| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:56 pm Post subject: A confused* trombone player |
 |
|
So I have recently obtained a Tone Crest extended cornet (from what I’ve gathered from other sources but I could be wrong) and I was wondering what the real difference between a cornet and a trumpet? It really confused me because it certainly looked like a trumpet but none of my trumpet mouthpieces fit it and it seemed maybe longer and skinnier as well
Last edited by MikeStew on Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So I did not notice that “cute” managed to sneak into my subject line omg I’m just confused I promise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HaveTrumpetWillTravel
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 30 Jan 2018
Posts: 1021
Location: East Asia
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've heard of "long cornet" models, which is what this sounds like. I don't know why, if a cornet basically looks like a trumpet (and plays like a trumpet?) it is still a cornet. Is it the mouthpiece? Is it a relic of the days when cornets were the main brass, before trumpets replaced them? Did long cornets have a different use? I don't know, but am curious to hear what others say. Here's a previous post:
https://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12095&sid=b3213ad8a2dd57b916bb2e467a0325f7
I did think the "cute" part was funny. In East Asia, that's probably the most popular adjective--from clothes to Hello Kitty to phone dangles to whatever, everything is "cute." Thank you for your cute post  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HaveTrumpetWillTravel wrote: | I've heard of "long cornet" models, which is what this sounds like. I don't know why, if a cornet basically looks like a trumpet (and plays like a trumpet?) it is still a cornet. Is it the mouthpiece? Is it a relic of the days when cornets were the main brass, before trumpets replaced them? Did long cornets have a different use? I don't know, but am curious to hear what others say. Here's a previous post:
https://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12095&sid=b3213ad8a2dd57b916bb2e467a0325f7
I did think the "cute" part was funny. In East Asia, that's probably the most popular adjective--from clothes to Hello Kitty to phone dangles to whatever, everything is "cute." Thank you for your cute post |
I’m not 100% positive that this guy will ever play since I have a loooooot of fixing to do but when I did get it working barely enough for my brother to squeeze out a no valve down note and he said it was the same for trumpet. The mouthpiece is almost certainty cornet. I believe it’s a short shank(I think that’s the correct terminology). From what I could find on the age, it must be pre WWII because the valve cases are labeled 56, 57, 58(or something similar I’m not actually near it right now because I’m out of town).
I do believe if an East Asian took a look at me, the adjective to describe would be far from cute but thanks for the optimism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oxleyk
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4180
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can’t be 100% certain but I think so! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Herman rev2
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 8951
Location: Monument, CO
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Historically cornets have had a different mouthpiece receiver (so you need a cornet mouthpiece, not a trumpet mouthpiece), more conical tubing (trumpet = 2/3 cylindrical ("straight), 1/3 conical ("flared") vs. cornet = 2/3 conical, 1/3 cylindrical), and a faster bell flare so the bell "spreads" more quickly at the end. The net effect is to de=emphasize higher overtones in the cornet so it sounds "mellower" than trumpet and a cornet's projection is a bit broader and less "beamed" than for a trumpet.
Trying to show the tubing and bell flare differences (it's crude, sorry):
Trumpet: =====<
Cornet: =====<<
HTH - Don
_________________
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
Last edited by Don Herman rev2 on Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Herman rev2 wrote: | Historically cornets have had a different mouthpiece receiver (so you need a cornet mouthpiece, not a trumpet mouthpiece), more conical tubing (trumpet = 2/3 cylindrical ("straight), 1/3 conical ("flared") vs. cornet = 2/3 conical, 1/3 cylindrical), and a faster bell flare so the bell "spreads" more quickly at the end. The net effect is to de=emphasize higher overtones in the cornet so it sounds "mellower" than trumpet and a cornet's projection is a bit broader and less "beamed" than for a trumpet.
Trying to show the tubing and bell flare differences (it's crude, sorry):
Trumpet: =====<
Cornet: =====<<
HTH - Don |
That actually makes a lot of sense! Thank you!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wish I had a picture of the mouthpiece! It is so neat. It is unmarked, really short, has ridges running all the way around it and the lip on it gets thicker on one side |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wish I had a picture of the mouthpiece! It is so neat. It is unmarked, really short, has ridges running all the way around it and the lip on it gets thicker on one side |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeStew wrote: | | So I did not notice that “cute” managed to sneak into my subject line omg I’m just confused I promise |
Hi Mike,
You can edit your original post here and change the title if you wish.
Cheers,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hope you guys are still interested! I have pictures now
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldKing
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2017
Posts: 89
Location: Boerne, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeStew wrote: | | So I did not notice that “cute” managed to sneak into my subject line omg I’m just confused I promise |
Yeah. 'Only reason I clicked on this thread. Then I looked at the poster's name. Thanks for wasting an old man's time.
_________________
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? - 1 Cor 14:8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeStew
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OldKing wrote: | | MikeStew wrote: | | So I did not notice that “cute” managed to sneak into my subject line omg I’m just confused I promise |
Yeah. 'Only reason I clicked on this thread. Then I looked at the poster's name. Thanks for wasting an old man's time. |
Sorry for the confusion! I was going to leave it because it was kinda funny but I don't want to trick people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldKing
Regular Member
Joined: 26 May 2017
Posts: 89
Location: Boerne, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, at least you're not a cruel boy. Carry on and happy trumpeting!
_________________
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? - 1 Cor 14:8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Denny Schreffler
Veteran Member
Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 390
Location: Tucson
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:27 pm Post subject: Conical vs Cylindrical Misconception |
|
|
| Don Herman rev2 wrote: | Historically cornets have had a different mouthpiece receiver (so you need a cornet mouthpiece, not a trumpet mouthpiece), more conical tubing (trumpet = 2/3 cylindrical ("straight), 1/3 conical ("flared") vs. cornet = 2/3 conical, 1/3 cylindrical), and a faster bell flare so the bell "spreads" more quickly at the end. The net effect is to de=emphasize higher overtones in the cornet so it sounds "mellower" than trumpet and a cornet's projection is a bit broader and less "beamed" than for a trumpet.
Trying to show the tubing and bell flare differences (it's crude, sorry):
Trumpet: =====<
Cornet: =====<<
HTH - Don |
Hi, Don,
It might be hard to wipe from our consciousness but the 1/3 - 2/3 comparison that we've heard forever might not be so.
Robb Stewart -- who knows more about cornets than anyone I know of -- wrote about this in an article titled, Trumpet Schrumpet.
Here's the link to the entire article
https://www.robbstewart.com/difference-between-trumpet-and-cornet
Excerpts edited by me are immediately below.
-Denny
Not included in my excerpts, but discussed in the article, are Robb's observations about bell flare
The purpose of this text and the accompanying chart is to increase, in a small way, understanding of certain properties of cornets and trumpets and especially to reduce misunderstandings that persist long after rational observation should have overcome conventional wisdom. Perhaps it is because of the fact that these are instruments of art and personal expression that it is easy to ignore empirical data and instead discuss mysterious qualities based on the perceptions that we have and anecdotal observations that we make of the device in our hands. It is an understandable desire to boil down a complex subject to understandable variables.
…
Pertinent to this essay, and often mentioned in articles and discussions on trumpet and cornet, is the comparison of the acoustical properties including timbre of cylindrical (trumpet) compared with conical (cornet) instruments. A quick look at this chart demonstrates that this is a misconception to begin with. ...
…
Years ago, when asked the difference between cornets and trumpet, I would say that a cornet starts out smaller and gets bigger in the end. I observed this to be true in some cornets but have since seen enough variability to stop using this generality. So, what is the difference between a cornet and a trumpet? The chart shows that a Bach cornet has 3% more conical tubing than a Bach trumpet and that a Schilke cornet has 5% less conical tubing than a Schilke trumpet. Averaging the percentage of conical tubing, the trumpets are 67 % and cornets are 66%. …
…
Experienced trumpet players know that two examples of Bach 37 (or any other make and model) trumpets can have surprisingly different playing characteristics and can even sound noticeably different. Think also about the playing characteristics of the very same trumpet on a good day compared with a bad day. Most of us do have bad days. Using a Bach 7C mouthpiece on each, there is not much more difference than this between a Bach 37 trumpet and a Bach 37 cornet. I know that some will disagree with me, but I believe strongly that the biggest difference in this last case is the approach of the player. I have observed many times that the approach or belief of an individual player can affect the playing characteristics (including intonation and response) and sound of an instrument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Herman rev2
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 8951
Location: Monument, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Opinions vary (my source was the older Tarr texts and historical references from the ITG Journal and such but I did not look them up again -- that was years ago; I am aware the designs have evolved over time).
IME/IMO the biggest impact on the sound that is related to physical characteristics of the horn is by far the bell flare and what the tubing does up to that point is relatively minor, at least from an acoustics point of view. I'd say "basic physics" but when you start to actually do the physics it gets complicated. May be fun for engineers and other scientists, less so for "normal" trumpet players (is there such a thing?  ). I have not tried to calculate the response in years; it took digging out my grad text on acoustics and remembering how to solve wave equations and other calculus that makes my brain hurt these days.
I believe the differences in playability among "identical" horns of the same make and model have largely been traced to things like construction differences (solder blobs inside the tubes during manufacturing and so far), valve clearances, etc. But of course the mental and physical state of the player is a big factor. And mpc, and...
All that said I do not know Robb Stewart but make no claim to expertise in trumpet physics. I am a low-brow, hairy-knuckled engineer in my day job.
_________________
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Denny Schreffler
Veteran Member
Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 390
Location: Tucson
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Herman rev2 wrote: | Opinions vary (my source was the older Tarr texts and historical references from the ITG Journal and such but I did not look them up again -- that was years ago; I am aware the designs have evolved over time).
IME/IMO the biggest impact on the sound that is related to physical characteristics of the horn is by far the bell flare and what the tubing does up to that point is relatively minor, at least from an acoustics point of view. ...
...
|
Yes – so many variables and individual examples, and so much “factual” trumpet lore. Reading Robb’s entire article (which shows the chart) is worthwhile.
I know Robb only peripherally through Dale Olson.
It would be easy to spend half a day on his website.
https://www.robbstewart.com/home
As he says – Fun for the Brass Fanatic
In addition to antique brass. Robb is world-class restorer of antique automobiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqOIWCBuoZM
Interesting guy who is mechanically/musically/artistically gifted.
An aside about bell flare/shape (which, as Don states, is most of “the sound”) – I heard Dale Olson in a presentation years ago mention that – I’m hoping to remember the important details here – Bill Cardwell (google him if you don’t know) had the opinion that an ideal (I can’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but I’ll try to find out for a subsequent post) bell profile, when derived acoustically, would be very similar to a Bach 37.
An aside about Bill Cardwell – K.O. Skinsnes worked closely with him.
As aside about K.O. – Stomvi artists were killing it at the recent ITG Conference in San Antonio.
-Denny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
