Tenor horn

[BflatBass]

In another thread someone mentioned their Kanstul 1662i bass so out of curiosity I go to the Kanstul website and I start poking around and I go to the "instruments" pull down menu and I see the usual trumpets, flugelhorns, trombones, etc. Then in the middle I see "tenor horn". I've never seen this before so I investigate and understandably it looks like a baritone horn but shaped slightly different.
My question for those in the know, where does this horn fit in the brass band or wind orchestra situation? And what do they sound like? I've always associated baritones and some euphoniums with trombones. The range is at least similar. But a tenor horn at least shares the same name as a tenor trombone. So is a baritone similar more to a bass trombone and a tenor horn to a tenor trombone? The baritone player in my community band plays parts with a range very similar to my 1st trombone parts. Where would the tenor horn fit? Are they very common?

[blast]

In another thread someone mentioned their Kanstul 1662i bass so out of curiosity I go to the Kanstul website and I start poking around and I go to the "instruments" pull down menu and I see the usual trumpets, flugelhorns, trombones, etc. Then in the middle I see "tenor horn". I've never seen this before so I investigate and understandably it looks like a baritone horn but shaped slightly different.
My question for those in the know, where does this horn fit in the brass band or wind orchestra situation? And what do they sound like? I've always associated baritones and some euphoniums with trombones. The range is at least similar. But a tenor horn at least shares the same name as a tenor trombone. So is a baritone similar more to a bass trombone and a tenor horn to a tenor trombone? The baritone player in my community band plays parts with a range very similar to my 1st trombone parts. Where would the tenor horn fit? Are they very common?

Tenor Horns sit above the baritone in the British brass band. It is pitched in Eb so think valve alto trombone, though the TH is smaller bore and played with a small rim, deep mouthpiece.... sort of scaled up French Horn mouthpiece.

Chris

[BGuttman]

In the US, these are usually referred to as "alto horns".

In the old Saxhorn ensemble, there is an instrument in Bb with a relatively small bore that is referred to as a "tenor horn". Parts written for one are usually given to the 1st and 2nd trombone, while the Bb bass is given to the 3rd trombone. The Bb bass is an instrument of the same size as a trombone, but with a wider bore than the Tenor or Baritone horn.

[Ted]

I'm surprised to see an altohorn described as an tenor horn. When I talk about tenor horns, I refer to the oval-shaped German baritones.

[ghmerrill]

I think the best quick way to get a grip on the current (European) distinctions among the tenor horn/alto horn/baritone horn/euphonium is to visit the Cerveny site ( http://www.cerveny.biz) and look at their product layout. Oval-shaped baritones are not (in this categorization) tenor horns. Cerveny currently uses both "baritone" (or "baryton") and "euphonium" to refer to the same instruments (though often in different places). These are distinct from the tenor horns. Both are distinct from the alto horns. These lines are drawn largely on the basis of bore size and (in the case of the alto horns) pitch.

Historically, there is much confusion about this terminology -- and variation, depending on whether one is taking a German/Czech-ish perspective or a British perspective, or a US perspective. From the historical US perspective, baritones and euphoniums are often or typically lumped together, but sometimes with a minor distinction based on bore size. In the case of British instruments, the baritone/euphonium distinction is historically much more pronounced and they are considered distinct instruments.

Sometimes people are very stubborn about these distinctions. As an example, I once had a very experienced repair tech (though himself a woodwind player) INSIST that my oval euphonium was a "tenor horn" because it was oval. There's just a lot of variation here, and context may need to be used in determining the meanings of these terms in practice.

At least that's my reading of the historical record and contemporary attitudes.

[LoremIpsum]

This link may be of help to understand how a tenor horn is used in a brass band context. It is an article focused on writing for brass bands (as viewed by Nigel Horne) and the main bits of interest are in the "parts" section.

[BflatBass]

Interesting stuff.
In one of Trent Hamilton's YouTube videos he talks about the difference between a baritone and a euphonium ( Here he states that the baritone's tubing stays consistent in size throughout (for the most part) whereas the euphonium's tubing increases in size throughout. In another video ( he compares a baritone horn to a tenor/alto horn. Here he says nothing about the tubing size in relation to taper or increase in size throughout for the tenor horn. To me the two horns sound very similar other than pitch.
The euphonium, tuba and to a lesser extent the french horn, sound very similar also. It's a more mellow or "roundish" tone compared to the baritone or tenor horn. The cimbasso has this "roundish" tone also in my opinion. I guess this would be similar to comparing a flugelhorn and a trumpet. The flugelhorn being more "roundish". Some call it a "darker" sound. Does the flugelhorn's tubing increase in size throughout like the euphonium?

Thanks for sharing knowledge.

[StevenC]

I guess this would be similar to comparing a flugelhorn and a trumpet. The flugelhorn being more "roundish". Some call it a "darker" sound. Does the flugelhorn's tubing increase in size throughout like the euphonium?

Yes. The bore of a flugelhorn is more conical than the bore of a cornet, which is more conical than the bore of a trumpet.

[blast]

Well, that's cleared everything up..... not.
There is much confusion because we are talking about instruments of different families.... tenor horns and British baritone horns are Saxhorns. Euphoniums are members of the tuba family. All are conical through their main body, but expand at different rates.

Chris

[2bobone]

I just thought I'd throw a bit more confusion into the mix ---- . I'm sure I posted this before but am equally sure that it was lost in the TTF to TC transition. I bought a Mirafone "Tenor Horn" new from Mirafone back in the late 50's ---- at least that is the way it was listed in their catalogue. It is the same instrument seen in use by the "Lonely Boy" of the Mnozil Brass. It is pitched in B Flat, has "sidewinder" valves and is VERY conical ----- so much so that I often referred to it as a Bass Flugelhorn ! It was used for everything from playing the baritone parts in a Salvation Army style brass band to the bass trumpet parts in Wagner and the Stravinsky Rite of Spring. I used to take it along on dance gigs where, once it was seen by the leader, I would be told to use it on every chart. The other members of the NSO section used to refer to it affectionately [ ? ] as the "Swinette" ! After these almost 60 years of ownership, I STILL don't know what to properly call it and have decided that it doesn't matter what it is called, since it's been so much fun having it around. Cheers !! Bob

[BGuttman]

I like "swinette". Is it rather porcine sounding?

I have something similar, but it's over 100 years old and has no maker mark on it. I'm pretty sure it's German, though.

[JohnL]

Well, that's cleared everything up..... not.
There is much confusion because we are talking about instruments of different families.... tenor horns and British baritone horns are Saxhorns. Euphoniums are members of the tuba family. All are conical through their main body, but expand at different rates.

And the expansion starts at different places along the length of the instrument (thus the old "if you can reverse the tuning slide, it's not a euphonium").

The funny thing is, there's quite a variation in tubas as far as rate of taper and the proportion of cylindrical vs. conical tubing, yet there doesn't seem to be nearly as much debate centered around the issue.

[Finetales]

Modern flugelhorns, British tenor horns, and British baritone horns are all saxhorns. Their mouthpieces are most certainly not like French horn mouthpieces - just think of a flugel piece (wide-ish rim, deep bowl cup) but larger and that's a tenor horn piece.

To further add to the confusion:

1. Some French makers still make bass saxhorns, which are the same pitch as baritones and euphoniums but fit somewhere in between (closer to euph) in bore and sound.
2. Although you could consider a British tenor horn an Eb alto flugelhorn and the British baritone a Bb bass flugelhorn (since they're all saxhorns), there are also actual alto and bass flugelhorns.
3. American alto horns are similar to British (Eb) tenor horns rather than German (oval) (Bb) tenor horns (but are often in F and with front-action valves and forward facing bells), and American (Bb) tenor horns are similar to British (Bb) baritone horns. But then there are American baritones and euphoniums too.

In a British brass band there are 3 tenor horns (Solo, 1st, and 2nd) and a flugelhorn that function as the middle voices in the band. The flugelhorn is a chameleon chair, sometimes playing with the cornets, sometimes as the top voice of the 4-voice middle choir with the tenor horns, and sometimes in unison with the Solo Horn. So the Solo Horn itself is sometimes the top voice of a 3-part (or more, if the baritone horns are added to the bottom) choir, or the 2nd voice of a 4-part choir. And of course both the flugelhorn and Solo Horn both have plenty of solo material.

Solo Horn in a British brass band is a really fun place to be!

[Kbiggs]

I may be pointing out the obvious here, but I believe there are several reasons why there is so much confusion about the names of instruments, in this case, the baritone, tenor, and alto horns, and the euphonium:

1. Form vs. function
2. Language
3. Tradition and history

These three reasons—and I’m certain there are others—often intersect to make the situation more confusing. Yet, the most confusing aspect is form vs. function.

For example, the British tenor horn is called an alto horn in the US. In the British brass band tradition (as has been explained above), the instrument serves (its function) as the tenor instrument within the saxhorn “choir” embedded in the larger band. In form, though, it is the same length as the instrument called an alto horn in the US.

To make matters more confusing, there is a very different instrument in the US: it’s a valve-front, bell-facing-left “baritone horn” commonly found in schools throughout the US. This is more of a hybrid instrument. It’s usually found with 3 pistons and a small bore shank. However, it sounds much more like a traditional euphonium than a US baritone or UK tenor horn.

Then, for an even more confusing twist, there are the German bariton/baryton* and the tenorhorn. They look the very similar, They have similar yet distinct bore profiles, and to the undiscerning ear they sound the same... yet they are distinct instruments in function: they play different parts in the German town- and military bands.

Finally, there is the tenor tuba. I believe this is a distinct instrument, as well as a distinct role or function. I believe that Strauss wrote for tenor tuba in Don Quixote, not a euphonium. However, very few people have a tenor tuba (I certainly don’t!), so it’s usually played on a... euphonium!

As I see it, it’s analogous to the modern bass trombone in Bb vs the “traditional” bass trombone in F (or Eb or G). They are all bass trombones—their function is the same—yet the form is slight different—they have different lengths.

Again, I think I’m stating the obvious. OTOH, I could be absolutely off-base about this.

*Not to be confused with the old 7- or 8-stringed “baryton” which is now obsolete except for period music groups.

[Zandit75]

In a British style brass band like the one I play in here in Australia, the Tenor Horn is one of those Colour Instruments.
Just like the Soprano Cornet, Flugel Horn and my Bass Trombone, the Tenor Horn adds a colour to the overall sound of the band.

To give you an idea of a British Style Brass Band make up, here is the full list(NB, if not mentioned all instruments are pitched in B flat)

Soprano Cornet - E flat
Solo Cornet
Repiano Cornet
2nd Cornet
3rd Cornet
Flugel Horn
Solo Tenor Horn - E flat
1st Tenor Horn - E flat
2nd Tenor Horn - E flat
1st Baritone
2nd Baritone
1st Euphonium
2nd Euphonium
1st Trombone
2nd Trombone
Bass Trombone
EE Flat Bass(Tuba) - E flat
BB Flat Bass(Tuba)
Percussion

Depending on the ruling bodies rulebook, most competition bands are allowed around 28 brass players plus percussion, so you will normally see several people on each of the cornet parts, and several Bass players also on each part. The final make up of the band is at the Band Masters discretion, and will reflect what he wants from the music being played.

[Finetales]

Finally, there is the tenor tuba. I believe this is a distinct instrument, as well as a distinct role or function. I believe that Strauss wrote for tenor tuba in Don Quixote, not a euphonium. However, very few people have a tenor tuba (I certainly don’t!), so it’s usually played on a... euphonium!

To make things even more confusing, If I remember correctly Holst wrote for euphonium in the Planets but labeled the part Tenor Tuba. The Strauss parts are all actually for tenor tuba.

[ghmerrill]

Apropos the various distinctions above and remarks about tubas and tuba-like things ...

Euphoniums are the "baritone voice" in the tuba family, which otherwise consists of bass (F, Eb) contra-bass (CC, BBb), and sub-contra-bass (whatever; there aren't a lot of these lying around) tubas. Plus, of course the strange six-valved French tuba (which Wessex is now making and marketing -- mostly to a bunch of crazed euphonium players and francophones), and don't forget to throw in helicons and Sousaphones. Finally, morphologically, the Flugel horn is regarded as the soprano voice in the family. It -- like the others -- is conical bore, which is the primary defining characteristic of the class and what gives its members their "mellow" sound.

The term "tenor tuba" is shrouded in ambiguity and controversy -- best thought of as an informal term for "some kind of euphonium or other." It's more of a concept than a particular instrument.

While tubas are often felt to "descend" from the Saxhorn family, it turns out that the invention of the tuba is generally credited to Moritz and Wieprecht in 1835 while Sax patented his family of instruments ten years later, after introducing them in 1843. So the relation of tubas to Saxhorns may require some rethinking. Seems likely there was some parallel development going on.

Then, of course, there are Wagner (or Wagnerian) tubas -- which are not. I.e., they're simply not tubas. Maybe better to think of them as genetically modified French horns. They're "backwards" of oval euphoniums, the valves are played with the left hand, almost always played by French horn players, and use a French horn mouthpiece. Wagner. What's to say. Brilliant, or madman, or brilliant madman?

Most of that rambling is a summary of stuff to be found in Donald Stauffer's marvelous book "A Treatise on the Tuba". Good luck finding a copy. Hmmm ... I see it listed on Amazon (used) for $79.99-$351.65. I know I didn't pay that much for mine, and it's personally inscribed with a date of 1992. Fairly safe to summarize and quote from it since most people have to go to a music library to find one.

[Finetales]

Finally, morphologically, the Flugel horn is regarded as the soprano voice in the family. It -- like the others -- is conical bore, which is the primary defining characteristic of the class and what gives its members their "mellow" sound.

The modern piston-valved flugelhorn is an infantry saxhorn. If that is a soprano tuba, then you'd have to call the British tenor horn an alto tuba and the British baritone a tenor tuba, since they are also saxhorns. And then what would the bass saxhorn be? It ain't a bass tuba, and it can't be a baritone tuba if that's what a euphonium is because it fits in between the baritone horn and euphonium, rather than below both.

As an aside, according to the Middle Horn Leader, Cerveny has manufactured an actual alto tuba, but I don't know what it looks like or how it differs from a German oval althorn. And then there's the Eb alto euphonium which was custom made by Yamaha.

The term "tenor tuba" is shrouded in ambiguity and controversy -- best thought of as an informal term for "some kind of euphonium or other." It's more of a concept than a particular instrument.

Sometimes I guess, but there are actual rotary-valved tenor tubas which are what Strauss wrote for. The Alexander 151 is an example.

Then, of course, there are Wagner (or Wagnerian) tubas -- which are not. I.e., they're simply not tubas.

They're not properly called tubas either. Tuben (singular "tube") ≠ tubas (tuba).

[ghmerrill]

Yes, indeed what you say emphasizes even more the informal and imprecise use of this terminology -- particularly with respect to "tenor tuba". And the fact that often the use of these terms is more a matter of marketing than anything else.

To add more confusion to the confusion (and playing off your reference to the Alexander 151), consider that Alexander, at least in places, refers to the 151 as a "baritone tuba" while contrasting it with a 4-(rotary)valve "tenor horn": http://gebr-alexander.de/en/portfolio-i ... model-151/. Tuba players are as happy to refer to it as a "euphonium" as a "tenor tuba" (check various discussions on Tubenet), and it has no privileged claim to be thought of as defining what a "tenor tuba" is, particularly since Boosey & Hawkes and Besson offered "tenor tubas" in the late 1800s and early 1900s -- as distinct offerings from euphoniums and available in different keys. Similarly, the Miraphone Kaiser Baritone (in C or Bb) is also regarded as a tenor tuba. Again -- marketing.

By the way, the Alexander 151 was originally developed for Spanish wind bands (this is actually referenced in the Alexander page linked to above). Regarding the historical sense of "tenor tuba", there are some interesting remarks here: http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthread ... post143030. The one about Strauss seems particularly interesting given that some people believe that Strauss's use of "tenor tuba" sets the standard in some way. If these remarks on Werden's forum concerning Strauss's original and ultimate choice of instrumentation are correct, then the Alexander 151 would seem quite a poor choice to satisfy Strauss's intent.

People who like to think of the tenor tuba as a distinct type of instrument gravitate to the view that it is a large bore non-compensated conical instrument in Bb or (less commonly) C with four or five rotary valves -- i.e., a midget German/Czech-style tuba an octave above the BBb or CC. To tuba players, the attractiveness of these "tenor tubas" over euphoniums lies mostly in the fact that they are non-compensated, unlike typical professional quality contemporary euphoniums -- that is, this is attractive to tuba players whose major instrument isn't a compensated tuba. But given their cost and the frequency with which a tuba player might use one, people are generally happy to use a compensated euph.

But I"m puzzled by this remark:

Then, of course, there are Wagner (or Wagnerian) tubas -- which are not. I.e., they're simply not tubas.

They're not properly called tubas either. Tuben (singular "tube") ≠ tubas (tuba).

Certainly if they're not tubas, then they're not properly called tubas.

But could you unpack this a bit? Typically in German "tuben" would be the plural of "tube", and it's also the translation of "tubas" (English plural of "tuba"). So how is it that "Tuben ≠ tubas"? I'm just not getting the point being made here.

[Finetales]

Thanks for that tenor tuba info, the origins and use of the Alex 151 are all new to me.

But I"m puzzled by this remark:

They're not properly called tubas either. Tuben (singular "tube") ≠ tubas (tuba).

Certainly if they're not tubas, then they're not properly called tubas.

But could you unpack this a bit? Typically in German "tuben" would be the plural of "tube", and it's also the translation of "tubas" (English plural of "tuba"). So how is it that "Tuben ≠ tubas"? I'm just not getting the point being made here.

Sorry that I was unclear. What I meant to say is that from my understanding the original German name was Wagner tube rather than tuba, even though they both share the plural "tuben" in German. This is what I have always read and been taught. However, upon further research all the Wagner, Bruckner, Schoenberg parts use the word "tuba", so either the concept of Wagner "tube" is misinformation (I wouldn't be surprised...there's lots of misinformation out there about Wagner and the instruments he used) or the parts being named as such were a product of copyists assuming "tuba" from "tuben".

[Kbiggs]

Re: tuben not equaling tuba, I think this is a form vs. function matter. In form, the Wagner tuben looks like a mirror image of German oval tenor horns and baritones. Yet it sounds distinct. In function, it’s a highly specialized instrument that is an alternative to the (French) horn sound.

Re: “tenor tuba,” again, I believe this is a form vs. function matter. In form/construction, it’s a different instrument as pointed out above: it’s non-compensating, it’s usually a slightly larger bore, it points to the left as opposed to the right, it has rotary valves, etc. More importantly, though, it has a different function. It is a tenor tuba sound, and it has highly specialized roles.

Example: I’ve played the Mendelssohn Midsummer Night’s Dream suite several times on trombone (1st, 2nd, and 3rd.) Easy parts for the trombones, so I have the opportunity to listen. Usually, the tubist will play it on their “regular” instrument, often a large BBb or CC tuba. To my ears, that’s much too large a sound. One tubist played it on an F tuba. Much better. Last time I played this, the tubist borrowed his teacher’s Alex 151. Wow!! Very much the “bass horn” or ophicleide sound that was most likely intended (listen to the Roger Norrington version). It really opened my ears. Consequently, the trombones decided to scale down to .500, .525, and a .547 bore instruments. Much more transparent sound, allowing the wind and string sounds to shine through while having the “punch” or emphasis provided by the brass without sounding overwhelming.

In a sense, the name—tuben, tenor tuba, tenor horn, etc.—really doesn’t matter. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Yes, we have to agree on what we’re talking about: “By tenor tuba, I mean...” What’s more important (in my view) is the function: what does the instrument do at that time, in that band, in that piece, in those fews solo bars, etc.

[ghmerrill]

Sorry that I was unclear. What I meant to say is that from my understanding the original German name was Wagner tube rather than tuba, even though they both share the plural "tuben" in German. This is what I have always read and been taught. However, upon further research all the Wagner, Bruckner, Schoenberg parts use the word "tuba", so either the concept of Wagner "tube" is misinformation (I wouldn't be surprised...there's lots of misinformation out there about Wagner and the instruments he used) or the parts being named as such were a product of copyists assuming "tuba" from "tuben".

Yeah, that makes sense. Apparently in Strauss parts as well there is some confusion about how the instrument in question is described. I wonder how often these things may be attributable to editors/publishers later inserting terminology that they feel is appropriate, and that the composer didn't approve or perhaps even see (particularly in the case of later printings or editions). But that's just speculation.

[ghmerrill]

In a sense, the name—tuben, tenor tuba, tenor horn, etc.—really doesn’t matter. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Yes, we have to agree on what we’re talking about: “By tenor tuba, I mean...” What’s more important (in my view) is the function: what does the instrument do at that time, in that band, in that piece, in those fews solo bars, etc.

Or what's called a "rose" might be a real stinker if we go by a name rather than by function and properties. The name/thing distinction is important. Ponder this "sophism" from the 14th century medieval logician/semanticist Jean Buridan: "How many legs does a donkey have if you call its tail a leg?" But I digress.

And let us not forget that Mozart's Tuba Mirum is not (except perhaps as a comedic or insane aberration) to be played by a tuba.

[BflatBass]

So I learned that the 4th valve on the euphonium is like the F attachment on a trombone. Correct?

[Zandit75]

So I learned that the 4th valve on the euphonium is like the F attachment on a trombone. Correct?

Yep, exactly.

Side note......You're asked to make a video highlighting your instrument, do you A) Give your instrument a bath, and polish, or B) Just rock up as though you've just finished a 2 week bender, and talk about your finger printed horn?

[blast]

So I learned that the 4th valve on the euphonium is like the F attachment on a trombone. Correct?

Yep, exactly.

Side note......You're asked to make a video highlighting your instrument, do you A) Give your instrument a bath, and polish, or B) Just rock up as though you've just finished a 2 week bender, and talk about your finger printed horn?

......and that's why professionals don't join forums. Byron is busier than you could imagine.... plays better than you could imagine and does not have the time to sit polishing euphoniums. If that's all you took away from the video, stick to polishing your horn.

Chris

[elmsandr]

When you can play that well, your instrument can look like it belongs to Oscar the grouch.

When you play like I do, should probably give it a polish. I still do not polish my horns, my 1908 tuba looks like it has been ignored since 1908, though in reality it has only been ignored since 2004 or so when I bought it.

Cheers,
Andy

[ghmerrill]

This is why I avoid silver horns -- although I'm sure they all play much better in tune when the fingerprints aren't affecting the resonance and pitch of the instrument. I DO clean them all (internally) quite regularly!

My 1924 tuba ("triple thickness" silver plate) does look quite nice -- and polishing a tuba is pretty high up on my list of things to avoid. However, once I discovered Hagerty's silver polish, keeping the tuba looking nice became incredibly easier -- in part because the Hagerty's does such a great job of retarding tarnish over long periods of time.

[ghmerrill]

So I learned that the 4th valve on the euphonium is like the F attachment on a trombone. Correct?

Pretty much, although it's probably more accurate to say that the F attachment on a trombone is like the 4th valve on a non-compensating euphonium.

[Zandit75]

Yep, exactly.

Side note......You're asked to make a video highlighting your instrument, do you A) Give your instrument a bath, and polish, or B) Just rock up as though you've just finished a 2 week bender, and talk about your finger printed horn?

......and that's why professionals don't join forums. Byron is busier than you could imagine.... plays better than you could imagine and does not have the time to sit polishing euphoniums. If that's all you took away from the video, stick to polishing your horn.

Chris

Without getting into a flame war, I have no doubt he is a brilliant talent, you don't get into an orchestra like that just on word of mouth, or just because you "know a guy", my comment was not aimed at that.
My point, however poorly it has been interpreted, or alternatively, how badly I wrote the comment, was based on professionalism. He is representing not only the orchestra, but himself and his instrument in a professionally produced video FOR his orchestra.
I understand wear and tear occurs on all instruments regardless of how well you look after your instrument, but for this particular purpose, if I was the musical director organising these videos, I would insist on all members looking their best, and their instruments in top cleanliness.
Perhaps it is my experience in British Style Brass Bands, where we have supplied uniforms that we are expected to keep dry cleaned on a regular basis, with fairly specific styles of shoes that are to be highly polished for all occasions.
I apologise for any misconceptions caused by my comments, however I still stand by them.

[BGuttman]

Zandit, nobody is giving points for appearance here. In fact, when the orchestra plays, nobody is giving points for how shiny or polished the instruments are. All that counts is the sound that goes to the audience's ears. Sometimes players use some pretty grungy instruments but get great sound from them.

[blast]

The Philharmonia is a self- governing orchestra... it is run by the players themselves... they appoint the management who organise such sessions. Their schedule, like the other London orchestras, involves 7 days work a week, almost constant touring and often fitting other engagements around the schedule. They are always well turned out for concerts, as they should be. I know as I have worked with them. Their job is tough.

Chris.

[imsevimse]

Looks of an instrument tells a story. It does not have to look new or shiny. As long as it does not smell and plays well it shall be used. Many players like instruments with patina. Nobody cares about the looks of my instrument if I can show I know how to play it. If the instrument falls apart or smells bad and I show I do not know how to play it, then a bunch of people would blame the instrument instead of me. Still it would probably be me because a good player can often make a bad horn sing despite its flaws. I don't polish my instruments very often.

/Tom

[elmsandr]

..

if I was the musical director organising these videos, I would insist on all members looking their best, and their instruments in top cleanliness.
Perhaps it is my experience in British Style Brass Bands, where we have supplied uniforms that we are expected to keep dry cleaned on a regular basis, with fairly specific styles of shoes that are to be highly polished for all occasions.
I apologise for any misconceptions caused by my comments, however I still stand by them.

Wait, what?

I cannot imagine you would get a lot of top players in that instance. Heck, I'm not sure if the service bands here in the States operate like that.

A week ago or so I was sitting backstage with some of the top brass players on the planet. Nobody seems to care that their tuxedos did not all quite match. Nobody seemed to mention how well or even whether or not their shoes were polished. Heck, most folks there are even immune to the pink liner on Jens Lindemann's jacket now.

They did, however, take notice of the beautiful playing and singing of Rich Kelley and Wycliffe Gordon.

Can't say I've ever looked at the shoes on any brass band performance,
Andy

[2bobone]

Relevant to the current discussion regarding "Spit & Shine", I'd like to toss in another story about my dear old friend Robert Isele when he became a member of the NSO after 24 years in The U.S Marine Band where he was their trombone soloist for much of that time. One day, during a particularly dull rehearsal [LOTS of tacets ] I noticed that Bob's Elkhart 88H had developed a considerable loss of lacquer and that there was something greenish growing around the "F" valve. Mostly to break the boredom of the moment, I asked Bob if he'd ever considered having the horn re-lacquered. His answer was priceless ------- "Well ---- Some of us SHINE 'em and some of us PLAY 'em" ! Some folks might think that to have been an elitist comment, but Bob was a real "Salt of The Earth" kind of guy and didn't have a mean bone in his body. He was just stating a simple fact. I got a great laugh out of this gem of wisdom then ------ and I'm still laughing ! RIP Ol' Friend !

[JohnL]

This is why I avoid silver horns -- although I'm sure they all play much better in tune when the fingerprints aren't affecting the resonance and pitch of the instrument.

But that's only if they're the WRONG fingerprints. The RIGHT fingerprints can drastically improve the performance of your instrument...

I'm thinking of going into business offering the service of acoustic tuning of fingerprints. Of course, I would have to have multiple high-quality recordings of the player. In order to capture the full range of the player, those recordings would have to made over several days and in a variety of acoustical situations, with a (ahem) nominal fee (plus expenses, of course) for each session. Rest assured that, although my recording equipment may LOOK like an ancient cassette recorder with a cheap built-in condenser microphone, it is a highly specialized, proprietary system that uses technology far different from the industry standard.

I would then use those recordings, along with other data, to generate an acoustic profile of the instrument and, using my proprietary algorithms, to determine the optimal arrangement of fingerprints for the player/mouthpiece/instrument combination. The precise placement of each fingerprint, along with the type of print (whorl, loop, arch, etc.) having been determined, my highly trained fingerprint application team would apply the prints, then carefully package your instrument for return to you.

Of course, any change to the fingerprint pattern (such as might happen when handling or playing the instrument) will alter the fingerprint pattern. Such changes are, of course, cumulative over time. I recommend having the fingerprints reapplied on a semi-annual basis. Also, any significant change to the player/instrument/mouthpiece system will require a complete new analysis.

[ghmerrill]

I'm thinking of going into business offering the service of acoustic tuning of fingerprints.

Given some of the things that a number of euphonium players are inclined to bolt or clamp onto their expensive boutique instruments to enhance the sound quality, I believe that your service has a definite demographic in the brass instrument market. An alternative (or add-on) approach would be to find people (with testimonials) whose fingerprints are known to enhance instruments, and offer a sliding scale of cost for providing these. Not everyone would be able to afford the "Steven Mead imprint" or the "David Childs imprint" or the "Charlie Vernon imprint". But their playing could still be enhanced with the use of other recognized players. I offer you this suggestion gratis since I think it's for the betterment of the art of brass instrument performance, and so would benefit us all.

[LeTromboniste]

Apropos the various distinctions above and remarks about tubas and tuba-like things ...

Euphoniums are the "baritone voice" in the tuba family, which otherwise consists of bass (F, Eb) contra-bass (CC, BBb), and sub-contra-bass (whatever; there aren't a lot of these lying around) tubas. Plus, of course the strange six-valved French tuba (which Wessex is now making and marketing -- mostly to a bunch of crazed euphonium players and francophones), and don't forget to throw in helicons and Sousaphones. Finally, morphologically, the Flugel horn is regarded as the soprano voice in the family. It -- like the others -- is conical bore, which is the primary defining characteristic of the class and what gives its members their "mellow" sound.

I was under the impression that the French C tuba was developed from the bass saxhorn, not from the tuba family.
I don't know many people who use them. I would assume the few who do all the historical low brass gigs. I certainly wish more people used them. So tired of hearing Bydlo ruined by tubists who insist on playing it on F or even CC tuba...





About the shiny instrument thing...Who cares?

[Finetales]

So tired of hearing Bydlo ruined by tubists who insist on playing it on F or even CC tuba...

SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!!

[ghmerrill]

I was under the impression that Bydlo is generally played on a euphonium nowadays. There is intense debate concerning whether a euphonium or a French C tuba is the "better" instrument -- especially since Wessex is now offering a French C tuba. I suspect that this debate may largely be fueled by people who want to justify buying a French C tuba.

I have no idea whether the French instrument evolved more "directly" (?) from the saxhorn family or more directly from the tuba line, or whether or to what degree that evolution/influence can be sorted out. I've seen it argued both ways, and which side you come down on seems to depend on what features of a particular "French C tuba" at a particular time you're focusing on. Stauffer's treatise is unclear on this (or what the distinction might even mean at that time -- mid-1800s). Since the fifth and sixth valves were added later in its evolution (the sixth in 1892), it seems likely that both "families" participated in the creation of this genetic abnormality.

[LeTromboniste]

Well I would assume the "correct" instrument is the C tuba, because that's the instrument that was used in French orchestras in Ravel time as far as I understand, and it means the whole Pictures part can be played on the same horn.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect that all orchestral tubists pick up the French C tuba. But when playing Pictures, they should at the very least switch to Eupho for Bydlo. Most versions I've heard were played on F tuba, sometimes even CC. I have yet to hear a single version played on one of the big tubas that sounds convincing and where the tubist gets the right sound.

[ghmerrill]

Well I would assume the "correct" instrument is the C tuba, because that's the instrument that was used in French orchestras in Ravel time as far as I understand, and it means the whole Pictures part can be played on the same horn.

I suspect that in the end we don't really disagree here at all - or at least in any significant way.

I do have some sympathy with expressed above, but again it depends on one particular meaning of "correct" (which I see you put in quotes -- I suppose to specifically indicate that, and to suggest that it's not the only reasonable meaning of "correct"). This meaning then is where "correct" means "historically correct in the sense of being the instrument used at the time and intended by the composer".

If you go further than this and say that (therefore) the piece should not be performed on a different ("incorrect") instrument, or that a performance on such an instrument is "musically incorrect" or is somehow inadequate or flawed or unenjoyable or sub-standard, and that only performances on this one particular instrument are worth listening to, or some such, then you are on very different ground because you're making a musical/artistic point and not a historical/factual point. This moves you out of the realm of objectivity (historical fact) and into the realm of artistic evaluation and taste -- where there can be reasonable disagreements that don't really conflict with one another. It doesn't make the matter purely one of opinion, but it removes the factual basis for justifying it. And what needs to be realized in that case is that the original historical/factual point has nothing to do with the musical/artistic point. These are not incompatible or conflicting with one another. It's quite possible to hold, for example, that a piece is musically/artistically better (though not historically correct) if played using two different instruments for different passages rather than using one throughout -- and reasons (completely independent of the historical argument) can be given both for and against this.

Sorry for the pedantry here, but it's this conflation of senses of "correct" that I find so puzzling in disputes involving the use of historically correct instruments and various conclusions of a musical/artistic nature that are then drawn from that. No one ever disputes the historical facts in such cases once these are established with some reliability. But often those facts are then used to draw conclusions in the musical/artistic sense that would appear to have the consequence that every composition ever written should never be performed on any instrument for which it was not intended -- because that would be "not correct" or at the very least would be somehow musically/artistically inferior. I don't think you, in particular, are willing to embrace this general view -- and in fact you seem to indicate specifically that you don't embrace it. And indeed you do give some musical/artistic arguments (regarding the quality of sound) for preferring the French C tuba to a larger tuba or a euphonium for Bydlo. And I agree with at least some of those points in the case of the larger BBb and CC (and even Eb) tubas. I don't agree in the case of the euphonium or small (not large, "orchestral") F tuba. But that's a musical/artistic disagreement (if it is a disagreement at all), and the history and use of the French C tuba isn't relevant to it.

[LeTromboniste]

Well I would assume the "correct" instrument is the C tuba, because that's the instrument that was used in French orchestras in Ravel time as far as I understand, and it means the whole Pictures part can be played on the same horn.

I suspect that in the end we don't really disagree here at all - or at least in any significant way.

I do have some sympathy with expressed above, but again it depends on one particular meaning of "correct" (which I see you put in quotes -- I suppose to specifically indicate that, and to suggest that it's not the only reasonable meaning of "correct"). This meaning then is where "correct" means "historically correct in the sense of being the instrument used at the time and intended by the composer".

If you go further than this and say that (therefore) the piece should not be performed on a different ("incorrect") instrument, or that a performance on such an instrument is "musically incorrect" or is somehow inadequate or flawed or unenjoyable or sub-standard, and that only performances on this one particular instrument are worth listening to, or some such, then you are on very different ground because you're making a musical/artistic point and not a historical/factual point. This moves you out of the realm of objectivity (historical fact) and into the realm of artistic evaluation and taste -- where there can be reasonable disagreements that don't really conflict with one another. It doesn't make the matter purely one of opinion, but it removes the factual basis for justifying it. And what needs to be realized in that case is that the original historical/factual point has nothing to do with the musical/artistic point. These are not incompatible or conflicting with one another. It's quite possible to hold, for example, that a piece is musically/artistically better (though not historically correct) if played using two different instruments for different passages rather than using one throughout -- and reasons (completely independent of the historical argument) can be given both for and against this.

Sorry for the pedantry here, but it's this conflation of senses of "correct" that I find so puzzling in disputes involving the use of historically correct instruments and various conclusions of a musical/artistic nature that are then drawn from that. No one ever disputes the historical facts in such cases once these are established with some reliability. But often those facts are then used to draw conclusions in the musical/artistic sense that would appear to have the consequence that every composition ever written should never be performed on any instrument for which it was not intended -- because that would be "not correct" or at the very least would be somehow musically/artistically inferior. I don't think you, in particular, are willing to embrace this general view -- and in fact you seem to indicate specifically that you don't embrace it. And indeed you do give some musical/artistic arguments (regarding the quality of sound) for preferring the French C tuba to a larger tuba or a euphonium for Bydlo. And I agree with at least some of those points in the case of the larger BBb and CC (and even Eb) tubas. I don't agree in the case of the euphonium or small (not large, "orchestral") F tuba. But that's a musical/artistic disagreement (if it is a disagreement at all), and the history and use of the French C tuba isn't relevant to it.

We are digressing and going way off-topic, but I think it is a very interesting topic

Sorry if my comment was ambiguous. I thought it was clear when I used quotation marks on "correct". To clarify, I don't believe modern orchestras have to play on "historically correct" instrument (in fact to a certain extent, I don't even believe period instrument orchestras should be too obsessed about it - for instance because there was much more variability in equipment in those times than now, and the same piece played by two different orchestras of the time would have been played with different instruments. I believe the notion of historically "correct" instrument to be always somewhat blurry and open to debate or at least flexibility).

I do believe that being conscious of the history should be a part of the artistic decision-making process, however. For instance, because "tuba" is written on the part, or because the part sits on the tuba player doesn't disqualify thought and analysis and choosing the right instrument for the right sound.

I don't expect modern orchestral players to use period instruments, and in the case of tuba in particular, due to the wide variety of original instruments (serpent, ophicleide, bass horn or cimbasso, valve bass trombone in F, French tuba and actual tuba), it would be completely unrealistic. I do think using a CC or F tuba to play high serpent-family instrument parts is very debatable for reasons that are both historic and artistic. Anybody who's ever heard one of these instruments in person knows that both the sound and the role those parts had are completely different. To me, using a big tuba for those is like trying to force the parts into the mold of the Germanic low brass section with the tuba as the bass of the brass. The thing is, in a lot of repertoire, serpent, ophicleide and cimbasso parts are not at the bottom, they are often equal or higher in range than the 3rd trombone parts. Playing them on a contrabass tuba or a large F tuba is being completely insensitive to how the music is composed and the role the composer is giving you. Playing them on a 4 valve eupho (or a smaller F tuba, but I prefer the eupho in most cases) will give you a sound that is much, much closer to the sound of the original instrument, that allows you to fill the role the composer intended for you instead of denaturing it, yet while still playing a modern instrument that allows you to keep up with the other modern brass instruments.

One of the most frustrating ones for me is when people use modern "cimbasso" to play cimbasso parts because they want the double fee and they think it's more historical than playing it on tuba. This shows they have absolutely no clue. I don't mind that they are using a modern instrument that is not the original intended instrument. I mind that they choose the wrong modern instrument with the wrong sound and that can't possibly fill the intended role appropriately and that they do so under the guise of playing a "more historical" instrument. The modern "cimbasso" is not a cimbasso, it is a valve bass trombone. It is the instrument that Verdi and Puccini called "trombone basso". When they wanted a bass trombone in F at the bottom, that's what they wrote. The cimbasso of Verdi's time is not a cylindrical brass instrument, in fact it has very little to do with a trombone. It is an upright serpent similar to the Enlgish bass horn. It's a conical brass instrument with finger holes and an upwards facing, flared wooden bell. Later on some versions of the instrument were made with valves instead of holes and somewhat more cylindrical tubing and the bell still upright. It still didn't sound like a trombone. The sound of a modern "cimbasso" has nothing to do with it. Again, a euphonium or small-sized bass tuba is much more appropriate.

[Kbiggs]

I do believe that being conscious of the history should be a part of the artistic decision-making process, however. For instance, because "tuba" is written on the part, or because the part sits on the tuba player doesn't disqualify thought and analysis and choosing the right instrument for the right sound.

Yes.

[BGuttman]

I saw this in person the other night. I was hired to play an operatic concert. It included two Verdi pieces with the "cimbasso" part given to the tuba. He's a good player, but he's using a huge CC tuba. When the tuba is playing with the string bass to do the "oom"s on the 3/4 pieces, it was TOO LOUD. He would have done much better on a euph or a small Eb. Even the modern "cimbasso" would have been better.

[Molefsky]

So anyway, Tenor horn and solo flugel function as a section unto themselves in british brass band instrumentation. The Kanstul "tenor horn" is what we also call an alto horn, i.e. what the Hindemith sonatas were written for.

Feel free to correct me but as british brass band increases in popularity across the US (there are now 4, with a rumored 5th, in Arkansas alone) you'll likely see these referred to as tenor horns more and more frequently.

On a related note, I've been experimenting with different brands/models to try and circumvent the near duopoly on tenor horn production held by yamaha and besson. We've got a besson, a Couesnon, and a couple of Wessexes so far. Any suggestions would be welcome!

Bonus vid of Owen Farr demonstrating the tenor horn for those who haven't heard it played at a high level.

[bbocaner]

It's interesting to look at how these three instruments, the Eb, the less-conical smaller bell 9' Bb, and the more conical larger bell 9' Bb, are/were referred to in different times and places.

There are a lot of different variations on these instruments that have become more and more standardized as time goes on -- rotary vs pistons, bell-front vs bell-up vs ovalform, etc. but they are essentially the same three instruments.

saxhorn nomenclature:
Eb saxhorn alt
Bb saxhorn baryton (aka tenor)
Bb saxhorn basse

german nomenclature:
Eb althorn
Bb tenorhorn
Bb baryton

british nomenclature:
Eb tenor horn
Bb baritone
Bb euphonium

19th century american nomenclature:
Eb alto horn
Bb tenor horn
Bb baritone

italian nomenclature (pines!):
Eb flicorno contralto
Bb flicorno tenore
Bb flicorno basso

modern american nomenclature:
Eb alto horn
Bb baritone
Bb euphonium

notice the modern american nomenclature is a collision between the british nomenclature and the historic americann nomenclature which derives from the german system.

This is where the confusion between "baritone" and "euphonium" come from -- baritone is not wrong, despite the pedantic ramblings of lots of euphonium players, it's just an older term -- unless you're talking about baritone in the british sense.

If you're kanstul, an american company, marketing an instrument that's designed to be used in british-style brass bands, it makes sense to use the "tenor horn" name rather than the more common american "alto horn" term, because it gives buyers a warm fuzzy feeling that they are buying an instrument in the british style that'll blend with british-made instruments. It matches what's printed on the part. And that's the biggest market for these instruments since the french horn has supplanted the alto horn in wind bands.

[JohnL]

19th century american nomenclature:
Eb alto horn
Bb tenor horn
Bb baritone

Late 19th century band music often had parts for Eb alto (Solo, 1st, 2nd), Bb tenor (1st and 2nd), Bb baritone (single part), Bb bass (single part), and Eb bass (single part).

[BGuttman]

Note that when converting 19th Century American parts for modern band, the assignments are as follows:

Eb Alto goes to the horn players (let them figure out how to play the part on an F hornA!)
1st and 2nd Tenor parts go to the trombones.
Baritone goes to the Euphonium
Bb Bass goes to the 3rd Trombone.
Eb Bass goes to the Tuba (it's the only part in bass clef and not transposed).

[heinzgries]

in germany a tenor horn is is Bb with 3 valves, a bariton is also in Bb with a bigger bore and mostly 4 valves

https://www.thomann.de/de/thomann_ep1_t ... 1913693db5
https://www.thomann.de/de/thomann_ep_40 ... l_163471_3