Posted by David on January 09, 2002 at 13:24:38:
In Reply to: 'Why Brass?' posted by Dan Schultz on January 09, 2002 at 12:41:40:
This comment is not scientific.
It has been my experience that the overriding factor in the manufacture of musical instruments is "tradition". Buffet introduced a composite clarinet, the Greenline, of pulverized grenadilla wood and a special epoxy to hold the stuff together and then compressed under high pressure. It is still available but is not a wild success.
Even if a new material is found that matches the tonal characteristics of brass, the traditionalists will almost surely sink the concept, at least initially. Look at the design of the Marzan tubas. It was a good idea, just 20 to 30 years ahead of it's time. Now many horns have the valve section put on a slight angle to be more user friendly. There have been fiberglas sousas - lighter but don't project as well; aluminum french horns with rubber ferrules - too bright sounding; solid nickel horns - Conn 8D and St. Petersburg tubas - one works well, the other not as well; solid silver - works for small instruments but too dark and expensive for the larger ones; solid gold - whew, what a cost for a tuba but really dark sounding; high copper content - adds to beauty but makes the instrument darker sounding; bronze anyone?; carbon fiber for the entire horn? has anyone tried?
Making instruments out of different materials in a new and different way is going to happen. We just have to be open to the idea that something new has the potential to be good and not poo-poo the idea just because it's different. Look at some of the mouthpieces on the market today........