Looking for feedback on Leonard Falcone's comparison between Euphonium and Cello

[iiipopes]

Where reasonable people may differ. The Jupiter 4-valve non-comp horns, both the 4-valves up and the 3+1, are the same bore, and bugle taper, and the current King "baritones" and "euphoniums" that are up non-comps are also of similar bore and bugle. They all have slightly smaller bores and bell diameters and throats that do the full-sized fully compensating euphoniums that most people now think of, especially when played by such professional soloists as David Werden or Steven Mead.

You are entitled to express your opinion, as am I. At least I was trying to be a gentleman in how I expressed my disagreement.

Here is a link to the Jupiter page, where you can see almost all the models, especially the models most used in schools, have the same .570 bore and 10.8 or 11 inch bell, differing only in valve configuration, in both upright bell and front bell models.

http://www.jupitermusic.com/jbi_inst...35&lId=2&sId=1

And the analogous Yamaha instruments, also primarily used in schools, also have .571 bores and 11 inch bells, in both bell front and bell forward, differing only in valve configuration:

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/...&CNTYP=PRODUCT

And of the King instruments, the "baritones" concededly have a slightly smaller bore, .562, but the same build for their student models, and the upright "euphonium" does have the .580, but it is a 4-valve non-comp, and still of a smaller bore than the full-blown 4-valve comp euphs with 11 or 12 inch bells, so they have a more compact tone as well.

http://www.kingwinds.com/content/pro...p?sub=Baritone
http://www.kingwinds.com/content/pro...?sub=Euphonium

So, ironically the actual horns you quote as being more prevalent in school bands now, have basically the same bore and bugle profile as the older American baritone horns and are merely the current versions of them.

So to answer your question, where did they go? They are alive and well and being played every day in school bands across the USA. They're just being made in China, Taiwan or Japan instead of Eastlake, Cleveland or Fullerton.

This is in contrast to what most people think of as a "true" euphonium, based on the Besson model. For example, the fully 4-valve comp Sovereign, the model on which many other manufacturers of euphoniums are related, starts with a .590 bore and a 12 inch bell, with a larger throat that is more conical and gives the darker, more pervasive tone that has become the standard for euph tone.

http://www.besson.com/en/instruments...NMaXN0JmNpZD05

[Mr. Tom]

Now you have me in a good mood, and I'm actually laughing out loud.

But I'm going to back up to the original subject of the thread Leonard Falcone, who played a fine 4 valve Conn bell front baritone, about 1928 vintage, gold plated, with a lovely scene of a mountain, a log cabin and a stream.

There were six euphoniumists in the rehearsal that day in the 1970's and 2 on Conn 4 valve "Connstellation" horns. Falcone was guest conductor. "Could you two please turn your bells around? I can HEAR you."

I submit this, because despite the bore size, there are differences in the taper, etc that result in a difference in THE SOUND.

A trombone can have a .570 bore. Probably an F tuba somewhere could approach this, but put both in a room with David Werden on a Sterling, Leonard Falcone on his bell-front Conn, Arthur Pryor on trombone and Bill Bell on the F tuba, and I'm sure any of us could tell the qualitative differences and nuances.

This holds true in the cornet world-- different bells, small changes in the leadpipe, shepherd's crook vs. "straight"... a trumpet and a cornet might even share the same bore, but one is a trumpet, one is a cornet, and the sound is the final determining factor. (Conn also did much to hybridize these differences, as you'll remember.)

Now-- my friend. My strong feeling is that we want to encourage the world to see the Euphonium and its little British cousin the baritone, in the best light possible. A move away from the bell-front things toward something that better resembles the fine instruments you mentioned (as played by Steven Mead, etal) makes the natural progression by students a simple stepwise thing-- and we're seeing the roots of it.

I bought my old 181 Besson back in 1971 in 9th grade. It was almost unheard of to see one of these horns in a high school band. Now (where I live-- the Midwestern United States), it's rare NOT to see them, and I have 2 bell front Conns in my basement that play well, but (around here) might have a combined value of about $30.00.

I agree to disagree...but it's all about the sound. Period. I will concede that the bell-fronts have their own sound, and that it can be quite pleasant at times, but I'll maintain that this is not the sound 21st century band composers and most band conductors have in their heads when they write or conduct euphonium players.

I'll also point out-- Leonard Falcone, who played on the 4 valve Conn, (and did so WONDERFULLY, I might add) was also the director of the fine Michigan State University Band program. VERY EARLY, in the late 50's/early 1960's, Falcone purchased Besson euphoniums and tubas for use in his bands. He preferred this sound, and expressed it openly. He liked the depth and power that these instruments brought to the band, as well as the ability to sustain a line with a beautiful singing tone. And that's why, in that rehearsal that day, he pointed at the two and asked them to turn their bells around.

Good discussion...I'm completely "BORE-ed."

(I will sell a nice Conn if you'd like it!)

[NCoumos]

I think that you gentlemen are missing the point of the “American” baritone. They were created for a purpose and even though they are out of style today, they still, in my opinion, fill that purpose well. There is one place that the American baritone is far superior to the upright euphonium and that is on the football field. The Besson upright euphonium is as useless as flutes and upright tubas on a football field. Only in America do they require musicians to parade around a grass field trying to play in tune while bouncing the mouthpiece on their lips. So why is it that your Conns are worth so little? It seems they were replaced with an even more useless instrument, the “marching baritone”. Now if there is an instrument we can all hate it is the “marching baritone”. These trumpet clones are not ever to be played in doors. There in fact should be a law against it.

As a high school band director (35 years) I felt that the “American” baritone was a good compromise. Perhaps not the best in a concert hall, but if you located them correctly they were OK. The sound is over bright in a concert situation, but put them on the side, and the audience will not notice. If I didn’t have a budget to buy each baritone player two horns, I would choose the bell front baritone over the upright euphonium any day. I would never suggest for a serious music student to buy a new bartone for his first horn, but if all he had to purchase a horn was $15 dollars, and the choice were no horn or a fine Conn baritone, I’d give him Mr Tom’s number. If he purchased a “marching baritone” with it, now that’s another story.

As far as Falcone, I’ll bet when he was marching band director at MSU he didn’t use those tubas or Bessons in his group. And I’d also bet that the number of people that heard his marching band perform was many more times the number of people to hear his concert band.

[iiipopes]

Hey NCuomos - my point exactly. I could go on and waste more bandwidth about bores and bell throats and flares getting too large on cornets (.470) and euphs (.600), resulting in the loss of their personality of tone, and losing the distinction between cornets and flugels, and euphs trying to be Eb tubas, and all of them sacrificing their "sweetness," personality and blend of tone in order to achieve a hard edged tone for the purpose of hearing a soloist over full band. What the instruments are gaining in their ability to solo above full band is at the expense of them being able to blend tonally as a band.

This same thing reached its low point about a hundred years ago with pipe organs when "classical" choruses of pipe ranks were discarded for such extreme voices as the Tuba Mirabilis, Tibia, and the worst of all: the Phonon Diapason, which is the way current euph voicing is trending. You could hear them above full organ, but they could not blend. Finally, with the Organ Reform Movement, this was all recognized for what it was, and these beasts started being systematically discarded in favor of a return to more moderate pipe scaling and voicing that blended better with itself as an instrument and supported choir and congregation better as a whole.

I still prefer to listen to brass bands (albeit at this point, only by recordings) that still use sections comprised of "round-stamp" era instruments that to my ears retain the voicings and tonalities that produce impeccible blend as a band and still have character to solo as required.

OTOH, even with its so-called deficiencies, the American baritone does blend very well with both brass and woodwinds, and can come to the fore for countermelodies and such when required. A tenor saxophone or bass clarinet and an American baritone playing together will create a new timbre. A tenor saxophone or bass clarinet and a large bore large bell euph playing together will just sit there and clash with each other because there is too much contrast in the characteristics of the voicing of the instruments.

Again, this is totally different from what a brass band requires, because in the bass clef of a brass band there are three competing timbres with the brass band baritone, trombone and euph, and the voicing of each does have to have a higher degree of contrast in order for the band to function and obtain the spectrum of tone color. This same range of contrast of tone color is managed in a concert band by having alto and bass clarinets, tenor and baritone saxophones, french horns, and trombones as well, so there isn't as much of a need of or a call for brass instruments of the same pitch range to require contrasting timbres in the same way.

I could also go on about how a 4-valve brass band baritone horn is only suitable as a solo instrument, because with its more cylindrical profile, tighter throat and quicker flare that the added low range the 4th valve facilitates gets too grainy for suitable use along side the rest of a brass band, but I think my point is made.

The final point of all of this is that each instrument, the brass band baritone, American baritone, and euphonium, has its proper place, and each in its context can be imminently musical. But I will leave the "marching baritone" on the American football field as well as "contrabugles," the name for the marching tubas held like WWII-era bazookas on the field, and can sound similar if not well managed.

Likewise, a few good pre-cyborg Conn 14k and King 1250 sousaphones, although not optimal, can do double duty as both marching and concert instruments, as they both have moderate bores and bell throats, and the upper loops of the 1st valve circuits of the Conns can be made into usable valve slides so a player can "ride throttle" to get valve combinations in better tune. Sometimes school systems, which all function on limited budgets, can only get one or the other, and we should not get so pedantic that the results are not enough instruments for those who desire to play in school band, especially for those who can't afford an instrument otherwise.

So bring on the American souzys and baritones!