 The Clarinet BBoard
|
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
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-02-11 03:58
In the US today, most clarinetists probably associate the term "Albert System" with the first couple of generations of Early New Orleans Jazz players, like Ed Hall, Bechet, Jimmy Noone, Irving Fazola, Larry Shields, Barney Bigard, Omar Simeon and the like or a few traditional jazz players today like Evan Christopher who still prefer the Albert to the Boehm. Almost all the New Orleans players owned what they called Albert System instruments made by other companies like Selmer, Buffet, Penzel Muller, or Mahilion. I can't think of even one famous New Orleans clarinetist who owned an Albert made by the Albert company.
If a rigorous use of the term Albert system requires that the instrument have Tyler's C# mechanism, I wonder how many of the instruments used by the old New Orleans players had that device on their clarinet and how many could have been calling an instrument without it an "Albert system."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: muziker
Date: 2022-02-11 19:17
(Addressing Seabreeze’s remarks)
I have hardly done a rigorous study of early jazz clarinetist’s instruments. Those that I see in photographs always have the patent C# mechanism. The market/genre where this matters is among players of Greek music. There, the issue of whether to use instruments with or without the C# mech. is discussed and debated the same way that people here discuss the merits of Boehm vs. “Albert” system.
They refer to the two types as “mono do” and “diplo do” (that’s ‘do’ as in do, re, mi, fa...) - literally ‘single C’ and ‘double C’. Clarinets with the patent C# have two pad cups that are actuated by the pinky f/c" key (one of them linked to the e/b' lever). Those without it have just one. Clarinet makers and dealers in Greece offer both types. Good old instruments that lack the patent C# are so uncommon that many players use instruments that were built with it and they cut the linking mechanism. (Unfortunately, they usually literally cut it off, making a restoration much more difficult. It would be a simple matter to just bend the linking arm up a bit, and this could easily be returned to its correct position, but...)
So, addressing your question of whether any these early jazz players used an instrument without the patent C#; It’s usually easy to see in photos whether there are one or two pad cups on the right side, below the pinky keys. Of course, you can’t tell from these photos whether the linkage has been disabled. It would not surprise me to learn that some of the earliest players who learned on an instrument that lacked the patent C# would have disabled it, but - if indeed that ever happened - I’m sure it was rare.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kehammel
Date: 2022-02-11 20:43
The first "Albert system" clarinet I bought had had the patent F#/C# linkage cut. I found the left hand pinky reach required for the mono do fingering to be quite a stretch. So I had the linkage restored by a technician.
A few years ago I used to read posts on a Greek/Turkish clarinet forum- it's now defunct- and the mono do vs diplo do question got a fair bit of discussion. Some participants commented that a player could simply leave the linkage intact while using the mono do fingering if that's the fingering they prefer.
That made sense to me. I still don't understand what cutting the linkage actually accomplishes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: muziker
Date: 2022-02-11 20:49
AHA!
(Continuing my reply to Seabreeze...)
I took a bit of my my own advice, opening up my cherished copy of A Pictorial History of Jazz, by Orrin Keepnews. There, on p. 7, I see two photos with “Big Eye” Louis Nelson holding a clarinet that lacks the patent C#. (Nelson, if memory serves me right, was a mentor to Sidney Bechet.) In the second photo, of Manuel Perez’s Imperial Band there is one clarinet in his hand and another standing on the floor that are clearly “mono do” designs.
In the photo of Buddy Bolden’s band (p. 6) are two clarinetists. The seated one holds a clarinet with “diplo do” but the one standing has “mono do”.
(This is somewhat complicated by the fact that the photo has been printed backward. Not only are the hands and keys on the clarinets reversed, but the lead pipe on Buddy’s cornet is on the wrong side, leaving no question that the photo was processed incorrectly. This means, however, that both the guitarist and bass player are playing left-handed!!)
Looking further: on p. 10 is a photo of a band with Albert Nicholas, holding a saxophone. On the floor in front of him are two clarinets. One of them (nearer to Nicholas) has “diplo do” but the other mono do. The former has LH ring keys and probably has rollers on the pinky keys, but the latter lacks both these features.
In the photo with a very young Jimmie Noone (p. 11) the telltale features are not clearly visible, but the configuration of the visible keys strongly suggests that this his clarinet lacks the C# mechanism.
Photo of Ed Hall on p. 12 is too blurry to tell. Photo with Lorenzo Tio Jr. on p. 13 is also a bit fuzzy, but I think his clarinet has the C# mech. It lacks rollers and LH rings, so I would say that, of all the clarinets in these photos, his is the most likely to match the configuration of clarinets made by Eugène Albert.
Alcide Nunez, pictured with ODJB, is holding a clarinet that lacks the C# mech.
(The f/c" key is of a primitive design that harks back to Müller’s design. Likewise “Bid Eye” Nelson’s clarinets, mentioned above.)
Larry Shields, w/ ODJB, has a clarinet that probably has the C#, but lacks rollers. It probably also lacks LH rings, so - like Tio Jr’s - would be a purist’s (stickler’s?) idea of a ‘true Albert’.
Johnny Dodds, in pix w/ King Oliver, clearly has instruments with both L & R rings, patent C#, etc.
Buster Bailey, who replaced Dodds while Louis Armstrong was still in the band, has a Boehm clarinet. Likewise the clarinetist in a 1928 photo with Freddy Keppard.
I must admit this is not what I expected. Having written my previous message I figured I’d just give it a try and see what I would find. A significant portion of these early jazz players involve what must be considered pre-Albert key configurations, lacking the patent C#.
This book is from 1955. In this internet age there must be many more vintage photos accessible to perhaps pursue this further, but from just this small sampling I’m satisfied that I know as much as I feel I need to know about the matter.
What does this mean for those wondering what type of clarinet to use for early jazz?
I’m reminded of an interview of a harpsichord player who led an ensemble that specialized in playing 18th c. music on “period” instruments. He said something like, “It’s not about authenticity - it’s about using the best tools for the job.”
Thus my suggestion: figure out what sounds you want to make, find an instrument that helps you make those sounds, and move forward.
I can, however, understand someone might find it interesting or amusing to experiment with using equipment similar to what “Big Eye” was using when the very young Bechet would have heard him - not necessarily to adopt such an instrument permanently, but just to explore. (Then all you need is a left-handed guitarist, AND a left-handed bassist, and a loud-playing cornet player of questionable sanity, and you’re ready to make history! Or maybe not...)
Clearly, a significant number of the earliest players used, or learned on instruments more basic than a true Albert system. Maybe learning to play one of these and then adopting a later model, or switching (back) to Boehm system will be instructive.
Find the best tool for your job!
KB
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-02-11 21:11
Nice detail work, Kurt. Using this kind of jeweler's analytical eye observations, future clarinet historians can make better sense of what key figures actually played. Most jazz historians probably know little about the clarinet in Greek music, but crossing genres and cultures as you did yields better, more interesting information. So--returning to the original poster's "disambiguation" question--what would you call the sans C# mechanism clarinets? Would they be pre-Albert system, simple system, Muller system or something else? One wonders also whether the New Orleans jazz players ever divided into patented C# mechanism advocates vs. anti-C# mechanism advocates as the Greeks did and somehow this debate got lost in the passage of time. Among Greek players, was (is) the C# mechanism also an issue on the larger clarinet in G (an instrument that would seem to have been unknown to the early New Orleans jazz players)?
Post Edited (2022-02-13 01:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: muziker
Date: 2022-02-14 07:18
Kehammel wrote:
"Some participants commented that a player could simply leave the linkage intact while using the mono do fingering if that's the fingering they prefer.
That made sense to me. I still don't understand what cutting the linkage actually accomplishes."
Without the patent C# mechanism, one can finger 2nd register d'' and microtonally lower the pitch or change the tone color by closing the e/b' key.
If one does this on an Albert system it will produce a well-voiced c#''.
Disengaging the linkage does not really result in the same thing as a "mono do" setup: There will still be two tone holes open, rather than just one, when the fingering I describe above is used, so the change in pitch and tone color will be much smaller.
This might lead one to think that plugging the second hole would result in the same thing as 'mono do', but g and d'' would probably be negatively affected, slightly changing the tone and - more important - the pitch of both. The remaining tone hole covered by the f/c'' key would probably have to be slightly enlarged, and/or its position moved. The latter is not a job for the faint-hearted, or for the under-equipped craftsman!
Seabreeze asked:
"So--returning to the original poster's "disambiguation" question--what would you call the sans C# mechanism clarinets?"
I know less about this, but multiple sources have cited Adolph Sax - the same man who invented the saxophone, and the piston-valved brass instruments (which were, at the time, called "saxhorns") was the first to put rings on the lower section of what would otherwise be a Müller clarinet, greatly simplifying the fingering of b/f#'' (which, on Müller's system, required half-holing the R1 hole, or closing it completely while pressing an auxiliary key with L2). If this is true, then we should be calling many of the post-Müller / pre-Albert clarinets Sax-system. I don't expect that to catch on, however. I would certainly like to find some confirmation of the claim that Sax did indeed do this.
Kehammel: I did not start this discussion with the intention of addressing such questions/. They hadn't occurred to me before. They are not of great concern to me because I make little use of non-Boehm clarinets. I just wanted to share the information which, it seems to me, goes a long way toward explaining how the misnomer of "Albert system" arose, and what distinguishes that system from other closely-related systems.
HOWEVER - tomorrow I will be picking up two Albert-type clarinets - G and B-flat - from a local expert player of Greek and Turkish music. He needs service on both instruments, so I will take advantage of this opportunity to do a few little tests!
KB
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kerryklari
Date: 2022-02-14 13:01
Attachment: kohler.jpg (145k)
I love the C# link and could not really play this type of clarinet without it because I find the standard key so hard to reach. I wonder why this (see attached photo) type of arrangement is not more widely adopted? It seems to me that it would be much easier to slide the finger across the keys (like the right hand) than to move it awkwardly backwards.
Post Edited (2022-02-14 20:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2022-02-14 21:42
My take away from all this is to now note that some clarinets loosely called "Albert System" were really pre-Albert System because they didn't have or disabled the use of the Tyler C# mechanism. Regarding Dodds, Bechet, Hall, Nelson, Bigard, and the other early jazz players, their personal preferences for or against the mechanism evidently didn't spill over into their categorization of clarinets, since they freely called either alternative "Albert System" and took the trouble only to clearly distinguish it from Boehm System clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kehammel
Date: 2022-02-15 05:26
Thanks for the explanation of mono do vs diplo do instruments, Muziker. I had no idea that cutting the patent F#/C# linkage fails to produce a truly mono do instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
