Talk:Brass instrument
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Valve tubing
[edit]I have added a section on relative tube length under the valves and their relation to just tuning. I am not a trumpet player, but very interested in music theory. What do you experts think about the formulation? Should I add alternative fingerings? Should I add a cents comparison to a just tuned scale? What is the modern real tuning of the valved tube extensions? Should I remove the now mostly redundant section just above it with absolute measurements? −Woodstone (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, the tubing length of a brass instrument does not strictly determine the pitch the way one might think it does. Of course each partial does have a favored pitch center that depends on the tubing length, the shape of the bore, the profile of the bell flare, and the particulars of the mouthpiece cup, venturi and backbore, as well as the length and taper of the leadpipe, if present.
- Still, some horns "slot" that center pitch more narrowly than others. On a horn with wider slotting, the player has more freedom to lip the pitch up or down. On a slide trombone, it is even possible to apply some slide vibrato while using the lip to hold the pitch steady. In such a case, the slide motion can affect the timbre of the note more than its pitch.
- An analogous situation in a keyboard synthesizer might be heard with a variable bandpass filter more or less centered on the note being played, while a varying control voltage shifts the filter's peak frequency. In that case, the Q of the filter would be analogous to the degree of slotting shown by the horn.
- I believe that brass players "sing" a note with their lip buzz, and choose a valve or slide position which allows that note to be reinforced by the horn. Naturally, the lip vibration is strongly influenced by the horn's resonance(s), but that element of pitch control is what makes listening to experienced brass players more rewarding than hearing elementary-school players. This is based on my dilettante-level experience with the cornet, bugle, trombone, and euphonium. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Of course I'm well aware that the numbers given are based on a rather simplified model of the horn. The complicated shape makes that the effective length depends somewhat on frequency and that the "harmonics" are not exactly multiples of the fundamental. Furthermore the player has a certain amount of control to vary pitch by the way of blowing. But nevertheless, I found the resulting data insightful. −Woodstone (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- A further complication: A tube, open at one end, only has resonances at odd multiples of its fundamental fequency. The shape of the bell is responsible for pushing the lower partials up in frequency, so that the horn produces a series of pitches that sound like an approximation of both odd- and even-numbered harmonics. The approximation is imperfect, and experienced trombone players pay attention to the slide adjustments needed to bring each note in tune, depending on the characteristics of the particular horn on their face at the moment. Adhering to a given temperament adds another layer of complication, but that is outside the scope of discussing the fit between a horn's overtones or partials, and an ideal harmonic series. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Physicists still debate aspects of tube vibrations and it is an open field of research to this day. We'll not sort it all out on Wikipedia :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I guess horn makers know a fair bit about what they aim to produce. Some information, the sort that is held in institutional memory in the form of tooling and experienced workers, may come and go as manufacturing shifts from one location to another. That kind of information may not transport well to encyclopedic text pages, even when the source is willing to share it. We take what we can get... Just plain Bill (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- We are in "violent agreement" on that, Mr. Bill :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I vehemently agree, M. Jacques. ;) Just plain Bill (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- We are in "violent agreement" on that, Mr. Bill :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I guess horn makers know a fair bit about what they aim to produce. Some information, the sort that is held in institutional memory in the form of tooling and experienced workers, may come and go as manufacturing shifts from one location to another. That kind of information may not transport well to encyclopedic text pages, even when the source is willing to share it. We take what we can get... Just plain Bill (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Physicists still debate aspects of tube vibrations and it is an open field of research to this day. We'll not sort it all out on Wikipedia :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- A further complication: A tube, open at one end, only has resonances at odd multiples of its fundamental fequency. The shape of the bell is responsible for pushing the lower partials up in frequency, so that the horn produces a series of pitches that sound like an approximation of both odd- and even-numbered harmonics. The approximation is imperfect, and experienced trombone players pay attention to the slide adjustments needed to bring each note in tune, depending on the characteristics of the particular horn on their face at the moment. Adhering to a given temperament adds another layer of complication, but that is outside the scope of discussing the fit between a horn's overtones or partials, and an ideal harmonic series. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Of course I'm well aware that the numbers given are based on a rather simplified model of the horn. The complicated shape makes that the effective length depends somewhat on frequency and that the "harmonics" are not exactly multiples of the fundamental. Furthermore the player has a certain amount of control to vary pitch by the way of blowing. But nevertheless, I found the resulting data insightful. −Woodstone (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Alloys used in brass instruments?
[edit]What alloys are typically used for the making of brass instruments? have these changed over the years? why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.173.3 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this image labled correctly?
[edit]![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Althorn%2C_Baryton_och_Euphonium.jpg/332px-Althorn%2C_Baryton_och_Euphonium.jpg)
I'm pretty sure the middle horn is just a varient on the Eb tenor horn and not a Baritone. A baritone horn is the same size as a euphonium but with different piping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlDoingMaths (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is labelled correctly; the middle horn is a baritone in B♭ - you can tell, the tubing on each of the three valves are the same lengths as the euphonium on the right, and both are shorter than the E♭ tenor horn on the left. — Jon (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreeing with @Jonathanischoice here. One of the problems is that saxhorn/tuba family terminology is very messy and suffers from regional variants. See for example the terminology bit in Cliff Bevan's book which is enough to make you wake up screaming in the night. The smaller-looking saxhorn (clarification:
smaller-looking
than the euph on the right, I meant ... it is of course the larger of the two saxhorns here, sorry!) in the middle is, yes really, a B♭ horn playing in the same register as the euph ... it just looks a h*ll of a lot different because it is not a baby tuba with huge wide pipes, but it does have the same overall length and all that goes with it in proportion, as Jon rightly points out. It is in no way the higher E♭ instrument that we might call a tenor or alto horn. In some necks of the woods the terms used here are absolutely spot on, whereas in others there is a truly horrible confusion around the wordbaritone
which, in environments where the middle one pictured here is not well-known, sometimes just means a three-valve euphonium. I find this usage very difficult but I do see how it gets used! We can't control the language that tightly though when my government comes to power we will try (goak here). DBaK (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Harmonic scale
[edit]I am writing as someone who only has a loose understanding of how music works, but I am confused by the talk about how a brass can only play the natural scale and has certain chromatic notes that are impossible to create. I played with the trumpet for a little while in elementary school and I was under the impression that it made whatever note the player made with their mouth. Is that incorrect, and it will only produce sounds on the natural scale, provided you input something approaching the correct input? I guess that would make sense of the fact that I was able to produce sounds that resembled music even though I had no idea what a musical scale was at the time. But if that is the case I think the whole thing is even more interesting and want to know how that works.
But I seem to remember hearing a trumpet do an ascending slide from low to high pitch, which means it can work at the full range of frequencies. In which case what's to prevent you from just lowering or raising the pitch slightly at the mouthpiece to modify whatever sound it is producing? I accept that the performers know what they are talking about, I just don't understand why that is. Idumea47b (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Just created a quick article on the Haas family of brass instrument makers. I didn't see an obvious place to put them into the article. It would be good to maybe have some sort of list on brass instrument makers/manufacturers. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've parked it in "See also" for now. Thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Arts
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Arts
- C-Class vital articles in Arts
- C-Class Metalworking articles
- Low-importance Metalworking articles
- C-Class musical instruments articles
- Low-importance musical instruments articles