Source: en.wikipedia.org Photo by William P. Gottlieb
I’ve been on the Contrabass email list for more than a decade now, and every once in a while someone posts a message to the group that I find incredibly informative. Take for example, yesterday’s note sent out to the group by Phil. Phil found a recording on YouTube of Sidney Bechet playing a bass sarrusophone.
Now we all know that Sidney Bechet was a pioneer in jazz soprano saxophone playing, and that prior to that, he was an accomplished clarinetist. But how many of us knew that he ever played sarrusophone, let alone bass sarrusophone? Certainly not me. Yet in this 1924 recording of Mandy Make Up Your Mind, Bechet plays not only his soprano saxophone, but also the bass sarrusophone.
I don’t know about you, but to me that bass sarrusophone sounds an awful lot like a bass saxophone. Take a listen to this recording of the California Ramblers, and see if Adrian Rollini’s bass saxophone playing sounds much different.
Take away the clarity of sound difference between the two recordings, and do you hear a difference? I don’t hear a difference. It does make me wonder why the bass sarrusophone didn’t catch on more.
I can see why the bass saxophone ended up on the endangered species list. They are a pain to pack around, and if you wear the horn around your neck, they are literally a real pain in the neck.
The bass sarrusophone on the other hand, would be much smaller, lighter in weight, and easier to move from place to place. Bands could still have that reedy bass sound, without having to pack around a case the size of a child’s coffin. And since the fingering system is almost the same, a bass sax player could pick up the bass sarrusophone in no time at all. It does make me wonder why the sarrusophone has become nearly extinct. 
It’s actually a contrabass sarrusophone Bechet played on “Mandy.” Presumably a Conn, unless he brought a French instrument back to the states with him earlier in the’20s.
The contrabass, in EEb, has the same range as a contrabass sax, going to the lowest Db on a piano. We know Sidney is playing one because he hits a low Eb three times in the last chorus – the last time as the last note of the performance.
Now to why Bechet – or anyone – didn’t adopt the sarrusophone in great numbers…
– I agree that the difficulty of playing loudly would have been a killer, if true (I’ve never tried one).
– The double-reed issue was yes and no. Conn and others marketed single-reed mouthpieces. Bechet is probably using one on “Mandy.” They didn’t give the best tone – his sounds somewhat reminiscent of an outsized kazoo attached to household plumbing – but had he worked longer with the instrument he presumably could have refined that sound to be less cloggy and more robust.
– The biggest factor, I feel, is musicians’ inherent conservatism about gear. Especially gear with new sounds, or meant to play very high or very low in relation to a vocal or “solo” register. We’re all fascinated by esoteric instruments, but whether we devote themselves to them is a matter of fitting in with convention esthetically, and of course pre-existing demand economically. We can’t make people want to hear a sarrusophone or anything else they are unfamiliar with, and of course keeping up your technique and expression on conventional instruments is already a full-time job, with uncertain returns…
That’s a rather polite yet accurate description of what one can expect from a contrabass sarrusophone. Frank Zappa infamously described it as “a baritone sax with the drizzly shits.”
I play one, and I must confess that its utter lack of decorum or dignity is a large part of its charm. The entire family is designed for use in military bands at outdoor events. I would never describe their sound as timid or delicate.
p
In addition to the matter of volume, I also note a significant difference in tone. While both Bechet and Rollini played in a somewhat similar style for the recordings in question, the sarrusophone has a significantly more “reedy” tone and cannot match the sonority of the bass saxophone. While there is a matter of preference involved, I feel that, in every recording of bass or contrabass sarrusophone that I have heard, the sarrusophone sounds quite “muddy.”
Mastering issues aside, I do hear the difference in the attack (the first two milliseconds or so of an articulated sound) between the two. That could be a difference in technique between two musicians, or a difference in the application of balancing amplifiers (compressors and limiters) between two different mastering engineers, but I am more inclined to believe that it involves two different instruments. Had I not been told that it was a sarrusophone, I would have guessed it had been a narrow-bore bassoon.
One of the reasons for the demise of the sarrusophone as a popular instrument is the fussiness of preparing and maintaining double reeds, not to mention the balance required in developing and maintaining a double-lipped embouchure.
Aside: it is not necessarily so that one cannot play a narrow-bore instrument with a sound that has a solid core and projects well.
Interesting note and enjoyable listening on Bechet and the sarrusophone, Rollini on bass sax. Agree, nice bass sax sound and would be fun to play the s’phone. BTW, the Youtube addresses you give only worked for me if I dropped the “v” from “httpv” and removed the “.” from “youtu.be” in the first address. Am sure others figured that out too. Thanks again for the post.
One word answer: Volume.
Longer answer: Saxophones are a lot louder than sarrusophones, just as they are louder than bassoons (though the tiny holes on a bassoon don’t help). It’s the width of the cone — narrower cones are going to use less material and weigh less, and have fewer mechanical issues from the smaller holes, but they’re just not going to produce as much sound. In those pre-amplification days, every instrument was fighting to be heard and balance was always an issue. (Look at the evolution of violins if you want evidence.)
I don’t know if you recall when I got to try a Tubax at Winter NAMM 2010, but the gist of it was that it SOUNDS fine, it PLAYS fine, but any attempt to play louder than a strong mezzo-forte is met with an ever-increasing back pressure and a big NOPE. This wouldn’t be a huge issue if playing it in a horn line with microphones and/or pickups, but it does mean it’s no substitute for a contrabass saxophone in an acoustic setting. The reason is the same — smaller cone angle, and a smaller reed (and in this case, mouthpiece). These problems are going to be magnified in a sarrusophone.
Bechet was playing his bass sarrusophone from a “front line” position, close to the machine cutting the record, since he was primarily a soprano sax player (very much a front-line instrument). On the California Ramblers recording, you can hear where Rollini steps forward for his solo, then backs away to blend back into the ensemble. It works quite well, but it wouldn’t do much for projecting in an acoustic setting, or for being heard by other band members, if he had to do that all the time to be heard.