I have removed the "tenorshawm horn", on the grounds that I don't believe it exists (it was originally listed at list of musical instruments also, but has been removed from there). If anybody knows what one is, I'm dying to know, so lets hear about it! --Camembert

I suspect it's a tenor shawm, which was a medieval reed instrument, not a brass instrument. I think it's a "horn" only in the sense that an "English horn" is a horn. -- Someone else 02:40 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

I know of the shawm, but thought this must be something different, as it was placed under "brass". Writing a shawm article is one of those things on my "to do" list. --Camembert

Blessings upon you. I think a good title might be "Instruments that sound like a bleating goat"<G>. -- Someone else

Heheh - it's "strident", that's all. They had to have "strident" instruments in those days, because they hadn't invented the microphone yet ;) --Camembert

Is there any benefit to saying that "brass instruments" are part of the category "brass instruments"? I mean, maybe some systems of logic permit this, but I find it counterintuitive. Ok if I revert? Thanks, Opus33 19:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno - is it useful that clicking it takes you to a short list of everything else in the category? I quite like that. If that is a useful feature then it should stay. Like a lot of the changes that have happened it does move us further towards a nice unified approach to finding similar stuff, rather than huge individual articles' "see also" lists or depending on the article saying "the flugel is a bit like a horn and a bit like a trumpet and a bit like a cornet and not much like a cornetto etc etc" ... hmmm not sure. I know what you mean about the set logic approach, yes, but I do quite like the indexing benefits. --Nevilley 20:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nevilley; I think you're right we should keep it. Cheers, Opus33 22:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

people say that a bell shape amplifies sound, and they were used in phonographs, too. it doesn't seem likely to me that it could actually amplify, though, being just a passive piece of material in a specific shape. can anyone explain the (apparent) amplification? - Omegatron 03:35, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, from what I have gleaned off the web, the bell/horn shape does amplify the sound, in that it increases the amplitude of the sound waves, although it does not introduce any enery into the system. This makes sense; as sound waves resonate in the horn, they travel from the small end to the big end. By the time they leave the horn their amplitude is as big as the bell. I am guessing that the flared bell gives kind of a cheat by increasing the amplitude a lot at the end. Also, the shape of the bell affects the sound in complicated ways that I know nothing about. In addition, the bell shape serves to focus the sound in a particular direction. Here is the Google search I did and two links to some explanations. Hope that helps, Merphant 14:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. still doesn't make sense to me.  :-) - Omegatron 14:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... Is it just a matter of more efficiently converting vibration into sound? The vibration that isn't converted into sound becomes heat? Probably. I am rusty on the physics, but I imagine it takes the same amount of energy/power/whatever to drive a 1 gm sphere as to drive a 1 gm plate. But the plate would move more air. Obviously some of your energy goes into "wind resistance" which I guess is the same thing as converting that energy into sound. But what becomes of the extra energy? Heat doesn't sound right. - Omegatron 04:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this entry lists a mouthpiece as an essential part of a brass instrument. I disagree. A conch shell with the tip ground off has no need for a separate mouthpiece in order to be put into use as a brass instrument. Nor does the didgeridoo. Both instruments are, I believe, properly classified as brass instruments, since their sound derives from lip vibration causing oscillation of a column of air in a tubular or conical resonator. What makes an instrument "brass" is how its sound is produced, not what material it is made of -- as is already noted in the article -- nor the details of its construction, such as the presence or absence of a mouthpiece.

I will go ahead and edit the first paragraph, to address two related problems. First, the definition of brass instrument currently lists a mouthpiece as a defining feature of the type, which it is not, as is implicitly acknowledged later in the article by the listing of shofar and conch as brass instruments, even though these usually do not have mouthpieces. Second, the definition further specifies a cupped mouthpiece as a defining feature. This is even more clearly incorrect, as the mouthpiece of the French horn provides an obvious counterexample.

I will make two other modifications. I will make mention of the term labrosone, used as a synonym for brass instrument by Anthony Baines. I will also add didgeridoo to the list of other brass instruments. Rohirok 04:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)