Long Model Cornets

[valvepimp]

Can anyone tell me what makes a long model cornet a cornet and not a trumpet? I remember that the Olds Mendez cornet was a long model, and it looked virtually indistinguishable from their trumpet. What are some other long model cornets that have been made over the years, and do they sound any different from standard cornets?
_________________

[Nonsense Eliminator]

valvepimp --

There have, historically, been some long-model cornets which looked more or less like trumpets. Today, however, the distinction is more obvious.

Here is a Bach "long model" cornet:


And a bach "short model" or shepherd's crook cornet, for comparison:


Most of the time when people say "long model cornet" they mean something curled up like a cornet, but without a shepherd's crook. Somebody else will have to explain the difference between a trumpet and a trumpet-shaped cornet...

[valvepimp]

Thanks for the clarification, NE. That shepard's crook Bach is a nice looking instrument, what a shame that I can't stand the sight of the modern angular pinky ring on today's Bachs.

I would still pose the same question, though: when a long model cornet has the same proportions as a standard trumpet, as per the Olds Mendez Cornet, for example, what is going on internally (or externally) in the horn that makes it a cornet?
_________________

[bgwbold]

I got corrected by a dixie player who asked me to refer only to non shepherd's crook cornets as long cornets and shepherd's crook cornets as short cornets. As for the cornets that look like trumpets (some Conns, the Mendez cornet, etc), I just call them trumpet proportioned cornets. Supposedly what makes them all cornets is that they are conical in their bore, which is to say that the bore gradually gets larger through the horn, as opposed to trumpets which are generally cylindrical in their taper. (I don't know where the step bore horns fit in to this explanation, though.)

Personally, I have always liked the trumpet proportioned cornets. They didn't go over very big or companies would still be making them, I guess.

Mike

[jhatpro]

The Conn 37A/38A is a good example of a short cornet, while the 27A is a long cornet and Conn's counterpart to the famous 38B Connstellation trumpet.

I have a 38A and it plays beautifully with a big, big sound.

For more on these horns, check out Christine Derksen's Conn Loyalist site at http://www.xs4all.nl/~cderksen/
_________________
Jim Hatfield

"The notes are there - find them.� Mingus

2021 Martinus Geelan Custom
2005 Bach 180-72R
1965 Getzen Eterna Severinsen
1946 Conn Victor
1998 Scodwell flugel
1986 Bach 181 cornet
1954 Conn 80A cornet
2002 Getzen bugle

[giakara]

Hi
The cornets long or short as a conical bore this is the big diference betwin cornets and trumpets ( i think)
Regards
Yiannis

[nieuwguyski]

The Mendez and Conn 28A cornets are identical to their related trumpets, except for the leadpipes and mouthpiece receivers. If there is any additional "conicality" in these cornets, it's only because the leadpipe venturis may start out smaller as a result of the smaller cornet shank.

Conn did make the 40A and 48A Connqueror cornets, which were shaped just like the 40B and 48B Connqueror trumpets, except they were truly different instruments -- the trumpets had a bore of .458", while the cornets were .468". Who knows how the internal tapers of these instruments compare.
_________________
J. Notso Nieuwguyski

[ZeroMan]

Everyone,

Please keep in mind that that the modern valved trumpet in Bb (and even the higher pitched ones in C, D and Eb) would be considered a cornet by 19th century definitions. For those that want to nitpick and say that this the 21st century, OK, fine... the 21st century "distinctions" between a cornet and a trumpet are based on the 19th century definitions.

Both the modern cornet and the modern trumpet are roughly 50-50 cylindrical to conical bore instruments. The modern trumpet's standard desgin is based on the French Besson trumpet design of the early 20th century- the result of a convergence of cornet and trumpet design. It's an instrument with a *conical* leadpipe and a *conical* bell, just like the modern cornet.

Some modern cornet designs have leadpipes that are slighly more conical than their trumpet counterparts. Some trumpet designs have bell flares that can be as conical as a cornet. Go figure that one out! Usually the distinction is made based on wrap and mouthpiece receiver. Cornets are wrapped shorter (some with a shephard's crook) and take, err, cornet shank mouthpieces.

[Aside- it has been shown that adding a shephard's crook bend to the bell of an instrument does NOTHING to warm up the instrument's sound. It just makes for a shorter bell legnth, thus putting the bell closer to the player's face, allowing him/her to hear him/herself better.]

The distinction was valid in the 19th century, when the classic cornet à pistons was a much more conical instrument in comparison to the natural trumpet. The lines are blurred today, and it's actually incorrect to call the trumpet a "cylindrical instrument".

[bgwbold]

Zeroman wrote:
...The lines are blurred today, and it's actually incorrect to call the trumpet a "cylindrical instrument".


=======================

And maybe that's why there ain't a heck of a lot of difference in the sound of a contemporary cornet and trumpet unless the player uses a cornet mouthpiece that has more of a funnel shaped cup.

Mike

[Tootsall]

I seem to recall this question coming up before and it was posed in light of the large number of older cornets that were virtually indistinguishable in appearance from their trumpet cousins. Seems to me the answer was that the mouthpiece receiver is smaller for the cornet (which makes the answer about the taper of the leadpipe also correct).

I haven't been there recently, but I think one of the cornet collectors' sites might define the answer. Or Tom Turner, if he's reading this.

[tom turner]

Over 100 years ago most trumpets had tiny, "peashooter" bores (.420 or so) and were very long, cylindrical tubed instruments without much flare until the final bell flare. Not surprisingly, their tone was shrill and edgy but they projected!!!

At the same time cornets were very much more conical in nature, so the tubing was a little shorter to compensate. The sound was very sweet and mellow, but they didn't project that well. The small-large flare usually seemed to require a larger bore too in order to make the cornet play best (sometimes .480 or more).

As one poster mentioned, F. Besson's "evolutionary" trumpet of 100 years ago changed a lot of things. The bore WAS larger (like ML today) and the instrument WAS more cornet-like in flare. Gone was the shrill sound but this new instrumet still retained much of the trumpet's original projection. In other words . . . the Besson was a trumpet that a cornetist would like . . . a richer sound than a peashooter but with more boldness than a cornet.

Around 1915 the cornet makers ALSO changed the way they were making (and selling) cornets. More trumpet makers were making the nice sounding Besson clones that cut into the sales of the old short model cornets. So . . . the cornets became more cylindrical and longer . . . more like trumpets.

Eventually many companies sort of "merged" their cornet and trumpet lines together . . . making virtually the same horn with either a cornet or trumpet receiver. Gone was BOTH the shrill cornet and the gentle cornet.

Today many are rediscovering that wonderful, gentle and sweet voice of the early-design type cornets and even new instruments are finally being made again in the old tradition.

Frankly, I'm totally in love with the sound of the vintage-type cornets! No, I wouldn't want to compete with unamplified trumpets on a short model . . . but then again, when everything is mic'ed, or when the music is gentle and sweet, the sound of a short model is WONDERFUL.

Also, as was stated, a short model is VERY close to your face (my chin even lightly touches the back of my WT short cornet bell bow). Two wonderful benefits:

1. The horn IS closer so it is easier to hear that rich sound
2. The horn is "lighter-feeling" to hold, since you don't have to hold it out so far. The result is less pressure and fatigue.

WE'LL NEVER GO BACK . . . to peashooter trumpets. However, there's a wonderful reason to rediscover how cornets are SUPPOSED to sound via using a short model and original, non-trumpet-bowl, cornet mouthpiece!

I'll now leave my flugle home before the cornet on a gig!

Sincerely,

Tom Turner

[Tootsall]

Ask, and ye shall receive! Thanks, Tom.

[GordonH]

If you look at a cornet leadpipe and imagine it straightened out, you could never fit that on a trumpet as it would extend well into the tuning slide.
You might just manage it as a reverse leadpipe or by making the tuning slide larger on the bottom than the top.
The bell flare is also faster.
If you look atthe thickness of a cornet bell half way up the shepherds crrok and compare it to a trumpet half way round the bell bend you will see the difference.
However the main difference is the mouthpiece which on a cornet shoudl really be conical (cornet means "little horn")

Gordon
_________________
Bb - Scherzer 8218W, Schilke S22, Bach 43, Selmer 19A Balanced
Pic - Weril
Flugel - Courtois 154
Cornet - Geneva Heritage, Conn 28A
Mouthpieces - Monette 1-5 rims and similar.

Licensed Radio Amateur - GM4SVM

[JackD]

An easy way to spot the difference is to look for the position of the tuning slide. As has been said, the cornet has a longer leadpipe, meaning it gets curled around and the tuning slide is on the player's side of the instrument.

I played a short cornet until very recently (a Besson) and I have to say it really does have a different sound to the trumpet I have now (Bach strad 37). The cornet is a beautiful instrument, and very much overshadowed by the trumpet (one of the reasons I bought a trumpet was that I found very few ensembles that I could play in with my cornet - my local jazz band said trumpets only, and of course orchestras are no-go.) I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it described as "the trumpet's little brother".

I'm not saying I prefer cornets to trumpets (I love my bach!), I just think it's a real shame that more people aren't aware of the cornet and its beautiful mellow tone.

[GordonH]

Actually a lot of orchestral scores need trumpets and cornets (from the time before trumpets had valves).
Most amateur orchestras used to just use 4 trumpets but I have done a few concerts playing cornet part son cornets and i know that most of the pro orchestras do it this way now also.

Gordon
_________________
Bb - Scherzer 8218W, Schilke S22, Bach 43, Selmer 19A Balanced
Pic - Weril
Flugel - Courtois 154
Cornet - Geneva Heritage, Conn 28A
Mouthpieces - Monette 1-5 rims and similar.

Licensed Radio Amateur - GM4SVM

[pedaltonekid]

I actually believe that the shephards crook does affect the sound of the cornet. Since the input into the instrument is a sinusoidal forcing function (a little engineering lingo there) the corresponding measure of resistance is actually known as impedance. Impedance is a function of the number of coils, etc. In essence the addition of the shephards crook alters the number and position of the coils, thus affecting the impedance, thus affecting the output (sound). To what degree is a matter of opinion and due in large part to the sound the player is trying to achieve. For me they do offer a better sound than a cornet without the shephards crook.
_________________
Best Regards, Play Well!!

[JackD]

I'd say the sheperd crook is great for brass band / solos, but long cornets are better suited to trad. jazz, in my opinion.