TROMBONE-L Digest 1532 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." by Douglas Yeo 2) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by SlideH@aol.com 3) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by "John McVey" 4) RE: This Whole Music Thing.... by "DOWDY, KENNETH S" 5) Re: St. Matthew's Passion by J.S. Bach by paulel9@bellsouth.net 6) Re: St. Matthew's Passion by J.S. Bach by Douglas Yeo 7) Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." by Mike Coyle 8) Re: St. Matthew's Passion by J.S. Bach again by Douglas Yeo 9) Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." by Douglas Yeo 10) Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." by Mike Coyle 11) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Joao Leao 12) Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." by Mike Coyle 13) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Mike Coyle 14) Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by Mike Coyle 15) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Peter Soukup 16) Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by Chris Waage 17) RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by "DOWDY, KENNETH S" 18) RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by Mike Coyle 19) RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by "DOWDY, KENNETH S" 20) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by "Rodney Ellard" 21) Look out Chicago... by "Dean Hubbard" 22) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Mike Coyle 23) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Joao Leao 24) ETW competitions by BarryMcCom@aol.com 25) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Mike Coyle 26) RE: This Whole Music Thing.... by sackbutt 27) Re: ETW competitions by Chris Waage 28) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by David Buckley 29) RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by Dennis Clason 30) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by "Christopher Smith" 31) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by Andrewsjon@aol.com 32) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by "Christopher Smith" 33) RE: This Whole Music Thing.... by "DOWDY, KENNETH S" 34) RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by "DOWDY, KENNETH S" 35) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by Chris Waage 36) Re: The whole flying thing by "Paul D. Kemp, Jr." 37) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by Andrewsjon@aol.com 38) Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. by Douglas Yeo 39) RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by Dennis Clason 40) Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by "Art Triggs" 41) Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 by Yoda505@aol.com 42) Re back on equipment by "Henry McDougall" 43) Re: Michael Davis Quintet by SJack85597@aol.com 44) Re:Bach 36BOG for sale by MFlanzman@aol.com 45) Bass Bone Stuff For Sale by Randy Campora 46) Re:Bach 36BOG for sale by "John Lavoie" From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:51:12 -0500 From: Douglas Yeo To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Life is extraordinarily busy for me these days with a Boston Symphony tour to NYC coming up this week, deadlines to meet for my new CD release, conducting brass band concerts, etc. On Sunday, the BSO brass section played at the NE Patriots game (and continued our streak of Boston teams being unbeaten when we play the national anthem...) So much to do, but there is always time for the important things, like writing to this list. Briefly (that perhaps an oxymoron where I am concerned...), let me say that the discussion of Bach and the what and why of music is very exciting to me. Hearing the views of others - whether I agree or disagree - is a very healthy and informative thing. We will not "solve" the issues on this list or any other fora, but it is quite wonderful to see the discussion of issues which cut so deeply to the heart of what we are all about as musical people. My colleague Norman Bolter and I are very interested in the response of our colleagues to things that go on on stage at Symphony Hall. For instance, whenever the piccolo player plays her little "hot lick" in the scherzo of the Tchaikovsky 4th Symphony, there is the predictable stampede of shuffling from our colleagues. The same goes for various other solos players may have, or after a conductor works the violins on a technical passage and they finally "get it." However, when the brass section plays an inexpressibly beautiful soft chorale, or the trombones are singled out for praise by a conductor for the way they phrased, the silence from our colleagues is often deafening. On one recent occasion when the orchestra stampeded for a fast, technical execution by a colleague, Norman turned to me and said: "Some things are obvious, others are sublime." And so it is with Bach, in my view, and the St. Matthew Passion in particular. How we receive music is very much connected to how we are prepared to receive it. There is nothing in the world wrong with liking music which immediately speaks to you - that goes right to the heart by bypassing the head. I spoke volumes about this in my recent (over) lengthy post last week. Bach, to my mind, does both - he hits me in my head so I am numb with amazement, and sears my heart with his scorching passion. That some on the list don't find the St. Matthew Passion to move them on any particular level is their perogative. The very things which excite me - Bach's extraordinary text (not the English translation, but the remarkable potency of the German which suffers in a poetic, rhyming English translation), his instrumental coloration, his sense of balance, his ability to create strict structures for himself and find ways to move within them, how he uses the aria and chorale to respond to the drama going on, his various harmonizations of the chorale we, in English, call "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" (which in itself qualifies in my mind for proof that God exists), the way he creates the musical "halo" over the words of Christ - speak so strongly to me on both an intellectual and emotional level. That I am by no means alone in this thinking tells me that there is "something to it." If you don't "get it" it does not mean you're stupid or ignorant. Music speaks to different people on different levels. I would only encourage that you perhaps give it another chance in a different state of receptivity and you might be surprised what happens. There was a time when I had no interest in Bach, but I made a concerted decision a number of years ago to learn about him and his music. To do so, I didn't just run out and get some CDs and plop them in my machine and push "play." I began with reading Spitta's 3 Volume biography of Bach. I then turned to scores, began (pitifully) playing Bach on the piano, and redoubled my efforts to understand what was going on in the only music of his I can play with any facility, his Cello Suites. THEN I turned to recordings (and not just any recording - for instance, the Chicago/Solti "St Matthew" has been justifiably roundly criticized, I would turn to Gardiner's recording for some potent understanding of the work), carefully considering the context, meaning, and intent of the piece and words. This would not just be "background music" but music which I would allocate time for, not something to do the dishes to, but given space and time in which I could be affected by the music. When I do so, I can be powerfully gripped by the music (not just Bach). But we live in a 6000 channel universe which competes for our attention. This is not easy to do. This takes TIME> One post commented that there is not time to spend with music that does not immediately grab and affect. But I would argue there is always time for what is important. My life is busy as well, and I now that I MUST find time to refresh myself emotionally, spiritually, relationally, and musically. Bach provides for me some of the most potent refreshment I have ever found on all of those levels. When confronted with something that we don't know about, or which seems to be distant, foreign or confusing, we need to make a decision about what we will do about it. We can ignore it and move on to other things, in which case we save time but perhaps deny ourselves a potentially life changing experience. Or we can seek it out, which will take time but can possibly move us to another level of understanding of our pitiable human condition. I choose the latter in most cases. I've spent many weeks studying Indian Ragas, for instance, after hearing one on the radio and being intrigued with what "all the fuss" was about. Now I know what the "fuss" is about after doing a lengthy study, seeking out exprerts, understaing the scales and notation and instruments, etc, and I am a better person for it. I did the same thing with Mahler several years ago, and with the serpent, and with Schumann, and with JJ Johnson, and with the Lebanese Oud, and with Andes mountain music, and with Tibetan monks. I am curious by nature. My life on this planet will be over soon - if God spares me perhaps another 40 years, but likely less. I fill my life with people and relationships, and try to be a good steward of the gifts God has given me. One of the things which I do is to discern what things may improve my lot on earth, what things may make me a better person, a more compassionate person, a more loving person, a more interesting and interested person. Music is a door through which all of these things happen to me. I often say, "Different strokes for different folks" and that is surely true. But it is also true that there are things on earth which are worth understanding, worth taking the time for, worth "getting the background" for, worth investing in. Bach is one of those things. And so are so many other kinds of music. As a musical pluralist, I would just encourage you, my friends, to step out where the territory is unfamiliar and a little scary. You might be surprised what you find. BUT you must be prepared for it. And that takes time. I close with words of Hindemith which I quote often, from his poem "The Posthorn" which appears in his Alto Horn Sonata: ===== Nicht deshalb ist das Alte gut, weil es vergangen, das Neue nicht vortrefflich, weil wir mit ihm gehen; und mehr hat keiner je an GlŸck erfahren, als er befŠhigt war zu tragen, zu verstehen. And dir ist's, hinter Eile, LŠrm und Mannigfalt das StŠndige, die Stille, Sinn, Gestalt zurŸckzufinden und neu zu bewahren. (Here follows Hindemith's own English translation) The old is good not just because it's past, nor is the new supreme because we live with it, and never yet a man felt greater joy than he could bear or truly comprehend. Your task it is, amid confusion, rush, and noise to grasp the lasting, calm, and meaningful, and finding it anew, to hold and treasure it. ===== Something to consider, wouldn't you agree? -Doug Yeo ********************************************** * Douglas Yeo * * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * * yeo@yeodoug.com * * http://www.yeodoug.com * * <>< * ********************************************** From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:11:57 EST From: SlideH@aol.com To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: <0.104f753f.257e6fad@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Everyone: I also heard the Michael Davis/Bill Reichenbach Quintet this week. They were playing in Buffalo, NY on Wednesday 12/1. I had heard both of these guys play many many times on recordings, but never actually heard them play live. What a great great concert!!! I feel lucky that i was able to catch them right here in my hometown. Unfortunately, only about 15 people attended the club where they were playing - I hope they recieved bigger crowds on the other gigs! Take care, John From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:17:54 -0500 From: "John McVey" To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: <85256840.004E93DC.00@m-ms03.frb.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline FYI, Mike and Bill are playing at Blues Alley in Washington, DC, tonight, 7 Dec, with shows at 8:00 and 10:00 PM. Cover charge is $16.00. John SlideH@aol.com on 12/07/99 09:11:57 AM Please respond to SlideH@aol.com To: "Trombones and related issues forum." cc: (bcc: John McVey/IRM/FRBOG/US) Subject Re: Michael Davis Quintet : Hi Everyone: I also heard the Michael Davis/Bill Reichenbach Quintet this week. They were playing in Buffalo, NY on Wednesday 12/1. I had heard both of these guys play many many times on recordings, but never actually heard them play live. What a great great concert!!! I feel lucky that i was able to catch them right here in my hometown. Unfortunately, only about 15 people attended the club where they were playing - I hope they recieved bigger crowds on the other gigs! Take care, John From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:53:28 -0600 From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: RE: This Whole Music Thing.... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Tall [SMTP:davetall@sprintmail.com] > Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 10:49 PM > To: Trombones and related issues forum. > Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... > > At 10:19 PM 12/6/99 -0500, Richard Human, Jr. wrote: > >> From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" > I did not write the following, Rich Human did. > >I would offer that Bach's music had one singular purpose, and he backs me > >up. "SDG" was inscribed on almost every work of Bach. "Soli Deo > Gloria," > >to God alone be the Glory. So, so unlike any composer before or after, > Bach > >expressed himself for one purpose and one only - to bring people to the > God > >of might, passion, strength and tenderness that he believed in. > > > >Having said that I should say this. I am not a Christian. I am still > >struggling to find rhyme or reason in this whole world. But, Bach, more > >than the Bible, any pastor I have heard or any witness I have been > given, > >offers me evidence that there exists a higher being. > > > >I think pure music (avoiding the word "good" on purpose) maintains Bach's > >example of singularity of purpose and focus. Pure music is not > commercial. > >Pure music is not produced hastily and without inner sacrifice and > >contemplation. Pure music is not offered without purpose and meaning. > Pure > >music is not managed - it is not sold and bought. It just is. > Dave Tall wrote: > The concept and discussion of "pure" as opposed to "tainted" music is one > that will continue as long as there are musicians, I think. I don't > personally believe that music which is "commercial, "managed" or "sold and > bought" is inherently impure. > I, too, don't consider music pure or impure. These, again, are Mr. Human's words. My point is that I don't judge religious music to secular standards. The intent of the music is different. Religious music was often written (as with Bach) with the very personal beliefs of the composer infusing it. As such, it often depends on the disposition of the listener as to the effect of the music. Let us use Bach as an example. Bach was a Lutheran. His beliefs and understanding of God were also Lutheran, and his hymns are still widely used in the Lutheran and other Protestant Churches. I can see absolutely no reason why his music would not touch those of like mind with him, since he was very effective at setting his texts to music. Bach was also a German, and many of his compositions were intended for choral settings following the German Lutheran pattern of worship. The fact that his music appeals to others than German Lutherans is a tribute to the excellent compositional skill and musical gift that Bach possessed. However, it does not make Bach the last word on music. I stated that Bach's Passion would not be my first choice if I were a conductor. This grieved Mr. Human. My first choice, if I were so lucky, would be to perform Gabrieli's 1597 Sacred Symphony, both instrumental and vocal works, in its entirety, and in a large cathedral. Why? Because this music means the most to me. While I hold a Christian belief like Mr. Yeo, my theology is very Eastern and has little in common with Western Protestantism (I am NOT saying one is better, only that they are different). Also, musically, I don't care for large choirs, and I am particularly revolted by massed female voices which do not sound angelic to me at all, but rather remind me of Banshees attempting to escape the torments of hell (again, a personal asthetic observation and not a social statement). My ideal choir would consist of no more than 15 to 20 voices, all male, and even then would rarely use more than 4 to 6 voices. My religious musical preference also rests strongly with chant, and less so with four part chorales. As a result of my background and preferences, I find a lot of the modern performances of Bach's music to be good, but less than overwhelming. I don't believe that this makes me a near moronic, blood-thirsty barbarian seeking the overthrow of Western civilization. And no, I don't listen to "top 40" music either, so I am not a fan of "ear candy". I did write the following: > >> Some may consider > >> this a sloppy way to do things, but there is just so much music out > there, > >> representing so many different cultures and time periods, that I just > don't > >> have time to get bogged down. For me, the time I would spend trying to > >> "understand" some music would prevent me from enjoying and exploring > the > >> vast repository of what is out there. > > Mr. Human wrote this response: > >So - you only eat one kind of food, right? Just french fries for you. > >Forget the beef, the pork, the sauces and dressings. Should people only > >play a few notes on their horn...just the best ones? Should each person > >play just one piece of music - just the one they can play without error? > Dave Tall wrote: > I understood him to say that he didn't wish to delve deeply into one type > of music so that he may sample broadly of the many musics of the world. > You correctly interpreted my comment, and I appreciate that. Mr. Human's use of food as an example is very good, in fact, excellent. (As an aside, I don't often agree with every thing that Mr. Human writes. But I do highly respect his writings because they are well thought out and really cause one to think deeply. I would encourage everyone to read his posts carefully, and then re-read them again.) A lot of classical music is like wax beans to me. I have eaten them, and if I were a guest at someone's house and were served wax beans, I would eat them again. However, if I were at a supermarket, I would buy pinto beans, navy beans, green beans, chili beans, great northern beans, lima beans, kidney beans, or just about any other kind of beans before I purchased wax beans. I never took the time to develop a taste for wax beans because there are so many other kinds of beans out there that I do really like. And we haven't even gotten to carrots and celery yet. I don't think that my digestive system is any the worse for that. And I really don't think that my life is any less "elevated" by not worshiping at the altar of Bach. Ken Dowdy > Dave Tall > Bass Trombonist > New Mexico Symphony From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:31:57 -0600 From: paulel9@bellsouth.net To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Cc: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" Subject: Re: St. Matthew's Passion by J.S. Bach Message-ID: <384D286D.B831B9B@bellsouth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After reading Yeo's lengthy post, it occurred to me that some music must be like Scotch whisky, it may not be immediately tasteful, but it is an acquired taste. By the way, it's been 30 years since I first tasted Scotch...and I don't like it yet! Hmm, maybe Yeo has a point. If I moved to Scotland, and spent years researching the grain Scotch is made from, got to know everyone who grew the grain, harvested it, processed it, malted it, brewed it, fermented it, aged it, and packaged it, then I might grow to like Scotch whisky. NAAAAH! From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:48:10 -0500 From: Douglas Yeo To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: St. Matthew's Passion by J.S. Bach Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 9:31 AM -0600 12/7/99, paulel9@bellsouth.net wrote: >After reading Yeo's lengthy post, it occurred to me that some music >must be like Scotch whisky, it may not be immediately tasteful, but it >is an acquired taste. Sounds an awful lot like playing the trombone! :-) -Doug Yeo ********************************************** * Douglas Yeo * * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * * yeo@yeodoug.com * * http://www.yeodoug.com * * <>< * ********************************************** From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:45:42 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." Message-ID: <199912071547.JAA27811@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Doug Yeo wrote: >That some on the list don't find the St. Matthew Passion to move them on any particular level is their perogative. Doug, I have to take issue with this notion. The idea that the phenomenon of being moved is a matter of prerogative (a special right, power or privilege) strikes me as a misconception. What moves one and what that effect may be is far more subjective than a matter of choice. The reasons we are all drawn to certain things which move us are probably a matter of environment, conditioning, exposure and persuasive influence. Though it is certainly a special right, power and privilege for us to hold and voice our opinions and ideas, we don't seem to have a choice over what moves us - we have choice over what we expose ourselves to (after a point) and what we spend most of time listening to to cultivate our interests, but, what ultimately moves us is the highly subjective aggregate of life influences which I doubt even James Hillman could dissect in the hope of finding a definitive source or reason. I do agree heartily with you, Doug, on how exciting it is to see people sharing so passionately about one of our greatest intangible loves. Later, Mike At 08:51 AM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >Life is extraordinarily busy for me these days with a Boston Symphony >tour to NYC coming up this week, deadlines to meet for my new CD >release, conducting brass band concerts, etc. On Sunday, the BSO >brass section played at the NE Patriots game (and continued our >streak of Boston teams being unbeaten when we play the national >anthem...) So much to do, but there is always time for the important >things, like writing to this list. > >Briefly (that perhaps an oxymoron where I am concerned...), let me >say that the discussion of Bach and the what and why of music is very >exciting to me. Hearing the views of others - whether I agree or >disagree - is a very healthy and informative thing. We will not >"solve" the issues on this list or any other fora, but it is quite >wonderful to see the discussion of issues which cut so deeply to the >heart of what we are all about as musical people. > >My colleague Norman Bolter and I are very interested in the response >of our colleagues to things that go on on stage at Symphony Hall. > >For instance, whenever the piccolo player plays her little "hot lick" >in the scherzo of the Tchaikovsky 4th Symphony, there is the >predictable stampede of shuffling from our colleagues. The same goes >for various other solos players may have, or after a conductor works >the violins on a technical passage and they finally "get it." >However, when the brass section plays an inexpressibly beautiful soft >chorale, or the trombones are singled out for praise by a conductor >for the way they phrased, the silence from our colleagues is often >deafening. > >On one recent occasion when the orchestra stampeded for a fast, >technical execution by a colleague, Norman turned to me and said: > >"Some things are obvious, others are sublime." > >And so it is with Bach, in my view, and the St. Matthew Passion in particular. > >How we receive music is very much connected to how we are prepared to >receive it. There is nothing in the world wrong with liking music >which immediately speaks to you - that goes right to the heart by >bypassing the head. I spoke volumes about this in my recent (over) >lengthy post last week. > >Bach, to my mind, does both - he hits me in my head so I am numb with >amazement, and sears my heart with his scorching passion. > >That some on the list don't find the St. Matthew Passion to move them >on any particular level is their perogative. The very things which >excite me - Bach's extraordinary text (not the English translation, >but the remarkable potency of the German which suffers in a poetic, >rhyming English translation), his instrumental coloration, his sense >of balance, his ability to create strict structures for himself and >find ways to move within them, how he uses the aria and chorale to >respond to the drama going on, his various harmonizations of the >chorale we, in English, call "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" (which in >itself qualifies in my mind for proof that God exists), the way he >creates the musical "halo" over the words of Christ - speak so >strongly to me on both an intellectual and emotional level. That I >am by no means alone in this thinking tells me that there is >"something to it." If you don't "get it" it does not mean you're >stupid or ignorant. Music speaks to different people on different >levels. I would only encourage that you perhaps give it another >chance in a different state of receptivity and you might be surprised >what happens. > >There was a time when I had no interest in Bach, but I made a >concerted decision a number of years ago to learn about him and his >music. To do so, I didn't just run out and get some CDs and plop >them in my machine and push "play." I began with reading Spitta's 3 >Volume biography of Bach. I then turned to scores, began (pitifully) >playing Bach on the piano, and redoubled my efforts to understand >what was going on in the only music of his I can play with any >facility, his Cello Suites. THEN I turned to recordings (and not >just any recording - for instance, the Chicago/Solti "St Matthew" has >been justifiably roundly criticized, I would turn to Gardiner's >recording for some potent understanding of the work), carefully >considering the context, meaning, and intent of the piece and words. >This would not just be "background music" but music which I would >allocate time for, not something to do the dishes to, but given space >and time in which I could be affected by the music. > >When I do so, I can be powerfully gripped by the music (not just >Bach). But we live in a 6000 channel universe which competes for our >attention. This is not easy to do. This takes TIME> One post >commented that there is not time to spend with music that does not >immediately grab and affect. But I would argue there is always time >for what is important. My life is busy as well, and I now that I >MUST find time to refresh myself emotionally, spiritually, >relationally, and musically. Bach provides for me some of the most >potent refreshment I have ever found on all of those levels. > >When confronted with something that we don't know about, or which >seems to be distant, foreign or confusing, we need to make a decision >about what we will do about it. We can ignore it and move on to >other things, in which case we save time but perhaps deny ourselves a >potentially life changing experience. Or we can seek it out, which >will take time but can possibly move us to another level of >understanding of our pitiable human condition. I choose the latter >in most cases. I've spent many weeks studying Indian Ragas, for >instance, after hearing one on the radio and being intrigued with >what "all the fuss" was about. Now I know what the "fuss" is about >after doing a lengthy study, seeking out exprerts, understaing the >scales and notation and instruments, etc, and I am a better person >for it. I did the same thing with Mahler several years ago, and with >the serpent, and with Schumann, and with JJ Johnson, and with the >Lebanese Oud, and with Andes mountain music, and with Tibetan monks. > >I am curious by nature. My life on this planet will be over soon - >if God spares me perhaps another 40 years, but likely less. I fill >my life with people and relationships, and try to be a good steward >of the gifts God has given me. One of the things which I do is to >discern what things may improve my lot on earth, what things may make >me a better person, a more compassionate person, a more loving >person, a more interesting and interested person. Music is a door >through which all of these things happen to me. > >I often say, "Different strokes for different folks" and that is >surely true. But it is also true that there are things on earth >which are worth understanding, worth taking the time for, worth >"getting the background" for, worth investing in. Bach is one of >those things. And so are so many other kinds of music. As a musical >pluralist, I would just encourage you, my friends, to step out where >the territory is unfamiliar and a little scary. You might be >surprised what you find. BUT you must be prepared for it. And that >takes time. > >I close with words of Hindemith which I quote often, from his poem >"The Posthorn" which appears in his Alto Horn Sonata: > >===== > >Nicht deshalb ist das Alte gut, weil es vergangen, >das Neue nicht vortrefflich, weil wir mit ihm gehen; >und mehr hat keiner je an GlŸck erfahren, >als er befŠhigt war zu tragen, zu verstehen. >And dir ist's, hinter Eile, LŠrm und Mannigfalt >das StŠndige, die Stille, Sinn, Gestalt >zurŸckzufinden und neu zu bewahren. > >(Here follows Hindemith's own English translation) > >The old is good not just because it's past, >nor is the new supreme because we live with it, >and never yet a man felt greater joy >than he could bear or truly comprehend. >Your task it is, amid confusion, rush, and noise >to grasp the lasting, calm, and meaningful, >and finding it anew, to hold and treasure it. > >===== > >Something to consider, wouldn't you agree? > >-Doug Yeo > > > > ********************************************** > * Douglas Yeo * > * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * > * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * > * yeo@yeodoug.com * > * http://www.yeodoug.com * > * <>< * > ********************************************** > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:53:57 -0500 From: Douglas Yeo To: paulel9@bellsouth.net, "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: St. Matthew's Passion by J.S. Bach again Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 9:31 AM -0600 12/7/99, paulel9@bellsouth.net wrote: >After reading Yeo's lengthy post, it occurred to me that some music >must be like Scotch whisky, it may not be immediately tasteful, but it >is an acquired taste. This also reminds me of a recent happening in our family. When a relative of mine (70 years old) was going through a rough patch recently, I thought to send her a recording of the St. Matthew Passion. She has no understanding of German, doesn't know much about classical music, wouldn't know an oboe d'amore from a bassoon. But she told me later that the music spoke immediately to her and was a great comfort to her in her trouble, and it is something she now listens to weekly, like an old friend, and she learns something new from it each time. She also hears the music on a different level and in a different way than me which is neither better nor worse, but just different - and very personal. Bottom line: we are all different. Try, evaluate, try, evaluate... Life is grand! -Doug Yeo ********************************************** * Douglas Yeo * * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * * yeo@yeodoug.com * * http://www.yeodoug.com * * <>< * ********************************************** From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:58:13 -0500 From: Douglas Yeo To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 9:45 AM -0600 12/7/99, Mike Coyle wrote: >Doug Yeo wrote: > >That some on the list don't find the St. Matthew Passion to move them > >on any particular level is their perogative. > >Doug, > >I have to take issue with this notion. The idea that the phenomenon of >being moved is a matter of prerogative (a special right, power or >privilege) strikes me as a misconception. What moves one and what that >effect may be is far more subjective than a matter of choice. The reasons >we are all drawn to certain things which move us are probably a matter of >environment, conditioning, exposure and persuasive influence. Though it is >certainly a special right, power and privilege for us to hold and voice our >opinions and ideas, we don't seem to have a choice over what moves us Yes, no or maybe. It is a mysterious thing. Some of us purposely close ourselves off to particular things, other things take us over without our wanting them to. Some would hold it is the "moving of the Spirit" which allows any of us to be "moved" by anything. It is a mystery. I would not disagree with the idea that what moves a person MAY be more subjective than a matter of choice, but I would simply state that choice often IS involved, choice which is often informed by past experience and myriad other reasons. Who am I (or any of us) to plumb the mysteries of what "makes us tick?" But it is fun! -Doug Yeo ********************************************** * Douglas Yeo * * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * * yeo@yeodoug.com * * http://www.yeodoug.com * * <>< * ********************************************** From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:01:51 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: yeo@yeodoug.com Cc: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." Message-ID: <199912071604.KAA29919@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:58 AM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 9:45 AM -0600 12/7/99, Mike Coyle wrote: GREAT FUN :-) especially in the company of intelligent and engaging people. signed, Mister Know-it-all :) > >Who am I (or any of us) to plumb the mysteries of what "makes us tick?" > >But it is fun! > >-Doug Yeo > > ********************************************** > * Douglas Yeo * > * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * > * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * > * yeo@yeodoug.com * > * http://www.yeodoug.com * > * <>< * > ********************************************** > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 11:10:10 -0500 From: Joao Leao To: richard@trombone.org Cc: "Trombones and related issues forum." , leao@gog.harvard.edu Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <199912071610.LAA14150@gog.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Like many who already expressed their views I find this exchange one of the most interesting and fortunate of the many I've read in this list and I am very thankful to Doug, Richard, Ken and everybody who have enlightened us with their views on Bach and higher reaches of music appreciation. The cent and a half about this subject I want to add hardly deserves to be in their company but I sense that something is being lost in the conversation... Here goes: I too have been in awe of Bach's music since I first heard it in my teens. and nothing I ever heard even remotely compares with it except perhaps some moments fleeting moments of Raga or Qwazali performance by the best masters. But as a devout atheist I must remark that among the most admirable traits I find in Bach is the consistent level of inspiration and achievement shared by his sacred and his profane music! I happen to find myself raised to the same levels of intelectual, sensual and -- yes! -- spiritual stimulation and delight when listening to the B Minor Mass (or St. John's Passion, by the way, which I heard 5 years ago at Trinity Church in Boston remarkably done) as when listening to the Art of Fugue or the Well-Tempered Clavier! And yes, I do agree, with Richard that "No man has felt, or made, love like the music of Bach" and that "It is infinite in its correctness, and correct in infinitness", in other words, that it `exhausts our longing for what transcend us' as I heard someone put it long time ago. But I believe that is exactly what I have learn from Bach: that music is NOT the expression of anything in particular, human or divine, but something that exists, happily enough, beyond our need to express and our craving for meaning! Thus there is no "pure" or "tainted" music only pure and tainted purposes juxtaposed to or accompained by music. This is an insight I believe quite inescapable to anyone who listens to Bach with a truly open mind( by this I mean leting himself be overpowered while recognizing why it is overpowering). But it clearly suffered much under the rise of romantic harmony and expressionism which technically still rule the craft of music making, playing and hearing in this century. This is the conception of "music as a language" which, I believe, infects much of our present preconceptions. Curiously enough the "rediscovery" of Bach's music by (that most romantic of romantics) Felix Mendelsshon is, I suspect, responsible for the few modern departures still registering against this prevailing view. And, yes, I am talking here about the whole AvantGuard movement from Shoenberg to LaMonte Young, Coltrane to Braxton, Antheil to Zappa, etc... OK. Enough said. Flame me if you will but keep it lit... -Joao --------------------------------------------- Joao Pedro Leao * jleao@cfa.harvard.edu Computer Systems Manager - Central Engineering Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140 Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124 ---------------------------------------------- "All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)" ------------------------------------------------------- From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:10:02 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: Douglas Yeo Cc: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Bach and "This whole music thing..." Message-ID: <199912071612.KAA01171@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Doug, I wish I was in Boston again (lived there during my grad school days) - it sure would be easier on the fingers to be able to discuss this stuff in person over crumpets and weak tea :) Mike >> >At 9:45 AM -0600 12/7/99, Mike Coyle wrote: >>GREAT FUN :-) >> >>especially in the company of intelligent and engaging people. >> >>signed, >> >>Mister Know-it-all :) > > >A tip of my hat, Mike! > >-Doug > > ********************************************** > * Douglas Yeo * > * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * > * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * > * yeo@yeodoug.com * > * http://www.yeodoug.com * > * <>< * > ********************************************** > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:41:58 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: leao@gog.harvard.edu Cc: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <199912071644.KAA05628@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bravo, Joao, I'm glad you added this line of thought to this thread. The only thing I would take issue with is that Mendelssohn is the "most romantic of romantics." That it was Mendelssohn's influence, after the 1829 performance of St. Matthew, which has led to the grossly over-blown and nauseatingly romanticized readings of Bach is unquestionable. For years, at AMS (American Musicological Society) meetings, there has been an ongoing argument, headed by Joshua Rifkin, that Bach's choral works (particularly the cantatas) used only four or eight voices to sing the actual chorales and choruses. Rifkin has been arguing for years (on the basis of the evidence of the number of surviving vocal parts for the cantatas, mostly in Leipzig) that Bach's chorus was built from only one or two to a part. In the early days (early 1980s?) there were several grand spats at the AMS meetings over this issue. Reduced choruses are clear: exactly how many per part, though, is a little difficult to "prove." So Rifkin's thesis has been out there for some time. Instrumentation and the forces used are, of course, other topics of hot debate. Whether we'll ever know the answers to these questions is doubtful, but, we can be sure that what we often hear as Bach today is a bloated and often distorted version of the original. This reminds me of a quote from a primer on orchestration written in the early part of this century by a British author. I feel compelled to share this (I ask your forgiveness in advance). Regarding the differences in size and means of the early orchestra as compared to the orchestra of the late Romantic period he said, "There is a far cry from the modest means of the Mozartian orchestra to Strauss' enormously swollen apparatus". Talk about purple prose and unconscious innuendo! :) shameful writing. Mike At 11:10 AM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Like many who already expressed their views I find this exchange one of >the most interesting and fortunate of the many I've read in this list and >I am very thankful to Doug, Richard, Ken and everybody who have enlightened >us with their views on Bach and higher reaches of music appreciation. The >cent and a half about this subject I want to add hardly deserves to be in >their company but I sense that something is being lost in the conversation... >Here goes: > >I too have been in awe of Bach's music since I first heard it in my teens. >and nothing I ever heard even remotely compares with it except perhaps some >moments fleeting moments of Raga or Qwazali performance by the best masters. >But as a devout atheist I must remark that among the most admirable traits >I find in Bach is the consistent level of inspiration and achievement shared >by his sacred and his profane music! I happen to find myself raised to the >same levels of intelectual, sensual and -- yes! -- spiritual stimulation and >delight when listening to the B Minor Mass (or St. John's Passion, by the way, > which I heard 5 years ago at Trinity Church in Boston remarkably done) as >when listening to the Art of Fugue or the Well-Tempered Clavier! And yes, I do >agree, with Richard that "No man has felt, or made, love like the music of >Bach" and that "It is infinite in its correctness, and correct in >infinitness", in other words, that it `exhausts our longing for what transcend >us' as I heard someone put it long time ago. But I believe that is exactly >what I have learn from Bach: that music is NOT the expression of anything in >particular, human or divine, but something that exists, happily enough, beyond >our need to express and our craving for meaning! Thus there is no "pure" or >"tainted" music only pure and tainted purposes juxtaposed to or accompained by >music. > >This is an insight I believe quite inescapable to anyone who listens to Bach >with a truly open mind( by this I mean leting himself be overpowered while >recognizing why it is overpowering). But it clearly suffered much under the >rise of romantic harmony and expressionism which technically still rule the >craft of music making, playing and hearing in this century. This is the >conception of "music as a language" which, I believe, infects much of our >present preconceptions. Curiously enough the "rediscovery" of Bach's music by >(that most romantic of romantics) Felix Mendelsshon is, I suspect, responsible >for the few modern departures still registering against this prevailing view. >And, yes, I am talking here about the whole AvantGuard movement from Shoenberg >to LaMonte Young, Coltrane to Braxton, Antheil to Zappa, etc... > >OK. Enough said. Flame me if you will but keep it lit... > >-Joao > >--------------------------------------------- >Joao Pedro Leao * jleao@cfa.harvard.edu >Computer Systems Manager - Central Engineering >Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics >1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140 >Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124 >---------------------------------------------- >"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)" >------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 11:48:41 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: <199912071750.LAA14611@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hey Ken, et al, I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went to try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone that I bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm tellin' ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? Mike At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: >> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing products), >> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). > >Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most >part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one >or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever >played, could play better than me! > ;-) >-- >E. PAUL LUKAS >TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST >BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND >MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA >PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 99 12:14:51 -0600 From: Peter Soukup To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <199912071811.NAA13704@smtp7.atl.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" To read so many multi-syllable words from trombone players really scares me. I am more accustomed to grunting and sign language. And Doug Yeo is plumbing the mysteries of what "makes us tick?" That's more like it! Are we more like plumbers? What a thread! Back to my hole, now..... It was so perfectly stated: >Bravo, Joao, > >I'm glad you added this line of thought to this thread. The only thing I >would take issue with is that Mendelssohn is the "most romantic of >romantics." That it was Mendelssohn's influence, after the 1829 >performance of St. Matthew, which has led to the grossly over-blown and >nauseatingly romanticized readings of Bach is unquestionable. > >For years, at AMS (American Musicological Society) meetings, there has been >an ongoing argument, headed by Joshua Rifkin, that Bach's choral works >(particularly the cantatas) used only four or eight voices to sing the >actual chorales and choruses. Rifkin has been arguing for years (on the >basis of the evidence of >the number of surviving vocal parts for the cantatas, mostly in Leipzig) >that Bach's chorus was built from only one or two to a part. In the early >days (early 1980s?) there were several grand spats at the AMS meetings over >this issue. Reduced choruses are clear: exactly how many per part, though, >is a little difficult to "prove." So Rifkin's thesis has been out there for >some time. Instrumentation and the forces used are, of course, other topics >of hot debate. > >Whether we'll ever know the answers to these questions is doubtful, but, we >can be sure that what we often hear as Bach today is a bloated and often >distorted version of the original. > >This reminds me of a quote from a primer on orchestration written in the >early part of this century by a British author. I feel compelled to share >this (I ask your forgiveness in advance). Regarding the differences in size >and means of the early orchestra as compared to the orchestra of the late >Romantic period he said, "There is a far cry from the modest means of the >Mozartian orchestra to Strauss' enormously swollen apparatus". Talk about >purple prose and unconscious innuendo! :) shameful writing. > >Mike > > >At 11:10 AM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>Like many who already expressed their views I find this exchange one of >>the most interesting and fortunate of the many I've read in this list and >>I am very thankful to Doug, Richard, Ken and everybody who have enlightened >>us with their views on Bach and higher reaches of music appreciation. The >>cent and a half about this subject I want to add hardly deserves to be in >>their company but I sense that something is being lost in the conversation... >>Here goes: >> >>I too have been in awe of Bach's music since I first heard it in my teens. >>and nothing I ever heard even remotely compares with it except perhaps some >>moments fleeting moments of Raga or Qwazali performance by the best masters. >>But as a devout atheist I must remark that among the most admirable traits >>I find in Bach is the consistent level of inspiration and achievement shared >>by his sacred and his profane music! I happen to find myself raised to the >>same levels of intelectual, sensual and -- yes! -- spiritual stimulation >and >>delight when listening to the B Minor Mass (or St. John's Passion, by the >way, >> which I heard 5 years ago at Trinity Church in Boston remarkably done) as >>when listening to the Art of Fugue or the Well-Tempered Clavier! And yes, >I do >>agree, with Richard that "No man has felt, or made, love like the music of >>Bach" and that "It is infinite in its correctness, and correct in >>infinitness", in other words, that it `exhausts our longing for what >transcend >>us' as I heard someone put it long time ago. But I believe that is exactly >>what I have learn from Bach: that music is NOT the expression of anything in >>particular, human or divine, but something that exists, happily enough, >beyond >>our need to express and our craving for meaning! Thus there is no "pure" or >>"tainted" music only pure and tainted purposes juxtaposed to or >accompained by >>music. >> >>This is an insight I believe quite inescapable to anyone who listens to Bach >>with a truly open mind( by this I mean leting himself be overpowered while >>recognizing why it is overpowering). But it clearly suffered much under the >>rise of romantic harmony and expressionism which technically still rule the >>craft of music making, playing and hearing in this century. This is the >>conception of "music as a language" which, I believe, infects much of our >>present preconceptions. Curiously enough the "rediscovery" of Bach's music >by >>(that most romantic of romantics) Felix Mendelsshon is, I suspect, >responsible >>for the few modern departures still registering against this prevailing >view. >>And, yes, I am talking here about the whole AvantGuard movement from >Shoenberg >>to LaMonte Young, Coltrane to Braxton, Antheil to Zappa, etc... >> >>OK. Enough said. Flame me if you will but keep it lit... >> >>-Joao >> >>--------------------------------------------- >>Joao Pedro Leao * jleao@cfa.harvard.edu >>Computer Systems Manager - Central Engineering >>Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics >>1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140 >>Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124 >>---------------------------------------------- >>"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)" >>------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> > > Pete Soukup psoukup@mindspring.com Grand Avenue Big Band The Moonlighters St. Andrew's Brass Naperville Area Trombone Ensemble DuPage Symphony Orchestra (alternate) West Suburban Symphony (alternate) From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:14:04 -0600 From: Chris Waage To: Trombone-L Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" About 10 years ago, Blessing started overhauling the way things are done. The B88 and B78 are almost exact copies of the 88H and 78H respectively, and their B98 bass is a copy of the Bach 50B3. Quality is good, materials and manufacturing are good. They're not what I would call a pro-line instrument, but for a beginner, intermediate, or step-up instrument, they're a good value. Chris >Hey Ken, et al, > >I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went to >try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest >thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone that I >bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm tellin' >ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the >exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). > >Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a >clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? > >Mike > >At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >>"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: >>> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing products), >>> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). >> >>Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most >>part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one >>or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever >>played, could play better than me! >> ;-) >>-- >>E. PAUL LUKAS >>TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST >>BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND >>MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA >>PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET >> _____________________________________________ Chris Waage basstbn@waageworks.com http://www.waageworks.com "Wisdom comes from Knowledge. Knowledge comes from Good Judgement. Good Judgement comes from Experience. Experience comes from Bad Judgement." _____________________________________________ From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:23:01 -0600 From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mike, Many people consider the valve trombone nasty by definition :-). Anyway, mine is a King 3B and, like most of my horns, it plays a lot better than I do. The only other valve bone that I have ever tried is an Amati, and I was not impressed. I would guess that since you play a Bach 42, about any valve bone is going to be a bit stuffy. Even my 3B, which is .509 bore with the slide attached is only .485 with the valves. My son tells me that the so called "marching trombones" blow a bit more freely. They tend to be around .510 to .515 bore. I purchased mine at a time that I had quit playing the trombone and was playing the cornet. I kind of missed the larger horn and bought the 3B. After playing it for a few months, I realized how much I missed the slide and had one made up for the 3B. Since then, I don't use the valves that much anymore. I don't know how true it is, but I was told that the valve trombone is mostly played by trumpeters. They seem to have a lot less trouble adjusting to the .485 bore and 12C or smaller mouthpieces than the guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans. On the other hand, the few valve bone players that I have met were all trombonists who just happened to have a valve trombone as one of their toys. Ken Dowdy > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Coyle [SMTP:astro@pconline.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 11:49 AM > To: Trombones and related issues forum. > Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > > Hey Ken, et al, > > I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went to > try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest > thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone that I > bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm > tellin' > ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the > exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). > > Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a > clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? > > Mike > > At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: > >"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: > >> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing products), > >> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). > > > >Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most > >part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one > >or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever > >played, could play better than me! > > ;-) > >-- > >E. PAUL LUKAS > >TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST > >BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND > >MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA > >PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 12:51:56 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: <199912071854.MAA22433@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ken Wrote: "...guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans." Ken, that's a wonderfully vivid image :) I used to play a Conn 62H double valve (f-d) bass trombone with a modified Schilke 60 (rhodium plated) - what would you have called that?!?! Mike At 12:23 PM 12/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >Mike, > >Many people consider the valve trombone nasty by definition :-). Anyway, >mine is a King 3B and, like most of my horns, it plays a lot better than I >do. The only other valve bone that I have ever tried is an Amati, and I was >not impressed. I would guess that since you play a Bach 42, about any valve >bone is going to be a bit stuffy. Even my 3B, which is .509 bore with the >slide attached is only .485 with the valves. My son tells me that the so >called "marching trombones" blow a bit more freely. They tend to be around >.510 to .515 bore. > >I purchased mine at a time that I had quit playing the trombone and was >playing the cornet. I kind of missed the larger horn and bought the 3B. >After playing it for a few months, I realized how much I missed the slide >and had one made up for the 3B. Since then, I don't use the valves that >much anymore. I don't know how true it is, but I was told that the valve >trombone is mostly played by trumpeters. They seem to have a lot less >trouble adjusting to the .485 bore and 12C or smaller mouthpieces than the >guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans. On the other hand, the >few valve bone players that I have met were all trombonists who just >happened to have a valve trombone as one of their toys. > >Ken Dowdy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Coyle [SMTP:astro@pconline.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 11:49 AM >> To: Trombones and related issues forum. >> Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 >> >> Hey Ken, et al, >> >> I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went to >> try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest >> thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone that I >> bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm >> tellin' >> ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the >> exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). >> >> Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a >> clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? >> >> Mike >> >> At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >> >"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: >> >> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing products), >> >> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). >> > >> >Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most >> >part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one >> >or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever >> >played, could play better than me! >> > ;-) >> >-- >> >E. PAUL LUKAS >> >TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST >> >BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND >> >MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA >> >PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET >> > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:07:23 -0600 From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mike, A Schilke 60? My poor mind could not visualize this until a got this private post from another list member: "But my real horn isn't a bazooka. It's a howitzer with a manhole." I make it a point not to make private E-mails public (so I left off the name), but that is the funniest thing that I have read in a long time. My supervisor is rather suspicious since I usually don't laugh out loud while writing failure reports. Ken Dowdy > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Coyle [SMTP:astro@pconline.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 12:52 PM > To: Trombones and related issues forum. > Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > > Ken Wrote: > > "...guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans." > > Ken, that's a wonderfully vivid image :) > > I used to play a Conn 62H double valve (f-d) bass trombone with a modified > Schilke 60 (rhodium plated) - what would you have called that?!?! > > Mike > > > At 12:23 PM 12/7/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Mike, > > > >Many people consider the valve trombone nasty by definition :-). Anyway, > >mine is a King 3B and, like most of my horns, it plays a lot better than > I > >do. The only other valve bone that I have ever tried is an Amati, and I > was > >not impressed. I would guess that since you play a Bach 42, about any > valve > >bone is going to be a bit stuffy. Even my 3B, which is .509 bore with > the > >slide attached is only .485 with the valves. My son tells me that the so > >called "marching trombones" blow a bit more freely. They tend to be > around > >.510 to .515 bore. > > > >I purchased mine at a time that I had quit playing the trombone and was > >playing the cornet. I kind of missed the larger horn and bought the 3B. > >After playing it for a few months, I realized how much I missed the slide > >and had one made up for the 3B. Since then, I don't use the valves that > >much anymore. I don't know how true it is, but I was told that the valve > >trombone is mostly played by trumpeters. They seem to have a lot less > >trouble adjusting to the .485 bore and 12C or smaller mouthpieces than > the > >guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans. On the other hand, the > >few valve bone players that I have met were all trombonists who just > >happened to have a valve trombone as one of their toys. > > > >Ken Dowdy > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mike Coyle [SMTP:astro@pconline.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 11:49 AM > >> To: Trombones and related issues forum. > >> Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > >> > >> Hey Ken, et al, > >> > >> I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went > to > >> try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest > >> thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone > that I > >> bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm > >> tellin' > >> ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the > >> exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). > >> > >> Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a > >> clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: > >> >"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: > >> >> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing > products), > >> >> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). > >> > > >> >Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most > >> >part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one > >> >or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever > >> >played, could play better than me! > >> > ;-) > >> >-- > >> >E. PAUL LUKAS > >> >TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST > >> >BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND > >> >MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA > >> >PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET > >> > > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:18 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:14:39 -0800 From: "Rodney Ellard" To: , "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <000801bf40e7$50d19a00$48b694d1@rod> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Friends: One of the things I like about the list is the recommendations of recordings made from time to time. WRT St Matthew's Passion, I'm not sure who wrote: >>Whether we'll ever know the answers to these questions is doubtful, but, we >>can be sure that what we often hear as Bach today is a bloated and often >>distorted version of the original. Does this describe the Gardiner recording of SMP? Is there an "historically authentic*" version on record that anyone would recommend as an alternative to the, uh, "swollen apparatus?" *recognizing the debate over "authenticity" Rod From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:50:40 -0800 From: "Dean Hubbard" To: Subject: Look out Chicago... Message-ID: <013e01bf40ec$5b4a03a0$eebf183f@default> Friends, I'll be attending the Midwest Clinic next week in Chicago. I'll be representing Musical Enterprises, the makers of the BERP. Please come by the booth and say hello. It's always nice to put names with faces. Truly, Dean Hubbard Bonedean@msn.com From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:52:02 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: ellard@sprint.ca Cc: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <199912071954.NAA00783@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rod, what's "WRT"? I wrote the bit below and I have not heard the Gardiner recording of the SMP. I would suspect from his other works that it is rather conservative (in the best sense) and uses the appropriate means. As to the size of the chorus he uses, I don't know. I would like to hear from others on this recording as well. I have never found a recording of the SMP that I liked all the way through. There is an exquisite, albeit obscure, recording from Hungary that I have excerpts from but have not yet been able to find the complete recording. I have found that the Rifkin recordings of the Cantatas that I made reference to are excellent. The economy of means and vocal style may take a while for some people to get used to, but the time is well worth it. I would suspect that Nikolaus Harnoncourt's recording is even more "authentic" then Gardiner's - he is a bit more informed when it comes to music of this period. However, I think Gardiner is a very fine musician. If anyone knows these recordings, could you please let us know what you think? WOW! lately we sure are talking about a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the trombone - cool!! It shows us to be fully ( well, ok, multi) dimensional people, contrary to what string players think of us :) Mike At 11:14 AM 12/7/99 -0800, you wrote: >Friends: > >One of the things I like about the list is the recommendations of recordings >made from time to time. > >WRT St Matthew's Passion, I'm not sure who wrote: > >>>Whether we'll ever know the answers to these questions is doubtful, but, >we >>>can be sure that what we often hear as Bach today is a bloated and often >>>distorted version of the original. > > >Does this describe the Gardiner recording of SMP? > >Is there an "historically authentic*" version on record that anyone would >recommend as an alternative to the, uh, "swollen apparatus?" > >*recognizing the debate over "authenticity" > >Rod > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:58:53 -0500 From: Joao Leao To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Cc: astro@pconline.com Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <199912071958.OAA18909@gog.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for the kudos, Mike. I was half-joking about Mendelsshon. Also I much appreciated your points about the orchestra old and new. The recent "original instruments" movement is sort of late balm for the excesses of the romantic rediscovery of the baroque, I am sure. I have heard magnificent examples of re-enacted baroque performances which leave you with the exhilirating notion of having been there. But still, I think I have learn a lot about Bach from Glenn Gould as from Wendy Carlos or the Swingle Singers, mind you! To boot my point is that Bach's music approaches, to all who care for it, the platonic world of eternal untouchable forms which it surely is. All its possible and future "corruptions" are still interesting in some way if only because they expose the incorruptible nature of the beast. Having said this I crave for Igor Knippis version of the Sonatas after Vivaldi and Marcello in that 1758 cembalo long out of print on Vox... Oh, well. > > Joao Leao wrote: > > > I too have been in awe of Bach's music ...... > > But as a devout atheist ...... I happen to find myself raised to the > > same levels of intelectual, sensual and -- yes! -- spiritual stimulation. > Hector "Butch" Bourg Jr replied > > I do not want this to turn into a theological discussion...there are lists for that...but I feel the > need to make at least this one observation: "atheist" and "spiritual" seem to me to be mutually > exclusive. > > The essence of the spiritual is that connection felt between man and that which we refer to as God. > "Spiritual" is the word we use to describe this scarcely discribeable discernment. > If one is truly an atheist, one may feel good, or in awe, or moved, or stimulated...but hardly > "spiritual." Conversely, if one is "spiritual," one could scarcely conceive of being "atheist." > > > Flame me if you will but keep it lit... > > No flames intended. Just my passing thoughts. > -- I do, of course take issue with the presumption that an atheist is, per definition, incapable of spiritual enjoyment or even of the occasional mystical experience. I kid not but my arguments for this would take us far off topic. Let us say, staying true to the context, that I reclaim the word spiritual to mine (and anyone's) connection to Bach as present in his music. Will you deny me that? We are Spirits... in the Material World... Cordially - -Joao - --------------------------------------------- Joao Pedro Leao * jleao@cfa.harvard.edu Computer Systems Manager - Central Engineering Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140 Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124 - ---------------------------------------------- "All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)" - ------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:10:05 EST From: BarryMcCom@aol.com To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: ETW competitions Message-ID: <0.72e870f6.257ec39d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A while back, someone from the Army Band(Pershing's Own) posted info on the ETW competitions. I have a student who I'm having enter the competition, but I just realized that I don't have the pertinent info. Would you be so kind as to post the info again? Specifically, the 18 and under bass bone division. Thanks very much, Barry ************************************* Barry McCommon Bass Trombone (215)619-7760--home (215)219-2440--mobile BarryMcCom@aol.com ************************************* From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:12:27 -0600 From: Mike Coyle To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: <199912072014.OAA03663@ties.k12.mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree once again with you. Your views on the nature of spirit as divorced from the notion of religious belief is very enlightened. I also LOVE Gould's Bach and have learned a lot form disparate sources as well. I once heard a guy play a Bach Flute Sonata on a comb and wax paper - high art? maybe not, but it proved the point that good music is often quite apart from the idiomatic and, basically, Bach works on anything :) Yours, Mike At 02:58 PM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Thanks for the kudos, Mike. > >I was half-joking about Mendelsshon. Also I much appreciated your points >about the orchestra old and new. > >The recent "original instruments" movement >is sort of late balm for the excesses of the romantic rediscovery of the >baroque, I am sure. I have heard magnificent examples of re-enacted >baroque performances which leave you with the exhilirating notion of >having been there. But still, I think I have learn a lot about Bach >from Glenn Gould as from Wendy Carlos or the Swingle Singers, mind you! > >To boot my point is that Bach's music approaches, to all who care for it, >the platonic world of eternal untouchable forms which it surely is. All >its possible and future "corruptions" are still interesting in some way >if only because they expose the incorruptible nature of the beast. >Having said this I crave for Igor Knippis version of the Sonatas after >Vivaldi and Marcello in that 1758 cembalo long out of print on Vox... > >Oh, well. > >> >> Joao Leao wrote: >> >> > I too have been in awe of Bach's music ...... >> > But as a devout atheist ...... I happen to find myself raised to the >> > same levels of intelectual, sensual and -- yes! -- spiritual stimulation. > >> Hector "Butch" Bourg Jr replied >> >> I do not want this to turn into a theological discussion...there are lists for that...but I feel the >> need to make at least this one observation: "atheist" and "spiritual" seem to me to be mutually >> exclusive. >> >> The essence of the spiritual is that connection felt between man and that which we refer to as God. >> "Spiritual" is the word we use to describe this scarcely discribeable discernment. > >> If one is truly an atheist, one may feel good, or in awe, or moved, or stimulated...but hardly >> "spiritual." Conversely, if one is "spiritual," one could scarcely conceive of being "atheist." >> >> > Flame me if you will but keep it lit... >> >> No flames intended. Just my passing thoughts. >> -- > >I do, of course take issue with the presumption that an atheist is, per >definition, incapable of spiritual enjoyment or even of the occasional >mystical experience. I kid not but my arguments for this would take us >far off topic. Let us say, staying true to the context, that I reclaim >the word spiritual to mine (and anyone's) connection to Bach as present >in his music. Will you deny me that? > >We are Spirits... in the Material World... > >Cordially > >- -Joao > > >- --------------------------------------------- >Joao Pedro Leao * jleao@cfa.harvard.edu >Computer Systems Manager - Central Engineering >Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics >1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140 >Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124 >- ---------------------------------------------- >"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)" >- ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >------- End of Forwarded Message > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:22:25 -0500 From: sackbutt To: Bone List Subject: RE: This Whole Music Thing.... Message-ID: <384D6C81.76690DEC@netdepot.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joao Leao wrote: > I too have been in awe of Bach's music ...... > But as a devout atheist ...... I happen to find myself raised to the > same levels of intelectual, sensual and -- yes! -- spiritual stimulation. I do not want this to turn into a theological discussion...there are lists for that...but I feel the need to make at least this one observation: "atheist" and "spiritual" seem to me to be mutually exclusive. The essence of the spiritual is that connection felt between man and that which we refer to as God. "Spiritual" is the word we use to describe this scarcely discribeable discernment. If one is truly an atheist, one may feel good, or in awe, or moved, or stimulated...but hardly "spiritual." Conversely, if one is "spiritual," one could scarcely conceive of being "atheist." > Flame me if you will but keep it lit... No flames intended. Just my passing thoughts. -- Butch ****************************************************** Hector "Butch" Bourg Jr. - Graphic Designer - Atlanta, GA Trombonist - Sentimental Journey Orchestra ICQ# 28972254 VISIT OUR UPDATED, REVISED & RELOCATED SITE http://www.thesjo.com Now with Real Audio Sound Clips! From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:21:45 -0600 From: Chris Waage To: BarryMcCom@aol.com, Trombone-L Subject: Re: ETW competitions Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Barry: The info is available through the Online Trombone Journal at http://www.trombone.org/news&events/pages/comp_etw.asp Chris >A while back, someone from the Army Band(Pershing's Own) posted info on the >ETW competitions. I have a student who I'm having enter the competition, but >I just realized that I don't have the pertinent info. Would you be so kind >as to post the info again? Specifically, the 18 and under bass bone division. > >Thanks very much, > >Barry > >************************************* > >Barry McCommon >Bass Trombone > >(215)619-7760--home >(215)219-2440--mobile >BarryMcCom@aol.com > >************************************* _________________________________________ Chris Waage chris@trombone.org Associate Webmaster The Online Trombone Journal http://www.trombone.org From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:11:16 -0500 From: David Buckley To: sheridan-tbone@worldnet.att.net Cc: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: <384D69E4.8BA3F8F5@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9506ABBE7C37B418538E6B3F" I guess the percussion did not drown them out in Cleveland and the miking was somewhat close to being balanced, Unlike in Toronto.

Boy I do wish jazz guys would learn to play without mikes and drummers would learn to balance.

Dave Buckley.

Jay Sheridan wrote:

 Hi. I have to tell you about my trip to Cleveland on Friday to hear Michael Davis and Bill Reichenbach play. I was familiar with Bill's playing (from his CD) but had not heard Michael actually play. What a treat the evening was. These two are both excellent trombonists (of course, everyone knows this) and are also very nice people. Bill's wife was along on the tour and I spent quite a bit of time talking to both Bill and his wife. Michael spent alot of time doing an interview with this older lady, I can't remember her name or where she is from, that actually fell asleep during the performance. Granted, they didn't start playing until after 10 PM, but she fell asleep with this wonderful music, and loud music, being played. The evening was well worth the 2 1/2 hour or so drive plus hotel room. For good trombone playing, I will drive nearly halfway across the country (like 16 hours to Boston, although I will wait until late Spring or Summer so I avoid the snow). Jay SheridanDirector of BandsPatrick Henry Local SchoolsHamler, OHsheridan-tbone@worldnet.att.net
 From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:57:46 MST From: Dennis Clason To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: <199912072057.NAA50912@nestor.NMSU.Edu> ** Reply to note from DOWDY, KENNETH S 12/07/99 1:07pm -0600 > Mike, > > A Schilke 60? My poor mind could not visualize this until a got this > private post from another list member: "But my real horn isn't a bazooka. > It's a howitzer with a manhole." Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It's also responsible for the devastation of countless acres of wood and reeds -- just ask the players : ) > I make it a point not to make private > E-mails public (so I left off the name), but that is the funniest thing that > I have read in a long time. My supervisor is rather suspicious since I > usually don't laugh out loud while writing failure reports. Sorry about that, Ken. Private offices have advantages. Dennis L. Clason email: dclason@nmsu.edu Department of Economics / University Statistics Center New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico USA From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:57:53 -0500 From: "Christopher Smith" To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu, davebuckley@sympatico.ca Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> David Buckley 12/07 3:11 PM >>> Boy I do wish jazz guys would learn to play without mikes and drummers would learn to balance. ++++++++ Dave, If the sound is bad, the blame should go to the sound tech. People in the band can often not hear themselves, even if the balance is perfect in the room/hall. I never play with a mike unless it's a necessity (i.e. outdoor festival), and that's usually an unfulfilling musical experience. Once sound techs get involved, musicians lose control over dynamics. And inbalance is not usually due to drummers, but amplified bass or keyboards. If you perceive the drummer playing too loud, it may be because his stage monitor is blasting him with the miked/amplified instruments, throwing him off what the "real" sound level is. I'm all for ending indoor miking of horns. It's unnecessary and detracts from the music. I don't know why so many guys use mikes when they're not needed. I suspect it's something that's arisen out of the same family of brass player neuroses that compel classical players to build cannonlike slide baritones and play mouthpieces which are too big for them and their horns. heh heh..... Chris jazz guy www.geocities.com/~christo From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:26:07 EST From: Andrewsjon@aol.com To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: <0.bc2dea76.257ed56f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/7/99 3:00:49 PM Central Standard Time, cdsmith@path.med.umich.edu writes: << I'm all for ending indoor miking of horns. It's unnecessary and detracts from the music. I don't know why so many guys use mikes when they're not needed. >> Chris, I disagree with your opinion. The microphone is only a tool. It allows the trombonist to fully utilize the full range of the trombone while performing with amplified instruments. I personally, refuse "to do battle" with an amplified rhythm section without the use of a microphone. Jon From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:51:43 -0500 From: "Christopher Smith" To: Andrewsjon@aol.com, trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jon, Sounds like you need to find some new guys to play with. By using a mike, you are playing their upwardly-spiraling volume game. How about asking them, "Hey, you know, this horn section likes to play without a microphone. Can you turn down a little?" I guess I'm lucky to play with groups that don't battle each other with volume knobs and microphones. Unfortunately, I do have to deal pretty frequently with sound guys, who are battling no one, but often seem to have their own mysterious agendas. I (and the groups I play with) most often deal with them by insisting that we will not use mikes for the horns, and unplug or remove them. If there are no horn mikes, the horn sound can't be overamplified/corrupted/distorted/thinned/reverbed. Chris ++++++++ I personally, refuse "to do battle" with an amplified rhythm section without the use of a microphone. Jon From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:55:53 -0600 From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: RE: This Whole Music Thing.... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Richard, You wrote: > I have to apologize at the genesis of this message for any offense I may > cause. Of course, my remarks are not pointed at anyone but myself, and > are > actually more of myself thinking in type than anything else. > Your post was anything but offensive. I have taken my time in responding because, as usual, your points are deeper than I can assimilate in one pass. However, they have enough impact that multiple passes are warrented. I wrote: > > From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" > > I must respectfully > > disagree that good music must be listened to repetitively to be > understood. > > Secondly, I would like to stress that I did not intend to say that > Bach's > > Passion was "bad", it would just not be on my list of the number one > thing > > that I would want to play or conduct, or even listen to. > > I don't know Kenneth, and I am sure, if only by reading his post, that he > is > a well-reasoned and thoughtful gentleman. But, his remark really struck > me, > and hurt a bit as well. > Thank you for your complement, and my sincere appologies that the comment was at all hurtful. Bach is not my number one composer, but he rates very high in my book. My favorite composer is Giovanni Gabrieli, and I have yet to find anything that he composed that I do not like. Second, I would probably go for Praetorius, although I think that many works attributed to him were arrangements rather than compositions. Even with that, if I had to make a "top ten" list of songs that I would most like to sing, or works that I would most like to play / listen to / conduct, you can rest assured that several Bach works would be on that list. > To be fair, not all good music need be studied, and not all good music > requires our devotion. I offer, however, that the *best* of any art > requires it. Our American culture has fallen too, too far into the > instant > gratification slime pit to realize that there is a totally new and > exciting, > if not downright uplifting level of interaction that is going on. That is > the interaction of artists and thinkers. It is so very refreshing to > share > thoughts with Douglas Yeo because he is one of those rare men of Christian > faith who is not threatened by reason, by intelligence, and by the notion > that someone else might have different ideas and beliefs, that another > human > being could also be devoted to the same God, but through different > channels. > I could agree with you on nearly all of the above. > It is people like him, and Kenneth, and others on this list, who have > cried > while sitting in the back row who really "get" music. Bach is not for > everyone because he requires the most from the listener. "From those whom > much is given, much is required." This is not just a cutesy phrase that > your pastor offers when it's time to build a new fellowship hall. > You are quite correct. It is one of the Truths that I believe in. I wrote: > > Music such as Bach's has multiple purposes. One such purpose is > liturgical. > > In the case of liturgical music, repetition is a given. However, the > music > > must still match the text and cause its desired effect on the > participant > > (note that I did not say audience). This is a highly personal thing > that > > transcends "good" or "bad" music. I am quite familiar with the texts of > the > > various passion oratorios, as well as the Messiah by Handel. None > appeal to > > me because, in my opinion, none of the music rises to the splendor of > the > > text. On the other hand, "Isaiah Mighty Seer in Days of Old" by Luther > and > > Preatorius, or the Sonata con Voce - Dulcis Jesu by Gabrieli move me to > > tears each time I hear them, just as they did the first time that I > heard > > them. I can say the same about the Great Doxology in Valaam Chant, > which > > has very little complexity, but perfectly (for me) sets the words of the > > text to music. > You responded: > I would offer that Bach's music had one singular purpose, and he backs me > up. "SDG" was inscribed on almost every work of Bach. "Soli Deo Gloria," > to God alone be the Glory. > Depending on the point in time. I wholeheartedly agree that BACH'S purpose was "Soli Deo Gloria". Unfortunately, the modern uses of his music have trampled on his intent. I have seen "Bagles and Bach" concerts scheduled for Sunday mornings at a local art museum, a time when Bach would have been engaged in worship. I'm sure that he would disapprove. I am also sure that many of the people who currently find Bach so fashionable would have no idea of things in Bach's mind at the time he composed his works. These people are the same shallow psuedo-intellectuals that consider Russian Iconography as "designer art". On the other hand, I have no problem understanding why someone like you, or Doug, or many others on this list could genuinely appreciate his works. So, so unlike any composer before or after, Bach expressed himself for one purpose and one only - to bring people to the God of might, passion, strength and tenderness that he believed in. I would have to disagree with this statement. I would think that many of Bach's predesessors were equally capable of expressing this purpose. Most are not as well known by the "intellectual elite" of today. I would be willing to pit Di Lasso's Kyrie against anything written by Bach. The same with Alessandro Grandi's "Heu mihi". And, if we diverge from "classical" music, I could give example after example of sacred hymnology within the early Christian tradition that would match Bach line for line in its spiritual content. The commercial appeal for Orthodox hymnology is not as great, however. But then again, theology has never been easily digested by either the masses or the elite. > Having said that I should say this. I am not a Christian. I am still > struggling to find rhyme or reason in this whole world. But, Bach, more > than the Bible, any pastor I have heard or any witness I have been given, > offers me evidence that there exists a higher being. > That I find rather unfortunate. My evidence for the existance of a higher being came long before my exposure to classical music. While I find many of Bach's tunes emotionally moving, I have also been moved by works that were anything but Godly. Emotions are a poor basis for faith. I wrote: > >Music is like beer or > > cigarettes in this way. If I have to "get used to it", it probably > isn't > > worth getting used to. That is why I never bothered to "get used to" > > Mahler, Stravinsky, or Rap or cigarettes. > > Ouch! Rotten example! Cigarettes kill you after many "hearings." I > can't > imagine anyone who has heard Mahler ever equating his music to a deadly > toxin. > Perhaps not the best example. I was going from bad to worse, and listed cigarettes after Rap. I think that even a detached veiw of Rap would indicate that it could be bad for your health, at least judging by the mortality rate of some of its performers. I would doubt that anyone would die listening to Mahler, unless it were from boredom. > Exercise is good for us. We often have to develop an exercise routine. > > Warming up is very beneficial. We all have to develop (get used to?) a > routine. > > Practicing is required in order to excel. > > These all take time - effort - energy - and improve our lives. Why is it > that people so flippantly toss music aside so readily? Of course! I must > have not gotten the memo! If at first you don't succeed then just forget > it! It's not worth doing! > > Ridiculous? Yep. My point exactly. It is *so* depressing to me that the > idea of instant satisfaction is so ingrained in our culture that we equate > it with quality. Instant breakfast. Instant pain relief. Instant > banking. > Instant redemption. Some things in life should not be easy. > Again, it depends on what you are doing. If you are trying to find the inner meaning of life with music, you had probably best take your time. The same if you are trying to make a living with it. I, and many like me, utilize music primarily for enjoyment. If I want to learn, I read. If I want to gain spiritual enlightenment, I pray. Music for me is a tool, and only one of many. For others, music is much more. I don't make my living with music, and I am not trying to get a degree in music, so much of the above points are not applicable to my situation. I certainly do not allow myself to get "bogged down" with music. There are too many things in life that are important to throw myself fully into only one. And some of these (God and Family) are far more important to me. > > > In many ways, music is much like religion. There are those who must be > able > > to "understand" God in order to worship Him. Others must be able to > "feel" > > Him. Even others really don't care one way or another. The same is > true > > with music. Some need to understand the music to enjoy it. Others, > like > > myself, need to be able to feel it. If I can feel it, I seek to further > > understand it. Otherwise, I move on to something else. > > Simply put - as musicians we have the responsibility to expect more from > ourselves - and to search out more. Just my opinion. Being a musician > bears with it a huge responsibility - to be counted in the lineage of Bach > - > Beethoven - Brahms - Mahler - Copeland - Ives - Bernstein...this is not > the > gig for the faint of heart, or soul. > Agreed, but again, not all of us are musicians. I, for one, am an engineer who just happens to like music. > > Some may consider > > this a sloppy way to do things, but there is just so much music out > there, > > representing so many different cultures and time periods, that I just > don't > > have time to get bogged down. For me, the time I would spend trying to > > "understand" some music would prevent me from enjoying and exploring the > > vast repository of what is out there. > > So - you only eat one kind of food, right? Just french fries for you. > Forget the beef, the pork, the sauces and dressings. Should people only > play a few notes on their horn...just the best ones? Should each person > play just one piece of music - just the one they can play without error? > > It sounds ridiculous - I know - and I am not trying to be rude to Kenneth. > If I sound that way, then I apologize a second time. > You were not at all rude, but totally missed the point. I addressed this in an earlier post. > I think that dedicating oneself to discovery in one pointed area allows > one > to comprehend a vast number of ideas. There is not that much difference > in > the learning process, or the thinking process, for anything. > Agreed. > And one person's take is as valid - to him - as another's. Thanks for > taking the time to share your thoughts. I find, that through them, I am > more sure of my one. I hope that you are the same by mine, and if not - > then that's good as well. > I have yet to read one of your posts that didn't make me think. I fear that the differences in our backgrounds will prevent us from fully understanding the other's point of view. However, understanding is not a prerequisite for respect. I do respect your views. > Music cognition, at the first hearing - is dependent on short-term memory > and expectancy. The theory of expectancy - developed by Meyer, dictates > that the meaning of music is dependent on our expectations of it. I won't > go into the whole theory here, but basically our understanding > (appreciation?) of what we here is dependent on the message we receive > being > closely akin to what we expect to receive. If it is too much different, > then we have no ready association for the incoming sounds and the music > loses meaning. If it is exactly what we expect, then we become bored. > > Bach's music, on a superficial level, is exactly what we expect. We have > studied and heard so much Baroque music that we quickly categorize the > harmony, the instrumentation, the polyphony, and say "Oh, this Bach." Many > people become bored. > > If however, we listen from the perspective of the chess master, attempting > to become aware of each moment and it's meaning - and also at the same > time > the next cognitive level higher, and again the next, and the next - if we > can fathom the board as one singular organic entity that has both life and > purpose, and when choosing our move see the only "right" move as opposed > to > the vast - infinite - number of other possible inferior choices - then we > have an inkling into the the mind and music of Bach - just an inkling. No > man has played chess like he crafted music. No man has felt, or made, > love > like the music of Bach It is infinite in its correctness, and correct in > infinitness. That is the only way I can describe it, and it is a poor > description at best. > > I have come to regret, at times, my choice of instrument. Being a > sub-standard piano player, I will rarely have the opportunity to perform > the > music of Bach - to be in the middle of all that...well, I can't even find > a > word. > > It can't be described - I can only hope you find it. Just my thoughts - > > Richard > Thank you for sharing them! Ken From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:59:32 -0600 From: "DOWDY, KENNETH S" To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Dennis, I'm glad you fessed up to that one. That was just too good to keep to myself. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Clason [SMTP:dclason@nmsu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 2:58 PM > To: Trombones and related issues forum. > Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > > ** Reply to note from DOWDY, KENNETH S 12/07/99 1:07pm > -0600 > > > > Mike, > > > > A Schilke 60? My poor mind could not visualize this until a got this > > private post from another list member: "But my real horn isn't a > bazooka. > > It's a howitzer with a manhole." > > Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. > > It's also responsible for the devastation of countless acres of > wood and reeds -- just ask the players : ) > > > I make it a point not to make private > > E-mails public (so I left off the name), but that is the funniest thing > that > > I have read in a long time. My supervisor is rather suspicious since I > > usually don't laugh out loud while writing failure reports. > > Sorry about that, Ken. Private offices have advantages. > > > > Dennis L. Clason email: dclason@nmsu.edu > Department of Economics / University Statistics Center > New Mexico State University > Las Cruces, New Mexico USA From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:08:56 -0600 From: Chris Waage To: Trombone-L Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It all depends on two factors: The intelligence and musical sensibilities of the rhythm section. A _good_ bassist and a _good_ guitarist will play as a part of the ensemble. Besides, if you want the guitarist to play quietly, all you have to do is give him sheet music WITHOUT chord changes ;-) Chris >Jon, > >Sounds like you need to find some new guys to play with. >By using a mike, you are playing their upwardly-spiraling volume game. > >How about asking them, "Hey, you know, this horn section likes to play >without a microphone. Can you turn down a little?" > >I guess I'm lucky to play with groups that don't battle each other with >volume knobs and microphones. >Unfortunately, I do have to deal pretty frequently with sound guys, who >are battling no one, but often seem to have their own mysterious agendas. > >I (and the groups I play with) most often deal with them by insisting that >we will not use mikes for the horns, and unplug or remove them. If there >are no horn mikes, the horn sound can't be >overamplified/corrupted/distorted/thinned/reverbed. > >Chris > >++++++++ >I personally, refuse "to do battle" with an >amplified rhythm section without the use of a microphone. > >Jon _____________________________________________ Chris Waage basstbn@waageworks.com http://www.waageworks.com "Wisdom comes from Knowledge. Knowledge comes from Good Judgement. Good Judgement comes from Experience. Experience comes from Bad Judgement." _____________________________________________ From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:16:00 -0500 From: "Paul D. Kemp, Jr." To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: The whole flying thing Message-ID: <004701bf4109$080946c0$285efc9e@volpaulbear> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Listers: Knowing several months ahead of time that I would be going on a tour of the UK and that I would probably have to check my trombone, I did several things to safeguard my trombone from the baggage handlers, after hearing all of the horror stories from everyone else. The first thing that I did was to buy the newest SKB case (I forget the model number) for about $120. When it came time to get ready for the trip, I bought some bubble packing and I lined the bell section of the case & I also wrapped my slide in bubble packing. Yes, it was a very tight fit, but I figured that if the horn were protected by air bubbles, it would more than likely come through unscathed. I then bought a $5 roll of duct tape and secured each of the latches so that they wouldn't come undone, then I used 3 bungee cords to hold the case together just in case the case was dropped by someone careless. When checking my trombone at the Delta terminal at the Atlanta airport, I asked the attendant for a fragile sticker, and he was quite happy to oblige. I stuck it on the case, and went ahead & checked it. It didn't get lost, and I didn't have the opportunity to check out my horn until I got to the Hilton motel in Huddersfield, England. When I got to the Motel, I opened my case, and it was perfect---exactly like I packaged it. When we left the UK, The Delta folks at Gatwick airport insisted on checking my trombone as oversized luggage (no extra charge) and they told me that it would be handled more carefully, so I obliged them. Again, when I received my trombone back in Atlanta, it was perfect. I didn't get to check on it until I arrived back in Chattanooga. A couble of our tuba players didn't get by so lucky, but Delta has agreed to pay for all of they damages incurred. One of the tuba players had about $250 in damages to his Amati tuba. I helped out my student who plays bass trombone in our band the same (He bought an Edwards hard case just for the trip), and I must admit that the Edwards people have definitely improved their cases from when I bought mine in 1995. His horn came through perfectly as well. Our second trombonist had a Pro-Tec case and suffered a dent about the size of a quarter in the bell, but it wasn't that bad, and should come out without too much trouble. I trust that my experiences will benefit all that have to check their instruments, because the luggage compartments in the 777's and DC-11's are not big enought to accomodate a trombone. Perhaps some very persuasive talk with the flight attendants would help, but I wouldn't count on it, basically because on international flights they have very strict carry on baggage size limits. Paul Kemp Chattanooga Symphony ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric & Candice Swanson To: Trombones and related issues forum. Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 7:07 PM Subject: Re: The whole flying thing > JennWhaa@aol.com wrote: > > > > Hello out there. Like many on this list, I have had an airplane horror story. > > Is there any alternative? > > > Jen, > > You could pack your hard case into a cardboard box as if you were going > to ship it UPS, and then check it. That would give better protection to > the horn, and protect the case too. If you use styrofoam, it won't > weigh very much. And you can leave the box in your hotel room when you > get where you're going and reuse it for the return trip. Remember to > take a roll of tape with you to reseal. > > This is better than just checking the case, and doesn't cost very much > at all. If you hardly ever fly, you might not want to invest in a > flight case. > > Check with the airline first for maximum baggage size limits. > > Eric Swanson > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:36:37 EST From: Andrewsjon@aol.com To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Michael Davis Quintet Message-ID: <0.282c03d2.257ef405@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/7/99 3:53:14 PM Central Standard Time, cdsmith@path.med.umich.edu writes: << Sounds like you need to find some new guys to play with. By using a mike, you are playing their upwardly-spiraling volume game. How about asking them, "Hey, you know, this horn section likes to play without a microphone. Can you turn down a little?" I guess I'm lucky to play with groups that don't battle each other with volume knobs and microphones. Unfortunately, I do have to deal pretty frequently with sound guys, who are battling no one, but often seem to have their own mysterious agendas. I (and the groups I play with) most often deal with them by insisting that we will not use mikes for the horns, and unplug or remove them. If there are no horn mikes, the horn sound can't be overamplified/corrupted/distorted/thinned/reverbed. Chris >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris, You have missed the point entirely. I work consistently with fantastic musicians. When playing with amplified musicians, the trombone gets lost entirely unless it is also amplified. I have yet to hear a trombone player play the entire "scope" of the trombone when not using a microphone while performing with an amplified rhythm section. Why would you want to throw away the ability to play ppp or mf? I prefer to play musically and not make my trombone sound like a bullhorn in order to be heard. Often time the venue of the gig dictates how you are going to play. When playing an event with 800-1500 people (typical Fri. and Sat. night fare here in Chicago) you would be a fool to throw the mike away. (No leader would even allow you to get away with that.) Chris, the last time I saw JJ Johnson perform was when he appeared at the Jazz Showcase in Chicago. This is not a huge room. Guess what? Yes, even JJ was using a microphone. It was attached to his trombone bell. I guess I am fortunate to work with talented sound people. I, most often, do not encounter the problems that you have described. I consider myself very fortunate to be able to concentrate on making music and not having to be a bull horn. I wish you well. Jon From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:43:22 -0500 From: Douglas Yeo To: "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: This Whole Music Thing.... To Bach and back. Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:14 AM -0800 12/7/99, Rodney Ellard wrote: >WRT St Matthew's Passion, I'm not sure who wrote: > >>>Whether we'll ever know the answers to these questions is doubtful, but, >>>we >>>can be sure that what we often hear as Bach today is a bloated and often >>>distorted version of the original. > > >Does this describe the Gardiner recording of SMP? > >Is there an "historically authentic*" version on record that anyone would >recommend as an alternative to the, uh, "swollen apparatus?" NO, that is NOT the Gardiner (on Archive) - his is a marvelous rendering with a small choir and orchestra, and superb playing on period instruments. Most of all, the Monteverdi Choir sings as if they are THERE at the Passion of Christ, and I have never heard Bach chorales more beautifully sung. I cannot recommend this too highly (it is the anti-thesis of the bloated full orchestra versions one comes across all too often). -Doug Yeo ********************************************** * Douglas Yeo * * Bass Trombonist, Boston Symphony Orchestra * * Music Director, The New England Brass Band * * yeo@yeodoug.com * * http://www.yeodoug.com * * <>< * ********************************************** From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:50:18 MST From: Dennis Clason To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: <199912072350.QAA94282@nestor.NMSU.Edu> Addressed to: kdowdy@oppd.com trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu ** Reply to note from DOWDY, KENNETH S 12/07/99 3:59pm -0600 >Dennis, >I'm glad you fessed up to that one. That was just too good to keep to >myself. >Ken That description (well, the howitzer part anyway) was courtesy of some the wooden things. They had the effrontery to claim my plumber's nightmare (imagine -- they called Grendel "Frankenbone") was responsible for decimating their ranks. I compromised. I took off the 10 1/2 bell flare, and they (the woodies and violas) were happier. They said they were happier, anyway. I'll accept responsibility for the "manhole mouthpiece", (which I coined over 20 years ago when I saw my first Schilke 60). I said, "That's not a mouthpiece, it's a manhole!" Dennis -- Dennis L. Clason email: dclason@nmsu.edu Department of Economics / University Statistics Center New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico USA From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:05:25 -0500 From: "Art Triggs" To: , "Trombones and related issues forum." Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: <007901bf4120$b44a7280$f6a315ac@bestweb.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe "tuba on a stick is appropriate??" ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Coyle To: Trombones and related issues forum. Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 1:51 PM Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > Ken Wrote: > > "...guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans." > > Ken, that's a wonderfully vivid image :) > > I used to play a Conn 62H double valve (f-d) bass trombone with a modified > Schilke 60 (rhodium plated) - what would you have called that?!?! > > Mike > > > At 12:23 PM 12/7/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Mike, > > > >Many people consider the valve trombone nasty by definition :-). Anyway, > >mine is a King 3B and, like most of my horns, it plays a lot better than I > >do. The only other valve bone that I have ever tried is an Amati, and I was > >not impressed. I would guess that since you play a Bach 42, about any valve > >bone is going to be a bit stuffy. Even my 3B, which is .509 bore with the > >slide attached is only .485 with the valves. My son tells me that the so > >called "marching trombones" blow a bit more freely. They tend to be around > >.510 to .515 bore. > > > >I purchased mine at a time that I had quit playing the trombone and was > >playing the cornet. I kind of missed the larger horn and bought the 3B. > >After playing it for a few months, I realized how much I missed the slide > >and had one made up for the 3B. Since then, I don't use the valves that > >much anymore. I don't know how true it is, but I was told that the valve > >trombone is mostly played by trumpeters. They seem to have a lot less > >trouble adjusting to the .485 bore and 12C or smaller mouthpieces than the > >guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans. On the other hand, the > >few valve bone players that I have met were all trombonists who just > >happened to have a valve trombone as one of their toys. > > > >Ken Dowdy > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mike Coyle [SMTP:astro@pconline.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 11:49 AM > >> To: Trombones and related issues forum. > >> Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > >> > >> Hey Ken, et al, > >> > >> I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went to > >> try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest > >> thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone that I > >> bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm > >> tellin' > >> ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the > >> exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). > >> > >> Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a > >> clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: > >> >"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: > >> >> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing products), > >> >> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). > >> > > >> >Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most > >> >part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one > >> >or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever > >> >played, could play better than me! > >> > ;-) > >> >-- > >> >E. PAUL LUKAS > >> >TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST > >> >BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND > >> >MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA > >> >PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET > >> > > > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:26:29 EST From: Yoda505@aol.com To: trombone-l@lists.missouri.edu Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 Message-ID: <0.4a8abc0a.257f1bd5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How about a rocket launcher with the label MADE IN USA. >Maybe "tuba on a stick is appropriate??"< ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Coyle To: Trombones and related issues forum. Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 1:51 PM Subject: RE: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > Ken Wrote: > > "...guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans." > > Ken, that's a wonderfully vivid image :) > > I used to play a Conn 62H double valve (f-d) bass trombone with a modified > Schilke 60 (rhodium plated) - what would you have called that?!?! > > Mike > > > At 12:23 PM 12/7/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Mike, > > > >Many people consider the valve trombone nasty by definition :-). Anyway, > >mine is a King 3B and, like most of my horns, it plays a lot better than I > >do. The only other valve bone that I have ever tried is an Amati, and I was > >not impressed. I would guess that since you play a Bach 42, about any valve > >bone is going to be a bit stuffy. Even my 3B, which is .509 bore with the > >slide attached is only .485 with the valves. My son tells me that the so > >called "marching trombones" blow a bit more freely. They tend to be around > >.510 to .515 bore. > > > >I purchased mine at a time that I had quit playing the trombone and was > >playing the cornet. I kind of missed the larger horn and bought the 3B. > >After playing it for a few months, I realized how much I missed the slide > >and had one made up for the 3B. Since then, I don't use the valves that > >much anymore. I don't know how true it is, but I was told that the valve > >trombone is mostly played by trumpeters. They seem to have a lot less > >trouble adjusting to the .485 bore and 12C or smaller mouthpieces than the > >guys playing the big bazookas with the tuna cans. On the other hand, the > >few valve bone players that I have met were all trombonists who just > >happened to have a valve trombone as one of their toys. > > > >Ken Dowdy > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mike Coyle [SMTP:astro@pconline.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 11:49 AM > >> To: Trombones and related issues forum. > >> Subject: Re: Back to Equipment - Blessing B88 > >> > >> Hey Ken, et al, > >> > >> I was interested in buying a valve trombone a few months back and went to > >> try out a 20 year old Blessing that was for sale. It was the nastiest > >> thing I have ever played (except a pre-WWII Mirafone valve trombone that I > >> bought and promptly reutrned on Ebay - thank god for i-escrow! I'm > >> tellin' > >> ya, this horn played like a vacuum cleaner hose full of sox (with the > >> exception that the vac hose would have better intonation). > >> > >> Has Blessing changed dramatically over the years or did I just play a > >> clunker or do they just make a nasty valve trombone? > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> At 12:05 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote: > >> >"DOWDY, KENNETH S" wrote: > >> >> Based on this test (and my experience with other Blessing products), > >> >> my next horn may well be a B8 (B88 without the F attachment). > >> > > >> >Ken, I'm not surprised. Blessing makes fine instruments, for the most > >> >part, and one must not bow solely to snob appeal to only look at one > >> >or two of the other manufacturers. Almost every trombone I've ever > >> >played, could play better than me! > >> > ;-) > >> >-- > >> >E. PAUL LUKAS > >> >TROMBONIST, PUBLICIST > >> >BARTLETT COMMUNITY CONCERT BAND > >> >MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE USA > >> >PAULEL9@BELLSOUTH.NET > >> > > > > From ???@??? Wed Dec 08 07:30:19 1999 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:33:48 -0600 From: "Henry McDougall" To: Subject: Re back on equipment Message-ID: <01bf4124$a