[Dixielandjazz] Sarrusophones

[Jim O'Briant]

Tom Belmessieri wrote:

> Thanks for the info. Joe.  

It's probably more than anyone really wanted to know, but you're welcome!

> Is this instrument similar to the opheclide, an 1850 
> French instrument that uses a mouthpiece similar to 
> that of the trombone or baritone?  They look similar 
> except for the mouthpiece.

There's only a superficial similarity of appearance.  Both stand upright
like a bassoon; both are made of brass; both have pads resembling those on a
Saxophone.  

As you mention, one major difference is that the Sarrusophone produces sound
through the vibration of a double reed (or single reed using the substitute
mouthpiece), whereas the Ophicleide produces sound through the vibration of
the player's embouchure in a cup mouthpiece, approximately the same as a
trombone or euphonium mouthpiece.

The other principal difference is that the Sarrusophone's fingerings make
sense and the Ophicleide's fingerings don't.

As mentioned in an earlier note, Sarrusophone fingerings are very much like
Saxophone fingerings.  Most individual tone holes default to the "open"
position, and depressing the key closes the hole.  As the player raises or
lowers fingers in order, from top to bottom and back up, in general, the
pitch goes from high to low to high.

On the Ophicleide, all tone holes save one default to the "closed" position.
Opening each pad in order, moving from the bell toward the mouthpiece,
raises the pitch by 1/2 step.  But the mechanism is wholly unsophisticated,
so to play an ascending chromatic scale one depresses keys with the
following fingers, in this order (for an Ophicleide in C):

C     - No fingers depressed
C#/Db - Left Middle Finger
D     - Left Middle Finger + Left Thumb
D#/Eb - Add Left Ring Finger
E     - Add Right Thumb & First Finger
F     - Add Right Little Finger
F#/Gb - Add Right Ring Finger

...and so on and so forth.

I maintain that Sax and Boehm developed their fingering systems because they
saw how terrible the Ophicleide was.  (Incidentally, the Ophicleide is older
than you suggest; it was invented in 1819 and Patented in 1821.)

The two instruments also produce very different sounds.  Well-played, an
Ophicleide can sound rather like a baritone or euphonium, but a little less
mellow and with less projection.  Poorly played, it can sound rather like a
cow in misery.

As of the tone of the Sarrusophone, another website says this:

"The tone of the sarrusophone is less clear but much more reedier than that
of the saxophone. In humorous terms, the sarrusophone can be said to sound
rather 'industrial' or perhaps 'unrefined.'"

To me, that's not only humorous, it's also quite charitable. 

But I've never heard a Sarrusophone before this past weekend, and so I can't
comment on whether other players sound like what we all heard, or sound
better, or sound worse.  Also, I can't comment on what a Sarrusophone sounds
like when played with a double rather than a single reed.

Bill Gunter wrote:

> ... I will henceforth regard the instrument with more 
> respect and instead of making rude and thoughtless 
> remarks about the sarrusonphone's overall ugliness 
> in appearance and sound I will simply shoot Pete Main!

Please don't do that.  He seems like such a nice person. 

Jim O'Briant
Tuba (& Ophicleide & Serpent & other stuff)
Gilroy, CA