Charles Joseph Sax Clarinet

pete

pete

Brassica Oleracea
Staff member
Administrator
One of the reasons I started researching saxophones years ago was because I liked the pretty. I still think there are a lot of horns from a lot of places that still have the pretty, but I also have to think: you made that look that nice in 1830? With 1830 manufacturing techniques? Now a-day, you can get laser engraving, micro-buffing techniques, etc., etc. The early instruments that look that nice appeal to me a lot more than the modern horns because I know a bit about that manufacturing process and I keep in my mind "1830?!" Even though I know that I might like playing a modern instrument more.

Obviously someone agrees with me: that clarinet is in an art museum.

I'll have to do some searches on those jeweled flutes you mention, Randy. I'm sure those are at least as nice as this clarinet.
 
I haven't seen many saxophones with a lot of metalwork for purely decorative purposes. It's not really a bad idea, and it could have some practical value.

Extra reinforcement of sax keys that flex a lot could be done with a little flash, even in multiple styles.
 
Well, the CJ Sax clarinet has a bunch of those "lion's head" additions to the keys. They're a little hard to see, but definitely there. As a matter of fact, I searched for other pics of CJ Sax clarinets that were wooden and they also have similar keywork.

I don't exactly see how the decorations could be reinforcements: they're just brass decorations. I can understand that nickel could be a reinforcement and/or adding another "arm" to each key, which would be a little problematic and/or overkill on a clarinet. On a sax, there's definitely room for that.

I can't find a single CJ Sax flute online. I'm disappointed.
 
Kewl. Pity it's not in color. Still can't find one online!

More browsing at the MOMA: a flute/walking stick made out of the tusk of a narwhal (that's type of whale that has a horn sticking out its head). One of only two known to exist. From about 1750.
 
Saxophones are already made flimsier than they really should be for reasons of weight and space. If someone would add metal there are more important things than decorations IMO (e.g. making some parts thicker, etc.) but the weight could be a problem eventually. Although someone might not mind extra weight for decorations, but personally if it would be heavier I'd rather it would be in the most practical and beneficial way.
 
I think it all depends on what you're looking for. I do think that something functional can be made to look pretty, but I know of many examples where the pretty is used to make someone overlook the functional problems. Finding something that's a balance between pretty and functional is relatively difficult. I think that the CJ Sax clarinet is in balance, at least from the 1830 view of "functional".

We've had the discussion before regarding weight, so I'll respect clarinbass' comment on that: I wouldn't find the extra half ounce or so of extra weight a problem, but I know other folks do. Of course, that's also in reference to a modern instrument: I don't know how much the CJ Sax clarinet pictured here weighs in comparison to, say, a 2010 Buffet R13. Heck, I dunno even if ivory is heavier than grenadilla. I do know that the CJ Sax clarinet does have awfully reduced keywork, in comparison to a modern horn.
 
Ivory weighs in at less than the various species of African blackwood. I read this somewhere in the past, but don't recall where now. Neither substance is listed in my Engineer's Handbook, my usual source for material masses, but it's unlikely that a combat engineer would be required to hoist any significant amounts of either substance.

The lion's head decorations on the keycups are no more extensive (as far as thickness is concerned) than the Leblanc "innovation of rounds bombé, the fat key cups that they favored for a while in the past. In any event, most of these objections of "too much weight" tend to come from those who have never had to heft bass clarinets or baritone saxophones.

I, for the record, think the clarinet shown is not all that attractive. But, I'm not a big fan of flashy, showy objects, so that's just me...
 
There's no accounting for taste. :)

The horn makes me think of expensive China (the dinnerware, not the country). I wouldn't be as taken with it if it wasn't functional.

I also think there's a discussion of pretty vs. gaudy. For instance, I liked a lot of the interesting colored lacquers that LA Sax had, but [urlhttp://usahorn.com/used/LA-Sax/955/Psychadelic-Alto-Saxophone-Spin-Art-61190XX.html]this[/url] is a bit much.

I also thought that my lear Buffet w/copper keywork was more "pretty" than "gaudy" (hey, Marigaux made a similar oboe). However, the standard nickel keywork is kinda nice, too!
 
pete said:
so I'll respect clarinbass' comment on that: I wouldn't find the extra half ounce or so of extra weight a problem, but I know other folks do.
Click to expand...
Half ounce is very little but I think many metal decorations would weigh significantly more thant that. It can vary too much to give any numbers IMO. It also depends in comparison with what. For example a small difference on a baritone you hold (let's say) with a harness is probably nothing in comparison with the same difference on a very light instrument you hold on your thumb. My main point of adding weight in a more functional way was mainly about saxophones which are made very flimsy unlike most clarinets and especially flutes where flexing of the keys is not such a huge issue.

SOTSDO said:
In any event, most of these objections of "too much weight" tend to come from those who have never had to heft bass clarinets or baritone saxophones.
Click to expand...
Maybe sometimes, but I find that some weight differences are important and the instrument I play most is a low C bass clarinet, usually standing. I still found some soprano clarinets that are just too heavy for me to feel comfortable for a long time, eventhough the one I play is relatively heavy too.

pete said:
However, the standard nickel keywork is kinda nice, too!
Click to expand...
I prefer this colur too, though just a small point it's probably not nickel but nickel-silver or cupronickel. Very few instrument keys are made of nickel, actually I don't think I've ever heard of any.

pete said:
(hey, Marigaux made a similar oboe).
Click to expand...
Here is a photo of them from Marigaux's stand (on the right):

marigaux_paraschos_messe2009_chaka.jpg
 
Well, I am primarily a bass clarinet player on a low C horn, and I play a lot standing (but without a neck strap), and I don't notice the extra weight all that much, regardless of the horn size.

However, I have had extremely well developed arm, hand and finger muscles (from my days as a bricklayer), so I may be able to better tolerate the weight than most.

Oddly enough, the one horn that bothered me the most was the Selmer basset horn that I played back in the days of my dissipated youth. (It had no peg.) It must have been the length of the horn below the thumb rest that got me...
 
clarnibass said:
It is excellent. Some players use them. They are made by Paraschos in Greece.
Click to expand...
I believe that's the company that makes the wooden sax necks, too.

As mentioned, I like the way the bent barrel looks. What I don't know is how it'd work.

One of the reasons why my tone sucks on straight Bb soprano saxophones is because I try to play them like a clarinet: held in to my chest and blowing across the mouthpiece, rather than into the mouthpiece. That neck looks like it'd make you want to hold in the clarinet more to your chest, but blow more into the mouthpiece, rather than across it. So, I dunno if there'd be much help for a player, there.
 
Yes it's the same company which makes the wood sax necks, shown in the middle of the photo. It's from the same stand.

pete said:
So, I dunno if there'd be much help for a player, there.
Click to expand...
The players who use them like the different position. So there is help for some players (though I prefer the position with the regular straight barrel).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom