OK, I'll bite, I'm an experienced Finale user, but I'm also: ... a baritone saxophonist who plays a low A bari; ... a bass clarinetist who plays a low C bass clarinet; ... a flutist who plays a professional low B flute;
And I'm the solo piccoloist with the Disneyland Band, with a Burkart piccolo that goes down to --- low D! The ONLY woodwind instruments that have "extended" ranges that work are bari sax, bass clarinet and flute. The extended-range piccolo is in the same dust bin of history as the "low A alto sax". Recently, Nagahara started trying to make a low B piccolo for performers attempting to accurately reproduce one of Mahler's symphonies (apparently, Mahler wasn't all that astute when it came to woodwind orchestration). Once again, this instrument has been almost unanimously regarded as a failure. Bottom line: don't write below low D for piccolo UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!! (unless you want your music to sound like sh*t when performed). Brian Williams Solo Piccolo, Disneyland Band Anaheim, CA > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:01:40 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Finale Digest, Vol 51, Issue 26 > > Hello, all. > > Andrew Stiller's instrumentation book says 2% of piccolos have an > extended low range of c# and c-nat. If the player has an instrument with > an extension, I would like to write as low as c#, but of course I will > have to provide ossias that don't go below d. > > My question is, in the intervening ~25 years since Stiller wrote his > book, has the percentage changed? Is it one particular maker that > provides the extension? Does it affect the playing characteristics or > the sound? > > Any information about piccolo extensions is welcome. > > -- > Robert Patterson > > http://RobertGPatterson.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
