Trumpet/component innovation vs. copy/refine

[_Daff]

As recreational come-back player of 2-3 years, I’m relatively new to this gear-headed stuff you guys are sharing with each other and actually find it quite interesting. I have learned a lot from you. (Now if I could only translate 20% of all this stuff from my brain to my chops, I’d be a half-assed decent trumpet player!)

A few months after I took up playing again, as fluke stumbled upon GR’s website, became fascinated with their design approach, and subsequently play GR mouthpieces exclusively.

One thing I have noticed about the design and manufacturing of the gear, i.e. trumpets and components, is that, not unlike in my profession of architecture, there are true innovators, but the vast majority are emulators.

The majority of horns and mp’s I see appear to be variations of a theme, copies and/or refinements to something other(s) originated. Certain manufacturers openly confess to copying. Many assemble components, Frankensteining the ‘winning’ combination of pieces.

I am curious, who are today’s real innovators? Dave (dcstep) talks about the twin tube technology of his Selmer Paris TT concept. Bri and Gary are exploring contnuity in sound wave in designing their GR mouthpieces.

Who are today’s true pioneers and what are they up to?

[Tootsall]

As you say, there is a TON of emulation out there... sort of a "mix and match" to the different components. I think that the "twin tube" thing is innovative, but so is the "bell tuning bow" idea of Leigh (http://www.eclipsetrumpets.com) and (possibly) the "twin bell" idea. Some might argue that Dave Monette is "innovative" with his designs and others think that lots of weird, sheet-metal bracing is "innovative".

I think that to find out who is a true "pioneer" and who is simply an emulator requires that you consider each component of a trumpet while looking at each manufacturer and asking "what does he do different from anyone else?"

[pfrank]

Actually, both of those innovations were used in the past. I've seen a few old horns with the "bell tuning bow"...they didn't play like an Eclipse, I'm sure. But there have been brass instruments for long enough for just about every wrap to have been tried...the cornets of the turn of the century had allot of variation in wrap. Certain things can't be improved upon. Chris Botti is having Martin/UMI look at his Martin Handcraft to see why it plays so well... and you can't improve on the fine detail and craft in the early 1900s.
The flugalhorn is basically unchanged since it's invention!

What is innovative is the use of lighter alloys that are more responsive than in the past. Also intonation is improved in new instruments.
The Wild Thing is a kind of innovation with it's big bell flair...the Monet mouthpiece system (including the Prana bb) is inovative if they work for you.
The human body is pretty much the same as it was in the past too. Maybe a little taller if you get to eat allot of protein, but basically it's a design that works, so why change it?

New Music: that's where the real innovation belongs.

[_Kanstul-Krazy]

I think one "Inovator" worth mentioning is Zig Kanstul! I won't reiterate this article, but take a minute to read over it. He has worked for the major american horn manufactures and now leads one of the finest horn manufacturers here in the USA.

http://www.kanstul.net/pages/downloads/KanstulRep.pdf
_________________
Lon A. Heim
Kanstul Model 1600 WB
Kanstul Model 925 w/ Copper Bell

[JasonHarrelson]

True innovation depends not only on the maker, but the market in which it is received. Economics play a very large role in what the average trumpet player has to choose from in a given price range. We are working to build our very first line of "Harrelson" trumpets as early as this fall. However, the innovations we have incorporated into our newest prototype instruments may take years to get to the average musician. Sure, some will pay three to five times as much and wait 6 months or more to get one of our horns, but that really doesn't do much for brass musicians as a whole.

I am by no means in this thread to say that my innovations are the best. But I am saying that if you look hard, you'll see that there have been many great innovators whose ideas never came to fruition due to poor marketing or an unresponsive market. Take the Vincent Bach Serial #25 trumpet, which just happens to have the #25 leadpipe....it plays incredibly well, better than any Bach Strad today. It was built with the heaviest bracing you've ever seen on any Bach since 1930. The tuning slide is braced with more than an ounce of weight! And the top braces are an 1/8" thick. Why did he stop making them that way? Too much work, labor, money, time??? And somehow, nobody every seemed to notice as he made very few horns this way.

However, today it seems that the market is better than ever for those of us with new ideas. I thoroughly enjoy all the new concepts, though most are copies or variations of previous work. Even more, I enjoy all the competition. Some our newest innovations, which you will see this coming fall, focus on ergonomics and air stream efficiency. These are not new ideas, but our designs allow most players to play twice as long with less fatigue to the embouchure, hands, neck and back.

Interesting thread...

Jason
_________________
Harrelson Trumpets
www.whyharrelson.com

[_Daff]

I have read that Mr. Kanstul has forgotten more about trumpets than most people have ever known, and I respect that depth, however, I also see information saying that he uses the Besson or Olds mandrels or components, etc. So was he the originator of those designs or the (unquestionably fine) craftsman that assembles the designs of others?

One aspect here is craftsmanship, the other is innovation. In my mind, innovations occur in exploration, discovery, and development. I realize that Goodyear learned something from Fred Flintstone, and that comtemporary trumpet makers undoubtedly were influenced by their predecessors, but copying someone's design and putting your name on it ain't innovation in my book. It's trying to make someone else's widget better.

Many in this Forum have hammered on Jason Harrelson because they didn't like his welds or the, well...., corny-looking plate configurations, but dang, the cat is spending countless hours tinkering and testing and taking crap from everyone while doing HIS thing. Go for it dude!

I started this thread because of my interest in learning about the guys that are pushing the envelope, challenging theories, and looking for unturned stones.

Recognizing that a significant consideration in manufacturing is bringing a quality product to the masses, ie. Business 101, duh, I consider craftsmanship, although extremely important, as secondary to the design. A fantastic craftsman can assemble a poor design, which basically results in a crafted piece of junk.

Frankly, I think valve bodies are an antiquated pain in the rear and have a good inkling that someone is going to eventially turn that whole mess on its ear. Remember Wankel and his rotary engine? The cat was way outside of the box. He was thinking radial perpetual motion while the rest were merely tweaking the traditional piston. How about the axleless bicycle?

So I ask again, who are the real contemporary innovators?



[ This Message was edited by: Daff on 2004-05-11 15:02 ]

[FatPauly]

The guy with the suit full of bicycle horns is an innovator!

- Paul Artola
Ellicott City, Maryland

[_dcstep]

I think that Twin-Tube, heavy bracing, bell sheathing, bell-bow tuning, etc., etc. are all things that have been tried before. It's great that makers are coming back to these devices and, perhaps, actually honing the device to extract better results.

I think we live in a hay-day of trumpet design with creative builders like Eclipse, Taylor, Tanabe, Selmer Paris, Monette, Schilke, etc. experimenting with "non-standard" designs. People like Blackburn and Lawler are building "traditional" desings with excellence. If someone comes up with an idea that's entirely new and works, then I think we're likely to see it in this era.

Dave

_________________
Selmer-Paris Concept TT w/ GR66S/GR66MS
Yamaha 731 Flugel w/ GR66FL
http://www.dcjb.com http://www.pitpops.com

[ This Message was edited by: dcstep on 2004-05-12 11:42 ]

[rebelatheart]

I'd like to see more companies play around with their designs and combine aspects of cornets and trumpets, and or flugelhorns. What interests me most would be a "trumpets" with various degrees of conical bores instead of strictly cylindrical bores in order to enrich the sound. I guess it would blur the definition between cornet and trumpet a little, so they might not know what to call it. Look at all of the different Conn configurations of the 20th century. Didn't the vintage Martin Committees have some degree of a conical bore? One of the Kanstul Signatures may have, I'm not sure, but I'm of the opinion that there is great potential in someone going down this road a little more.

_________________
Should have followed my heart, not my head!
'04 Kanstul 1530 Cornet
"04 King Legend .462 Trumpet
"03 Kanstul 610 Trumpet
'69 Olds Ambassador cornet
'67 Olds Studio cornet
'71 Reynolds Medalist Trumpet

[ This Message was edited by: rebelatheart on 2004-05-12 21:13 ]

[rebelatheart]

[ This Message was edited by: rebelatheart on 2004-05-12 21:14 ]

[DavesTrumpet]