7.2 The Different Kinds of Brass Instrument
341
No doubt other instruments, all in varying degree akin to the cornet, bugle or ophicleide,
could be found if the records, catalogues and patent files of last century were searched
and the museums ransacked. The collection of varied types could be enlarged by including
some solitary instruments made only in one size and named according to register, kinship
to type, or perhaps with the idea of perpetuating the name of some optimistic inventor.
Most of these would probably fail to establish a claim to any individual existence, for the
field is limited, and there is not room for any great variety between the tone quality of the
cornet and that of the bugle, whether large or small; nor does the admixture of trumpet,
horn, or trombone bore, and their characteristic mouthpieces, supply sufficient variety to
provide very many new and clearly different tone qualities. Many claimants to a separate
existence within this restricted field have had to give up their pretended individuality and
throw in their lot with the common types that are in use today. The flügelhorns and contralto
saxhorns, the tenorhorns and baritones, the tubas and bombardons may be differently
named in each country, or may even be differently named in the same country, but their
nomenclature is always more varied than their tone qualities. Different widths of bore and
diversity of mouthpiece cup will give variety of tone quality within a certain radius, but that
radius is limited in extent. In the highest register, the field of brass instruments in high E
flat, it matters little to the hearer whether the instrument be a trumpet, cornet, saxhorn or
flügelhorn. In the contralto or B flat register, there is room enough for the cornet and the
flügelhorn, but hardly for anything in between the two. So it is in the tenor or E flat register,
the baritone and the bass registers; we can admit instruments which are large sized cornets
or large sized bugles, but anything between these two makes the distinction too fine for
ordinary ears, and therefore too fine for practical use . . .
Carse may be correct in suggesting that ‘ordinary ears’ can distinguish no more
than two differing types of brasswind in each register. There is no doubt that trained
musicians can recognise more than two types, if not as auditors then certainly
as performers. The continued production by individual manufacturers of a wide
range of instruments as well as differing models of the most popular instruments,
nominally the same type, is commercially justified only by purchasers perceiving
differences.
In the following subsections we examine some of the characteristics of the more
widely used modern and historical brasswind species. Rather than a typological
or chronological arrangement our approach is organised by sounding length (L),
bore size (D min ) and brassiness potential (B). The photographs are of examples
in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments (EU)
and the collection of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (RCS). In most cases
the instruments are photographed without mouthpieces. The scatter diagrams are
populated by data from measurements of instruments typical of their species in the
collections of some seventy musicians and institutions.
The bore profiles presented in the following subsections give for typical instruments the bore diameter plotted against the distance from the mouthpiece receiver,
the instruments being treated as if straightened out. The axial lengths are measured
along the centre line of the bore, which is generally approximately circular in
cross-section. Figure 7.1 shows the complete bore profiles of the sixteenth-century
trombone (sackbut) and the twentieth-century trombone pictured in Figs. 7.29
and 7.30. The dramatic difference in the diameters of the bell ends is an important
distinction between early and modern trombones: the influence of bell size on sound
radiation is discussed in Sect. 4.6. The sounding lengths also differ: both instruments
341
No doubt other instruments, all in varying degree akin to the cornet, bugle or ophicleide,
could be found if the records, catalogues and patent files of last century were searched
and the museums ransacked. The collection of varied types could be enlarged by including
some solitary instruments made only in one size and named according to register, kinship
to type, or perhaps with the idea of perpetuating the name of some optimistic inventor.
Most of these would probably fail to establish a claim to any individual existence, for the
field is limited, and there is not room for any great variety between the tone quality of the
cornet and that of the bugle, whether large or small; nor does the admixture of trumpet,
horn, or trombone bore, and their characteristic mouthpieces, supply sufficient variety to
provide very many new and clearly different tone qualities. Many claimants to a separate
existence within this restricted field have had to give up their pretended individuality and
throw in their lot with the common types that are in use today. The flügelhorns and contralto
saxhorns, the tenorhorns and baritones, the tubas and bombardons may be differently
named in each country, or may even be differently named in the same country, but their
nomenclature is always more varied than their tone qualities. Different widths of bore and
diversity of mouthpiece cup will give variety of tone quality within a certain radius, but that
radius is limited in extent. In the highest register, the field of brass instruments in high E
flat, it matters little to the hearer whether the instrument be a trumpet, cornet, saxhorn or
flügelhorn. In the contralto or B flat register, there is room enough for the cornet and the
flügelhorn, but hardly for anything in between the two. So it is in the tenor or E flat register,
the baritone and the bass registers; we can admit instruments which are large sized cornets
or large sized bugles, but anything between these two makes the distinction too fine for
ordinary ears, and therefore too fine for practical use . . .
Carse may be correct in suggesting that ‘ordinary ears’ can distinguish no more
than two differing types of brasswind in each register. There is no doubt that trained
musicians can recognise more than two types, if not as auditors then certainly
as performers. The continued production by individual manufacturers of a wide
range of instruments as well as differing models of the most popular instruments,
nominally the same type, is commercially justified only by purchasers perceiving
differences.
In the following subsections we examine some of the characteristics of the more
widely used modern and historical brasswind species. Rather than a typological
or chronological arrangement our approach is organised by sounding length (L),
bore size (D min ) and brassiness potential (B). The photographs are of examples
in the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments (EU)
and the collection of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (RCS). In most cases
the instruments are photographed without mouthpieces. The scatter diagrams are
populated by data from measurements of instruments typical of their species in the
collections of some seventy musicians and institutions.
The bore profiles presented in the following subsections give for typical instruments the bore diameter plotted against the distance from the mouthpiece receiver,
the instruments being treated as if straightened out. The axial lengths are measured
along the centre line of the bore, which is generally approximately circular in
cross-section. Figure 7.1 shows the complete bore profiles of the sixteenth-century
trombone (sackbut) and the twentieth-century trombone pictured in Figs. 7.29
and 7.30. The dramatic difference in the diameters of the bell ends is an important
distinction between early and modern trombones: the influence of bell size on sound
radiation is discussed in Sect. 4.6. The sounding lengths also differ: both instruments