The impact of technology on music instruments



Oct 31st, 2006, a

In going through my old links to find which are still good and which are not, I discovered that this very valuable resource is no longer with us, so I'm posting it here from Google's cache:

THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

EDMUND A. BOWLES

Innovations in unrelated fields have found applications in everything from kettledrums and trumpets to pianos.

History is full of examples of how technology has been transferred between widely disparate branches of knowledge, instances of which have been called transmission belts. Sometimes such a transfer merely involves borrowing an existing technology or material and adapting it more or less intact for another purpose; for example, the substitution of plastic for paper cones in hi-fi loudspeakers. A far more creative and difficult transfer occurs when someone conceptualizes a way to apply a technology’s principles to another device in an entirely new way, such as adapting the digital process of computers to sound recording. Transfers like this usually result in a quantum jump (to misuse a term from physics) in the functional capacity of the recipient device.

IMPROVEMENTS IN MINING AND METALLURGY LEAD TO BETTER TRUMPETS

The history of musical instrument-building, too, is filled with technological breakthroughs. The Gothic trumpet, for instance, was a crude instrument, the shape of which resembled a modern toilet plunger. Lacking a refined mouthpiece, its notes were limited in range and raucous in sound. During the late Middle Ages, copper smelting and more efficient production of calamine (a zinc sulfate used in making brass), combined with hydraulic hammers and various processing technologies, resulted in the manufacture of stronger and smoother sheet metal of consistent quality and thickness. Because of this, skilled instrument-makers were for the first time able to form thin tubes around wooden molds and thus fashion refined, folded trumpets, as well as organ pipes, slides for what later became sackbuts, or proto-trombones, and gradually flared bells at the end of the tube for better sound. The acoustical properties of the trumpet and other instruments were greatly improved, and musicians could produce far more musical notes. In addition, the creation of slides (tubes fitting into tubes) extended the number of different tones that could be blown, each position of the slide producing a different scale, or harmonic series, as the tube was lengthened.

MAKERS OF CLOCKS AND ASTRONOMICAL INSTRUMENTS DEVISE THE FIRST KEYBOARD INSTRUMENTS

Stringed instruments also made great leaps forward thanks to technological improvements. The clavichord and harpsichord, as well as their successor, the piano, all incorporate a rather elaborate and sophisticated key mechanism. How did it come about? Commencing in the late 14th century a number of keyboard instruments burst onto the scene. They incorporated radically new actions embodied in an ingenious system employing pivoting keys that returned to their original positions after either striking (the clavichord) or plucking (the harpsichord) a string. The mechanical principles were derived in part from a treatise, Automatic Theater, by Heron of Alexandria (ca. 150 A.D.), with its descriptions of moving simulacra, such as replicas of singing birds. This technology, an aspect of Greco-Roman and Alexandrian science, was preserved by Byzantium and thus acquired and expanded by the Arabs, and then transmitted in the 13th century to European builders of automata.

A second major influence on keyboard mechanisms were the principles of the escapement (a device in a timepiece that provides energy impulses to a wheel or balance) and jackwork (roughly, linkages of rods which move things up and down or sideways) that is found in a series of Chinese texts on automata and astronomical clocks. Within the short space of a century, commencing around 1350, the flourishing craft guilds and court scientists in Europe produced a whole series of mechanical hardware, including extremely complex time-keeping devices. In a striking example of technological transfer, the same craftsmen and model-makers who created these devices for their discriminating patrons also invented prototypes of the clavichord and the harpsichord, with complex linkages between the keyboard and the strings. Henri Arnault of Zwolle, working at the Burgundian court, is perhaps the most noted of these craftsmen. The organ keyboard, with its so-called tracker-action linkages, connecting keys to sliding pipe stops, also benefited from this technology.

A REVOLUTION IN MECHANICS AND MATERIALS...

During the 19th century, mechanical technology improved greatly due to, among other influences, the spread of education, the growth and demands of industry, and the availability of strong, ferrous metals. By 1830, cast and wrought iron had become the primary material used by mechanics and engineers for a wide range of purposes. At the same time, the modern industrial machine-shop developed, along with the machine-tool industry, producing prototypes for most of the tools in use today. Cheap, high-tensile steel became available, thanks in large part to the metallurgical revolution generated in the 1850s by two inventors,

This approach represented a tremendous leap in tuning technology, as well as a bit of marketing genius, as Pittrich’s mechanism could be added as well to old timpani. Instead of having to replace what were still perfectly good drums, orchestras had to purchase pedal mechanisms and have them attached. Now the timpanist not only could have his hands free to play while quickly re-tuning his drums, but a tuning gauge linked to the pedal precisely indicated the various notes. The concepts upon which this device was based were found in the connecting rods of steam engines, in the mechanical linkages of punch presses, and in the foot treadle of the common mangle used in commercial laundries. Composers were quick to seize upon this revolutionary new kind of machine drum; the orchestral music of Richard Strauss, for example, would be unplayable without them. An analogy of this type of technological adaptation is the turn-of-the-century Christie Front-Drive Motorized Tractor, which was sold to replace the three-horse team harnessed to the front of a steam fire-pumping engine.

FROM MINES TO MUSIC: THE VENERABLE VALVE

Until around 1815, both trumpets and horns were limited in range to the natural harmonic series of notes governed by the length of their tubes. If the basic pitch of the instrument had to be altered to fit the key in which the composition was written, a crook with tubing had to be substituted for the one in place. The solution, we now know, was to add valves. But where did the idea come from?

The most important industrial tool in the late 18th and early l9th centuries was the steam engine, which was used, among numerous other applications, for pumping water out of mines and, later, for the blowers in smelting ovens. This technology required a system of valves to control the passage of steam, water, or air. In 1816, C.J.B. Karsten brought out the first edition of his pioneering handbook on ironworks. Seeing such valves in operation, two Germans, working independently at first, and then jointly, reached much the same conclusion about their adaptability to musical instruments. Friedrich Bluhmel, a miner and horn/trumpet player in a mining company band, had observed the use of valves to control the supply of air to blast furnaces and the venting of air in ironwork forges. This led him in 1816 to conceive of using a piston valve to divert the flow of air in the trumpet’s tube to a set of longer or shorter loops to shift the instrument’s natural harmonic series from its basic key to another, thereby producing an entire scale of whole- and half-notes. Two years later, Bluhmel began his association with Heinrich Stoelzel, a Berlin horn player and instrument maker-repairer, who, by 1815, had crafted a trumpet equipped with two valves for lowering its basic pitch by either a half- or whole-tone to facilitate a complete musical scale with even tone-color. Together, Bluhmel and Stoelzel applied for a patent on a spring-controlled slide-valve mechanism, adapting a rather simple device to the far more sophisticated requirements of providing a continuous musical scale for both trumpets and horns (see Figure 2). Another Bluhmel invention was influenced by his observation of the spring-driven rotary valves used to channel air to the forges. Through experimentation, he was able to design and produce a cylindrical rotary valve, the operating principle of which is still in use today in the manufacture of brass instruments.

Figure 1. Patent drawing of the Pittrich drum-tuning mechanism

Figure 1. Patent drawing of the Pittrich drum-tuning mechanism, which could be attached to existing timpani.

A TECHNOLOGY LAG

It seems that a delay of some 15-20 years is usual for this kind of transmission belt between an alien material or technology and musical instruments to function. Two examples illustrate the point. Around 1825, a brand-new innovation in timpani sticks appeared: sponge-headed mallets. These mallets produced (especially for rolls) a softer, more blended sound than the conventional wooden-end or leather-covered ones, and soon came to be preferred by timpanists. The sponge that was used was not the light, porous kind known in today’s households, but a thinner, firmer variety. It was the Elephant’s Ear sponge, which was selected from among hundreds of commercial-grade sponges of varying forms, densities, and thicknesses.

It is surely no coincidence that its first use as a covering for drumsticks occurred in France, whose 19th-century colonies, stretching from North Africa to the Red Sea, but particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, had developed sponge fishing into a vast commercial enterprise. It took approximately 20 years from the time Parisians began buying sponges in great quantities for the material to be appropriated by French kettledrummers as a covering for their mallets. Sponge-covered mallets probably were first used by the drummer of the Paris Opera. It was the composer Hector Berlioz who popularized them, calling for their use in his own compositions and citing their benefits in his treatise on instrumentation. He also introduced them to German orchestras during guest-conducting stints in 1842.

Henry Bessemer (who discovered how to burn excessive carbon and other impurities out of molten iron by blowing air through it) and William Siemens (who contributed open-hearth steel making). Following these monumental achievements, metalworkers devoted much of their energy to the creation of practical devices for every purpose imaginable. The knowledge they gained in the process was widely disseminated in journals, newspapers, mechanics institutes, and schools.

Consequently, the quality and variety of raw materials increased substantially, as did the reliability of mass production, especially following the advent of steam power. Among the many manufacturing improvements during the period were the direct alloying of copper and zinc (as opposed to cementation with copper and calamine), the production of tough, durable spring steel, the use of nickel for sliding components, electroplating, and the development of gas flame-controlled soldering techniques. Extensive use was made of cast iron for buildings, their facades, industrial ornaments, and railroad bridges.

...APPLIED TO MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

The period from around 1810-1880 was also one of vitality, innovation, and change in the development and manufacture of musical instruments. With improvements in the art of molding and casting, cast iron was soon appropriated by the builders of pianos as they struggled to meet the increasing demand for instruments that could produce a greater volume of sound. Legend has it that the composer Ludwig van Beethoven was so unhappy with the meager sound of his older pianos that he pounded on them mercilessly in the vane hope of increasing it. Obviously, what was required was heavier stringing and far greater string-tension. Traditional wooden piano frames, even with reinforced metal braces, had proved inadequate for this challenge. By the 1840s, however, pianos were being produced with one-piece iron frames. Later refinements, in both the chemical composition of steel and its casting, led to more reliable frames and less cracking under pressure. Meanwhile, the high-tensile steel wire that had been developed for use in suspension bridges soon found its way into piano strings.



During the 19th century, radical alterations similarly occurred in both the use and construction of the timpani. Many composers, particularly those whose works contained many sectional key changes, found that to leave the drums tuned to the same pair of notes, as had generally been done before this time, was too restrictive and often dissonant. Thus, there was a growing orchestral repertory in which the drum part, or score, demanded rapid re-tuning during and between movements. The problem was that the kettledrums of the period were equipped with threaded tuning bolts around the rim of the counter hoop that fits over the skin head. The player either had to place a key over each of the six or eight square-headed bolts in succession a time-consuming process involving much testing or, if he was fortunate enough to have drums with T handles, manipulate two of the handles with both hands simultaneously. This rather slow and laborious process, which increased or decreased the tension on the skin, made very quick changes of pitch impossible.

GEARS, CRANKS, AND LEVERS COME TO THE AID OF THE TIMPANIST

In 1811, the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris published charts and plates of a wide variety of machine elements. As the Industrial Revolution flourished, inventor-craftsmen soon developed various devices that were attached to the timpani themselves for rapid re-tuning. Gerhard Cramer, the court timpanist in Munich, built the first lever- and gear-operated machine drum (a term still in use) in 1812. Cramer, working with the royal armorer and court locksmith, used cast iron and took his inspiration from automata, clocks, and stage machinery. Three years later, the Amsterdam musician-inventor, Johann Stumpff, brought out a device based upon the concept of the armature and central screw found in swivel desk-chairs. In 1836, Johann Einbigler of Frankfurt employed a threaded, vertical tuning crank pressing against a pivoted rocker-arm, which activated a spindle with vertical rods connected to the drumhead. Whatever the solution, these machine drums, as they are known, quickly supplanted the older, hand-tuned models in most major European orchestras. Before long, composers were beginning to increase the number of quick note changes in their music.

The most successful, and now ubiquitous, device for drum tuning was the Dresden model invented by Carl Pittrich in 1881. It differed significantly from its predecessors by using steel and employing a foot-pedal with a ratchet for holding the tuning device in place (see Figure 1). There were also mechanical couplings that changed the entire mechanism into a device for converting the semicircular motion of the pedal (pushing it down raised the note and letting it up lowered it) to the vertical reciprocating motion of the tension hardware and counter hoop acting upon the skin head.

Re: The impact of technology on music instruments



Jan 11th, 2006,

Feel free to disagree, but this is what I think about the conical-bore thing, and in my opinion, this can't be said often enough or over-stated:

Guys have been fiddling and diddling around, trying to make instruments entirely conical, for a long time. Some trombones have conical tubing inside the slides.

The alternative, because you have some sort of variable mechanism involved for governing the overall length of the instrument, is "stepping", as you know.

The Wagner tuba is conical through the valves in case you didn't know.

The closer you get to a conical bore, the prettier the instrument itself sounds. The instruments that get the closest are your high-end horns that produce that pure, ethereal, pretty sound.

I must tell you that I absolutely loathe that sound, and to my ears it sounds like absolute crap.

The problem with that sound is that it limits all other expressions. Ideally a horn should have a neutral sound, not a pretty one.

I like the sound of cornets and pretty-sounding trumpets and euphoniums and other instruments, up to a point, but the sound has been turning off concertgoers for a long time now because of the utter lack of range of expression. The sound, in a word, is boring.

Jazz musicians moved away from the cornet in the 1920's for this very reason, and the cornet has never found use in the symphonic orchestra for the same reason. Cornets sound like a guy is automatically going to start performing his Arban's nips and flips, and the sound has that "performer vs the music" kind of sound. The cornet is not good for the "telling a story" aspect of music that lies at the center of what jazz or classical music is all about. It's like listening to a used-car salesman trying to read your favorite novel to you.

"The big ego trip" has always been a central theme of Western Music, and the cornet, it must be said, lent itself to that world, which was rife in the 19th century. The instrument appeals to players who are more interested in performance pyrotechnics than the music itself. Look at the music the cornet virtuosos were playing in the 19th century! It's downright crass in its flash and showmanship. And these guys all had their little specialties- triple tonguing, blistering scales and arpeggios, unbelievable speed! These guys were the rock-guitar gods of the 19th century.

But jazz and classical music are about more than flash and showmanship, which is why the cornet remains the poor cousin to the music world- and that is very telling. The cornet was more a part of the music business than the music world. When it comes to displaying <I><s>[i]</s>character<e>[/i]</e></I>, the cornet falls short. That's why all that flashy, pyrotechnic cornet music died with the 19th century. If it had substance, we'd still be listening to it, or someone somewhere would be fighting to keep it alive. Show me one noteworthy person who is doing so, and I'll change my tune.

Unfortunately, modern classical music is today being polluted by this tone-fixation blight, and quality performance, for years now, is taking a back seat to tone-production, on ALL modern instruments. Good classical music is supposed to have you sitting on the edge of your chair, not making inane, patronizing comments on flawless execution and pretty tone. You're supposed to be caught up in the performance, not the <I><s>[i]</s>manner<e>[/i]</e></I> of the performance.

Something else that's really telling is this: look at who is buying these ultra-conical high-end instruments! Your top players, many of whom are still doing the 19th century cornet "look at me, look at me" thing.

We do need such performers, and I readily admit to taking guilty pleasure in watching their quaint antics as they go through their circus routines. They're important because they're always pushing the envelope of what these musical instruments are capable of. But let’s not confuse what they're doing with musical values or genuine musical quality. You need team-players and less perfect instruments for that.

These are soloists, not ensemble instruments.

The second example of delayed technology transfer involving musical instruments was the appropriation of piano felt as a covering for drumsticks. This material, thicker and more refined than hat felt, had been applied first to the hammerheads of pianos by the Parisian instrument-maker Jean-Henri Pape. Patented in 1826, Pape’s innovation along with heavier strings, a stronger and more efficient action, and an iron frame helped make possible a greater volume of piano sound. It also softened the tone. Even so, it was not until around 1850 that piano felt was adapted as a covering for timpani sticks. As with its applications in pianos, sheet felt was sliced into pieces of different thicknesses, thereby enabling the player for the first time to have mallets of varying degrees of softness, according to the needs of the music being performed.

Arguably, such delays in putting new technology to work in musical instrument-building have a cultural or national basis. For example, old-fashioned wooden flutes were still favored by English orchestras long after metal flutes, with their Boehm system key linkages, were in common use. The same was true for the more efficient French bassoons and piston-valve horns. The English also clung to hand-tuned kettledrums, even though by 1890 most European orchestras possessed at least a pair of pedal timpani. The first such pair was not introduced into England until 1905, when Sir Henry Wood purchased a set for his Queen’s Hall Orchestra. The country had to wait another 25 years before a second major ensemble, the BBC Symphony, acquired a set. Indeed, as late as the 1940s, a famous English timpanist-author was extolling the old-fashioned and clumsy hand-tuned kettledrums. Similarly, the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra still employs drums tuned by means of a crank, sometimes requiring the player either to add an extra drum or two so that he can handle the additional notes, or to have a fellow percussionist turn the crank while he is playing.

Part of this innate conservatism towards new technology may be based upon the false premise that any necessary improvement should incorporate existing devices rather than result in something entirely new, something that requires a different mind-set or approach and entails a major adjustment in learning. Whatever the cause, conservative musicians and musical instrument manufacturers are hardly alone in their conservatism. During the 1920s, there was great resistance in some circles, both in the United States and England, to the introduction of electrical sound reproduction for recording by the Bell Telephone Laboratories. For example, the Victor Talking Machine Co. continued to experiment with variations on the size and shape of the acoustical recording horn long after the amplifying vacuum tube, a mainstay of the new telephone technology, had appeared. And, while the public was crazy for talking pictures from the very beginning, many studio heads, actors, and directors found the new technology vulgar and degrading. Against such resistance, however, technology usually prevails witness the acoustics engineer who refused to go to live concerts because the sound was not hi-fi enough!

Recommended Readings:

Ahrens, C. Technological Innovations in Nineteenth-Century Instrument Making and their Consequences. The Musical Quarterly 82 (1996), 332-39.

Bowles, E.A. On the Origin of the Keyboard Mechanism in the Late Middle Ages. Technology and Culture 7 (1966), 152-62.

Bowles, E.A. Nineteenth-Century Innovations in the Use and Construction of the Timpani. Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 6-7 (1980), 74-143.

Dahlquist, R. Some Notes on the Early Valve. Galpin Society Journal 33 (1980), 111-24.

Ericson, J.Q. Heinrich Stoelzel and Early Valved Horn Technique. Historic Brass Society Journal 9 (1987), 63-82.

Good, E.M. Giraffes, Black Dragons, and Other Pianos: A Technological History from Cristofori to the Modern Concert Grand. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1982.

Needham, J., Ling W., and Price, D.J. Heavenly Clockwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.



Reply #2 - Jan 12th, 2006

What it boils down to is that there is a difference between soloists' instruments and general instruments.

So many of the big soloists these days have this incredible, unreal-sounding, pure, sinus-wave-like tone, and few of them are playing stock instruments, although stock instruments are (and always have been) edging towards high-end resonance. Some of my newer horns produce that type of sound. I use them for practice. I never play out with them.

Except for use in brass bands, the cornet is traditionally a soloists' instrument, and it got that way because it just naturally lends itself in that direction. The players of the 19th century were like the computer geeks of today in terms of being wholly into the little world of their own technique. There was fierce international competition, and these guys battled like pit bulls. These guys were on the road for years at a time, travelling all over the world, putting on what amounted to one-man shows. And their coming brought all the admiring amateurs and wannabees out of the woodwork, who dutifully paid to hear them play, and in some cases brought their horns and challenged them. Most got their buttocks handed back to them in a cardboard box.

Anyway, the new big-resonance horns smack of that same mentality; they have a sort of mystique to them that says "soloist!", not "sectional player". They also sound soul-less and character-less in sectional playing, at least to me. Same complaint I have about the modern choral tradition. Can't hear the individual voices. Sounds ethereal. Sounds nice. Yawn.

Give me Adolphe Scherbaum on trumpet and Christine Deutekom as solo soprano or give me death!


Reply #3 - Jan 15th, 2006,

In your note, you comment on the 'nice' sound that you get when the instrument moves closer to a pure conical bore. There must be information about the what the acoustic properties of a horn change depending on the rate of conical expansion. Any ideas about this?

I play euphonium and trombone about the same amount, and I like both the very pretty and pure sound of the conical bore and the edgy sound of the straight bore. For solo playing I very much prefer my King 8B bass trombone over the Bach, for just the reasons you mention while the Bach has the round pure sound, the King has personality and (I think) expressive possibilities that I don't find on any other horn. Since the 8B is very much out of favor among other players I know, I'm certainly in a minority on this. My modern euphonium really is a small tuba with huge bore and bell, but I more often play a smaller older horn because it's fun.

So, when I see your praise for imperfection and expression over the pure conical sine wave, I can't help cheering.

I confess I still enjoy musical athleticism and even the Arban 'nips and flips,' in their place. You're quite right that it's crass, in a sense, and the enjoyment isn't entirely musical. As a student I know I had an adolescent's attraction to technique. It was like an athletic event: "Yo man, look at me playing the blistering scales and arpeggios, triple tonguing my way through Dell Staigers Carnival variations." What music could be more inane than that? But I got the ovation, and I loved it. Music was a competitive athletic event for me at that point. I got over it mostly (I think), but I still like playing that athletic repertoire and I think it has its place. Summer municipal band concerts are more social than musical events, and people love to hear/see that stuff.

Remember Horowitz's encores, when he played his own version of the Stars and Stripes, and seemed to grow an extra finger or two on his right hand to play the piccolo solo on top? I don't know if it was musical, but I couldn't help enjoying it.

I still enjoy the 19th century 'look at me' showmanship sometimes, and I'm trying to bring some of that lost repertoire back. OK it's a guilty pleasure, a vestige of an adolescent view of music as a competitive athletic event. I wouldn't want to live there, but it's a nice place to visit sometimes. I guess you do too, since you write:

Is it 'less perfect' instruments that we need, or less generic nice-sounding instruments with limited possibilities for expression? I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that a good horn should have a "neutral sound, not a pretty one,” or when you say that these pretty instruments are good for soloists but not for team players. A less expressive pretty instrument shouldn't be better for soloists either, should it?

Reply #4 - Jan 15th, 2006,

On the subject of "pretty " as opposed to "sinus wave pure" tonality, I cast my vote for the pretty. As a cornetist of the modern age, ( albeit a senior citizen of long standing ) I divide my time about equally among three of my favorite cornets. First, my Martin Committee cornet, which projects much like a 'trumpet', has lightning-fast valves but fits my hand uncomfortably. Second, my grandfather’s old Wurlitzer Improved Symphony model 'paterne anglaise' short cornet, which has the most dulcet, dark, sweet tone I have ever been able to produce on any horn. It might be a stencil, or a third world product, (I have no idea who made it), but it is still one of my favorites. Third is my 1921 Couturier long pattern cornet. These feel good in my short, wide hands and feels good as I produce tone with it. It sounds just like I tell it to. I love these three old horns and have turned down my wife's admonition to sell off all my old horns and use the money to buy a new, very high-grade cornet and trumpet. I can't envision having enough time left to devote to the testing of all that is available out there, prior to making any decision and purchase. BTW, is there a current production cornet or trumpet that can be played both sweetly and with the type of "pure tone " that was mentioned?


Reply #5 - Jan 15th, 2006

I'm unsure what your question means, OLDLOU. If you're asking, "Can the new trumpets and cornets that produce virtually pure sinus waves also play sweetly?", then my answer is yes.

The problem is that horns that produce that type of sound are very one-dimensional. They can't <I><s>[i]</s>not<e>[/i]</e></I> produce that type of sound.

The old cornets that were conical, especially those that produce that distinctive British sound, have a different sound from the new horns. They had what I characterize as an "old-fashioned" sound, which is to say that the sound has a hollow, slightly grainy texture. If you've ever heard the theme for Coronation Street, the Brit soap opera, then you've heard this type of horn. I'm assuming those old horns you play sound a bit like that.

The early cornopeans were even more like that, with an even darker tone, and a hollower, grainier sound, especially those old French cornopeans with the huge bell. The difference with some of those old cornopeans is that you can get a big, fat, centered pedal concert Bb out of them, BOOM!, without scooping underneath and trying to lip the note up to Bb. It's just there.

Have you heard Stephen Mead play euphonium, musoniusrufus? He plays with that big sinus-wave sound. He has amazing technique, and he is a really, genuinely nice guy, to boot.

But I would never listen to a whole band of guys who play with that type of sound, and I would go so far as to say that it's not suitable for sectional playing.

Sectional brass playing has really gone down the dumper, because all this fiddling and fussing over tone production was got at the expense of what works best for sectional playing. The musical values and attributes of the individual player are today at odds with sectional performance.

The #1 rule of sectional playing is over-statement and over-emphasis, and for one good and simple reason: what's pronounced in individual play is lost to some degree in sectional play. This means that if all your brass players are playing with that sinus-wave tone, and are using that ga-ga, boo-boo "gently nudge the air stream" tonguing nonsense, the resulting sound becomes ill-defined mush.

A lot of guys these days are into that "shimmer" nonsense, where you produce that sinus-wave sound, and add tremolo plus vibrato. I can do it, but it makes me want to hurl. Why would I want to play with that same affected, nauseating sound all the time? Music is about expression, not about playing with the <I><s>[i]</s>same<e>[/i]</e></I> expression all the time!

That's probably why I listen to so much keyed brass, and why today I play instruments that engineered fiddling hasn't stripped of their testes.


Reply #6 - Jan 15th, 2006,

You guys have cleared up many questions I have been pondering and made some even more confusion. But thanks for being open and honest with your opinions. I truly believe that the "artist" loses some credentials when they play on a perfect horn.

To make things worse, there has been talk of electric tuner driven servo's to move tuning slides to correct tuning!


That might be OK, if people could settle of the pitch of 'A', and just narrow things down to one or two temperaments that would be used during performance. I know that just in the time I played in the symphony world, A moved around quite a bit, and we used equal temperament, perfect temperament, mean-tone temperament, viola-temperament, and a host of others...


Reply #8 - Jan 16th,

Quote

I truly believe that the "artist" loses some credentials when they play on a perfect horn.

Hmmm... I wonder about this. Examples are sometimes helpful in thinking about things like this The only perfect horn I've encountered is the Yamaha 822 F tuba. I don't own one, by the way, so my view of its perfection may be tinged with my desire to have it. But when I played it, one of the things I admired was the evenness, roundness, and beauty of its tone quality. Of course, it's an FF tuba, but it seemed to have the depth and presence that usually require a CC or BBb. But Roger Bobo seems to be able to be expressive on the 822, and to get a variety of tone colors.

If the "perfect horn" is one that has even, perfect, sound with restricted opportunities for expression, then it's not so perfect, is it? Maybe I've just never encountered a perfect horn-- one that has the limitations you're speaking of.

When I was a student, we were always striving for that perfect even sound, where every note comes out with the same quality, the same roundness, the same volume. This is especially hard for young trombone players, since trombone playing involves big movements that slightly move the horn, and since the slide moves different distances for different intervals. Probably we all romanticize our own instruments: I think that evenness of tone is hardest on the bass trombone, because of the size and weight, the issue of dual rotors. Maybe this is parochial of me.

Having worked so hard to learn to produce that sound, I still admire it when I hear it. Doug Yeo, for example, seems to be able to make everything come out... perfect. I'm in awe. But then his playing doesn't have the properties you mention, gsmonks, when you speak of the tremolo + vibrato problem and the soft mushy tongue that makes sectional playing into goo. You wrote:

QUOTE

Sectional brass playing has really gone down the dumper, because all this fiddling and fussing over tone production was got at the expense of what works best for sectional playing. The musical values and attributes of the individual player are today at odds with sectional performance.

When I was a student, we were all practicing to be soloists and quintet players. I think you're right: This is a problem. Conservatories often teach students playing habits that are appropriate for soloists but not for section work. But this isn't just a problem for brass players-- many violin sections are full of frustrated soloists who need to learn how to play in a section.

Quote That's probably why I listen to so much keyed brass, and why today I play instruments that engineered fiddling hasn't stripped of their testes.

I've already confessed my desire for the perfect FF tuba, so it would be hypocritical of me to complain so loudly about engineered fiddling. I don't have a strong and visceral reaction to contemporary playing and perfect instruments. But like you I prefer musicality and expressive variety over bland perfection. And I'm in love with the ophicleide. If I had more time and money, I'd probably stray to the serpent. Maybe this counts as affection for the imperfect and the expressive over perfect, pretty, neutrality.


Reply #9 - Jan 16th,

Of course, I'm overstating my position to make a point. I don't really detest the sound I'm referring to, but I am pointing out its problems and consequences.

I listen to a lot of trombone music primarily because trombones are very changeable throughout their range, which means the sound has lots of character. I would argue that you cannot have character without flaws.

I have the same complaint about synthesizers. I loathe Roland synths because the sound is too clean, and when you do multitrack recording, the sound gets cheesier and cheesier as you record more and more tracks. I've found through long experience that for multitracking recording purposes you need a big, fat, imperfect sound that's noisy.

An example of typical Roland cheese is the original Law & Order theme. It was made using a Roland D110, either the keyboard or the module- I'm guessing the module, using a variety of controllers for performance attributes.

The backbone of the D110 is what Roland was calling L.A. synthesis, where sound was broken up into partials that were linked together to make sounds. What it really entails is fractal technology as applied to sound waves, breaking all sound waves down into a few shapes out of which all sound waves are made.

It sounds good in theory, but their approach in truth is simplistic, despite their assertion that their approach was one of "linear arithmetic multi-timbral sound technology", which inherently claims that they were able to emulate complex, multi-timbral sonorities.

Take the "clarinet" sound in the Law & Order theme, for example. On paper it is a clarinet sound, but to the ear it's still a synth that's only <I><s>[i]</s>trying<e>[/i]</e></I> to sound like a clarinet.



Enter the new almost-sinus-wave brasswinds. They've become <I><s>[i]</s>so<e>[/i]</e></I> pure that the ear can't distinguish them from electronically generated sound waves. In a brass sectional, it's beginning to sound as though you're mixing acoustic and electronic instruments.

Certainly, the major drawback to these new brasswinds is the consequence of subtracting distinguishing elements from their wave forms, the very imperfections that give these instruments their distinctive trademark sound.

I play a single tenor trombone in part because I want that crappy-sounding low F. I work hard at playing through that part of the range, because it forces me to come up with ways to make it sound good. What I aim for is beauty in performance and expression, as opposed to beauty in sound. As far as that goes, the ugly things a trombone can do are useful, too. Ugliness is part of the natural range of expression.

My take on tuners and anything to do with tuners is that they should be universally banned. If you're using a tuner, you're not tuning- you're just lining up L.E.D.'s or a VU meter. That's not tuning. Using your ear is tuning.

I do not allow my students to use tuners. My one concession is a tuning fork. And if someone shows up with a tuner, I tell the offender to get it out of my sight before they get shot.

I reamed out a couple of players in one of my groups a few months ago for- get this- stopping while we were playing a gig to pull out a tuner and check their pitch! This, after repeated warnings and lectures from yours truly on tune-as-you-go playing. Certain members of our local symphony routinely pull that same nonsense and seem unaware of how amateurish and unprofessional it looks, not to mention how bad an influence it is for younger players who are watching them.

You see this same sort of brain-infection amongst young people these days who can't add in their heads and are wholly dependent on a computer or a calculator. Using a computer or calculator is not doing math- it's punching in numbers and letting the crutch do your work for you.

You often run into this nonsense at supermarkets. I can't count how many times I've given kids, say, $23.21 on a $13.21 bill, expecting $10 in change, and having the witless little wiener throw a hissy-fit because they can't grasp what I'm doing. I lump the use of tuners in with this sort of silliness.

Reply #10 - Jan 16th,



Quote

When I was a student, we were always striving for that perfect even sound, where every note comes out with the same quality, the same roundness, the same volume. This is especially hard for young trombone players, since trombone playing involves big movements that slightly move the horn, and since the slide moves different distances for different intervals. Probably we all romanticize our own instruments: I think that evenness of tone is hardest on the bass trombone, because of the size and weight, the issue of dual rotors. Maybe this is parochial of me.

I think this is an exercise in futility. Well, let me start that again. When one is practicing at home and is developing the ability to play to the limits of the instrument, then such an exercise may be instructive. But that doesn't mean that the instrument should be played that way in real life.

It would be foolish to expect a high C on your bass trombone (if you can get there) to have the same tonal quality as your C just above pedal! And, if you COULD do it, the result would be distasteful. The reason that parts are written for bass trombone (since that is the example we started with) is because it provides a sound with a different character than can be obtained with any other instruments that can play in the same range. Sometimes the difference is subtle, as in the range shared with tenor trombones, sometimes it is not so subtle as the range shared with the tubas.

Admittedly, there is some tonal difference between a note played with no valve as compared to one with both valves in use, but in most settings the difference is not discernible to the listener. And the flexibility advantages a player can get by using the various valves combinations and alternate position offsets it.

Quote:

When I was a student, we were all practicing to be soloists and quintet players. I think you're right: This is a problem. Conservatories often teach students playing habits that are appropriate for soloists but not for section work. But this isn't just a problem for brass players-- many violin sections are full of frustrated soloists who need to learn how to play in a section.

I think this is an excellent point. The whole university experience is set up to be a soloist generator. I was personally more interested in being an ensemble player, and a writer. But that ran counter to the mission of the music department.


Reply #11 - Jan 16th, 2006,

Quote:

When one is practicing at home and developing the ability to play to the limits of the instrument, then such an exercise may be instructive. But that doesn't mean that the instrument should be played that way in real life.

Probably we agree. Maybe it's futile to expect that one will ever be able to play with perfect evenness like this. (Though I know players who come close.) But it's worth striving for the ability to do so, and sometimes it's worth striving for in performance as well as practice. If you can play with even tone, it doesn't mean that you're doomed to monochromatic unmusical playing, it means that you have a kind of control that makes polychromatic playing possible. It's one thing to want a variety of tone colors so that you can use them all for appropriate musical effects. It's quite another thing to be unable to control the horn, so that a variety of different colors come out of the bell without guidance from musical meaning or intention.

Reply #12 - Jan 16th, 2006,
quote When I was a student, we were all practicing to be soloists and quintet players. I think you're right: This is a problem. Conservatories often teach students playing habits that are appropriate for soloists but not for section work.


I think this is an excellent point. The whole university experience is set up to be a soloist generator. I was personally more interested in being an ensemble player, and a writer. But that ran counter to the mission of the music department. <e>[/quote]</e></QUOTE>
I found the same thing 30 years ago, and to the best of my knowledge things haven't changed. I also ran into trouble with composition because the system was geared to producing teachers, not composers. What's needed is practical performance bands populated by musicians/composers, and to get rid of all the teaching garbage which is utterly useless to someone with no interest in becoming a teacher.

The problem, however, is that universities are self-contained, self-involved teacher-run organizations that crank out teachers. Practicality, to them, means teaching.



The serpent, the bass horn, the russian bassoon and the ophicleide are all perfect examples of beauty in performance as opposed to beauty of sound.

I tend to think of beauty of sound as a misguided ideal, primarily because music is about expression, and beauty is only one tiny facet of expression.

Most real life is about various kinds of ugliness because real life is imperfect, discordant and dissonant. There's something fundamentally dishonest about a pretty sound because it betrays an unhealthy fixation on a misguided ideal.

You don't need a tuner. All you need is a tuning fork. I do agree that they're useful for working on brasswinds, but that IS their proper application- engineering and manufacture, not music.



Tuning, in my experience, is WAY too changeable to not use one's ears. In the professional setting, one often ONLY uses equal temperament when playing with a keyboard, such as a piano. In the orchestra, with the trombone section, we would often use a form of just-intonation or mean-tone for chords (depending on their usage in the piece). In fact, I will propose that that may be a large component of what it is you don't like about synthesized parts, Greg, them being realized on an equal-temperament keyboard.

Reply #14 - Jan 16th, 2006,

That's not the issue at all, DBB. Many synths (the pro-ones, not the toys sold in music stores) allow for several types of intonation. In a nutshell, I like my synths dirty, not clean. I like the old Moogs and ARPs and the Korgs because they're big and fat and dirty, and I deplore the Rolands and the Yamahas because the sound is too clean.

By "too clean" I mean "too pure". If you listen to the sound by itself, it can sound big and fat, but it's when you begin adding stuff to it that the structure of the sound doesn't stand up. Pure sounds, when they meet similar or like sounds, tend to disappear (get cancelled out). It's much harder to cancel out impure sounds.

You also get annoying phasing and flanging with simple sounds.

In orchestras, there's a formula you use when increasing the size of your orchestra, that's used to balance the parts. The formula works the way it does because of the way in which sound waves cancel each other out, as a certain number of those crests and troughs meet, add their sums, and result in a big fat zero. The purer (simpler) the sound, the more the entire sound becomes at risk of being cancelled out.

It's a safe bet that you'd have a much harder time trying to cancel out an ophicleide that a modern euphonium.

As far as synths go, I like the big sampling synthesizers, like those put out by Fairlight and Synclavier. These are the high-end pro toys used to do movie scores and video-game music. In the studio, if you're willing to put the time in, you can do a recording that would fool you into thinking you're listening to a real live orchestra.

You're exactly right when you say we use a form of just intonation when playing. I have perfect pitch, and have noticed that for many years, that players who are really listening automatically adjust the pitch.

The types of changes in the music itself directly affect how you go about this. String players can get very close to just intonation when playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. That first rolled chord after the opening unison motif really stands out in my mind. It sets the tone for the rest of the performance. It also tells you a lot about the musical organization and its direction.




Reply #19 - Jan 17th, 2006,

Every time that I show up for rehearsal with the the high brass players want to try out whatever ancient trumpet or cornet that I happen to have with me that time. I even get the occasional offer to buy from one or another of them for some of my horns. The one that intrigues them the most is the "Frankenhorn" that I built from a Conn Conductor trumpet with a Cleveland Superior bell. The rest are all vintage horns in their original condition.

Reply #20 - Jan 17th, 2006

But then you are talking about trumpet players vs. horn players! (Said in jest, but there does seem to be some truth that different personalities seek out different instruments to play.)

But then most players heard stories about the old horns. I'm reminded of the time that I took an old 1920 Holton trombone Revelation to band practice. A couple of guys gingerly tried it out, but at the end of practice, after I had used it all practice, a couple of them came over and said how surprised at the quality of the sound coming out of the horn. They expected a 'pea-shooter' buzz-saw sound, but that Holton has a pretty good sound. So, I guess we are all influenced by what we are told, especially if it hasn't been tempered with experience.

On a related subject: I understand that Boosey, Besson, and Higham were the only three British companies that produced double belled euphoniums (another interest of mine).

Question: Has anyone ever seen a Higham double bell? I've heard from a very reliable source (Arnold Myers) that they made 'em, but I have no idea what they looked like.


Reply #29 - Jan 20th, 2006

There IS what I take to be one in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments.

(2771) Euphonium in B-flat, 5-valve. Higham, Manchester, c 1886 {38128}.

Since it's listed as a five valve, I can only assume that it is a double bell (and not a tuba).



Reply #30 - Jan 20th, 2006, at 1:46pm

Quote:

There IS what I take to be one in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments. (2771) Euphonium in B-flat, 5-valve. Higham, Manchester, c 1886 {38128}.Since it's listed as a five valve, I can only assume that it is a double-bell (and not a tuba).

There is a 5 valved Higham tuba (2131) in the EUCHMI, it is a single bell. No picture of 2771, sad enough.


Reply #31 - Jan 20th, 2006

The fact that the horn in the Edinborough collection has five valves doesn't settle the question whether it's a double bell: Courtois and Couneson have produced six-valve single bell euphoniums.


Reply #32 - Jan 20th,

If you visit Charlie Brightons (Highams) web page you would see a few different 5-valve horns, two of which are Highams. My Besson 5 valve euphonium, also only has one bell.




Reply #33 - Jan 20th, 2006

G bass trombones are still in production, due to popular demand. The companies in question are making period brass, so I think what they're doing is modelling their horns on popular examples from the past.

Of course, now that I'm putting my oar in, the only manufacturer I can think of is Egger!

Several high-end instrument builders will make these horns on request whether they're currently making them or not. Thein will do just about anything if you ask them to, for example. I once asked them about an oddball G alto I used to own, and without hesitation they told me they would and could build me a replica.


Oh yes, I know that 5 valves do not mean two bells. Just compared those instruments in Edinburg.

Since double bell instruments are so popular, I wonder why some manufacturers do not make a small series. They could do that to a high degree by using adjusted standard components from other instruments in their catalogs. Think they would sell good.

And a few ones with 3 bells for those who want to be different anyway.


Reply #35 - Aug 27th, 2007

quote: I like the sound of cornets and pretty-sounding trumpets and euphoniums and other instruments, up to a point, but the sound has been turning off concert-goers for a long time now because of the utter lack of range of expression. The sound, in a word, is boring........."The big ego trip" has always been a central theme of Western Music, and the cornet, it must be said, lent itself to that world, which was rife in the 19th century. The instrument appeals to players who are more interested in performance pyrotechnics than the music itself. Look at the music the cornet virtuosos were playing in the 19th century! It's downright crass in its flash and showmanship. And these guys all had their little specialties- triple tonguing, blistering scales and arpeggios, unbelieveable speed! These guys were the rock-guitar gods of the 19th century.But jazz and classical music are about more than flash and showmanship, which is why the cornet remains the poor cousin to the music world- and that is very telling. The cornet was more a part of the music business than the music world. When it comes to displaying <I><s>[i]</s>character<e>[/i]</e></I>, the cornet falls short. That's why all that flashy, pyrotechnic cornet music died with the 19th century. If it had substance, we'd still be listening to it, or someone somewhere would be fighting to keep it alive.....Unfortunately, modern classical music is today being polluted by this tone-fixation blight, and quality performance, for years now, is taking a back seat to tone-production, on ALL modern instruments. Good classical music is supposed to have you sitting on the edge of your chair, not making inane, patronizing comments on flawless execution and pretty tone. You're supposed to be caught up in the performance, not themanner of the performance....

Sorry for dragging an old post up, but I just read it and I don't agree. Conical-bore instruments aren't to blame for boring performances - their players are. A cornet is only as "boring" as you play it and is capable of a wide range of tone colors and styles.

As for cornet soloists being on a big ego trip, what soloist isn't? While there are probably exceptions, most soloists do it for the spotlight and to see what comes with it. Same goes for ensemble players in high-visibility groups. Flash and showmanship are present in jazz and classical music, however, many times it is best recognized by other musicians who can better appreciate what they're witnessing.

I do agree that the tone produced by many modern trumpet players is too homogenized. What sickens me is the common "dua dua" attacks I commonly hear on everything. Where's the edge? The reason flashy, pyrotechnic cornet work isn't common is that 1) it's too difficult for many to master, and 2) it was THE popular music of the time, much like rock music is now. Today, the rock stars played guitar. That doesn't mean that the 19th century style of cornet playing is bad or sickening - it's just not mainstream any more, and is seen as being a little too "lowbrow" for the symphony types.


Reply #36 - Aug 28th, 2007,

I think the longevity of the music has more to do with its perceived status and its fashionableness than with the merits of the music itself. Brass music of the Civil War can be very exciting and well received by audiences today.

But it was the music of the common man. It didn't have the status of the orchestra.

And it tended to be played by the common man, not the professional.


Reply #37 - Dec 1st, 2008,

Oh, I agree 100%...I do think that for a small boy or girl a Cornett makes sense for a beginning student since they are closer to the body than a trumpet. I thought about a cornet for my 10-year-old, but he is almost as tall as his mother, so I went with a trumpet instead. I think a cornet makes sense if the music is just background noise kind of like how a movie soundtrack is.... If the music is a big part though of creating or setting the mood, then a trumpet is the only way to go!!!

I also have a low opinion of new factory mass produced trumpets as they ship. I think that most OEM's have managed to squeeze all unique personality out of the trumpet so that most of them sound like copies of each other. In fact, the harmonic has taken a vacation in place of perfect slotting and intonation! Obviously, you do not want to have to fight tooth and nail to get the trumpet in tune but sometimes a little less than perfect intonation in exchange for more of the low harmonics is a nice thing. This is one reason why I decided to buy good student horns cheap off eBay and then have the bell and lead pipe of my choice installed. I have decided to go with a copper bell with no rim bead/flange one. I have not decided on the other one if I want to go with a lightweight bronze or a heavy gold brass bell. My point is unless you can afford $3000-$4000 MSRP for a trumpet it is hard to get something that sounds unique and has a different flavor than all the other mass-produced trumpets out there. Even some of my favorite trumpets like the Xeno 8335 RGS while close to the sound I like it still does not sound as good and an old Martin Committee horn or a Martin Imperial........The old Martins produce the sound I like the most. Now I would not say that other sounds are not great sounding as well it is just not my preference. I hate the way most modern Bach Strad's sound as an Example while others love the sound they produce.


I see where one company had a beryllium bell

Dec 3rd, 2008,

Now as a young automotive technician apprentice growing up in Europe, I followed F1. In fact, I was probably in diapers when I attended my first F1 race. Now this material was banned from F1 because it is extremely toxic in fact if your respirator fails while machining it and one little particle hits your lungs kiss them good buy! So how can they make a trumpet bell out of something so toxic? You might as well make cadmium plate mouthpieces or better yet make them out of lead?

So now I must ask since this stuff is super high tech aerospace stuff has anyone used carbon fiber in place of brass. I understand a monkey could use it to make something like a clarinet but what about rapping lead pipes with it to contain more of the energy, so you get less wasted. Maybe the valve case could be made from carbon fiber with brass liners etc.??????


I know that at least tubas have been built with carbon-fiber bells. Chuck Dallenbach used some with the Canadian Brass:

http://forums.chisham.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29852


Reply #2 - Dec 4th, 2008

What is referred to as a "beryllium" bell is, if memory serves, actually made from a beryllium-copper alloy. Schilke called theirs "beryllium bronze"; mostly copper with a very small amount (some would call it a trace) of beryllium for added strength.

Looking at Schilke's website, it doesn't look like they use it anymore. The Schilke Loyalist (http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/ has some information on this.


The [small] World of Brass Instruments

Jan 11th, 2005,

It is amazing how entwined the circle of those influential in the development of brass instruments were and continue to be!

As but one example:

http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/Biography%20and%20Background.html

Reply #1 - Dec 15th, 2010,

Yes, they cover the ground well in the Dallas articles. It's clear that the world of brass is a very small world with only a couple of handfuls of essential players since they started putting valves on natural horns. In fact, even before that, going back to the Middle Ages, it followed a similar pattern. Always someone who worked with someone else etc. It's unheard of for someone to just come in "out of the blue". It's funny though, most things work that way. Aircraft, automobiles etc. and they tend to follow similar patterns of development. It's interesting how the developers and the buying public come together in these affairs. For centuries, the production of horns was a static business, providing matched sets for private buyers and military contracts then with the explosion of demand brought about by the modern industrial age, the entertainment industry, large publicly supported orchestras, radio, and other media, it went through the roof with guys like Fiske, Conn and Holton running horns out the door by the truckload. It's easy to see how people become sentimental about these early years. There is a certain excitement about it all and a sense that it will never be quite the same again. Of course, for the people at the time, it was quite a different thing, I'm sure. Long hours on the factory floor, exposure to metals and chemicals, etc. Even for the craftsmen it must have been a hard grind at that level of production.


Reply #2 - Dec 16th, 2010,

In the early to mid-1800s, a couple of factors converged - largely brought on by the technology of industrial innovation - that allowed for the explosion of musical instruments. Industrialization allowed the public to have something previously available only to the rich - free time. And industrial production made musical instruments affordable to the public.


Keefer instruments were really "handmade."

Jan 18th, 2011,

I have the privilege of owning two nearly identical Keefer trumpets that were probably made during the Second World War. Their serial numbers are: 31054 and 31058. These were most likely on the work bench the same week sometime during 1943. Outwardly, they are identical in overall design (except for a slight difference in the bell taper and flare) and are both large bore instruments. If you could see these instruments side by side, you would never believe there could be any difference in them whatsoever. What is interesting is that very few of the parts are interchangeable. Neither the top nor bottom valve caps, for example, are cut with the same thread (otherwise identical). The first valve slides are of a slightly different radius and are thus also not interchangeable (otherwise identical). I don't think these minute differences would have occurred if these instruments were being made on an assembly line.

While most of the factory was devoted to wartime production starting in 1942, a few instruments were apparently being hand made on a special-order basis. These could have been made for the US government, since the Keefer company had contracts to make instruments for the US military long before the Second World War began (would also explain the departure from wartime production), but we really don't have records to tell us since the fire that destroyed everything in the early 1960's.


Reply #1 - Jan 19th, 2011,

That is consistent with what I have read about Keefer's latter years.


Reply #2 - Aug 19th, 2011,

It has been said that the German Meister Franz Straub made his instruments -except for the valve section- all by hand: He draws his own lead pipes etc.

Great horns, real pieces of mastership.