TubeNet

bloke wrote:...or (??) you might consider building instruments with bugles that more resemble Swiss-made or Japanese-made instruments, whereby a main tuning slide trigger might not be considered an absolute necessity.

+2

LJV wrote:Always entertaining when the new euphers wax poetic and regurgitate how necessary a main tuning slide trigger is and then proceed to play horribly out of tune...

+1 (and two thumbs up )

LJV wrote:Always entertaining when the new euphers wax poetic and regurgitate how necessary a main tuning slide trigger is and then proceed to play horribly out of tune...

Or hype the importance and value (despite the greatly added cost and price) of compensating valves only to produce an instrument harder to play in tune than a Yamaha 321.

Rick "who can play out of tune with any valves, with or without a detuning trigger" Denney

bloke wrote:These are only "early returns", folks...
The real euphonium players (who will deliver the flames) haven't chimed in.

Don't get them started on top action horns either...

the elephant wrote:Top quality compensating horns, compared with top quality non-compers are just like Sibelius compared with Finale. If you know both types of horns through personal experience and know both programs through personal experience, you know what I mean. Sibelius is easier but you have to do things the Sibelius way. Finale allows for more accuracy and specificity but also allows you to produce crap. One is easier to learn but rigid and the other takes more time but is more flexible.

I cannot stand Sibelius and have never played a compensating euph or tuba that I though was worth the effort. Neither delivers what I want or need. They both deliver what I am expected to accept. Just sayin'...

EVERYBODY RUN FOR COVER!

I don't how long it's been since you tried Sibelius Wade, but the new version is sweeeeeeeeet! Here's Brian's comment from another thread and as far as I'm concerned he be the expert!
Re: Finale and Sibelius

by BVD Press » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:19 am

I use both. And a lot. Like 6-12 hours per day.

I used to recommend Finale, then recommended getting the demos and making a decision, but now I just say Sibelius hands down. Finale is just not developing at all and Sibelius is moving forward with much innovation.

If you can let me know what you are looking for in a program, I can go into more detail.

I know nothing about musescore, but it is definitely not mainstream so if you are planning on submitting works for publication, etc. you might want to stay away for now. On the other hand, it appears it can import or export XML files so moving these files into Finale or Sibelius should not be too much of an issue.

Bryan Doughty
Oystein Baadsvik US tour coordinator http://www.baadsvik.com/" target="_blank
Cimarron Music Press http://www.cimarronmusic.com/" target="_blank
Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cimarron- ... 3020006837" target="_blank
BVD Press http://bvdpress.com" target="_blank

The crux of Bloke's argument makes sense, the horns to which he refers to are badly out of tune.

Personally I think that the perfect euphonium would be a 3-valve compensating large bore horn. It would be both practical and cost-effective. Like I said in another thread, I don't think I have really justified my 642. Every gig I have every done (yes, with real money) I could have done with a 3 valve compensating horn.

FWIW, I have a relatively weak pinky finger and really dislike the 4 on top set-up...

I consider myself a real Eupher...

I like 3+1, but own a Yamaha 321 with 5 valves (flat whole step 5th). It's not "in tune", but physics doesn't allow any instrument to play in tune. But= it's pretty damn good (almost as good as my old singing Conn).

Bloke's balls-on for how seriously screwed up the mechanism is for most comp euph triggers - they're insanely stiff and usually ill-aligned. It's eye-roll inducing.

3+1 is I think the most ergonomic system; too bad so few companies do it really well. But my Yammy is satisfactory.

J.c.S. (who enjoyed when he had access to a Besson sovereign, and pretty sure it didn't "need" a trigger.)

Now, if they could make a weapon which more resembled a euphonium, then we could.....


...ah, forget it.

-Pat

There are some euphs that don't need a trigger. My horn doesn't have a trigger, but sometimes I wish it did. The horn that I'd like (if money were no object) would be the Miraphone 5050... sans trigger because when I got to play it I didn't think I needed one. I could lip down the concert 'F' (above staff) to actually go flat.

One of my favorite euphers is Derick Kane who plays with The International Staff Band. He's now on the Besson Prestige... with trigger, but as seen in this video never needs it. AND, there are plenty of 6th partials in the piece he plays.

It'd also come in handy for low C and B, though.

The big question really is: Why do euphoniums always play everything mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte with a "pretty"-but-bland "oatmeal" sound?

Roger Bobo seems to agree with some of the points made here.

http://www.rogerbobo.com/musical_articl ... ions.shtml" target="_blank

tooba wrote:The big question really is: Why do euphoniums always play everything mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte with a "pretty"-but-bland "oatmeal" sound?

None of my euphoniums play anything at any dynamic level; none of my tubas do either. They just kinda sit there (probably wondering why I don't play them more often).

tooba wrote:The big question really is: Why do euphoniums always play everything mezzo-piano to mezzo-forte with a "pretty"-but-bland "oatmeal" sound?

Sounds like you're looking for a saxophone! Plays real in tune, too!

LJV wrote: Always entertaining when the new euphers wax poetic and regurgitate how necessary a main tuning slide trigger is and then proceed to play horribly out of tune...

PAGING FRESHMAN EUPHONIUM MAJORS

bloke wrote:Isn't nanny goat vibrato the traditional "tuning mechanism" for euphoniums?

gold

The condemnation Bobo and others heap on the British Euphs and Ebs are - I'd argue - a function of player and preference. I live in a town where homogeneity of timbre was de rigueur for decades for the tuba; in a sense, "cutting" was frowned upon. And the large euphs, often employed for first ophicleide for Berlioz etc., had to match that.

In other orchestras... not so much. Berlin, for instance. Colorful!

It's good to own something other than a British Eb (or an Alex CC) for more colorful playing... and owning a Conn euph can make a colorful option in the euph arsenal too!

All that said you can get color out of the British axes. The player can say much more than usually expected, IMHO.

J.c.S.

OK, I need to disagree here. I think you're talking about Besson since their most popular models always include the trigger and they are neither swiss nor japanese (nor british, really). I recently bought a new Besson euphonium and had 6 to choose from at Dillon music when I picked mine out. ALL of them had trigger mechanisms that were smooth and light and the main tuning slides were in perfect alignment. I tried them all out with the tuner and they all had natural intonation characteristics that were as good as could be asked for. I don't have a whole lot of experience with yamahas, but certainly better than willson (which I've used extensively in the past) and MUCH MUCH better than hirsbrunner.

As far as the linkage mechanism being "military grade" -- well, you want something that's not going to break, don't you? I'd much rather have something that's overbuilt than underbuilt!

As for the trigger itself... well, with all the slide pulling that you tubists seem to do, I'd think you'd understand. Even if all the intonation were absolutely perfect (which is impossible) it's still nice to have a little lattitude to move the notes around a bit in the extreme registers, or to match intonation tendencies within a section or across sections, and it's nice to be able to do that with the tuning slide so you can blow right through the middle of the notes and not have any tone color change or upset your embouchure with lipping notes into tune.

I think by "military grade" bloke's refering to the fact that most of the springs on these can lift a VW bus. If they were built a little better (IMHO) it could be lightened a lot. I find them now to be so heady that moving them disturbs my embouchure! The other parts are over-large to cope with the planet-moving springs. And they're a %$#@% to assemble!

J.c.S.

If I disconnect the linkage from the tuning slide I don't notice any hang-ups or slowness at all. It's not quite trombone slide level, but it's not supposed to be.

And I don't find the thumb mechanism to be too heavy. It's just right, it doesn't bump the whole instrument for me at all and I like that it's really quick to return the tuning slide to its original position, even if the tuning slide is binding on my shirt a little bit (I don't like to use the giant obnoxious plexiglass guard thing).

I realize it can make it difficult for you repair-folks to install, but I don't believe it's poorly designed at all.

bloke wrote: I've owned tubas that required slide-pulling, but sold them. I currently own three tubas (and a euphonium) which do not.

I'm glad you've found magic tubas that defy the laws of physics and work in any temperament in any key in any ensemble, but I've noticed players like steve dumaine, alan baer, and carol jantsch doing a lot of slide pulling...