a last resort.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-10-26 19:00
Well said, Ron, I certainly dont like to "modify" particularly a "museum-type" oldie [barrel, that is] when the same tuning effect may be achieved by shortening the more-expendable mp [likely not original anyway]. I've done this with success! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Kelly - Australia
Date: 2002-10-28 02:00
You are both probably right if you use various mouthpieces on the one instrument, however if you use the same m/p for a number of instruments, as I do, then reaming the barrel is the better way to go.
I can see your point about not changing the integrity of an instrument, if you include the barrel as part thereof. I believe that the bell and the two big joints are integral, but not necessarily the barrel.
I happen to swap barrels around to suit a particular horn. Why?..........because with MY old clarinets, I have had to make adjustments to cater for the minute pitch characteristics [of "simple/Albert" system instruments]that exist within each.
These days, with fairly uniform means and methods of manufacture, and of course, the increased scientific knowledge of acoustics that manufacturers have at their disposal, this type of swapping around of barrels is probably un-necessary with modern instruments.
Just guessing here really as I'm no clarinet "rocket scientist", my most modern instrument was manufactured in 1930 and they are all non-Boehm and they all have different pitch peculiarities when tuned to my piano, which is in good tune by the way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
