R.K.: I'm with Gareth Newman and Charles McCracken here
in Frankfurt, Germany. Gareth is British and plays principal bassoon
with the London Mozart Players and Charles is a free lance American
bassoonist living in New York and also principal bassoon of the
American Symphony Orchestra. Both share the common experience
of presently playing on new Fox bassoons.
Perhaps we could start by having you both tell us what instruments
you played on prior to switching to the Fox bassoon. Charles,
what did you play on?
C.M.: I got an 8000 series Heckel when I was in college.
I was 18 when I got it. Before that I played a Puchner that belonged
to the school, and in high school I played a Polisi.
R.K.: Gareth, how about you?
G.N.: I started off on a Puchner which I had since I was
15, 1 guess. And I got my first job on that. When I went to the
Liverpool Philharmonic I was finding it a bit too uneven, and
the principal at the time there played on a Fox. So I picked up
a short bore 201, which I took to very easily. It was very easy
to just pick up and blow, because I found it had a very even scale.
Then I became intrigued by the English maker, Jeremy Soulsby's
instruments, which were getting very popular in England. So I
decided I'd order one of those and see what they were like. When
it arrived, I really liked the sound it produced. I have had two
of those which I played on for 3 or 4 years. I was pretty happy
with them in general, although lately I started losing confidence
with them and thinking maybe I'll start looking for something
else. And when I picked up one of the new Fox 601's, it certainly
felt like coming home to me. I realized that they were basically
much easier to play, with far fewer problems. And there are already
enough problems with playing the bassoon. We need all the help
we can get.
C.M.: Those were my feelings as well. I had known about
Alan's instruments from playing them at the Conferences for the
last ten or so years. And every year they had gotten a little
bit better. The first time I was really taken with them was at
the Conference at LSU two years ago [Baton Rouge, 1990]. They
were excellent - everything that I could have wanted in an instrument.
And it was the same last year at Baltimore. There was one instrument
he had on display there that really appealed to me personally.
Alan like the way I sounded on it. And I went out to the factory
afterwards and picked up a 201. Since I'd played on a pre-war
Heckel, the 601's were not really something I was able to use.
R.K.: They probably felt a little too heavy.
C.M.: They were a little resistant for me. The 201's felt
immediately comfortable. I could switch back and forth between
what I was playing and it was almost exactly what I had already.
And then I did get the bassoon-I think it arrived on a Tuesday
- the following weekend I had a concert with the American Symphony
Orchestra doing the Firebird. Later that same day I was
playing the Hindemith Sonata with a chamber group. When I took
the Fox out of the case at home, I don't think I ever played the
Heckel again. The Fox was very comfortable and so easy to play.
It made me realize how hard I had been working to get the same
results. The Heckel I had was a very good instrument, smooth,
open, free-blowing, and it had a wonderful sound that I could
do anything with. But the Fox was just so much easier to play.
The scale is very even and I'm totally comfortable with it.
G.N.: With the alternative fingerings on the bassoon, it's
usually necessary to find the best ones on any particular instrument.
Whereas on the Fox most of the alternative fingerings will work,
so you have actually much more choice. It's better because the
basic instrument is already in tune.
R.K.: Have you had occasion to play on Heckels?
G.N.: No. I've tried a few, but I've never really been
taken with them.
R.K.: That's interesting. Now the instrument you're playing
on is a Fox 601. What is your reaction in comparing the 601 to
the 201?
G.N.: I feel that the 601 has a bit more projection. I
do quite a lot of symphony orchestra work and it seems easier
to project. Although my memory may not be quite accurate, because
I played the 201 quite happily for several years.
R.K.: What bocals do you use on the instrument?
G.N.: With the Fox?
R.K.: Yes.
G.N.: I started off on the Fox bocals that came with it,
but I wasn't completely satisfied, and I'm trying other things.
At the moment I've settled on a Heckel CC1, which seems to go
very well and even out a couple of inconsistencies that the instrument
had with the Fox CVX crook. Although this week I've been trying
the new CVC crook that Alan has developed, and that seems to be
a significant improvement.
R.K.: Oh, this is something new.
G.N.: Yes.
R.K.: Charles, how about you?
C.M.: I had used a Fox CVX on my Heckel, and it seemed
to do exactly what the Heckel bocal does to improve the Fox bassoon.
I initially used the CVX for the first six months or so, and as
the instrument opened up and became less resistant, the Fox bocal
was not well suited to it. I now have a Heckel VCD #1 that matches
the instrument quite well.
R.K.: It's interesting that both of you are playing
on a #1 bocal. In your professional careers have you found that
you prefer a 1 to a 2? In my new bassoon survey that will be coming
out soon, there's been an interesting shift. In 1974, the survey
showed the #2 bocal was slightly preferred over the #1. In the
latest study the 1 is favored over the 2. This might show a tendency
for
pitch to be rising.
C.M. I think so. I started out playing a #2. And over the
years there's been a combination of pitch rising and my reeds
getting bigger to meet the challenge of greater projection for
orchestral playing. But I've had to switch to a shorter bocal
to match the rising pitch. The #1 bocal I have is quite a bit
shorter than other #I's I've seen. I find that in New York freelance
playing, generally the pitch is on the high side. We tune to 440,
but we rarely play at 440.
R.K.: Now the UK is known for basically staying at 440.
They're to be complimented for it, because it's pretty tough to
keep that going. Gareth, does your orchestra, as a matter of fact,
play at 440 or at least try?
G.N.: We try. I used to play a CVX2 bocal with the Fox
short bore that I had, which didn't seem to be a problem anywhere.
Curiously enough when I picked the new 601, it came with a CVX2
and 3. I had a problem with that, because with either of those
crooks the instrument was so flat that I felt I couldn't use it.
But then I thought "Well, don't be silly. Don't count the
instrument out before you've given it a chance." So I got
some shorter crooks. And in fact I started off playing on a 0,
which was the only one that would bring it up to the pitch we
were playing. This didn't surprise Alan when I told him about
it, because he said: "No, the 601's, as opposed to the 660
is a much flatter instrument. And it's built for the 440 market.
Also being brand new, it probably needed extra help." At
the moment, I said, I've settled on this Heckel CC1, and if anything
I'm still on the low side.
R.K.: As I understand the literature, the Fox 600 is
basically attempting to match the thicker
walls of the late 12000 and 13000 series Heckels. I think there
is a tendency to be initially on the low side. Although I had
an 11000 series Heckel and it was always flat - particularly the
middle just collapsed. It's been wonderful with my new 13000,
because it doesn't do that at all. It sings in the middle very
nicely and I'm very pleased with it. It's right on A440 pitch
with a #2
bocal throughout. I do know, and I wonder if Fox does that too,
that the two tone holes A+B (left hand 1+2) are much larger on
my 13000. I wonder if that might have an influence in supporting
the middle range.
Do you feel that there are any improvements that still could be
made to the bassoon? What do you think of the product as it is
now? What would you like to see instrument makers improve?
G.N.: Well, I suppose I feel that mechanically the bassoon
is still pretty primitive. Basically it hasn't really changed
much in the last 80-90 years. There are probably a whole lot of
refinements that can still be made, like using these little plastic
washers between pillars and the rods to make it quieter and smoother
and dampen the mechanism quite successfully. I suppose basically
we're a fairly conservative lot, and anything too radically different
from the normal bassoon wouldn't get an airing. I'm sure there
are lots of really drastic things that could be done to make our
life easier, but they just probably wouldn't be used.
C.M.: Well, I think more important is how the bassoon sounds.
That's the one thing we'll all work with whatever does or doesn't
happen mechanically. And along this line, I think the improvements
that Fox has made with tuning and the scale being very even are
big steps in the right direction. It's always interesting to come
to these Conferences and try all the different kinds
of bassoons. Heckel is here also. It's an interesting comparison.
I find the difference between last year's Yamaha and this year's
is amazing. But in terms of consistency year after year, Alan's
been great. I'm so happy with my bassoon and the way the sound's
opened up, and the way the instrument responds.
R.K.: I think the Fox factory should be complimented for
continuing to improve their instruments. They never sat back on
their laurels and said "Well now we've made a good bassoon
and we don't have to do anymore. " They've always been in
a process of change.
C.M.: It seems like Alan has a "vision" of what
he wants the bassoon to be and where he wants to go. And slowly
but steadily over 30 years, he's been headed in that direction.
It is a slow process but he's very patient, and is presently making
a remarkable product, I think. Every Heckel bassoon is a little
different. Especially in older instruments you can run into amazing
variations between instruments. I think there is more standardization
now with keys and trill keys that are now considered "standard"
equipment. It's nice to see greater consistency come to bassoon
making with makers like Alan.
R.K.: It's always a challenge to play a new bassoon because
of that difference between instruments. But you, Charles, made
a rather quick adjustment to using your new Fox.
C.M.: Pretty quick.
R.K.: And that speaks to a new level of standardization.
C.M.: The keywork was so comfortable, with very natural
reaches. My Heckel was kind of uncomfortable in the left hand.
And I didn't realize how uncomfortable it was till I played the
new Fox.
G.N.: I do think that in the past, one has always felt
that there were good instruments made by all makers. Within each
make they varied quite a lot. But I do think that Fox, as Charles
said, have achieved a quite special consistency. I could take
virtually any of their instruments off the rack, and feel like
I could just go and play on it tomorrow.
R.K.: My students back home are often playing on the Fox
Renard series. Basically the difference between the Renard series
and their top line is that they don't spend as much time individually
tuning these instruments. Yet the consistency that you find even
in the Renard series is remarkable. These are good student instruments,
that the kids can play. I don't think there is much qualitative
difference between these instruments and their top models.
It's been interesting to talk over these ideas with you gentlemen
and to get your thoughts on the great successes of the Fox bassoons.
Thank you for your time.
C.M.: Thanks, Ron.
G.N.: My pleasure.