Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Different Approaches for British-style Baritone playing

  1. Different Approaches for British-style Baritone playing

    There is a great contrast in the sound of David Werden and the sound of Katrina Marzella when playing baritone.

    Here are two recordings, both of slow, melodic playing:

    David Werden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmoILRqZ2Ks

    Katrina Marzella: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rV2ZwyGdY8

    I would posit that Ms. Marzella's sound is much wider and euphonium like, while David's sound is much more compact, 'punchy' and much more obviously different from euphonium.
    Both are beautiful sounds, but they are quite different. I lean more toward David's more 'punchy' and distinct sound. If I didn't see the recording, I might just think her playing was of a euphonium with a more aggressive attack.

    Thoughts?
    Christopher Chen
    bolded are for sale
    B&H 967 - Globe Stamp
    B&H 960 (3 valve comp euph) - Globe Stamp
    Salvation Army Triumphonic Eb Alto, silver plated


    On the lookout for:
    Silver plated:
    pre '93, post '06 Sovereign Alto/Tenor Horn
    pre '93, post '06 Sovereign Baritone (3 valve)

    York/Sterling/LMI variants accepted

  2. #2
    I'd say that Miss Marzella has perhaps the very darkest baritone sound around, so she's kind of an outlier, but other recent baritone players also have dark sounds. It's not unusual. Check out Kristy Rowe's album Romanze, Helen Tyler's solos on pretty much every Fountain City Brass Band album, and on the Fodens' band recording of the Darrol Barry concerto that was written for her. Donegal Bay by PLC as recorded by Gareth Brindle with Black Dyke and as recorded by Sarah Lenton with Fairey. Rob Richardson on the Baritones to the Fore! album by the Brass band of columbus (in addition to Miss Marzella and Tyler on that album). And even the tunes on his solo albums in which David Childs plays baritone (it's typically one selection per album...). All very dark. I have an album by swiss player Gilles Rocha that is a more bright sound, but still less so than Dave's baritone recording. I have come to the conclusion that the instrument should be played dark, not as dark as a british euphonium player, but almost as dark as the typical american euphonium sound. I have one playlist on my ipod where a track from Miss Marzella's solo album gets played back to back with a track from Roger Behrend's solo album, and the sounds are almost identical! Where you can make a difference though is in the weight of the sound, the baritone can be lighter and less big while remaining dark. And of course, where the score calls for it the instrument CAN indeed get significantly brighter at the command of the player -- for artistic effect or to blend with trombones or tenorhorns...

    My thought I'm getting at here is that these British players (ok, Miss Rowe is australian, but she studied in Britain...) come from the tradition where these instruments and musical styles were invented, so they ought to know what they are supposed to sound like!

    My latest epiphany about the baritone is that it is much like playing the sackbut with an original-style mouthpiece. It's not easy to do, but if you can back off the instrument and use no pressure, not force anything, think "warm air", you eventually get to a transcendent-like state where the instrument just starts playing itself and sounds absolutely beautiful. You can't force it, you can't play it like a euphonium or a trombone. You can get a very dark sound with a small mouthpiece (in fact, if the mouthpiece is TOO big you CAN'T get there at all -- too much lip becomes involved and it starts sounding gritty) and reach that place where the instrument really sings.
    Last edited by bbocaner; 05-01-2013 at 05:11 PM.

  3. #3
    I think the true baritones have "grown" more than euphoniums over the same time frame. In the 1980's when I got mine, the common bore size was .515". And at that time, my Sovereign 955 was criticized in some circles for being too dark and "un-baritone-like"!

    More recent recordings of Katrina would have her playing a horn with a .543" bore, I believe. That's a pretty big increase! During those same years the Besson euphoniums went from .580 to .592, not nearly as large a percentage.

    Disclaimer: I am NOT a "real" baritone player, even though I play a real baritone. But my opinion is that it NEEDS to be a different-sounding from euphonium. The difference should be clear. The baritone is often used to double the trombones and soften their sound or to act as a lower horn voice. In either situation it should blend and not overpower (which a euphonium might do). By the same token, I think we have to be careful in our euphonium setups so that we don't get too close to a tuba sound.
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  4. #4
    I don't think Besson euphonium bore has changed since the introduction of the round-stamps in the mid 1970s. I know that some of the literature used to say .580 and now says .590 or .592 or even .593, but we've discussed the vagaries of measuring euphonium bores before. Willson and Yamaha bores are pretty much equivalent to Besson bores with some small exceptions in the 4th valve tubing.

    While the pre-sovereign besson baritones did have smaller bells and (presumably) bores (I haven't measured one or seen specs), that was almost 40 years ago, now! The instrument has progressed a long way in terms of role in the brass band and also in terms of solo literature since then. I've got a collection of somewhere around 150 brass band CDs going back to the late 1970s and early 1980s (Chandos re-issues of black dyke LPs are mostly the 1970s and 1980s options) but I cannot detect a huge shift in timbre in the baritone sections from then to now. And it is only more recently they've been featured as soloists at all.

    And while besson did change from somewhere around .516 to .540 on the latest instruments, I don't think bore matters as much as one might think on these instruments. Look at the varied range of bores available on tenorhorns from different makers, and they all end up sounding similar. And look at the HUGE range of bores available on tubas -- now tubas have lots of different colors available, but there isn't an extremely predictable relationship between bore and tonal color. I've had the chance to compare a .516 sovereign to a new .540 one and it is not a huge difference. I think it's more about the bell throat shape and final branches than it is the bore through the valves. Keep in mind that the bore through the valve section is only the first little bit of the instrument and any changes further down the instrument also have a big effect. I have compared the main tuning slide on a .516 besson to that on my .540 besson and they are identical.

    I have .525, .547, and .562 slides for my Shires tenor trombone and if I put similar leadpipes in the differences are not as big as you might think -- it's actually pretty subtle to the listener although they feel a lot different to play.

    The earliest recording I have with Katrina Marzella is the highlights CD from the 2004 european championships, where she plays "the swan" with the youth band. I've seen a photo with her playing that concert on a 3-valve sovereign for that which would no doubt be a .516 instrument and it is easily as dark a sound as her album "katrina" on which she is pictured on the cover with a 4-valve besson 956 which would be a .540 instrument. Her most recent solo recording is the cory band sparke CD from a few years ago on which she is playing a yamaha neo prototype, for which we don't yet know what the bore is.

    And that's not even counting the way that players deal with them. A bigger instrument can be played to sound like the smaller instrument and vice versa to a large extent, by compensating with the mouthpiece, playing style, etc..

    So, yes... I absolutely agree that there should be a difference in the sound of the euphonium and of the baritone, otherwise there is no point in having two instruments!!, but I don't believe that means the baritone should be bright, or trombone-like at all. You can have a dark baritone sound but still be lighter, punchier, crisper than the euphonium. And still have the ability to play it brighter depending on your role in the arrangement.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by bbocaner View Post
    I don't think Besson euphonium bore has changed since the introduction of the round-stamps in the mid 1970s. I know that some of the literature used to say .580 and now says .590 or .592 or even .593, but we've discussed the vagaries of measuring euphonium bores before.
    Just a small point, but I stand by the statement. While I was still playing Besson (from 1970-90, roughly), I purchased a nice caliper to make measurements. The Besson bore was indeed right around .580. I have not measured a new Besson, but I have measured Sterling Virtuosos, Willsons, Hirsbrunners, and Adams, and they are all around .592 using the same measurement technique (inside the 2nd valve slide).
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  6. #6
    well, 1970 would be a pre-sovereign, right? I believe they advertised those as being .579 so a .580 measurement would be right. And I have tried putting valve slides from a Willson 2900 in my Prestige and it's a perfect fit, so I believe most of the makers are using just about the same 1-2-3 bore these days (exception being the big miraphones) with slight differences in the comp loop and 4th valve tuning slide sizes.

    I'll admit I'm not 100% sure about that on the original sovereign euphoniums, but I know their collateral literature said .580 as late as the early 2000s and I know for a fact that the 1-2-3 valve bore was indeed .590ish all that time.
    Last edited by bbocaner; 05-01-2013 at 07:26 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by bbocaner View Post
    well, 1970 would be a pre-sovereign, right? I believe they advertised those as being .579 so a .580 measurement would be right.
    I measured my 1980 Sovereign and the one I got in 1986, and they were both around .580.
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  8. #8
    hmm! I wonder when they switched? that is really interesting. But it does only support my assertion that the bore alone doesn't have the largest effect on tonal color.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by bbocaner View Post
    hmm! I wonder when they switched? that is really interesting. But it does only support my assertion that the bore alone doesn't have the largest effect on tonal color.
    Well, bore is a factor, but it can easily be overridden by other changes. Compared to the New Standard I played, the Sovereign 967 did not change the bore (at least, not enough to show up on my Craftsman caliper). BUT they changed the shape of the leadpipe, which I think made a big difference. The 967's was larger near the receiver and the same size at the first valve, so it tapered less but could take more air. We did the same thing early on with Sterling - we went from a leadpipe that was a little narrow at first to one that was wider at first (near the receiver). Of course, the Besson's bore and the Sterling's bore stayed the same, which supports what you are saying.
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  10. Quote Originally Posted by bbocaner View Post
    My latest epiphany about the baritone is that it is much like playing the sackbut with an original-style mouthpiece. It's not easy to do, but if you can back off the instrument and use no pressure, not force anything, think "warm air", you eventually get to a transcendent-like state where the instrument just starts playing itself and sounds absolutely beautiful. You can't force it, you can't play it like a euphonium or a trombone. You can get a very dark sound with a small mouthpiece (in fact, if the mouthpiece is TOO big you CAN'T get there at all -- too much lip becomes involved and it starts sounding gritty) and reach that place where the instrument really sings.
    I absolutely agree with Barry. I have also had this same epiphany recently regarding my approach to baritone. In fact, I even switched to a slightly smaller MPC on euph so that I could switch between euph and baritone more easily. But the biggest issue for me is to realize that I must relax pressure, not get too much lip into the mouthpiece, and play EXACTLY in the center of each note in order to get a good sound on baritone. I listened to a recording of my solo competition at NABBA and actually really liked the overall sound. However, I was still forcing attacks in the fast technical sections and need to lighten my tongueing in order to make the horn sound smoother. I have to admit that the "Katrina" sound is my goal when playing the baritone.
    Adams E3 0.60 Sterling bell - Prototype top sprung valves
    Concord Band
    Winchendon Winds
    Townsend Military Band

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •