 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: graham
Date: 2009-02-06 13:12
This person's claim to fame is the design of the Acton Vent key which "improves" the low B natural and corresponding F sharp. He is also known to have been a designer in Boosey & Hawkes for an extended period possibly covering parts of the 1950s up to the early 1980s. I spoke to him on the phone once about clarinets. In general however, there appears to be very little information about him. Yet he seems to have been influential in the largest clarinet maker in the UK, and probably therefore knew a good deal about the history and developent of British instruments (or ones passsed off as British instruments).
I just wondered therefore if anyone knows anything more about him, or has recollections of meetings or conversations, and whether he has traceable family still around who might know more.
I am not researching this privately so any comments can be posted here rather than being sent to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-02-06 16:37
I really miss the Acton Vent on the Boosey 1010s. That should have really become common place on clarinets. When I moved from my 1010s to my Eaton Elites I had to send time relearning Dd to Eb in alt. The problem, so I was told, was that the mechanism was a little cumbersome.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2009-02-06 16:55
Jack Brymer's book The Clarinet discusses the Acton vent extensively. As I recall, he says that the large-bore B&H 1010 benefited from it more than the smaller bore French instruments.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-02-06 17:43
Ken,
I can only find one reference to Geoffery and it's page 51.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-02-06 20:30
Apart from the Acton vent I'm not aware that much of significance happened to the design of the 1010 or the other top-line model the 926 during his tenure. Perhaps this is why Boosey and Hawkes "lost the plot" and their professional clarinet line went into terminal decline during the 70's and 80's.
The outline 1010 format was rescued by Peter Eaton and incorporated into
his Elite model 20 plus years ago. I believe that he may know as much about Geoffrey Acton as anyone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-02-06 22:32
The Acton vent is still used on Reform Boehms, so his legacy lives on. I wouldn't say it's cumbersome, but it can be poorly made (as is evident on some 1010s) or set up.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-02-06 22:46
Chris,
I always liked it. Why do you think it never caught on.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-02-06 23:08
Certainly makes for a much simpler and solid top Eb fingering played as oxx|oxo(Ab/Eb) and clears up the low register B.
I would have thought Peter Eaton would have used it on the Elites, but maybe the extra keywork would have pushed the manufacturing and sales costs up.
The key barrel at the lowest end of the bridged keywork (connecting RH1 ring with the vent key) has such a short piece of barrel on it which can either wear out or easily be over broached making the mechanism sloppy.
Though this type of arrangement is a later design - there was another earlier design that I've only seen photos of which looked better, though probably more costly to make.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-02-07 19:38
The earlier design was extremely fragile, using pinned rods aka the flute which just did not stand up to the heavier clarinet action and was a nightmare to keep in adjustment, it was replaced very quickly by the second version.
There are still a few of the first version in circulation but by now pretty clapped out.
Personally I find the second version, whilst more robust, feels very "clunky" and hard to get a really "snappy" action on the RH rings.
p.s. wasn't the reform Boehm arround a long time before the Acton 1010?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-02-07 20:28
Norman,
It's funny you say that because my old 1010s were not an exact pair. The A had the first Acton Vent design while the Bb had the second. I remember in a rehearsal of the Nielsen Concerto, whilst doing my undergrad, I was having really problems and couldn't for the life of me work it out. I finally realised that the screw keept undoing itself which is most unhelpful when playing that piece. A little clear nail varnish did the trick.
The second version, looking back now, probably felt quite "clunky". Any ideas when the design changed? My 1010s then, where only about 2 or 3 years apart from each other according to the serial numbers. I don't recall of the top of my head what they were but I may have it written down somewhere if your interested. I seem to remember that they were certainly older than me.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-02-07 22:28
Peter, I managed to find record of one early version 1010 I worked on which had serial no 263xxx and would have been made in 1965. I imagine the design change would have occured soon after that in 1966/67.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-02-08 16:00
Norman,
I found the dates of the serial numbers on my old 1010s.
Bb was, 393224 putting it at 1972
A was, 280351 putting it at 1967
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-02-08 19:37
Peter, thanks for info, looks like your A was one of the last with the earlier vent mechanism.
Chris, interesting that S&S actually use the name Acton vent, they are relatively new makers and have added several "new" inovations in their design (but have lost the long Bb fingering in the process and their forked Bb doesn't give a true lower Eb).
The design of both the S&S and Huygn vents looks far more precise and comfortable than B&H with a relatively unimpeded RH ring area.
The Schmidt Reform Boehms circa 1950 definately had some type of vent worked from the RH rings but possibly not serving exactly same function as Acton's. (See plate XII of Baines' Woodwind Instruments)
Both German makers show alternate LH Ab/Eb lever PLUS rollers on RH....
talk about belt and braces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-02-10 22:38
By sheer coincidence a customer has just brought in today a pair of Schwenk & Seggelke reform Boehm clarinets for some repair work and I have had a chance to inspect the mechanism close up.
The RH rings operate two auxillary mechanisms and one of these performs just as the Acton vent. I can also confirm that the quality of its implementation is very fine keeping all the operation mechanism well clear of the fingers and providing a crisp action, much better than the 1010.
To give some balance these instruments are not cheap, possibly the most expensive Boehm models made today.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2009-02-10 22:44
That sounds rather interesting. If the mechanisms is good on those then why is not used today on modern Boehm's? Perhaps we should try and get it going again?
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2009-02-11 07:16
One potential criticism of the Acton vent is that it creates a kind of perfection that the clarinet can do without. The somewhat pinched quality of the F sharp using the middle finger is smoothed away leaving a note which has little difference to the fork fingering. Of course, there are significant compensating benefits, but those cannot have been enough or else the demand for Acton fitted instruments would have become overwhelming, which has not been the case.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-02-11 07:17
The problem with the Acton vent is that it was fitted to 1010s which weren't exactly the best engineered or made clarinets.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-02-11 19:42
Perhaps the inate conservatism of most in the profession is one significant cause coupled with a requirement for maximum reliabily in the mechanism (i.e. keep it simple) especially for instruments used outside of the pure orchestral arena. How many German players outside the orchestra use the full Oehler system ?
For the Boehm players how many use that really useful fork Eb/Bb and why don't the makers put the C#/G# tonehole in its correct place as it is on my Leblanc with articulated C#/G#. It doesn't have to be articulated as I know there are some objections as to reliability (though mine has never failed in 49 years) and loss of some altissimo alternatives.
Come on you younger generation and give the manufacturers some stick!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-02-11 20:51
If you mean losing the altissimo Bb, you can get this on a full Boehm (or any Boehm with an articulated G# key) by playing upper register C (Sp. xxx|xxxF/C) with the thumb off the thumb bush (but still keeping the speaker key open).
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
