Woodwind.OrgThe Clarinet BBoardThe C4 standard

 
  BBoard Equipment Study Resources Music General    
 
 New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Help/Rules  |  Smileys/Notes  |  Log In   Previous Message  |  Next Message 
 Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...
Author: muziker 
Date:   2022-02-10 02:55

Over the years there have been several discussions here (in The Clarinet Pages) about “Albert system” clarinets, usually including some references to “simple system”, Müller system etc...
More than once somebody here has asked for clarification about what each of these terms really means. This subject has interested me, on and off, for a long time. Several years ago I stumbled upon some information that helped to clear up most of my confusion, and I feel that it’s time to share this.
I am not offering or asking for opinions or revelations about whether it’s better to use one system or another, about their advantages or disadvantages. This is just an effort to bring some clarity to what these terms mean.
Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...

Long ago I read something by Jack Brymer in which he remarked upon the inaccuracy of the name “Albert system”, pointing out that Eugène Albert and his sons were not the originators of any specific fingering or key system. They were notably good makers of clarinets but they didn’t invent the key system that is commonly named after them.

In connection with “Albert system” one occasionally encounters the term “patent C-sharp”, referring to the clever design linking the lever for e/b' to one of the two pad cups controlled by the f/c" key, providing a very useful alternate fingering for f# and c#". Many, but not all so-called “Albert system” clarinets have this feature. For many years that was all I knew about this until:

MUCH later, I acquired a copy of an imposing tome called The New Langwill Index, an amazing compendium of information about wind instrument makers and designers. There I learned that a British clarinetist named Joseph Tyler filed a patent in 1861 for “an improvement to clarinet C# mechanism”. Tyler sold the rights to his patent to the S. A. Chappell company, a London instrument dealer and concert promoter. Chappell was the British agent for several instrument making firms, including Eugène Albert of Brussels. Chappell granted Albert an exclusive license to manufacture clarinets using Tyler’s C# mechanism. Albert presented the first of these instruments in 1862, and in 1866 this model was adopted by the Brussels Conservatory.
The rest is pretty easy to figure out: For some period of time, E. Albert and sons enjoyed the exclusive license to manufacture instruments with this innovative and widely appreciated mechanism. It seems only natural that Tyler’s name would soon be left out of the equation and that Albert - the manufacturer - is the one whose name would remembered, mistakenly, as the creator of the key system.
From this information I make several significant (to me) observations:
1. The Boehm system clarinet, designed by H. Klosé - predates the “Albert system” by more than two decades(!) - Klosé first exhibited his system in Paris in 1839 (22 years before Tyler’s patent was licensed to Albert) and it was patented by Louis August Buffet in 1843. (Note that Louis is of the same family, but NOT the same firm as the well-known Buffet Crampon of today.)
2. Regardless of whether it is justified, the term “Albert system” is with us, and has been for a long time. It would be futile to try to reverse that, but it’s clear that the term, sensibly used, is not synonymous with and does not include the various “simple system” clarinets that predate it, nor does it include instruments made by E. Albert between 1842 when he established his business and 1862 when he received license to Tyler’s patent. It certainly does not include the even earlier Müller system clarinets. If we accept the idea that anything should be called Albert system, it must include: a) ring keys, and b) the patent C# mechanism.

I’m tempted to go on about what distinguishes the Müller system from other so-called “simple systems” and why the latter term is more confusing than helpful, but I think this rant has already gone on far enough!
OK. That’s my two cents - more like two bits, I guess. I apologize to those who have hung on this far and are still waiting for the jokes. Sorry.

 Reply To Message  |  Avail. Forums  |  Flat View   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 

 Topics Author  Date
 Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
muziker 2022-02-10 02:55 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
seabreeze 2022-02-11 03:58 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
muziker 2022-02-11 19:17 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
kehammel 2022-02-11 20:43 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
muziker 2022-02-11 20:49 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
seabreeze 2022-02-11 21:11 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
muziker 2022-02-14 07:18 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
kerryklari 2022-02-14 13:01 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
seabreeze 2022-02-14 21:42 
 Re: Albert / Müller / “simple” / etc...  new
kehammel 2022-02-15 05:26 


 Avail. Forums  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Search Woodwind.Org

Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale

The Clarinet Pages
For Sale
Put your ads for items you'd like to sell here. Free! Please, no more than two at a time - ads removed after two weeks.

 
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org