Question:
mouthpiece chamber history in the Rascher/Mule debate
I posed this question in a Rascher/French type thread and didn't get any takers. Thought it might be more appropriate here.
Rascherites often claim to have a monopoly on the "historically validated" approach to the classical saxophone. Their equipment attempts to replicate (as much as reason allows) the specific instructions of Adolphe Sax. I've never really heard a French trained player argue the historical validity of their approach. Typically, this school is traced back to Mule and left at that. However, I was thinking, Mule was with the Garde Republicanique, and later a military saxophone quartet. The French incorporation of the saxophone in military ensembles dates back to the time of Adolphe when he personally trained many of the earliest military saxophonists.
1. Is there a pedagogical lineage here that we can trust as influencing the very unique style of Mule that dates back to Sax?
2. Do we assume that Sax approved fully of this decidedly non-orchestral appropriation of the instrument?
3. What about the small chamber mouthpiece which has become a French feature (Adolphe's original specifically used a large chamber) could the small chamber development (a requisite for the outdoor venues of a military saxophone ensemble) have received the blessing of Sax?
4. Is it possible that the modern French school would also receive the blessing of the saxophone's inventor?
To me, it all comes down to the smaller chamber that defines the French school. It offers a projection and brightness that the original mouthpieces did not have. Did Adolphe oversee this development?
Sorry for the long post.

Answer:
Here's my answers (all opinion, of course, due to the nature of your questions).
1) Doubtful. Mule was an innovator, not a follower. Listen to the recording of Mule's teacher playing Carnival of Venice (I think) pre-1910 on one of the Le Patron discs. He sounds nothing like Mule.
2) Yes. He was a businessman. Why would he not want to sell more saxes?
3) It could have, but I don't think it existed during his lifetime. Who knows if he would have found it to be an improvement or an abomination?
4) He might like it, or not, but he didn't oversee the development of the French school that derives from Mule.

Answer:
Thanks for the reply. So the Rascherites really do seem to have the monopoly on authenticity, or at least truly carrying the flame for the "sound of Sax."
While part of me agrees with you that any acceptance of the saxophone in any style of music would have been welcomed by the inventor, I have my doubts about the vaudeville usage which preceded Mule. Now, I'm not trying to offend, but it does seem to me that there is more influence from vaudeville in Mule's tonal concept than the orchestral lineage from Berlioz to Bizet to Debussy. The metal small chamber is so bright and buzzy, it is completely contrary to Sax's original invention, the one which contemporary G. Rossini referred to as "tonal paste" for the orchestra. The Mule sound doesn't really blend with an orchestra at all. I'll risk sounding like a fool here (I admit, I need to read the Mule biography before I post much more), any chance of any serious cross-pollination between vaudeville and Mule?

Answer:
Provocative thread you've got here, vivace1.
As to cross-pollination between vaudeville saxophonists and Mule, I don't think so. Rudy Wiedoeft would have to be considered the apotheosis of vaudeville saxophonistry, though in truth that categorization doesn't begin to capture the range of of his talent. My impression is that Rudy played with a much darker tone and restrained vibrato than Mule did.
You can get a start on understanding Mule's development by reading interview of Mule conducted by Claude Delangle.

Answer:
The invention of "Academy" never had the purpose of disseminated knowledge. Its purpose is always to control knowledge and limit the practice there of.
Frank Herbert - Author of Dune

Answer:
You have to keep in mind that Sax was an innovator, who personally redesigned the saxophone countless times throughout his life. Through the years, many, many other design differences have come and gone, including the articulated G# mechanism, more keys in the bottom and top register, the automatic double-octave-key mechanism...The list goes on and on, and there are very few saxophonists who would even claim to prefer original-model Sax instruments. Compared to our modern horns, they're insanely clumsy (not to down-play the brilliance of the man-a hundred and sixty years has simply allowed plenty of time for improvement).
Aside from his creation of the saxophone, Sax spent much of his life improving on pre-existing instrument designs. The small-chambered saxophone mouthpiece is a direct result of the improvement of mouthpiece-making-materials (be they various forms of hard rubber or metal). When the saxophone was initially invented, it was nigh impossible to create a small-chambered mouthpiece that would have the desired acoustical properties.
As to the idea that Sax might not smile down upon the saxophone's use in the band tradition, it should be known that he was the originator of that idea. Get your hands on a copy of "The Devil's Horn" by Michael Segell, an excellent recent book on the history and culture of our instrument. In it, there is a retelling of the famous "battle of the bands" on the Champs-Elysee that forever cemeted the role of the saxophone in the wind band.
One other thing that should be remembered is that Mule was the second professor of saxophone at the Paris Conservatory...Who was the first? Why, Sax himself, of course. I think that qualifies as a bit of a connection.

Answer:
"The list goes on and on, and there are very few saxophonists who would even claim to prefer original-model Sax instruments. Compared to our modern horns, they're insanely clumsy (not to down-play the brilliance of the man-a hundred and sixty years has simply allowed plenty of time for improvement)."
Yes, granted, the original horns are "clumsy" compared to modern horns. But, the Rascher school is entirely devoted to playing on instruments which carry the "original-model" spirit...like the vintage Bueschers. A lot is written on the original "parabolic cone" patent on SOTW, and supposedly the Bueschers up through the New Aristocrats had this. These horns had most of the modern technical advances to be great professional instruments that still carry the original spirit of Adolphe Sax.
""When the saxophone was initially invented, it was nigh impossible to create a small-chambered mouthpiece that would have the desired acoustical properties."
Hmmm, first time I heard that. The clarinet had a small chamber mouthpiece relative to the saxophone. Adolphe Sax specified a large chamber in his patent. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that the technology was in place, he just preferred the smoothness and dark colors achieved with large chamber.
"As to the idea that Sax might not smile down upon the saxophone's use in the band tradition, it should be known that he was the originator of that idea. Get your hands on a copy of "The Devil's Horn" by Michael Segell, an excellent recent book on the history and culture of our instrument. In it, there is a retelling of the famous "battle of the bands" on the Champs-Elysee that forever cemeted the role of the saxophone in the wind band."
I never said Adolphe wouldn't have approved of the band tradition. He instructed the first military band use of the instrument himself. Looking back, I see I perhaps wasn't clear with this point. My question is really just about the chamber changes and the subsequent concept change of the saxophone's sound. I still wonder when the small chamber was introduced...that seems more of a vaudeville demand.
"One other thing that should be remembered is that Mule was the second professor of saxophone at the Paris Conservatory...Who was the first? Why, Sax himself, of course. I think that qualifies as a bit of a connection."

No, it really doesn't when over half a century divides these two tenures. The saxophone class was closed for years at the conservatory. This is why I raise my lineage question. There was no direct pedagogical lineage between Mule and Sax. This is why I'm curious about looking at Mule's influences. Mule started gigging not in the classical world but in a dance band. I read the article chitown posted....this states that Mule's introduction of the vibrato came out of his experiences in dance bands and not hanging around the symphony halls. This is a major point in tracing the birth of the French saxophone concept!
It seems to me, style changed after Sax's death, and only then did the mouthpiece adapt to those style changes.
Again, let me reiterate before I get stomped to a pulp here by angry Frenchies, I'm used to the notion that the Rascher school is the only one carrying the torch for Sax's intent, but I wonder if this must be the case. I'm not a blue-blood Rascher man myself, I welcome changes for different styles. However, historically speaking, I think it is telling that the modern classical saxophone sound that has evolved into the C* may have vaudeville as a mother and Mule as a Father. My original question is more one of perspective. Does this have to be? Is there enough linkage in the military band tradition of saxophone use to claim that genetic material instead? Was the military band saxophone use continuous between Sax and Mule? It's like arguing apostolic succession...on one hand it may not matter, but on the other, it could really be cool if it was true (that Mule was pedagogically connected to Sax).

Answer:
We're not talking about a great divide here. Between Sax's death (1894) and Mule's appointment in the Garde Republicaine band (1923), there was only a twenty-nine year span. Mule's father was an amateur clarinetist and saxophonist who was surely influnenced by the early Sax-trained players. While a few important differences were originated by Mule (e.g.-vibrato), it's hard to believe that a great deal would have changed in that small amount of time. If you listen to very early recordings of the Garde Republicaine Saxophone Quartet, the other members' concept of sound and style were remarkably similar to Mule's. These men were Mule's contemporaries.
It should also be remembered that the company we now know as Henri Selmer and Company is, quite literally, the heir to the original Sax factory. They bought all of Sax's holdings from his sons after his death.
It's quite obvious that I'm a Sinta-school saxophonist with a strong French inclination, so I'm approaching this philosophically to some extent, but I'm also approaching it logically. Why not do the most we can to expand our conception and mastery of our instrument (both mechanically and musically) to push the boudaries of sound. We possess an instrument with an incredible amount of tonal potential, so why not do the most we can to aid that potential?

Answer:
Interesting. I need to check on some books before I reply fully. But, I do have one bit to contribute-- Sax didn't teach at the Conservatory until his death. The class was discontinued well before 1894. I need to consult the Horwood book for this date though. But, that is very interesting about the Sax factory becoming the Selmer company, know of any good resources on this manufacturing transition period? I've always understood the Selmer company to be the opposite aesthetic to the original Sax model.
You also said: "Why not do the most we can to expand our conception and mastery of our instrument (both mechanically and musically) to push the boudaries of sound. We possess an instrument with an incredible amount of tonal potential, so why not do the most we can to aid that potential?"
Are you saying that the vintage Bueschers, like Rascher's horn, do not possess this potential? There are more modern incarnations of this aesthetic too in the Keilwerth horns...at least that seems to be the modern horn Rascherites claim to be closest in spirit to the original. I'm not resisting technological advancement, just questioning an aesthetic. The Selmers are extremely bright compared to Keilwerths, Bueschers, even Yamaha 875EXs. They are not mechanically superior, just different tonally. I think the Selmers are children of Mule. Does this make them step-children of Sax?
(By the way, I play a Mark VI at a "Rascher" school. Just to give a little personal background to my quandary. I suppose my questions are a search to legitimize my own sound in a "historically justified" manner.)

Answer:
Wow. This is actually interesting stuff.
Sorry for my Frank Herbert comment earlier, but most discussions of academics are, well, academic. However, it is really neat to learn how the modern saxophone may have developed from more than one concept and how these academic differences affected saxophone use in jazz and popular music.
Again, very good stuff. And keep it coming. We folks that spent our formative years in the engineering and science classes would like to understand this history better too.

Answer:
Thanks Enviroguy!
" On one occasion, Napoleon III saved him from bankruptcy . In 1857, Sax
made six silver trumpets for the Cent Gardes, the emperor's guard of
honor. One year later, he was appointed "Imperial Instrument-maker"
(facteur de la maison militaire de l'Emperor). He became director of stage
music at the Opera, and a saxophone class was created at the Paris
Conservatory, under his personal direction. He taught there thirteen
years. After the disasters of 1870, the French Government suppressed this
class. It was re-established at the end of the century."
This is from the saxgourmet page, written by Kochnitsky. Wikepedia says he started the Paris class in 1867, not 1858. Have to wait to get home to find out what Horwood says.
The above entry says the class was re-established at the end of the century. I thought Mule was the one to restart the program. Who is Kochnitsky talking about here that restarted it at the end of the century?

Answer:
The dates I could find say the Sax class ended at the conservatory in 1871. Mule started it again in 1942.
Eduard Lefebre knew Sax personally...to what extent I do not know (I'm looking for a way to get a hold of Noyes' thesis on Lefebre). Anyway, Lefebre was European, though he traveled to America performing with the Gilmore band (as early as 1870). Supposedly it was the influence of Lefebre that later inspired Gus Buescher and the Elkhart, Indiana plant. I suspect that the American plant, seeing the saxophone as a "new" instrument stayed closer to the original patent of Sax, while the Paris manufacturers, already well-acquainted with the sax began may have made bolder steps to introduce their own innovations. Thus the contrast between early American horns and French horns from the same period. ?
Anyway, anybody know about Lefebre and his style?

Answer:
Lefebre was trained at the National Conservatory in Belgium...There's a great article about him in a Saxophone Symposium from a few years ago...I'll take a look at that and get back to you.

Answer:
Interesting, I'll try to find that one too.:)

Answer:
Just read the Noyes dissertation on Lefebre. Unfortunately, I learned that he never recorded solo work. However, one of his students did, Bessie Mecklem (or Meeklens). Not sure if this recording is still around though. That would give some insight into the kind of player Lefebre was. One interesting fact about his life is that he did a lot of orchestral saxophone playing in Europe before coming to America to join the Gilmore regimental band. This band, like Sousa's, covered the gamut from marching brass band styles to baroque transcriptions. Noyes' pooled together a bunch of newspaper reviews describing Lefebre's playing, and if we could trust words alone, it would seem that Lefebre's solo work was decidedly "orchestral" in approach. Later, he taught at the "Conn Conservatory" in Elkhart--wonder if there are any existing recordings taken of these early students?

Answer:
He was an orchestral clarinetist. I've never understood the "orchestral" argument. From the beginning, the saxophone has played in any ensemble or situation allowed. The original patent called for a series of horns in C and F for "orchestral playing" and a set in E-flat and B-flat for wind bands and the like...Sax invented the instrument to be flexible, and intended it to be playable in any situation possible, from the beginning. Tradition is a dangerous thing. I subscribe to the Franco-American tradition, but I'm not bound to it. I have my personal conception of sound. That's what every great musician does (not that I'm saying that I'm great). Every great violinist sounds different. Larry Combs and David Schiffrin sound completely different. Sinta sounds completely different than anyone...Even Jean-Marie Londeix (besides similarities of vibrato intensity <which is common among many French wind players>) has a sound completely removed from Mule's...For the saxophone community to continue to move forward, less thought should be given to "schools." We should honor the original intention of Sax: make the saxophone the most beautiful-sounding of all instruments, however you see fit.

Answer:
Saxman_aja-
I agree with you one hundred percent about getting too caught up in "schools." Dogma is never a good thing, each school has something to offer and the smart saxophonist will take what they like from each and become their own player. That said, I personally have a history background and find attempting to trace these schools through their development a fascinating (though perhaps fruitless) journey. I don't think uncovering lineage will determine a "correct" approach, but I do think it can make us hear things in an instrument that before we couldn't. For instance, that Mule's first attempts at playing vibrato in a classical context were based on his conception of jazz and not a violin vibrato is amazing to me (I didn't know this before this thread got going). Understanding the germs that sprout into these "schools" provides a conceptual foundation and justifications to whatever unique sounds we develop.
Perhaps on a more objective front, I'm still curious about the first mouthpiece chamber experiments. Vaudeville or Jazz?
Did you know that Arnold Brilhart played side by side with Rudy Wiedoeft? Talk about one generation of innovators passing the torch to the next!

Answer:
I think it is pretty clear that the redesign of the mouthpiece chamber was a direct link to jazz and the need to have a brighter/edgier sound to compete with the brasses. The reasons are that prior to the early 1930's, I know of no saxophone mouthpieces made that did not have the excavated chamber. Vaudville was out of vogue long before that time period. Early recordings of Mule do not exhibit a bright sound that he was later associated.