Bugles VS Trumpets

[louderisbetter]

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.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for clearing that stuff up above, it's helpful information.

Now, that being said, I only half-agree with the last point here--namely, "easier or harder to achieve the desired sound." In playing with the ideal technique--which, to me, would mean relaxed, flowing synthesis of sound--every instrument is going to sound somewhat different, and the greatest determining factor is going to be the nature of the equipment. I very strongly believe that instruments and mouthpieces DO determine sound, not by requiring you to play with a single determined sound, but by generating a single ideal sound when you're playing with a fully relaxed and uninhibited technique.

Take, for instance, jazz. It is possible for a player with a heavy-wall concert instrument and a bathtub of a mouthpiece to play lead trumpet or trombone--I've seen it done, and I was "that guy" at one point in time, too stubbornly married to my equipment, and too egotistical to give up my bathtub for a "cheater". This was until Allen Vizzutti visited my university, quirked his eyebrow at me, and said, "First of all, do you sound the way you want to sound? Second, is it easy to sound that way?"

I sounded fine, really--it was pretty close to the upper register sound I was after playing lead. And of course I'd known for years that "cheater" mouthpieces don't really increase your range or make you sound better... but that half-understanding was just enough to make me despise them, rather than understand their purpose. What they do accomplish is to make it just a bit easier to generate that lead sound without having to "crunch", without having to give it a little extra twist to get the sound I wanted. The generation of that lead sound is accomplished well enough by any player with good ears, but the equipment has a voice that it will naturally give the sound, and fighting that voice is a waste of energy. My equipment was orchestral, and any deviation from that sound was extra energy being expended. The very same principle inverted would have applied if I'd gone into orchestra with a shallow mouthpiece.

It's a similar issue in any mouthpiece or instrument switch. Alto trombone does not have the same ideal sound as a tenor; F tubas don't have the same sound as Cs or Bbs. The most obvious family, simply out of sheer numbers, is the trumpet family: the common solo rep includes flugel, Bb, C, Eb, and A/Bb piccolo, and each will play with a very distinct quality and type of sound. It's common for Bb and C to be considered interchangeable, because they're similar enough in sound to be used for a lot of the same purposes, but a player who is really intent on creating a specific sound will choose very carefully between the two, just as he wouldn't lightheartedly choose to play a flugelhorn on a normal trumpet solo.

You're probably right that the instruments aren't tapered differently, you've certainly got a wider knowledge of the history of bugles than I. However, they certainly do play differently than modern marching instruments, if for no different reason than being differently pitched. If your concept of playing easily is limited to wanting the horn to give you the exact pitches, as your last sentence seems to state, then we're going to continue to disagree on this issue, because my concept of playing revolves around the constant audiation of pitches, upon relying upon the ear and proper ear-to-technique training to generate the correct pitch regardless of the behavior of the horn. Once the pitch is generated at the embouchure, however, the instrument is going to take it and shape it from the raw buzz into the refined sound. In this way, it is possible to play decently on even the worst of equipment... but the better suited the equipment to the task at hand, the easier your job is, and the better the product. The fact of the matter is that most of our members in the corps aren't at this level of their playing, but it is still the ideal that I train them to, and in both my brass lines and my studio, I've consistently seen success with this approach.

[idontwan2know]

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for clearing that stuff up above, it's helpful information.

Now, that being said, I only half-agree with the last point here--namely, "easier or harder to achieve the desired sound." In playing with the ideal technique--which, to me, would mean relaxed, flowing synthesis of sound--every instrument is going to sound somewhat different, and the greatest determining factor is going to be the nature of the equipment. I very strongly believe that instruments and mouthpieces DO determine sound, not by requiring you to play with a single determined sound, but by generating a single ideal sound when you're playing with a fully relaxed and uninhibited technique.

Take, for instance, jazz. It is possible for a player with a heavy-wall concert instrument and a bathtub of a mouthpiece to play lead trumpet or trombone--I've seen it done, and I was "that guy" at one point in time, too stubbornly married to my equipment, and too egotistical to give up my bathtub for a "cheater". This was until Allen Vizzutti visited my university, quirked his eyebrow at me, and said, "First of all, do you sound the way you want to sound? Second, is it easy to sound that way?"

I sounded fine, really--it was pretty close to the upper register sound I was after playing lead. And of course I'd known for years that "cheater" mouthpieces don't really increase your range or make you sound better... but that half-understanding was just enough to make me despise them, rather than understand their purpose. What they do accomplish is to make it just a bit easier to generate that lead sound without having to "crunch", without having to give it a little extra twist to get the sound I wanted. The generation of that lead sound is accomplished well enough by any player with good ears, but the equipment has a voice that it will naturally give the sound, and fighting that voice is a waste of energy. My equipment was orchestral, and any deviation from that sound was extra energy being expended. The very same principle inverted would have applied if I'd gone into orchestra with a shallow mouthpiece.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. We definitely agree here. Players determine the sound, equipment affects how easily the ideal sound is achieved.

You're probably right that the instruments aren't tapered differently, you've certainly got a wider knowledge of the history of bugles than I. However, they certainly do play differently than modern marching instruments, if for no different reason than being differently pitched. If your concept of playing easily is limited to wanting the horn to give you the exact pitches, as your last sentence seems to state, then we're going to continue to disagree on this issue, because my concept of playing revolves around the constant audiation of pitches, upon relying upon the ear and proper ear-to-technique training to generate the correct pitch regardless of the behavior of the horn. Once the pitch is generated at the embouchure, however, the instrument is going to take it and shape it from the raw buzz into the refined sound. In this way, it is possible to play decently on even the worst of equipment... but the better suited the equipment to the task at hand, the easier your job is, and the better the product. The fact of the matter is that most of our members in the corps aren't at this level of their playing, but it is still the ideal that I train them to, and in both my brass lines and my studio, I've consistently seen success with this approach.

Again, I agree with you about training the "inner ear" and always hearing the pitch internally before trying to make it come out of the horn. However, as you said, the level of musicians we're dealing with in drum corps usually aren't matured to that point(though proper teaching can take them a long way) and if the equipment is more forgiving in that respect, the results will be better. That's where I think the biggest difference lies...the learning curve is significantly steeper with Gs and you spend more time getting to a given quality of sound, clarity and intonation.

[louderisbetter]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. We definitely agree here. Players determine the sound, equipment affects how easily the ideal sound is achieved.

Again, I agree with you about training the "inner ear" and always hearing the pitch internally before trying to make it come out of the horn. However, as you said, the level of musicians we're dealing with in drum corps usually aren't matured to that point(though proper teaching can take them a long way) and if the equipment is more forgiving in that respect, the results will be better. That's where I think the biggest difference lies...the learning curve is significantly steeper with Gs and you spend more time getting to a given quality of sound, clarity and intonation.

Ah, once again, thank you for clearing that up. We do definitely agree on most aspects, I suppose we've just had different experiences working with different groups of kids.

[Martybucs]

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.

I have to disagree with this statement, although maybe I don't understand what you mean by "determine sound".

With trumpets, the construction of the instrument greatly influences the sound and that in turn could be said to "determine sound". Whether the horn is lightweight or heavyweight, has a fast or slow bell taper, large bore vs. small or medium bore, etc., all shape the sound of the instrument. Likewise with mouthpieces; heavy, large mass mouthpiece vs. standard weight mouthpiece, shallow vs. deep cup, open backbore vs. tight, etc.

The same player could sound vastly different depending on the setup used.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Martybucs

[idontwan2know]

Yes, and conversely, many players often sound very similar despite very different setups. One can achieve a big dark orchestral sound on a "lead" piece, and be a screamer on a 1 1/2B....the appropriate equipment just makes it easier.

The sound that comes out of the horn is a reflection of what the player puts into it, not a function of the horn itself.

[Martybucs]

Yes, and conversely, many players often sound very similar despite very different setups. One can achieve a big dark orchestral sound on a "lead" piece, and be a screamer on a 1 1/2B....the appropriate equipment just makes it easier.

The sound that comes out of the horn is a reflection of what the player puts into it, not a function of the horn itself.

I think that would more be considered a style of sound. For example, Arturo Sandoval's tribute album in which he imitates the sound of various artists by duplicating the way they played and sound. His Armstrong, Severinson, and Clifford Brown are uncanny in their similarty to the orginal artist. It's fun to mess around with your sound and I do a pretty credible Armstrong and Severinson, myself.

What you say about equipment is true for most people, but not all. Some people are just not that good at coloring their sound and they need a particular setup to achieve the sound they want. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make them less of a musician.

I've often made the assertion that a horn, if it is in good condition and made by a reputable manufacturer, has no intrinsic intonation of it's own. It is the players' responsibility to play the horn in tune and to learn what needs to be done to play the horn in tune, ie, the tuning crooks. I agree some horns and setups may make one horn easier to play in tune for one person or another.

I've said this when someone comments that one horn has great intonation and the other is a piece of crap or words to that effect. I've been playing a long time, (over 40 years), and I've never had any trouble adapting to playing a horn that supposedly has bad intonation. It makes sense to find a horn you like and can play well on. However, no one agrees with me.

If you want to see what I mean, check out reviews of "the Wild Thing" trumpet. Some people love it and others swear it has lousy intonation.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Martybucs

[Drew Wilkie]

Great "ear chops" are what separate the boys from the men. Because ANYBODY can learn to play a wind instrument, but only very very few learn to be truly great players. This is because they learned to actively use their ears all the time, in order to play perfectly in tune and in time. If your ears are working correctly, equipment really doesn't play a huge role in performance quality.

For commercial work, I use a Bob Reeves Dynamic Mass 40ES, which is significantly narrower and shallower than a Schilke 6A4A. Yet because I've learned to use my ears correctly, I've used it for lyrical playing in drum corps and in other commercial settings and gigs, and even on recording sessions. Conversely, I also use the mouthpiece on lead jobs and sessions, where I need to have everything from low G to triple G. My point is that sound quality is ultimately up to the player's discretion...equipment will just have tendencies at best.

Your ears are your best friend...in fact, they're your ONLY friend in music!

Edited December 4, 2006 by Drew Wilkie

[Martybucs]

Great "ear chops" are what separate the boys from the men. Because ANYBODY can learn to play a wind instrument, but only very very few learn to be truly great players. This is because they learned to actively use their ears all the time, in order to play perfectly in tune and in time. If your ears are working correctly, equipment really doesn't play a huge role in performance quality.

For commercial work, I use a Bob Reeves Dynamic Mass 40ES, which is significantly narrower and shallower than a Schilke 6A4A. Yet because I've learned to use my ears correctly, I've used it for lyrical playing in drum corps and in other commercial settings and gigs, and even on recording sessions. Conversely, I also use the mouthpiece on lead jobs and sessions, where I need to have everything from low G to triple G. My point is that sound quality is ultimately up to the player's discretion...equipment will just have tendencies at best.

Your ears are your best friend...in fact, they're your ONLY friend in music!

There are many more things than "good ears" that separate the boys from the men.

I don't believe they're your only friend. It is important to have good equipment that compliments your playing, even if you play perfectly well on a Bundy. You need to have an ability to adjust to your playing circumstances, (ie, the people you're playing with and blending with them and gelling as one, both in playing style and personalities). There is so much more to playing music than "great ear chops" There is a fantastic woman, Evelyn Glennie, that is totally deaf and is a famous musician. Beethoven probably never heard some of his greatest works. As the years go by you learn not to be so absolute in your opinions.

I just checked, and I can indeed play a triple G, but you know it's never come up and I play lead in a jazz band as well as many other types of bands. Another thing you learn. People really don't care how high you can play. They want to be entertained with good sound.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Martybucs

[Kansan]

I've noticed at shows that the Bb just don't have any guts. Yea the lines play in tune. Yea they look real pretty. No they don't project enough to smack you upside the head, cave in your chest and generally wow the crowd with power. Oh the players tried but could't get it done and those were the "big boys". I listened to Bridgemen 79 last night and thought they sounded pretty good on their G Bugles. I think they played on Dynasty Bugles. (Found out by reading their History, the brass colored bugles were Olds Ultratone IIs.)

Brands: I wish Olds still produced their G Bugles. I have an Olds Ultratone II that plays real nice and it has Chrome finish. Our arranger has an Olds Ultratone Soprano that's killer as well. Next to Olds of old in 2 valve I'd say King would be second and Dynasty 2 valve is last. I have not played 3 valve G bugles so I can't comment on Quality. Of the Band horns I'd say I like King Marching Baritones the best between King and DEG. If I was forced to buy a Bb Band line, I'd have to pick between King and Kanstul.

Our G line is mostly Dynasty because they are easy to find at low prices. Of the batch, I'd say the Mellophones are the best of the Dynasty Bugles.

Note:I noticed Chops Inc. bought a Bb King line with a new model of over the shoulder Tuba. Interesting very interesting.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Kansan

[ravedodger]

Not to argue here, but could you detail the extent of Kanstul's 2 valve bugle production for my enlightenment? From what I know Kanstul began business in 1986. They produced a Meehaphone, a 2 valve descant bugle, for BD. There was a 2 valve soprano made for VK sold on ebay a few years ago and described as rare. It went for 2-3 times what a standard 2 valve sold for.

Did Kanstul make a complete line of brass; sops, mellos, baris, euphs, contras? It was my understanding that tooling for a 2 valve set back in the late 80's when the 3 valve proposal was being floated at every Rules Congress was too cost prohibitive and risky. Kanstul only produced a set of bugles once three valves were allowed and still make them today. One of the benefits of going to three valves was getting Zig back in the bugle market.

So it was my understanding that prior to the introduction of three valve bugles, Dynasty was the producer of a complete set of bugles.

Jeff, Kanstul did make a complete line of two valve G bugles VK used them in the late 80's to early 90's. I have two valve Kanstul contra in my possession. I have also seen a few two valve sopranos and a mellophone within the past three years.

IIRC, the ebay soprano was a pre-production prototype.

Sorry to drag up an old, hideous thread, but I had to. :P