Introduction
The models received little notice
The development of the Heckelphone
Successive stages of improvement
The Heckelphone in the opera
The use of the Heckelphone in early
music
Bibliography
This article
is a revised, slightly abridged and translated version of the
5th chapter appearing in the Das
Musikinstrument Technical Publication Series No. 22, November 1984 issue headed (translation):
"Evolution of Double Reed Instruments from 1850 to the Present
and their use in Orchestral and Chamber Music. " The musical
examples appearing on pages 74 and 75 are from the works of Max
von Schillings. The article is reprinted here with permission.
For the past two centuries attempts
have repeatedly been made to come up with an oboe keyed to baritone
pitch. Those instruments that have survived as an outcome of this
tentative undertaking have all remained prototypes due to failure
to propagate the idea. Closer examination of most instruments
labeled in museums as barytone oboes or even bass oboes has in
fact revealed these to be straight tenor designs. The earliest
record of this species appears to go back to a design emanating
from Charles Bizey, whose profession as an instrument maker began
in Paris in 1716. It is preserved in the collection of the Paris
Conservatoire, numbered 494. The lower section of this instrument
is designed similarly to the butt of a bassoon with the bell directed
upwards. In a loose way, the early form of the barytone oboe would
appear to reveal some similarity with the saxophone that emerged
later. Held in high esteem by Hector Berlioz, Gustave Vogt (1781-1870)
commissioned Guillaume Triébert
(17 70-1848) to build a new model retaining the Bizey shape. Triébert gave a showing of this instrument
at the 1827 Paris Exhibition where it was also referred to as
a "hautbois-ténor". There it aroused the interest
of the selection committee which, on account of the impressive
tonal qualities of the instrument, recommended it for use in orchestral
and military music.
The models
received little notice
This design underwent some further improvement by Triébert's son, Frederic (1813-1876) who equipped
it with a full complement of innovations to facilitate handling.
The fact that these models received little notice may be attributed
to the absence of musical literature with this form of instrument
in mind and its disregard (or ignorance of its existence) in the
professional world. The barytone oboe only received initial mention
in 20th century tutors after having meanwhile been completely
redesigned by François Lorée (c1902) in elongated form similar to
the English horn (cor anglais). Charles Marie Widor remarked:
"The barytone oboe will provide a wonderful bass if all instruments
of the oboe family, representing a main contingent of the orchestra,
unite to form a group alongside of horn section."[1]
At the turn of the century the instrument did in fact manage to find its way into a number of works before becoming ousted by the Heckelphone with its more imposing tonal spectrum combined with better facilities for imparting greater expression to the performance. It stands to reason that a composer who decides to resort to four-part oboe writing is also apt to score just as opulently for the remaining wind section, thus scarcely allowing the timbre of the barytone oboe to make itself palpable at all. On the other hand, soloist requirements are adequately catered for by the presence of the English horn, bass clarinet and bassoon.
In the early years of his career Richard Strauss comments on the barytone oboe when discussing supplementations to Berlioz' instrumentation: "An asset to the orchestra is the presence of the barytone oboe manufactured by F. Lorée of Paris which of late has come to contend with the Heckelphone built by With. Heckel of Biebrich, a dangerous rival."[2]
The development
of the Heckelphone
In the absence of alternative
records we are dependent on the descriptive accounts left by Wilhelm
Heckel (1856-1909) who recalls a meeting with Richard Wagner (1813-1883)
in 1879: "In 1879 I was called to Bayreuth to settle this
question [ ... I and with improvements to the double bassoon now
completed - [ ... I - he told me that this issue had now been
solved but that a tonal factor was still absent in the family
of double reed instruments, sounding an octave lower than the
oboe; such an instrument would have to combine the character of
the oboe with the mellow yet powerful tone of the Alpine horn
[ ... .] - The barytone oboe now known to exist for quite some
time and occasionally referred to as the bass or basset oboe,
has never succeeded in really becoming accepted although pitched
one octave lower than the oboe. This is because it represents
nothing more than the timbre of an English horn [cor anglais]
extended downwards in pitch and as such produces only a thin,
imperceptible tone incapable of standing out much at all in the
orchestra. Naturally it would probably not serve as a basis for
a new design; instead a completely new type of instrument was
needed. Together with my two sons, Wilhelm and August,
I set about working out most suitable calculations for the construction
of such an instrument and built the prototype. This instrument
which has already encountered enthusiasm on the part of maestro
Richard Wagner has now emerged in the form of the 'Heckelphone'."[3]
In his representations Wilhelm Heckel does not make any distinction between the barytone oboe and the musette bass (also called basset oboe) which reveals essentially greater ascent in its taper as compared with the former. The first critic to review the new invention, Wilhelm Altenburg, also became aware of certain features of the bore coinciding with those of the basset oboe. Written shortly after official presentation of the instrument at the Wahnfried Villa in Bayreuth on 11th August 1904, the report not only includes the analogous points referred to, but also a number of farsighted if not prophetic remarks: "Let us hope that there is really a future in store for the magnificent Heckelphone and that it will not take silent leave from the scene only to turn up as a curiosity of the XXth century in some museum or other."[4]
The fact that, after having been accorded an enthusiastic reception, the Heckelphone did enter the waters of oblivion may be attributed to the "hybrid" appellation applied by Altenburg. It is true that numerous instrument makers have immortalized themselves by associating their own names with their inventions. A danger of this, however, is that dubious sounding names serve to convey very little idea of the tone or appearance of the instruments in question. When the author deputized in the Bremen Philharmonic National Orchestra in 1965 in a performance of Richard Strauss' "Salome's Dance" and turned up with the Heckelphone illustrated, none of the orchestra members (not even elderly players) were able to recall ever having seen such an instrument, let alone heard it, while the name conveyed even less to them.
Successive
stages of improvement
Once past the introductory stage,
the Heckelphone was subjected to successive stages of improvement.
Following development of the French system, problems arose on
the bell which underwent re-design in 1926/27 after complaints
made by players (unaccustomed to working with the instrument)
about the tone sounding too voluminous, the same applying whenever
harder reeds were used. Attempts to design an inverted taper-bored
damper system failed to bring about a remedy owing to this
affecting the tone excessively.
Originally designed to be played by both oboists and bassoonists, the Heckelphone, for its orchestral use is now customarily allocated to an oboe-playing member of the orchestra. The illustrated line block shows the variations in keywork evolved in the course of development.
As an outcome of Altenburg's review, demonstrations of the Heckelphone in Bayreuth and at the Essen City Music Festival in 1904, the instrument rapidly attained a certain degree of popularity. Fundamentally speaking, it is the two operatic works "Salome" and "Elektra" that have rescued the Heckelphone from total extinction. On 26th February 1905 Richard Strauss wrote to Wilhelm Heckel informing him that his new opera "Salome" contained a complete Heckelphone part.
The Heckelphone
in the opera
In this opera the Heckelphone
is employed in a variety of different ways: to perform bass solo
work in an oboe section comprising two oboes, English horn (cor
anglais) and Heckelphone as well as in numerous combinations with
other instruments including two-octave intervallic spacing with
the double bassoon and unison playing with the violas or horn.
The instrument was most widely employed by operatic composers.
Max von Schillings (1868-1934) made use of it in his "Moloch"
as early as 1906.
Front view of the Heckelphone keywork.
36b: German system, straightforward B-flat and C keys (1-line/2-line
octave) for the right index finger.
36i: B-flat - C ring-key on upper joint with lever for right index
finger.
36k: Conservatoire oboe fingering system 36 cons and
36 full cons: French fingering system as customary today. The
long handle key actuated by the little finger of the left hand
has been abandoned in favor of a pivoted axle system.
The overture of his best-known opera, "Mona Lisa", composed in 1915, in fact opens with a Heckelphone solo.
There was a distinct preference for the lower pitched notes
of the instrument owing to the higher ones duplicating the register
of the English horn. In his "Alpine Symphony" Richard
Strauss exceeds the downward tonal compass of the Heckelphone
quite a number of times, calling upon the player to produce low
F-sharp, G and G-sharp, a sheer impossibility! Such profundo work
would require the resources of a bass oboe, said to have been
built by Orsi of Milan - unknown according to Heinrich Seifer's
research.[5]
Also worthy of mention is a concerto for Heckelphone and Orchestra
still pending first performance. The composer, Hans Mielenz (1909),
wrote the work (Opus 60) according to the following twelve-tone
system: e', f-sharp', c", d-sharp', d- , b-flat', a-flat',
c-flat", a', f', c-sharp" and g'.
In the realms of chamber music Paul Hindemith's "Trio for Viola, Heckelphone or Saxophone in C (or B-flat) and Piano" Opus 47 (1929) likewise calls for attention. Hindemith composed the work sometime between 1927/28 after having paid a visit to the firm on 9th October 1927 to purchase a bassoon. An entry in the Heckel visitors' book records the occasion. The premiere took place in Wiesbaden on 15th March 1928, performed by the composer, the Heckelphonist Theodor Dieckmann and the pianist Emma Lubbecke-Job. The structure of the work is quite interesting to observe: First Part: "Solo" for Piano, "Arioso" for Heckelphone and Piano, "Duet" for Viola, Heckelphone and Piano/Second Part: "Potpourri".
Paul Hindemith made no further use of the instrument in his orchestrations. A footnote to his opera "Cardillac" accompanying an asterisk affixed to the Ist tenor saxophone in B-flat reads as follows: "Should it not be possible to employ a tenor saxophone, this may be replaced by a Heckelphone. However, the effect, as intended by the composer, will not be attained as a result thereof. " A number of exquisite chamber works have emerged in the form of oboe quartets involving the oboe, oboe d'amore, English horn (cor anglais) and Heckelphone. Deserving special mention is Henri Zagwijn's quartet and the "Numquid" Quintet by Giuseppe Sinopoli with additional keyboard instruments. Obbligato parts for Heckelphone are also to be found in the works of Hans Werner Henze e.g. the oratorio "Das Floß der Medusa" and the composer's opera "Die englische Katze". In addition it is employed by Hans Joachim Hespos (interactions 1971, Che 1975, chamber music for orchestra 1976, Go 1978).
The use of
the Heckelphone in early music
Some prominent composers commend the use of the Heckelphone as
tenor/barytone instrument in early music. Carl Orff (1895) resorts
to it in realizing Claudio Monteverdi's "Orfeo," and
Alfredo Casella (1883-1947) recommends it for the "Salmò"
parts in three works composed by Antonio Vivaldi: "In the
course of recent research extending to Vivaldi's proliferous output,
musicologists frequently encountered mention of an instrument
designated 'Salmò' in his orchestral works. It was then
discovered that this curiosity was nothing more than a misspelling
of the French word 'chalumeau', a sort of bass oboe pitched a
little lower than the Heckelphone. A good example of a Salmò
part is found in Vivaldi's 'Concerto in C Major' (Ed. Carish,
rev. by A. Casella), this usually being taken over by a Heckelphone."[6]
Following what was a common practice resorted to for quite some time by some larger stages in reinforcing Heckelphone parts by use of the bassoon or bass clarinet, the Heckel Company reports a recent increase in orders from both home and abroad.
Bibliography
1. C[harles] M[arie] Widor: Modern
Orchestral Techniques. A supplement to Berlioz' study of Instrumentation.
Translated from the French by Hugo Riemann. Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Hartel 1904, p. 25.
2. Hector Berlioz (Berlioz/Strauss): Study of Instrumentation, supplemented and revised by Richard Strauss, Part 1. Leipzig: Edition Peters, (unaltered) new edition, 1955, p. 203.
3. Wilhelm Heckel: "Heckelphone" Brochure incl. fingering chart and supporting documentation - Biebrich: self- published, no date (1904).
4. Wilhelm Altenburg: The "Heckelphone", A New Wind Instrument, appearing in: Zeitschrift fur Instrumentenbau published by Paul de Wit, 24th year of issue, 11th September 1904, pp. 1023/24.
5. Cf. Heinrich Seifer's: "Systematik der Blasinstrumente.". A Study of Instrumentation in Tabular Form. Frankfurt/Main. Published by Das Musikinstrument, p. 5 (Das Musikinstrument Technical Publications Series No. 7).
6. Die Technik des modernen Orchesters, edited by Alfredo Casella-Virgilio Mortari. Frankfurt/ Main: Ricordi 1961.