Talk:French horn

Length of tubing

The third paragraph states that the horn has "26 feet of tubing, the longest of any instrument". I think this estimate takes into account, not only valve slides, but also assumes that both the F and Bb sides are completely independant, when, in fact, they share a good deal of tubing (leadpipe, bell and last branch). The open F side is 12 feet, and the open Bb is 9 feet. I think this should be made clearer, the way it's stated gives the impression that the horn is longer than a BBb tuba (18 feet).

Yes, I'm having the same problem with this claim. I think it should be more like 20-21, with the BBb tuba being about 22.5 if you throw in the standard 3 valves, and even longer with the 4th/5th valves common in professional tubas. --Rschmertz 22:37, September 2006 (UTC)

I've found nowhere on the Internet supporting the 26 ft claim -- except the numerous copies of this Wikipedia article that are out there -- but I did find a site with a figure right around what I was guessing (I actually did some math to come up with 21 ft.) We need a horn professional to get a damn tape measure and just measure the amound of tubing he/she has. Not sure if the double horns come in two versions -- one where the thumb valve switches between two body loops as well as selecting which valve slides come into play, and the other that only selects the use/non-use of a single body loop (as well as selecting blah blah blah). If so, I'd guess something like the former would be used by most professionals, and we'd need to get the lentgh for that. --Rschmertz 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mellophone

"The mellophone is, in appearance, very different from any of the above types of horn, but it is nevertheless used in place of the horn in marching bands."

While many marching bands substitute the mellophone for the French Horn (unecessary in my opinion as I once marched with a bell-front French horn in a drum corps) it is a very different instrument. The tubing is more like a trumpet than a horn in that it's ratio of conical tubing to cylindical tubing (2:3) is nearer to the trumpet than the horn and the tuba (3:2). (Argh. I can't find an on-line reference for this. Will update with text reference later) The mouthpiece is also that of a trumpet as well; the interior of the mouthpiece is cup shaped rather than more cone-shaped in the case of Horns.

Also of note is that the mellophone is pitched an octave higher than the horn (F alto). Therefore, for any given note, the partials are twice as far appart, making it much easier to play. This also causes problems with unplayable notes in the low range. I've occasionally run into marching band arrangements that assume the range of a horn and request notes that fall in the gaps of a mellophone's range. Btwied 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

"Only in the United States, Canada, and the U.K. is the horn known as the "french" horn." See the Horn Players' FAQ: [1]

Zamiel, Feb. 9, 2004 (sorry. My wikki-fu isn't such that I can make an e-mail link yet)

Cor anglais

I removed the statement that the French call the French horn a cor anglais. I am almost certain that the instrument the French call the cor anglais is the same instrument the English call the cor anglais (ie, an instrument related to the oboe). As far as I can tell from scores, dictionaries, etc, the French just call the horn a cor. It's possible it was once called the cor anglais I suppose (it's often suggested that anglais is a corruption of the french for angled or bent), but it certainly doesn't seem to be in wide use any more - it would be too confusing. --Camembert

You're right. Well spotted. It's the "cor d'harmonie" in France, I think. To distinguish from "cor de chasse" -- Tarquin

You were completely correct Camembert. The Cor Anglais is the English Horn. Agnès

These are the first several sentences of the analogous article in the French version of wikipedia: "Le cor d'harmonie ou cor français est un instrument à vent de la famille des cuivres. Même s'il a un air de parenté avec le cor de chasse, le son de cet instrument est très différent. Il est tantôt majestueux et triomphant, tantôt doux et légèrement mélancolique. Le cor d'harmonie est présent dans les orchestres symphoniques et les orchestres d'harmonie ; il est par ailleurs souvent sollicité dans les musiques de films héroïques. L'embouchure du cor est de petite taille et de forme intérieure conique, différente de celles de la trompette et du trombone qui sont hémisphériques et plus larges." They suggest to me that the horn goes by three names in France: cor, cor d'harmonie, and cor français. Since the English call the English horn the cor anglais, however, I think the French should substitute for cor français the term French horn. TheScotch 08:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of instrument

What does this mean?

It is generally known in the rest of the world as simply the Horn

Rest of the world to what???? :) Nevilley 08:17 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

no response to this. I've removed it as it did not make sense. I am not well up enough on horn terminology to be sure what was meant and whether it would have been correct even if clearly expressed. Maybe someone can fix it, if it needs fixing? Nevilley 07:24 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think what was meant was the 'French Horn' as we call it isn't really a french horn. It's supposed to just be the Horn. Maybe what that statement was getting at is that most of the world actually calls the instrument by it's real name.

Image format problem

Is the PNG really a PNG? I wanted to edit out the page number, but can;t get anything to open it. Suggestions please??

If you use a Mac, try GraphicConverter. I'm on Linux, so I use the GIMP. I think it's available for Windows, too. Anyway, I took care of it for you. See also Image talk:French-horn.png -- Merphant

Yes, so I see, and thank you for that helpful intervention. Nevilley 09:27 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

"Lip-blown"?

The French horn is a lip-blown brass instrument ...

Aren't all brass instruments lip-blown? -- Merphant

yep, it's part of the definition. Nevilley 23:10 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

To-do list

(Note: this is derived from the section "Removed To-do list" that was removed in March 2003. I've renamed it to To-do list as of, well, today. --Rschmertz 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Common Ensembles
- trio
- quartet

Concerti
- Classical
- Romantic
- Modern

The Orchestral literature
- Richard Strauss
- Sight Transposition

common ensembles: include quintets as well- brass quintets (2 trumpets, Horn, Trombone, Tuba) and woodwind quintets (Flute, Oboe, Clarinet, Bassoon, Horn)

Usage?

Every horn player I know is trying to eliminate the usage of "French" from the name, why can't it be done here? A quick paragraph of explanation would suffice, I'd think. When my students call a set of bells a "xylophone" I correct them - people need guidance to learn something new. -- Lundmusic 02:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ermm dunno, good question. I don't know enough about horn terminology to say anything much, but one issue that will come up is that common Wiki one of having things where they may easily be found - so as many people DO call it a french horn, it needs to be findable under that. Also "horn" is tricky for here as it has so many meanings. It would be interesting to hear from other brass players and especially horn players on this, but I feel that you are probably on the right track as long as it stays easy to find "french horn". Certainly some more clearly (strongly?) worded note on usage might well help - the link on this Talk page, at the top, to the horn players' FAQ has some good material for quoting! --Nevilley 08:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Horn" vs. "French horn"

I've moved this page from French horn to horn (instrument), since the "French" is increasingly deprecated. I'll be fixing the double redirects (and, at least to some extent, the single redirects) in the next couple of days. --bdesham 18:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The way to fix a double redirect is to edit the redirect page itself--in this case, French Horn redirected to French horn (the old title), and changing it so it instead redirects to Horn (instrument) (the new title) makes all the links work again (I've done this now). Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't edit all those articles anyway if the term "French horn" really offends you, but it's not necessary if all you want is working links. --Camembert

I object to this change. The instument has been known as the French horn in English for practically ever, and whether or not some people would prefer otherwise, I think this page should remain under "French horn". Wikipedia isn't the proper format to help institute linquistic changes like this. --B. Phillips 02:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a linguistic matter, but is instead the recommended term to use from the IHS (for discussion see also [2]). Among horn players it is rarely referred to as "french". On all music parts that are placed in front of us we rarely see the words "french horn" but most often see just horn. Other musicians usually refer to is as just the horn. All this said, "french horn" is not a bad word, but it is inaccurate. It is still ok to hear it being called that and in fact listening to recordings of Philip Farkas talking he referred to it as french horn and horn. I agree that wikipedia is not a place for linguistic changes, but it is a place to reflect accurately what the most correct term in use is, which is just "horn" at this point in time. Horndude77 05:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be no surprise that the International Horn Society refers to it as simply the "horn", it being international and needing to find a consensus amoung all the different names for it in different languages. Should we go about renaming all the entries for similarly named instruments, the English horn, for instance? It should also not be a surprise that almost everyone refers to the French horn as merely the "horn" -- when they are all within a musical context. Outside of a musical context, like the International Horn Society or Horn Player or what have you, further classification is needed for the lay reader. Shall we move the corresponding French page to "cor", "d'harmionne" not being neccessary as English speakers have no use for their superfluous adjectives? I don't know whether the "horn" movement is motivated by merely wanting to advertise a more specialized insider status or simple Francophobia, but I will not stand by as Wikipedia surrenders to either. --B. Phillips 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down—Wikipedia isn't "surrendering" to anything! We're simply adopting the nomenclature used by the people who know the instrument the very best—the people who play it. --bdesham 04:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is my very concern! If you read carefully, I've stated in so many words that it is inappropriate to change the common, English language name of the "french horn" to simply "horn" if not only because most people, especially those who are strange to it and are looking at its Wikipedia article, know it as the "french horn". Taking a music community context like The International Horn Society as a benchmark is not acceptable, as Wikipedia is an extra-musical context. If we were to use your logic for everything, we should be changing the Krishna page to the My Sweet Lord page. --B. Phillips 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems pretty dead now, but I'd still like to respond with an analogy, for what it's worth. Tsunamis have often been called tidal waves by laypersons, a less exotic and more accessible word. Yet the article is at tsunami, because tidal wave is patently incorrect, misleading and discouraged by oceanographers (as the article states). French horn is patently incorrect, misleading and discouraged by musicians. Wherein lies the difference? EldKatt (Talk) 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest most lay people don't call it anything at all :-) Musos almost without exception use "horn", and music for horn is also styled "horn concerto" rather than "concerto for French horn". This article also covers the cor de chasse and Vienna horn, so I really see no problem with the move, given that a redirect is in place. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of the persons who do call it something it's pretty fair to say that non-musicians call it the French horn and musicians formally call it the horn. I think it's also reasonable to say that the horn is formally the correct term, but I also think it would be appropriate for the first several sentences of this article to acknowledge that the instrument is widely referred to by lay persons (and informally by musicians) as the French horn more strongly than it now does. The way it stands now, a lay person may not even immediately realize what instrument is being discussed here. TheScotch 09:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes all points are vaild, but I agree with TheScotch. At least some acknowledgement of the fact that it can and is (albeit incorrectly) called a French horn. Unfortunately, the public isn't going to change its perception of something instantaneously. -Hornandsoccer 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the current state of the opening paragraph confusing and inaccurate. My best guess is that it's the result of a compromise on the name of the instrument, but it doesn't clearly establish the name. I'm bothered by the fact that "horn" and "French horn" are used interchangably throughout the article. I'm personally in the "horn" camp, but I think we should be consistent. I suggest that the article open with something along the lines of "The horn (commonly referred to as French horn) is a brass instrument..." and thereafter stick to "horn." Also I think the information on French and German names for the instrument is wrong. I am currently in Austria, and if I tell people "Ich spiele Waldhorn" ("I play hunting horn") they look at me funny. The German name for the instrument is "das Horn." Similarly, I've played a fair amount of French music for the horn, and it is always called "le cor;" I've never heard of "cor d'harmonie" before. I also wonder why the German and French names of the instrument are so important as to be mentioned in the first paragraph; I can only assume that this was an attempt to compromise on the naming controversy, but in my opinion it just sounds bad.

Sorry, I forgot to sign this post. It was I (btwied) two or three weeks ago. Btwied 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited the opening paragraph in accord with my above concerns. People should let me know if they disagree.Btwied 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♥I play the french horn, and I call it the french horn. Then again, I've only been playing a year, and I'm in 7th grade. I'm not really an expert on the instrument. It does make sence why people don't like the name, since the horn is not french. However, the word horn is also used quite a bit (at least by my band director) to refer to brass instruments, mostly the trumpet. It can be a little confusing, honestly. By the way, in most of my music, in the corner it says "F Horn" or "Horn in F". I'm guessing that's because the french horn is in the key of F, except when you play the double horn, and it's F and B^b Kate 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, French horn does seem to be the name most young musicians give the instrument. As you age, you will probably cease to do so formally. The trumpet is a horn in a different, broader sense of the term, more or less in the way that a suling is a flute (not a great example, but the best I can think of right now off the top of my head--sorry). The "F horn" notation is to show that the part is not written in concert pitch. The convention is to leave up to the player whether to use the double horn or not, and thus the same transposition (in relation to concert pitch, that is) will always be employed. TheScotch 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I've just edited the opening paragraph in accord with my above concerns. People should let me know if they disagree.":

I realize you're trying to group your remarks together, but I would find it easier if all comments within a discussion page section were kept in chronological order.

Re: "Confusion often arises between hornists and non-musicians because of the different names for the instrument, but in the 1960s the International Horn Society declared the instrument's official name to be the 'horn.' ":

I think it's okay to reference the Society's declaration within the article, but I'd suppose the confusion to be on one side only. I'm tempted to remove the entire clause and just start with "In the 1960's..." It would sound a lot more authoritative if we had an actual year. TheScotch 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, oh. From the International Horn Society's web site: "The International Horn Society (IHS) was formed in June 1970 at the Second International Horn Workshop in Tallahassee, Florida, USA." TheScotch 08:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today at http://www.hornplanet.com/hornpage/museum/history/intro.html I found this: " 'The International Horn Society recommends that "horn" be recognized as the correct name for our instrument in the English language.' [From the Minutes of the First General Meeting, June 15, 1971, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.]" TheScotch 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingering chart

Would a horn player please add explanatory commentary to the fingering chart? Thanks. Opus33 17:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this the standard format for a fingering chart in Wiki? I'm a long time horn player and am used to seeing fingering charts (not just for horn) shown as a chromatic scale with the proper fingers listed below rather than the notes playable listed for each fingering combination. The currently posted chart is a nice chart to look at from a physics perspective, but my musical side took a while to get used to it. I think the chart should be changed... I'd be willing to do the work and add explanatory commentary (Opus33's original request). lkawamot 10:34, 20, Oct 2004 (PST)

That would be great. Opus33 17:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should not the last staff be labeled "F123", instead of "T123"?

Yes, that final staff should be labeled "F123" lkawamot

The reason they changed the name was because the horn isn't from France at all...it's from Britain, and originated as a hunting horn. Do your research.

Move some parts out

It seems that the list of well known horn players is in a constant state of flux with some being constantly added. I don't recognize many of the names. When I first created it I just brought it over from the german wikipedia page. It would be nice to explain why these people are noteable in the horn world on their pages before adding too many more names. It would also be more than nice if people added stub pages for horn players they add to the list. Otherwise all we have to rely on is a quick google test which usually tell me nothing about the person besides the fact that they play the horn. I've tried to create stubs for some of the more noteable (farkas, strauss), but I'm extremely slow at doing so due to lack of time (and some ambition).

That said, I would propose that we move the list of horn players, list of horn literature, and the list of horn manufacturers to their own pages as the german wiki has done. It would also be nice to also create the category of horn players (and maybe horn stub if we have enough articles, but let's not get carried away). If there are no objections I'll start taking care of some of this in the coming weeks. I think this would improve the article immensly as it's become too large. Other clean-ups for later. Thanks! Horndude77 00:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that much of this work has happened. The article seems much more manageable with these parts broken off into their own seperate pages. I would like to submit this article to some sort of place on wikipedia for it to be cleaned up even more. I don't really want to submit it to articles needing attention, but that may be a good idea just to get it noticed. What I would like is just to get other people who look at pages for proof-reading and quality-assurance reasons to help improve it. It would be nice if within a year the article was up to a standard to submit it for front page material. Anyways if there are any opinions or ideas put them here. Thanks! Horndude77 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Range

Im pretty sure the horn can go higher than the First C above the staff. I've only played for four years and I can play higher than that. I personally have seen a G in the ledger lines above the staff in a piece for horn.--Esmason 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All printed and online sources I can quickly look up at the moment (such as [3] and [4]) give approximately this range (written pitch). I don't have any practical experience with the horn, so I can't tell whether you might be capable of going higher than that. If so, I assume it's not normally comfortable, stable and well-sounding. If not, you might be misreading something. EldKatt (Talk) 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The horn can, indeed, go above the C above the treble staff (written C6); however, it is considered to be the top of the range in common practice settings. Some pieces, as have been noted, do go above this, not the least of which is the first horn part of Robert Schumann's Konzertstuck for four horns and orchestra. melizabethfleming 23:00, 1 February 2006

One comment I've heard before on this subject: yes, it is possible to play that high on the horn (I might add that there is no physical upper limit), but most of the time it's pointless. Give the high notes to the trumpets. If you want a more hornlike sound use a cornet, flugelhorn or even bassoon. High horn playing is demanding! Horndude77 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm quite sure that some horn players can play up to about a G above the staff without chipping or making it sound terribly ugly. Only the young 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a mention should be made in the article that it is possible to play higher than C6. (or, for you concert pitch people, F). The range as is posted on the sidebar should remain the same, as it is the common practical range, but it should be noted that higher notes are possible, but mostly occur only in excersizes, and not in the established repertoire. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Low register

You have left off an entire octave from the LOW range of the instrument. The commonly accepted range for the instrument is four octaves: written C two ledger lines below the bass clef to written C two ledger lines above the treble clef. See the fingering resource #2 mentioned above. While not commonly used in the wind band repertoire, in orchestral rep the horn is sometimes the lowest instrument in the ensemble, usually as written in the second or fourth horn parts. In fact, an excellent addition to this article would be the common practice of writing for the horn in pairs; 1/3 high, 2/4 low. As a fourth hornist in a symphony orchestra, I frequently play in this lower octave.

Talented players can play outside the four octave range in both directions, but such parts are rarely called for in the standard repertoire. Please correct the "Playing Range" graphic accordingly. sorry, not registered 22:25, 18 Apr 2006 (UTC)

A few horn players can get as low as the second written F sharp below the bass clef. Shostakovich wrote for even the first horn to go down to the written E flat below the bass clef, and orchestral fourth horns routinely play that low or lower, so the graphic should mark the normal range at least down to that low E and the potential range probably at written pedal C. 205.188.116.9 07:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I aggree. I have only been playing for about three years and I can even get much lower the the F below base clef. I'm sure that it could get to the seventh below that F in fact.Bull911 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single orchestration and band scoring text I've checked gives the range of the horn as three octaves from C to shining C. The highest possible pitch is limited by the embouchure of the individual player. Three valves make possible a diminished fourth below the low C (to F#), but these pitches are normally thought to be of poor quality. There is a big difference between possible range and usable range. Any notes lower than this F# are pedal tones: The normal lowest pitch in an valve (or slide in the case of the trombone) position on any brass instrument is actually the second harmonic, and especially skilled brass players can sometimes play the fundamentals (depending on the player and the instrument). Note that the standard range of the trumpet and trombone is only two octaves and a diminished fifth. Note also that higher pitches are easier to play on the double horn, which is essentially an F horn and Bb horn combined. TheScotch 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestration texts are not written by players of the instrument. I am an experienced horn player that can assure you it is not at all unusual to use the pedal tones of the b-flat division-that is, F down to BB. I realize this is unusual among brass instruments, but the horn conforms to few other brass-family norms, either. 24.166.21.230 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am so glad that the range of the horn is only three octaves. I guess when I play the fourth horn solo in the third movement of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony next weekend that I can just omit the notes that fall outside of that range. You better lay off the scotch "TheScotch." 15.235.153.105 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Orchestration texts are not written by players of the instrument.":

Presumably pretty much all orchestration text authors play at least one instrument or another. I can't think of a horn player orchestration text author off of the top of my head, but, for what it's worth, my undergraduate Wind and Percussion Scoring professor did happen to be an accomplished horn player, who also endorsed the three-octave range. Neither he nor any orchestration or band scoring text I know maintains that it is impossible to play beyond that range on either end, of course, or that it is never done, only that this is a reasonable practical range to cite. If it's a reasonable practical range to cite in an orchestra or band scoring text, it seems to me to follow that it's a reasonable practical range to cite in wikipedia. TheScotch 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I guess when I play the fourth horn solo in the third movement of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony":

Um...Beethoven didn't write for the valve horn. Horns with crooks will necessarily have different (differently transposed, that is) ranges. TheScotch 10:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching horn or Carriage horn

Would it be appropriate to include information on the coaching horn, the yard long horn most often seen today in royal events. Also the fox hunt horn? Or do you think of this as a pseudo trumpet? David 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coaching horn and hunting horn should be mentioned. The "yard long horn" seen in royal events isn't a horn at all, it's a ceremonial trumpet (with valves). Bivalve 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types

What about descant horns? Or are those the "triple" horns?

... a descant horn is a special instrument, shorter in length, which is pitched an octave higher than the standard horn.

why aren't they on there?

they are. Descant horns are included in triple horns. The length doesn't actually make you play higher than a regular horn, it is just easier to get high notes in tune.

Well, descant horns are actually separate instruments than a triple. A descant horn is generally a type of double horn that includes the B-flat horn of the traditional double and an F-alto, a horn that is half the length of the lower F. A triple horn combines the low F and B-flat horns of the traditional double while adding the F-alto. The shorter "horn" on the triple and descant horns, as noted above, doesn't really make you play higher, just facilitates it. --Melizabethfleming 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horns in communications

There should be something on this aspect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partials

"The horn typically plays higher in its harmonic series than other common orchestral brass instruments, where the partials are closer together (and harder to distinguish), making the horn one of the more difficult instruments to learn." What does this mean? The article on partials didn't make this sentence clearer. --Gbleem 13:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on harmonic series is probably more useful to you to explain this. The fundamental note of the horn is further away from the normal playing range than a trumpet or trombone or tuba's fundamental note vs. normal playing range. As you can see from the harmonic series article, the higher you are in the series, the closer together your notes are. Horns start higher in this series than any other (common) brass instrument. 134.139.218.240 04:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The partials of the instrument means (like it said) what notes are able to be played with a certain fingering. On the usual brass instrument, there are two or three notes (depending on how you see it) able to be played in the middle, normal octive: the root note (the note a certain scale is started on,) the fifth above that (the fifth note in the same scale) and the octive above the root note. However, on the french horn, there are five notes able to be played in that octive. However, since the octives are the same length apart as a normal brass instrument, the partials are closer together (or more sensitive to pressure the lips exert). This means that much of the time a horn player uses to practice is spent on learning and getting used to the feeling of each parcial.

The problem posed by the horn is much worse on the octive above the middle octive. There are six or seven partials on the same octive (I never took the time to find out) and to add to that, the student or developing player is much more worried about keeping sound going in the high register than to try to aim for partials. This is one major reason why the double horn was developed. The trigger changes the pitch of the entire horn and moves the partials down a fifth. This means that the partials that are further apart (in the higher part of the octive) are now in the place of where they used to be closer together.Bull911 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the root note (the note a certain scale is started on,)" This is not what the term root means. Chords have roots; scales do not have roots. TheScotch 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Horns start higher in this series than any other (common) brass instrument." They are expected to go higher in the series, but they do not "start" higher. The horn's low C is the second harmonic of the open position just as the trumpet's low C is the second harmonic of its open position, just as the trombone's low Bb is the second harmonic of its closest slide position. TheScotch 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as there are some errors up there, the bottom (fundamental) octave has one harmonic, the second has two, the third (starting on written middle C for the F side) has four, and the fourth has eight. 24.166.21.230 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slides

Trombones have slides. How is the word slide being used here. --Gbleem 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Horns, the word "slide" is used to refer to all of the tuning slides on the insturment. I'll try to make it a little more specific. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Trombones use slides to change the length of the tube to make different notes. This same principle is used, but in much smaller incraments as to tune the horn.

red link removal/notable horn player section

I see that all of the links that didn't go to anything have been removed, added, and removed again. Is there anything wrong with keeping them? It would encourage their creation if they stayed. Also I see no reason to keep the notable horn player section here as it is just a subset of the list of horn players page (or it should be at least). I'll take care of this in a few days if I don't get any responses here. Horndude77 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of horn players in the Horn article should be kept. It gives the names of some of the most famous ones. The average non-hornplayer reader would be interested in seeing these without having to go to the other article. But I don't think it would be good to have the long list of hornplayers in the Horn article.

But then again, the articles for violin, trumpet, and piano don't contain the lists of players of those instruments in the actual articles.

(Despite my username, I agree that the article should be called Horn. Just look at the roster in the program book or website of an orchestra.)

JBFrenchhorn 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Horn Players

I'm questioning the entry of Robert Hill under Notable Horn Players. I can't seem to find any information about him that makes me feel he should be listed with world-class musicians such as Farkas, Baumann, and Brain.

"Inside/outside" horns?

A recently added paragraph touches on something worth mentioning in the article, but otherwise seems to be only about 30% accurate from what I can tell (but I'm neither a horn player nor a music historian, that's why I'm editing Wikipedia....)

My understanding of the 1st/3rd and 2nd/4th pairing goes like this: In days of yore, it was considered impossible (perhaps it really was impossible with instruments of the time?) to play well in both the high register and the low register. Therefore, horn players trained to be either high horn players or low horn players, and that would be what they played for their careers, rarely if ever switching. Since it was common in music of the time to have horns paired high and low, sometimes using just one pair, the custom developed of having the 2nd horn be the more skilled of the two low horn players; the third horn player would be a high horn player who would reinforce the first when a full section was called for, and the fourth would reinforce the second. I've never heard anything about "outside" and "inside" players as mentioned in the new paragraph, and it doesn't really seem to follow logically. Anyone else heard of this? Am I close on the history here? --Rschmertz 06:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, orchestral hornists still specialize as either high or low horn players, and I'd never heard of the inside-outside thing before either. I would suppose, however, that the popularity of the double horn would make specializing less important. TheScotch 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also never heard of the inside outside thing. Perhaps it was done from time to time (just like all sorts of crazy seating arrangements today), but I don't believe it was common. We should probably remove the paragraph or add a more detailed section on horn seating. Also the reason for the pairing of 1-2 and 3-4: Look at some of the orchestral scores of brahms for why this is the case. Brahms very often had 1-2 in one key and 3-4 in another. For example in his first symphony (C minor) horns 1-2 are in C and 3-4 are in E-flat (horns 3-4 are higher pitched here). This let him get a better variety of notes out of the horn section since they had no valves. I once played a piece by berlioz (I think it was him) that even had all 4 horns in different keys. Horndude77 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what my horn teachers have told me, TheScotch, although some horn players may specialize as low horn or high horn players, horn training is aimed at making players accomplished in both registers. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, I still think "In pre-valve orchestral music, the traditional pair of horns were generally divided as a "high" horn and "low" horn" should be altered to read "Orchestral horns are traditionally grouped into "high" horn and "low" horn pairs." I don't think there is much question that the practice continued into the valve horn era and continues, at least to some extent, today, but even if it didn't, the traditionally would still have us covered. (We also save twelve syllables this way, and every word tells.) TheScotch 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth

That comment should have been m:eo:Korno (muzikinstrumento). Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Horn

Vienna Horn was just added to the related insturments list in the infobox at the top of the article. Should it be there? It seems to me to be pretty much the same instrument, but I've never played one. Has anyone here played a Vienna Horn to know how much different it is between it and a regular horn? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

I haven't personally played one, however, I do know the basic differences. Like the article says, the main difference is the use of the Pumpenvalve, which affects how the air is redirected through the tubing. This is part of what gives the Vienna Horn a legato sound. The bell is also flared differently. Finally, instead of the modern horn mouthpiece, a traditional mouthpiece is used. Yes, they are essentially the same instrument, just developed in two different ways-Hornandsoccer _Contribs ^Talk 16:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We might want to explain more of that in the article, which makes it seem like the Vienna Horn is a regular horn with different shaped valves. If there are more differences, we need to elaborate on them in the article. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Ummm.... Product Placement???

I think it is a bad idea to list popular models under the 'double horn' section. There are different horns popular everywhere, and professionals use a wide range of models, so listing popular models will become a list of all models that appear to be popular in one area. I think we should remove this from the article, as it is not particularly relevant to a basic understanding of the Horn. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Early History / Hunting Horns / Coaching Horns

At the moment there is nothing in the text about medieval hunting horns, which were, of course, actual cow's horns. There's an image of huntsmen sounding these instruments, but nothing to explain what they are. (Incidentally, the image is a 19th-century copy of a picture from Gaston Fébus's 14th-century hunting manual: it would be better if we could have a photo from a contemporary manuscript.) The metal hunting horn was a later development. Possibly there should be separate articles on "hunting horn" and "coaching horn" (="carriage horn" = "posthorn"): these could give appropriate coverage to those types of horn used as signalling instruments; this article could then focus on horns used as musical instruments. Bivalve 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it sounds like you know more about this than the rest of us combined. Maybe you could add some of what you know? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Stopping Link

User:Musanim added a link to French Horn Stopping: Why the pitch shift?, which appeared to be a page within his own site. OK, spamming is badbadbad, but it seems like very interesting and relevant material. Can anyone vouch for its accuracy (or dispute any of its contents)? If it's accurate, it seems like a perfectly legit link which I would add back to the External Links section, even harvesting a bit of it, copyright issues permitting. --Rschmertz 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems pretty good. There is still a debate on what actually happens to the pitch/harmonic/etc and why, but this article covers well the current theory (as I understand it). I think it should stay.Csdorman 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Hornandsoccer ^Talk 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult instrument

I have been undoing edits by an IP concerning the sentence The horn is considered one of the most difficult instruments to play.[citation needed], the last sentence of the lead paragraph. This got me thinking-how does one judge the difficulty of the instrument? Each is difficult in a different way. I have been reverting, but I will not do so any longer as I will be in violation of 3RR if I do, but still, I think this warrants discussion. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I agree with 206.253.149.92, that sentence is just one person's opinion, with no sources or substance to back it up. It's a perfect example of Generalization using weasel words. CiaranG 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew one conductor who would say "yes, it's a difficult instrument, isn't it?" when he wanted to be just a little bit insulting. Seriously though, I think that this opinion lingers from the days when the horn was a different instrument from what it is now; lots more character, but notoriously treacherous from the point of view of cracking notes and intonation. I'm not a horn player myself, but my impression is that the modern horn has evolved into a much smoother, more reliable instrument. To quote Alan Civil: "nowadays you can get working models ... which ensure that all the notes that used to be bad on, say, Alexander horns are easier to get. The tubing has been ironed out and the notes are in the centre ... but in doing this they've produced a metal instrument without much character." So I think it depends on what instrument you go for; a modern Conn is one thing, but if you stick to an old hand-horn for Beethoven, say, then yes, it's going to be difficult. --Stephen Burnett 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The horn is hard to play, especially in comparison to the other brass instruments. It has the smallest mouth peice and is held in a very different position from almost all instruments. The fact that it's a brass instrument makes it hard as well. You have the same fingering for several notes and only your ambrosure decides which of those notes you play. I do, though, see the point that Stephen Burnett made about the statement being from the early days of the horn when they were still using crooks, and had to use there entire right hand to change notes instead of just three fingers on your left. I'm not really sure whether the statement The horn is considered one of the most difficult instruments to play.[citation needed] is true or not.

Almost everyone I have talked to agree that the Horn is one of the hardest instruments to learn to play. I have talked to many band directors who have had to learn how to play every instrument to get their music education degree, and they all say that the hardest instruments they had to learn were the Horn, the Harp, and the Oboe. There are numerous reasons why this is true, including a very exacting embouchre, an unstable playing position, a long bell that makes timing difficult, a conical shape that makes tuning difficult, and closely spaced partials that make as many as six fingerings for each note. I know that switching from trombone it took an hour to even figure out how to play the same note twice, and it took a week to figure out how to play the easiest scale. The Horn is definitely one of the hardest instruments to learn, and I think it is worth mentioning that in the article. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Notable players

The three players on the end of the list don't seem to be very notable. I have not heard of them. Could someone either vouch for their notability or remove them from the list? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs