Why is the "Bb Bis" Key on Saxophones Named That Way?

Saxophones are not designed with a lot of alternate fingerings, but the note Bb is an exception - the Bb on the center line, and the Bb above the staff (same fingerings, plus the octave key) have 5 different possibilities. The most useful of these is the "bis" fingering, with the first finger of the left hand holding down both the B key and the little "bis" key directly below it.

I'd always wondered why the bis key had that name. I knew it meant "again" in French, but that didn't completely answer my question. This last summer I had the pleasure of meeting Xavier Sibre, a French sax/clarinet player who was visiting in Silicon Valley for a couple of weeks. He's back in Paris now. It occurred to me that Xavier might be able to give me a good answer to the "bis" etymology question, so I emailed him. Here's his answer:

Actually yes, "bis" means something in French. It means "double" as in the double of something already existing. For example, you would find a house on number 3 of a street and another house on 3 would be called 3bis. So concerning the Bb it means the bis key is like a second option towards the same result ;-) if you see what I mean. Just like a Bb number 2.

As nearly as I can tell, the first saxophones c. 1845 used a Bb fingering with the first two fingers of the LH, plus a RH side key, as on clarinet. According to Fred Hemke's 1975 dissertation "The Early History of the Saxophone," an 1886 patent application described a mechanism that allowed a Bb with LH first finger plus either first, second, or third finger of the RH (as on modern saxophones). In 1887, the bis key is described in a patent granted to Evette and Schaeffer, "allowing the Bb to be fingered with the first finger left hand alone."

In high school, my lessons were mostly on clarinet, from Paul Pone, who was an accomplished classical clarinetist, but not really a sax player, or a jazz guy. In college I signed on with Eddy Flenner, who was both a saxophonist and a jazz player. At my first lesson with Eddy, he asked me to play an F major scale for two octaves. I did, and Eddy asked me, "Why didn't you use the bis key?" I said, "What's that?" I had to spend some practice time learning to use it.

I teach students to use the bis Bb in most situations. Exceptions would be when going chromatically between B and Bb (usually the side fingering is better), and in a few rare situations (usually arpeggios when 1 and 1, 1 and 2, or 1 and 3 offers some advantage). If intonation needs to be adjusted, it's useful to remember that bis Bb is a little sharper than the other fingerings.

Here's a discussion of "bis" etymology from Sax on the Web - but I think Xavier's answer is about as clear as it could be.

A Close-up View of Reeds

In a previous post, I cited an article in The Clarinet magazine by Michael J. Montague that described a way of examining and evaluating reed cane, using an inexpensive "Jewelers Loupe" magnifier. I ordered the magnifier and checked out the method, and can now report back.

All you need for this is three sheets of wet-or-dry sandpaper (#320, #400, and #600 grit), and a magnifier (40x preferred; comes with a little LED light) that sells for around $5.00. Sand the stock-end of the reed, first with the #320, then #400, then #600, to obtain a smooth finish (lubricate the sandpaper with a little water), then examine the end-surface with the magnifier. You will see cross-sections of the "vascular bundles," appearing as dark rings. Quoting a web article by Marilyn Veselak, "Each vascular bundle consists of a ring of fiber cells surrounding the xylem and phloem. The vascular bundles are what the woodwind musician refers to as the 'fiber' or 'grain' of the reed."

According to Montague, citing two other studies, as well as his own experience, the rings should be complete; if the cane has any incomplete rings at all, it is "not optimal for use." He notes that he examined three boxes of Vandoren V12 clarinet reeds, one each of #2.5, #3.5, and #5+. He found that the average percentage of discontinuous rings was 17.4%, 10.9%, and 3.9% respectively. This might suggest that stiffer cane is better cane. I'm not so sure that this is as simple as it sounds; I have not had much luck taking down hard reeds to the medium strength that I like on my tenor setup.

Below are some photos looking through the magnifier, of three different tenor saxophone reeds: a Prestini #5, a Vandoren Java #3, and a La Voz medium soft.

Prestini #5 tenor

Vandoren Java #3 tenor

La Voz medium soft tenor

The Vandoren Java seems to have a somewhat more even distribution of rings, with evenly-distributed smaller rings towards the bark of the reed. I do think that Vandoren reeds are generally higher-quality than Prestini or La Voz (that is to say, they usually seem to work better for me). I could guess that the apparent structure is a factor.

I've looked at a sampling of brands, strengths, and cuts; as you might expect, the cheaper reeds seem to be made from cane with less regular structure, and more discontinuous rings. I have a few Rico reeds from an old box I got from a music store that was going out of business, that seemed to be marked as dating from 1969. The structure was similar to the Prestini reed pictured above. A more recent Rico reed looked very much the same.

I don't really have enough information yet to say definitively which visual qualities make for better reeds. Some day, if I ever have the time, I'd like to make a more detailed study, and assemble a gallery of photos - many brands, many strengths, and noting whether each reed played well or not - then see if any conclusions can be drawn. Or maybe some reader would like to take on that project. It would cost you about $8.00 for a magnifier and three sheets of sandpaper. If you do, please let me know how it turns out.

Why Good Reeds Go Bad

After re-reading the excellent article by James Kopp that is mentioned in my last post, I ordered a copy of “The Clarinet Reed: An Introduction to Its Chemistry, Biology, and Physics,” a DMA dissertation by Donald Casadonte, and one of Kopp’s main sources of information. Although the dissertation goes into details of chemistry and math that are a bit deep for me, it offers answers to some important questions about reeds - including exactly how reeds “go bad.”

Here is my current view of the process of reed aging, drawing on this dissertation, other sources, and my own experience:

1) As shipped from the factory, a commercial reed is a dried shell of what was once a living cane plant (Arundo donax). When it is first played, the reed’s cells absorb water, becoming “hydrated.” Elasticity increases, and the reed begins to play more easily.

2) The introduction of moisture then leads to the beginning of our problems: The reed swells up, and not in a predictable or uniform way, since each piece of cane has a different structure. The reed acquires warps, and may play with more difficulty. Once this deformation takes place, the reed will not return to its original state, even after drying.

Generally, the thicker part of the vamp swells the most. Note that this is the part that sits below the “window” of the mouthpiece as the instrument is being played, and is therefore exposed to quite a bit of moisture.

Here is where the art of reed adjustment would come in.

Very few clarinet and saxophone players keep reeds permanently wet, or allow them to become fully hydrated (soaked). Generally, we just dampen them to some degree. This means that swelling will happen gradually, over a number of playing sessions. Thus, many players will make gradual adjustments (using a reed knife, sandpaper, clipper, etc.), over several playing sessions, to stabilize the reed.

Excessive hydration has a negative effect. You may have noticed that after an hour or so of continuous playing, a reed will begin to play “softer,” losing crispness of attack and projection, due to excessive saturation with saliva. The next day, that same reed might play well again, after drying somewhat.

However, reeds must be at least partially hydrated to respond well - hence the use of humidifiers (commercially available, or just a piece of orange peel in the box). Playing on a reed a little each day will also maintain humidity, unless the weather is particularly dry.

3) Over time, as it is played, the reed’s ability to absorb water decreases, and the reed’s shape stabilizes. According to Casadonte, this is because hemicellulose, a major component of reed cell walls that aids in the absorption of water, is degraded as the reed is played.

A new reed will often have a “sweet” taste; Casadonte speculates that this is due to the presence of AMDX, the primary hemicellulose in reeds. This taste goes away as the reed is broken in, and the AMDX breaks down.

4) As the reed ages, its surface becomes coated with deposits of matter (calcium, etc.) from evaporated saliva, further preventing the reed from absorbing water, reducing its resiliency. In addition, saliva contains ammonia and other alkali, which cause the cane to become “softer.”

Bacteria also begin to colonize the reed surface (mostly Staphylococcus epidermidis, a harmless and normal part of human skin flora).

Besides impeding the absorption of moisture, these substances add mass to the reed tip, causing further loss of resiliency.

An anecdote: Over the years, I noticed that some students’ reeds had some kind of black growth on them. One day I mentioned this to an adult student, Alan G., a dermatologist. Alan said, “Aspergillus niger.” He explained to me that this a fungus that lives in soil, and in the environment. Some individuals harbor it naturally, and harmlessly, in their mouth. This proclivity is an inherited trait. That cleared up one reed mystery! This problem can be minimized by keeping reeds clean, rinsing and drying them after playing.

For all of us, bacteria growth and saliva deposits can be minimized by hydrating the reed with tap water when possible before playing, and by keeping the reed clean and relatively dry between sessions. Occasionally, you might want to lightly scrape "crud" off the surface with a thumbnail or with a reed knife. In the later stage of a reed's life, it can be somewhat rejuvenated by briefly soaking it in a hydrogen peroxide/water solution, and then rinsing and drying - but this is a very temporary fix.

By the way, Casadonte notes that since inability to absorb water is a cause of reed deterioration, “sealing” reeds (by rubbing, or waxing) may not be a good idea. Of course, many experienced players would disagree (personally, I don't seal my reeds).

This reminds me of a practice used over the years by some players: moistening reeds with vodka or gin, sometimes mixed with water, and sometimes even leaving the reeds permanently wet, stored in an alcohol/water mixture. This and other reed preservation issues are discussed in this interesting forum thread, which includes posts from Casadonte and from a contributor who worked at Rico Reeds for 15 years.

5) As the reed is played, it will gradually develop a bend towards the mouthpiece facing. At the beginning this might be a good thing, improving the seal between reed and facing. But over time, the tip opening will become more closed, and the reed will respond poorly. Sometimes a little more life can be coaxed out of the reed by inserting a business card (or other flat piece of cardboard or plastic) between the reed and the mouthpiece facing, and bending the reed slightly upwards, away from the mouthpiece, for 10-20 seconds or so. However, this also is a very temporary fix.

All reeds will eventually wear out, due to the factors described here. But reed life can be prolonged, and their “quality of life” improved, by hydrating with water rather than saliva, by adjusting, and by keeping them clean.

If you would like to order a copy of the dissertation by Donald Casadonte, you can do so at proquest.com.

Here is a link to the James Kopp article mentioned at the start of this post - addressed to bassoonists, but with information that applies to all reed players.

Finally, here is an article of mine, surveying several books about single-reed adjustment.

A Method for Evaluating Reed Cane

The December 2012 issue of The Clarinet (my favorite quarterly) has an interesting article by Michael J. Montague and Tina Ward: "Reeds: Good or Bad? It's in the Cane - An Inside View of Arundo Donax L." The article describes a method of evaluating reed cane by magnifying a cut cross-section of a reed or a piece of cane, and examining its visual characteristics.

All reed players dream the impossible dream of always having wonderful reeds to play on, so this is potentially valuable information for us!

If you hold a reed up to the light, you will see "fibers" of darker material running lengthwise. These are "vascular bundles." Each one is a sheath ("fiber ring") containing tubes that carried water and nutrients when the cane was a living plant. The butt end of a reed is a cut cross-section of the cane. By sanding and polishing this surface, one can see (with a magnifier) a cross-section of every fiber ring. According to Montague, unbroken rings make for good cane, while a high proportion of broken rings would signify cane with poor potential. Anyone can perform this examination, using a glass surface, sandpaper, and a 40x magnifying lens.

See this article by Marilyn Veselak for a picture of a clarinet reed cross-section, showing the fiber rings.

Montague cites two previous scientific studies that found a correlation between intact fiber rings and cane quality ("good reeds"); one of this article's contributions is the "anyone-can-do-it" method of evaluating cane.

Montague notes that after examining three boxes of Vandoren V12 clarinet reeds (2.5, 3.5, and 5+), he discovered that "softer reeds have more discontinuous rings. The average was 17.4%, 10.9%, and 3.9%, respectively, for strengths 2.5, 3.5, and 5+." Thus, if one uses commercial reeds, it might be better to start with a stiffer strength - which would give better odds of quality cane - and then adjust the reed to one's preference.

Or by taking a few minutes to examine the reeds, one could eliminate those with poor potential (i.e., those with discontinuous, or broken rings).

I haven't worked with this method yet.

As the article notes, commercial reeds are apparently all cut with the same machines, to the same proportions, regardless of strength. They are then graded for flexibility ("hardness"), and boxed accordingly. Montague states that "hardness is a property of the cane itself." My own impression is that harder reeds tend to have thicker fiber rings; the fiber rings (and the bark) are the hardest components of the cane.

Over the last few years, I've been trying to develop my reed-adjusting skills, and it's going well. I've improved my percentage of playable reeds considerably. While I've been working on single reeds of all sizes, I've put the most time in on tenor sax reeds. The tenor mouthpiece I've been using is a Jody Jazz 8*. It blows much more easily than than the 8* designation would suggest, for whatever reason. To find reeds that work with this setup, I usually start with a batch of Vandoren Java 2.5 or 3 reeds, then put them through a 4- or 5- day adjustment procedure (see this article). Starting with harder reeds than that has not worked well - when I thin a hard reed as much as is necessary to make it playable on this setup, the tone suffers. I don't think that starting with #5 reeds would work for me. I'd say that more factors are at work than just thick, or continuous, fiber rings.

But I'll certainly buy myself a magnifier, get out the sandpaper, and check out this method. I'll report back.

This article is not accessible online. If you are interested in joining the ICA and receiving The Clarinet, here is the link. Members can access back issues.

And here is an absolutely terrific article on cane, by James Kopp. It's aimed at bassoonists, but has info relevant to all reed players; includes another fiber ring closeup.

Update: I got the magnifier and worked with it a bit; here's my report.

"Must-Know" Blues Tunes: Comparing Lists

For various reasons, my "consensus" list of must-know jazz standards (see my post from Sept. 9, 2012) turned out to be short on blues. This was partially because of the nature of the lists I was comparing, and partially because there are so many blues heads, most of them using generic blues chord progressions. (We are talking about "jazz blues" here, of course - not Mississippi Delta, Chicago blues, '50s rock, etc.)

In this post I will try to find a consensus on which are the most essential blues tunes to learn. This time I have a few additional lists of "must-know" tunes to compare.

Madisonjazzjam.org has a page with 7 "must-know" lists, from 1) The author of the page, 2) Jamey Aebersold, 3) Nick Drozdoff, 4) Pete Thomas, 5) Manhattan School of Music, 6) University of Oregon Jazz Studies Department, and 7) A group of Maryland colleges.

For the present discussion, I have compared 6 of the lists from madisonjazzjam.org, as well as the 6 sources I used in my September 9 post, extracting only blues tunes. Pete Thomas' list was one of the 6 that I had already used, so I didn't count it a second time. Also, one of my sources (Bert Ligon's list) itself incorporated suggestions from "several" jazz educators. So I suppose I'm comparing "must-know" lists from at least 14 different sources.

The results are below. Nine "hits" means that the tune showed up in nine of the lists, eight "hits" means it showed up in eight lists, etc. I don't find too much to disagree with in these results, at least down through the two-hit list. Personally, I'd only vote for about half the tunes on the one-hit list.

Jazz students (that's all of us, right?) should probably try to know most of these blues heads, all the way down to the two-hit list, and a few more besides.

How did these particular blues tunes become "must-knows"? I'd say through a process that involves these factors: 1) inclusion in some landmark recordings, 2) inclusion in well-known fake books, 3) status as popular jam vehicles, 4) the quality of the tunes, 5) if they are easy to learn, 6) currency in the world of jazz education. Of course, these routes to popularity overlap, and influence each other.

9 hits: Billie's Bounce 

8 hits: Mr. P.C. 

7 hits: All Blues, Blue Monk, Tenor Madness 

6 hits: Footprints, Now's the Time, Straight No Chaser 

5 hits: C Jam Blues, Things Ain't What They Used To Be, Watermelon Man 

4 hits: Stolen Moments 

3 hits: Au Privave, Blue Train, Cool Blues, Cousin Mary, Misterioso, Sandu 

2 hits: 

Bags' Groove
Birks' Works
Blues for Alice
Blues Walk
Equinox
Freddie Freeloader
Night Train
One O'Clock Jump
The Sidewinder
Some Other Blues
Sonnymoon for Two
West Coast Blues 

One hit: 

Beale St. Blues
Bessie's Blues
Blue 'n Boogie
Blue Seven
Blues for Alice
Blues On the Corner
Cheryl
Eighty-One
Isotope
No Blues
Red Top
Royal Garden Blues
St. Louis Blues
Society Red
Tin Roof Blues
Walkin'
West End Blues

Andrew White, "The Living Legend"

If you are a jazz person, and you are not already familiar with Andrew White, this post is for you. I'm putting it up here because Andrew does not have a web presence befitting his stature, and his work might be interesting to some readers.

What can one say about Andrew White that has not already been said...by himself? Here are some of his self-descriptions:

“The world’s leading authority on the music of John Coltrane”

“Living Legend of Music Historiography”

“Renaissance Man of Music”

“the enormous and unquestionable prowess of the highest acclaimed, irrepressible, legendary, leading saxophonist of the day”

“the ultimate bad-assed-Zorro-Super-sax”

“I am considered to be the world’s most voluminously self-industrialized artist in history and possess one of the greatest minds of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.”

“the legendary self-purported genius”

“the master himself, 'Mr. Bionic Saxophone', 'Mr. Saxophonitis', 'Mr. Vocalese Buz', 'Jaws White', and 'Mr. Musical Achiever of the ’70’s and ’80’s' ”


Well, that’s all true, allowing for just a little self-promotional hyperbole. Andrew White is best known as the man who has transcribed virtually every John Coltrane solo that was ever recorded. The transcriptions are accurate, and his musical calligraphy is good too. Andrew is also a world-class jazz saxophonist who has recorded with McCoy Tyner and toured/recorded with Elvin Jones; as a funk bassist he toured with Stevie Wonder and recorded with Weather Report; as a classical oboist he played for a couple of years with the American Ballet Theater.

And - of practical interest to you if you are a jazz player - Andrew runs a mail-order business selling his Coltrane transcriptions (also some transcribed solos by Charlie Parker, Eric Dolphy, and Andrew White), along with many self-produced recordings and various essays and treatises. The latter range from scholarly to humorous, sometimes both.

Andrew doesn’t do the internet. To enjoy his works, you will need to write him for his “Comprehensive Catalogue of Over 2500 Self-Produced Products.” Last time I checked, the catalog was priced at $10.00. You will easily derive $10.00 of amusement from the catalog alone. Then you can decide on the transcriptions, recordings, or prose works that interest you, and mail him an order.

Andrew has written an amusing and informative autobiography, “Everybody Loves the Sugar - The Book.” I'm reading it for the second time. Probably not too many people can make that claim. It is 794 pages of stories (often risqué, often humorous), opinions about the music industry, opinions about racism, opinions about "jazz education," various other digressions, and of course self-promotion, all in the context of autobiography.

The book reminds me of a medieval tome. It's a large book, typewritten (on a typewriter). Andrew does not do word processors. It is written in a colloquial style, and not meticulously edited for spelling. Personally, I dig Andrew's writing (as well as his musical work). It's not for everybody. However, if you want to try to understand where he is coming from...

For a taste of his prose, here is a link to "Chicken Alto," a great story from "Everybody Loves the Sugar."

For catalogs and products, you can contact Andrew White at:


Andrew’s Musical Enterprises
4830 S. Dakota Ave., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20017
phone: (202) 526-3666
fax: (202) 526-4013


Although Andrew does not maintain a web presence and seems to dislike computers, here are a few more links that you might want to check out:

Andrew's Wikipedia entry

A youtube video - "Giant Steps" and "Everything I Have is Yours"

Another video - Andrew talks about "Improvisation on the Bandstand"

Andrew's statement acknowledging the "Benny Golson Jazz Master Award"

A great recent article on the CapitalBop site, including some old and new recordings - Listen!

Paul de Ville, Continued

Happy New Year!

The web has yielded up some more arcane Paul de Ville data! Google Books has not yet gotten around to scanning in any of his publications from c.1900, but has posted copies of two old Carl Fischer publications with references to de Ville’s products. (Sax players, of course, know de Ville as the author of the still-popular "Universal Method for Saxophone" - see my Dec.19 post.)

The first is “The Band Teacher’s Assistant, or Complete and Progressive Band Instructor,” copyright 1888, by Arthur A. Clappé (a well-respected bandmaster and author, in his time). Google copied it from the Stanford Music Library. It’s full of information that every band director needs. For example, did you know that “clarionets” should be oiled lightly with salad oil once a month, and the joints greased periodically with a little deer tallow? (What was “salad oil,” exactly, in 1888?)

My old clarinet teacher, Paul Pone, who started playing in Italy in the 1910s or 1920s, once told me that his mom used to make cork grease by straining lamb chop fat through a piece of cloth. He added that if you ever run out of cork grease, “you’ve always got a little right here,” rubbing a finger on the side of his nose.

Anyway, the Clappé book includes an appendix listing “Best Methods and Studies for Wind Instruments.” There we find the “Eclipse Self-Instructors” by Paul de Ville - for flute, piccolo, clarinet, cornet, Eb alto (horn, that is, not saxophone), Bb tenor (horn), baritone, tuba, and drums. These are priced at 60 cents each. There is also “Carl Fischer’s New and Revised Tutor” for Eb cornet, by de Ville, listed at $1.25.

The Clappé appendix also lists “Universal Methods” by de Ville, for flute, saxophone, trombone, baritone/euphonium, and xylophone. These are priced at between $2.00 and $4.00; I assume that the price varied with the size of the book.

The second book is “The Practical Band Arranger: A Systematic Guide for Thorough Self-Instruction,” by L. P. Laurendeau, copyright 1911. It seems to have come from the New York Public Library. This would have been a pretty decent introduction to theory and arranging, for someone wanting to arrange music for their town band in 1911.

As far as Paul de Ville goes, the interesting part of this book is the section at the end that advertises Carl Fischer products. Here we find listings for “Universal Methods” for flute, saxophone, trombone, harp, baritone/euphonium, drums, and xylophone. All are by de Ville except the harp method. There is also a list of “Eclipse Self-Instructors” for violin, cello, string bass, piccolo, flute, clarinet, cornet, alto horn, tenor horn in treble or bass clef, slide trombone (treble or bass), valve trombone (treble or bass), baritone horn (treble or bass), tuba, Bb Bass (treble or bass), Melo horn, drums, fife, mandolin, guitar, and banjo. No specific author is listed for these, so we can’t be sure how many were written by de Ville.

The Eclipse books were priced at 50 cents each in 1911, down from 60 cents in the 1888 book. Was there deflation between 1888 and 1911? According to Wikipedia, perhaps: "Between 1875 and 1896...prices fell in the United States by 1.7% a year." But then again, the appendix of "Best Methods" in Clappé's 1888 book also lists the 1908 "Universal Method for Saxophone" - so the appendix must have been revised (or added) in a later printing, maybe some years after 1911.

As you can see, I’m into saxophone trivia. If anyone has any biographical info on Paul de Ville, please send a comment (below).

Paul De Ville: His Saxophone and Banjo Methods

I came across this copy of Paul de Ville's "The Eclipse Self-Instructor for Banjo" (1905) at a sheet music give-away. Sax players will recognize Paul de Ville (or deVille) as the author of the "Universal Method for Saxophone" (1908), a very good instruction book that is still in wide use today. I wondered for a moment if this could be the same person - but of course it is. How many Paul de Villes, writing music instruction books in 1905-1908, could there have been?

On the first page of the banjo book is a "Dictionary of the Principal Words Used in Modern Music." An identical list, under the title "A List of the Principal Words Used in Modern Music," appears on page 13 of the saxophone book. The next page of the banjo book starts a section called "Rudiments of Music." I thought that looked familiar as well. In fact, there is a "Rudiments of Music" section in the saxophone book too. The subjects, layout, and wording are similar but not identical, as though de Ville had revised his 1905 banjo version for the 1908 saxophone book.

Banjo book

  

But wait! My edition of H. Klosé's "Celebrated Method for the Clarinet" also has a similar "Rudiments of Music" section at the beginning of the book. And "A List of the Principal Words Used in Modern Music," the same list exactly, appears in Klosé, on page 120. 

All three books were (or are) published by Carl Fischer. It looks as though it was company policy to include a standardized "Rudiments" section. Incidentally, on the Petrucci site I found a free download of an 1879 English language edition of the Klosé (pub. Jean White). Comparing it to my 1946 "Revised and Enlarged by Simeon Bellison" edition, it's possible to make some guesses as to which parts of the Klosé were simply lifted by Carl Fischer from the earlier Jean White edition (e.g., most of the wording in the translation from French to English), which parts may have been added in early Carl Fischer editions, (e.g., the "Rudiments" section) and which parts may have been added or rewritten by Simeon Bellison (substitution of less antiquated wording, much extra musical content).

So, back to the banjo book - after the 8-page Rudiments section, de Ville has 3 pages on how to play the instrument, followed by 8 pages of short exercises. Then he gets right down to business, with 139 "Standard, National, and Operatic Melodies." This would have been a pretty cool song collection for most Americans in 1905: Irish, civil war, minstrel show, Gilbert and Sullivan, Verdi, Stephen Foster, jigs, polkas. By comparison, the saxophone book is rather dry - no popular songs at all. I imagine that de Ville modelled the sax book after "serious" classical method books, like Klosé, or the Arban trumpet method.

According to an article on www.concertina.net, de Ville published "Eclipse Self-Instructor" books for accordion, concertina, banjo, flute, clarinet, guitar, mandolin, trombone, piano, saxophone, and violin, between 1893 and 1906. The concertina book is still in print (as are the later 1908 "Universal Method" and the Klosé clarinet method, of course).

De Ville seems to have taken his saxophone "Universal Method" seriously, more so anyway than the banjo book. It's aimed at students with patience and discipline, rather than at those just interested in playing popular songs. The "Eclipse" and "Universal" series were aimed at different sorts of customers.

It's interesting that de Ville, and the Carl Fischer company, thought that the saxophone was worthy of a method with a "serious" approach (and that it would sell). As to why that might be, I'm thinking about the social status of the saxophone in 1908. The popularity of the instrument at that time would have been based on its use in the very popular Patrick Gilmore (active 1848-1892) and John Philip Sousa (active 1880-1932) bands, and in thousands of town bands playing similar music at the time. The saxophone's ascendency in pop culture via vaudeville (e.g., the Six Brown Brothers, 1910s) and early commercial recordings (Rudy Wiedoeft, late 1910s and early 1920s) was still in the future. Jazz saxophone came even later.

De Ville is listed as having revised the Lazarus clarinet method c.1900 (Eastman library). In his Author's Note at the beginning of the "Universal Method for Saxophone," he calls the saxophone "my favorite instrument." Maybe he was a single-reed guy.

More about De Ville in my next post.