Talk:Cornet

Obsolete Echo Cornet?

Should that statement about the Echo Cornet be modified? Check Ebay and Amazon to find them selling right now as new, Tristar brand. I think they are manufactured in India. Prob they were obsolete, but now they are being made again. (PeacePeace (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC))

Blühmel or Blümel or both

Hello. This edit changes Blühmel (or Blümel) to just Blühmel and I've reverted it for discussion here. Blümel is how it is spelt in the reference following this text, which seems, as a start, like a reason for retention. Further, I am aware that there have been historical uncertainties in the spelling of names, and this is perhaps one. I did a Google search, probably very clumsily, trying to compare usage whilst excluding references to Wikipedia and direct quotations from this article. I freely confess that I am a bit rubbish at this so please feel free to redo my attempt, but I got about 1000 hits for Blühmel) and about 20,000 hits for Blümel – more if I drop the umlaut but frankly I have no idea what I am doing there so I won't. At the very least I feel that there are plenty of sources saying Blümel, so we should not just drop it without comment as if it is a simple misspelling. Happy to discuss. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This could be discussed on the Friedrich Blühmel article, but this is not. I don't understand the appearance of this matter in the middle of a paragraph of the cornet article. Elfast (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Because the ref which backs up the statement shows it that way? This is why I said, just above here, "Blümel is how it is spelt in the reference following this text, which seems, as a start, like a reason for retention." So it seems to me to be weird to refer without comment to a contradictory spelling. Since there seems to be a spelling dispute over the poor bloke, why not acknowledge it? We are surely not that short of server space. However, I do not have the energy to argue with you so if you feel that committed to its disappearance please feel free to do as you like with it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Identical trumpet fingering

The modern trumpet has valves that allow it to play the same notes and fingerings as the cornet.

Not every sentence in a Wikipedia article needs to be backed up by a reference, and I believe this is one of those sentences. This is common knowledge among high brass players, or should be.

My copy of the Arban method (this one from Carl Fischer, ed. Goldman and Smith) shows a "Table of harmonics produced without valves and with the six valve combinations on instruments with three valves" on page 4.

The title page calls it "Arban's Complete Conservatory Method for Trumpet (Cornet)" which ought to lay any doubts about this issue to rest. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it common knowledge among readers who know nothing about the cornet? They are the ones who would be reading the article. Let's keep the readers in mind once in a while, not just our own desires. If it's that easy to do, please go ahead and do it rather than wait for a mythical kind soul to drop from the clouds and make it all better. By the way, the jazz project adds citations to every sentence. This has been the trend on Wikipedia for quite a while.
Vmavanti (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You have, as they say, "the wrong end of the stick". It is EASILY VERIFIABLE. Not "common knowledge among people who don't already know it" (which is logically impossible). Special-T (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific if you want to prove your point. Repeating yourself in all caps doesn't help.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

IMSLP will serve up a public domain PDF of the Arban book, with the chart on page four (page V in older editions) showing valve combinations for brass instruments with three valves, to anyone who cares to go looking. There are good reasons that those three valves do very similar things with the pitch intervals of all the instruments which use them, from trumpet to sousaphone. One of the reasons Rubank has seen fit to publish an elementary method for trumpet and cornet in one book is that their fingerings are the same. British brass band parts are mostly written in B♭ transposing treble clef to allow players to double on different instruments, including trumpet, cornet, fluegelhorn, and baritone horn, using the same fingerings for the same written notes.

A consilience of such tangential sources seems persuasive to me, but could run afoul of WP policies on original research and synthesis. Good luck finding a source literally saying "trumpet and cornet fingerings are the same" or words to that effect.

Common knowledge among a subset of the population, in this case high brass players, can be viewed within that subset as too trivial to memorialize in writing. That can pose difficulties when someone without knowledge of a subject tries to base their work solely on other writing. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I found a pdf of The Technique of Orchestration that I could download and read. This is the source referred to. In this source I read the section about cornets. Regarding my edit, the nearest to relevancy I could find was on page 137: "Everything possible on the trumpet is possible on the cornet, and the two instruments have the same range." There must be better sources than this for a simple article about the cornet.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

With the quote and page number, to me that seems like a decent source. I would call the fingering bit uncontroversial, given that both are commonly B-flat transposing brass instruments with three valves, a widely used (if not universal) system covered in other WP articles. Add it now and see what happens, or wait for other talk-page input? Your choice.

I came this close to adding the Rubank method as a reference, but WP:OR gave me pause. That one is old enough that free PDF's can be found, for those outside the US. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - I had no intention of seeming rude - ALL CAPS is bad form. Some things to consider: 1) The policy links we've provided clearly indicate that not everything needs to be cited, 2) I think that this statement falls clearly into the WP:BLUESKY category, along with all of the sentences in the lede, 3) This is, of course, a matter of opinion. Cite it if you like. I think that citing easily verifiable statements clutters up WP, but that is just my opinion. 4) The main reason it's hard to find a reference is that it is so easily verifiable, 5) I think a more valuable fact to cite is that all three-valved brass instruments use the same fingering system. Again, sorry if I seemed rude, I did not intend that at all. Special-T (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

---

References

Cornet, Trumpet, Bugle

Isn't the cornet more closely related to a bugle (basically a bugle with valves) than it is to either type of trumpet? The distinction between trumpets and bugles is the bore (trumpets have cylindrical bores while bugles have conical bores). Thus, a bugle is to a cornet as a natural trumpet is to a valved trumpet. — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Cornet mentioned in the King James 1611 Bible?

so what's the deal? Some say the cornet was developed in France in 1820, more than 200 years after being mentioned in the Biblical texts?? Why is there no mention of this in the main article since there's no distinction in the name of the instrument? 47.221.97.181 (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I had to login after since I didn't want to risk losing what I typed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the citation: Hosea 5 : 8 KJV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers (talk • contribs) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)