Maybe one of the repair folks can answer this question, then, which has been on my mind for many years.
There seems to be a consensus that though cutting a bell may change a horn, it doesn't make it worse, and, in fact, may improve it because the extra mass inhibits the sound breaking up. Bell rings are pretty heavy. I played with a set to kill time once up at Walter Lawson's shop while he was working on my horn. (Simple things for simple minds.) They also go ALL the way around the bell tail. So if they don't "harm" the way a horn plays, projects, responds, etc., etc., why do people get their shorts and panties in such a bunch about patches? Patches are much thinner metal, and few if any go completely around the circumference. An anecdote. I have an Elkhart 8D once owned by a Very Famous player. I love the horn; it is my main axe. Its bell had been cut when I bought it. Apparently Mr. Famous has very acidic body chemistry, because there are pits all over the horn, and the original bell is pitted so badly that it has a small hole in it. I got an 8D bell with Alexander rings off eBay. I also had Aaron Beck put a patch on the inside of the bell tail at the ring because some of the pits were about to turn into holes. He also put a patch at the thumb valve, where the metal was also paper thin. I cannot tell ANY difference in how the horn plays pre- and post-patching. I'm not a great player, but I do think I play well enough to tell how a horn plays. So why are patches such a big deal but cutting the bell isn't? I don't see the big deal. Howard Sanner [email protected] "Pessimists are surprised as often as optimists, but always pleasantly"--The Giant Rat of Sumatra, by Richard L. Boyer, p. 61. _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
