Re: English Bore Baritones


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

Posted by Mike Solms on October 12, 2001 at 07:32:14:

In Reply to: English Bore Baritones posted by LV on October 11, 2001 at 18:01:35:

There are several issues here. As far as three-valve vs. four-valve, my own opinion is that the fourth valve is not necessary. Most brass band arrangers are smart enough not to take the baritones to the bottom of the bass staff (concert pitch) very often. They have the euphs and Eflat basses to cover this range. If you play in a brass band for five years you can figure the fourth valve will cost you about $20 for every low B natural you will play. The four-valve Bessons are also, I think, rather uncomfortable to hold- there is a lot of tubing scrunched into a pretty small space.

As far as Yamaha vs. Besson, I had a Besson 757. The "700" series is a step below the top of the line "900" series. Over a dozen people did a side-by-side comparison between that horn and both the three and four valve Yamahas. Without exception, every one thought the Besson was better sounding, more responsive, and easier to play. As another poster mentioned, Bessons can vary from horn to horn. I picked mine from a selection of three. Two were quite good and one was definitely a notch below in playability.

The "900" series Bessons are, in my experience, a bit more responsive and darker sounding than the 757. The difference is much less that the difference between the "700" and "900" series euphoniums, though. The added stuffines when you employ the compensating tubing seems to me to be a bit greater on the smaller-bore baritones than it does on the euphs. If I were going to try to make a living playing baritone (?!), I would have gone for the three-vavle compensator. I didn't feel the extra money was worth it in my case. I've had no regrets about picking the 757.


Follow Ups: