Talk:Cor anglais

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] abbreviation

I think it would be helpful to list the more common abbreviations for the instrument found in orchestral scores, for both readers and writers of scores. TheScotch 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pear shaped bell

I'm a bit dubious that the main reason for the 'nasal' sound etc is attributed to the shape of the bell. In fact if you played the instrument without the bell on it would sound remarkably similar. I think it's just a combination of harmonics/bore type/reeds, much more than the bell itself, which has surprisingly little effect. Or at least I think so. I don't want to edit as I'm not positive- can anyone verify either way?

I agree with you, most double-reeds, with the exception of perhaps the Oboe produce an almost 'nasal' sound. --Arithmia 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Playing the clarinet, which also produces the same timbre regardless of whether or not the bell is on, I know that the bell can't be responsible for the sound. I heard in my atonal theory class that timbre is a result of which overtones an instrument produces, which is influenced by the shape of the bore and the placement of the tone holes.

I play this instrument and it's my impression that the bell primarily affects the timbre of the lower notes (i.e. with more keys depressed), and amplifies the sound at the same time. Also, the sound of the upper notes is not quite the same, nor is the intonation the same, with the bell off. Badagnani 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] music for c/a

Hm, now I've written this, I'm not so sure those pieces by Bach and Purcell really are using the cor anglais - I think they might be the oboe d'amore (certainly Bach at least wrote a lot for the d'amore). I'll check up on it. --Camembert

Nearly a year later, and I still haven't. Sorry, I forgot. I'll do it, honest. Unless somebody else does first. --Camembert

I've taken it out - I looked around, and it seems that Purcell asked for a "tenor oboe", which would've been similar to the cor anglais, but apparently not exactly the same. I've not checked up on Bach, but I think it's a similar situation - the cor anglais stands in today, but isn't necessarily what was originally written for. I've not looked into this very closely though, so if it was right all along (or at least close enough to right to be worth putting in the article with a proviso), then it should go back in, of course. --Camembert

[edit] Name and French Horn

The most likely explanation for its name is that "cor anglais" is a corruption of the French term cor anglé, meaning "bent horn." This misunderstanding gave birth to another one, the naming of the French horn, which is actually of German origin. How did the first misnomer cause the second? Mark1 21:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Kent Kennon mentions the "angled" theory in his Orchestration and dismisses it. At best this phrase "the most likely explanation" is point of view, although I'd personally be inclined to call the explanation just plain erroneous.TheScotch
According to the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the instrument was invented in Germany (possibly by J. Weigel of Breslau) after 1720; the earliest form of the instrument was curved and was thought to resemble the horns or trumpets played by angels in medieval paintings, hence it was called Der Engellische Horn, "The Angelic Horn". But in early 18th-century German, Engellische also meant "English" (Modern German: Englische), and so the term was mistranslated into French as cor anglais, into English as English Horn and into Italian as corno inglese - Eroica 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, I don't know any composer of that period who called it that; I think Bach called a similar straight alto oboe in F the Taille. Badagnani 08:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Grove and the OED define the instrument (the English horn, that is) as a tenor oboe, not as an alto oboe. TheScotch (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COR ANGLAIS

I'M DOING THIS FOR HOMEWORK AND I CANT FIND THE WRIGHT ANSWER I'M LOOKING FOR...

I CAN'T FIND ANY INFOMATION ON WHERE YOU COULD FIND A COR ANGLAIS

BY JARRYD

Try a music store, or a seller specializing in oboes. Badagnani 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Quit shouting, and spell right... and is this really a homework assignment? --Clorox (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cor Anglais v. English Horn

An interesting thing I've noted is that in the US it's most often referred to as an English horn, yet when I was in the studio in London, it was called a cor anglais. Is this the more common name elsewhere in the world?—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they don't serve French toast or French fries in France.TheScotch

It's cor anglais. We've conceded colour, flavour and a whole load of other English terms to the Americans, I'm not going to concede cor anglais. Although English horn in used commonly in America, it is far too ambiguous for my liking to newcomers to classical music. Everyone has the idea of the French horn stuck in their head when you say horn that 'Horns' equates to the French horn. When they read: 'The solo of the Largo of Dvorak's 9th Symphony is played on the English horn', do you think they'll imagine an deep oboe sound or a horn sound? Please, please use cor anglais. Centy 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since cor anglais is simply French for English horn, your argument makes no sense whatsoever. It's true that English horn is not a very descriptive name, considering that the instrument is not particularly English and is not a horn, but translating English horn into French can only make matters worse. TheScotch (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's return to BassBone's question. According to Grove, in France the instrument is called the cor anglais. In Germany the instrument is called the englisches Horn, Englisch-Horn, or Englischhorn. In Italy it's called the corno inglese. So no, cor anglais is probably not more common (especially considering that the Americans greatly outnumber the English and are more influential), and in all these places we simply have translations of English horn into the respective languages.

Back to Centy: Note that both Grove and the Encyclopedia Britannica favor the term English horn for English usage. Note that the earliest instance the OED found for cor anglais is from 1870, whereas it gives an example of English horn from 1838. TheScotch (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above, I move that the name of this article be changed to "English horn", to which "cors anglais" can redirect (and of course it will give cors anglais as an alternate name for the instrument). TheScotch (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cor, not cors. And I'm of two minds about your proposal. My first instinct is to support it because English horn is what I've generally known it to be called, but if it's more commonly called a cor anglais in certain English-speaking places (e.g., England!), then it seems perfectly valid, if not preferable, to keep that as the title of the article. I definitely suggest we not be hasty. (The redirect works well enough, after all.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I had never heard of an "English Horn" until I played in the US. I instinctively prefer cor anglais because it is what I am used to, and because phrases such as "an English horn player" are ambiguous (could be a person from England who plays the French horn or indeed any of a number of other species of horn). But I am prepared to concede if we can find references to its widespread use. I note that Merriam Webster does not list "cor anglais", and OED only lists "English horn" as a translation of cor anglais. (Cors anglais is of course the plural.) So there is almost no overlap of usage. While US may outnumber British speakers, these are not the only two anglophone countries in the world. What do Canadians, Australians, Indians and other speakers of English use? In any case I would like to insist that usage be consistent throughout the article. At the moment it switches confusingly. Rachel Pearce (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "and because phrases such as "an English horn player" are ambiguous":

It's rather frustrating to have pointed out repeatedly that cor anglais is simply (and very obviously) French for English horn and therefore couldn't possibly be less "ambiguous" than English horn and not have this point at least acknowledged.

Re: "(Cors anglais is of course the plural.)":

And my use of it above was of course a typo--a circumstance that should have been obvious considering the many times I wrote cor anglais.

Re: "I note that Merriam Webster does not list "cor anglais", and OED only lists "English horn" as a translation of cor anglais....So there is almost no overlap of usage.":

You don't seem to be paying attention at all here: Grove and Encyclopedia Britannica, both of which, as I pointed out, clearly prefer English horn are British, and this is telling.

You're also misreading the OED. It does indeed list English horn (not merely as a translation of cor anglais) under the very lengthy entry horn, and as I also already pointed out it strongly suggests that the term English horn preceded cor anglais in English by several decades at least. TheScotch (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Firstly, please don't shout. Secondly, I don't think the phrase "a cor anglais player", in a passage otherwise written in English, would ever be construed as "an English player of the French horn", so I do feel that cor anglais is less

ambiguous. Thirdly, you made the same typo twice so I just wanted to clarify (I didn't notice that all those previous comments were from the same person). Fourthly, I was not "not paying attention at all" regarding the dictionaries. I was relying on the online versions (can't afford the real OED) so so yes, apparently I made an error here. Fifthly, I don't have access to either Grove or Encyclopaedia Britannica, but I did not, in fact, argue with your points about them. However I can tell you that use of the term "English horn" has completely died out in the UK. And finally, I am prepared to concede (which doubtless we will have to anyway in the US-dominated institution that is Wikipedia) but argue strongly for consistent use throughout the article. Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I don't think the phrase "a cor anglais player", in a passage otherwise written in English, would ever be construed as "an English player of the French horn", so I do feel that cor anglais is less ambiguous.":
I am obviously not maintaining it would be construed as such. I am obviously, rather, maintaining it would be construed by anyone with the slightest brain particle in his cranium as French for English horn and thus no less ambiguous than English horn. How many times do I need to say this? TheScotch (talk)
I will ignore the abuse. The point is that in the phrase "a cor anglais player" it is clear that it is the instrument to which the adjective applies, not the player. If you say "an English horn player" then many (most people) might picture someone with bad teeth and a French horn. Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: "However I can tell you that use of the term "English horn" has completely died out in the UK.":
You can say that, but I don't see how you can know unless you are intimately acquainted with every single speaker and writer in the United Kingdom, and Grove and Britannica (I checked up-to-date editions) would seem to be evidence to the contrary. Cecil Forsyth's Orchestration (Forsyth was very British) also uses the term English horn in contradistinction to cor anglais--although his book is from the earlier part of the twentieth-century (I don't know at what point you are maintaining English horn "died out in the UK").
I am not of course intimately acquiainted with every single speaker and writer in the UK. But I do know that every single British concert programme, CD case, music score etc. that I have seen has used the words "cor anglais" rather than "English horn". I had never seen or heard anyone describe themselves (or anyone else) as an English horn player (other than, say, Dennis Brain) until I moved to the US. I am 45 years old. Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to think also that it's fairly silly (if not actually affected) to use a French term in English when there is a precisely equivalent English term available. I'm inclined to suppose the very British Henry Fowler (who devotes an entire section of his The King's English to this sort of thing) would not approve. For the record, even though I'm American, I'm not generally prejudiced in favor of American usage. I'm happy to adopt British terms when I consider them useful. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the expression Wednesday week, for example. The American next Wednesday doesn't really suffice; no one is ever sure which Wednesday one means. TheScotch (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not being anti-US usage either, but it is not affected to use a French term in British English. There are many. But in this case it is more than that, it is _the_ words for the instrument used in the UK. I believe that many French phrases were expunged from English in the US, on your argument that they are silly and affected. But they persist in British usage. Wikipedia documents English usage, whether it is silly and affected or not, not as you or I might like it to be. Anyway, as I say, please let us at least have consistent usage throughout the article.Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Whew, this seems like much ado about very little. Three things worth noting, if I may, and then a proposal. First, the reason cor anglais is less ambiguous than English horn was illustrated by Rachel Pearce earlier in this section: in certain sentences, the meaning of the latter may indeed be subject to misunderstanding, while the meaning of the former is always unmistakable. Second, despite its name and its origins, the Encyclopædia Britannica has long been published in the United States and sold primarily to a North American market, so it's not surprising that it prefers the American form. Third, for what it's worth, the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, published in the UK but sold widely in the U.S. and many other countries, has cor anglais as its main entry, with a redirect at English horn. I propose that we give this some more time, and let more editors weigh in, before seriously considering a change. (If I were feeling a bit more puckish, I might suggest rolling the whole article into an Alto oboe section in Oboe, which is the way the Harvard Dictionary of Music handles it!) Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "First, the reason cor anglais is less ambiguous than English horn was illustrated by Rachel Pearce earlier in this section: in certain sentences, the meaning of the latter may indeed be subject to misunderstanding, while the meaning of the former is always unmistakable.":

This is complete and utter nonsense. If you know what an English horn is, the name will not confuse you. If you don't know what an English horn is, it likely will confuse you because you may assume that it's some kind of brass instrument and that the English part is somehow suggestive. Similarly, if you know what a cor anglais is, the name will not confuse you. If you don't know what a cor anglais is, it will likely confuse you because you may assume it's some kind of brass instrument (cor) and that the anglais part is somehow suggestive. The chief advantage to English horn, however, is that it's English, whereas cor anglais is bleedingly obviously French. It would be very different if the British name were tenor oboe--or even ténor hautbois.

Re: "I propose that we give this some more time, and let more editors weigh in, before seriously considering a change.":

If we weren't "seriously considering a change" right now, there would be no point to this discussion whatsoever, and naturally I brought this up to encourage "more editors [to] weigh in", which ought to have gone without saying. I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with the responses so far. TheScotch (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing

I have removed the brief sentence on the pricing of a new cor anglais. This is not suitable for an Encyclopaedic entry, unless there is something notable about this. For instance, the excellent article on Timpani makes no mention of cost. Additionally, it is most likely that prices vary greatly around the world, and this would be difficult to reflect with any reasonable accuracy. Dancarney 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC).