I am not a wind player but am a musician, and yeah, that’s it exactly. Different materials are differently inefficient. The effect is called dampening - different materials sound the way they do because they dampen different frequencies. The most valued ones dampen the most bads while allowing the goods to pass (that’s a technical term ;))
A perfectly efficiently reflective material would sound like shit as an instrument. Look at early digital recordings - they sounded like shit because audio engineers didn’t know how to handle a medium that could handle the full signal of the recording.
Yep. That’s what I was getting at with my example of the wool flute. Obviously such a soft and irregular material would dampen out a huge amount of the harmonic content of the sound and leave a very muffled tone. By the same token, a hard metal like nickel is highly reflective and gives a harsher tone, while a softer metal like silver or gold is more mellow and “pretty” sounding.
Oh, I didn’t OWN it! It was the school’s. I was just the stocky, solid body with good lungs that was chosen to carry and play it (and yes, this was marching band).
And what characteristics are those? Does the silver one sound shiny? The black plastic one sound dark and foreboding? Does the steel one exhibit a touch of irony?
If I remember properly, Bird only played a plastic alto when he’d pawned his own horn to buy heroin, which happened a lot. He’d have to borrow one to play a gig (to get more money to buy heroin), and beggars can’t be choosers.
Ornette, OTOH, actually chose to play a plastic alto. No idea why. In Coleman’s early quartet Don Cherry chose to play a “pocket trumpet” instead of a traditional one. No idea why there, either. Maybe the were making some kind of statement? “You’re going to hate our music, and you’re REALLY going to hate the tone we produce on these instruments!”
I once heard an radio interview with Timothy Hutchins, the chief flutist* of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra about flutes. He got a new one every five years and it would be either silver or gold. I forget what the tradeoffs were, but he considered there was a difference. There was little difference in price, since the work involved far exceeded the cost of the metal.
Edgard Varese, Frank Zappa’s favorite avant-garde composer, wrote the lovely Density 21.5 in 1936 in honor of NY Philharmonic principal flute player* Georges Barerre’s brand-new platinum flute.
Biffy- ignore the nay-sayers. I’m with you. I’m one of those unfortunates who had to play the dreaded fiberglass sousaphone*.
Sure it’s subjective- it’s a musical instrument. For playing music. So what if you run scientific tests on it? Who cares? Are you using that data to choose the material of your next instrument? No, you’re going to go and try some out and get a, you know, a subjective opinion of that instrument.
I suppose that a manufacturer could use the information to decide on materials for an instrument, but it’s up to them to see if anyone likes it from a subjective point of view.
In fact, I still play tuba, too. I use a sousaphone occasionally. I’ll willingly carry the weight of a proper brass one. In high school, I carried a regular upright concert tuba in marching band rather than play a fiberglass sousa.
I didn’t know we had this many tuba players here.** Tuba Diva** for sure, but how many more? I should start a thread.
Didn’t you mean to say that you flouted the controversy?
EDIT: I’m a tubist, too (or at least I was, back in my high school and college days). I never noticed that there was actually that much difference in weight between fiberglass and brass: Brass is denser, of course, but a lot of that difference is erased by the greater thickness of fiberglass. The biggest difference I found was that the same damage that would give a brass instrument an ugly dent would be likely to put a hole clear through a fiberglass one, a not-inconsiderable matter when dealing with instruments handled by a bunch of teenagers. I suspect that the only real advantage of fiberglass is the initial price (when not accounting for the lifespan of the instrument).
Fiberglass sousas are 10-15 pounds lighter than brass ones. It’s not just the weight though, when you’re marching and swinging that bell around you’re gonna get a real workout. They make plastic horns too, PVC maybe, and those hardly weigh anything but probably don’t last long. I’m sure all the brass instruments are very expensive these days, there was a rash of brass instrument thefts in the news a few years back.
Sousaphones may not be a good sample for this question. I’m sure the cheaper they get the worse the sound quality is because of the construction regardless of the material.
Chronos’ link may reveal an indirect effect of higher quality instruments, the musicians may play them better. They will get the tactile feedback from the instrument and know when there are higher quality valves. It may not make any difference in the measurable tones heard by others but they may improve the immeasurable qualities of timing and control that affect the quality of the music overall and not just frequencies measured in slices of time. The effect may be nothing more than bias on the part of the musician and not playing their best when they know they have a cheaper instrument. The result will be better music, but not because of the physical characteristics of the material but it’s more esoteric properties.