TubeNet

I have found a few threads that lightly toss this conversation around, though they are more conversationally directed towards the sound of the British Brass Band and American Brass Band.

I want to discuss (yes, selfishly) what the potential goals of a Euphonium student in North America should be for their sound development.

I suppose we could break this conversation into the categories of Soloistic playing, Vs Ensemble playing.
However, what I am more concerned with is the Euphonium society's views in North America today.
Would it be absurd for a Euphonium student studying music at either an undergraduate or graduate level to aim for a british, velvety tone? I think not, but does this make them 'less desirable' in an audition?
Well, you will probably say, it depends where they are auditioning. Now I understand there are many American bands that try and emulate the UK Brass band sound. Which is generally more desired? I don't know if we can really settle an answer because of course there are likely as many Besson players kicking around as Willson or Yamaha players in North America (or are there?)

I currently am finishing an undergrad performance degree, and play on an 842 (Yamaha). It works well in our band setting in my opinion, but my director is always asking for a heavier, velvety sound, as is my personal instructor. A British sound is something that is very hard to achieve on one of these Yamaha horns. I love the horn, but I do not believe that is how it was designed.

What about the service bands in the US? They primarily play on Willsons correct? What are their goals when it comes to character of sound? I have not listened to enough recordings that is for sure.

The biggest statement I suppose I am asking is, will the choice in sound (British/American, somewhere in between) become a make it or break it point during an audition to a band, a school, as student or professor, in North America?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Need a performer achieve the sound representative of their nationalist trend/cliche/stereotype what have you?

http://www.davewerden.com

the answer isn't there, per se, but you will certainly get Dave's opinion, and possibly more quickly than here. That's only one opinion, but it's possibly more valid than the TNFJ

Good questions, for which there may be no definite answer. Ideally, one would adapt to each situation by switching instruments, mouthpieces, approach, or combinations of all 3. A horn teacher I know told me many years ago that he played the same exact equipment in brass quintet, wind quintet, or orchestra, but his concept changed. His sound certainly did, too, it was amazing to hear him in different situations. Last summer when I talked with him, though, he said he has been using different equipment for each situation, mainly due to the stresses of changing so much. He now has equipment to do that part of his job.

I have not played the Yamaha 842, but the specs are not that different from my old Willson. I can't imagine the sound would be really different.

Most of the sound quality comes from your brain- your concept of what you want your sound to be. When I was playing all the time, my ideal sound was the human voice. I believe it has a far more pure and open sound than any instrument. To illustrate that, sing a note on "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH", then buzz that pitch- lips only, no mouthpiece. Which sound is more pure and open? Obviously, the voice is. The instrument only pretties up that awful buzzing noise.

To obtain the voice-like sound, I started on the pedal Bb. I sang it as long as I could (an octave higher) on one breath, meditating on the concepts of "purity" and "openness". Then I would play the same pitch as long as I could on one breath, meditating on the same concepts, always trying to duplicate my voice (which is untrained and unexceptional) and holding it as the Ideal. Then I went up a half-step, repeating the process until I reached my highest note. This took about an hour.

After doing this for a week, I could hear "inside" the sound. While others, who were "outside" my sound, heard only a very nice euphonium sound, I heard all the buzz, fuzz, and closed-ness of my sound. Once I heard it, I could start to improve it. I kept doing this routine every day and developed an unusually pure and open sound. For an instrument, that is.

I did not think about "darkness", "brightness", its national character, or even breathing, blowing, or buzzing. I only thought about Sound. My flesh did what it was told, in pursuit of the Sound. The instrument didn't do much at all.

In the New Testament of the Bible, I think music is mentioned 8 times and only singing; no instruments. This reinforced, to me, the inherent quality of what I held as the ideal sound. In fact, I was attending a church at the time that only used voices for its music and everyone sang in terrific four-part harmony.

I must say that my listeners liked the result very much.

bloke wrote:'
which American player(s)?

The one that stuck out the most to me was, of course Adam Frey. His sound is rather bright/less flexible than perhaps Mead. Bowman on the other hand is somewhere in between with what you call a "blossomy" sound.

Now, is Steven Mead likely to accept an audition to his conservatory if a student has a more "edgy/velvety" sound over the smooth "blossomy" because of his personal playing style? (of course there are many other factors) Maybe only he can answer that.

The instrument only pretties up that awful buzzing noise.

There is a personal taste in that statement. That "awful" buzz, to some (if we're talking about the same thing), is the ultimately beautiful "brass band" part of the Euphonium tone. You would lie on the, smooth, voice-like side of the fence. This is what I'm talking about.
I agree that sometimes a change of equipment or sound concept may be required in an alternate setting.

I was just curious if there was some sort of a consensus of what is more highly regarded on this side of the planet.

It seems like I have run into several great American euphonium players who have spent some time at the RNCM. I'm not sure there is a much a difference as you may think.

I don't think I would always equate "dark" with "British" in terms of euphonium playing. Not that I would say the opposite, either, it just depends on the individual player. When I hear Steven Mead, I can't really honestly say I interpret his sound as "dark," even though it's a very smooth, excellent sound. Likewise when I heard Phil Franke perform Symphonic Variants at ITEC a few years ago, I didn't hear any of the "typical" American military band style; in fact it's probably as close as I've ever heard to my personal "ideal euphonium timbre" coming from someone else.

If you want to add some weight to your sound (which I do believe many euphonium players could benefit from), increase your air and lay off the vibrato. But I think in many cases the physical qualities of the sound are secondary to the emotional expression it embodies. You need the kind of sound that can conquer a nation or win someone's heart, as cheesy as that sounds. Once you have that in your head, you can tweak it as necessary for each situation. When a euphoniumist doesn't have a grasp of how to sonically manipulate emotion, I don't enjoy listening to them, except perhaps as technically impressive. In my opinion, that's what most euphonium players are missing, even at very high levels.

What mouthpiece are you playing on? In my experience with the bigger Yamahas, a Denis Wick 4AL would be a good match to add some character to the sound.

To maybe better answer your initial question, yes, most servicemen play on (medium shank) Willson 2900's in the US. I imagine that's largely (mostly?) due to Brian Bowman's influence. If you want to play in a top military band, that will influence your decisions a lot. As far as auditioning to be a student or getting a job to be a professor, I don't think it will make a big difference. Tuba professors might actually prefer something completely opposite depending on which teacher (even if only subconsciously).

Something important to remember is that one sound ideal or another isn't necessarily "best." I can appreciate and respect both Johnny Cash and Michael Jackson, but that doesn't mean I have to sing like either of them. I'm going to sing like me. Play the music like it's yours, because when you do, it is.

EDIT: bloke, I don't claim my B&S to have the best intonation. Also, hurry up and release that mouthpiece.

Great response. I love the thought of making your sound yours. I hope you didn't misunderstand, I absolutely love my sound, and so does the gentleman I study with, however on the off day he always says "Give it more of a British Timbre, more velvet!". And Its hard to stray from a mellow, smooth, edgeless timbre.

And I just moved from a Schilke 51D to a 5G wedge . I was skeptical but it actually fixed a lot of bad habits. I wasn't conscious enough of my corners. So whether a training aid or a permanent mouthpiece, its what I'm sticking with for now.

I love playing euphonium (except for the screamer parts!) but (as always...) I try and stay far away from the "velvety"/"blossomy"/(imo)bwah-y sound I hear everywhere. It's nice here and there but I find it ultimately boring. Sing and shout! That's what I aim for.

Your mileage may and will vary, but maybe that's why no one else cares about euphoniums.

Not looking for a new horn, nor a mouthpiece. I'm simply picking the brains of those who have heard tons of Euph players, in hopes to survey whether or not there is popularity trend in tone if we were to categorize them nationalistically.

sweaty wrote: In the New Testament of the Bible, I think music is mentioned 8 times and only singing; no instruments.

Uh ... last I checked, Rev. 15:2 was part of the NT.

The Yamaha 842 is a great euphonium, and certainly capable of a variety of timbres.
I have owned an old Besson, a Willson 2900, a Yamaha 842, along with my current Adams (.60mm thickness).
As other members have said- you will ultimately sound like you, but I will definitely say some of the horns and certainly mouthpieces make it easier to get the tonal colors you desire. I have played my euphonium professionally in a variety of settings (brass band, solo, orchestral)- and it comes down to knowing exactly how you want to play each piece stylistically.
I had played a Wick Heritage Series 4AL and a 5AL on my Yamaha 842, and then found what I was looking for with a Griego-Alessi 5E mouthpiece.
That is just what worked for me, but I was happy with the variety of sounds I could get with it. Good luck!!

Levaix wrote: yes, most servicemen play on (medium shank) Willson 2900's in the US.

That was certainly the case--or at least the perception of what was the case--for the premier bands for a long time, but is that still the case? I know I've spotted premier band members playing Yamahas and Bessons among the massed tubas during the Army Band Conference.

Among the 12-15 post and fleet bands I'm familiar with, Yamahas and Bessons outnumber Willsons as the weapon of choice by a pretty hefty margin, and there are at least a couple of post bands using Hirsbrunners and Kanstuls as well.

pgym wrote:

Levaix wrote: yes, most servicemen play on (medium shank) Willson 2900's in the US.

Among the 12-15 post and fleet bands I'm familiar with, Yamahas and Bessons outnumber Willsons as the weapon of choice by a pretty hefty margin, and there are at least a couple of post bands using Hirsbrunners and Kanstuls as well.

+1
The Yamaha is a very common horn out "in the field". I haven't been at a base yet that didn't have at least one Yamaha. While I'm not a fan of the British compensating euphonium (I much prefer the German baritone style for their much larger range of colors) you should have no problem fitting in on any of the top of the line euphoniums. If you think the brand is a big deal just remember, it's not.

pgym wrote:

Levaix wrote: yes, most servicemen play on (medium shank) Willson 2900's in the US.

That was certainly the case--or at least the perception of what was the case--for the premier bands for a long time, but is that still the case? I know I've spotted premier band members playing Yamahas and Bessons among the massed tubas during the Army Band Conference.

Among the 12-15 post and fleet bands I'm familiar with, Yamahas and Bessons outnumber Willsons as the weapon of choice by a pretty hefty margin, and there are at least a couple of post bands using Hirsbrunners and Kanstuls as well.

My impression was that the premier bands still primarily use Willson, with other brands being the exception rather than the rule. I know it was like that when I started my undergrad 6 years ago. Most every instructor or potential instructor gave me advice from "get the 2900 if you want to play in the top bands" to plain "get a 2900." Unfortunately I was one of those few heretics that just didn't like the 2900. That being said, I haven't tried the large shank 2900, which apparently might be more up my alley.

I played a Besson 2052 for years with great pleasure, quirks included (yes, main slide trigger ...).
It was the closest to the 'ideal' euphonium sound in my head I could get. (it sounded a bit like Steven Mead in my head actually)
Changing to the larger SM3 mouthpiece got me even closer.
The SM3.5 I had before was far easier to manage, but with daily practise the 3 sounded way more 'velvety' and warmer.

Wim

I have seen it discussed yet but I have always seen a big different in the vibrato between British and American players. The Bristish vibrato is very vibrant and fast as compared to American vibrato. For years most of our euphonium soloists had an American approach to vibrato. But recently we had a solo euphonium player that is from the salvation army and has a very British approach to his sound especially vibrato. Also he playes on a prestige, and that adds to his sound as well.