Dear Editor:
I was most pleased to see "The Sarrusophone" in The Double Reed, in part because it was a most interesting compilation of informa- tion and in part because I was happy to find that there are other people in the world who find the sarrusophone as fascinating as I do. Having ex- pressed my admiration for the article, forgive me if I find fault with a few of its statements.
First, the authors state, "The sarrusophone is unique in being a keyed brass wind instrument employing a double reed. " If the authors use "unique" in the dictionary definition of "only" or "sole," this statement is clearly incorrect. For starters, similar instruments include the so- called "reed contrabass" (contrabasse-a-anche) which is the subject of a forthcoming article in the Joumal of the American Musical Instrument Society; the various metal contrabassoon variations discussed in Langwill; [l] and the Rothphone, which itself is a complete family of instruments like the sarrusophone but which looks much more like a saxophone.
Second, after discussing the invention and use of the sarrusophone as a band instrument, the authors go on to state, "Its only effective use in the orchestra was as a substitute for the contrabassoon... " This quick transition omits a part of the story which is worth telling. The modern contrabassoon was not perfected by the Heckel firm until 1879;[2] and it was considerably later that the Buffet "copy" of the Heckel, with French fingering, was available for use in coun- tries which followed French woodwind traditions. According to Langwill, the Buffet copy premiered in 1906.[3] Thus in the second half of the 19th century in France, and in countries following French patterns, composers and conductors had the choice of using the contrabass sarrusophone or one of the old style French contrabassoons to play the contrabassoon part. Baines has described this latter instrument in the following manner:
the old French contrabassoons [were]... constructed rather like a bassoon, and mostly with plain fingerholes... Usually... [they] had some good steady notes along with a lot of very poor ones ... [4]
The use of plain fingerholes on a large instrument like the contrabassoon is problematic because placing the holes within reach of the fingers inevitably means that they are in poor acoustical positions, resulting in intonation problems. In contrast, the contrabass sarrusophone available after 1856 was mechanically sophisticated with reasonably good intonation. Whatever the sarrusophone's tonal inadequacy (and not all accounts agree on this point), it must have seemed the better choice. Many French orchestral works of the last half of the 19th century were written to be performed with contrabass sarrusophone even though the parts were marked "contrabassoon." Eventually a few works specified the sarrusophone. The contrabass sarrusophone in C was, in fact, specific- ally added to the sarrusophone family for orchestral use, just as there was once an alternate set of saxophones in C and F which were intend- ed for orchestral use. One of the works cited by the authors (Ravel's Rhapsodie Espagnol is written beyond the range of the E-flat contrabass and would have had to be played on the C contrabass (or the even lower B-flat contrabass.)
Third, the diagram of the sarrusophone reed is not correctly proportioned although the authors' measurements seem quite accurate. In my copy of the issue, the width of the reed, marked 2.5 cm., is exactly 2.5 cm. However, the length of the reed, marked 8.5 cm., is drawn considerably shorter than the measurement. The result is that the drawing makes the reed look extremely wide for its length, adding to the impression that the sarrusophone is a weird instrument. In fact, a correctly proportioned reed looks very much like a large bassoon reed, not at " out of the ordinary. Accurate drawings of the reed can be found in the Delgrave article on the authors' reference list as well as in "De l'Or- chestration Militaire et de son Historie" in the Lavignac Encyclopedie.[5]
Fourth, I found several problems with
the fin- gering chart. I wonder why the authors felt the need
to "reconstruct" a chart when one exists in the Encyclopedie
de la Musique et Dictionaire du Conservatoire article which
the authors list as one of their sources. This same chart is reproduced
elsewhere, notably in Gunther Joppig's Oboe & Fagot.
Admittedly, this particular chart is for alto and tenor sarrusophone,
but the only difference in fingering for the contrabass sarrusophone
is the use of the third octave key. Even the use of this key is
included in the Carl Fisher fingering chart by M. L. Lake (copyright
1921). The chart the authors provide is inaccurate or incomplete
in several respects. In the upper register, the same fingering
is given for both G and G-sharp. In fact, the key the authors
label #1 I should be included in the G-sharp fingering, just as
it is in the lower register. The most important problem with the
chart is that it omits completely the use of the two octave keys
operated by the left thumb (#7 and #8 in the authors' numbering
system). In addition, the authors omit the altissimo register,
which, however ineffective, is included in other charts.
Jolivet and Richart state that "The last fifty years have
seen virtually no interest in the sarrusophone..." I guess
that is correct if one considers only the interests of composers
and conductors. However, some sarrusophones continue to be played:
it is interesting to note that con- trabass sarrusophone reeds
are still listed in the catalog of the Jack Spratt Woodwind Shop,
and the owner of the shop continues to receive occasional orders.
The article concludes with the statement, "The brief popularity and rapid decline of the sarrusophone is... an argument for the hypothesis that the lifespan of an instrument depends more on its tone quality than its technical quality. " The supposed tonal inadequacy of the sar- rusophone has been commented upon in the literature frequently. However, the lack of success of the various proposed revisions in the bassoon's fingering system suggests that tradition is very strong and that the odds are against almost any kind of change. In addition, we should remember that most educators consider double reed instruments more difficult to play than single reed instruments. The sarrusophone's direct competition was the saxophone, which had the advantages of being designed as a single reed instrument and of having been in- vented at an earlier date. Judging by my own experiments with single reed mouthpieces on double reed instruments, I doubt that the mouthpiece used on the sarrusophone was entirely satisfactory. Usually such mouthpieces only succeed in creating a "wild" tone quality and insecure intonation.
Despite my comments above, I am very grateful for the appearance of the "The Sarrusophone" in The Double Reed. Now that there has been such an overwhelming interest expressed in the sarrusophone (!), perhaps IDRS can commission a composition, say for a quartet of sarrusophone, Heckelphone, oboe d'amore and alto kazoo?
Peter J. Bukalski
Dean, School of Fine Arts & Communications
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Edwardsville, IL 06026-1770
ENDNOTES
1. Langwill, Lyndesay, G. The Bassoon and Contrabas- soon. London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1965.
4. Baines, Anthony. Woodwind Instruments and their History. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1967, p. 165.
5. Soyer, M.A. "De l'Orchestration Militaire et de son Historie, " in Albert Lavignac and Lionel de la Laurencie, Encyclopedie de la Musique et Diction- naire du Conservatoire, Deuxieme Partie. Paris: Libraririe Delagrave, 1927.
Dear Ron and Dan,
Here I go again! Only, this time it's on a different topic.
Earlier this week my issue of The Double Reed arrived. My, oh my, but one article brought to mind several things from the FAR distant past. I am writing this letter to share some of the thoughts which were produced by "The Sarrusophone" article.
I think I saw my first sarrusophone while I was in high school. At various times, a sarrusophone was used in the Thornton Township High School (Harvey, IL) Band. They also used a bass saxophone. Both instruments were owned by the school. The sarrusophone used a single-reed mouthpiece. I believe it was an E-flat contra for it was used in place of a bass clarinet.
My second sighting of a sarrusophone (this time, it must have been a soprano or sopranino) took place at The VanderGook School (now Col- lege) of Music on the west side of Chicago. The player was Mr. E. J. Fitchhorn - again with a single-reed mouthpiece. Mr. Fitchhorn, a former member of the John Philip Sousa Band was well into his career as a bandmaster in Ohio. In fact, he developed and published several books as well as inventing the Song Flute (one of which has been placed in the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C.). He was to become one of the IO outstanding band directors (1937) in the nation, and was honored (1967) by the National Band Association (N.B.A.) for his contribution to music education. Mr. Elverj. Fitchhorn died on 3 March 1985 at the age of 88 in Albuquerque, NM.
My last sighting took place at Waco, TX some time in the 1950s where Mr. Lyle Skinner used a contra in his Waco High School Band to bolster the tuba/string bass part... again with the single- reed mouthpiece.
Finally, I located a sarrusophone fingering chart compiled by Paul Mimart, published by The Cundy Bettoney Go. of Boston in 1922 (plate 4099-2) which shows 55 fingerings!
Would you care to have me prepare some addenda & corrigenda for the sarrusophone?
As always,
George Conrey, Ft. Worth, Texas 25
[To these two wonderful responses
to the Jolivet/Richart sarrusophone article, one can add a thirdfrom
recent cor- respondence with I.D.R.S. Honorary Member Sol Schoenbach:
"Add to the sarrusophone article (I adore that horn) the
Paderewski Symphony!" (11-27-85). Perhaps we need an International
Sarrusophone Society?! Ed.]