Subject: TROMBONE-L digest 304 Date: Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:01 AM From: Multiple recipients of list To: Multiple recipients of list TROMBONE-L Digest 304 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Instrument Choices by "Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD" 2) ' list has been a l'il boring lately... by "J & D Sellmansberger" 3) Re: Instrument Choices by "David A. Schwartz" 4) Re: Instrument Choices by Gabriel Langfur 5) Re: Instrument Choices by "Dr. Carole Nowicke, Applied Health Science" 6) Re: Instrument Choices by "David A. Schwartz" 7) Re: Instrument Choices by Roger Hecht 8) Re: Instrument Choices by "David Guion" 9) Re: Instrument Choices by BJMCHAFFIE@aol.com 10) Re: Instrument Choices by "Chris Tune" 11) Re: Instrument Choices by 12) Re: ' list has been a l'il boring lately... by "Chris Tune" 13) Re: Instrument Choices by "Dr. Carole Nowicke, Applied Health Science" 14) Re: Instrument Choices by Raymond Horton 15) Re: Instrument Choices by Howard Weiner 16) Re: Instrument Choices by Roger Hecht 17) Re: Instrument Choices by Roger Hecht 18) Re: Instrument Choices by Raymond Horton 19) Re: Instrument Choices by Chris Dearth 20) Re: Instrument Choices by Chris Dearth 21) Re: Trombugle Update ' list has been a l'il boring lately... by "Chris Tune" 22) Re: Instrument Choices by Johannesmader9@aol.com 23) Re: Instrument Choices by Gabriel Langfur 24) Re: Instrument Choices by Gabriel Langfur 25) Re: Instrument Choices by "Chris Tune" 26) Re: Instrument Choices by Gabriel Langfur 27) Re: Instrument Choices by 28) Re: Instrument Choices by Raymond Horton 29) Re: Instrument Choices by Howard Weiner 30) Re: Instrument Choices by 31) Re: Instrument Choices by Modelerdc@aol.com 32) Re: Instrument Choices by Jeff Albert 33) Re: Instrument Choices by Modelerdc@aol.com 34) Re: Instrument Choices by "Jim Lee" 35) Re: Instrument Choices by "David Guion" 36) Re: Instrument Choices by "David Guion" 37) Re: Instrument Choices by "Jim Lee" 38) Re: Instrument Choices by "Jim Lee" 39) Re: Instrument Choices by Raymond Horton From: "Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD" Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:54:44 +0100 To: Roger Hecht , Chris Tune Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3928] Re: Instrument Choices I have to ask this, sorry. I'm an old timer, but some of you guys are really geezers! In this thread you've been talking about the recent trend to "bigger is better." But you're relating anecdotes from 30 to 40 years ago. That doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. Do you suppose it's always been this way, and we've always complained about it? If not, when did this recent trend start? -----Original Message----- From: Roger Hecht [mailto:rihecht@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 17:41 To: Chris Tune Cc: jhfloyd@earthlink.net; mail@gothicway.fsnet.co.uk; TROMBONE-L@server5.samford.edu Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3917] Re: Instrument Choices Chris Tune wrote: > It seems to be some sort of "syndrome". That's the only way to put > it. When I auditioned for Lewis Van Haney on a regular Conn 8H with a > 6 1/2 AL mouthpiece, I placed very, very well in my audition for USC. > Now I imagine that means I got a very good sound for orchestral and > other similar situations (opera, etc. ). Now, I get the feeling that > players are told, or feel that Conn horns are too "light sounding" and > that a 6 1/2 AL mouthpiece is simply WAY TOO SMALL. Of course, it > probably IS TOO SMALL if you have very large lips. Check yourself out > in the mirror: If you have large, large lips try larger mouthpieces. > If, like many, you have medium or smallish lips, then try starting > with the smaller mouthpiece sizes. The piece should basically be > "comfortable" and allow you to produce sound. In my days with Remington, I remember him complaining about conductors, and how they were pushing trombonists (including some of his students) to play louder and louder and darker and darker. This really upset him (at least in his comments to me). In his world, where a lyrical sound was so important, an 88H and a Remington mouthpiece was all you needed and what (again, in his comments to me) he insisted I play on. If I recall (and others might correct me), he didn't like to see his students with Bach horns and he didn't like us playing even 5Gs. Of course, it was a losing battle since it was the conductors who paid (in a manner of speaking) the salaries. For what it's worth, I went the big equipment route. In each (back when I played bass and now on tenor) case, I pulled back--actually to a 2G on bass, though I wasn't much of a bass player. On tenor I played some heavy stuff and a big mouthpiece. It was Gabe Langfur who heard me play on this stuff who in the course of a conversation noted that I sounded like my equipment was too big/heavy for me. A light went off when he said that (his comment was solicited). Apparently, I must have suspected same--and I began the trek back to the much lighter and in the case of the mouthpiece, smaller, stuff I play now. Ironically, with a Shires 2RVE and a Wick 5ABL, I'm close to where I was in my Remington days and playing much more in the style he taught than I was on the heavy artillarly. Now, without question, both in terms of playing and the more lyrical, slightly brighter sound I get, I far far prefer the Shires and Wick to the Conn and Remington (I struggle with the latter combination), but the wisdom of what Remington said back then, however pedantic it may or may not have been, rings very true for me now. Roger Hecht From: J & D Sellmansberger Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:04:21 -0600 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3929] ' list has been a l'il boring lately... ...' time to spice it up a bit: http://www.thedukesofdixieland.com/videos/dod-01.wmv http://www.thedukesofdixieland.com/videos/dod-02.wmv http://www.thedukesofdixieland.com/videos/dod-03.wmv For you young-uns and you equipment nerds, that's Fred Assunto and his dad, Papa Jac Assunto. Those are F. E. Olds "Super" trombones. Imagine: All of THAT - and without an axial flow valve! ;^0 From: "David A. Schwartz" Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:17:20 -0500 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3930] Re: Instrument Choices Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD wrote: >I have to ask this, sorry. > >I'm an old timer, but some of you guys are really geezers! > > You're not getting any younger yourself, Tim. Roger is the eldest of the five who have chimed in. I hope he doesn't have geezer status. I'm only a year behind him. >In this thread you've been talking about the recent trend to "bigger is >better." > >But you're relating anecdotes from 30 to 40 years ago. > >That doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. Do you suppose it's >always been this way, and we've always complained about it? If not, when >did this recent trend start? > > I hope the historians on the list respond. I suspect the trend started in the nineteen fifties. The great phonograph recordings of the 'forties made trombone sections sound fantastic. But their equipment was not yet huge. Recordings of the NBC Symphony, Chicago Symphony, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Minneapolis were great. As a high school student, in the late 'fifties, I heard the Boston Symphony. There William Gibson played first trombone on a straight instrument with a nine inch bell, loud but soupy to my teenage ears. Kauka Kahila played on a red Reynolds Contempora double valve bass trombone with a lush sound made better by his proximity to a great tuba player, Kilton Vinal Smith. Simultaneously Edward Kleinhammer was playing on a different double valve bass trombone, next to Arnold Jacobs. Ironically, in Hollywood trombonists chose the small equipment for recording sessions. George Roberts, for example, always played a single trigger bass trombone and a drilled out 1-1/2 G mouthpiece. It just sounded bigger than that. I wonder if Roger thinks the recordings played a role in the trend to bigger equipment. Roger is an audiophile and reviewer of recordings. Stay tuned. David From: Gabriel Langfur Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:22:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3931] Re: Instrument Choices Tim, I think you're probably right. --- "Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD" > That doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. > Do you suppose it's > always been this way, and we've always complained about > it? If not, when > did this recent trend start? Ray Premru told me about the generation that played in London orchestras just prior to his moving there and winning his job in the Philharmonia. They had been turned on their heads by a tour of the NY Phil, whose trombonists were playing 8Hs and probably a 70H. HUGE sound in comparison to the peashooters and G basses they had been playing, and the London orchestras started to switch. Ray was part of the new guard, playing a 2G and the brand-new "Kleinhammer Model" Holton 169 (which came with a detachable, or more accurately addable, second valve - Doug's Yamaha is essentially a modernized, more practical variation on that same design...hmmm...). When I started college in only 1987, the majority of the tenor trombone players came to Oberlin playing 6 1/2 ALs, switching to 5Gs reluctantly after a year or two. Nobody came into school already playing bass trombone. Serious high school players I see now are typically playing 5Gs and some are already starting to specialize in bass trombone. Of course, our first teacher at Oberlin, Per Brevig, played the Doug Elliott 6 1/2 equivalent on an 88H and sounded huge, and our next teacher, Ray, played a 2G on his Holton and sounded amazingly beautiful - nothing lacking in that sound. Strangely enough, Ray pushed a couple of players to play 4Gs, even though they weren't really comfortable on them, and he didn't like the way I sounded playing anything smaller than about a Schilke 59. I'm sure a little research would show that this has been going on for as long as there have been enough professional trombonists to talk about what equipment they were playing. I think it's pretty clear that the trend ever since the Renaissance has been that ALL instruments, and the technique with which they are played, keep getting gradually bigger and louder. Maybe we're gettin to the point that too many players are injuring themselves trying to play that way, and we'll see a bit of a step back...but history probably shows us that that will only be temporary. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA From: "Dr. Carole Nowicke, Applied Health Science" Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:53:42 -0500 (EST) To: "David A. Schwartz" Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3932] Re: Instrument Choices On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, David A. Schwartz wrote: > Kauka Kahila played on a red Reynolds Contempora double valve bass > trombone with a lush sound made better by his proximity to a great tuba > player, Kilton Vinal Smith. Simultaneously Edward Kleinhammer was > playing on a different double valve bass trombone, next to Arnold Jacobs. ...and KV Smith was playing a small F whereas Arnold Jacobs was playing a CC (actually not such a large one, bore-size wise, but it has a big bell). Carole Nowicke cnowicke@indiana.edu From: "David A. Schwartz" Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:20:14 -0500 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3933] Re: Instrument Choices Gabriel Langfur wrote: >. . .Ray [Premru] was part of the new guard, playing a 2G and the brand-new >"Kleinhammer Model" Holton 169 (which came with a >detachable, or more accurately addable, second valve - >Doug's Yamaha is essentially a modernized, more practical >variation on that same design...hmmm...). > > Those Holton were very much lighter than the heavy-wall Yamaha 622. For a change, last night I brought my very similar Holton 185 bass trombone to swing band rehearsal, with just its single valve. Usually I play my Shires Humvee (Jim Prindle's term!). Only the trombonist next to me noticed a difference, a brighter articulation. For me, it was like dancing with a girl who's light on her feet. Playing was easy. It speaks fast. I felt like part of the trumpet section in the tutti passages. It also works fine with a smaller mouthpiece. It's an old axe, probably from 1969, which I only came by recently. I think I'll keep it as my geriatric instrument. David From: Roger Hecht Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:22 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3934] Re: Instrument Choices Gabriel Langfur wrote: > > >>It was Gabe Langfur who >>heard me play >>on this stuff who in the course of a conversation noted >>that I sounded >>like my equipment was too big/heavy for me. >> >> > >Roger, I'm really glad that feedback was so useful to you. > > It was. [snip] >No amount of huge tone compensates for not playing all of >the notes. > >Period. End of story. It's really that simple. Sound is >vitally important, of course, but bigger sound is not >always the goal, and in the real world, playing accurately >and in tune and having all the range you need for the gig >is much more important than the subtle gradations of "my >sound is more [insert your favorite adjective here] than so >& so's" that students get obsessed with in music schools. > > A few points of clarification. I first went the dreadnought route as a bass trombonist, not so much because of sound but because I thought that the heavy equipment that produced it was easier to play. I'm too strong for my own good, even at 60, and simply was melting the light stuff. Eventually, I quit playing. When I came back a few years later on tenor, I tried light horns, but I still needed the steam shovel of a very heavy Shires, which I played for about two years. I didn't play it because I wanted a dark sound. I played it because I could. In fact, I never liked the sound I got from it. Gabe's comment lit a fuse waiting to be lit, and I decided to move down to a lighter but still heavish horn and see what happened. I liked the change but realized it wasn't enough when I was rehearsing Elgar's Chanson de Nuit for a memorial service. My accompanist was an old pro who accompanied may singers during his career, and he was trying to get nuances from me that I couldn't produce, even as I knew he was right. I nearly canceled my performance. I was able to power up that horn, and it was working better than Big Boris, but I could not release the subtleties of color and line with it for a piece like the Elgar. It was like having an oak tree when only a willow would do. Then I put on a light Shires 2RVET7 and suddenly found myself able to produce those nuances I couldn't get on the heavier bells. Moreover, for the first time, I began to like my own sound, but then I always liked the sound of red bells--it was the difficulty of playing them that caused my problems. That was enough for me. The trombone is supposed to be a musical instrument, and I decided that come hell or high water, whatever kind of player I was going to be and whatever playing I was going to do, I was going to do it on a horn that I could make music on. No more punching the big bag. My final adjustment was to go slightly heavier to the 2RVE. I did so and stuck with it. The transition was complete and it took about 4 years. I found I was able to do pretty much what I wanted and whatever I was going to be able to do with this horn simply by working on it, as opposed to fooling with equipment, to solve problems. I still can't play Conn 88H's, old or new--or most other older horns, for that matter. In fact, at the risk of sounding like an endorsement, it was the Shires horns that allowed me to wean myself from the armor plating and feel comfortable on tenor trombone period. I simply couldn't--and still can't--do that on the old Conns and Bachs. I have no idea why. As for Gabe's point about sound and notes, that's a loaded question. I'm very much a "sound person." Gabe is right that getting the notes, etc. is extremely important. I am not contending with that position at all. Nevertheless, if I don't like a player's or singer's sound or tone, I don't find the musical experience complete and sometimes not even enjoyable. I can forgive a missed note or two if the tone is seductive enough and the musical communication is there. Right now, I'm trying to decide whether it's worth getting a Tristan recording I generally don't like at all (the Kleiber) merely because I do like the sheer sound of Margaret Price's Isolde. One of the side effects of the internationalization of orchestral sound that I kind of regret is the melding of national tone characteristics to the point where we have an international sound--which I like very much--but no longer have the "Berlin oboe", the Vienese oboe, the French brass and woodwinds, the Russian and Czech horns, etc. That stuff always had an appeal for me. I have bought many many Vienna Philharmonic recordings for no reason other than I love the sound of that orchestra's strings. The same with the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan. The Berlin is a great orchestra today, for sure, but that glossy sound they had under Karajan is not there any more and I miss it. I'm not sure the Czech Philharmonic has that same silvery quality it used to have in the days of Karel Ancerl and Vaclav Talich. The brass is sure different. You put on a Czech recording of Janacek's Sinfonietta from the 50s and you'll hear some fruity and pungent brass playing that might be laughed at by some today, but I love it--and miss it--as much as I like modern performances. (That the VPO has retained its sound--so far as I can tell--is a remarkable comment on the powers of tradition and passing it down from teacher to student.) There was a time when fans of opera used to argue vehemently about the sound (and dramatic approach) of their favorite singers. Nowadays singers tend to sound more alike, though I find this trend far more pronounced among instrumentalists--not surprising, given that it is easier to homogenize mechanical devices than vocal chords. Nevertheless, if I'm right about singers (and I can imagine people diagreeing), it may be because singers, like many instrumentalists, have become more concerned with technique and accuracy than developing a distinctive tone or even one that is best for their vocal equipment. And if this is right, it may help explain why there are so few Wagnerian singers these days. I can't believe this is entirely an accident of birth--unless the best Wagnerians are becoming rock stars. (Peter Hoffman tried, I believe.) You have to take some special measures to sing Wagner (none of which do I understand). Maybe someone who knows more about voice can speak more knowledgeably than I about this. One cause of this trend may be the recording industry. The control room is where clams go to die, so records never miss notes. These days more and more people listen to recorded music and in doing so develop certain expectations of perfection. Of course, when you listen to radio broadcast tapes with mikes close to the players (and assuming no splicing from three performances), you will hear mistakes--sometimes shockingly so. But most people buy studio recordings, and between the mixing and editing of these recordings, listeners can easily come to believe that musicians never make mistakes. Musicians know better, but they still have to "play the fool" so to speak. Hence miking in live performances, lip synching (I think just with rockers, but who knows), and, more to the point, sometimes putting accuracy ahead of tone and sometimes interpretation. Another cause may be simply that there are so many players around that it's possible to demand near perfection. Certainly, players aim for that goal in auditions, the taking of which is an art form in itself--to the point where some schools actually teach audition taking. Another may be the historically informed movement. I know I'm an atavist in that I use one horn to play everything. The trend now seems to be to adapt the player to the music rather than to have the player impose his/her personal stamp on a piece. Thus, a trombonist playing Bruckner has to sound like "Bruckner," not like Joe Jones playing Bruckner or Joe adapting himself to Bruckner, but with his own personal stamp. The music determines the color, not the player. That's hardly a bad thing, but it does encourage players to work with a lot of instruments, and it seems that a bit of sameness of approach and sound has to be the result when you do that. It's hard--for me, least--to put a personal stamp on five horns. But then, it's hard for me to play five horns period. All that said, I do not subscribe to the belief that "we did it better in the old days." I had a wonderful friend who always would say, "you should hear so and so conduct that" whenever I mentioned a recording I liiked. So and so almost always lived between 1920 and 1940. Rather, I'd say "we did it differently" in the old days. I love modern orchestras, and I miss the old ones. Whatever I said about the recording industry, where would we be without it? Now what any of that has to do with Gabe's original statement, which I have twisted into a 16-loop pretzel, I have no idea. > > -- Roger Hecht From: David Guion Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:03:04 -0800 To: Roger Hecht , Chris Tune , Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3935] Re: Instrument Choices Tim Richardson wrote: >I have to ask this, sorry. > >I'm an old timer, but some of you guys are really geezers! > >In this thread you've been talking about the recent trend to "bigger is >better." > >But you're relating anecdotes from 30 to 40 years ago. > >That doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. Do you suppose it's >always been this way, and we've always complained about it? If not, when >did this recent trend start? I'm working from memory here, because my copies are at home and I'm not, but the author of the article on trombone in the very first edition of Grove's dictionary (back in 1880 something) complained that trombone bore sizes were getting too large. Another fun thing to do is compare what Anthony Baines said about small, medium and large bores in the 5th edition of Grove (1954) with what he said in New Grove (1980). Geezerdom on this list does not go back far enough for increasing bore sizes to be in living memory. *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* David Guion Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? david@trombone.org *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at trombone.org From: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:09:58 EST To: , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3936] Re: Instrument Choices Old codger tuning in. (71) Two years ago, a student showed up with a bari/euph mouthpiece 6 1/2 AL. She could have put her chin in the cup. Even had to get an adapter from the rental place for the instrument, they had rented her to be able to put a Bach 12C in the instrument. Plenty large for the embouchure then. Larger is better when you are given opportunity by the king to fill your instrument as payment for the gig. beldon wade ............................................................ : An attachment to this post has been stripped by: : : plaintext.pl : : Original idea by Phillip Porch (ppp@theporch.com) : : Written by Stephen Modena, AB4EL (shimshon@theporch.com) : : Modifications by Mearl Danner, (jmdanner@samford.edu) : : All rights reserved. : ............................................................ From: Chris Tune Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:29:25 -0800 To: , Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3937] Re: Instrument Choices I can pretty much agree with Roger on this: >One of the side effects of the internationalization of orchestral sound >that I kind of regret is the melding of national tone characteristics to >the point where we have an international sound--which I like very much--but >no longer have the "Berlin oboe", the Vienese oboe, the French brass and >woodwinds, the Russian and Czech horns, etc. That stuff always had an >appeal for me. I have bought many many Vienna Philharmonic recordings for >no reason other than I love the sound of that orchestra's strings. The same >with the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan. The Berlin is a great orchestra >today, for sure, but that glossy sound they had under Karajan is not there >any more and I miss it. I'm not sure the Czech Philharmonic has that same >silvery quality it used to have in the days of Karel Ancerl and Vaclav >Talich. The brass is sure different. You put on a Czech recording of >Janacek's Sinfonietta from the 50s and you'll hear some fruity and pungent >brass playing that might be laughed at by some today, but I love it--and >miss it--as much as I like modern performances. (That the VPO has retained >its sound--so far as I can tell--is a remarkable comment on the powers of >tradition and passing it down from teacher to student.) I used to quite often buy recordings because I knew the orchestra was going to have a unique regional sound and I particularly fancied the strings in the VPO sound. I also liked their horn sound and the trombone sound, most times. I've often wondered if their organizational design has helped "continue the tradition" of a particular musical approach. I find, too, that phrasing and dynamics are especially well executed at the VPO. This helps make whatever tonal qualities they exhibit sound more acceptable, to me, any way. I have not been buying orchestral and operatic albums lately, so I can't comment on "internationalization", but I am sad to hear it might be happening. I think having an identity is a good thing. In swing music, which is now, more my specialty, Ellington, Basie, Kenton, Miller and all the bands, each had a quite identifiable sound of their own. It was pretty easy usually, when hearing a new band tune on the radio, to identify which band was likely producing the number. Chris Tune ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Hecht" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:45 AM Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3934] Re: Instrument Choices > Gabriel Langfur wrote: > >> > > From: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:43:07 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3938] Re: Instrument Choices I disagree - even though the "bore size" of the York CC was not huge (.750 bore), the instrument is HUGE! - there's really nothing bigger. Jake was part of starting the "bigger is better" scenario. My 6/4 alex isn't any bigger, even with a .9-ish bore. The size of a tuba - IMHO - is measured roughly at the bell throat. I can make a small F tuba with same bore as a 6/4 York (the Kalison 3/4 F has a .788 bore!). Conical instruments are measured less strictly than cylindrical instruments, and the bore size is only a factor in the overall bore profile. J.c.S. ---- "Dr. Carole Nowicke wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, David A. Schwartz wrote: > > > Kauka Kahila played on a red Reynolds Contempora double valve bass > > trombone with a lush sound made better by his proximity to a great tuba > > player, Kilton Vinal Smith. Simultaneously Edward Kleinhammer was > > playing on a different double valve bass trombone, next to Arnold Jacobs. > > ...and KV Smith was playing a small F whereas Arnold Jacobs was playing a > CC (actually not such a large one, bore-size wise, but it has a big bell). > > Carole Nowicke > cnowicke@indiana.edu > From: Chris Tune Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:50:14 -0800 To: J & D Sellmansberger , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3939] Re: ' list has been a l'il boring lately... It shows you how crowd pleasing and showy a trombone can be. I think the father Assunto was playing a Martin (the counterweight looked like an old Martin weight). I'm guessing the two sons are the trombone player and trumpet player, since they both look like each other somewhat. Pretty good ability to play the same thing between father and son. The trombonist looked like he might be playing a Conn 6H type, since the bell looked a bit larger than his father's horn's bell. These things almost "feature" the trombone. It's interesting to think that this time period represented a sort of "resurgence" of Dixie music, with these guys and Armstrong out again in front of the cameras as well as Teagarden starting up again. I'm guessing this was in the nineteen fifties or early sixties? Chris Tune ----- Original Message ----- From: "J & D Sellmansberger" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:04 PM Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3929] ' list has been a l'il boring lately... > ...' time to spice it up a bit: > > http://www.thedukesofdixieland.com/videos/dod-01.wmv > > http://www.thedukesofdixieland.com/videos/dod-02.wmv > > http://www.thedukesofdixieland.com/videos/dod-03.wmv > > For you young-uns and you equipment nerds, that's Fred Assunto and his > dad, Papa Jac Assunto. Those are F. E. Olds "Super" trombones. > > Imagine: All of THAT - and without an axial flow valve! ;^0 > From: "Dr. Carole Nowicke, Applied Health Science" Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:47:24 -0500 (EST) To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3940] Re: Instrument Choices On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 thetubameister@adelphia.net wrote: > I disagree - even though the "bore size" of the York CC was not huge > (.750 bore), the instrument is HUGE! - there's really nothing bigger. 5/4 Rudolf Meinl--or 6/4 Rudolf Meinl are bigger... Not just the horn, obviously, but the player, and acoustics of the hall make a difference. Carole Nowicke cnowicke@indiana.edu From: Raymond Horton Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:31:04 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3941] Re: Instrument Choices Excellent post, excellent points, Gabe. When I studied with Per Brevig, at Aspen in 1970 (I was all of 17), he played an old Conn 78H bell with a newer 88H slide. He got a very clear sound, not really "bright," but not huge. I wonder when he switched to an 88H. I got to meet Ray Premru once. He seemed like a wonderful, American-born, English gentleman. And what a sound! They've been playing all the James Bond movies on cable. Do you have any idea of how many of those he played? Raymond Horton Louisville Orchestra Gabriel Langfur wrote: >Tim, I think you're probably right. > >--- "Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD" > That >doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. > > >>Do you suppose it's >>always been this way, and we've always complained about >>it? If not, when >>did this recent trend start? >> >> > >Ray Premru told me about the generation that played in >London orchestras just prior to his moving there and >winning his job in the Philharmonia. They had been turned >on their heads by a tour of the NY Phil, whose trombonists >were playing 8Hs and probably a 70H. HUGE sound in >comparison to the peashooters and G basses they had been >playing, and the London orchestras started to switch. Ray >was part of the new guard, playing a 2G and the brand-new >"Kleinhammer Model" Holton 169 (which came with a >detachable, or more accurately addable, second valve - >Doug's Yamaha is essentially a modernized, more practical >variation on that same design...hmmm...). > >When I started college in only 1987, the majority of the >tenor trombone players came to Oberlin playing 6 1/2 ALs, >switching to 5Gs reluctantly after a year or two. Nobody >came into school already playing bass trombone. Serious >high school players I see now are typically playing 5Gs and >some are already starting to specialize in bass trombone. > >Of course, our first teacher at Oberlin, Per Brevig, played >the Doug Elliott 6 1/2 equivalent on an 88H and sounded >huge, and our next teacher, Ray, played a 2G on his Holton >and sounded amazingly beautiful - nothing lacking in that >sound. Strangely enough, Ray pushed a couple of players to >play 4Gs, even though they weren't really comfortable on >them, and he didn't like the way I sounded playing anything >smaller than about a Schilke 59. > >I'm sure a little research would show that this has been >going on for as long as there have been enough professional >trombonists to talk about what equipment they were playing. >I think it's pretty clear that the trend ever since the >Renaissance has been that ALL instruments, and the >technique with which they are played, keep getting >gradually bigger and louder. > >Maybe we're gettin to the point that too many players are >injuring themselves trying to play that way, and we'll see >a bit of a step back...but history probably shows us that >that will only be temporary. > >===== >Gabe Langfur >Boston, MA > > > > From: Howard Weiner Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:37:36 +0100 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3942] Re: Instrument Choices At 05:22 09.02.05 -0800, Gabriel Langfur wrote: >I'm sure a little research would show that this has been >going on for as long as there have been enough professional >trombonists to talk about what equipment they were playing. >I think it's pretty clear that the trend ever since the >Renaissance has been that ALL instruments, and the >technique with which they are played, keep getting >gradually bigger and louder. Gabe, Your theory is a bit off the mark. The Renaissance shawms, for example, were much louder than their Baroque decendants, the oboes. As far as the trombone is concerned, already in the Renaissance it had to play loud when it performed outdoors with shawms, but softly when together with voices and other soft instruments indoors. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowning whether the players used different mouthpieces for the different sorts of playing or one mouthpiece for everything and simply altered the style. The real change in the size and general volume of the trombone came only after 1800, when it began to be used in the symphony and opera orchestras that around this time started playing in larger halls, and themselves started growing in size. Before that it wouldn't have made sense to make larger-bored, larger-belled trombones, since the result would have been a completely muddy sound in the church acoustics where most trombone playing was being done. Howard -- Howard Weiner weiner@privat.toplink.de http://www.odilia.ch/howard-weiner If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? From: Roger Hecht Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:39:32 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3943] Re: Instrument Choices David A. Schwartz wrote: > Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD wrote: > >> I have to ask this, sorry. >> >> I'm an old timer, but some of you guys are really geezers! >> >> > You're not getting any younger yourself, Tim. > > Roger is the eldest of the five who have chimed in. > I hope he doesn't have geezer status. > I'm only a year behind him. And catching up. Do the math. >> better." >> But you're relating anecdotes from 30 to 40 years ago. >> That doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. Do you >> suppose it's >> always been this way, and we've always complained about it? If not, >> when >> did this recent trend start? >> I wonder if Roger thinks the recordings played a role in the trend to bigger equipment. Roger is an audiophile and reviewer of recordings. > My God. What's it come to when people actually invite my rants? I never thought of this, but it's possible that the ability to create an illusion of a very big sound with a lot of bass in a living room has played a role. When I wrote of Remington ruing conductors demanding bigger and louder playing, I was speaking of the late 60s, which was about 14 years after the advent of stereo. There could be a connection. But then I think it was the Chief who pushed the bigger .547 in the first place, and that was back in the 50s or late 40s--am I right about this? I suspect the simple fact that people in the mid-late 20th century were bigger and stronger than their forbears played a major role. Sound got bigger because it could get bigger. Life got bigger. Bigger gestures, bigger people, bigger wars, bigger entertainment. Nor would I discount the changes in string playing. With the advent of vibrato around 1940, string sound became "larger", as well. And of course instruments became more efficient. But really, the orchestra has been getting bigger and darker since day one. The introduction of trombones and tuba in itself was a huge factor in making the orchestra bigger and darker. But it wasn't just trombones. Berlioz was a giant in the expansion of the orchestra, then Wagner, both introducing instruments, many of the low tessitura variety, thereby darkening the sound of the orchestra. If you get a chance, listen to Janacek's Mladi [Youth] and note the effect of the bass clarinet on the standard woodwind quintet. Then think of Strauss's Elektra and Salome, Schoenberg's Pelleas et Melisande, and Mahler in general. Big stuff and all from the turn of the last century. Interestingly, there was a post-World War I backlash against romanticism and all that seemed to suggest old Europe in the 1920s, but it was short lived with the advent of larger scale neoromanticism that appeared soon after. -- Roger Hecht From: Roger Hecht Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:49:43 -0500 To: Chris Tune Cc: , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3944] Re: Instrument Choices Chris Tune wrote: > I used to quite often buy recordings because I knew the orchestra was > going to have a unique regional sound and I particularly fancied the > strings in the VPO sound. I also liked their horn sound and the > trombone sound, most times. I've often wondered if their > organizational design has helped "continue the tradition" of a > particular musical approach. I find, too, that phrasing and dynamics > are especially well executed at the VPO. This helps make whatever > tonal qualities they exhibit sound more acceptable, to me, any way. I'm not an expert on the VPO, though it is my favorite orchestra. As I understand it, the sound and tradition are very much "in house," with members passing on their chairs, relatively speaking, to their students. Put another way, most VPO members studied with VPO members. Some of their instruments are unique, as well--the single F horn as opposed to the double, rotary valve trumpets (common in Germany, too), and that weird Viennese oboe, to name three I know about. I'm sure there's more. About their strings, I know nothing, but what a sound they get. And you really have to hear it live in the Musikverein. I've never heard anything like it. Astonishing. But things may be changing. Their late tubist was American (I think), their 2nd trombone is an American, their new principal, English, and the last time I saw them live, one of their first horns was playing a double horn. But they still have that sound--or they did last I heard them. Roger Hecht From: Raymond Horton Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:56:44 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3945] Re: Instrument Choices David Guion wrote: >Geezerdom on this list does not go back far enough for increasing bore sizes to be in living memory. > >*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* > > > I'm working from memory here, because my copies are at home and I'm > not, but the author of the article on trombone in the very first > edition of Grove's dictionary (back in 1880 something) complained that > trombone bore sizes were getting too large. Another fun thing to do is > compare what Anthony Baines said about small, medium and large bores > in the 5th edition of Grove (1954) with what he said in New Grove (1980). But, David, aren't you our resident librarian? Please, for those of us who aren't within twenty feet (For me, it's more than 20 miles) of both of the latter editions of the Groves, can't you summarize? Pretty-please? I'm guessing it's the 1880 edition that is at home and you have the newer ones at work - forgive me if I am wrong. If you do not have them nearby, perhaps someone does and can fill us in until Google gets their Library-at-your-desktop up and running. RBH From: Chris Dearth Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:07:33 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3946] Re: Instrument Choices I was one of those trombonists that came to Oberlin playing a 6 1/2 AL and an 88H (Gabe and I entered Oberlin at the same time). :-) I got my first 88H in 8th grade and used the Remington that came with it until high school. I started doing some experimentation my senior year and ended up switching to a 61/2 AL. I found I had tons more control than on the Remington (better highs and lows). I wish I had got the 6 1/2AL when I got the horn because the Remington was ultimately not a good match for me (I played it because the local high school band director, who was a fine trombone player, loved them and highly recommended them). You know what they say about hindsight... At Oberlin, in addition to the Bach's Ray recommended, many of us also played Doug Elliott (because of Per Brevig). Per had a suitcase with all of the different combinations there were. If we were interested, we could check out the suitcase-o-mouthpieces and try things. I ended up on the equivalent of a 6 1/2AL but with a cup one size bigger (the E cup=6 1/2, I got an F). I never had the desire to move bigger, didn't need to at the time, and Ray never pushed me to move bigger. The Elliott was, to me, a refined version of what I was playing. After getting my Elliott I stepped up 1 rim size about a year later. I played this into grad school. I gradually move up a little in rim size as my embouchure got stronger. I am currently playing a Greg Black Alessi 5.5M. It's roughly between a 4G and 5G in cup diameter with a 5G'ish cup and a little more open back. A true 4G is too big for me (even though it's only a little bigger in diameter). The only time I got frisky on the 'bigger is better' line was when I got my first Edwards back in 94. Before I went up to the factory, I called many people asking for recommendations for starting points. About a year prior to this, I visited Ray and saw his new Edwards. Knowing he had one, I asked him for his thoughts on Edwards equipment when the time came for my horn shopping. He polled his students, and passed this info on to me. His big recommendation was the .547-.562 dual bore slide. I ended up getting one of those and I really wish I hadn't. It took me about a year to realize this (and eventually got a bass-crook .547 Edwards slide. Again with the hindsight thing... At the time it didn't feel like it was too much. It actually felt pretty good. I was playing a Wick 4BL, so the smaller cup compensated for the big slide. The moment I realized there might be an issue was at IU. My teacher, M. Dee Stewart, did a project every couple of years with interested trombonists and recording majors. We would get in the main concert late at night and record different things, give all parties the experience of doing a recording session. Most of us chose to do excerpts (go figure). One of these evenings I recorded 'Ride'. With most trombones, there is timbrel change when you kick into FF. This setup didn't change AT ALL!! I was no longer sold on this slide. I ended up switching about 6 months later ($$ reasons for the delay) and never looked back (teachers were happier too). When I shop now, whatever I get has to SOUND like a trombone as opposed to a fuzzy slide euphonium. I always use my trusty DAT machine and live recordings of the orchestras I play in to help me judge if my sound is still 'characteristic'. Being primarily and orchestral player, I ask myself when I listen to these recordings, "Is this a sound that would fit with the bigger orchestras in this country?" "Does it fit the rest of the section?" I also ask myself is, "How's my accuracy?" "Does the horn inspire me?" "Does it make my life as a musician easier and more pleasurable?" Well, I've gabbed enough. This is what happens when Gabe starts talking about our college days... Chris Dearth Principal Trombone, West Virginia Symphony Adjunct Instructor, West Virginia Wesleyan College On Feb 9, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Gabriel Langfur wrote: > Tim, I think you're probably right. > > --- "Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD" > That > doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. >> Do you suppose it's >> always been this way, and we've always complained about >> it? If not, when >> did this recent trend start? > > Ray Premru told me about the generation that played in > London orchestras just prior to his moving there and > winning his job in the Philharmonia. They had been turned > on their heads by a tour of the NY Phil, whose trombonists > were playing 8Hs and probably a 70H. HUGE sound in > comparison to the peashooters and G basses they had been > playing, and the London orchestras started to switch. Ray > was part of the new guard, playing a 2G and the brand-new > "Kleinhammer Model" Holton 169 (which came with a > detachable, or more accurately addable, second valve - > Doug's Yamaha is essentially a modernized, more practical > variation on that same design...hmmm...). > > When I started college in only 1987, the majority of the > tenor trombone players came to Oberlin playing 6 1/2 ALs, > switching to 5Gs reluctantly after a year or two. Nobody > came into school already playing bass trombone. Serious > high school players I see now are typically playing 5Gs and > some are already starting to specialize in bass trombone. > > Of course, our first teacher at Oberlin, Per Brevig, played > the Doug Elliott 6 1/2 equivalent on an 88H and sounded > huge, and our next teacher, Ray, played a 2G on his Holton > and sounded amazingly beautiful - nothing lacking in that > sound. Strangely enough, Ray pushed a couple of players to > play 4Gs, even though they weren't really comfortable on > them, and he didn't like the way I sounded playing anything > smaller than about a Schilke 59. > > I'm sure a little research would show that this has been > going on for as long as there have been enough professional > trombonists to talk about what equipment they were playing. > I think it's pretty clear that the trend ever since the > Renaissance has been that ALL instruments, and the > technique with which they are played, keep getting > gradually bigger and louder. > > Maybe we're gettin to the point that too many players are > injuring themselves trying to play that way, and we'll see > a bit of a step back...but history probably shows us that > that will only be temporary. > > ===== > Gabe Langfur > Boston, MA > > Chris Dearth Principal Trombone, West Virginia Symphony Adjunct Instructor, West Virginia Wesleyan College From: Chris Dearth Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:12:26 -0500 To: Cc: , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3947] Re: Instrument Choices I don't remember about the Bond movies, but he played on many of the Beatles albums. Chris Dearth Principal Trombone, West Virginia Symphony Adjunct Instructor, West Virginia Wesleyan College On Feb 9, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Raymond Horton wrote: > Excellent post, excellent points, Gabe. > > > When I studied with Per Brevig, at Aspen in 1970 (I was all of 17), he > played an old Conn 78H bell with a newer 88H slide. He got a very > clear sound, not really "bright," but not huge. I wonder when he > switched to an 88H. > > > I got to meet Ray Premru once. He seemed like a wonderful, > American-born, English gentleman. And what a sound! > > > They've been playing all the James Bond movies on cable. Do you have > any idea of how many of those he played? > > > Raymond Horton > Louisville Orchestra > > > Gabriel Langfur wrote: > >> Tim, I think you're probably right. >> >> --- "Richardson, Timothy Mr. DAC 417 BSB DPW - ERMD" > That >> doesn't sound like a trend, more like a tradition. >>> Do you suppose it's >>> always been this way, and we've always complained about >>> it? If not, when >>> did this recent trend start? >> >> Ray Premru told me about the generation that played in >> London orchestras just prior to his moving there and >> winning his job in the Philharmonia. They had been turned >> on their heads by a tour of the NY Phil, whose trombonists >> were playing 8Hs and probably a 70H. HUGE sound in >> comparison to the peashooters and G basses they had been >> playing, and the London orchestras started to switch. Ray >> was part of the new guard, playing a 2G and the brand-new >> "Kleinhammer Model" Holton 169 (which came with a >> detachable, or more accurately addable, second valve - >> Doug's Yamaha is essentially a modernized, more practical >> variation on that same design...hmmm...). >> >> When I started college in only 1987, the majority of the >> tenor trombone players came to Oberlin playing 6 1/2 ALs, >> switching to 5Gs reluctantly after a year or two. Nobody >> came into school already playing bass trombone. Serious >> high school players I see now are typically playing 5Gs and >> some are already starting to specialize in bass trombone. >> Of course, our first teacher at Oberlin, Per Brevig, played >> the Doug Elliott 6 1/2 equivalent on an 88H and sounded >> huge, and our next teacher, Ray, played a 2G on his Holton >> and sounded amazingly beautiful - nothing lacking in that >> sound. Strangely enough, Ray pushed a couple of players to >> play 4Gs, even though they weren't really comfortable on >> them, and he didn't like the way I sounded playing anything >> smaller than about a Schilke 59. >> I'm sure a little research would show that this has been >> going on for as long as there have been enough professional >> trombonists to talk about what equipment they were playing. >> I think it's pretty clear that the trend ever since the >> Renaissance has been that ALL instruments, and the >> technique with which they are played, keep getting >> gradually bigger and louder. >> >> Maybe we're gettin to the point that too many players are >> injuring themselves trying to play that way, and we'll see >> a bit of a step back...but history probably shows us that >> that will only be temporary. >> >> ===== >> Gabe Langfur >> Boston, MA >> >> >> > > Chris Dearth Principal Trombone, West Virginia Symphony Adjunct Instructor, West Virginia Wesleyan College From: Chris Tune Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:49:55 -0800 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3948] Re: Trombugle Update ' list has been a l'il boring lately... Hey Larry and Listers: The images of the TROMBUGLE are all up on www.christune.com Click on the link which mentions the trombugle right next to the picture of that ugly guy. . . . The images are all full size jpeg files, so I hope you have a high speed connect. Sorry about the hack job HTML. . .I raced through these pretty fast. . .will spiff up later. . . Fact is, ALL my files are pretty high resolution. See the MP3 files, they are also pretty hi-fi! You need to hear them through a good system or over headphones. Then they sound good. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Tune" To: "J & D Sellmansberger" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:50 AM Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3939] Re: ' list has been a l'il boring lately... From: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:29:56 EST To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3949] Re: Instrument Choices In einer eMail vom 09.02.2005 18:06:16 WesteuropŠische Normalzeit schreibt rihecht@earthlink.net: > Chris Tune wrote: > > >I used to quite often buy recordings because I knew the orchestra was > >going to have a unique regional sound and I particularly fancied the > >strings in the VPO sound. I also liked their horn sound and the > >trombone sound, most times. I've often wondered if their > >organizational design has helped "continue the tradition" of a > >particular musical approach. I find, too, that phrasing and dynamics > >are especially well executed at the VPO. This helps make whatever > >tonal qualities they exhibit sound more acceptable, to me, any way. > > I'm not an expert on the VPO, though it is my favorite orchestra. As I > understand it, the sound and tradition are very much "in house," with > members passing on their chairs, relatively speaking, to their students. > Put another way, most VPO members studied with VPO members. Some of > their instruments are unique, as well--the single F horn as opposed to > the double, rotary valve trumpets (common in Germany, too), and that > weird Viennese oboe, to name three I know about. I'm sure there's more. > About their strings, I know nothing, but what a sound they get. And you > really have to hear it live in the Musikverein. I've never heard > anything like it. Astonishing. > > But things may be changing. Their late tubist was American (I think), > their 2nd trombone is an American, their new principal, English, and the > last time I saw them live, one of their first horns was playing a double > horn. > > But they still have that sound--or they did last I heard them. > > > Roger Hecht > > The horn player was maybe a student to play with them. Using their own special instruments like the Viennese horn is one of their guidelines. As to the teachers' point I know that it is a common practice that the local teacher at the Musikhochschule should also be a member of the orchestra. (As far as trombones are concerned I KNOW it.) ............................................................ : An attachment to this post has been stripped by: : : plaintext.pl : : Original idea by Phillip Porch (ppp@theporch.com) : : Written by Stephen Modena, AB4EL (shimshon@theporch.com) : : Modifications by Mearl Danner, (jmdanner@samford.edu) : : All rights reserved. : ............................................................ From: Gabriel Langfur Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:39:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3950] Re: Instrument Choices --- David Guion wrote: > Geezerdom on this list does not go back far enough for > increasing bore sizes to be in living memory. Sure it does - it's happening right now. I never heard of a tenor trombone with a .547-.562 dual bore slide until about 1991 - about the same time I first became aware of tenor players using .562 slides in orhcestras. I tried a .562-.578 bass slide for the first time in about 1994. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA From: Gabriel Langfur Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:45:21 -0800 (PST) To: Howard Weiner , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3951] Re: Instrument Choices Howard, I don't really want to argue with you about it, since you're a bona fide historian and I'm just an interested player, but... --- Howard Weiner wrote: Your theory is a bit off the mark. The Renaissance shawms, for example,were much louder than their Baroque decendants, the oboes. Yes, but that's a special case in which an outdoor instrument was adapted for indoor use. If you follow the instruments in their uses, all orchestral instruments got bigger and louder over time, for a number of reasons, not least of which was a change from a salon and private concert situation to a public concert situation at large venues. ----------- As far as thetrombone is concerned, already in the Renaissance it had to play loudwhen it performed outdoors with shawms, but softly when together withvoices and other soft instruments indoors. Unfortunately, there is no wayof knowning whether the players used different mouthpieces for thedifferent sorts of playing or one mouthpiece for everything and simplyaltered the style. The real change in the size and general volume of thetrombone came only after 1800, when it began to be used in the symphonyand opera orchestras that around this time started playing in largerhalls, and themselves started growing in size. ------------------------ my point exactly. Before that it wouldn'thave made sense to make larger-bored, larger-belled trombones, since theresult would have been a completely muddy sound in the church acousticswhere most trombone playing was being done. ------------------------- Historically speaking, that's not really that long after the invention of the instrument, is it? Howard -- Howard Weiner weiner@privat.toplink.de http://www.odilia.ch/howard-weiner If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarianseat? ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA From: Chris Tune Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:59:08 -0800 To: , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3952] Re: Instrument Choices It always gives me the heebee jeebees when I realize that these horns are ALL larger than .55 calibre machine gun barrels. That's some dangerous axes there! Chris Tune [:-) www.christune.com New and Improved! crt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabriel Langfur" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:39 AM Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3950] Re: Instrument Choices > --- David Guion wrote: >> Geezerdom on this list does not go back far enough for >> increasing bore sizes to be in living memory. > > Sure it does - it's happening right now. I never heard of a > tenor trombone with a .547-.562 dual bore slide until about > 1991 - about the same time I first became aware of tenor > players using .562 slides in orhcestras. I tried a > .562-.578 bass slide for the first time in about 1994. > > ===== > Gabe Langfur > Boston, MA > > From: Gabriel Langfur Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:54:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3953] Re: Instrument Choices --- Raymond Horton wrote: > When I studied with Per Brevig, at Aspen in 1970 (I was > all of 17), he > played an old Conn 78H bell with a newer 88H slide. He > got a very clear > sound, not really "bright," but not huge. I wonder when > he switched to > an 88H. He had some different horns. I heard him perform the Hindemith on one of those old flat-wrap Conns - not sure the model. > I got to meet Ray Premru once. He seemed like a > wonderful, > American-born, English gentleman. And what a sound! Ray was a wonderful man with an exceptionally beautiful temperament and a great sense of humor. He had a relaxed confidence about him that was inspiring. I miss him every day. > They've been playing all the James Bond movies on cable. > Do you have > any idea of how many of those he played? I don't. I know he did a lot of studio work in London, including playing in the orchestra for The Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper." ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA From: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:23:31 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3954] Re: Instrument Choices I couldn't have said it better myself... J.c.S. > > Ray was a wonderful man with an exceptionally beautiful > temperament and a great sense of humor. He had a relaxed > confidence about him that was inspiring. I miss him every > day. > > ===== > Gabe Langfur > Boston, MA From: Raymond Horton Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:03:57 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3955] Re: Instrument Choices Gabriel Langfur wrote: >--- Raymond Horton wrote: > > >>When I studied with Per Brevig, at Aspen in 1970 (I was >>all of 17), he >>played an old Conn 78H bell with a newer 88H slide. He >>got a very clear >>sound, not really "bright," but not huge. I wonder when >>he switched to >>an 88H. >> >> > >He had some different horns. I heard him perform the >Hindemith on one of those old flat-wrap Conns - not sure >the model. > > That sounds like the horn he played everything on that summer. Good sound - I guess a precursor of dual bore, with the slide mismatch. But I can imagine he may have sounded better, overall, on a full 88H. Also at Aspen that summer (1970) were the American Brass Quintet, with the original trombonists (Arnold Fromme, Bob Biddlecome). I remember both those guys were both very down on large bore tenors and tried to talk the students there into going home and buying .525 bores. RBH From: Howard Weiner Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:58:34 +0100 To: , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3956] Re: Instrument Choices At 10:45 09.02.05 -0800, Gabriel Langfur wrote: >Howard, I don't really want to argue with you about it, >since you're a bona fide historian and I'm just an >interested player, but... > >--- Howard Weiner wrote: >Your theory is a bit off the mark. The Renaissance shawms, >for example,were much louder than their Baroque decendants, >the oboes. > >Yes, but that's a special case in which an outdoor >instrument was adapted for indoor use. But you did say "ALL instruments." And there are many illustrations of shawms and trombones being played indoors. I think that the destinction back then was less one of "indoor/outdoor" and more one of "soft/loud." > If you follow the >instruments in their uses, all orchestral instruments got >bigger and louder over time, for a number of reasons, not >least of which was a change from a salon and private >concert situation to a public concert situation at large >venues. The point I was trying to make was that this development did not necessarily take place continually since the Renaissance, which is what you contended. For the trombone it commenced after 1800. For the violin it started earlier, sometime after 1700, but without altering the size of the instrument; the method used to make the violin louder was to tilt the neck back further to create more tension on the strings. >As far as the trombone is concerned, already in the >Renaissance it had to play loud when it performed outdoors >with shawms, but softly when together with voices and other >soft instruments indoors. Unfortunately, there is no way of >knowing whether the players used different mouthpieces for >the different sorts of playing or one mouthpiece for >everything and simply altered the style. The real change in >the size and general volume of the trombone came only after >1800, when it began to be used in the symphony and opera >orchestras that around this time started playing in >larger halls, and themselves started growing in size. >------------------------ >my point exactly. Again: only after 1800, not since the Renaissance. > Before that it wouldn't have made sense to make >larger-bored, larger-belled trombones, since the result >would have been a completely muddy sound in the church >acoustics where most trombone playing was being done. >------------------------- >Historically speaking, that's not really that long after >the invention of the instrument, is it? That would be about 325 to 350 years after its invention. That's a pretty long time considering that some orchestral instruments (clarinet, tuba) are not even that old now. Howard -- Howard Weiner weiner@privat.toplink.de http://www.odilia.ch/howard-weiner If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? From: Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:49:22 -0700 To: , Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3957] Re: Instrument Choices Some of the best advice I got as a young trombonist came courtesy of Paul Tanner (reinforced by Larry Sutherland later) at a master class I attended when I was in high school. I wasn't sure what direction I wanted to take myself, but I was sure that I wanted a good instrument. Tanner suggested the Bach 36B. He told me that while it was probably most at home in an orchestra, it would fit anywhere. I played that instrument through college and graduate school, everything from orchestral bass trombone parts to lead trombone in jazz bands. Dr. Tanner was right -- it was most at home on orchestral tenor trombone parts, but I could make it fit anywhere by changing my sound concept. And I still prefer tenor players above me to use smaller instruments. Of course, by contemporary standards my bass isn't all that large. Somebody playing a Bach 42 with a model 50 slide and a 1 1/2 G is infringing on my timbral territory. Dennis -- who still has that 32 year old model 36. >--- Raymond Horton wrote: > > >>When I studied with Per Brevig, at Aspen in 1970 (I was >>all of 17), he >>played an old Conn 78H bell with a newer 88H slide. He >>got a very clear >>sound, not really "bright," but not huge. I wonder when >>he switched to >>an 88H. >> >> > >He had some different horns. I heard him perform the >Hindemith on one of those old flat-wrap Conns - not sure >the model. > > That sounds like the horn he played everything on that summer. Good sound - I guess a precursor of dual bore, with the slide mismatch. But I can imagine he may have sounded better, overall, on a full 88H. Also at Aspen that summer (1970) were the American Brass Quintet, with the original trombonists (Arnold Fromme, Bob Biddlecome). I remember both those guys were both very down on large bore tenors and tried to talk the students there into going home and buying .525 bores. RBH * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- * * A portion of this post has been stripped by: * * plaintext.pl * * If the text does not appear please repost without * * the attachment * * Original idea by Phillip Porch (ppp@theporch.com) * * Written by Stephen Modena, AB4EL (shimshon@theporch.com)* * Modifications by Mearl Danner, (jmdanner@samford.edu) * * All rights reserved. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From: Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:08:20 -0500 To: , Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3958] Re: Instrument Choices I love my Shires bass trombone, and feel it has a responsiveness and ability to produce different colors, but also able to produce the weight of tone that is expected. Before the Shires I found I was going back and forth between an Edwards, which was a good heavy metal cannon, and a couple of lighter horns which I felt were more musical. Now I play only the Shires, although I do have two different bells and both the standard and duo bore slides. DC From: Jeff Albert Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:34:08 -0600 To: Cc: , , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3959] Re: Instrument Choices Modelerdc@aol.com wrote: >I love my Shires bass trombone, and feel it has a responsiveness and ability to produce different colors, but also able to produce the weight of tone that is expected. Before the Shires I found I was going back and forth between an Edwards, which was a good heavy metal cannon, and a couple of lighter horns which I felt were more musical. Now I play only the Shires, although I do have two different bells and both the standard and duo bore slides. > >DC > > > So now you switch between a Shires that is a good heavy metal cannon, and a Shires that you find lighter and more musical...right? ;) Jeff -- Jeff Albert P.O. Box 8645 Mandeville, LA 70470 (504) 782-5835 www.jeffalbert.com jeff@jeffalbert.com From: Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:03:24 -0500 To: Cc: , , Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3960] Re: Instrument Choices Not as simple as that. I like the standard bore slide for many things, but the duo bore does work well for me heavy romantic orchestration. I also like the a gold brass 10 inch bell in large ensemble. This bell plays well with either slide, and does not play like the Bach 10.5 inch bell. The one Shires 10.5 inch bell I've tried I didn't like. We did some French pieces lately, where you have to project in the upper range, and I used the standard slide with the 10 inch bell and it worked well. If I had only one slide it would be the standard but the duo bore has it uses. If I only had one bell, the 9.5 inch one is more versitle, but I do like the 10 inch one I have. A little broader tone, but still very trombone like. And all of these "parts" work well together with a gone tone and response. None of these have the feeling of playing a "tank", although If I could change anything it would be for the valve section to weigh less. DC From: Jim Lee Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:41:50 -0800 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3961] Re: Instrument Choices Roger: > About their strings, I know nothing, but what a sound they > get. And you really have to hear it live in the Musikverein. > I've never heard anything like it. Astonishing. As someone said, after hearing them for the first time playing a Mozart symphony, "They sounded like a 65 member string quartet." > But things may be changing. Their late tubist was American (I > think), their 2nd trombone is an American, their new > principal, English, and the last time I saw them live, one of > their first horns was playing a double horn. The lower brass, for some reason, have always been excluded from the Wieners for the Wiener tradition. A greater variety of instruments, many non-Austrians. But both McElheny (2nd trombonist) and Pisarkiewicz (late tubaist) had spent a considerable playing in Europe before ending up in Vienna. > But they still have that sound--or they did last I heard them. The sound should survive, as long as they can hold off the onset of the 20th century. It's interesting to talk to normally rational people and watch what happens when the issue of women in an orchestra is raised. ------------------ jimlee@cttsweb.com From: David Guion Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:51:28 -0800 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3962] Re: Instrument Choices I wrote >> I'm working from memory here, because my copies are at home and I'm >> not, but the author of the article on trombone in the very first >> edition of Grove's dictionary (back in 1880 something) complained that >> trombone bore sizes were getting too large. Another fun thing to do is >> compare what Anthony Baines said about small, medium and large bores >> in the 5th edition of Grove (1954) with what he said in New Grove (1980). > And Ray Horton responded, > >But, David, aren't you our resident librarian? Please, for those of us >who aren't within twenty feet (For me, it's more than 20 miles) of both >of the latter editions of the Groves, can't you summarize? Pretty-please? > >I'm guessing it's the 1880 edition that is at home and you have the >newer ones at work - forgive me if I am wrong. If you do not have them >nearby, perhaps someone does and can fill us in until Google gets their >Library-at-your-desktop up and running. I don't have multiple sets of Grove at home, but the library where I work has several editions, and I made photocopies and took them home. I decided to check email tonight, so. . . >From the first edition, vol. 3 (1883), article "Trombone" by Wm. H. Stone (p. 177, top of second column): "Unfortunately, the quiet smooth legato method of using it is almost a lost art; having been nearly discarded for the coarse blare of the military player. For his use also modern instruments are made of too large a bore." >From the fifth edition, vol. 8 (1954), article "Trombone" by Anthony Baines, p. 552, second column, summarizing: Narrow bore tenor trombone: .45 in. bore, 6 in. bell Medium bore tenor trombone: .49 in. bore, 7 in. bell Large bore tenor trombone: .52 in. bore, 7 1/2 in. bell >From The New Grove, vol. 19 (1980), article "Trombone" by Anthony Baines, p. 164, first column: "The bore of the instrument is usually between 12.3 mm [=ca. .472] and 13.8 mm [=ca. .543] in diameter, though in bass trombones it may exceed 14 mm [a .562 bore = 14.3 mm, I think]. The bell ranges from about 17.8 cm [= 7 in.] across across in a tenor trombone to about 24.6 cm [more than 9 1/2 in.] in a bass. Just for grins, I looked up "Trombone" on the second edition of the New Grove online (2002 IIRC). Arnold Myers updated Baines's article and the corresponding passage now reads: "The bore of the modern instrument is cylindrical for about half its length (more with the slide extended), the cylindrical section usually between 12á5 mm and 14á0 mm in diameter, although in bass trombones it may exceed 14 mm. A wide variety of bore sizes is produced by the larger manufacturers, and players select the most appropriate for the repertory and their own characteristics. The bore expands to a markedly flaring bell of brass, occasionally silver, with a terminal diameter ranging from about 20 cm across on a tenor trombone to about 25 cm on a bass." Hmm. How long will it take for a .547 to be considered a peashooter? Isn't .500 now considered a narrow bore? That's wider than the medium bore of fifty years ago! *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* David Guion Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? david@trombone.org *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at trombone.org From: David Guion Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:59:46 -0800 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3963] Re: Instrument Choices >--- David Guion wrote: >> Geezerdom on this list does not go back far enough for >> increasing bore sizes to be in living memory. > >Sure it does - it's happening right now. I never heard of a >tenor trombone with a .547-.562 dual bore slide until about >1991 - about the same time I first became aware of tenor >players using .562 slides in orhcestras. I tried a >.562-.578 bass slide for the first time in about 1994. > >===== >Gabe Langfur >Boston, MA I was in too much of a hurry. What I meant was, no one is old enough to remember when it started. *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* David Guion Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? david@trombone.org *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at trombone.org From: Jim Lee Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:28:18 -0800 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3964] Re: Instrument Choices Roger: > My God. What's it come to when people actually invite my rants? We're bored. > years after the advent of stereo. There could be a connection. > But then I think it was the Chief who pushed the bigger .547 > in the first place, and that was back in the 50s or late > 40s--am I right about this? Correct but at first he wasn't as doctrinaire about their use. His greatest student never played on anything bigger than a 78H. > I suspect the simple fact that people in the mid-late 20th > century were bigger and stronger than their forbears played a > major role. Sound got bigger because it could get bigger. But some of the major players before that were big guys. Van Haney was a big bear of a guy, John Clark, Bill Bell, ditto. And none of them had the need to play bigger, bigger, bigger. The one change that hasn't been mentioned which is, IMNSHO, the biggest factor is the construction of new halls better suited for the storage of silage. In the 40s and 50s, playing at Carnegie Hall, the NYPO sounded great with Gordon Pulis on a 78H, Van Haney on an 88H, and Ostrander on a single trigger horn. Same sort of set up at the old Metropolitan Opera. Along comes Lincoln Center and The Worst Auditorium In The History of Mankind and all of a sudden the brass section of the best known orchestra in America cannot be heard. So they started playing louder and louder and bigger and bigger. Even through all the renovations and rebuilds it wasn't until very recently that the hall became an acceptable (not good) performance environment. And by that time everyone was playing so big and so loud that the NYPO brass section of the 50s wouldn't have been able to keep up with the equipment they used. And, of course, there was Lincoln Center on TV and every town in the United States needed a cultural center, all of which seemed to be patterned on the original Lincoln Center acoustic (I know, I think I played in all of them.) So, to disagree with my friend Roger, sound got bigger because it had to get bigger. Unfortunately musicality had to take a rear seat. ------------------ jimlee@cttsweb.com From: Jim Lee Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:48:05 -0800 To: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3965] Re: Instrument Choices Ray Horton: > >>When I studied with Per Brevig, at Aspen in 1970 (I was all > of 17), he > >>played an old Conn 78H bell with a newer 88H slide. He got a very > >>clear sound, not really "bright," but not huge. I wonder when he > >>switched to an 88H. When Per first came to the Met, he played a vanilla 78H. By the time they moved to the new hall (another acoustic nightmare) the need for a bigger horn was apparent. The last holdout was John Clark who, except for his last two years at the Met played everything on a single trigger Fuchs. And the only reason he tried the prototype double trigger was that Conn gave him one in hopes of an endorsement. (Clark told me he might give it an endorsement if they had thrown in a case of Scotch.) (A moment while all former Clark students say "Yup, that's Clark.) > summer. Good sound - I guess a precursor of dual bore, with > the slide mismatch. But I can imagine he may have sounded > better, overall, on a full 88H. I always thought he sounded better on the simple 78H. That's what Pulis played on and anyone who ever sat beside Gordon (as Per did at the Met) came away heavily influenced. > Also at Aspen that summer (1970) were the American Brass > Quintet, with the original trombonists (Arnold Fromme, Bob > Biddlecome). I remember both those guys were both very down > on large bore tenors and tried to talk the students there > into going home and buying .525 bores. Arnie was a marvelously musical player. Lots of free lance classical gigs, never a big sound but very accurate, very reliable. We used to play the Brattleboro Music Festival in Vermont with a section of Arnie on 1st using either an alto of a narrow bore tenor, Jim Biddlecome on his 36B on 2nd, and moi on the bottom with an 88H, doing things like the Creation. Semi HIP. ------------------ jimlee@cttsweb.com From: Raymond Horton Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:10:09 -0500 To: Cc: Subject: [TROMBONE-L:3966] Re: Instrument Choices David Guion wrote: ...much interesting stuff from Groves... Thank you David!!! Quite illuminating indeed! Ray H.