brass instrument pitch

[corbasse]

Wasn't suggesting that A was, only Bb!
And my point wasn't about any PARTICULAR pitch, just that named pitches MOVED AROUND A LOT!

Sorry, I misread that one..
Pitches did move around a lot, but in the 19th century the range was less than in the 18th, especially in the low end of the spectrum. If you see the lists in this article and the articles you quote, you'll notice that by the 1830's they didn't get below 430 anymore. The only pitches above 460 mentioned at that time are church organs which were built that high for economical reasons (higher pich = shorter pipes = less material). Pitches meant for orchestral use are all in the range of 430-460.
Pitches moved around a lot, but at the time the valved brasses became widespread they stayed within that 1/2 tone range.

I've never played one of Sax's original instruments, but I've played plenty of other 19th century instruments. The pitch of those were all still in the neighbourhood of the pitch we expect. This is especially easy to see with natural horn crooks because these are marked with the pitch they're supposed to produce.

Which is why they felt it necessary to convene a French Commission in 1859, and a formal Vienna Congress in 1887?

Well, there is some variation, but not in such a wide range as you seemed to suggest.
With such big variations the extreme ends of crook sets wouldn't work anymore because they'd have inches of tubing too much or too little.

It's interesting by the way that even in complete crook sets from a single maker the different lengths of crooks, and even position of the tuning slide can result in dramatic differences in playing quality. That's also why I think the instrument series in Bb/Eb, or better, the instrument series based on 9 ft/12 ft, prevailed: because of the playing characteristics and sound quality. There have been plenty of experiments with other pitches and crook systems which didn't survive.

For the sackbut I like to believe the statement that Bb is just the right pitch for the average arm. Then why sackbuts in A you ask? (It is modern pitch A...)
A=415-420 was a widely used pitch in the 18th century. Trombones were used extensively in church music to double the choral parts at that time. (This also explains why they read concert pitch.) Composers tended to use keys with few accidentals at that time. Having a sackbut in modern day Bb would have them play on what was for them a B natural instrument. I can only imagine the horrific slide movements you have to make if you are constantly playing in keys with masses of sharps...

I"m agree about the length; I know they also made alto AND bass sackbuts in the same period they made tenors. But that's just slide length; one can always make the bell section a little shorter or a little longer. And a trombone that reads concert pitch shouldn't have to worry about transpostions... and why transpose at all? Why not just teach the trombone as a C treble clef instrument the way it's taught as a C bass clef instrument?

This IS a very interesting discussion!

For the sackbut, what I meant to say is that the actual pitch of the instrument didn't matter because they were reading choir parts all the time. It is handy however to use an instrument with such a length that
A) the slide doesn't fly off if you overextend your arm just a bit too much
B) you can use the first position more than once in a piece

For the reading stuff: at that time all musicians were expected to read all clefs and all transpositions anyway.

[Allen]

Furtheron I'd like to repeat once more that the often heard statement here that bass clef instruments are written in concert pitch is only true in America..... European tuba parts sometimes tranpose all over the place.

If you play music from many places, you certainly will see many different notions of musical notation. For example, I have been given "tuba in Bb" music in bass clef that was intended to sound a ninth lower than written!

There are different national traditions regarding transposition. In Germany (according to Anthony Baines), both Bb and A clarinet parts are played on a Bb clarinet, which is longer and has an extra key to play the equivalent of the A clarinet's low E.

Serious recorder players have even more to deal with. American tradition has recorders of all types and pitches reading at concert pitch (give or take an octave). Tenor and higher recorders use Treble Clef; bass and lower recorders use Bass Clef. However, many German publishers seem to think that the alto recorder (lowest note: F above Middle C) is a transposing instrument "in F." Then, there are the publishers who publish old recorder music in the historically accurate French Violin Clef (a G Clef with G on the first line instead of the second). And, there's more....

All in all, I'd say that the BBb versus CC fingerings issue is too trivial to mention, compared to the near anarchy in the rest of the music world!

Regarding the original question, I can find very little that supports a lot of logic in choosing brass instruments with overtone series based on Bb. It does seem like happenstance, tradition, and a consensus of musicians together chose this particular compromise, instead of some other compromise.

Allen Walker

[Lew]

... It's interesting by the way that even in complete crook sets from a single maker the different lengths of crooks, and even position of the tuning slide can result in dramatic differences in playing quality. That's also why I think the instrument series in Bb/Eb, or better, the instrument series based on 9 ft/12 ft, prevailed: because of the playing characteristics and sound quality. There have been plenty of experiments with other pitches and crook systems which didn't survive.
...

This seems to be the main reason espoused by Baines in his book. There seemed to be a feeling among musicians of the 19th century that Bb and Eb keying instruments had the most pleasing harmonic series. That's why I think that sound quality was the reason taht these keys were selected. Many other keys were tried over a long period, and they seem to have converged on these keys. C and F instruments were also around for a long time, but were more specialized until the 20th century when they became more mainstream.

[Leland]

Here's my guess: Trombones are in Bb because that's how long an adult arm is. They could be made in C, but the slide would come off the end when the player reached too far.

Ya know, I seriously wonder if this might be a key point...

I mean, trombones have been fully chromatic longer than any of the other brasses, right? All the other brasses needed crooks and even separate instruments to play in other keys.

I find it curious that clarinets play easier in Bb than in C. Could this possibly be because more research has gone into Bb versions, just like how more effort was usually spent on CC versus BBb tubas in the US? I would consider the Bb clarinet a moot point if that's the case.

I think the Bb trombone is a pretty darned valid point. I don't think that the same slide length could be made for a C trombone.

*adding on for clarity* What I'm trying to say is that it's possible that the trombone came first, effectively the pioneer for fully chromatic brasswinds. As the other instruments came around, it would make sense to match them to the trombones.

And, trying to make trombones in A (nice for strings; a "good country key") would result in an uncomfortably long slide, making 7th position practically impossible for most players.

[Allen]

....
I find it curious that clarinets play easier in Bb than in C. Could this possibly be because more research has gone into Bb versions, just like how more effort was usually spent on CC versus BBb tubas in the US? I would consider the Bb clarinet a moot point if that's the case.
....

Woodwinds and brasses are very different. In general, the higher-pitched woodwinds require a much firmer embochure than the lower-pitched ones. Not only is a C clarinet harder to play well than a Bb one, the higher Eb clarinet is harder yet (which makes it a specialist instrument). When I studied clarinet as a kid, I even noticed that an A clarinet was easier than a Bb one. The same sort of embochure hierarchy exists among oboe (in C), oboe d'amore (in A), and English horn (in F).

In brass instruments, the embochure strength required (for any given mouthpiece size) appears to be much more a function of the note being played, rather than the pitch of the instrument in front of it.

Allen Walker

[corbasse]

If you play music from many places, you certainly will see many different notions of musical notation. For example, I have been given "tuba in Bb" music in bass clef that was intended to sound a ninth lower than written!

Let's turn that around: I played from a "normal" (US) tuba part a few weeks ago. My neighbour in the band couldn't believe his eyes: a tuba part with ledger lines below the staff!!!

(tuba Bb written a ninth higher is the standard notation here, and most amateurs can't read anything else...)

[SplatterTone]

I think this kind of thing is sort like how galaxies, stars, planets form. There is a natural lumpiness to nature. At some point, one lump has enough gravity to start growing until it's a big lump. In the case here, those historical "lumps" might be a powerful ruling class person, a famous performer, an influential academic, or a prolific and popular instrument maker. Consider how the lumpiness associated with the letters I, B, and M determined the success of the letters M, S, D, and O (and S again).

It this is true, then this raises the question: Which lump made the B-flat size so popular? And another question (probably already been answered somewhere): Which lump was able to grow the CC tuba planet to rather significant size?

[corbasse]

I think this kind of thing is sort like how galaxies, stars, planets form. There is a natural lumpiness to nature. At some point, one lump has enough gravity to start growing until it's a big lump. In the case here, those historical "lumps" might be a powerful ruling class person, a famous performer, an influential academic, or a prolific and popular instrument maker. Consider how the lumpiness associated with the letters I, B, and M determined the success of the letters M, S, D, and O (and S again).

It this is true, then this raises the question: Which lump made the B-flat size so popular? And another question (probably already been answered somewhere): Which lump was able to grow the CC tuba planet to rather significant size?

Well, Adolphe Sax was beside an inventor and innovator of wind instruments also a very shrewd business man. In the 1840's he got an exclusive contract as sole supplier of instruments to the French army bands. A bunch of his colleague instrument makers protested of course, but he survived and continued to target their businesses with patent lawsuits.
Here's an article mentioning a few of the going ons at the time

[Rick Denney]

Its foundamental being Bb does not have anything to do with this matter. Just the above.

You are confusing two issues: The pitch of the instrument, and the music written for it. The music is untransposed, which transposers describe as being written "in C". It's written in its native key directly, not "in C". The only reason they describe it that way is because they don't have to transpose if they place a C instrument.

The pitch of the instrument, however, is the harmonic series of its open bugle, and has nothing to do with the manner in which the music written for it is notated.

The original question is why were instruments pitched on the Bb open bugle in the first place? I don't know the answer to that, but I have a feeling it will emerge from a study of Adolphe Sax, whose saxophones and saxhorns were built as systems of instruments pitched in Bb and Eb. I don't know why he chose Bb and Eb, and not C and F as did Wieprecht and Cerveny, but perhaps someone will. He was probably trying to match some pre-existing woodwind instrument, which would defer the question back to some still earlier generation.

Rick "noting that older horn parts are written in Eb, but still played on F horns" Denney

[corbasse]

Rick "noting that older horn parts are written in Eb, but still played on F horns" Denney

That's where it gets really messy: Richard Strauss still wrote for horn in E and Eb, even though these instruments weren't used anymore at that time.
He and the horn players prefered transposing above having parts with a load of #'s or b's

[Allen]

....
The original question is why were instruments pitched on the Bb open bugle in the first place? I don't know the answer to that, but I have a feeling it will emerge from a study of Adolphe Sax, whose saxophones and saxhorns were built as systems of instruments pitched in Bb and Eb. I don't know why he chose Bb and Eb, and not C and F as did Wieprecht and Cerveny, but perhaps someone will. He was probably trying to match some pre-existing woodwind instrument, which would defer the question back to some still earlier generation.
....

Actually, Adolphe Sax offered saxophones in two series: our familiar Eb/Bb, and an alternate series of F/C. The only common surviving member of the alternate series is the "C melody" saxophone, which has been used for musicians to play from the melody lines of piano scores. [It is striking that people have to use an entirely different instrument when the need to read music at concert pitch arises.]

I suppose that, for business reasons alone, only one of the two saxophone series could have survived, but I haven't a clue as to why the Eb/Bb series was the one. The saxophone has well-designed keywork that facilitates playing in all keys, and was quite an innovation for its time.

I still don't know the reason our familiar Bb brass instruments are the standard. In the software field, when one runs across odd quirks or faults in design, a frequent explanation is "to be compatible with the installed base." I suspect that the Bb brass question has a similar answer.

Allen Walker

[ken k]

I always thought that for the amatuer player who would want to play along in church etc. C trumpets, C clarinets and C melody saxes, etc. would be ideal. The performer would not have to worry about transposing etc. Unfortunately tradition has been so entrenched that it would probably never be feasible. But it would be interesting to see if there would be a market for such instruments. If they could be made inexpensively, they could be possible.

ken k

[Allen]

What about teaching people to read music at concert pitch? What a shocking innovation!

[Kevin Hendrick]

... In the software field, when one runs across odd quirks or faults in design, a frequent explanation is "to be compatible with the installed base."

"It's not a bug -- it's a feature!"

[Leland]

What about teaching people to read music at concert pitch? What a shocking innovation!

The hard part would be taking someone between the various trumpet keys and French horn and expecting them to throw down the right fingerings relatively quickly. Piccolo trumpet, especially, would be a pain to read in its actual sounding pitch (same for string bass). And, it makes it easier to move people between the voices of their woodwind families.

It's a tradeoff, sacrificing unified note names for greater ease in switching personnel and/or instruments.

[windshieldbug]

I always thought that for the amatuer player who would want to play along in church etc. C trumpets, C clarinets and C melody saxes, etc. would be ideal. The performer would not have to worry about transposing etc. Unfortunately tradition has been so entrenched that it would probably never be feasible. But it would be interesting to see if there would be a market for such instruments. If they could be made inexpensively, they could be possible.

In the last part of the ninteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth makers did EXACTLY that; one could buy a Bb cornet which converted to C for the purposes of reading vocal and piano music. I have 2 Conn "vocal" Wonderphone cornets (made 1907 and 1908) which can be quickly changed between C/Bb/A, high AND low pitch; in fact, all 3 valve slides have markings for where they should be set for each pitch. So rather than being new, we have "lost" that tradition!

[SplatterTone]

I always thought that for the amatuer player who would want to play along in church etc. C trumpets, C clarinets and C melody saxes, etc. would be ideal. But it would be interesting to see if there would be a market for such instruments. If they could be made inexpensively, they could be possible.

ken k

I recently bought the wife a C clarinet which is now her favorite because she can read from un-transcribed music. One sees plenty of C trumpets running around these days.

But one still keeps returning to the original question of why B-flat? One doesn't see any tendency to that in the renaissance or baroque; I know of no stringed instruments that even have a b-flat string (ignoring the chromatic instruments). Do you suppose it could be something as simple as when the prototype, experimental model was made, it happened to be in B-flat?

[MaryAnn]

What about teaching people to read music at concert pitch? What a shocking innovation!

The hard part would be taking someone between the various trumpet keys and French horn and expecting them to throw down the right fingerings relatively quickly. Piccolo trumpet, especially, would be a pain to read in its actual sounding pitch (same for string bass). And, it makes it easier to move people between the voices of their woodwind families.

It's a tradeoff, sacrificing unified note names for greater ease in switching personnel and/or instruments.

I continue to be baffled by people who would love to come play BBb tuba in the brass band but who say, "Oh but I can't read the clef." Well DUH why don't they just learn the clef? I just don't get it!! Yeah the first two or three clefs may take some time to get used to, and when learning a new clef it might be necessary to write in some fingerings for a while. But really, we can all read CAPITALS and italics and a bunch of different weird fonts for English... and frankly my dear I don't see the difference. It appears to be a matter of attitude rather than ability.

MA

[corbasse]

I continue to be baffled by people who would love to come play BBb tuba in the brass band but who say, "Oh but I can't read the clef." Well DUH why don't they just learn the clef? I just don't get it!! Yeah the first two or three clefs may take some time to get used to, and when learning a new clef it might be necessary to write in some fingerings for a while. But really, we can all read CAPITALS and italics and a bunch of different weird fonts for English... and frankly my dear I don't see the difference. It appears to be a matter of attitude rather than ability.

MA

Yup, it's all about education and attitude. The kids here have to learn more than one clef before they even touch an instrument. It doesn't bother them, it's just something to learn.

[Allen]

Out of politness, I have been refraining from making what seems like an obvious comment. Now that corbasse and MaryAnn have commented, I'll say it: The whole notion of "transposing instruments" seems brain-damaged. Since there is so much more to playing an instrument than just the fingerings, the only advantage to "transposing instruments" is assisting amateurs in playing several instruments equally badly.

Regarding clefs, one should keep in mind that even beginning pianists read both treble and bass clefs -- gasp! -- simultaneously! If a tubist can read treble clef, it opens up a huge world of music, including lead sheets (which have the melody and chord symbols for songs). After a while, it even seems more natrual to play a melody written in treble clef, and a bass line written in bass clef. Indeed I'll do something like that when I arrange for myself: I'll write the melody sections in treble clef, and the bass/accompaniment in bass clef. That way, I can be reminded of the rather different styles I have to use in the different sections.

Sometimes I think I may being unfair to others who profess difficulty in learning new fingerings and clefs. However, I seldom hear them mentioning how much work they put into learning new things.

Cheers,
Allen Walker