SE Shires Euphonium

[John Morgan]

… What is a really good example of a top-notch, well-respected euphonium that is also very sonically flexible?

Well now, that would be an Adams E3 Custom Series Euphonium, just like mine.

[highpitch]

Interesting take on this.

Playing a 'sonically flexible' euph is like driving a McClaren formula car: One had better be up to it.

I'll stick to my 'Mack truck' New Standard for now.

DG

[mbrooke]

Maybe I'm dense or partially deaf, but I've never heard anything that I would consider "sonically flexible"from a euphonium. I've listened to a good many players over the years playing on different horns, and sure they have different sounds, but they generally maintain the same timbre whether playing loud soft, etc. I've never heard a euphonium sound gain intensity and the just open like what can achieved on a cello or have a great deal of variability between a brighter and darker sound. That is, each horn seems to have its sound and it stays within that sound with a small degree of variability. So, maybe someone could point out a good example of a euphonium being played in a "sonically flexible" manner. I would love to hear it.

Mike

[John Morgan]

Maybe I'm dense or partially deaf, but I've never heard anything that I would consider "sonically flexible"from a euphonium. I've listened to a good many players over the years playing on different horns, and sure they have different sounds, but they generally maintain the same timbre whether playing loud soft, etc. I've never heard a euphonium sound gain intensity and the just open like what can achieved on a cello or have a great deal of variability between a brighter and darker sound. That is, each horn seems to have its sound and it stays within that sound with a small degree of variability. So, maybe someone could point out a good example of a euphonium being played in a "sonically flexible" manner. I would love to hear it.

Mike

Mike - I tend to agree with you. I am not even quite sure what sonically flexible is in relating to a euphonium sound. My response above was tongue in cheek. My horn and mouthpiece and me together make a certain sound on my Adams. I like it. I can probably shade the tone or sound somewhat. I can also make it brighter or darker with different mouthpieces. But the overall sound of this combination of horn, mouthpiece and me stays pretty much consistent.

There are some folks who say they can make their horn sound like "this" for classical playing and sound like "this" for jazzier playing and maybe sound like "this" for something in between that. I would say that unless you are changing equipment, the horn will sound pretty much the same for all varieties of music you play. What is different is your air, your phrasing, your articulations, your vibrato or not, your dynamics, your rhythm, your sense of style, your tonguing, your interpretation, etc. By making changes to some or all of these things, you can perhaps sound a little different, but the underlying sound you make with your horn and equipment I think remains pretty constant.

[John the Theologian]

Maybe being "sonically flexible" means something like I read from jazz cornetist, Warren Vache. He plays a longer style cornet-- the kind that resembles an Olds Ambassdor, etc that was standard for beginning cornetists when I grew up-- not the short model used in British brass bands. Yet I read him claiming that if he played a shallower mouthpiece and tuned his horn slightly sharp, he could play lead trumpet in any big band on his horn.

[mbrooke]

I think when Biz was referring to "sonically flexible" it meant something like this earlier post from Dave:

"Regarding the Willson 2900 concept, I have an opinion, which I think I have stated on the forum and I know I mentioned it to a few people at ITEC. The 2900 has one outstanding strength, which can also be a weakness for some tastes. It has a very solid core to its sound, and that core/sound is consistent through all the primary range of the horn. That's impressive. But for me it's a limitation because I WANT to be able to tailor the sound a bit for various things I'm doing."

There have been various similar statements by other posters, as swell. I think that there is a tendency for players (especially younger players) to read a statement like this and think that there are horns that so locked into a particular sound that it inhibits "artistic freedom" and that there are certain horns that are almost magical in there ability to convey the thoughts and emotions of the player. My point was I have never really heard someone tailor the sound much if at all on a given horn.

Mike

[davewerden]

RE: sonic flexibility...

This is confusing to talk about because there are two pieces to it:

1) The horn's inherent sound characteristics, or tendencies. It is correct that different 5050 artists or different 2900 artists can sound different from others playing the same horn, it is also true there are some inherent characteristics. It would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to make a Yamaha 321 sound like a Miraphone 5050. And when I switched from a Besson New Standard to the Sovereign 967, my sound changed somewhat because of the horn(s). The 967 sound was darker and bigger, and was better for many solos; on the other hand it was less good for playing in chamber settings.

When I pick a horn, I want its sound to be flexible inherently. Even in the Adams line, I don't find all the models/configs can do this for me. The E2 especially does not have the base sound that I want to start from. My E1 and current E3 both have a sound that *I* feel works well in the Holst 2nd Suite as well as in the Carpenters' "Goodbye to Love" & etc. (The E2 has a soldered bead wire on the bell, where the E1 and E3 are simply crimped - that alone contributes to the denser core of the E2, and the non-soldered bead allow the E1/E3 ability to open up more.)

2) I endeavor to change the sound depending on the piece. When I want to sound more "British brass-bandy" (which I generally do only for effect at certain times) I open my mouth much wider as I play. That does change the sound a bit. Or sometimes I close down the lip aperture a little and add a bit more support to sound darker and richer in quiet passages. These actions change the sound slightly.

The same actions would also change my sound on a 5050 or 2900, but I feel the inherent sound of my E3 gives me a better place to start from.

Does that make sense? To tell the truth, I put off joining this conversation because I had to figure out the best way to say what I mean!

[cochranme]

I agree with Dave on all points here. It’s true that the horn doesn’t “make” the sound, but also true that there are inherent characteristics that different horns have that lend themselves better to different settings. When I was on my Adams Sterling E1, I could be tremendously nimble and articulate. It was wonderful for intimate solo settings and in quintet work. Playing the Planets or Bydlo with a full orchestra or soloing over a concert band required a lot of extra work to project without cracking up the sound on the louder end, however. Now on a yellow brass silver-plated E2. It definitely has a more “predetermined” sound characteristic. So it’s a trade off, but one that I feel enhances my personal playing style. I don’t feel inhibited by it in solo work, and I can hang with any large ensemble.

[davewerden]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Martin!

I'm going to show my age now. Back in the 1960's, when most middle-class homes had a "console stereo" or possibly a "console hi-fi", there was an attitude that might be useful in our discussion. The consoles were nice pieces of furniture, and contained the entire stereo system inside, including speakers. At that time I had gotten seriously into reading about high-end stereo systems, mostly separate components (i.e. a tuner, pre-amp, amp, turntable, and speakers). I even owned a few in the 1970's.

I'd often hear folks who were proud of their console systems because they had "such a nice tone." That word (tone) was as easily misunderstood as it is with wind instruments today. In most cases, these folks were pretty accurate - the console unit did indeed have a tone of its own. Audiophiles of the time would shun any system that had a "tone" because they wanted to hear the actual, unadulterated sound of the recording. Every LP (or reel-to-reel tape) they played should sound a little different, controlled by the recording itself. Audiophiles spend gobs of money (continuously, in most cases) to eliminate any "additions" the system made to the sound. Some amplifiers were made with no treble/bass controls, for example, so keep the process pure. There was a "straight piece of wire" concept to sound delivery to avoid any pollution.

The console systems really could sound quite nice if they were of high quality and suited the music you played on them. But it would be rare indeed to find one that could play a string quartet, full orchestra, jazz combo, vocals, and ___ equally well.

As horn players, we can't be quite "straight piece of wire" about this whole thing. We really don't want to horn to simply amplify our lips' buzzing! The horn will add its own qualities and shape what comes out of the bell - lucky for us!

[John Morgan]

...I endeavor to change the sound depending on the piece. When I want to sound more "British brass-bandy" (which I generally do only for effect at certain times) I open my mouth much wider as I play. That does change the sound a bit. Or sometimes I close down the lip aperture a little and add a bit more support to sound darker and richer in quiet passages. These actions change the sound slightly.

The same actions would also change my sound on a 5050 or 2900, but I feel the inherent sound of my E3 gives me a better place to start from...

I think the last sentence above about the inherent sound of an instrument is the primary driver of the sound of any particular horn. Well, that along with the person behind the mouthpiece and the mouthpiece.

[MichaelSchott]

I understand your point. Shires isn’t making this as a marketed brass band horn. You’re saying it’s going against a trend, but that “trend” is brass band oriented. One can argue that the trend for Willson 2900 and medium shank has never went away, as again, most all of my colleagues still play one and will choose to if given a new instrument again. It’s all in preference. Shires made this horn with the military bandsman in mind, hence the 2900 specs and medium shank. They will also be offering it with a larger bell (Q40) and bass trombone shank as well, for those who want that. I’m not attempting to be confrontational, so please forgive me if my post comes across that way. I think the smaller bell and medium shank gets “pooped on” more than it should. There’s real magic with that combination, and countless players prove that.

Hi Brandon, I do not see your posts as confrontational and I appreciate your perspective. From my perspective and as a brass band player, it could be that I'm biased. But I hang out here a lot and in various Facebook groups which are not necessarily BB oriented. I see more discussion on Besson, Adams, Wessex and others than I do Willson these days. I certainly see the advantages of the Brian Bowman heritage in a concert band scenario. It's the reason I bought mine in the first place. Since I started playing in a brass band in 1996 I have moved from a 51D to Wick mouthpieces but the sound is undoubtedly that centered, rich Willson sound. It works for me and I would probably get a similar tone if I switched to an Adams E3. It's what's in my head.

[Hiramdiaz1]

Last week I played the Ponchielli Concerto at work. It’s the 5th different piece I’ve played in front of the band (including on tour), and I’ve had a lot of feedback from my colleagues. The main take away - a SUPER clear euphonium sound. The pitch tendencies of the rest of the field seem to have been fixed (Low A, Super High Eb,E,F), and the color scope (brighter when it wants to be, darker when you need it to be), is huge. I’m really impressed with the consistency of sound, and the ability to really push the horn for a more brilliant sound.

I, like Brandon, have had the opportunity to play many brands of horns. Typically, I bring them to work and play them for my colleagues. Most horns are just too quiet, unusably out of tune, or the sound breaks apart very quickly when playing loud.This is the very first time I’ve found something better in earnest. To quote one colleague, “it’s just a way more interesting sound”. This was most evident when playing duets with another pro D.C. eupher. When each of us traded playing the Shires while the other played a ...., the Shires sound was more polished and interesting. “It sounds like the person playing the Shires is a pro, and the other is an amateur”.

I’ve had the opportunity to play the Shires in various settings. With the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra on Heldenleben, at ITEC in recital, at work in two band concerts, on the parade deck, soloing in front of the band, and even in Brittish Style Brass Quartet. The horn works well in all of those groups.

Again they are going to offer it in both large shank and true euphonium shank.

[mbrooke]

Last week I played the Ponchielli Concerto at work. It’s the 5th different piece I’ve played in front of the band (including on tour), and I’ve had a lot of feedback from my colleagues. The main take away - a SUPER clear euphonium sound. The pitch tendencies of the rest of the field seem to have been fixed (Low A, Super High Eb,E,F), and the color scope (brighter when it wants to be, darker when you need it to be), is huge. I’m really impressed with the consistency of sound, and the ability to really push the horn for a more brilliant sound.

I, like Brandon, have had the opportunity to play many brands of horns. Typically, I bring them to work and play them for my colleagues. Most horns are just too quiet, unusably out of tune, or the sound breaks apart very quickly when playing loud.This is the very first time I’ve found something better in earnest. To quote one colleague, “it’s just a way more interesting sound”. This was most evident when playing duets with another pro D.C. eupher. When each of us traded playing the Shires while the other played a ...., the Shires sound was more polished and interesting. “It sounds like the person playing the Shires is a pro, and the other is an amateur”.

I’ve had the opportunity to play the Shires in various settings. With the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra on Heldenleben, at ITEC in recital, at work in two band concerts, on the parade deck, soloing in front of the band, and even in Brittish Style Brass Quartet. The horn works well in all of those groups.

Again they are going to offer it in both large shank and true euphonium shank.

Hiram,

How does its sound/performance compare with the 2900? Please keep in mind that I play a 2900, so I will likely take your comments very personally and become overly defensive!

Mike

[cochranme]

large shank and true euphonium shank.

NOW you’ve done it....😁


Congratulations on the new horn, glad to hear it’s working out well for you.

[Hiramdiaz1]

NOW you’ve done it....😁


Congratulations on the new horn, glad to hear it’s working out well for you.

😝, miss you old friend!