| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chapahi
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 1465
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: | I'm sorry to hear that the Adams is just an attempt at copying. I had thought more highly of Adams design intent in the past, but they aren't the easiest to learn much about.
The Martin Brasswind Committee is not a copy, or a clone, or any other sort of imitation. It is a new design incorporating specific proven elements from the past, and targeting a classic sound, but in a new horn that should be considered independent of any past specific model or questionably logical familial name linkage. |
That's all the Committee remakes, Lawler C7, Shilke Handcraft, etc., are doing. It's just a question of deciding what you keep and what you throw out. Where did you hear the Adams A9 is just "an attempt at copying"?. I had understood they made necessary design changes too.
_________________
Sima, Kanstul 1525 Flugel and Kanstul pocket trumpet. Olds Super |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
austincustombrass
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2018
Posts: 246
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chapahi wrote: | | OldSchoolEuph wrote: | I'm sorry to hear that the Adams is just an attempt at copying. I had thought more highly of Adams design intent in the past, but they aren't the easiest to learn much about.
The Martin Brasswind Committee is not a copy, or a clone, or any other sort of imitation. It is a new design incorporating specific proven elements from the past, and targeting a classic sound, but in a new horn that should be considered independent of any past specific model or questionably logical familial name linkage. |
That's all the Committee remakes, Lawler C7, Shilke Handcraft, etc., are doing. It's just a question of deciding what you keep and what you throw out. Where did you hear the Adams A9 is just "an attempt at copying"?. I had understood they made necessary design changes too. |
Well since I have had a hand in the a9 design I need to chime in and set some of the record straight. Yes the a9 started because we were hoping Ambrose would play an Adams based on conversations between Miel and Ambrose. No, we didn't copy his horn. Adams used two of mine (a medium close in SN to his, and a Large also pre- RMC). Adams made bell mandrels, bending jigs, leadpipe mandrels, etc to replicate the horn as best as IMO anyone has. No outsourcing of parts. 100% made in house. After some play testing (with Ambrose and myself) we determined part of the reason Ambrose chose his original Martin was the fact that his horn had exceptionally poor compression. He is such a fantastic musician (truly one of the greatest amongst us) that he manipulates that typical disadvantage for most of us into an advantage to create the sound spectrum he wanted. I even had Adams make an a9 with sub-par compression for him to try but ultimately he stayed with his horn. Based on that Miel and I decided it might be nice to give the a9 a few playing advantages (better intonation, response, and blending especially) over the vintage horn that was the inspiration.
I love the Handcraft, the 1603, and the a9. All three are wonderful tributes to the Vintage Martin but also each have their own beautiful vibe.
I just needed to speak up. I don't have a lot of experience at all with the BAC Martin other than playtesting with John Duda (RIP) a bit but I do remember the sound being very much like a Committee but the playability and feel was different. I would need more time on it like I've had with the other horns I have mentioned to give it a fair assessment however.
-T
_________________
As of 1/1/2022 ACB will no longer post online here nor monitor TH.
It's a shame how far this forum has fallen. If you need us call 816-410-0826 or email.
Cool Links here:
https://linktr.ee/austincustombrass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ajay wrote: | I’d be mad to use a large bore Martin on a 4 hour function set mainly playing 70 disco, my bottom would fall out’
Does the block have the right angle for the second slide, it’s quite raked on a Martin, I guess that would affect the sound, and if it doesn’t have the step bore it would be quite different. I guess?? |
Well, it all depends on what works for you. I am sure there is someone out there who might like the idea of 4 hours trying to make a dark horn bright while maintaining the extra slippery intonation of a 50's Committee - but yeah, it would kill me too.
Angle on the second slide will be debated at length by the Besson/Benge crowd, but owing to the physics, its only actual influence might be a slight effect from the mass placement extended off the body. Of those who have worked on harmonic balancers, most have not bothered with 2nd feeling the length was insufficient to have significant acoustical impact. I wouldn't worry about that one at all.
The step bore on the other hand does impact the way a horn plays and sounds - in its relationship to all of the other elements of design. But again, you really just have to play the horn and see if that's what is right for you because some people will like, some will not - its all about making it easier to get the sound you are looking for. (I have a similar tuning slide for my Bach 72 - it us my least favorite element of the horn. Others love it)
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trent - thanks for clearing up the story on the A9. That was much more inline with what I had heard, and much more in keeping with what I think most would want from a modern horn (the same thinking that guided BAC).
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trickg
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 5675
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Master Jabroni wrote: | | I know someone who got one and had to have the valves rebuilt within a year. They were made at the end of the Kanstuk factory life. |
Is that typo or on purpose.  (referring to some of the valve issues Kanstul was having towards the end.)
I think it's sad what happened with Kanstul. They made a lot of really nice horns for a long time. I don't know what all was involved in it, but it seems like it all just kind of fell apart after Zig passed away.
Regarding the Martin Committee, sometimes I have to wonder if this isn't something that we as a community haven't cultivated into almost mythical proportions. Between the Martin Committee and the Conn Connstellation, it's like we've created these holy grail horns in our minds that can only be found if we stumble into pristine specimens from yesteryear, and modern craftsmanship simply can't capture the essence of the real McCoy.
We have a similar thing with the Bach Stradivarius, ML, 37 bell, regardless of the fact that the horns produced in Indiana were/are considerably different than the original models produced by Vincent Bach in NYC and Mount Vernon. And yet, whenever there is someone looking for that next step trumpet, the community collectively chants in reverent tones, "Bach Strad 37," almost as if we were at a Catholic mass reciting the liturgy.
Most musicians do it. With saxes, it's the vintage Selmer Mk 6. Drummers want vintage Rogers and Gretsch kits with vintage Ludwig snares and Vintage Zildjian cymbals.
That old stuff wasn't made with ground up unicorn horns and sprinkled with faerie dust, but so many of us seem to believe that it's somehow inherently "better."
Sorry - I know this went off on a tangent.
_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler
"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I wont echo trickg's hyperbolic emphasis on the cult of yesteryear, I do agree that perhaps the mystique exceeds the reality. Personally, I love some vintage horns, but I feel a lot safer with modern tech in my hands when it counts.
That is ultimately what the BAC take-2 on building a Committee for Richard Martin is all about: embodying the great qualities of the namesake, while building a modern tool for real people who want the best available to support their performance.
(as far as the last days of Kanstul: sad indeed. I have a very nice Austin Winds Stage 470LT with the bronze bell. It was one of the last three horns built on that mandrel. I got a heck of a deal because while one was fine, the next had serious valve port issues, and this was "the ugly one", due to terrible aesthetic workmanship in the final stages - but it plays great. Things really went south there at the end)
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trickg
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 5675
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: | | That is ultimately what the BAC take-2 on building a Committee for Richard Martin is all about: embodying the great qualities of the namesake, while building a modern tool for real people who want the best available to support their performance. |
Is it really the "best available" though? If we adhere completely to the original spec are we truly offering the best?
Consider, the Martin Committe was designed in the late 1930s, (mostly by Renold Schilke) and first offered for sale in 1940. It's currently 2021. If we build to the exact spec of the original Martin Committee, we ignore 81 years of innovation and advancement.
I suppose if anything can be said about it would be that it's different. Gotta love some of the descriptors though:
| Quote: | | The old Committee has a warm-dark-amber-glow to the sound that no other horn can come close to duplicating. There's no other horn out there, new or old, that plays quite like a Committee. Some of the brand new pro horns of various makes have a "fatter" sound, that new, fat, spread-out, big-bottom sound with a biting, projecting edge that bounces off the back wall, that almost ALL new pro horns have. It almost has a cliched commercial quality to it, it's become so rampant now. And it has less density. That sound is nothing like the much denser yet still rounded warm, pancakes on the griddle in the back room sound of the Committee. |
What exactly is THAT supposed to mean? Pancakes on a griddle in a back room....ok.
_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler
"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trickg wrote: | | If we adhere completely to the original spec are we truly offering the best? |
Please go back and read my posts regarding the Martin Brasswinds Committee and how BAC developed it. I have said repeatedly, it is not a copy, it is a fourth generation of the concept.
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trickg
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 5675
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: | | trickg wrote: | | If we adhere completely to the original spec are we truly offering the best? |
Please go back and read my posts regarding the Martin Brasswinds Committee and how BAC developed it. I have said repeatedly, it is not a copy, it is a fourth generation of the concept. |
Apologies - it's maybe a bad habit that long posts I only skim. I think it was this paragraph where my eyes kind of glazed over:
"It is a fourth generation of the Committee, not a copy of a prior design. The designers at BAC spent months obtaining data [what data?] from exceptional samples [exceptional according to who?] of the prior generations of Martin Committee (including data from one of my own horns), linking the physical properties of each design [which physical properties] to the playing characteristics those imbue the horn with. They then settled on a design concept to capture the dark rich Committee sound [a horn has no sound without a player] found in all generations, while charting a middle ground between the tight centering of many horns and the renowned super-loose nature of the second generation. The core of the horn was reworked [the core? Like an apple core? What exactly is the "core" of a horn? How was it "reworked?"] using physics models [Physics models? What models? Based on what?] to optimize the intonation tendencies [wouldn't changing these tendencies create a horn that takes away from what made the original great in the first place?] in a manner best suited to the Committee market, probably achieving the best intonation profile yet for a Committee."
So basically, it looks like a Committee, but in reality it's nothing like a Committee due to the fact that virtually everything is compromise by trying to do a mashup of the best characteristics of different generations of the originals. There's so much "stuff" in that paragraph I don't know what to do with - why even call it a Committee when you've changed everything that makes those old horns what they were? Are you really going to hit the target by taking that approach?
That paragraph is a whole lotta talk that doesn't really say anything specific.
In any case, that wasn't really the point of my posts. I was speaking more toward the folks who obsess over and seek out vintage specimens of these fabled horns thinking they are going to get something that a modern horn can't provide.
_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler
"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think your fight is with yourself more than me.
I couldn't go into the level of detail you are requesting even if I knew. As far as modern advancements, PMBD, mass placement, nodal modelling, spectral profiling, etc. are reasonably well known. A Timeline of Trumpets mentions a lot of these advancements aligned with when they became commonplace, but Im not going to reprint all of that here.
The Handcraft Committee had certain qualities, the mid-century Committee had some of those and others - most notably extreme flexibility in pitch center. The Ramirez Committee was pretty flexible, still had the classic predisposition to a certain sound (yes, its the player, but how easy it is for the player is the horn), and had its own qualities - tremendous projection being among them.
To build a clone, like the 1603, is to imitate. BAC did not do that. They set out to honor the concept of the Committee, that sound and character people know when they have it in their hands, but to build a modern horn for modern players. (After reading Trent's addition to another thread, it sounds like Adams started to build a clone in the A9, but then ultimately did the same instead)
You seem to be dismissing vintage, noting the advantages of technological advancement in trumpet making, so I do not understand why you then seek to knock BAC for not building a clone. Do you want authentic antique, or modern advantage? Or is it just you don't want to try to quantify the grey scale of embodying traditional qualities in a modern tool?
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20
Last edited by OldSchoolEuph on Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
musicman2k
Regular Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2020
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Ortiz wrote: | | I'm wondering if it has the same tapered tuning slide like the Committees had. |
Yes they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trickg
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 5675
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: | I think your fight is with yourself more than me.
.
.
.
You seem to be dismissing vintage, noting the advantages of technological advancement in trumpet making, so I do not understand why you then seek to disparage BAC for not building a clone. Do you want authentic antique, or modern advantage? Or is it just you don't want to try to quantify the grey scale of embodying traditional qualities in a modern tool? |
It's not a fight at all, and certainly not with myself. I do just fine on modern instruments and have no desire for vintage, a clone of anything vintage of something specific, or even a specifically engineered attempt to capture the essence of something vintage, such as what BAC is doing with the Committee.
I have posted many times over the years about why I don't understand the vintage craze when it comes to musical instruments. There's nothing inherently superior about them, and in fact there seems to be ton of inconsistency with some of them. Start whacking on a pile of vintage Zildjian cymbals and you'll be lucky to find the one gem in the pile. A friend of mine plays a vintage Selmer Mk 6, but he outright says that he got lucky and got a good one - just as often, they're selling for tens of thousands of dollars and they're dogs to play.
I think that the vintage guitar craze is laughable. People rave about a vintage Les Paul they found in some old widow's attic when the truth is, people were modding those Les Pauls when they were new because they weren't that great when they were new - dropping in a better nut, swapping out the pickups, etc. It's even worse when people buy "relic'ed" guitars - artificially aged and beat up to supposedly capture a certain vibe or "mojo".
Regarding what you posted about how I don't want to "quantify the grey scale of embodying traditional qualities in a modern tool," then I think you're absolutely missing the point. The modern trumpet isn't exactly modern. Most modern trumpets are pattered more or less on the French Besson Brevete - a design more than 100 years old. That was the horn that was the basis for Vincent Bach and Eldon Benge's work - they took the basis of that design and turned it into something better and more consistent - they did not try to make a better Brevete - they each went for something wholly different, but better, than the original.
By simply playing ANY modern trumpet, I'm quantifying the grey scale of embodying traditional qualities in a modern tool.
_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler
"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adagiotrumpet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="OldSchoolEuph"]I'm sorry to hear that the Adams is just an attempt at copying. I had thought more highly of Adams design intent in the past, but they aren't the easiest to learn much about.
Just because one favors a "continuation" horn over a copy does not justify taking a shot at a company like Adams. Copying a particular model as opposed to starting with a particular design and running with it are two entirely different things. It's apples and oranges.
The fact of the matter is in the case of the original Martin Committees, they are extremely unique and extremely coveted by many, myself included. Most of my playing is either lead playing or classical so my Committee does not get played often. But I try to play it as often as possible. However, no other horn I own or have played comes close to an original Martin except for maybe the Adams A9 and the new BAC. Both of which I have played, neither of which I own.
Those of us who enjoy playing and prefer playing vintage horns know that two issues come into play. One, finding a good example is difficult and getting more difficult as the years go by. The second is many have had and/or will need work and as we all know, they never play and/or sound quite the same afterwards.
I applaud any effort to re-create as well as "continue and improve" vintage horns. There are only so many of the originals left and through re-creating and continuation, more horns of a particular style will be available to more players.
By the way, all of the above can be applied to the original French Besson trumpets too. I wonder if Old School Euph has as much distain for Benge as he seems to now have for Adams. I mean after all, wasn't Eldon Benge originally trying to duplicated the French Besson?
Last edited by adagiotrumpet on Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trickg
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 5675
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's my understanding that Besson continued to make the Brevete (.460) along with the Meha (essentially the same but .470) up until ownership changed hands - in the 1970s perhaps? (I'm almost certain I've got some of that wrong - if someone has better info on this, feel free to correct me.)
FWIW, I played an astonishingly good Besson Meha and really enjoyed it - I thought about buying it, but I was SUPER bright on it and my sound needs no help being bright.
_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler
"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adagiotrumpet wrote: | | Just because one favors a "continuation" horn over a copy does not justify taking a shot at a company like Adams. Copying a particular model as opposed to starting with a particular design and running with it are two entirely different things. |
READ THE THREAD
I am not the one who accused Adams of just making a laser-scan and copy of someone's horn (which turns out to be false). As I however had no detailed knowledge I expressed my disappointment at the story. Trent was then kind enough to actually provide all of the details of the A9 and why, like the BAC project, its a very interesting horn - which is something worth reading. Why don't you?
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20
Last edited by OldSchoolEuph on Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trickg wrote: | | Most modern trumpets are pattered more or less on the French Besson Brevete - a design more than 100 years old. That was the horn that was the basis for Vincent Bach and Eldon Benge's work - they took the basis of that design and turned it into something better and more consistent - they did not try to make a better Brevete - they each went for something wholly different, but better, than the original. |
| trickg wrote: | | It's my understanding that Besson continued to make the Brevete (.460) along with the Meha (essentially the same but .470) up until ownership changed hands - in the 1970s perhaps? (I'm almost certain I've got some of that wrong - if someone has better info on this, feel free to correct me.). |
You are absolutely correct. The 1880(ish) F.Besson trumpet is the archetype of all modern trumpets. That design was made, pretty-much unaltered, from as early as 1880 when it appears in a catalog until production was halted in 1941. After the war, a few more were built from parts and recovered from stashes of pre-war production, but the design was changed for future production widening the wrap and bringing the third valve throw up on top of the slide.
The French half of Besson, Fontaine-Besson, (the F in F.Besson is for the family name Fontaine, which took control of the firm in 1890 as Besson's son-in-law and heir) never really recovered from the two world wars. The firm began in France around 1838 when Besson built his first perrinet valve cornet - in the same year the valve was invented - but in 1858, after a bizarre lawsuit win by Adolph Sax, AG Besson moved his firm to England and continued there while his wife restarted a new firm in France. The English firm was then sold out of the family in 1894.
Pre-1911, the Besson trumpets marked Brevete were pretty much the only piston valve trumpets in orchestral use. Holton took a piece of that in 1911, and shortly after, F.Besson production was disrupted by WWI. They never really got back the market after that war because of heavy tariffs and other impediments to trade with the US (that ironically the French had lobbied for a another means of hurting the Germanic states of Bohemia and Moravia). In 1921, Conn took another big chunk of the US market. The Bessons common in orchestral use in the US by 1930 were getting to be quite old and patched-together.
That situation prompted Benge, who had taken an interest in neighbor and colleague Renold Schilke's work at Holton following his apprenticeship there, to ask Schilke to teach him the craft - which he did. Benge then set about trying to repair old Besson trumpets. To do this, he imported new leadpipes from Fontaine-Besson, and also purchased a bell mandrel from them that Schilke arranged to have bells made on at Holton for him. (bells were subject to higher tariffs just like horns .... odd laws)
The thing about bell making is that the mandrel you spin it to in order to obtain the critical taper is only one of several elements. Benge had to work with the metal available to him, and work out a cookbook (working and annealing schedule) that would create the necessary tempering of the final bell in conjunction with Holton's fabrication process. During this, he discovered two things: lighter bells were more responsive, and he needed to more heavily anneal the bell ahead of final forming in order to have it be a little softer and offset the natural brightening tendency of a thinner bell.
In that, "Resno-tempered" came about. And here is where I have to correct you: Benge did (then) set his sights on making a better Besson, abandoning just restoration. From that point on, he progressed to putting his Resno-tempered bells on horns that did not need new bells (and not just Bessons), and ultimately began making entire instruments from scratch - still very true to F.Besson design, but "improved".
Soon he began experimenting with tweaking the bell tapers, and ultimately developed 6 mandrels of his own (in theory, actually there are more, but only 6 "models" of bell).
Meanwhile in France, the family sold Fontaine-Besson to Strasser Margaux & Lemaire in 1932, the same year Selmer began making trumpets leveraging the tooling acquired from the failed Millereau company. SML experienced a lot of financial troubles and expanded upon outsourcing Besson trumpets to Couesnon, which had actually started at the end of WWII. Some of the great large bore MEHA bells are actually Couesnon. In 1957, they went under and Couesnon acquired Besson out of the bankruptcy.
The Besson trumpet design evolved slowly away from its roots over a period from 1950 to 1969, leaving Benge horns probably closer to the original than the French Bessons toward the end. In 1969, an arson fire destroyed the factory, the designs and the tooling, ending French Besson trumpet production until the English firm, by then subject to several mergers and acquisitions, contracted Kanstul to build horns under the F.Besson label (that it is not clear how they could have rights to...)
So Benge was actually trying to make a better Besson. Bach, as you say, was not - which is why his designs have so much Holton DNA in them.
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldSchoolEuph
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 2438
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adagiotrumpet wrote: | | I wonder if Old School Euph has as much distain for Benge as he seems to now have for Adams. I mean after all, wasn't Eldon Benge originally trying to duplicated the French Besson? |
No, he was not. By the time he built whole horns, he had moved from repair, to improving upon - never cloning. Read what I just posted about Benge above. And I have no disdain for Adams, only curiosity and appreciation of Trent's detailed info correcting that false post I responded to.
I have enough respect for Benge and his work, and the work of those who built upon his efforts for the 60 years following his death, that I did everything I could to support the, happily ongoing, effort to resurrect Benge trumpets.
_________________
Ron Berndt
www.trumpet-history.com
2017 Austin Winds Stage 466
1962 Mt. Vernon Bach 43
1954 Holton 49 Stratodyne
1927 Conn 22B
1957 Holton 27 cornet
1985 Yamaha YEP-621
1975 Yamaha YEP-321 Custom
1965 Besson Baritone
1975 Olds Recording R-20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DJtpt31
Veteran Member
Joined: 02 Dec 2015
Posts: 308
Location: SoCal
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: | | Well, I wouldn't buy a horn based on being a copy of something else. The strength of this horn is that it stands on its own, its not a copy. |
From their website description it sounds like they're trying to re-create the martin committee in the same way that made it so popular, however, that might be me misinterpreting what I read.
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: |
And yes, My Austin Winds was just designed in the US. It was built in England (Taylor), and the valves came from China (Carol). I could care less. It plays amazingly well for me. I can say the same for the AW Stage470UK I just played on while in Austin last month. |
I don't see any issue with Austin Winds making a premium horn and being manufactured in the way you described. Is that how they started off? I'm not entirely familiar with their brand. I would only take issue if they started off building premium horns in the US, but then later sourced out to Taylor using a Carol Brass valve blocks and still demanding a premium price. My issue would be is it worth the money to spend.
I don't know the history of Martin Committee, so I don't know if they were originally wholly made in the U.S. I made my first comment on the assumption that they were. Reading through the website it seems, again, that they want to re-create the horn. Using that information and your comment here | OldSchoolEuph wrote: | | I believe the valve casings, knuckles and pistons are imports, refit by hand at BAC... |
I then chimed in and expressed my "issue" with their "re-created" martin committee that may or may not be sourced from import parts that is being sold at a premium price. At the end of the day I have no issue with trumpet makers that import parts to build horns of quality as long as that info is made clearly available, however, if say Bach, (which produces a quality horn) later started making horns from imported parts, I would pause and need to determine if the premium price they're asking is worth it. This is just me personally, however flawed my current thinking might be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adagiotrumpet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OldSchoolEuph wrote: | | adagiotrumpet wrote: | | Just because one favors a "continuation" horn over a copy does not justify taking a shot at a company like Adams. Copying a particular model as opposed to starting with a particular design and running with it are two entirely different things. |
READ THE THREAD
I am not the one who accused Adams of just making a laser-scan and copy of someone's horn (which turns out to be false). As I however had no detailed knowledge I expressed my disappointment at the story. Trent was then kind enough to actually provide all of the details of the A9 and why, like the BAC project, its a very interesting horn - which is something worth reading. Why don't you? |
Actually, I did read it, which just emphasizes my point that assumptions are being made again with limited, or in my case of being accused of not reading something, no knowledge of the facts. You know, like passing judgement on Adams prior to reading Trent's presentation of the actual facts. "As I however had no detailed knowledge I expressed my disappointment at the story" speaks volumes.
At least my opinions are based on both experience and fact since I have owned a late '50's Martin Committee large bore for quite some time as well as having played both the Adams A9 and the BAC Committee. I also had an extended conversation regarding the BAC Committee with the folks at BAC. I can't comment on either the Lawler or the Kanstul, since I have not had a chance to play them, so I won't comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UK Horn
New Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2021
Posts: 2
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not posted on one of these forums for many years now, but have a new Martin Committee currently in my workshop.
I have re-built several original Committees over the years for very discerning customers, and apart from the Martin-like water keys, finger hooks and engraving this instrument has little in common with any of them.
I have also worked on the A9, heard the Kanstul version and played the Schilke, and IMO think all these have more of the classic Martin feel and sound than this current model.
You are probably wondering why a brand new one is in my workshop?
Unfortunately the owner does not like the water keys which look a little like Martin, but stick out too far for him. In the case of the 3rd lever, the angle between the lever and the slide tubing is about 20 degrees, giving a gap of about 2/3" between the tip and the tube.
If you are thinking of buying one, make sure you give it a really good workout, play it to folk who know your playing, get other players and teachers to play it, and maybe get it checked out by a trusted tech.
I am currently waiting for BAC to help me out with the water key, so will have the instrument here for a while, so please feel free to ask any questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
