What tonal characteristics have been lost since the demise of the keyed instruments?

A discussion between Michael Keller and Kenton Scott

Kenton

I’ve not really gotten it figured out, but it seems to me that the smaller keyed horns use only the middle and upper register of the instrument. [My old orchestration book by Cecil Forsyth gives approximately 2 octaves for the keyed bugle, but 3 for the ophicleides.] Only the Ophicleide is called upon to play its lower register. And, in the middle and upper registers it have a sweet legato sound with only a few notes that are thin. The lower range used by the Ophicleide is another story. It is sometimes a challenge to keep it from resembling a tone deaf bovine. (There was a double bass ophicleide and if it worked, it should have put typical bass ranged parts in its middle and upper register.)

Michael

For keyed bugles, the "sound" is not at all like that a modern bugle. The tone is much more like that of a flugelhorn. Dark, with fewer prominent overtones.
However, I’m not so sure that it’s the sound per se, but rather the attacks and articulations. Although the mechanism is most like a modern saxophone, rather than starting and stopping a reed, the same tonguing of a cupped mouthpiece on any brass instrument is used.

However, the associated ‘pop’ that accompanies many note changes is lost, as valves change the instrument length with any associated pressure. Keys merely change the physics involved, shortening the instrument without any implications. With a modern trumpet, from the initial tone the use of valves makes the tone played LOWER. In contrast, with a keyed bugle, from the same initial tone the use of keys usually makes the tone played HIGHER. (there is one exception to this; the very last key is normally open, and used by itself closes off even more horn and makes the tone a half-step lower).

The articulated last key that is open at rest on an ophicleide.

Thus. a modern horn ONLY plays lower, while a keyed instrument plays higher. This makes the keyed instrument far more nimble than a modern horn, which requires a player to ascend to ever higher fundamental partials to play the same music.

Kenton

It does seem to make sense to compare it with the fluglehorn, as the US bugle is not nearly so conical as some European bugles, fluglehorns or keyed brass. I also agree that much of the sound we associate with modern valved instruments comes from the nature of the attack on the notes and while it has more similarity with the saxophone – the attack is even less pronounced than it is on the saxophone. The saxophone at rest has most of its keys lifted. The keyed horns have their keys mostly closing the holes. So the attack on the notes is softer than on the saxophone where the keys are pressed down with some force. On keyed brass they are lifted off the hole.

I’m not sure about the nimbleness assertion. Maybe I don’t understand it. I would think nimbleness would come from a combination of ‘user-friendly-ness’ of the fingering system and certainty of the note to sound. On the keyed brass, while the fingering system does take advantage of using finger on both hands, it does so in less than intuitive patterns – some of which are not at all convenient to use. And, only some notes sound easily and comfortably, others the player has to convince to come out.

Michael

Unless the listener is within a few feet and can actually hear the mechanical noise, I submit that it makes no difference. You are usually using some combination in both cases. What I was talking about was the "feel" to the player, which is of the same magnitude as a player comparing the feel of piston valves vs. rotary valves. The net effect is that the change in notes is easier to accomplish without such a pronounced difference. Flutists, clarinetists, oboists and bassoonists should know exactly what I mean.

[regarding nimbleness]

One needs to learn the key pattern on a par with any wind instrument. I would assert that bassoon fingerings are far from intuitive for a brass player, but that doesn’t stop thousands of people from taking up the bassoon every year! The nimbleness does not so much come from the use of keys instead of the use of valves mechanically (although it does, marginally), rather, from the fact that a keyed brass is an ascending instrument. Thus, while players of valved instruments struggle hitting high notes consistently, a keyed brass player can easily hit an octave higher than the played note just by hitting a lever. A bugle, if you will excuse the expression, becomes just as easy to master as a saxophone in it’s own way. Contrast the number of really good jazz saxophonists with the number of really good jazz trumpeters whose forte is NOT playing high only, and you may get some idea of what I mean!

To take another approach, take your trombone, for example. You have to hit Bb in the bass clef, F in the bass clef, and Bb just above it. You can do that very early on in your trombone career. How long must you practice to hit the Bb an octave above that and higher with any certainty? How long must you learn slide positions, proper distance, alternate positions, and wrist flexibility to play all the notes? Now contrast that with a Bb ophicleide. Almost immediately you have the full range required, and all you need to do to properly hit a note is push a key lever down. Your attention is therefore directed toward intonation and sound. Much the same as a wind player’s is now. It changes the whole character and challenge of playing a brass instrument!

Kenton

Here is a chart of the ranges of the keyed brass family. Please note that the range for the ophicleides is one octave greater than the bugles.

Just as a point of reference, here is how the Bb cornet’s range is listed.

Do you think that the keyed mechanism adds to the darker sound of the keyed brasses. i.e. if you start with the same natural instrument, and put valves on one and keyed on another, will the keyed version still have a darker sound?

Michael

I think that for instruments of the same bore, the resulting over-all sound would be very similar. However, two additional circumstances come into play with keyed brass, though. One, the change length is not accomplished by a sudden valve change, rather, I perceive the node of the note as shifting back/forward as a key is open/closed. Second, I think that conical bore instruments are much more receptive to pitch "adjustments" made by the embouchure. At a time when computer modeling, mathematics, measurement standards, and production process were far off , I think that a more conical bore lent itself to the process making an approximation, and then refining.

Kenton

Something else that strikes the (brass) player, but probably not the listener is that different notes sound from a different part of the horn. This may be true for other keyed instruments, I don’t know (bassoon, bass clarinet, etc.) I would suspect that the effect is less noticeable on keyed bugles where all the holes are closer to the player’s ear, than is the case on the ophicleide. The more resonate notes seems to come from the bell, while the more troublesome notes seem to sound from a hole.

Part II – Using Bb/C ophicleides

Are there settings where one pitched ophicleide is preferable over the other or is the music better covered by having a mix of differently pitched instruments?

Michael

In the orchestral music that I have performed, C/Bb ophicleides are definitely the way to go.
I have performed with two instruments of the same key when necessar
y, but using a set of both C/Bb in a work like the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, where the composer obviously knew what he was doing, makes the most sense.
In tutti passages, the stronger notes of one compensate for the weaker notes of the other.
Passages in the March to the Scaffold, which can be challenging on tuba, are easy and characteristic played on the C Ophicleide.
The Dies Irae in the Witches Sabbath sounds much spookier and like serpents in a church, taking advantage of the raspier sound of the ophicleide.
I would imagine that military music would enjoy the same advantage if both Bb and C ophicleides were available.

Kenton

In the music you referenced, were the original parts designated for C and Bb ophicleides, or was that a conclusion made by players that that was the way to go?

Michael

I believe, in some instances, doing research does indicate that composers such as Berlioz indicated their preference in correspondence, at the very least, that Bb AND C ophicleides were preferred. But one does not often perform from facsimile parts in an orchestra, because the repertoire has had a multiple century life. Corrections, additions, and edition changes have been made over all of these works. One thing that has NOT changed is the human ear. And it is my assumption that, when available, the use of both were to be encourage, whether specified or not, because it certainly sounds more advantageous to my ear.

Kenton

You have heard, I suppose, how to make two oboes play in tune??? One might be tempted to try a similar remedy on multiple ophicleides, except that don’t burn so well! Grin

Michael

Well, I can say from practical experience the it takes too long to burn an oboe. A shredder would be much more effective and satisfying. A stout shredder would probably work on ophicleidi, as well! Grin

What to you have to relearn/unlearn to play a keyed instrument?

Michael

Personally, I needed to learn to rely on my fingers instead of my chops. In a modern brass instrument, with the exception of the lowest registers, a very few fingers are needed in a small set of variations. Most of the changes occur in concert with embouchure changes. On a keyed instrument, suddenly many fingers on both hands are responsible for making the required pitch. The emphasis changes from a physical orientation to a mental one. Because of the possible combinations of keys/partials, I found that for each horn I had to make up my own fingering charts for each instrument containing all of the alternate fingering possibilities that I found, including lower key shadings. By studying a work for orchestra, for example, I was then best able to identify the best pitch by cents to be used in a performance.

Kenton

The fingering always struck me as a blend between playing a woodwind, and a brass instrument. In one respect, you did have to use both hands like a woodwind, but like a brass instrument, most of the notes were fingered with a simpler set of fingering combinations. Unlike a woodwind, certain combinations were used repeatedly. The left hand works much harder than does the right hand on an ophicleide – except when playing the low octave. And, it is the right hand notes that are much more of a struggle to sound satisfactorily.

Michael

It is simpler because one has less keys… but one’s fingers have direct control over the use. One can easily see the relationship between opening notes further up the horn, and a higher pitch. Also, there is no automatic key opening/closure, so if you need to close these pads to make this higher note more in tune, you see that.

Kenton

Learning how to finger the instrument does seem to be an individual endeavor. And, while some notes are fingered the same on every model, others will require some experimentation to determine the characteristics of the horn, the effect of the mouthpiece, and presumably the character and preferences of the player.

Michael

I’ve found that alternate fingerings can be invaluable, in tone color, intonation, and especially fast passages.

Tell me about the mouthpieces that work best on keyed brass instruments?

Kenton

Nick Byrne’s wonderful playing is mostly in the upper register of the horn and he is marketing and presumably using a mouthpiece with these dimensions: Mouthpiece vital dimensions are:

• Inner rim diameter=25.5mm
• Rim width=5.30mm
• Rim contour=Flat
• Cup depth=c.30mm
• Total length=66.0mm

Which seems to make it a very short mouthpiece with characteristics otherwise much like a Schilke 51D

Michael

Most contemporary ophicleide mouthpieces that I remember are on the smaller side, and shallow. Look at the bore of the instrument: almost a baritone profile (and not a euphonium!). For ophicleides I’ve used an unmarked (probably Austrian or such) baritone-sized mouthpiece for keyed ensembles. For use with modern ensembles, I’ve used an early Bach 6 1/2 AL with the small shank for orchestra, and a Mount Vernon Bach 3 for smaller ensembles. These give the tone enough of a bite to compete with more recent horns. The throat in the 6 1/2 let me push enough volume to compete with the trombones in Berlioz. For keyed bugle, a good flugelhorn mouthpiece does the same thing. The one thing to remember about keyed brass is that the mouthpiece is more about sound and pitch flexibility, not playing high. And just like modern instruments, it’s the relationship between THAT player and THAT horn that makes all the difference.

Kenton

I agree with what you are saying, with maybe an exception for the ophicleide. Unlike the other voices, the ophicleide is asked to be – in a sense – two instruments in one, due the fact that it has an extra low range not available on other keyed brass. Because of the fact that its lowest octave – actually provides a acceptable sound that is not in the range of any other keyed instrument, using a single mouthpiece is not ideal for its full range.

Michael

I don’t disagree with you. My experience has been primarily orchestral, and I’ve know in advance the range and facility required for a particular part, and chosen a mouthpiece accordingly. Much the same is true for tuba parts in general for the symphony. The instrument "tuba" had meant so many things to so many composers that until the middle of the twentieth century, it is not standard to play a single instrument or mouthpiece for all parts that you may encounter, even if one has the extended range required.

Are there some characteristics of keyed brass that are lost on modern valved brass instruments? What flaws distracted from their overall success?

Michael

Listening to a keyed brass ensemble sounds to me very much like listening to an group of flugelhorns and baritone horns. Although we have the general capability to approximate the sound now, it remains lost for a number of reasons. Even before one gets to the instruments, the popular music and marches that they played has mutated so much as to be unrecognizable. The events and reasons that these instruments were used has changed. And the instruments themselves evolved in an entirely different direction. The highest instruments themselves tend to be a mellower, darker sound than equivalent brasses today. Part of that has to do with the need to bend a fixed pitch into tune in any key. The bass instruments, however, more approximate cornet or baritone bore- remember that there were limits to pad size, especially back when these instruments were popular. The maximum size was the same, whether for a bugle or a bass. Upper notes tended to be very much brighter, due to the shortness of effective tube length. For classical music, keyed trumpets were but a brief fling. For military use (which as important for keeping a steady march) the key mechanisms and pa

ds proved to be very delicate in the field. Almost as soon as valves were invented, despite their initial drawbacks, they were much easier to maintain and allowed brighter, more treble-sounding bore horns to be developed. Valves also allowed the over-the-shoulder construction which made larger horns more practical, more audible, and aided in the band’s mission of providing transportation direction and movement in unison.

Kenton

I have to ask about: Quote: Even before one gets to the instruments, the popular music and marches that they played has mutated so much as to be unrecognizable. . I’m not understanding this statement. Certainly what constituted popular music then is nothing like popular music now. But, they style of military music for example, is still very similar to traditional marches played by bands of today. Certainly some of the way that the music was classified then – hop waltzes come to mind – are not generally recognized, but the music itself has a comfortable and recognizable form. I would be interested in hearing more about the orchestral role played by the keyed trumpet. My sense is that the orchestra never wanted nor accepted the more mellow voice of the cornet, and therefore it makes sense that the orchestra would not want the even darker sound of the keyed bugle.

I was thinking more in terms of the military bands that existed before the use of keyed brass… which was much more limited. Until brasses became chromatic, there was a very different kind of march sound… and one without much bass! (Where did I put that contra-bass fife!?)

Kenton

n lieu of the contra-bass fife, they did use a bassoon. (I wonder when the bass clarinet showed up?) Have you ever seen a contrabass Ophicleide? I haven’t but, there were ones made in Eb and F and probably would have been useful for overcoming some of the shortcomings of the lower range of the ophcleide.

What needs to be done, other than brushing off the dust, to an ophicleide to make certain that it plays at least as the manufacturer intended?

Michael

(Skipping the obvious joke about what the manufacturer thought an ophicleide should sound like) While in a best-case scenario, all that you may need to do is blow the dust off, I think that this depends on the intention of the player to leave the instrument in original condition. Certainly the pads need to be brought back to playing condition at the very least. My view is that no matter how you try to re-moisten the century-and-a-half-year-old leather pads, you will damage them in using the instrument. Just blowing into the horn will introduce long-absent moisture. Therefor, if one intends to perform, in order to preserve the originality, the pads should be removed, cataloged, and saved. New, modern saxophone-type pads may be mounted temporarily, are available in a variety of sizes, and will remove at least one variable as you start to play. You also have no guarantee that the pads were maintained in an acceptable condition, even if they look OK. New pads will also give you the proper resonance for open notes. The same principals which have evolved 150 years for saxophones are true for keyed brasses. The mechanisms need to be regulated, as does the distance for the final (open) key. There is no guarantee that the key shafts/screws will disassemble after all this time, and care must be taken not to damage them. For an ophicleide, one must be sure that a proper neck strap and holding spacer is available for proper space and key access.

If stuck in, the mouthpiece needs to be removed properly, in order not to damage the mouthpiece or crook/bocal. The crook/bocal itself may have to be unfrozen and lubricated, in order to provide the necessary tuning capability.

Finally, a suitable case or bag need to be constructed for transportation of any kind. In doing this, the key mechanism must be protected from both the weight of the ophicleide and outside interference.

Kenton

An alternative to the neck strap, is the bassoonist’s style of strap that is sat upon and attached to the horn near the bottom crook. The keys on keyed brass seem to be less precisely controlled by their mounts than on say saxophones. Is the issue of air tightness the same as it is to the saxophonist? Or are keyed brass less sensitive to that factor?

Michael

I have not run accross a seat strap, but perhaps I lead a sheltered life :>) As long as no force is put on the key mechanisms, even if one lets go, I can see where that would work well. I would venture to say that it is at the same time less sensitive and more so than a saxophone in sealing issues. Less sensitive, since one is already hearing some raspiness in the sound of an ophicleide, and more so since the key mechanisms are nowhere near as highly developed as even the most poorly manufactured saxophone today. This makes careful regulation all the more critical, not only for the increased time of wear on a vintage instrument, but also due to the lack of rigidity in most key actions.

What do you do differently if you want to use a keyed brass instrument in a modern ensemble as opposed to keeping the horn true to the manufacturer’s intentions?

Michael

Without a doubt, replace the pads with the same size saxophone pads. Vitally important. Technology has advanced more than a century, and, unlike wind instruments, you are dealing with pads that are normally closed. They also allow the notes to resonate properly, require little maintenance, and will allow for slight movement in the mechanism. Put cork wherever there is metal-to-metal contact, so that there is no clicking sound in the action, and reduce wear. Pick a modern bowl and throated mouthpiece, so that you give the horn a fighting chance to be heard. And large enough to be able to make intonation adjustments that will be needed from playing the horn so far from it’s intended dynamic range. If you do change the horn, catalog each change and retain any replaced pieces.

Kenton

At least in military music, there are parts for Ophicleide 1 and Ophicleide 2. Ophicleide 1 takes the baritone role, and Ophicleide 2 takes the tuba role. Playing such parts is facilitated by using different sized mouthpieces.

How are keyed brass used in conjunction with modern instruments, and how does that differ from current use with period instruments? [Is that the question?]

Michael

Perhaps more like "What is practical with modern instruments?" To my ear, I’m not sure that the keyed bugle is, except as a solo instrument. While it can be played forcefully, the tone over much of it’s useful range is dark, and will be overshadowed by the modern large bore trumpet/cornets. The ophicleide, with it’s smaller bore, and using a modern mouthpiece, can hold it’s own as a bass with trombones, but again, in music that was orchestrated for it. The raspy edge of some notes is not successful in sectional work with the low brass, but can be highly effective for those transitional works that use it to their advantage.

Kenton

It would not make much sense to use keyed brass in ensembles using modern instruments and not playing music which specifically had keyed brass parts. In music that had parts written for keyed brass, it seems like keyed brass should be given the first shot at them. And, they should be considered whenever period instruments make up the ensemble, no matter the music. Another issue with mixing modern and keyed instrumentation is intonation. Valved instruments can adjust main and individual valve slide to bring the instrument into tune. keyed brass – like woodwinds – only have a limited ability to adjust pitch. a main adjustment can be made, but all the keys stay in the same position and they are only ideally positioned for one pitch. I believe that one of the reasons

that keyed brass were retired was due to their inability to compete in volume with valved brass. And, while they may be able to be forced to higher volumes, I believe their ability to be played reliably suffers.

Michael

It depends on the player, their facility with the instrument, and the setting they are in. The bass trombone player that was with the symphony I played in could move his slide back and forth to about 4-5th position and still maintain a relatively steady Bb if he wanted to show off. The only thing that suffered was the sound. If the player is strong enough and can play the end of Fantastique clearly, I think that the usage in a modern orchestra is far more appropriate than a modern tuba. An orchestration master like Berlioz was using exactly the sound that he wanted, even if it was rarely available.