Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it me?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on June 20, 2003 at 21:36:54:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it me? posted by Interesting... on June 20, 2003 at 19:45:13:

Get the CD--it's worth having. Michael Lind is a wonderful musician and everything on the CD is worth listening to just to hear his interpretation.

I don't like the "brighter" and "darker" terms much, though I still find myself using them. To me, what most people call bright, I think is edgy but with no depth. What most people call dark I think is woofy, which results from being "rich in fundamental" which people say they want but which they don't really want, because as soon as they get it the first thing they do is try to find a mouthpiece that gives them "color". I use color to describe sound that is rich in well-tuned harmonics, that create a powerful sense of depth from all those well-aligned difference tones.

Lind's sound is not as colorful than Fletcher's, though it is rounder. I hear a wider range of harmonics in Fletcher's sound. Thus, Lind's sound is darker, having a higher percentage of fundamental. Yet Fletcher's sound is almost deeper, which is what I would expect from a bigger tuba. My Holton is not at all dark the way, say, a Meinl-Weston 25 is dark. It has lots of upper harmonic content that could even be called "edgy" when I play loud. But it has massive depth, and that depth keeps the edginess from sounding ugly like it does on my Miraphone when I overblow it. Fletcher's sound has character.

Rick "calling it like he hears it" Denney


Follow Ups: