The angle of the dangle...

SOTSDO

SOTSDO

Old King Log
Staff member
CE/Moderator
One thing that I feel very strongly about with the bass is the neck angle. Back in the day, you had two choices: flat as a tenor sax (which was common in Italian made pro horns as well as in the "student" models), and just about as bad (say C melody style) in the pro horns.

Both necks brought the mouthpiece into your mouth at such a flat angle that it was hard to use your tongue in the same fashion as you would on a soprano clarinet. To those of us who played both horns regularly, it was a bit of an adjustment to go from one to another.

The best "from the factory" bass that I ever used was my old Albert Buffet, which had the mouthpiece beak at about a 50? angle, something that made it a real joy to play. In effect, it spoiled me when dealing with even the best of modern horns.

Then along came the likes of Charlie Bay, one of the first to offer a "corrected angle" bass clarinet neck. I have one of his first efforts, bought in Richmond VA at an ICS conference some twenty five years ago, and it went a long way towards correcting the problem the existence of which only a few people knew.

Alas, Charlie's strong point was clarinet mouthpiece design, not metal working. The brass used to make my new neck was so soft that I actually twisted it out of line while disassembling it with just a little less cork grease than he intended. It still worked, but it was crooked and out of line (and the register key provide on same was a bit on the cheap side).

Not to be denied what I had grown to love, I pulled the crook portion of Charlie's creation out and shoved it into the upper portion of my Selmer horn's neck. The result was even better than Charlie's neck, even if the overall arrangement looks somewhat odd. In effect, I now hold my bass clarinet at almost the same angle as I hold the soprano (about 75? from the vertical, with the lower hand slightly further away from my body).

Even better, I now adjust the insertion of the mouthpiece and the insertion of the crook and the insertion of the other part of the Selmer neck into the top joint, all so the mouthpiece is displaced off to one side, the better to read music. In effect, the mouthpiece is located "out of line" with the centerline of the horn, about an inch and a half off to the left side. It looks even more peculiar, but boy does is work well.

What fascinates me the most is that this "improved" neck angle has been a desired characteristic for many, many years, yet an adjusted neck is only an option on the highest end horn from two of the manufacturers, Selmer and Buffet. Why? Bending the student horn necks to the "right" angle would cost little more than what they expend to make them to the current angle, and a whole new world would open up for the student players. But, noooooooo...

The only good reason I can think of to keep them the way that they are is the unfortunate prevalence of marching bands over here. Once again, still another reason to do away with marching bands...
 
So what do you think of the new crook on the Selmer Privilege series 67? The have two angles available. This site describes them at one small bent, one larger bent (optional).
67.gif
 
I tried out the horn (low Eb version) at Rice institute/Rice University last summer. That particular horn had the "regular crook, with no option to try the other. It was clear, however, that the other was available.

The horn itself did not impress me. A lot heavier than other low Eb Selmers, and a number of the features of the keywork did not appeal to me at all. I don't understand the need for the axles for the trill keys; sure, you get a much more positive alignment, but only at the cost of a lot of extra weight.

Also, one of the keys on the long joint had a Oehler-like actuating mechanism that was just barely functional on the sample that I viewed. It was a strange classic lever that fits under a tab down on the joint, replacing (I think) the left hand little finger C/F. The key was different "feeling" than the rest of them for the left hand, and felt too springy under the finger.

Intonation wise the horn was on target. Other operating mechanisms were good as well.

While it was a Selmer, it's not the Selmer for me. My opinion, and I am aware that many others like it quite a bit.

Bring on the Recital based Selmer bass...
 
Along these same lines...

...I noted yesterday that the eBay auction site was blessed with not one but no less than five bass clarinets offered up at auction, each of which was missing the neck. It's very hard for me to envision the situation where so poor care is taken of an instrument as to lose one of its most essential parts, but apparently that's the case out there in the wasteland we know as the United States of America.

One other interesting thing: of the five, four were Leblanc horns...
 
SOTSDO said:
One thing that I feel very strongly about with the bass is the neck angle. Back in the day, you had two choices: flat as a tenor sax (which was common in Italian made pro horns as well as in the "student" models), and just about as bad (say C melody style) in the pro horns. (...)
Click to expand...
So...just to yarn that thread a bit further...what if I brought my C-mel-style neck to the next brasswind plumber and get it bent to a more comfy angle? Would that work?

Another weird idea would be to saw the lower part of a (cheap plastic) mouthpiece off at an angle, twist both parts 180? against each other and glue the thing together again - voil?, the angled mouthpiece.

Of course, the ultimate solution would be the FlexNeck(TM) aka Bender's Bocal, made from a jerry can nozzle... :-D

(And yes, my horn's a marching horn - it doesn't even have a fitting for a floor peg)
 
SOTSDO said:
...I noted yesterday that the eBay auction site was blessed with not one but no less than five bass clarinets offered up at auction, each of which was missing the neck. It's very hard for me to envision the situation where so poor care is taken of an instrument as to lose one of its most essential parts, but apparently that's the case out there in the wasteland we know as the United States of America.

One other interesting thing: of the five, four were Leblanc horns...
Click to expand...
Hey, there are always dozens of saxophones missing necks on eBay, so I could easily think that people could be missing bass clarinet necks.

I do know, based (pun intended) on my limited experience, that there is no consistent bass clarinet neck design -- even more so than saxophone neck design. I wonder what kind of "replacement" necks you can get for a bass clarinet -- and if it's worth it.
 
tictactux said:
Of course, the ultimate solution would be the FlexNeck(TM) aka Bender's Bocal, made from a jerry can nozzle...
Click to expand...
This would be an interesting idea. I don't think you can do this, acoustically speaking, but it sounds like a good idea ....
 
A minor historical point...

Incidentally, despite the name, the "jerry can nozzle" is really an American invention. The German pressed-steel original fuel and water can, so good that we almost immediately copied it once we captured an intact example, just had a two inch opening that required a funnel to get the fluid within into many other holding tanks.
 
Home Modifications?

I recently picked up an old 1980's era Conn for very cheap and am considering heating the neck and bending it myself. I figure if it fails, easy come easy go. Do any of you by any chance know what the metal composition was being used in the late 80's, so I can guestimate its heat tolerances...?
 
Umm. Conn. 1980's. Conn was owned by two different companies during the 1980's. It's possible that the clarinet's not even made by Conn, but by a completely different company and just sold under the Conn name.

That's an interesting question and one that I don't have an exact answer to -- a general one might be, "It's probably a cheap student model with thin metal. Be careful" -- but bending it might significantly mess with the acoustics, as I mentioned earlier.

"1980's" isn't old. I've got socks older than that :).
 
Chris J said:
Anybody tried one of these?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230363864476&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

I am about to

Chris
Click to expand...
Yes I have one like this, it came with a bass I acquired.

Problem is, while the angle is steeper, more clarinet-like, it logically moves down the whole instrument about 2 inches which means that my right arm is getting a bit too short for comfortable playing.

The angle is right, but the whole "s" would need to be wound narrower in order not to disturb the geometry of the player:instrument setup.

PS: Anyone in here knows how long it takes for a provisional patent application to be filed (or rejected)? (It does deal with neck angles)
 
Patent stuff

tictactux said:
PS: Anyone in here knows how long it takes for a provisional patent application to be filed (or rejected)? (It does deal with neck angles)
Click to expand...

If you are talking about a US provisional patent, you file it whenever it is ready (basically, as soon as your patent attorney gets it drafted). US provisional patent applications are not examined, so there should be no rejection (assuming the correct parts were attached). Once the provisional application is filed, you have 12 months (to the day) to file the "real" application (which we in the trade call the "utility" application), which is the application that will actually be examined (and may ultimately issue as a patent). :-D
 
When I got my patent, I first filed what was then (1983) called a "discovery". This was a one page document covering the basic elements of the invention, complete with a basic sketch as to what it looked like. I had this document witnessed by a friend, and then sent it off to the US PTO, return receipt requested, through the USPS.

The application followed within one year, and was a formal description of how my utility patent invention differed from previous woodwind ligatures, how it functioned, and a formal set of "claims" (I had three, towards the low end of what are normally filed) that are the actual meat of the patent application.

Accompanying the application was a set of drawings that I drafted up on my computer - good enough for the application process, but later replaced (once the examiner had gotten done with restructuring my claims slightly) with formal, USPS compliant drawings done by a professional patent draftsman. At that point, I was granted the patent, which ran for seventeen years from the date of issue.

I enjoyed the whole patent process, but I would never have started it had not word processing become available to common folks at that time. Writing the claims was the most agonizing part of it all, and my agony was made more intense by having to describe, in words alone, a helix. (Try it, and you'll see what I mean.)

But, the best part of it all was the search. Back in the dark ages, you submitted a list of patent classes that you felt your invention fell into, and then got a huge listing back from a computer system called CASSUS. Then, you started looking through all of the patents listed to either discard them as not pertinent to your application, or to be able to argue how your invention was novel in light of those patents.

(I did all of this searching at the local patent depository, the main library of the Saint Louis Public Library. Similar depositories exist in large cities all over the country, but you could do a similar search these days on the internet, where all patents (including mine, 4,796,507) can be found through www.uspto.gov.)

I estimate that we had three hundred plus patents that showed up in the CASSUS search, of which all but about five were easily discarded as not applicable to my particular invention. The rest had to be addressed in my application.

However, even after I covered those patents and showed how mine was novel (in comparison), the examiner (one Ben Buller, since retired) threw me a knuckleball in the form of a patent that covered attachment of Alaska pipeline insulation by way of a hook and loop fastener. (My method involved the self-adjusting spiral wrapping of a thin strip of the two sided stuff; the pipe insulation was only attached by one longitudinal seam of the stuff.)

(One thing that my patent did was to increase my knowledge of hook and loop fasteners and the Velcro Corporation. You would be amazed at all of the uses that people have come up with for the stuff.)

(For that matter, it also was not "invented by NASA" (the original patent was dated in the late 1940's, predating NASA by some twenty years). Ditto Teflon, which was "invented" (by accident) in the 1930's.)

If you think you have a clever idea that might be suitable for patent protection, get yourself a copy of the Nolo Press book Patent It Yourself, and go to town. (Getting a so called pro se patent is much cheaper than employing a patent attorney, although it does require quite a bit of work on your part.) Despite the work involved, it is fun and educational as well.
 
While it certainly may be entertaining and eductational to get oneself a patent granted, it probably is quite a plight for a) a furriner and b) a non-native speaker. Filing the patent locally is pointless as there is no industry that might be interested in exploiting it, and it wouldn't protect your idea anywhere else in the world. Even if it were, enforcing it would be out of reach for pretty any individual.
So, my sole reason for a provisional application would be to sell the idea to some manufacturer with a reasonable protection against getting screwed.
If none of them bites, I'll publish the idea making it impossible for anyone else to make a lot of money on the idea alone. My investment so far has been $110 for the application and a bit of postage and time.
 
Well, bear in mind that the same sort of protection obtains in most nations around the globe (Myanmar is one exception, I think); similar process, for the most part.

Getting a corporate operation to step in and assume your development and perfection costs is a great idea, but over here it's mostly a pipe dream, even for more 'useful' (in relative terms) ideas with significant market depth and appeal. Unless you work for a corporation with interest in your field, it's likely not to happen.

The publishing of an idea to forestall someone else from getting it under their name as a patent reminds me of a problem that I (or, I should say, we, since my lovely wife did much of the research work) encountered during our patent process. After getting through all of the office actions, and while waiting for the final drawings to be executed by the draftsman, I finally found myself a copy of David Pino's book on clarinet playing.

In same, the author muses over how Velcro® could perhaps be somehow used to attach a reed to a clarinet mouthpiece. While he went into absolutely no detail as to how this might be accomplished, I knew enough about the process to worry that his published "idea" might be enough to scotch my application.

I brought this to the attention of the examiner (honest soul that I am), but he instantly told me not to worry. (Back then, you could speak directly to your lead examiner by telephone; don't know if that is still allowed.) As part of his work, he kept up with publications in the field (one of his concerns was all types of musical instrument stuff (including electronic)), had read the book when it was published (Unca Sugar paid for the copy he got), and pointed out that my application of hook and loop fastener was done in a non-obvious and novel fashion, while his was only an obvious use of the stuff.

Nothing new under the sun, though. We've all had ideas that we later find to have been thought of by others. Billions of inquisitive minds can churn out a lot of stuff if you give them enough room to work.
 
My new neck arrived today - I am really delighted. The clarinet is in such a better playing position, and the keys fall under the fingers well. The fingers fall better, in fact, as the position is so much more natural. Before, when standing and with a neck strap, the bell was to the side of me and the hands cramped - easy to catch a trill key by mistake.

The tenon was exactly right at 2.60 cm, and all in tune.

Anyway, so far it feels money very well spent....
 
I felt the same way the day that I plunked down my hard earned dosh for one of Charlie Bay's very first bass clarinet necks. Sure, it looked a little odd by "normal" (if such a thing can be said to exist) bass clarinet posture. But, it made a world of difference, and moreso when I paired Charlie's crook (the mouthpiece socket) with my stock Selmer neck.

What I would really like to find now is a short neck for the baritone sax, so that when I play it "horn line style", out in from of me with the body vertical, I don't have to bear so much of the stress in my arms, holding the horn out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom