Home Blog Page 3

Dedication and Your Upcoming Auditions

0

The topic of auditions is not a new one in Horn Matters, in fact there is a whole category of articles on the topic here. (And take a look at all the categories! They’ve been updated extensively over the summer).

That being said, something I was recently reading on social media made me think about the topic of dedication.

Dedication?

I think why it struck me was I had not thought of my own preparation quite that way. I was committed, for sure, to doing my best, and very dedicated to the auditions I was taking, especially the professional ones. But I usually thought of it along the lines of trying to do my individual best without making comparisons to others. I’d overall call it an Inner Game of Tennis type of mindset. In another article in Horn Matters I called my personal mindset “Fearless Optimism.”

In my Orchestra 101 book I put it this way — with the understanding that you could do it differently and have your own best result.

People are wired differently; not all will respond to optimism as suggested above but instead need to focus on winning. While some would soften that thought a bit by striving only to be the best, I would instead suggest striving to be your best. It is perhaps a subtle difference, but striving to be your best looks simply to do the best that you can do in any situation with your God-given abilities. Striving to be the best on the other hand invokes a sense of comparison that is irrelevant to actually doing your best job. Our heightened sense of our own shortcomings can also get very much in the way, and, besides, there is always someone better out there in some way. Let others make their own comparisons and just aim to do your best in every situation.

This thought especially relates to performances and auditions. It is very helpful to take an audition and to really be ranked as to how you perform–you will gain perspective as to how good you really are and will also certainly see areas to work on–but what others will think of your playing is really out of your hands. Don’t live or die by those rankings. Just strive to do your best.

Show how dedicated you are

Auditions are a competition, a very serious competition (a battle!), especially when it is for a job. While winning is your actual goal, the people listening to you will draw conclusions based on a variety of factors.

I’d suggest for those with upcoming school or community band/orchestra auditions, try to display somehow your dedication to the horn and your preparation for that audition. That you know all the correct tempos, you have a clear idea how the music needs to sound, all that. Show your dedication through your serious preparation! Conductors should appreciate that, this is the type of thing (“X factor”) they pick up on. And good luck.

Fundamentals 20. Extended technique: glissandi, vocalizations, half-valve techniques, quarter tone fingerings, combinations

Attentive readers in this series would have noted that, earlier in his list (numbers 14, 15, and 16), Hill covered the extended techniques of lip trills, stopped horn, and muted horn (click here to go back to number 14). But there are, at an even higher level, more extended techniques to learn.

How important are they, really?

The fact is you could play horn for a lifetime and at a high level and hardly run into any of these techniques.

That said, there is always the chance there is some $$ situation where things come up and it really matters that you can play the extended techniques correctly and convincingly.

Story time

With that thought, I have a story in two parts from probably my second summer at the Aspen Music Festival, 1983. I was an undergrad. Within a few weeks of each other I played very different, recent works in student orchestras with composers as conductor, and clearly learned a lesson, that there are two types of composers.

One composer, I can still see him in my mind, but I really can’t remember his name. I think he was an American composer. His work was for a full orchestra, but it was a type of chance music. If I remember correctly, he would point at your section and held up a piece of paper with a number on it and you played that event at that time. It was kind of a sound painting exercise, and no two performances were ever going to sound the same! What we had to play included various extended techniques, and it was really enjoyable to play. He was very relaxed and was pretty much happy with anything anyone did in the spirit of his notation.

The other composer, I can remember his name but maybe better not to say it. European composer, more famous, deceased now. His work was very complicated with, beyond various extended techniques, unusual rhythms and intervals in a very thin texture. And he was very uptight. I was playing second horn, and he was very unhappy with the first horn. Eventually he made a big stink and one of the horn faculty (!) replaced the student first horn. I thought she was doing OK, but he did not. In retrospect maybe he had some strong financial interest in getting a good recording at the festival. Or some personal backstory with Aspen. I don’t know.

The experience though helped me see that how you approach extended techniques is influenced by the composer or at least my sense of the composer. Some are looking for an effect and will be happy with most anything you do that is in the neighborhood of what is notated. Others, they want every jot and tittle of their notation to be performed exactly as notated. It’s your job to figure it out.

For that latter group, you really owe it to yourself to try to play every extended technique as closely to the composer’s intention as you can.

The best music to work on these extended techniques

I highly recommend solo horn works. There are a lot of them that make use to varying degrees all of the advanced techniques mentioned by Hill.

When I work on these with students, I consider the points made above. But the starting point is always the markings made by the composer. They put effort into putting those there, and if they say staccato and soft at a certain tempo, for example, that is your goal. At least try it first! You can’t just play anything.

A little help with any of these advanced techniques?

Of all the ones listed by Hill probably my favorite is vocalizations or horn chords. I can play a pretty decent horn chord outside of a performance context! They are a challenge. I have more on the topic in this article:

Oh, and glissandi are a piece of cake to play and fun, more here:

Update: For a podcast on the topic of this article and the previous one see Episode 66 of the Horn Notes Podcast (direct link, but find it anywhere you get podcasts).

When the series continues the topic is the natural horn.

Continue reading the Fundamentals Series

More vintage “upside down” horns

Upside down? They are not often seen, but there is more than one way to make a horn, and one of the ways used back in the day to make single F horns looks “upside down” to us.

I have three horns of this general design in my modest collection. All of them have hand hammered bells and some nice construction details, but I suspect all were also aimed at younger students rather than adults.

The Huttl

This horn I’ve posted about before, but it’s been a few years. Most recently, here:

It’s probably the newest of the three horns of this type I now own, and also the only one that is not a “stencil” horn. More on that in a bit. For comparison with the other horns, two views of it are below. Notice how the main slide has a loop in it (to stand in F) and is on the front of the horn instead of the back. That is why I say these horns visually look upside down (or maybe backwards), we expect the main slide to be on the back, not the front. With an oddly bent lead pipe to make it work.

This horn, on receiver of the leadpipe, is marked Czecho-Slovakia, which would indicate it was made after 1918. As noted in the 2021 article, I replaced the first portion of the leadpipe, which helped it play a bit better but still, of the three, it is not really as playable as I would like.

The left-hand position for me is very cramped, it would work much better if I had smaller hands, which is why I believe this was aimed at younger students.

The Kalashen

This was an eBay find and is older than the other two. It is a “stencil” horn; Mark Kalashen was an instrument importer in New York City. What a number of firms did at the time was import horns with no markings from Europe and add their own markings to the instrument. It obscures the underlying maker and is thankfully a trade practice of long ago. This horn was probably made sometime not long after 1910. There is a nice PDF document on Kalashen brass to be found here. 

That said, this horn has several interesting details and of the three is the most comfortable to play. Left hand position is a bit smaller than I’d really like, so maybe still it was built for students, but still workable for an adult. This one also has the original Eb crook, which is a double loop main slide.

If you compare it to the other horns the proportions are a bit different, but the biggest difference is the valve section. It doesn’t show up as well as I might like in these following photos, but it is a different type of rotary valve than used today. The action is really light and fast, much lighter and faster than any double horn valve. Great for fast technical passage work! The valve opens from the “bottom” and is considerably easier to disassemble than a modern rotary valve as well.

The mighty Majestic

This horn is also a stencil horn, and I would guess it was actually made by Huttl, it is very close to the same design. As with the Huttl, on the leadpipe it is marked Czecho-Slovakia, which again indicates a date of construction after 1918.

A very interesting aspect of this horn to me is when I got it (off eBay) and took it apart, clearly the horn had rebuilt valves! Someone before me put time/money into making this horn have nice tight valves. That said, there were still some big problems to fix. It needed among other things a big patch on the bell and there were two missing braces.

With the tight valves this horn really is rather nice. The big problem for me is the left-hand position is really small; it was made for someone with small hands.

This horn had another curiosity worth mentioning – it was very flat, and it was easy to tell it was a couple inches longer than the Huttl. I ended up cutting it down around the main slide and the horn is a player now for sure.

All three horns don’t fit in a standard horn case. I keep them in gig bags.

Wall hangers?

Of course, all three horns are mostly only of collector interest now, and most would probably only consider them to be wall hangers. But I still enjoy having them in the rotation of horns I might use to warm up or play a few etudes.

Fundamentals 19. Vibrato: control in all ranges, varied styles and manners

Is vibrato a fundamental? For Hill it is number 19 on his list which I have used to guide this series.

There is an extended article on the topic of vibrato in the Hornmasters series:

I would point readers to that article for more on the specifics of how to make a vibrato, etc. However, I do have more to say on the topic.

Vibrato story time

In that longer article I mention that there is a personal story that I would be expanding on in the live class at ASU. It’s a pretty good story, and it relates to the practical matter of you need control of your vibrato, playing with or without it on demand.

In my own case, as a Doctoral student at IU I was taking auditions and applying for every job I could. I was doing OK too, advancing a decent number of times, enough to keep me going.

That being said, I was advancing but not winning. Why?

There were two auditions very near each other which finally clarified to me what I was doing wrong. In one audition I advanced to the second round, and the committee asked me back for another second round! It was very unusual but must have been allowed by their contract. I played again and was pleased that I played almost exactly the same. But then the committee asked me to play the Brahms 1 lyric solo a second (third!) time, “this time without vibrato.” I could not do it. I really could not. They did not advance anyone to the finals if I recall correctly.

Within days of that I got some backdoor feedback from another recent audition, already taken, for an ICSOM orchestra, where I had made the finals. The feedback was that they liked my playing but didn’t like my vibrato. Someone else was hired (and they still have that job!).

Back in Bloomington I puzzled about this. Years before in a lesson with Verne Reynolds he said something like “John, I don’t understand your vibrato.” I replied that I just wanted to sound like a fine tenor, and he nodded and that was the end of any discussion of the topic. I took it at the time that he thought it a good answer and to keep playing the way I played. Then I got to thinking about my current teacher at IU Mike Hatfield, and he would have never commented on it, that was not his way of teaching. “That’s just how John sounds” was what I guessed he thought about it.

But I was recently married and did want to win an audition! I had one more coming in a month. I spent that month practicing with a dead straight tone, not a hint of vibrato. That next audition was for Third Horn in Nashville, the audition I won. The rest is, as they say, history. Learning to play with no vibrato was actually the gateway to the rest of my career.

I’ve also puzzled about what if I had figured this out sooner? Would I have won a prior audition? Maybe? So many things are out of our hands though, it is better just to let go of thinking about the past. We learn some things more slowly than others.

The actual fundamental is you need control of your vibrato

I would say it is very important to be able to turn on a nice vibrato – and to be able to turn it off. It all depends on the musical context.

As to that, the soloist or principal horn can make more use of vibrato than a section player. One thing you might try in an audition is to use a light vibrato on your Mozart exposition (like a European soloist) but play the excerpts pretty much straight.

And again, for more on the actual topic of how to make a vibrato (there are several ways to do it) see the Hornmasters series article.

When this series returns, we look at all sorts of extended techniques.

Continue reading in the Fundamentals Series

Fundamentals 18C. Sight reading: varied styles and periods, meter changes, complex rhythms

0

As was mentioned in the previous two installments of the fundamentals series, for this one I actually split up what was originally just one item on the list of fundamentals in the Douglas Hill book. His wording is:

18. Sight reading: bass clef, “old notation bass clef,” key signature, varied styles and periods, meter changes, complex rhythms.

Which is also to explain also why I split it up into three articles, as the topics of reading bass clef and key signatures are certainly foundational. And yes, sight reading in bass clef and with key signatures is part of the skill too, but the basic topic of sight reading is an important and separate fundamental as well.

I’m not a big fan of sight reading

A personal aside. One of the things I most liked about playing Third Horn in the Nashville Symphony was that, on that job at least, I never needed to sight read! There was a guarantee in the master agreement that we would have music available to us 21 days in advance. I certainly took advantage of that! Always one of my least favorite things to do is sight read on a gig. We all need to get as good as we can with this skill.

How do I improve sight reading?

Back a few years ago I posted a longer article on this very topic:

Within that article, I most like the tactics put forth by hornist Nicholas Perrini in Develop Accuracy Through Sightreading. And who does not want to improve accuracy! From my earlier article,

I recently got it back out and was interested to see the tactics he presents. The central one involves scanning in general and more specifically “a triangular motion at the beginning of each etude” where you start a ways in (at the first logical breathing point), then look back to any markings at the top of the beginning of the etude, then down to the bottom of the opening, and finally track back over the music to the first breathing point. With the idea that you study the beginning a bit and skim over the rest of the work looking at:

  1. Key signature(s)
  2. Time signature(s)
  3. Tempo (Phrases)
  4. Breathing places
  5. Dynamics and articulation
  6. Accidentals or other unusual notations

Perrini explains this tactic further in his text, which also contains 39 etudes suited to sight-reading practice.

For sure it is a fundamental we all need to improve! As to the various specifics in the title of this article, it all gets better with practice, you just have to work on it with some tactics in mind, as suggested in the longer article.

Update: For a podcast on the topic of this and the previous three posts in this series see Episode 65 of the Horn Notes Podcast (direct link, but find it anywhere you get podcasts).

When the series continues, the topic is vibrato.

Continue reading the Fundamentals Series

What Was the Omnitonic Horn?

When you get to looking at horn history there are many rabbit holes to explore, many little dead end trails of horn design. Some of those had a significant number of makers and players who invested time and money in their big idea, only to see it be viewed as a footnote, an oddity. One example is certainly the omnitonic horn. 

For sure when I was writing my dissertation I felt it important to discuss the omnitonic horn, as it used the same basic technology that allowed valves to be made, but used that technology to solve a different problem. This article was originally posted on Horn Articles Online in 1998 and is reposted below. It is based in part on materials published in The Horn Call 28, no. 3 (May, 1998), with additional materials from my dissertation.

While it is essentially only a long footnote to the entire discussion of the horn in the nineteenth century it is nevertheless appropriate to examine the omnitonic horn. It has been suggested that valved and omnitonic horns were invented for the same reasons [Morley-Pegge, 55]. Their simultaneous invention, however, was the result of the same basic technology being used to solve different problems. The first omnitonic horn was constructed ca. 1815 by J.-B. Dupont of Paris [ibid, 57]. The invention allowed the horn to be tuned into every key without the use of separate crooks by means of a long graduated valve, and saw several improvements in design during the early nineteenth century. See figure 1.

Figure 1. Omnitonic horn, as illustrated in Dupont’s patent application of 1818.

While the mechanism of the omnitonic horn outwardly had the same function as the valve, that of changing the length of the horn, the ultimate purpose of the mechanism was different. The omnitonic horn is not a fully chromatic instrument, and could not be performed upon as such. The key changing mechanism was not designed to be operated instantaneously while playing and the instrument could not perform music more complicated than that of the natural horn, as it relied on the usage of the right hand in the bell to perform chromatic passages. The valved horn, on the other hand, is fully chromatic and can be used to perform any pitch as an open tone without resorting to hand-horn technique.

The most successful omnitonic horn was introduced in 1824 by Charles Sax (1791-1865) of Brussels [ibid]. This design was reviewed in an article by French musicologist, critic, and composer F. J. Fétis (1784-1871) in Revue Musicale. Fétis gave Sax’s omnitonic horn a very favorable review, but with the following qualifications.

Unfortunately the best things carry with them their inconveniences. Thus the Cor omnitonique can not be equipped with all the tubes necessary for playing in all keys, without becoming a little heavy in the hands of the artist. This defect, inseparable from the advantages of the instrument, is also augmented by the difficulty of joining to the Cor omnitonique the mechanism of pistons, for the equipment in itself is quite heavy [trans. in Coar, 111].

That combining valves with the omnitonic horn would even be considered is a strong indication that the mechanism was seen as having a different essential function than the valve, that of changing keys, and that the valved horn had chromatic advantages the omnitonic horn did not possess. The omnitonic horn saw only limited acceptance, primarily in France, and even there had few supporters after mid-century [Coar, 112].

The basic idea of applying an automatic key changing mechanism to the horn however would not die, and achieved its perhaps most useful form in the Tonwechselmaschine [transposing valve] patented by Czech instrument maker Václav Frantisek Cerveny (1819-1896) in 1846 [Joppig, 217-218]. See figure 2.

Figure 2. Tonwechselmaschine, as illustrated in patent application.

This special, large rotary valve allowed the instrument to be placed in several keys without the use of crooks. Cerveny’s advertising literature shows a Cornon (the prototype of the Wagner tuba) in F with a transposing valve for E, E-flat, and D, and the device is known to have been applied to valved horns as well. [NOTE: An example of a horn equipped with a transposing valve for use in the keys of F, E, and E-flat marked F. Pelz, Kolin (Bohemia), is in the collection of Eli Epstein. The instrument would appear to have been rebuilt from an older instrument (possibly a natural horn) in the 1880’s.] The system was even copied by French maker P. L. Gautrot (fl. 1835-84) in perhaps the last attempt (1870’s) to improve on the natural omnitonic horn (the device is illustrated in Morley-Pegge, 2nd ed., plate V, 5) [Buchner, vol. 1, 325 and Morley-Pegge, 60]

For yet another omnitonic horn see this article.

UPDATE: The photo of the omnitonic horn by Charles Sax was taken by my daughter at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

SOURCES

Alexander Buchner, “Václav Frantisek Cerveny,” New Grove Instruments, vol. 1, 325.

F. J. Fétis, “Nouveau cor omnitonique,” Revue Musicale, 13 (1833), 172-174, translated in Coar, Virtuosi, 111-112.

Gunther Joppig, “Václav Frantisek Cerveny: Leading European Inventor and Manufacturer,” Historic Brass Society Journal 4 (1992), trans. by Veronica von der Lancken, 210-228.

R. Morley-Pegge, The French Horn, 2nd ed. (London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1973).

Making a Crook for a Natural Horn

This article was posted in a corner of Horn Articles Online back in 2008. In editing Horn Matters articles with links to the now dark Horn Articles Online site, I found only one existing link to this article from Horn Matters. I’m guessing it has not been read very many times over the years, but I believe there are readers that will be interested to see the process of making a crook for an historic horn. I’ll also add, making this crook was one of my last projects before a multi-year break from horn repair/making, an interest I revived during my 2021 sabbatical (see more on that here). Presently I have multiple projects ongoing. 

When I was a Doctoral student at Indiana University I was able to create a special minor for my program, a minor in the area of brass instrument design and construction. As a part of that minor I made a natural horn with the help of natural horn soloist, teacher, and maker Richard Seraphinoff.

Several years later I decided to purchase a horn from Rick as well, an large instrument made to mid-nineteenth century dimensions with a detachable rotary valve section. [More on that instrument here.]

As I had experience working with Rick and had built by then five crooks with his help, this instrument he supplied with three of the crooks as “kits,” E, A-flat, and A. I am sure this is not his normal practice, but I was grateful to him for accommodating me in this manner. While I built the E crook pretty much right away and built the A-flat crook a few years ago, this summer (2008) I decided to build the A crook and document the process.

E, A-flat, and A crook “kit”

To begin we have the A crook in parts along with the finished A-flat and E crooks. For these three I used an unusual brace from my parts box that at a distance looks like the braces Rick used, but close up is of a unique design. More on that in a moment.

Getting the parts to this point obviously took some effort from Rick. The biggest work was drawing the tubing over a mandrel, annealing the tube, filling it with pitch, bending the tube, removing the pitch, and annealing the finished part. The male receiver also required careful machine work.

Roughly assembled A crook

The first step is to assemble the crook roughly and see where you are in terms of pitch. It was intentionally shipped too long so that there would be room to adjust as needed. Note the special tool for making the mouthpiece inlet. I have quite a lot of brass repair tools and actually did some repair in Nashville for others but have since then have mostly only worked on my own horns, with occasional work for students or colleagues.

Cutting tubing

Next, with the pitch figured out roughly the excess tube is cut off with a jewelers saw.

Wired to solder

Now we assemble the crook and wire it for soldering.

Soldered

Next the parts are all soldered together, and the wires cut off. We have a crook now that is quite usable but not finished.

Sanding the crook

The next step is clean up and sanding. A file and sandpaper are used to clean up the solder and the entire part is also sanded lightly with 400 grit sandpaper to prepare it for buffing. Actually, Rick would normally buff the parts before assembly and rebuff affected areas after assembly, but I felt more comfortable doing it only with the part securely assembled.

Buffing the crook

With everything prepped it is time for buffing. I set up one end of a bench grinder with a cotton buffing wheel and used white buffing compound. Wear safety glasses and work slowly. I would not recommend this step to the inexperienced. It is very possible to lose the part in the wheel and do damage to the part and to yourself if you do not know what you are doing. This step and the previous step are dirty jobs that really make or break the finish of the crook. I have immense respect for craftsmen who make new instruments for sale; to get a perfect finish takes much care and skill. I have been told that the craftsmen who do buffing for instrument makers are among the best paid, for good reason.

Finished A crook

The finished crook! It is quite shiny! The hard to reach spots were buffed with a small wheel on a Dremel motor tool.

Brace for crook

Finally, at the beginning of this article I mentioned the brace was of a distinct design. Look closely at the end of the brace; it is actually an old piece of brass O-gauge rail that had originally been used as the point rail from a turnout. These were in my part box and of the right size and shape for making braces. It makes the three crooks I made for this horn stand out subtly from the crowd.

I did eventually also make a G crook for the same horn, and all the crooks I made have the brass rail brace to identify them from the crooks Rick made. Also, I played that horn on my Rescued CD (more here). A favorite track is below.

How Bells are Cut

The original version of this article, posted in Horn Articles Online probably around the year 2000 (!), had the subtitle “Don’t try this at home.” But before getting to that older article, a few thoughts on cut bells.

Not long ago, this was a polarizing topic

One of the questions asked in a 1982 survey done by my ASU predecessor Ralph Lockwood related to attitudes toward cut bells. The overall survey was on right hand position, and is a very interesting snapshot of past times compared to today. But there was also a question on cut bell horns and, in short, some respondents were very opposed to them.

Talking with some older players over the years, I know that for some when the bell was cut the big issue was an instrument lost some of the “magic” or “soul” it had. And honestly, I’d personally be VERY hesitant to cut the bell of some vintage Geyer or Kruspe for example, you might not like the results — and you really can’t go back.

However, higher end horns today are almost always made with cut (or screw) bells. Makers take the cut bell into consideration in the overall design of their horn; there really is no downside as to how it sounds or plays. Plus, you have the ability to travel better with a more sensible case. You need a cut bell!

Should I have my bell cut? What kind of ring?

To the topic of if you should have the bell cut on an existing horn, the big question I would ask is this: is this horn really worth doing this to? Because, if it’s basically a student model horn, you will probably be better off buying a new or different horn of a better quality that already has a cut bell. Alternatively, if it is a highly collectible older horn, I’d also be hesitant to do it, especially if the cut will ruin the engraving. Being aware, also, that if it is a lacquered horn, the lacquer will be lost in the area of the repairs.

As to what kind of ring to use, Alexander or Alexander compatible rings dominate the market. But be aware that there are multiple ring designs in use, of different diameters and thread. Paxman rings are larger, Yamaha smaller, Schmid has a different thread, etc. They are not all compatible. For additional perspectives on all these topics see:

How to cut a bell

The remainder of this article is my 2000 (approx., it was not dated) Horn Articles Online article. Versions of this were re-printed (years ago!) in IHS regional horn newsletters for Arizona, Iowa, and New England. It is reposted here with the 2025 demise of Horn Articles Online.

This is very much in the “don’t try this at home” category, but as my students often ask how bells are cut I know there is interest in seeing how this is done.

My Doctoral program at Indiana University had a requirement that I have two minor fields and I was lucky enough to be able to design a special minor in Brass Instrument Design and Construction to fulfill part of this requirement, working closely with the well-known natural horn maker and player Richard Seraphinoff. Besides making a natural horn with his help that really turned out quite well (thank you Rick!), and also making several lead pipes on his mandrels (one I made is actually mounted on the horn illustrated below), I also was able, with Rick in the shop to double check my work, cut the bell on my Yamaha 667.

First, the photo.

The short version of the process is this. You first take the bell/bell tail as a unit completely off the horn. This requires unsoldering several braces and the joint between the bell tail and the first branch. The next step is the most critical; the male ring is soldered on the bell and must be absolutely perfectly lined up. I used Alexander rings. After it is solidly soldered on you use a saw (next to the lead pipe in the photo) and carefully cut the bell to separate the bell from the bell tail. If you are at all squeamish you won’t want to see the cut in progress. The photo above was taken just after cutting the bell. Next the female ring is soldered on the now free bell tail and the horn reassembled. The process is in a sense quite straightforward repair work, but much care must be exercised, and it does take at least a day of solid work in a very well equipped shop to accomplish.

I later actually cut the bells on two other horns I owned, but I have now officially retired from cutting bells! This really is a job for a pro. I have an immense respect for those craftsmen who make horns; it is truly an art.

In terms of playing qualities, I have found that either the horn felt essentially the same or perhaps better after cutting the bell. I have not personally noted any negative results in the playing qualities of cut bell instruments. If you are considering having your bell cut it could be a great investment. It certainly makes travel easier. But don’t cut that bell yourself!

Big News from 1897: The Invention of the Double Horn, the “Horn of the Future”

For generations of horn players now the double horn has always been there, has always been the standard instrument we play. It’s interesting, however, to think about that time before the double horn, and what a revolution the new invention was. Can you imagine having the idea to combine a single F and a single Bb horns into one instrument, getting it built, and trying it for the first time? Or as a horn player learning for the first time about this new horn design?

As part of my Doctoral research this was a side topic, but one that interested me, and one on which I could see that sources were confusing. It eventually led me to complete an article that was published in The Horn Call in 1998. A version was posted for many years in the Horn Articles Online website as well, and that is presented below. But the short version of the story is

  • The first prototypes were constructed in 1897 by Kruspe
  • The design of the double horn was created by Edmund Gumpert, a nephew of perhaps the most important German valved horn performer and teacher of the late nineteenth century, Friedrich Gumpert
  • It was a full double, but with a somewhat unusual design using for the change valve two “single story” valves paired together

The rest, as they say, was history. Clearly it was a revolutionary, great idea! Learn more about the invention of the double horn in the longer article below.

The Double Horn and Its Invention in 1897

This article originally appeared in The Horn Call 28, no. 2 (Feb., 1998), with additional notes from The Horn Call 28, no. 3 (May, 1998).

As the nineteenth century was coming to a close, controversy raged in the horn playing community. This controversy had its roots in the use of crooks on the valved horn, and came to be centered around the relative merits of horns crooked or pitched in the keys of F or B-flat. The solution to this controversy, which in the words of Reginald Morley-Pegge “revolutionized horn playing technique almost as much as did the invention of the valve” [Morley-Pegge, “Orchestral,” 195], was the double horn.

The first prototypes of this design, which combined the F and B-flat horns into one instrument, were produced by the German horn maker Kruspe in 1897 [Heyde, 181]. The design of the double horn was created by Edmund Gumpert, who served as third hornist in Meiningen. Edmund Gumpert was a nephew of perhaps the most important German valved horn performer and teacher of the late nineteenth century, Friedrich Gumpert (1841-1906) [more on Gumpert here], so we first turn to the elder Gumpert to better understand the musical context which led to the invention of the double horn.

Fr. Gumpert served as professor at the Leipzig Conservatory and as principal hornist of the Gewandhaus Orchestra from 1864 until 1898 [Morley-Pegge, 2nd ed., 173] His equally famous student, German-American hornist Anton Horner (1877-1971, for many years principal hornist of the Philadelphia orchestra), recalled in 1956 the manner in which Fr. Gumpert used crooks on the valved horn. Horner, who studied with Gumpert from 1890-94, stated the following.

[Gumpert] had no use for the B-flat horn which was coming into use in Germany at that time; but he did advocate changing crooks or slides to G, A, and B-flat horn for some compositions. For instance, he played the Siegfried solo on the B-flat horn, and the slow movement of the Second Beethoven Symphony on the A crook; also played the Mendelssohn Nocturne on an E crook. The old German conductors like Reinecke in Leipzig, Bühlow [sic] in Berlin, and others would not tolerate the thin, harsh quality of the B[flat] horn, unless the composers called for that quality in their compositions, when they wrote for the G, A-flat, A, and B-flat horn. Of course, we, of today, think these restrictions are splitting hairs, but that was the opinion that prevailed in those days. I know that in many orchestras, when there were auditions for vacant positions, B[flat] horn players were not even considered. But eventually, B[flat] horn specialists were considered, when such excellent players as Preusse in Frankfurt proved and demonstrated its advantages [Horner, 91].

After his graduation in 1894 Horner returned to Philadelphia, but kept in close contact with a classmate named Hermann Brachold, who had also studied the horn with Fr. Gumpert. Horner was an early advocate of the double horn and later recalled receiving through Brachold a copy of an article which was published in Deutsche Musikerzeitung in 1898 titled “Hie F-Horn–hie B-Horn–was ist recht?” [Here F Horn–There B-flat Horn–What’s Right?], which contained one of the very first published notices on the new double horn [Ibid, 92. This series of articles from Deutsche Musikerzeitung is reprinted with a (rough) translation in Pizka, 279-291].

This article appeared in three parts. The first part was written by Josef Lindner, who was professor of horn in Würzburg and had previously served as principal hornist in Meiningen. In short, Lindner was a very strong advocate of the use of the B-flat horn. At that time many of the valved horns which were in use still used terminal crooks in the same manner as an orchestral natural horn, and could be crooked into any orchestral key. Lindner did admit that if one were to take a terminally crooked valved horn in F and simply insert a B-flat shank into the instrument the resulting tonal quality is lacking [Pizka, 281]. However, Lindner pointed out that if a full length leadpipe were used on the B-flat horn–that is, the instrument was not built to use terminal crooks but instead had a fixed leadpipe–the tone was much better [My own experiments also confirm that a valved horn which uses terminal crooks to reach B-flat alto–requiring the use of a very short crook (with less than 6 inches of tapered length)–is lacking in tone compared to one built with a full length, fixed leadpipe (modern double horn leadpipes, for example contain 19.5 to 22 inches of tapered length)]. He additionally felt that the high range sounded “unnatural and pressed” on the F horn [Pizka, 284] concluding that the B-flat horn was basically superior.

Lindner’s article was quickly followed by a lengthy reply written by Richard Tornauer, who performed in Cologne. Tornauer, predictably, was a strong advocate of the use of the F horn. He began by noting that composers preferred the lower tonalities of the horn, giving the example that the Fidelio Aria, if performed by two A horns and one E horn, was no longer an accompaniment but instead became obtrusive horn solo because of the very bright tonal quality of the horns [Ibid, 287]. While he admitted that the F crook required better lip technique than the B-flat crook, nevertheless, he stated that using the B-flat horn was not art. He additionally stated that the B-flat horn was used only in southern Germany, with the remainder of the country still cultivating the use of the F horn [Ibid, 288].

The conclusion of this discussion in Deutsche Musikerzeitung was an article on the new Gumpert-Kruspe double horn, which caught the attention of Brachold and Horner. The article reported that Edmund Gumpert, working with the instrument maker Kruspe in Erfurt, had combined the F and B-flat horns into one instrument [Ibid, 289]. The real genius of the design lay with its ability to combine and utilize the best aspects of the F and B-flat horns; the low range retained the full sound of the F horn, while in the high range one could use the B-flat horn for improved accuracy [Morley-Pegge, 2nd ed., 49-51 notes that the système équitonique of Gautrot and Marquet in France, a compensating system dating to 1864, embodied the principal on which the double horn operated. However, it is doubtful that this system was known to Edmund Gumpert, as the central issue for Gumpert was that of combining the F and B-flat horns into one instrument, not correcting for theoretical intonation problems].

The above illustration comes from another very early published report on the invention of the double horn, an article titled “Ein neues Doppelhorn” [A New Double Horn] by hornist and composer Hermann Eichborn (1847-1918), published in 1899 in Zeitschrift für Instrumentenbau. This particular illustration is of the first Gumpert-Kruspe design, which used a pair of valves, connected to each other, to accomplish the change from F to B-flat. This is the type of horn which Horner recalled as being his first double horn [Horner, 92]. When Horner began using the double horn in 1899 other hornists tried to discredit his work (and success) by saying that he used a “freak” horn [ibid], but the double horn was here to stay.

One of the first published notices in the USA on the double horn is a 1907 article by Gustav Saenger (1865-1935) in The Metronome. He reiterated the problem and introduced the solution as follows.

The extraordinary and remarkable accomplishments which modern composers demand from Wind Instrument players has led to many experiments and improvements in the construction of these instruments within recent years. . . .
Occasionally, of course, we still come in contact with the ideal Horn enthusiast who maintains and believes the Natural Horn to be the only and most perfect one; however, for orchestral uses, the success of the Valve Horn has proved beyond a doubt how immeasurably superior it is to the Natural Horn. But we find that even the Valve Horn players are divided into two very decided factions, each of which is stubbornly determined that their own system is the best, one preferring the B flat, and the other the F Horn.

It is a well-known fact that at the present time of writing the majority of high Horn players have adopted the B flat Horn, preferring a secure and easily produced high range, to a round, voluminous tonal quality. However, it cannot be denied that no matter how proficient or artistic a player will perform on a B-flat horn, this instrument will always be recognized at once by cultivated listeners, through its certain stiffness in tonal production and in the noticeable dryness of the intervals of the lower range.

In order to do away with these shortcomings and maintain the desirable qualities of both these instruments, innumerable experiments have been made in order to combine the qualities and technical advantages of a B flat and F Horn into one instrument . . . .

. . . [The Double Horn] is the talk of modern European Horn players and bids fair to revolutionize the playing of this instrument to a great extent. . . .

While it is prudent not to proclaim any new invention as an absolute success before its practical usefulness has been firmly established, it would seem that this new Double Horn has really come to stay. Mr. Aug. Hubl, the solo Horn player of the Royal Court Orchestra in Stuttgart, after a recent test of these new instruments, said that, in his opinion, their system was the best which had ever been invented, and positively declared it to be the French Horn of the Future.

Other prominent European Horn players who have had occasion to test the new Horn agree with this opinion, declaring it as an immense advancement in the construction and perfection of the French Horn, which, in all probability would be speedily introduced into all larger orchestras and bands [Saenger, 12].

The double horn, in terms of design, did pull the valved horn even further away from its natural horn roots, but the invention clearly allowed horn players to better meet the demands placed on them with less of a tonal compromise. “Higher, louder, faster” seems to be the motto of many composers, and the double horn is well suited to performing at these extremes of technique.

Finally, while the double horn did in general solve the problem of the choice between the single F and B-flat horns, and also eliminated the general issue of the use of crooks, it did not solve the other problems of horn players. German-American hornist Bruno Jaenicke (1887-1946, for many years principal hornist of the New York Philharmonic) gave the following example in his 1927 article, “The Horn.”

The success of this invention was complete, although not quite as easy as a conductor, whom I know, thinks. Let me tell you about him. One nice day I played for him in order to get a position as first horn in his orchestra. I played the F horn then. He accepted me, advising me to use the double horn of which he had heard, “because,” he said, “it is so easy. When you want a high note you just press a button and there it is.” The good man did not know that we have to set our lips in the same position when we play the high C on the F or B-flat horn. . . . Conductors love horn players who can play high notes. A maestro once told me of a hornist who could play very high notes, and they sound like flute tone. I asked him if his flutist could play like a horn. For some reason or other he did not like my remark [Jaenicke, 60].

The double horn celebrated its one hundredth anniversary in 1997. While the controversy over the use of the F or B-flat crooks has not been totally resolved even today, certainly the double horn did much toward solving the problem, and with these instruments the modern era of horn playing was introduced. As predicted, the double horn was the “horn of the future.”

ADDENDUM: 

A few additional notes on the double horn, from an article on Kruspe by Christian Primus, “Tradition und Fortschritt auf dem weg ins 21. Jahrhundert,” Brass Bulletin 95 (III, 1996).

1. Fritz and Walter Kruspe, sons of owner Ed Kruspe, filed for the patent on the double horn on October 5, 1897. Thus, the 100th anniversary of the double horn passed on October 5, 1997.

2. George Wendler was not only principal hornist in Boston for many years and Kruspe’s son-in-law; he also later (from 1920) managed Kruspe. His double horn design, the “Model Prof. Wendler No. 6,” is still produced today, but his compensating horn was not the very first double horn produced, as has been reported in some sources (see the published version of this article, footnote 14).

3. The well-known Horner Model double horn of Kruspe was introduced in 1904. This design of Anton Horner is the design upon which the Conn 8D (among others) was based.

SOURCES

H. Eichborn, “Ein neues Doppelhorn,” Schlufs, Zeitschrift fur Instrumentenbau 20, no. 4 (November 1, 1899); illustration from p. 98.

Herbert Heyde, Das Ventilblasinstrumente (Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1987).

Anton Horner, “A Letter From Anton Horner,” reprinted in The Horn Call 23, no. 2 (April, 1986), 91-93.

Bruno Jaenicke, “The Horn,” The Ensemble News 2, no. 2 (1927), 11-13. Reprinted in The Horn Call 2, no. 1 (November, 1971), 58-60.

R. Morley-Pegge, The French Horn, 2nd. ed. (London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1973).

R. Morley-Pegge, “The Orchestral French Horn, Its Origin and Evolution” in Max Hinrichsen, ed., Waits Wind Band Horn (London: Hinrichsen, 1952).

Hans Pizka, Hornisten Lexikon (Kirchheim: Hans Pizka Edition, 1986).

Gustav Saenger, “A New Double French Horn,” The Metronome 13, no. 1 (January, 1907), 12.

Reverse tuning slides and the horn

0

I had a vague idea that there was such a thing as a “reverse leadpipe” on the trumpet, but had never really given it much thought. But a student made a comment about a horn having a reverse leadpipe, and I realized this is a topic that needs brought up in the horn world.

[Oh, and on the trumpet the leadpipe is not actually reversed; it is the way that the tuning slide is made that is reversed.]

I’d call it a reverse tuning slide

If you have looked at a few horns you will have noticed that the main slide can be made one of two ways.

Before looking at the two types, there is the question of why and what does it do? When a slide is pulled out there is a length of tube (inside the end of the slide) that is of a larger bore than the bore of the instrument. With the reversed slide, it puts that “wide” spot at a different place, and it potentially can influence a lot of things.

The standard slide

On the standard slide the tubes go in the same direction, or, out from the slide in the same manner. This horn is my Patterson Geyer, and I’ve never seen a Geyer style horn with anything other than a standard tuning slide.

Reverse slide

And now we have my Kruspe. See how the tubes of the main slide are reversed? One in each direction. And also note the reverse slide on the F horn as well, which is different than Conn did on the 8D.

What does it mean?

Horn makers work out designs through craftsmanship and trial and error.

While you could make a Kruspe with a standard slide or a Geyer with a reverse slide, for whatever reasons these two designs are better made as they are.

But that doesn’t mean it’s not something you could experiment with further. As already mentioned, a reverse tuning slide will certainly change something about how your horn plays, as it moves a “wide” spot of the bore to a different spot — a wide spot that is critical, being so close to the leadpipe. It’s a topic worth considering if you are into horn modifications and horn making.