why are rotary euphonium are more prevalent in Eastern Europe?

[Leon Chen]

Hello everybody,

Can I ask why are rotary-valve euphoniums are more prevalent in Eastern Europe opposed to the piston-valve euphoniums? Is part it due to the different musical culture between eastern Europe and western Europe?

Thanks,

Leon

[highpitch]

I'd say tradition, led by the regional designs.

Economics comes into play as well.

It takes a long time for 'foreign' instruments to become mainstream.

i.e. the 4-valve compensator only replaced the bell front-valve front horn in the US some 50 years after it's acceptance in the UK.

Dennis

[bbocaner]

I think they probably work better for the type of music they play, and their preference is for that sound. Many of the regional differences in instrument designs have disappeared in favor of the better playing model, but this one has persisted.

[Trombo]

I agree with the previous answers.
And I must add that there are many reasons: history, politics, culture, etc.
Rotary instruments called "German style" . It's trumpets, trombones, French horns and all rotary saxhorns: althorn, tenor horn, baritone and tuba. Germany and especially Austria had a great influence in the 19th and 20th century in Eastern Europe and Russia. Russian military bands was created by the German military conductors in the 19th century. Later, the Russians had created a style of military music where the oval baritone played a huge role:

http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthr...s#.V3IgcKNn0b0

In the 20th century Soviet composers with Conservatory education (Tchernetsky, Blazhevich and others) have become more skillful to use the soaring sound of the oval baritone:

http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthr...h#.V3IhhaNn0b0

After WW2 Eastern Europe joined the Soviet Bloc. Contacts with the West was difficult. Oval baritones did manufacturers in the GDR (B&S), Czechoslovakia (Amati) and the USSR (Leningrad).
Eastern musicians began to play euphonium after the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet bloc . But it turned out that the oval baritone sounds better in that type of music , and almost all came back to oval baritone

[BDeisinger]

I recently purchased a B&S rotary 4 valve euphonium/baritone and use it for community band. I don't know how it got to the US but bought it used on consignment from Dillon Music. It was and is in mint condition and is fun to play. The sound is amazing for the oval shaped horn with the 12 inch bell and conical bore. Intonation is pretty good but I had an extended shank made for the mouthpiece to help with tuning so the slide wasn't out all the way. One thing I do notice is the craftsmanship is excellent. Don't know much about the production of this horn but they no longer appear on the B&S home page and I forget exactly what model but might be a 3046.

[ghmerrill]

Another thing to keep in mind is that rotary valves are more robust and demand less care and maintenance than piston valves. They don't need to be manufactured to the closer tolerances of piston valves, and they don't need plating or re-plating. Unless you somehow damage a rotary valve, clean your instrument reasonably regularly, and lubricate it now and then (though it doesn't require lubrication on anything like the schedule of piston valves), a rotary valve instrument is pretty impervious to degradation and damage. They're also easier to adjust (bumpers) than are piston valves (felts, shims, etc.), and the materials for doing this are readily available (even if you have to cut up a wine cork yourself).

Given the history of economies in Eastern Europe, these features of rotary valves are pretty attractive.

[Trombo]

This is true.
But the most important thing for a musician is the sound.
Interestingly, Soviet musicians switched to piston trumpet after WW2. Obviously the sound of the piston trumpet was better than rotary trumpet. Although the Germans and Austrians still play at the rotary trumpet. See the Berlin Philharmonic and Vienna Philharmonic.
In the case of low brass is all on the contrary. Oval baritone sounds better than euphonium (IMO).

[ghmerrill]

To me, saying that the oval baritone sounds better than the euphonium is very much like saying that the trombone sounds better than the euphonium or that a contra-bass trombone sounds better than a tuba. They sound different. They're different instruments. In fact, an oval baritone sound more like trombone than a euphonium does. At least mine does. If you want a "real euphonium" sound (which is to say the sound of a higher voice in the tuba famly), then you want the real euphonium and not the oval one.

I suspect -- though you'd have to ask trumpet players -- that what's more attractive about pistons than rotors in a trumpet is that the pistons are faster. That's not so important on a tuba (where the difference is probably harder to notice, although I feel that pistons are a bit faster -- or feel faster -- than rotors). On a euphonium, that difference is probably somewhere in the middle.

Also, I'm very skeptical that there is any discernible difference in sound with rotary as opposed to piston valves. The reason that people think this is that the rotary instruments are constructed differently -- e.g., in the position of the valve block relative to the lead pipe and other tubing. It's that construction (geometry) that makes them sound different -- and not whether the valve goes up and down or round and round. Of course, there are reasons for constructing them differently -- but the choice in the case of any sound difference isn't just because of the geometry of the valves.

[Trombo]

To me, saying that the oval baritone sounds better than the euphonium is very much like saying that the trombone sounds better than the euphonium or that a contra-bass trombone sounds better than a tuba. They sound different. They're different instruments. In fact, an oval baritone sound more like trombone than a euphonium does. At least mine does. If you want a "real euphonium" sound (which is to say the sound of a higher voice in the tuba famly), then you want the real euphonium and not the oval one.

You overpower baritone. This is wrong. You have too large mouthpiece for oval baritone. Try something smaller. Wick 6BM or 4AM or Elliott equivalent.
Oval baritone is the most delicate instrument in the world.
Baritone should sing.
In order to properly play on it listen good baritonist. For Example, Steven Mead. His sound on the oval baritone a lot better than on the euphonium.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bKFkUqjrGCM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d71glMoqa_I

Yes, there are musicians who play baritone like trombone. There are musicians who play trombone like euphonium. But we don't consider them good musicians.

[ghmerrill]

But in that case you should contrast the oval baritone with the genuine British (or American) BARITONE rather than with the EUPHONIUM (which has a larger bore and larger bell). And then your claim should be that the oval baritone sounds better than the British (or American) baritone.

However, I think that THAT claim is even less likely to get a lot of agreement. You need only look in this forum to see other threads on the very different sound and performance of the genuine British baritone compared to the euphonium -- and when each of them is appropriate for a particular part or performance. But which one of any of these "sounds better" is perhaps a matter of taste, if it makes sense at all.

[BDeisinger]

Just wanted to add that my B&S technically is not a baritone as it has a conical bore. I think that gives it a sweeter sound. I use a different mouthpiece than the upright euphonium. I also don't understand how you play a trombone like a baritone/euphonium and vice versa. I play both including the bass bone and the very structure and acoustics make it difficult if not impossible to sound alike. However, a baritone just because of it's cylindrical bore has a much different sound than an euphonium. Each instrument has it's own unique sound.

[bbocaner]

In fact, an oval baritone sound more like trombone than a euphonium does. At least mine does. If you want a "real euphonium" sound (which is to say the sound of a higher voice in the tuba famly), then you want the real euphonium and not the oval one

There are a bunch of things wrong with this statement. First of all, I don't believe german style ovalform baritone sounds like a trombone at all. I believe it's sweeter and darker than British-style euphonium. Is it possible you don't have the right approach to this instrument not having been surrounded by good players in that style on that instrument your whole life? I also think Trombo is right in that you might not have the most appropriate mouthpiece.

Second of all, there is no historical basis for there being a "tuba family". Tuba evolved as a stand-alone instrument, just as euphonium/baritone evolved as a stand-alone instrument. The two are related in that they are both conical lower brasses, but that's it. Euphonium is not a tenor tuba and tuba is not a bass/contrabass euphonium, historically speaking.

Now, here in 2016 we have a huge variety of tubas available. Big american front-action tubas. Traditional German-style rotary tubas. Instruments meant for solo use. Instruments meant for use in huge orchestras. Hybrids of all these ideas. Compensating instruments from the British tradition. When you say that the "real euphonium sound" is that which sounds like a tuba, but higher, I would ask you this: which tuba?

I suspect -- though you'd have to ask trumpet players -- that what's more attractive about pistons than rotors in a trumpet is that the pistons are faster. That's not so important on a tuba (where the difference is probably harder to notice, although I feel that pistons are a bit faster -- or feel faster -- than rotors). On a euphonium, that difference is probably somewhere in the middle.

Also, I'm very skeptical that there is any discernible difference in sound with rotary as opposed to piston valves. The reason that people think this is that the rotary instruments are constructed differently -- e.g., in the position of the valve block relative to the lead pipe and other tubing. It's that construction (geometry) that makes them sound different -- and not whether the valve goes up and down or round and round. Of course, there are reasons for constructing them differently -- but the choice in the case of any sound difference isn't just because of the geometry of the valves.

pistons are not faster! I can point to a huge number of youtube videos that would cure you of that misunderstanding. They are different and the legato happens in a different way, but rotaries have a shorter stroke and are capable of playing just as fast. But essentially you are right, it's the design of the instrument that dictates the sound not the type of valve installed. The traditional ovalform instruments are a much different bore taper, bracing, and overall construction than the traditional british-style instruments.

Also, a word about nomenclature. Do not get "baritone" confused with "british-style baritone". For much of the world, the word "baritone" IS the more conical instrument. This is not a mistake. If you're talking about a German-made (or czech-made) instrument, the proper terms are baritone for the larger more conical instrument and tenorhorn for the smaller (still conical, but less-so) instrument. This is the case with classic american instruments, too. If you are talking about an american instrument from the 1880s it's either a baritone or a tenorhorn, it's not a euphonium. Why do you think 75% of your concert band music says baritone at the top? It's not because all those publishers were confused.

[58mark]

I happen to think for response and valve stroke, rotors are faster than pistons, especially on tuba. I think it's ridiculous how long the stroke is on so many modern piston tubas

[ghmerrill]

Second of all, there is no historical basis for there being a "tuba family". Tuba evolved as a stand-alone instrument, just as euphonium/baritone evolved as a stand-alone instrument. The two are related in that they are both conical lower brasses, but that's it. Euphonium is not a tenor tuba and tuba is not a bass/contrabass euphonium, historically speaking.

Among the various opinions expressed here, this is perhaps the most puzzling to me. I'm not sure what "historical basis" and "historically speaking" are intended to mean, nor "stand-alone".

While it's difficult to say whether what we think of as the tuba emerged from some sort of proto-euphonium or the euphonium emerged from some sort of proto-tuba or they both emerged in parallel, the history seems pretty clear on the relationship of the two instruments. Take a look at David Child's history of the euphonium and compare it to various histories of the tuba. But in particular, look at Donald Stauffer's A Treatise on the Tuba, which is generally regarded as the definitive work on the subject. The histories trace both instruments back to the Saxhorn family

Also see the Notre Dame history of the baritone chronology in which baritones and euphoniums are clearly treated as being of the same "family" (that being, roughly, "valved bugles") as the tuba, and in which it is said that a "tenor tuba" was first made in 1838.

Likewise see George Palton's The History and Development of the Tuba which traces the "modern euphonium" to the 1838 creation of the first tenor tuba by Moritz. It goes further to say that the tenor tuba was "replaced" in 1833 with the euphonium as made by someone named "Sommer" (his first name seems to have been lost in history). The innovation seems to have been a movement to a wider bore. But again the euphonium and tuba are seen as members of the same "family" (call it what you will).

So ... No historical basis for there being a tuba family? That view seems entirely inconsistent with multiple published histories of the instruments in which tubas (and euphoniums) are explicitly seen as conical bore valved bugles (somewhat redundant since bugles are conical bore, but I add it for emphasis).

Then consider the non-historical sense in which a euphonium is a tenor tuba and a tuba is a bass/contra-bass euphonium. That's just a matter of geometry and physics. Of course there are different kinds of tubas and different kinds of euphoniums (and other sub-varieties of tuba-like instruments or euphonium-like instruments such as Sousaphones or helicons). My EEb tuba is physically identical (mathematically, it's actually isomorphic) to my Bb euphonium that is simply larger and in a different key. Or my Bb euphonium is physically my EEb tuba in a higher key. Only the measurements differ. This is true for other (non-compensating) tubas and (non-compensating) euphoniums.

When you ask me "which tuba" the "true euphonium sound" emulates, it depends of course on "which euphonium" is being used as a reference (and I'm not remotely unaware that "baritone" and "euphonium" are ambiguous). But Tromba was using "euphonium" to refer to the standard 4-valve compensating euphonium -- or so it seems in reading his postings. THAT euphonium, I maintain, does in fact sound like a tuba (pretty much most tubas), only in a higher pitch. And both are similar in this way to the French 6-valve tuba which is morphologically impossible to distinguish from a C euphonium with added valves.

Really, anyone can say what they like about how oval baritones/tenor horns/alto horns sound, but to say that these don't fall into both a morphologically delineated and historically recognized family of instruments seems to be severely deviant from the facts.

Regarding the relative speed of rotary or piston valves, I'm not sure that there has been any objective study of this. Opinions vary. Most tuba players that I know personally feel that rotors are slower (or maybe just feel slower -- but that feeling can be important). Mark disagrees. On the other hand (no pun intended), Mark has huge hands and rotors may be much more responsive to him than to other players. And he's certainly correct that with very large bore tubas, the length of the stroke in fabricating the piston valves becomes a real problem and the actual stroke itself on the rotor is almost certainly shorter. Of course, that's only part of what's affecting the speed. References to Youtube videos, I'm afraid, are totally meaningless in evaluating the speed of valves -- since they only show that either valve is more than "fast enough" for practical applications.

[adrian_quince]

With regard to the piston/rotor debate, I find speed really does depend on the instrument size.

As a trumpet player, it has been my experience that piston valves are significantly faster to respond than rotary valves. The stroke length on trumpet is short and on top-sprung pistons the return from being pressed is very fast. Bottom sprung pistons (common in flugelhorns) actually tend to respond a bit slower. I've played some rotary trumpets that come close, but pistons are still faster in my hands.

When I play tuba, I find I can move faster on rotors. At that size, the higher spring pressure combined with the size and stroke length of a piston gets tiring quickly. (Note here that I'm not a full-time tuba player and my hands are used to smaller valves.)

That said, there are other considerations. For example, I had a chance to borrow a rotary piccolo trumpet from a friend for a few months and the legato on that instrument was incredible. I would gladly trade a loss of speed for the ability to play a violin-like legato line. (It's my understanding that the legato comes both from the rotor causing less disruption in the air flow and the overall shape of the bugle being more suited to legato playing, which is enabled by the valves being closer to the mouthpiece.)