Bugles VS Trumpets

[supersop]

After taking a quick look at Yamaha's corporate reports for the past 5 years, converting yen to dollars, I found some interesting data that disproves alot of the assumptions in this thread. Yamaha spends an average of $84,000,000 per year on R&D which includes testing product in the field. They also have over 10,000,000 in constant inventory of musical instruments. Even more interesting, they sales in North America after the key change took place went from 34 million to over 100 million over night and has remained steady since then. I know that Yamaha sells more than brass instruments, but it just goes to show that this wasn't the only target in their marketing agenda. Draw whatever conclusions you want ... but I think the conspiracy theories have alot of merit.

[Dave]

Not without evidence, which a lump sum of money is not.

[supersop]

Not without evidence, which a lump sum of money is not.

I'm not saying anything one way or the other. What I AM saying is that they jumped ALL OVER IT! I'm sure their stockholders loved it. From a business/tax standpoint ... if I could predict that kind of sustained OVERNIGHT growth .. I would be giving my product away to the worlds elite in order to achieve my marketing/profit goals... without a doubt.

[Dave]

But they're not. That's the point. This is a classic conspiracy theory: ignoring the known facts in favor of baseless notions.

[brassyNsassy]

I propose that all instruments used by drum corps be in Eb.

Eb Cornets

Eb Alto Horns

Eb Bass Trumpets

Eb Tubas

Eb = Excellence!!!

[Martybucs]

I propose that all instruments used by drum corps be in Eb.

Eb Cornets

Eb Alto Horns

Eb Bass Trumpets

Eb Tubas

Eb = Excellence!!!

Ebeeewwwe.

You ever hear most people play Eb cornet? If you can play it, I'm obviously not talking about you. I've just heard a lot of people think they can play it. Worst I ever heard was a brass band from Jersey and a guy trying to play the piccolo part in "Stars and Stripes Forever" on an Eb cornet. Still peels the enamel off my teeth!

[idontwan2know]

Conical instruments (i.e., bugles, flugelhorns, or euphoniums as opposed to baritones) have a wider pitch center, which makes it easy to bend the pitch out of tune. OR, as is the case with drum corps where we have a large number of young players with fairly undeveloped ears, they make it MORE difficult to play IN tune. Not impossible--listen to a few of the incredible recordings of the mid to late nineties and you'll know it's not impossible--but difficult, just as most people put onto a baroque trumpet or a late 19th century cornet will sound like crap.

Lots of half-truth in these few sentences, though I tend to agree with the overall conclusion.

1) There is no such thing as a true conical or cylindrical brass instrument anymore. All modern brass instruments are comprised of sections of conical and cylindrical tubing. It is true that the instruments considered part of the "conical family" have a higher proportion of conical tubing vs. cylindrical and vice versa.

2) The last generation of 3 valve G horns were not any more conical than their Bb counterparts(sops and trumpets being the only exception). By and large, the last generation of Gs and the concurrent generation of Bbs were identical except for a length of cylindrical tubing added between the leadpipe and valve section on the G versions. Thus they were actually less conical than their Bb counterparts.

Bbs are easier to play well. That's pretty much a universally accepted fact by those that have played both. They slot better, partials are much better in tune relative to each other, and the horn is in general much more forgiving to mistakes. In a competitive environment where time is at a premium, that which yields the best results with the least time invested will always win out. I think the difference is much smaller than some people would like us to believe, but it is real.

Personally, I feel the better intonation and superior sounds you hear from drum corps nowadays is far more about approach than the horn. There is simply less tolerance for poor sounds in today's drum corps. Better pedagogy and more mature musicians doesn't hurt either. I also think the gulf appears to be wider because Bbs are always compared to the G lines of the late 90s, and frankly the mid-late 90s was not a good era for sound quality in drum corps. You hear much better sounds across the board in the early 90s than you do the later part of the decade.

[Shadow_7]

They slot better, partials are much better in tune relative to each other, and the horn is in general much more forgiving to mistakes.

Not true for all brands and makes. My Kanstul G Euph slots better than both my Deg G and Deg Bb. Although my Deg Bb Euph slots better than my Deg G. Intonation is generally better on the Bb, except for being flat to A 442 with all of the slides pushed all the way in. Which can be an issue since modern pit equipment seems to favor A 442, instead of A 440.

[louderisbetter]

Lots of half-truth in these few sentences, though I tend to agree with the overall conclusion.

1) There is no such thing as a true conical or cylindrical brass instrument anymore. All modern brass instruments are comprised of sections of conical and cylindrical tubing. It is true that the instruments considered part of the "conical family" have a higher proportion of conical tubing vs. cylindrical and vice versa.

2) The last generation of 3 valve G horns were not any more conical than their Bb counterparts(sops and trumpets being the only exception). By and large, the last generation of Gs and the concurrent generation of Bbs were identical except for a length of cylindrical tubing added between the leadpipe and valve section on the G versions. Thus they were actually less conical than their Bb counterparts.

Bbs are easier to play well. That's pretty much a universally accepted fact by those that have played both. They slot better, partials are much better in tune relative to each other, and the horn is in general much more forgiving to mistakes. In a competitive environment where time is at a premium, that which yields the best results with the least time invested will always win out. I think the difference is much smaller than some people would like us to believe, but it is real.

Personally, I feel the better intonation and superior sounds you hear from drum corps nowadays is far more about approach than the horn. There is simply less tolerance for poor sounds in today's drum corps. Better pedagogy and more mature musicians doesn't hurt either. I also think the gulf appears to be wider because Bbs are always compared to the G lines of the late 90s, and frankly the mid-late 90s was not a good era for sound quality in drum corps. You hear much better sounds across the board in the early 90s than you do the later part of the decade.

Explain to me your concept of "half-truth"--do you mean that I am lying, or mistaken? And if so, please be somewhat more specific. I'm open to being corrected, as I do occasionally make mistakes B) , nonetheless, I cannot learn from them if you're not willing to say anything more than "there is no such thing as a true conical or cylindrical brass instrument anymore" when that's a rather obvious--although nonetheless, horribly subjective--statement (ever seen a trumpet that didn't have a bell? Ever seen a french horn that looked like a brass traffic cone?)

The conical definition--at least in my understanding--refers to the taper of the instrument from the leadpipe to the second valve slide (this location being chosen since it's where the manufacturers measure the bore of the instrument). While I've never gotten out my caliper and measured each and every brass instrument I've ever held, the performance tendencies on "conical" vs. "cylindrical" instruments, as we call them, have always tended to be the same, so I'm trusting that the manufacturers have their heads screwed on properly. I don't give a #### what they call them so long as they can tell me somewhat of what to expect out of the instrument in terms of design.

You've probably got me on the issue of the "last generation" horns, because I don't know that I've ever encountered them for certain. I'm assuming you deliberately oversimplified the fact about "just adding some extra tubing", as that would leave the valves at GROSSLY inappropriate lengths for tuning down a minor third, but I understand if you mean it just in the context of the taper of the bore.

All in all, you're right that the approach is the greatest factor, but this discussion applies more to the equipment and how it affects the level of success that any given line might be capable of. I don't agree with you at all that Bbs are less demanding, if anything they require a higher level of technique to sound "okay" (as opposed to great, perfect, or Phantom ^0^ ). But today, we are consistently attracting better players, and/or teaching them to be better performers on their instruments, thus--once again--it is necessary to give them the best instruments for the job.

Less seriously:

As to the comment about playing instruments that are even higher pitched... well, when a respectable conservatory announces their plans to field a corps, give me a call.

... To go buy earplugs.

[idontwan2know]

Explain to me your concept of "half-truth"--do you mean that I am lying, or mistaken?

"Common misconception" would have been a much better term to use than "half-truth". I was refering to the idea that most of the difference in sounds and playing characteristics between G horns and Bbs is due to the G horn being a conical horn as opposed to cylindrical Bbs. Modern G horns are/were not any more conical than their Bb counterparts.

I suspect the confusion is due to the misnomer "bugle" applied to the G horns. A civil war era cavalry bugle is most definitely a far more conical instrument than a trumpet. But the horns played by corps in the late 90s had nothing to do with true bugles. A 3 valve "soprano bugle" is simply an alto trumpet in G. A "contrabass bugle" is simply a marching tuba in G. The design differences between the two are insignificant, at least when it comes to broad classifications.

You've probably got me on the issue of the "last generation" horns, because I don't know that I've ever encountered them for certain. I'm assuming you deliberately oversimplified the fact about "just adding some extra tubing", as that would leave the valves at GROSSLY inappropriate lengths for tuning down a minor third, but I understand if you mean it just in the context of the taper of the bore.

No, I was being serious. In several cases the only difference between some of the Kanstul and Dynasty "marching brass" and "bugles" was a greater length of tubing prior to entering the valve section on the "bugles". I'll see if I can dig up some pics to illustrate this...it may be hard as the designs of the Bb horns have moved forward and the Gs haven't.

All in all, you're right that the approach is the greatest factor, but this discussion applies more to the equipment and how it affects the level of success that any given line might be capable of. I don't agree with you at all that Bbs are less demanding, if anything they require a higher level of technique to sound "okay" (as opposed to great, perfect, or Phantom ^0^ ). But today, we are consistently attracting better players, and/or teaching them to be better performers on their instruments, thus--once again--it is necessary to give them the best instruments for the job.

Instruments don't determine sound, just like mouthpieces don't determine sound...they can only make it easier or harder to achieve the desired sound. I suppose individual experience will vary, but I have almost universally found Bbs to be far more forgiving and require less in the way of constant focus on buzzing exact pitches.