Subject: Trombone-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 18 Date: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:00 PM From: trombone-l-request@samford.edu Reply-To: trombone-l@samford.edu To: Send Trombone-l mailing list submissions to trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to trombone-l-request@maillists.samford.edu You can reach the person managing the list at trombone-l-owner@maillists.samford.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Trombone-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: When did heavier become better? (BITEensemble@aol.com) 2. Re: When did heavier become better? (JFBermann@aol.com) 3. Re: When did heavier become better? (Chris Waage) 4. Re: When did heavier become better? (sabutin) 5. Re: When did heavier become better? (BassBonist@aol.com) 6. Heavy Lifting (thetubameister@adelphia.net) 7. Re: When did heavier become better? (Daniel Pliskin) 8. RE: Sharpness in lower register (Andy Fugate) 9. Re: When did heavier become better? (Roger Carmichael) 10. Re: When did heavier become better? (Gabriel Langfur) 11. Re: When did heavier become better? (Randy Campora) 12. OTJ Classifieds Update - 2/28/05 (Chris Waage) 13. RE: Missing part (J.c. Sherman) 14. RE: When did heavier become better? (Paul Kemp) 15. RE: Missing part (Delbert Pakiser) 16. Re: Missing part (John Burton) 17. Re: Missing part (John Burton) From: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:25:11 EST To: , Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? In a message dated 2/27/2005 11:26:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, glangfur@yahoo.com writes: I don't really want to start a topic ranting about the state of modern orchestral trombone playing, I'm just wondering: where did the idea come from? In my opinion, it is a myth...some students somewhere started comparing his sound to Joe Alessi (as one example of many who have huge, firm sounds) and so forth and so on. The heavy trend really is rampant at the student level, but if you look at the pros' equipment - there everyday stuff is pretty middle of the road. Many cats play heavier for big works in big gigs - usually us normal folk don't need to crush the violas to be heard. I know the guys in the big orchestras IN BAD halls have had to make some adjustments to get what they consider good sounds to the audience. Though playing in Symphony Hall in Boston, that simply isn't the case. The hall helps so much, you don't really have to blow the walls down with and axe made of lead. The same cannot be said of Avery Fischer... -W From: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:10:13 EST To: , Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? Hi Gabe, Interesting topic. First off, I think there is no steadfast rule as far as equipment goes. I find, I need to blend with the section, and the other groups I work with. Another factor is the halls that we play in. Forgetting bell weights, alloy types, soldered rims, heavy or standard handslides, mouthpiece weights, bore, and shapes, you name it, the equipment needs to be played that works period. I don't choose a component because it's heavy gauge, I choose it because it plays, without having to make it play. I look for 3 basic characteristics, response, projection, and tone quality. I try to convey this to all of my students, and it works. An example is one of my University students who plays on a single valve Conn 110H with a Bach 11/2G, and sounds like a million bucks. It works for him, everyone is happy, and that's what counts. With choosing equipment, especially component horns, it's always good to remember, what you do to one end of the horn, effects the other. The mouthpiece though is what I feel is a major component, a matter of fact, the most important. Jake (Arnold Jacobs) always told me, if it sounds good on the mouthpiece, it'll sound good on the horn. The horn simply amplifies the sound your getting on the mouthpiece. There are several fine mouthpieces out there, and one to fit each one of us. I am especially happy with the Dave Houser line of mouthpieces, and use them all the time. Of special interest are his stainless steel ones, which I feel are very special. I also agree that the Laskey's are good, as are the Griego's, Yamaha's, and countless others. The basic goal is to sound good, and if equipment can enhance that, why not? In conclusion, I feel that comfortable is better, and will make for the best possible end result. Jim Bermann From: Chris Waage Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:14:54 -0600 To: Trombone-L Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? I think it's a combination of several factors: 1. As we progress as musicians and as trombonists, the desired sound changes. Most often, the day-to-day/week-to-week/month-to-month changes are so subtle that they're unnoticed, but there will come a time when you'll notice that both your sound and the desired sound of the instrument is distinctly different today than it was a year or so ago. 2. There are times when musicians turn to equipment changes to effect change, rather than addressing inherent technical issues. If you want a darker sound, get a heavier bell, more massive mouthpiece or a deeper cup on the mouthpiece. Lighter sound, lighter bell, lighter mouthpiece, shallower cup. We're all human, and sometimes it is very difficult to face the fact that we aren't perfect as trombonists. We find viewing the instrument as the imperfect piece of the puzzle to be much more palatable, rather than addressing the fact that the most inconsistent piece of the puzzle is ourselves. 3. Maybe we just sit a little too close to the trumpets . . . they're always looking for the heaviest instrumental accessories. I've seen heavy valve caps, heavyweight mouthpieces, add-on "tone enhancers" and a host of other devices. I'm a little tempted to drill a hole in a jeweler's anvil, insert a Bach 1C mouthpiece and market it as the heaviest trumpet mouthpiece available at slightly over 2 lbs. Overall, we're all in the pursuit of the best possible sound for a given situation. We have a huge amount of information available, and the different instruments and parts that are out there just begged to be tried. For some people, variation from the standards works pretty well. Then again, there's a reason certain combinations have become standards. Chris On 2/27/05 10:11 AM, "Gabriel Langfur" smote the keyboard with: > Hi all, > > At some point in the last 15-20 years, we young bass > trombone players (and large-bore tenors too) got the idea > that heavier was better, that we should play the heaviest > equipment we could handle. I certainly tried, with a very > heavy custom Osmun bell on my Bach that I could never > really get along with. > > I got along better with heavy mouthpieces, starting with > Doug Elliott (heavier than the Schilke I'd been playing), > custom Storks, through to my most recent Ferguson LS. > > Getting frustrated with some consistent low-register > response issues with the LS, I started experimenting, > trying several different mouthpieces. I've ended up with > the Laskey 93D. Not what I expected at all! It's got the > skinny rim that felt weird after almost 15 years on wide > rims, and it's so light I expected it to sound like > shredding paper and have a very hard-to-find pitch center. > > But it doesn't. > > Scott Laskey knows what he's doing; the solid pitch center > is designed in in different ways. The sound is broad and > warm, but also colorful and lively, and more than any > mouthpiece I've ever played it puts out what I put in. > There's a transparency to the feel and response - it seems > to project what I do. Other mouthpieces I've played have > seemed to have a particular way they wanted to be played; > if I did that it was OK, but if I did something different, > nothing would come out. > > Anyway, back to the point. When I think of the bass > trombone players at the top of the profession, they are > rarely playing equipment as heavy as what many younger > players are trying to play. Charlie Vernon and Randy Hawes > both play Bachs, which probably have fairly lightweight > bells, and lighter mouthpieces (I hear they're both using > Laskeys at the moment). Blair Bollinger uses a pretty heavy > bell on his Edwards, but the standard (lighter) weight > slide and a lighter mouthpiece. Doug Yeo's Yamaha trombone > is not particularly heavy, and neither is his mouthpiece. > > I don't really want to start a topic ranting about the > state of modern orchestral trombone playing, I'm just > wondering: where did the idea come from? > > Certainly not Charlie...Doug Yeo played heavy equipment for > a while, but has come back quite a bit. The big batch of > bass trombone auditions in the mid-80s were not, for the > most part, won on super-heavy equipment (with the exception > of Doug I guess, who won the BSO on a Bach/Monette that was > a TANK). > > Am I missing something? Again, where did the > heavier-is-better idea come from? > > > ===== > Gabe Langfur > Boston, MA > _______________________________________________ > Trombone-l mailing list > Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu > http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l > -- Chris Waage, Bass Trombonist The Online Trombone Journal www. trombone.org From: sabutin Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:37:04 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? >Hi all, > >At some point in the last 15-20 years, we young bass >trombone players (and large-bore tenors too) got the idea >that heavier was better, that we should play the heaviest >equipment we could handle. I certainly tried, with a very >heavy custom Osmun bell on my Bach that I could never >really get along with. > >I ---snip--- >Am I missing something? Again, where did the >heavier-is-better idea come from? > > >Gabe Langfur >Boston, MA ======================== Short answer...it happened when concert halls started to get dead. Plus audiences (and musicians as well) began to become desensitized to volume by the increasing din of the modern world. on all levels...psychic as well as physical. Had to play louder to be heard. Playing loud on light equipment gets way too bright way too fast. Playing loud on SMALL-ish equipment is hard too. Tends to back up. Thus...the tanks came in. It started way back in the '30s. People often played orchestral music on .485 bore 4Hs, with even the largest bass trombones often being something like the classic ,547/.565 Conn 70Hs. And then...things began to change. 78Hs on principal, straight .565s on bass Then 8Hs + 88Hs and larger bass tbn. m'pces. Then 42Bs, then double triggers, then independent double triggers w/10.5 " bells made out of cast iron and molybdenum or whatever...then... THEN...we all began to wise up a little. INCLUDING the acousticians who design halls. I have quite recently played in several major university halls that sounded great. New. Right out of the box. Big, AND alive. I'm sure the same thing is happening in big time concert halls. Plus...the relatively easily accessed opportunity to change bells and other components that has been offered by companies like Shires, Edwards, Rath and now even Conn has allowed us to experiment a little, and find out what really works. Plus...the or Brahms or Ravel played by the right sized orchestra at the right tempos in the right room on the right instruments...things change. We reach a certain point of diminishing returns, and then head back to what works. Always. S. -- Sam Burtis is a NYC freelance trombonist and composer, the author of "The American Trombone" and proud proprietor of The Trombone Store in NYC. Visit us on the web at and/or , email us at , or call us at [718] 796-4413. The actual store in NYC is by appointment only. PLEASE VISIT THE OPEN HORN, A WEB FORUM Lots of interesting discussions going on every day. An introduction to the site is available at or just come on over check it out at From: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:36:21 EST To: Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? tbntom com writes: I believe we want to try and get the sounds we hear from major orchestras - instantly! Instant gratification! WE hear big dark warm sounds and somehow think that its because they play huge, heavy horns. Simply not true in most cases In my experience back in the music retail biz (1989-96) I definitely noticed this phenomenon with certain brass players (not just trombonists!) who wanted the shortcut to great tone. Big horns, heavy horns, big mouthpieces, heavy mouthpieces, all thought to be the "Magic Bullet." Problem is most of these players (most, not ALL) were the ones who did not believe that practice was the answer but equipment would "make me sound like the famous, Joe Monster Player." Matt Varho "Never look at the trombones, it only encourages them. " - Richard Strauss From: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:08:52 -0500 To: Subject: [Trombone-l] Heavy Lifting I had some thoughts on this... I have one bass bone now, my Getzen 1062FDY (dual bore). It is heavier than I started, with counter weight, silver B3 leadpipe, rose tuning, tone intensifier, etc. No doubt, I love this horn. I adore it. Once I stripped the bell and silvered it, it came to life and has wonderful presence with minimal effort. [NB - I came from a Yamaha 622 a few years ago - wrong sound for my town...] But this week, I played Brahms Academic Festival Overture. The principal bone asked us to scale down. I'm not to happy playing bass parts on a 42, so I had nothing to go down to (he was on Alto, and the 2nd was immobile, staying on his Elkhart 88H). So I was loaned a 70H, which I had messed with before. Dynomite! Conductor happy, Principal happy, I'm happy... But unhappy too. I thought I had an everything horn, though I knew I might run into the "scale-down" situation. I had been searching for a 5B King to up the slide size to function as a light bass. But this was wonderful. And the 70H filled the hall with ease! There's a few things here. Younger players often mistake (I think) _presence_ with "Darkness" and "Weight". Presence is that feeling that you get in your chest from a great ax with a great player. True power! No recording can copy that well, but we seek what we hear in both live and recorded sound. I think it might be easy to fool ones own ear with a tank-o-phone into thinking you're "dark", when you want presence. My bass may need lightening. Who knows. But bigger, I have finally learned, is not always better (hence the silvered bell...). Maybe there's a 70H, or a TIS Olds, or that 5B+ in my future. Who knows. It's just so expensive to change these things! Just some random thoughts... J.c.S. From: Daniel Pliskin Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:15:04 +0000 To: Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? I love the sound of heavy equipment, when played softly. But when it comes to having a fun time with a trombone, I almost always select my light, little one. When I want to play a ballad, I go for a light mouthpiece. But when I want to play fast stuff, I add a bunch of weight to it to get a quicker attack. DanP From: Andy Fugate Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:09:05 -0600 To: Subject: RE: [Trombone-l] Sharpness in lower register Thanks to all who shared ideas both on and off list. I've got several things I'll be investigating over the next couple of weeks. To recap in one place: 1) Possibly caused by body tension 2) Think down on the pitch 3) Think open vowel sounds 4) Keep the teeth open 5) Think pucker. Look out for upper lip tension. (I've actually had some success by just trying to be "aware" of what my upper lip is doing while I'm playing.) 6) Short arms. (I tried guiness, but I can't seem to remember whether or not it made my arms any longer... ) 7) Switching equipment (I'm currently doubling on french horn in my church orchestra, so maybe we're on to something here.) 8) Air speed - keep it constant & slow. Fast air will cause sharpness in the lower register. 9) Quality horn vs. subpar horn (I'm playing a Yamaha 645 medium bore horn with Bach 6 1/2AM megatone mouthpiece. I like my sound overall.) 10) Free buzz exercises a la Sam Burtis. 11) Focus on what comes out the end of the horn (always good advice!) Thanks to everyone! -Andy -----Original Message----- From: trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu [mailto:trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu]On Behalf Of Steve Gamble Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:56 AM To: TROMBONE-L@server5.samford.edu Subject: RE: [Trombone-l] Sharpness in lower register Right on Gabe. Life's to short to get stuck on how to do it. Steve Gamble, Librarian Tucson Symphony Orchestra 2175 N. 6th Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 (520) 792-9155 x118 (520) 792-9314 fax (520) 991-7056 cel sgamble@tucsonsymphony.org -----Original Message----- From: trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu [mailto:trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu] On Behalf Of Gabriel Langfur Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 6:44 AM To: TROMBONE-L@server5.samford.edu Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Sharpness in lower register --- Roger Hecht wrote: > A lot of the solution is mental (though not > all, > obviously)--concentrating on remaining focused on the > pitch What's the Yogi Berra quote? "90% of the game is half mental" I think? Inevitably, the physical follows the mental. With a clear conception of what the pitch actually needs to be, and the mind focused on making the best sound (with, of course, a clear conception of what THAT is), and a relaxed enough approach that the body can be flexible enough to make unconscious changes...it all falls into place. Of course, as Phil Teele says, "this is a lifetime exercise." I don't think you ever "get" this for good and then never have to think about it again. Pointers here and there about the physical necessities can be helpful, but will always only be temporary if they don't lead to a better mental understanding of what needs to come out. I find I'm increasingly working with students on understanding what should be coming out, rather than the physicality of how to get there. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l From: Roger Carmichael Reply-To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:58:56 -0500 To: Phil Brink , Gabriel Langfur , Trombones and related issues forum Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? Just curious to know how the Laskey 93 or 95 compare to the Doug Yeo signature mouthpiece? Roger Carmichael > [Original Message] > From: Phil Brink > To: Gabriel Langfur ; Trombones and related issues forum > Date: 2/27/2005 11:47:35 AM > Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? > > I concur with your observations. I, too, went through the > "gotta-be-heavy-to-be-good" syndrome and have left it behind [well, except > for my waistline!] and wonder where that idea came from. Is it just a matter > of a little extra weight being a good idea, so let's go all out? Speaking of > equipment, I also agree that the Laskeys are great! I use the 95D. Opinions? > > Phil Brink > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gabriel Langfur" > To: "Trombones and related issues forum" > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:11 AM > Subject: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? > > > > Hi all, > > > > At some point in the last 15-20 years, we young bass > > trombone players (and large-bore tenors too) got the idea > > that heavier was better, that we should play the heaviest > > equipment we could handle. I certainly tried, with a very > > heavy custom Osmun bell on my Bach that I could never > > really get along with. > > > > I got along better with heavy mouthpieces, starting with > > Doug Elliott (heavier than the Schilke I'd been playing), > > custom Storks, through to my most recent Ferguson LS. > > > > Getting frustrated with some consistent low-register > > response issues with the LS, I started experimenting, > > trying several different mouthpieces. I've ended up with > > the Laskey 93D. Not what I expected at all! It's got the > > skinny rim that felt weird after almost 15 years on wide > > rims, and it's so light I expected it to sound like > > shredding paper and have a very hard-to-find pitch center. > > > > But it doesn't. > > > > Scott Laskey knows what he's doing; the solid pitch center > > is designed in in different ways. The sound is broad and > > warm, but also colorful and lively, and more than any > > mouthpiece I've ever played it puts out what I put in. > > There's a transparency to the feel and response - it seems > > to project what I do. Other mouthpieces I've played have > > seemed to have a particular way they wanted to be played; > > if I did that it was OK, but if I did something different, > > nothing would come out. > > > > Anyway, back to the point. When I think of the bass > > trombone players at the top of the profession, they are > > rarely playing equipment as heavy as what many younger > > players are trying to play. Charlie Vernon and Randy Hawes > > both play Bachs, which probably have fairly lightweight > > bells, and lighter mouthpieces (I hear they're both using > > Laskeys at the moment). Blair Bollinger uses a pretty heavy > > bell on his Edwards, but the standard (lighter) weight > > slide and a lighter mouthpiece. Doug Yeo's Yamaha trombone > > is not particularly heavy, and neither is his mouthpiece. > > > > I don't really want to start a topic ranting about the > > state of modern orchestral trombone playing, I'm just > > wondering: where did the idea come from? > > > > Certainly not Charlie...Doug Yeo played heavy equipment for > > a while, but has come back quite a bit. The big batch of > > bass trombone auditions in the mid-80s were not, for the > > most part, won on super-heavy equipment (with the exception > > of Doug I guess, who won the BSO on a Bach/Monette that was > > a TANK). > > > > Am I missing something? Again, where did the > > heavier-is-better idea come from? > > > > > > ===== > > Gabe Langfur > > Boston, MA > > _______________________________________________ > > Trombone-l mailing list > > Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu > > http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l > > _______________________________________________ > Trombone-l mailing list > Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu > http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l From: Gabriel Langfur Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:24:59 -0800 (PST) To: Trombones and related issues forum Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? --- Roger Carmichael wrote: > Just curious to know how the Laskey 93 or 95 compare to > the Doug Yeo > signature mouthpiece? > Roger Carmichael I've compared them back-to-back. The 93D feels a bit bigger on your face (and the 95 is bigger than that), and the rim was initially less comfortable to me, although the more I play it the more comfortable I get. For me, the Laskey gives a bit broader sound and a more even response. ===== Gabe Langfur Boston, MA From: Randy Campora Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:39:06 -0500 To: Gabriel Langfur , Trombones and related issues forum Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? Gabe- Interesting questions there. One element not to forget: the heavy revolution began a few years after the birth of the Thayer valve. My own guess as to the connection: more open blowing horns, were harder to control for some people, changed the way certain horns played after they were converted (especially since conversions were very much hit and miss at the start and some of the valves were very leaky), adding weight to that scenario calmed some horns down and gave some players a familiar feeling of resistance to blow against. Also notice that Edwards was the first to really make a very heavy horn playable, in my opinion, but in order to do that they have to have dual bore slides and conical tuning slide connectors to compensate. So I think there is a correlation between the move toward more openness and the ability to add more weight. If you added a lot of weight to a pre-Thayer era rotary horn, it got much too stuffy quite quickly I think, so that was a dis-incentive back in those days to adding too much weight. And now that I think about it, the tape on the bell phenomenon began before the Thayer valve was born but after the Minick open wrap/more open leadpipe/bored out rotors was the thing that all the top guys in the pros and college were doing (I myself used a piece of stage hands' tape for years--one piece, not the entire roll like some of that era!--on my first Bach with Thayers--it improved that bell but made any other bell I tried it on worse...). Back in those days I tried heavy versions of bells by Minick, Osmun and later Bach, as well as a couple of others, and it just never seemed to work holistically on the horn. In the recent past, I have had two regular Bach yellow bells, one was a full three ounces heavier than the other and seemed to play more evenly than the thinner one so I kept that bell, though the thinner one had wonderful pedal notes in its favor. I have read a couple of times where Jay Friedman has said that he looks for new horns, when he's trying them out, to be focused and open at the same time. He says that if he can get that, he can make a horn do mostly what it needs to do, what he wants it to do. I would very much agree with that assessment--the right combination of openness and focus is hard to find sometimes but when you do it is comfy and you can work with the horn to make things to your liking. Randy Campora (who still plays a Bach with Thayers and has since Christmas sworn off his dual bore slides, forcing himself to become a normal human being again...) From: Chris Waage Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:21:36 -0600 To: Trombone-L , brass_list Subject: [Trombone-l] OTJ Classifieds Update - 2/28/05 The Online Trombone Journal Classifieds - http://www.trombone.org/classifieds - have been updated as of 6:20 AM CST on February 28, 2004. - - - - - Thank you for using the OTJ Classifieds! - - - - - OTJ Classifieds Frequently Asked Questions http://www.trombone.org/classifieds/faq.asp OTJ Gift Shoppe: http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=trombones If you have any questions or comments about the Online Trombone Journal Classifieds, please contact me at chris@trombone.org. Chris Waage -- Chris Waage, Bass Trombonist The Online Trombone Journal www. trombone.org From: "J.c. Sherman" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:59:41 -0500 To: 'Chris Waage' , Subject: RE: [Trombone-l] Missing part Taking it a step further, as Doug Yeo points out on his website, most of us would never stroll into a record store in a mall, and leave with a CD without paying for it. That has a direct parallel with copying recordings or illegally downloading them. The same can be said of the "missing part" or "coffee stain" argument. You would never stroll into the local music store and take your missing part from their cabinet and stroll out of the building. You go to jail for that, and rightfully so. You are doing the same thing when you copy it - taking their money without going into the store! And the publisher looses out, since thee wont be an edition to replace if it's copied and not purchased. So you just stole from two people/entities! J.c.S. -----Original Message----- From: trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu [mailto:trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Waage Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:03 PM To: Trombone-l@server5.samford.edu Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Missing part In a nutshell, the point is this: if you have lost a piece of music or it has been damaged beyond usefulness, and it is still in print, the right thing to do is contact the publisher (or an agent of the publisher, such as a music retailer) for a copy of the music. If it is not in print, you should still contact the publisher or an agent of the publisher for a reproduction waiver, just to cover yourself legally. How many people are going to suddenly end up with lawsuits for copyright violations because of a photocopied piece of music? Not many. That still does not make it right in any way, shape or form. While I do not remember all of the pertinent information, the band music library at a major university (I believe it was the University of Texas) was hit with a substantial fine in the mid 1980's for the possession of illegal copies of copyrighted music. The real test of the logic is if you can substitute another item for the music and still have the logic work. Use a similar item, such as a book: "I recently lost the fourth volume of my five volume set of Harry Potter novels, so I borrowed one from the library and photocopied it to replace the lost volume." Sounds pretty foolish, right? If you lost the book, you'd purchase a replacement, not photocopy it, even though the lost of the revenue from one book sale really probably wouldn't affect J.K. Rowling's pocketbook. Is it a convenient process, or one that can be done in five minutes? No. But, sometimes, it turns out that doing the right thing isn't always convenient. Chris -- Chris Waage, Bass Trombonist The Online Trombone Journal www. trombone.org _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l From: Paul Kemp Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:04:53 -0500 To: , 'Phil Brink' , 'Gabriel Langfur' , 'Trombones and related issues forum' Subject: RE: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? I know of 3 good bass trombonists who have switched from the Doug Yeo to the Laskey. In each case, the improvement in sound, clarity of articulation, and improvement in intonation were IMMEDIATE, before they got used to the mouthpiece. I can also say that the Laskey tenor mouthpieces play extraordinarily clean, as I have both the 57MD and the 59 MD. Scotts Laskey's descriptions of his mouthpieces on his website (www.laskey.com) are amazingly accurate. He is also a man of integrity, and he is intensely interested in producing a better product in terms of the art form of music. Paul D Kemp Jr. 2nd Trombone Chattanooga Symphony & Opera -----Original Message----- From: trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu [mailto:trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Carmichael Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:59 PM To: Phil Brink; Gabriel Langfur; Trombones and related issues forum Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? Just curious to know how the Laskey 93 or 95 compare to the Doug Yeo signature mouthpiece? Roger Carmichael > [Original Message] > From: Phil Brink > To: Gabriel Langfur ; Trombones and related issues forum > Date: 2/27/2005 11:47:35 AM > Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? > > I concur with your observations. I, too, went through the > "gotta-be-heavy-to-be-good" syndrome and have left it behind [well, except > for my waistline!] and wonder where that idea came from. Is it just a matter > of a little extra weight being a good idea, so let's go all out? Speaking of > equipment, I also agree that the Laskeys are great! I use the 95D. Opinions? > > Phil Brink > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gabriel Langfur" > To: "Trombones and related issues forum" > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:11 AM > Subject: [Trombone-l] When did heavier become better? > > > > Hi all, > > > > At some point in the last 15-20 years, we young bass > > trombone players (and large-bore tenors too) got the idea > > that heavier was better, that we should play the heaviest > > equipment we could handle. I certainly tried, with a very > > heavy custom Osmun bell on my Bach that I could never > > really get along with. > > > > I got along better with heavy mouthpieces, starting with > > Doug Elliott (heavier than the Schilke I'd been playing), > > custom Storks, through to my most recent Ferguson LS. > > > > Getting frustrated with some consistent low-register > > response issues with the LS, I started experimenting, > > trying several different mouthpieces. I've ended up with > > the Laskey 93D. Not what I expected at all! It's got the > > skinny rim that felt weird after almost 15 years on wide > > rims, and it's so light I expected it to sound like > > shredding paper and have a very hard-to-find pitch center. > > > > But it doesn't. > > > > Scott Laskey knows what he's doing; the solid pitch center > > is designed in in different ways. The sound is broad and > > warm, but also colorful and lively, and more than any > > mouthpiece I've ever played it puts out what I put in. > > There's a transparency to the feel and response - it seems > > to project what I do. Other mouthpieces I've played have > > seemed to have a particular way they wanted to be played; > > if I did that it was OK, but if I did something different, > > nothing would come out. > > > > Anyway, back to the point. When I think of the bass > > trombone players at the top of the profession, they are > > rarely playing equipment as heavy as what many younger > > players are trying to play. Charlie Vernon and Randy Hawes > > both play Bachs, which probably have fairly lightweight > > bells, and lighter mouthpieces (I hear they're both using > > Laskeys at the moment). Blair Bollinger uses a pretty heavy > > bell on his Edwards, but the standard (lighter) weight > > slide and a lighter mouthpiece. Doug Yeo's Yamaha trombone > > is not particularly heavy, and neither is his mouthpiece. > > > > I don't really want to start a topic ranting about the > > state of modern orchestral trombone playing, I'm just > > wondering: where did the idea come from? > > > > Certainly not Charlie...Doug Yeo played heavy equipment for > > a while, but has come back quite a bit. The big batch of > > bass trombone auditions in the mid-80s were not, for the > > most part, won on super-heavy equipment (with the exception > > of Doug I guess, who won the BSO on a Bach/Monette that was > > a TANK). > > > > Am I missing something? Again, where did the > > heavier-is-better idea come from? > > > > > > ===== > > Gabe Langfur > > Boston, MA > > _______________________________________________ > > Trombone-l mailing list > > Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu > > http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l > > _______________________________________________ > Trombone-l mailing list > Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu > http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l From: Delbert Pakiser Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:51:23 -0700 To: "'J.c. Sherman'" , 'Chris Waage' , Subject: RE: [Trombone-l] Missing part One more idea to compare. Your trombone needs repair, so the repair shop will fix the trombone. They might replace a inner slide or replace the water key. They do have replacement parts. You don't have to buy a complete new horn. Yet in printed music, you can't buy replacement parts, you have to buy the complete new set of music. Del Pakiser -----Original Message----- From: trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu [mailto:trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu] On Behalf Of J.c. Sherman Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 6:00 AM To: 'Chris Waage'; Trombone-l@server5.samford.edu Subject: RE: [Trombone-l] Missing part Taking it a step further, as Doug Yeo points out on his website, most of us would never stroll into a record store in a mall, and leave with a CD without paying for it. That has a direct parallel with copying recordings or illegally downloading them. The same can be said of the "missing part" or "coffee stain" argument. You would never stroll into the local music store and take your missing part from their cabinet and stroll out of the building. You go to jail for that, and rightfully so. You are doing the same thing when you copy it - taking their money without going into the store! And the publisher looses out, since thee wont be an edition to replace if it's copied and not purchased. So you just stole from two people/entities! J.c.S. -----Original Message----- From: trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu [mailto:trombone-l-bounces@samford.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Waage Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:03 PM To: Trombone-l@server5.samford.edu Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Missing part In a nutshell, the point is this: if you have lost a piece of music or it has been damaged beyond usefulness, and it is still in print, the right thing to do is contact the publisher (or an agent of the publisher, such as a music retailer) for a copy of the music. If it is not in print, you should still contact the publisher or an agent of the publisher for a reproduction waiver, just to cover yourself legally. How many people are going to suddenly end up with lawsuits for copyright violations because of a photocopied piece of music? Not many. That still does not make it right in any way, shape or form. While I do not remember all of the pertinent information, the band music library at a major university (I believe it was the University of Texas) was hit with a substantial fine in the mid 1980's for the possession of illegal copies of copyrighted music. The real test of the logic is if you can substitute another item for the music and still have the logic work. Use a similar item, such as a book: "I recently lost the fourth volume of my five volume set of Harry Potter novels, so I borrowed one from the library and photocopied it to replace the lost volume." Sounds pretty foolish, right? If you lost the book, you'd purchase a replacement, not photocopy it, even though the lost of the revenue from one book sale really probably wouldn't affect J.K. Rowling's pocketbook. Is it a convenient process, or one that can be done in five minutes? No. But, sometimes, it turns out that doing the right thing isn't always convenient. Chris -- Chris Waage, Bass Trombonist The Online Trombone Journal www. trombone.org _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l From: John Burton Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:12:16 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Missing part From: John Burton Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:48:42 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Missing part Delbert Pakiser wrote: >One more idea to compare. > >Your trombone needs repair, so the repair shop will fix the trombone. They >might replace a inner slide or replace the water key. They do have >replacement parts. You don't have to buy a complete new horn. Yet in >printed music, you can't buy replacement parts, you have to buy the complete >new set of music. > >Del Pakiser > > > I've found that I can purchase individual parts often when I ask. Not always, mind you, but often I've been able to purchase *just* the Bass Trombone part, or *just* the Second Trombone part even tho it wasn't listed in the catalog as available separately. Naturally, your mileage may vary... --==jb==-- -- ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= john burton Bach 50B3 Bass Trombone, Charleston NeoPhonic Orchestra South Charleston, West Virginia _______________________________________________ Trombone-l mailing list Trombone-l@maillists.samford.edu http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l