Small Shank Euphoniums, Why?

[Cookie0329]

So I've been doubling on euphonium for some of my school's bands, and something that always confused me as a bass trombonist is sort of the identity of a euphonium. To me, euphonium has sort of an identity crisis, when it comes to writing, it's often written lower than tenor trombone even though it's (to me) much easier to center the pitch on high notes on the instrument, and also much easier to play those than low notes. The other, bigger problem for me is that every single euphonium or baritone I've played has been small shank, which does not make sense to me. I understand that they're instruments from a school, so they won't be professional grade, and I know they make professional grade euphs with large shank receivers, but the existence and prevalence of small shank euphoniums simply eludes my understanding (and don't even get me started on medium shanks). With a bigger mouthpiece, not only is it easier to play the lower parts which euphs are often written for, larger mouthpieces will sound better in nearly every register, so what's the point? If someone could clear it up I'd be very grateful.

[Burgerbob]

For students to use smaller mouthpieces. Pretty simple.

[BGuttman]

American instruments have traditionally been small shank. In fact, many European brass bands consider them to be a "tweener" (in between a Baritone (tenor horn in the US) and a true Euphonium).

Many English instruments have an intermediate size shank so a bass trombone size mouthpiece doesn't fit at all while a small shank mouthpiece either goes in too far or wobbles. There are some really good Euphoniums with this shank.

Another very popular Euphonium is the Yamaha 321, which uses a similar shank to the English Euph, but is much closer to a small shank.

As to the identity crisis, the Euph is a schizophrenic instrument. Parts can be in bass clef or transposing treble clef (and sometimes even a transposing bass clef!). They can have florid melody or countermelody lines or be treated as a "higher tuba". In modern band music the Euphonium is often doubled by the tenor saxophone (I hate these parts!). In British Brass Band there are Baritones (a valved instrument the same bore as a tenor trombone) and Euphoniums, having a bore similar to a bass trombone. The principal Euphonium in a British Brass Band has almost as much soloistic work as the Solo Cornet.

Yeah. Schizophrenic.

[Matt K]

I actually prefer the small shank variety on Euph, which is ironic because I spent an iordinate amount of time tying to acquire a large shank one only to realize that I had such a preference after playing it professionally for a few gigs... which is not something I thought I would ever say. I have an Elliott K3 or K4 shank that I use though so it's... quite an unusual mouthpiece that I'm not really aware of any stock corollary. I will occasionally slip in a XTG/G4 though for high stuff. I think the last gig I did on Euph before the pandemic I may have used that the whole concert. Everything was high range for that concert oddly enough... can't remember what though other than Festive Overture, which of course in the transcription that I've always played has the euph doubling the piccolo down one or two octaves in quite a few spots.

[Mamaposaune]

I (OK it is really hubby's) have an older Besson 4-valve compensating euphonium from the early 70's which morphed into the Sovereign line. The original owner had the leadpipe replaced to accept a large shank, so it originally accepted either small or European shank.
Typical of older Bessons, this one puts out an amazing warm, dark sound with almost no effort, but the tuning is really wonky, which is why I don't enjoy playing it. Some notes (especially above the staff) have to be lipped into tune, or alternate fingerings have to be found.
I wonder if some of the tuning issues were caused by, or excaberated by, the leadpipe change? I know it was a very common modification back in the day.

[Burgerbob]

I wonder if some of the tuning issues were caused by, or excaberated by, the leadpipe change? I know it was a very common modification back in the day.

These were medium shank. I have one currently. Trust me, the intonation is just the same with the medium shank... I'm getting a large shank receiver put on stat.

[JohnL]

To me, euphonium has sort of an identity crisis, when it comes to writing, it's often written lower than tenor trombone

This is because the way baritone/euphonium parts are written has changed over the years. Historically, the euphonium was a tenor range solo instrument. Go back and look at the marches and other wind band music written in the late 19th up through the mid-20th century. They spend a great deal of time playing in the mid-to-upper range, with only occasional excursions into the lower register, and they get lots of melody and countermelody lines, often played with the woodwinds.

What I tend to see today is parts that are as the OP described - often acting as a voice between the tubas and the tenor trombones or doubling the tuba part an octave up (yes, that's supposed the be the bass trombone's job), though they do still get significantly more melodic/countermelodic material than the trombones (if there is a solo in the low brass, it almost always goes to the baritone/euphonium). In the two community bands I play in, roughly 1/3 of the pieces in the folder only have two trombone parts. If you take out the "old chestnuts", it's closer to 1/2; there was one concert program a few years back where I didn't have a single third trombone part. The more "advance" pieces (say, Grade 4 and up) are more likely to have three trombone parts, but even then, I'll occasionally see scoring where the euph part is playing with the trombones and/or tubas and I'm counting rests.

As for marching band music? If it's published music, you can pretty much rely there only being only two (tenor) trombone parts, with the euph part taking the place of the third trombone. I started seeing this in the late 1970's, as marching bands began looking to emulate drum and bugle corps. I always figured it was because the typical corps scoring of the day had "three bass-baritone" bugle parts (euphonium bugles weren't thing yet), which was translated into band scores with two trombones and one baritone part.

[spencercarran]

Typical of older Bessons, this one puts out an amazing warm, dark sound with almost no effort, but the tuning is really wonky, which is why I don't enjoy playing it. Some notes (especially above the staff) have to be lipped into tune, or alternate fingerings have to be found.

The 6th partial on those is pretty sharp, but there are workable alternate fingerings (most important on mine is 1+3 for Eb). I feel it's a reasonable trade of finger/brain effort for that nice Besson sound. Others may prefer the modern point-and-shoot instruments.

[sungfw]

With a bigger mouthpiece, not only is it easier to play the lower parts which euphs are often written for, larger mouthpieces will sound better in nearly every register, so what's the point?

That may be YOUR experience, but it's not universally the case. It's a matter of finding the proper/correct size for YOUR embouchure and development. I've worked with too many high school and middle school euph players who were playing moutpieces too large for them whose overall range tone—particularly in the cash register range, focus, endurance, and intonation(!) improved—in some cases, dramatically—when they switched to smaller mouthpieces.

Oh … and shank size isn't necessarily a predictor of or limiting factor in one's range or facility in a given range. Things like backbore size and shape, the length and diameter of the throat, the shape of the cup (both internally and externally), and the placement of the mass all contribute more to the playing characteristics of a mouthpiece than the size of the shank per se.

[comebackplayer]

I've got younger kids trying to double on euphonium too. A few thoughts:
-Coming from trumpet or trombone you just aren't used to using as much air, and this is easier with student instruments.
-I watched one kid especially run out of air quickly when we moved to one of the Chinese compensating (large shank) euphonium. The compensating horns are a lot of heavier and it sort of makes sense to have a split between smaller, easier-to-play instruments and larger, more orchestral instruments.
-There is a trade off for range with large shank/small shank. Just as small bore jazz trombones are easier to use for the higher stuff, the same is probably true for student euphoniums.
-Small shank does tend to be only the student instruments. I don't think any professional euphoniums take small shank (I don't know about baritone).

I also second that the euphonium has a unique history. It's not a historic orchestral instrument and it is often is covering parts that others play. I will say it's just a really fun instrument.

[MrHCinDE]

Typical of older Bessons, this one puts out an amazing warm, dark sound with almost no effort, but the tuning is really wonky, which is why I don't enjoy playing it. Some notes (especially above the staff) have to be lipped into tune, or alternate fingerings have to be found.

The 6th partial on those is pretty sharp, but there are workable alternate fingerings (most important on mine is 1+3 for Eb). I feel it's a reasonable trade of finger/brain effort for that nice Besson sound. Others may prefer the modern point-and-shoot instruments.

I have a medium shank 4V B&H Imperial from the 60s, it’s basically the B&H equivalent of the Besson New Standard. I use a DW 4AM mouthpiece btw.

I also find the 6th partial Eb to be a bit sharp, along with the E and F. Usually I would lip them down a bit but also reach for 1+4, 2+4 and 4 respectively. I’m interested to try out 1+3 for the Eb now as well. I found the tuning tendencies on the larger Besson Sovereigns to be similar, even a bit worse than the Imperial actually. I’ve owned one Sov and had another band loaner for a few years so am talking from experience.

Similar to the OP, at school age, I thought a modern, large Sovereign would be better than my poor old Imperial and happily accepted one as a loan instrument. A lot of euph writing in British brass bands is from 6th partial F and above so when I swapped to the Sov it took a while to build up the endurance up there. It took a lot of work and practice to achieve and maintain it.

If I reflect on it now, I very rarely got the magic formula of my best sound on the Sov with the right mix of warmth, sweetness and intensity. I had to be in excellent form to get close to my best tone. I have full respect for those who can make a large euph sound great, especially if it’s their 2nd or 3rd instrument and they have limited practice time for it. With hindsight, I would probably have been just fine continuing with the Imperial and never really ‘needed’ the massive sound which could be gotten from the Sovereign, on the rare occasion that all the stars aligned etc.

An excellent euphonium player once told me that in the British brass band, the solo euph has to sound their best on the many solo lines and other exposed parts, the job of the 2nd euph (which much of the time is the same as solo euph, minus solos parts) is to do the grunt work to make sure the soloist shines. It can even be that even two people playing the same part have a different job…

Btw. years later I came full circle back to the Imperial and find it to play wonderfully. I can pick it up after months away from it and it just works straight from the off. That was never the case with the Sovereign I used to own, that always needed a good week or two of intensive practice to get back up to speed.

[spencercarran]

I have a medium shank 4V B&H Imperial from the 60s, it’s basically the B&H equivalent of the Besson New Standard. I use a DW 4AM mouthpiece btw.

My exact setup now, actually. My 4v B&H Imperial plays essentially identically to my (slightly older) 3v Besson New Standard, aside from the different set of fingering options. Both Euro shank.

I also find the 6th partial Eb to be a bit sharp, along with the E and F. Usually I would lip them down a bit but also reach for 1+4, 2+4 and 4 respectively. I’m interested to try out 1+3 for the Eb now as well.

For me (and idk if this is an idiosyncracy of the horn or of my embouchure) using the 4th valve for those notes is a bit flat and doesn't speak as easily. 1+3 for both Eb and F works well, still fussing a bit to find the best solution for E. 2+3 and 1+2+3 are both possible but neither is quite perfectly in tune.