Re: Horn trends 4/4's


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by dp on January 27, 2004 at 12:08:52:

In Reply to: Horn trends 4/4's posted by Kyle Turner on January 26, 2004 at 20:35:30:

like Rick I was intrigued by this post, especially because of its attribution. It surprised me because (if memory serves) I have NEVER seen a player in one of the bigs express such a clearly focussed opinion on this site.

Some thoughts: After hearing a large ensemble performance, strangers unfamiliar with a specific instrument like the tuba seldom seek out an individual player to complement them...unless of course they're a featured solist or something. Far and away it is friends, or students, or other tuba players who give the feedback "from the hall."
Of course a littler horn is more notice-able (assuming of course you are playing it loud enough to be heard over/through the rest of the ensemble.) The sound is more focussed, and many feel it is more suited to much of the rep, the presence of a bevy of double-basses and celli notwithstanding.

What confuses me is why it's necessary to point out that a little horn in a large orchestra has suitable use, just as a huge horn in a large ensemble has suitable use.
My first thought was (I confess) "duh!"

Of course either horn can be limiting (though that should be VERY uncommon at the level of an NY-Phil chair-holder), just as either horn "size" has "historically" been "made to work" in days of yore.

It seems like the poster is weighing in on some "who needs a bat" idea to initiate dialog about it, with the disclaimer that he still uses a BAT for Mahler or Bruckner (which is by some folks another matter for debate entirely.) The question in my mind still though, is "why?"


Follow Ups: