Posted by Klaus on July 09, 2001 at 17:22:14:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difference between Euphonium & Baritone posted by Jay Bertolet on July 09, 2001 at 16:01:51:
Your posting is touching an interesting aspect of the way some players experience the compensating low brasses.
My first comper was the 3 valve Imperial baritone bought back in 1967. Truly an instrument with a personality. And still with me.
After many years mostly spent with trombones I bought the YEP 641 (a 4 valve comp euph) in 1995. Had to do a lot of tubawork on it, which called for good low C’s and Bnat’s. These two notes are inherently sharp alone by the acoustical math involved. So I had a main tuning slide trigger installed just to manage these two notes. Worked brilliantly together with my Yeo signature bassbone mpc.
When I bought my Besson 981 Eb in 1999 I took exactly that model because it for me was the best player with an enormous range counted in octaves and dynamic bandwith. And very flexible.
But I did a lot of thinking on how a trigger could be installed, so low F and Enat could be brought down to true pitch. This installation is not possible without involving foot activation or some sort of electronics.
I contacted British brass workshops and players. Not very productive as the only answer was: "Just lip them down!" Which was not possible with my embouchure, even if it is quite strong when it comes to raw muscular power. My mouthpiece at that time was the Denis Wick 1L which is not exacly a small one.
A few months later I got a PT-50 on trial. I convinced me at once, as the octave up to top space Eb (in the treble clef, concert) suddenly could be played in tune on my old Conn 26K Eb sousaphone.
After having let the PT-50 undergo my usual trick of opening the backbore, I started to work on the 981 low notes. Lipping still did not do the trick. So I had to dig down in my treasure box of memories from the Gurus I had met. One of them being my main recorder teacher, who taught me how to bend notes over wide intervals. Which can only be done by means of the way one configurates ones breathing apparatus from high/low placement of the diaphragm through level of throat tension to the jaw-tongue-palate relations (the latters governed by the vocal one imagines).
This technique had not helped me on the euph. But voila! I worked well on the 981, because the PT-50 gave me the space I needed to apply this technique. One could say that I bend down these low notes. Only I do not feel it so anymore. Now I know where these notes are, so I go directly for them. (Any flip side of the coin? Oh yes. If I had to make a long note crescendo from mf to ff on low F or Enat I still would prefer to do it on one of my BBbs).
Why did it work on the 981 but not on the YEP 641? I think because the 641 with its bell diameter of only 11" is an instrument with quite narrow intonation slots. The 19" bell of the 981 really is disproportionately wide compared to the bore of .689. Good for the sound. And providing rather wide intonation slots.
Let me finish my overlong posting by singing my mantra: Compensating low brasses are not stuffy, at least not because they are compensating. They are just different and need to be approached on their own terms.
Klaus