TromboneChat

They both sound like you, Leif (ie. extremely musical with a beautiful tone quality and great control of the horn). Thank you for posting this.

 The only way I could possibly judge would be based on your interpretation with each piece.
***SPOILER***

I know you love your Black-Hill 2G, and as you say you find it extremely predictable and consistent, and you seem to take a few more liberties in #2 with regard to rhythm, dynamics, etc.

You seem very connected with the horn in both samples, but I'd say even moreso in the second recording.

Of course, I could just be making all of this up in my own head, it could easily go either way.

Thanks for nice words John, but you get no beer before you guess. I also put up the same mp3 but with reverb turned off for people who don't like it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?xdh8ww4uichla

Leif

Leif,

Very nice mate

I'm not familiar with either of those mp's  but I guess the second one is the larger with a bigger throat?

I've just gone through all my mp's that are near to my Mt Vernon 1.5g (Bach 1.5gm Wick 1AL, Markcin-- GR and No 1 etc) and settled back on my Wick Heavy 0AL - just like the way it artculates the valve notes - seems just right 

The first one is the 1 3/8G the second 2G.
Whe do I get my beer! 

I still love your sound Leif! No matter wich mp.

Yes du har ett härligt sound!

Update:

Honeymoon's over sweety, but the Hammond 19BL is still clearly a better mouthpiece for me than the Stork 1.5. Similar tone quality, but I've got more control as far as adding some "edge" to the sound than I do with the Stork, and the lighter weight of the blank responds easier and doesn't cover up my articulations nearly as much.

This is just speaking from the practice room, my first opportunity to play bass in a rehearsal is Monday (big band), followed by covering bass parts for an outstanding player on Tuesday (Went last Tuesday with my tenor since I didn't know I'd be covering bass, which didn't go as well as one might hoped, especially when I tried to impress the conductor by lipping down low B-naturals).

Hopefully my bands/sectionmates will agree that it sounds decent.

The second one is the Black Hill 2G !! .....and I would alo like some of that great applecider You make up in Sogndal,if You dont mind !!


Trond

Thanks people for kind words.    Its good for me to listen here in my lonely place fare away. I will not tell anything yet.

I have some of this old ballads I use both for my self and my kids I teach. I could put up both the playback music and the sheet music if you want it. They are good for kids trying improvising and they love all this standards. Much more than all the new pop tunes. Easy and fun to play for all. Keep on quessing. And Trond I will see about that apple cider. 

Leif

Would be really cool if you could put that stuff up Leif!

Please do put up those things - greatly appreciated!

Quote from: tbonegeek07 on Jan 09, 2011, 09:01AMPlease do put up those things - greatly appreciated!

I will put them up later. I will still not tell anything. This could be expensive when all of you come to me and demands a beer. But I'm ready!    Make a guess people:

Quote from: savio on Jan 07, 2011, 09:38AMhttp://www.mediafire.com/?xdh8ww4uichla

Witch one is my Black Hill 2g and witch is a Greg Black 138 light? The winner get a beer. Click the link above if you want to listen.

Leif



I did listen George Roberts playing Whoopee today and my God. It shows how fare I'm and what great musician he is. I read Dave Gibson post in the practice room about "speaking words" when you play. That's exactly what George do. I don't want to play like him. But I wish I could do more to make more music out of it. Make the notes "speak" and have a connection and meaning. That's why we play isn't it? George make a connection from beginning to end. And I don't think he plan anything. He is in the music and make it there and then. He is very free. No matter if it is a melody or a bass line. It is connected. I bet he never do it the same way on the same music piece. If I only could connect it more and "speak" more. In my way of course. Anything else would be false. I play to much trombone, and speak to little. I'm not so much in the music. To much "notes" to little meaning. Well, I hope I have the music in my head. My own music not anybody else. The remaining is to get free from the trombone, from the mouthpiece, and then try to get it out. Its like Chris told before. Trombone playing is all in our heads. Understanding. Anyway the most fun is to kind of be on the road? Long way? For me yes, but how boring it would be if we already is at the end station? The fun is on the road. No matter where. I remember the fun when I was a kid and did make my first melody. Bad sound, bad timing, everything was bad of course. But even I could hear it was a kind of melody. It did make me glad and on the road. Well, I go and practice. Only way to figure out more about how make me "speak" my trombone.


Leif

OK, the nr 1 is the Black Hill 2g and the nr. 2 is the Greg Black 1 3/8 light. If you all come to Norway you will get a beer. Its not easy to guess. Could be interesting to know why you guessed like you did? Most of you guessed wrong.

Leif

I just finished reading all 66 pages of this thread--do I get a MV 1.5G as a prize?   

It's interesting, since this thread began, I've returned to the horn after over 10 years being away (former music teacher, turned other office professional) and just recently returned to my doubling days when while in college.  I started college with an 88H and began doubling my junior year. The school had an Elkhart 72H and I moved from that to a Bach 50B3O.

I recall moving away from the 1.5g fairly quickly and settled early on on a Schilke 59. Seems like back then the only options were Bach 1.5, 1, and Schilke 59 and 60.

I recall the Schilke/72H combo being pretty magical.

When I left college selling my bach was one of the first things I did (the 88H being an Abilene), I just recently picked up an Elkhart 72H and--being aware of this thread--picked up a Faxx 1.5g as a good place to start.

I'm not sure I'll ever move on from it. It seems to be a great mouthpiece for me. I also double on tenor in my small town and the transition between the two instruments seems manageable with the 1.5g.  Since finding this site after picking the horn up again, I work regularly on the Alan Raph trigger long tone exercises with my 88H. So the 72H/1.15g seems like something just a hair bigger than my main tenor experience.

The 72H/1.5g trigger register C and B natural (with the e-pull) are a little stuffier than I recall when playing a Schilke 59, but that must be what Chris's point is about the 1.5g in his original point--takes a little more work down low.  Those notes do seem to back up w/the 1.5g and I don't recall experiencing that with the 59, but everything else about the piece I like better than what I remember about the 59.  I also think that as a college student I probably fit exactly into Chris's description of seeking a larger MP to get an instant low register w/out a good concept of sound.  Even though it doesn't look like a 59 is considered large anymore, it's still big enough for me to feel uncomfortable and I like the everything else about the 1.5g to stick with it.

I'm not sure I'd have come to that conclusion without this thread--I love this place, really contributes to the enjoyment factor of my playing these days.

And as a side note, I can hardly believe how the equipment choices have expanded since I was in college, especially for the bass trombone. Wow--looking at what some folks report playing, I'm not sure my vintage 72H qualifies as a b-bone anymore, but it sure put a smile on my face the first time I put it up and put it through its paces, was like connecting with an old friend.

Quote from: Just Ken on Jan 12, 2011, 10:26AMI'm not sure I'd have come to that conclusion without this thread--I love this place, really contributes to the enjoyment factor of my playing these days.

Glad to see you're back on the trombone - enjoy it!

Quote from: Just Ken on Jan 12, 2011, 10:26AMI just finished reading all 66 pages of this thread--do I get a MV 1.5G as a prize?   

And as a side note, I can hardly believe how the equipment choices have expanded since I was in college, especially for the bass trombone. Wow--looking at what some folks report playing, I'm not sure my vintage 72H qualifies as a b-bone anymore, but it sure put a smile on my face the first time I put it up and put it through its paces, was like connecting with an old friend.

Everybody says that Bach MPs vary all over the place. So did you want a good MV or a bad MV? I have a 20 yr. old Bach 1.5G that is my least favorite, although I normally play around that size.

The 72H is most definitely still a bass bone, and a fine one at that.  There are many more choices for horns, MPs, and accessories than ever before. It's a great time to be playing, but I say that every year.

Ken, I agree with Torobone about the 72H still being a bass.  Fully capable of as much body as a section needs.

Regarding stuffiness... are you absolutely certain you are playing the notes right in the acoustical center, without having to lip?  The 72H has a longer slide than most... might you be OVER reaching the position?

I ask because my most favorite aspect of the 72H I used in the service was how much punch AND body I could pack into the long slide positions, and how easy it was to match between those and the pedals below... with a smaller mouthpiece than a 1 1/2G.  It got easier with the 1 1/2G.

I would guess that the things you are working on now will eventually change your mind about stuffiness.  It can be surprising how well that horn works low once all the pieces "line up."

Welcome back, and congratulation on being the second person to read the entire thread (I believe Elrod is the previous record holder.)  I don't think we need to send you an MV 1 1/2g, though, because that Faxx you are using is a consistent copy of a good sample of exactly that 

The only place I'm wanting to play out with the 72H is the local dance/big band--real classic dance oriented book, and I've been playing the 2d book there. I've had a chance to sit in on the 4th part when the regular guy was out only a couple of times since getting the horn, so I'm still acclimating to it at band volumes and it's highly likely I'm not lining up those notes just right at the moment. 

I guess I was looking for confirmation that what I'm experiencing with the 1.5g is what Chris was describing with his original post.  I'm pretty sure that I moved on to the 59 while in college precisely for the reasons Chris mentioned--too impatient to work at making a classic setup work and instead going for the instant low register.

Now, I'm in no rush and everything else about the setup is quite to my liking.  And, I don't recall ever thinking the 72H was stuffy before, so I'm sure it's nothing that some more long tones cant address.  Comments like yours and others about centering have been really mind expanding since returning to the instrument, that was one of the things that compelled me to read through this Tolstoy-esque thread.

Quote from: savio on Jan 12, 2011, 08:38AMOK, the nr 1 is the Black Hill 2g and the nr. 2 is the Greg Black 1 3/8 light. If you all come to Norway you will get a beer. Its not easy to guess. Could be interesting to know why you guessed like you did? Most of you guessed wrong.

Leif

Ok, Savio - where are you based? I'm visiting Norway this Summer on my motorbike, my wife has a friend in the Bergen Orchestra.

Be good to grab my winning beer with you

Cheers - Rob

Ken....
Why, you are right!  Five years, 66 pages and growing.... this HAS reached epic proportions!
Perhaps we should start having anniversary parties for the thread and Chris?

Who plays one? I don't know, but I have one for sale!

Quote from: cyclelife on Jan 12, 2011, 12:47PMOK, Savio - where are you based? I'm visiting Norway this Summer on my motorbike, my wife has a friend in the Bergen Orchestra.

Be good to grab my winning beer with you

Cheers - Rob

I'm in Sogndal Rob. Come to me with your bike and we will grab plenty of Norwegian beer! I take care of your motorbike, hehe 
Maybe not a good idea, but serious, if you come tell me?

I think most of you people guess wrong because the 2g sounds bigger. I did make the 1 3/8 a good trial long time ago. Works nice for me out of the box but then it just get worse and worse. Thats maybe me that cant play it the right way. It did also sound thinner and thinner. So I dont know why the 1 3/8 dont work for me or my 60h. Strange it sounds good right out of the box.

Today I have some Bach mouthpieces, DE 108 and my Black Hill 2g. The Bach mouthpieces are not safe for me. George Roberts sure would make them work but not me. I play too much wrong notes on them. Both the 2g and the DE 108 are very good, safe and sounds very nice. I now have tried all on my journey and will not buy any more. This two mouthpieces are what I come up with in the end.
Since the 2g works I see no reason to change any more.

Ken, your story is nearly like mine.    I wish you good luck with the 1 1/2g.  Its a fun and interesting mouthpiece to blow and learn from.

Cheers all,
Leif

Quote from: savio on Jan 12, 2011, 11:56PMI'm in Sogndal Rob. Come to me with your bike and we will grab plenty of Norwegian beer! I take care of your motorbike, hehe 
Maybe not a good idea, but serious, if you come tell me?


Leif

Leif,

Looks nice there   How many km from Bergen are you and approx how long to drive?
Are you in the Arctic Circle?

We will be over in August, so would be good to meet up - keep in touch!

Rob

Quote from: savio I now have tried all on my journey and will not buy any more.
Savio, this is kind of an "Americanism," but I'll quote it anyway.

There are three things we say:
1.  I won't do it ever again
2.  in my whole life
3.  and this time I mean it.

Hope you are able to keep this resolution.  <g>

Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 13, 2011, 04:51AMSavio, this is kind of an "Americanism," but I'll quote it anyway.

There are three things we say:
1.  I won't do it ever again
2.  in my whole life
3.  and this time I mean it.

Hope you are able to keep this resolution.  <g>

Tim, thanks for the correction.    But I don't know what to say, For me its easy to tell what other should do, even if I really don't have a clue, but to do it my self? mmmmm that's the question. 

Tim, I will try.....thats what I can say without making a fool of my self again.

Leif

Quote from: savio on Jan 13, 2011, 11:13AMTim, thanks for the correction.    But I don't know what to say, For me its easy to tell what other should do, even if I really don't have a clue, but to do it my self? mmmmm that's the question. 

Tim, I will try.....thats what I can say without making a fool of my self again.

Leif

I think what I said when I revealed my Elliott setup was that I don't expect to be changing it... and that is true... as of now, Doug's mouthpiece is clearly the best combination of qualities that I have come across (for me). If someone put a mouthpiece in my hands that sounded better and was easier to play, I suppose I would be stupid to hand it back... simple as that... though it might be fair to send Doug this (fictional)mouthpiece to see if he could incorporate the qualities into an Elliott for me.
Savio is saying that he knows a good fit of mouthpiece when he blows it (after many false starts) and he is right... that Black^Hill 2G is a gem.
Why did most of you get it wrong on the sound test ??? Simple... you heard the difference, but made assumptions about the qualities of each mouthpiece that were not correct... accepted wisdom is often plain wrong, and we tend to judge things based on accepted wisdom.
I PM'd Savio soon after he put up the clips... with the right answer... but for me it was easy as I know how those mouthpieces sound... and how Savio sounds on them. I can be fooled by unknown players and unknown mouthpieces... and if I follow accepted wisdom.

Chris Stearn

Quote from: blast on Jan 13, 2011, 12:36PMI think what I said when I revealed my Elliott setup was that I don't expect to be changing it... and that is true... as of now, Doug's mouthpiece is clearly the best combination of qualities that I have come across (for me). If someone put a mouthpiece in my hands that sounded better and was easier to play, I suppose I would be stupid to hand it back... simple as that... though it might be fair to send Doug this (fictional)mouthpiece to see if he could incorporate the qualities into an Elliott for me.
Savio is saying that he knows a good fit of mouthpiece when he blows it (after many false starts) and he is right... that Black^Hill 2G is a gem.
Why did most of you get it wrong on the sound test ??? Simple... you heard the difference, but made assumptions about the qualities of each mouthpiece that were not correct... accepted wisdom is often plain wrong, and we tend to judge things based on accepted wisdom.
I PM'd Savio soon after he put up the clips... with the right answer... but for me it was easy as I know how those mouthpieces sound... and how Savio sounds on them. I can be fooled by unknown players and unknown mouthpieces... and if I follow accepted wisdom.

Chris Stearn


I think some also did misunderstand me. My search ended in mai/June.  I have sold all the others but did keep one big one, and 3 Bach mouthpieces.  My 2g works for me the way I want. This time I posted a clip because one did ask,  and just to see what you will guess.
To promiss anything is not what I do anymore. Only one thing, if you get here all trombone players I get you a beer and we play some duets on our "small" mouthpieces and we make some "big" sound out of it. And Tim, I didnt understand what you ment, Im a Norwegian with bad language skills.

Chris did know it before all.

Leif

Interesting that people didn't guess Savio's mouthpiece correctly.

I listened to the clips, and to my ears, the first sounded like Savio was getting close to the maximum amount of vibration and resonance out of the mouthpiece, and it sounded easy, whereas the second clip, to my ears, sounded like someone who hadn't quite found the centre of a mouthpiece that was larger than they were used to, and hadn't really figured out how to get it ringing and resonating. It sounded as though the lip wasn't vibrating from one edge of the rim to the other.

I don't want this to sound like a criticism of Savio. Far from it. A great sound is a great sound, and Savio is really producing a timeless, classic sound on the smaller piece, and I'm sure if he spent some real time on the larger piece again he would start to find what it needs from him, but it sure wouldn't sound the same. The Black/Hill fits him and his concepts, but the larger piece didn't give me that impression.

These are just my thoughts. I have a pretty good ear for equipment, and tend to remember quite closely equipment I've played in the past. As a student, I spent fat too long playing mouthpieces that I wasn't quite filling properly, so perhaps that's what sticks out to me. Or maybe it was just a lucky guess this time...

Savio: great playing. As much fun as it is to swap mouthpieces from time to time, it really sounds as though you've got some serious mojo happening with the Black/Hill piece, so if I were you, I wouldn't touch anything else. Get it soldered into your leadpipe so you aren't tempted. That sound really works for you.

Andrew (who was kidding about the soldering iron)

Quote from: savio on Jan 13, 2011, 11:13AMTim, thanks for the correction.    But I don't know what to say, For me its easy to tell what other should do, even if I really don't have a clue, but to do it my self? mmmmm that's the question. 

Tim, I will try.....thats what I can say without making a fool of my self again.

Leif

savio,

No correction is intended.  Nor criticism.

I'm sure you've made a wise equipment choice, and will stay with it, unless you have a good reason to change.

I'm just trying to point out, with gentle humor, that many who have tried to escape the "next mouthpiece might be better" trap have sometimes been lured back into the search.

I myself have tried to move to a bigger mouthpiece because people told me I should.  It never made much difference and I've gone back to the same size i bought in 1971.  Perhaps because of my mouth and/or embouchure I'm relatively insensitive to mouthpiece changes, or perhaps I was lucky enough to get one that fit well back then. 

I understand what you say Tim    Like Andrew say the Black Hill works for me and the little playing and teaching I do. I did give the 1 3/8 a serious trial long time ago. It works so nice when I take it out from the box. A year ago I also tried the Laskey 85md. It also works very nice. It feels so very good. But maybe I have played the smaller size so long so I have trouble to make the bigger one works. I tried the Laskey for about 3 weeks and the 1 3/8 about 4 weeks. That's maybe to short time to know them. But I get unfocused on them both after some time. Its strange because people play 60 size and they sound nice and focused. I do listen the Charlie Vernon CD and he is so clear and focused. The same with Pollard and all this guys. Ben van Dijk, also when listen the youtube clip of Gabe here, it sounds very focused and clear. No problem. But I seem to not get it. I cant get it. I don't understand why, but maybe the horns I have fit best with the smaller ones. Or my mouth works best with the smaller ones.

I did try the bigger ones because they feel so good right out of the box. Very good. But it seems my mouth have trouble with them in the long run. When doing lip slurs I kind of have to move to much inside the mouthpiece. On the smaller ones it stay more still.

So very short, the 2g size kind of help me. Strange because I'm a IIIA player and should have no trouble with the bigger ones. But I "solder" the 2g on Andrew 

I also warn about doing the "journey" I have done here. I did most of it wrong and I admit it. But I found my "home" and live happy with that.

Play what works people. Use some time to find out what works. But do like Chris told. Have an open mind and don't always go for feel.

Leif

Both sounded VERY nice, but I did like the first one better. Rounder, more complex sound. I probably wouldn't have guessed that it was the smaller, but maybe knowing that the larger mouthpiece is a lightweight would have helped me guess correctly. At any rate, with THAT sound, who cares what the number is on the mouthpiece? 

For my part, when listening to them, it sounded like you were having more "fun" and "experimenting" more with the 1.375G, but it could easily have gone other way. You seemed to be popping some notes, tonguing others, valve-slurring other ones, etc. My hearing's not good enough to differentiate just by tone quality apparently, so I went with other factors. I took what some characterized as 'less control' as being musical choices, since they *did* work (even though you said you were going to try to play it flat and boring).

Now for the difficult test- listening to both now that I know the real answer and trying to get the same result I did blind.

EDIT: Answer is I think I can hear it, and I need to pay a whole lot more attention to the first 50-100ms or so of notes rather than listening to the sustained tone.

BIG ANSWER: you sound like yourself and great on each piece, and I appreciate you posting these clips, as they're very enjoyable to listen to, with or without the games.

Ugh I can't find the original Bach 1 1/2G that I really worked with. It was an older one that was pretty solid.

Lately, I've been dabbling in Eliezer Aharoni's The Non-Classic Bass Trombone. I love the book; there is a lot of stuff in it. What I did notice in the book is that most if not all exercises are mostly below the staff and very little above the bass clef. This is intentional (I asked Eliezer), and he said he wanted to provide exercises in the lower and pedal ranges.

I am also coming across more music that wants the bass trombone well below the staff, with some of music having fast passages down to pedal F. In my opinion, I have tried to play the parts on my piano, and many just sound rumbly when the music gets fast. An example is "Sir Duke" by Stevie Wonder in Bb, in which the arrangement has the instrumental solo starting on a pedal F and rising in a diatonic scale of eighth notes up from there (I was trying to find the part to scan...). I am wondering if Bass bone parts are written lower than they were going back 20-30 years or so?

So, now back to the 1 1/2G. I don't use mine, because unlike everyone else, I have a not-so-good one. Even my old MV, I traded for a Holton 1 1/2G. The Holton worked great through the 80s on my Yamaha, but not on my Duo Gravis (DG).

I solved my MP problem on the DG with a Wick Heritage 1AL from my friendly and very helpful Wick dealer. The dealer actually stayed and listened to me offering valuable insight. In trying various sizes of Wicks, from 00 to 2, the 00 gave me awesome notes below the staff, but I found that the upper range suffered. I chose the 1AL as the best all around compromise for me. The Wick catalog lists the 00AL as a contra MP. Various MP comparison charts put my 1AL about the same as a Bach 1 1/2G or slightly bigger, depending on which chart you use.

So, going forward, is b-bone music actually going lower more often? Has this affected the popularity of the 1 1/2G size, and is this trend likely to continue?

Quote from: Torobone on Jan 22, 2011, 11:52AM
---snip---

I am also coming across more music that wants the bass trombone well below the staff, with some of music having fast passages down to pedal F. In my opinion, I have tried to play the parts on my piano, and many just sound rumbly when the music gets fast. An example is "Sir Duke" by Stevie Wonder in Bb, in which the arrangement has the instrumental solo starting on a pedal F and rising in a diatonic scale of eighth notes up from there (I was trying to find the part to scan...). I am wondering if Bass bone parts are written lower than they were going back 20-30 years or so?

---snip---

So, going forward, is b-bone music actually going lower more often? Has this affected the popularity of the 1 1/2G size, and is this trend likely to continue?

OH yes!!! Most definitely.

Part of this has to do with the increasing excellence (and specialization) of bass trombonists. I mean...really, in most Western Hemisphere-influenced styles of music, until the early '50s there was no "bass trombone" to speak of. And even then, as often as not it only had a few low notes to play and the rest of the time its main function was as a 3rd or 4th tenor in a section of .500 and .485-ish instruments. Try to get that blend w/a bathtub m'pce and a 10.5" bell on a dual bore .565/.580 horn. When I play some of Duke Ellington's stuff for bass I really can't do it justice on modern bass trombones or m'pces. I use a 2G and a .547/.565 dual bore Conn 70H, and if I had one of those Olds horns that George Roberts used in his early career days I'd play that. The "bass trombonist" in the Basie band was Benny Powell in the '50s, who really played a 2B w/a small m'pce when he had his 'druthers.

Part of it also has to do with recording techniques. As bass trombonists got their own mics in the "Hi fi", "fix it in the mix" era, they could lean in and get great effects on notes which if they were asked to truly project they would have had a whole 'nother set of problems. George Roberts knew this. So does Dave Taylor. Bet on it. Been there, watched it hundreds of times. This doesn't mean that these people cannot put out magnificent sound, just that they are using what is given to them to the best effect.

And...part of it also has to do with the increasing relative ignorance of arranger/composers. The "Any fool can write something you can't play" syndrome coupled with the "I gotta play it if I'm going to keep the gig!!!" thing. Hell, in the '70s and '80s there was one busy NYC commercial arranger who regularly wrote lines for the bass trombone that would challenge  a good flautist only he wrote them in the low pedal ranges. And he expected to hear them, too. I used to bring in a Helleberg tuba m'pce and play 'em, too, and I'm not even that good a bass trombonist. Y'do what you must to survive.

The tuba/bass trombone book on "Lion King?" Pedal C solo notes. In a straight mute!!!

Ridiculous.

But there it is.

So it goes.

Ever downward.

S.

Buddy of mine lent me a Yeo (~S60) mouthpiece, and I find that it's not the high range that's the problem, actually, but the low range (double trigger into pedal range. No control whatsoever. While I'm not a fantastic trombonist, much less bass trombonist, by anyone's definition, I have a range of at least piano to forte using the Hammond 19BL (legit 1.5 sized piece) which is at least as good and probably better than I'd had on the Stork (1.5 on steroids).

I can blast out double forte double valve notes using the Yeo... but I find a complete lack of control on them, even while my high range doesn't *really* suffer.

Some of it, like always, is probably the double bore bass slide that's been the bane of my existence. It interacts weirdly with mouthpieces for whatever reason (my 1062 doesn't have the removable pipes either, so i can't screw around with that without spending some money).

Then again... upstream embouchure makes everything weird upstream of the slide crook, so who knows.

Yeh... all this low stuff is really new... I was playing a pedal Eb muted ff tonight... a Janacek opera written in the 1920s I think.
Need a big, big mouthpiece to make it work ?? I think not.

Torobone... your Heritage 1AL is a copy of Dave Stewart's Schilke 58... at least, that's what Denis told me when he gave me one. It's a nice mouthpiece... and I bet it works a treat in a Duo Gravis.

Chris Stearn

Off topic... but as I recall from seeing a score to the Janacek Sinfonietta , about 30 years ago, there are NINE separate parts in it for C trumpet.

Don't know what he was smoking when he wrote it.....but there must have been some prodigious players back then for him to even begin to conceive of a sound to go with the players he had access to. If he wrote a muted ff pedal Eb, it must have been for a reason.

That said-- as a student on bass bone I had call to play several seasons of subbed contrabassoon to cover parts. It was ALL muted pedals, and I did it on a 1 1/2G, which was all we had back then. Of course the advantage we had back then, when the earth's crust was cooling, is still quite simple to explain--

1. When we locked ourselves in a practice facility to practice we had no cell phones. We had no ipods. We had no internet, we had no stupid chat rooms to flex our mighty musical muscles in, and most importantly-
2. We HAD to practice.
3. And we had no chat rooms. We had a chat room of course, but it was down at the end of the hall, where we went to brew up a strong cup of tea to keep us going until 4AM. That was a "chat room" then--- when you could taste blood from working the pedals, you stopped and had a chat while the tea water boiled.

and people wonder why i never answer my phone...

Quote from: blast on Jan 22, 2011, 03:09PMYeh... all this low stuff is really new... I was playing a pedal Eb muted ff tonight... a Janacek opera written in the 1920s I think.
Need a big, big mouthpiece to make it work ?? I think not.

---snip---


I qualified what I was saying, Chris.

Quote...really, in most Western Hemisphere-influenced styles of music, until the early '50s there was no "bass trombone" to speak of...
Etc.

Also...

Quote I used to bring in a Helleberg tuba m'pce and play 'em, too, and I'm not even that good a bass trombonist. Y'do what you must to survive.
It's quite possible that if I was a full time bass trombonist those "Lion King" blatted pedal Cs would be within my reach on something smaller...George Flynn plays them quite nicely on a 1.5G. Nevertheless the question asked was "I am wondering if Bass bone parts are written lower than they were going back 20-30 years or so?". It was presented in the context of a Stevie Wonder piece, not Janacek.  My point stands. Especially the part about "Y'do what you must to survive."

There's a reason for all of those big m'pces, just as there is a reason for the proliferation of automatic weapons in the streets. Used to be all you needed was a .38 revolver. Now? Uzis everywhere. Same idea, really. Are they "better?" Depends on the firefight, I guess.

And the marksman, of course.

Later...

S.

I hear you Sam.... I still gotta think that too many people are looking for an easy way rather than a better way...
Big change ????????? nah.. we go lower more often.. move around there more... nothing too big though...
that's orchestras... big bands... I remember silly low back in the 70's... These buckets just mean that the also-rans can spit out the dots.... progress ???? not as I see it.

Chris Stearn

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Jan 22, 2011, 03:48PMOff topic... but as I recall from seeing a score to the Janacek Sinfonietta , about 30 years ago, there are NINE separate parts in it for C trumpet.

Don't know what he was smoking when he wrote it.....but there must have been some prodigious players back then for him to even begin to conceive of a sound to go with the players he had access to. If he wrote a muted ff pedal Eb, it must have been for a reason.

That said-- as a student on bass bone I had call to play several seasons of subbed contrabassoon to cover parts. It was ALL muted pedals, and I did it on a 1 1/2G, which was all we had back then. Of course the advantage we had back then, when the earth's crust was cooling, is still quite simple to explain--

1. When we locked ourselves in a practice facility to practice we had no cell phones. We had no ipods. We had no internet, we had no stupid chat rooms to flex our mighty musical muscles in, and most importantly-
2. We HAD to practice.
3. And we had no chat rooms. We had a chat room of course, but it was down at the end of the hall, where we went to brew up a strong cup of tea to keep us going until 4AM. That was a "chat room" then--- when you could taste blood from working the pedals, you stopped and had a chat while the tea water boiled.



Ha ! ha ! I like that 

Chris Stearn

Bonesmarsh: It's actuallt 12 trumpet parts.

9 in C in the fanfare band playing in the first and last mvmts, and 3 (in F I think) in the orchestra

And, Bonesmarsh, GREAT post. It IS very important with practice breaks. But actually, it is important to practice too!!

Quote from: blast on Jan 22, 2011, 05:01PMI hear you Sam.... I still gotta think that too many people are looking for an easy way rather than a better way...
Big change ????????? nah.. we go lower more often.. move around there more... nothing too big though...
that's orchestras... big bands... I remember silly low back in the 70's... These buckets just mean that the also-rans can spit out the dots.... progress ???? not as I see it.

Chris Stearn

Here we go again, yet more condescending comments

"Easier rather than better" 

Making life easier is no substitute for practice, I agree but to say it can not be better is missing something, why work harder if by finding a better fitting mouthpiece you can produce more even/louder/better articulated valve and pedal notes, without loosing control/projection and phrasing? Surely this must be better? 

I hate the big phat slide tuba sound in any genre, so have to agree that sometimes players just go too big for their ability to centre notes. I am just getting back into playing after 10 years off, I  started back with my trusty 1.5 Mt Vernon and have been pleased with the results combined with the Rath and a 9A leadpipe, over the past few days I've been using my Heavy Wick 0AL which feels a little bigger but has a slightly smaller throat, this has allowed me to increase the volume,speed of articulation of the lower notes as well as bringing a solid centre to the sound throughout the entire range of the instrument without ever feeling that it might break up! So a little experimenting with a bigger MP that suits me has paid off

Chris, there's no need for comments like this, we know you get paid for playing, so do I, and many others here but to call us "also rans, spitting out the dots" is totally un-professional.

There are plenty of "also ran's" playing on big mouthpieces (and making a "bass trombone sound") out there who could do your job comfortably, don't knock them just because they are waiting for you to retire before they get a chance - they can play! I'm sure there would be some changes in orchestral sections if you had to audition every three years for your jobs

Swallow your pride occasionally, it's non-fattening 

Rob,

While I agree in general that "condescending comments" have little place here, I do not think that applies to what Chris wrote.  Having seen his posts, even just in this thread, about the 1 1/2G NOT being the "only answer" AND about respect for those who put in the time, I think "also-rans" is a VERY kind description of folks who want results without the effort.

In the context of this thread, someone like yourself who has made a living on the horn, and put in the time to make pieces work, is certainly NOT an "also-ran."

IMHO there are only three camps of large equipment users:

1) folks where the job fully demands it.
  To me, this does NOT include those who are in sections now so loud that baffles are needed on stage between sections.  But there ARE legitimate hall/size/other considerations where simple physics dictates what will really work.  From all the evidence I have seen, these folks tend to put in the time no MATTER what equipment they pick.

2) folks whose faces work that way
  For solid reasons splattered all over this forum, some folks just cannot be comfortable on certain size rims.  Heck, even in just this one thread about the same nominal size rim, folks can't be comfortable on the same size rim.  If these folks are part of group #1 it's no big deal. If they are not, it can be tough to make the time needed to make the MP work.  My hat goes off to the amateur whose face only fits a big MP, but needs to find time to make that MP sound good in a group that needs a more compact sound.  I've heard some do that... wish I knew how they did.  They are certainly not "also-rans."

3)  folks who put style above function
  THESE are the "also-rans."  They are more concerned about saying "I play the same MP as (insert name of great player here)" or "Hey, listen to this low Db" (again and again and again.)  They wonder why the local big band invites them to rehearsal... once.  And for all that they MIGHT provide some of the support you cite, they are more likely to buy another mouthpiece than a lesson from the likes of YOU or Chris.  And for all the support they MIGHT provide, they give folks reasons to assert that bass trombones are loud and obnoxious and unmusical. 

Encouraging the 3rd approach by calling it anything other than what it is helps NO one.  By not hurting the feelings of such "also-rans" we encourage them to keep doing exactly the things that make them "also-rans" in the first place.  The beauty of music is that we do NOT have to have Chris' chair to be a winner. WE control whether we are "also-rans" or not, and there is room for ALL of us to win.  If we all pay attention to what and how we play, we can create new trombone trios, or quartets, or choirs, or encourage other musicians to create new opportunities. 


"also-rans".... good, appropriate label...  makes us think more carefully about our definitions and criteria for "winner!"

Rob,

   You sound like a considerate and caring person who has included the most important part of the search in their efforts-- practice. That said, in Chris's professional travels to conventions and trombone conferences he has no doubt been at times hip-deep in knuckleheads and cretins who should have NEVER picked up a horn. And some of them will have gravitated to playing the pedals to the detriment of all other facets of their playing.
   Rob, you excused yourself from that club with every word of your post. I'm certain that Chris was not referring to you, or any of your experience. That said-

  At an ITA conference I attended in the early 1980's there was a mass bone rehearsal. 120-150 bones on a huge stage. Mouthpieces of the huge variety had NOT been invented yet-- well, they had, but they were called TUBA mouthpieces. The meathead kid behind me at the rehearsal had a tuba mouthpiece stuck in a Holton bass and played ONLY in the register from low F to pedal F. A one octave range. And every cut off was late. Every arrangement and tune he re-arranged mentally to play only in the range he liked to play in. That one octave. Eventually the conductor told him to stop playing that way. The rehearsal continued and meathead kept up the sub-sonic barrage. He got another warning.We restarted and the mindless rumble came from the back row.
  The conductor put down the baton, crossed his arms on his chest and told the kid that the rehearsal was not going to continue until the kid packed up the horn and left. Three agonizing minutes of silence while the kid turned beet red. 100+ trombonists staring at him and growing more angry with him by the second. Not another word from the motionless conductor, who was staring at his shoes and getting more furious by the moment. Finally the kid left.

   What is different now, 30 years later??? Any meathead with the money can replicate the 1980 meathead's efforts..with impunity. Now its not a question of sticking in a tuba mouthpiece, the sticker at the store says TROMBONE on the mouthpiece now. But, the mindset of the player is the same, and the results are, for the most part, the same.

Kevin,

Excellent example of how we do NOT help folks by tacitly or otherwise condoning the unacceptable until it reaches a crisis.

I'm very grateful for Rob's comments, actually!  Caring is, IMHO, a central part of this crazy instrument.  And the whole thing about what constitutes "also-ran" behavior is central to the "right mind" part of this thread.  It's really good to have that side bubbling up after a long stretch of the "x x/xG" side

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Jan 23, 2011, 06:48AM...Three agonizing minutes of silence while the kid turned beet red. 100+ trombonists staring at him and growing more angry with him by the second....

Quote from: boneagain on Jan 23, 2011, 07:32AMExcellent example of how we do NOT help folks by tacitly or otherwise condoning the unacceptable until it reaches a crisis.

Dave- the problem with using that as an example is that it's a trombone festival where the conductor (and everyone else in the group) is probably a trombonist.

At the community level, one runs into a surprising number of conductors (none of the conductors under whom I currently play) who don't know what a trombone or a bass trombone is 'supposed' to sound like. They figure that it's a slightly more dignified baritone saxophone as far as 'press levers, get roar'.

So... I'm sure that kid was appreciated in his school ensembles. I'm sure that he was respected in any community groups he happened to play with (and if it was jazz, well, the bass trombone often is called upon to come over or work around the tbone section in big band charts rather than blend).

Long story short... while that conductor was able to notice, assess, and eliminate the problem element, your standard conductor would just ***** that you're playing too loud' until you realized that it was a timbral mismatch rather than a volume one.

In my example it did reach a crisis, and it was ugly. But thats a real black and white example from the real world. And in my experience the only one I can recall. I spent last evening at a gig and the subject of a local trombonist came up-- and his eventual downfall. Last night's story involved almost a whole big band at a break-- where the trombonist in question was absent-- asking each other the big question: " Who invited him to join the band? I thought you did? I never. Who did?". The player was a musical blight, and he had to be excised. Or he will be, as soon as they can find out who invited him, and then the inviter will be required to fire the trombonistm, from a volunteer amateur big band.  Will he then be an "also-ran"?

  Natural selection in the musical world does indeed take care of the "also-ran" players-- its called the audition process. Unfortunately, unlike having a tree fall through your brain case in a logging accident, the musical audition process does not give you a clear idea why you were not selected to continue. You're left to flounder in self doubt and try to guess why you are unsuccessful. And the easiest fix is to buy a bigger mouthpiece.

  If you doubt the veracity of my previous inflamatory statements please feel free to attend ANY musical convention. The criteria for attendance is paying the admission or membership fee. Once admitted you are free to do what you wish. You'll be astonished by some incredible things. And disheartened by others.

   As  professionals, and as respected professors and educators, I'm sure many members of this forum are unable to comment, as their discretion is one of their best character qualities. I'm free to not have that quality. So, here goes-- attend a massive trombone meeting. And go to the trade show. There you'll hear two things repeatedly:
1. " Bolero" being butchered, followed by a kid saying:" This horn/mouthpiece is CRAP."
2. " Ein Heldenleben" being butchered, followed by a kid saying;" This horn/mouthpiece is CRAP."
Repeat that experience 4 times a year for the length of your career and see if you can remain sane.

I don't know why I keep coming back to this topic. Nothing new ever happens. Somebody asserts that big mouthpieces are only good for loud low notes, somebody else (often Sam) points out that composers are writing lower parts more often than ever before, and the whole world is louder. Then Chris points out, and Sam agrees, that great bass trombone players can play extremely low parts very well and quite loud enough on small bass trombone mouthpieces, thank you very much.

Somebody else, most recently Bonesmarsh, talks about some dumb kids who think a big mouthpiece is the answer to everything and makes the perfectly valid point that what we all really need to do is turn off the computers and go practice. If, that is, our goal is to play better.

Sigh...I'm still going to make a post that's probably nearly identical to one I made about 5 years ago when this topic started.

It's not really about low notes or high notes, it's about sound and style. At least, in my life and the lives of professionals and serious students. The simple fact is that a 1 1/2G played at the highest level sounds different from a 60 played at the highest level. They might sound even more different played by people who don't play very well.

Here in the US, the expected sound for an orchestral bass trombone player is the sound that comes from a big mouthpiece. I know of a couple of high-level players who play in the 59 range, but no smaller. Honestly, I can't think of a single one. Somebody please tell me if I'm missing someone. 

In the UK, the expected sound in the orchestra is the smaller mouthpiece sound. Tuba players also play smaller instruments and mouthpieces than their American colleagues, and the 88H is still the most common tenor trombone. That's just not the case on this side of the Atlantic.

The non-orchestral world is a different story. I see hints that the British brass band players may be moving bigger, possibly after the model of Mark Frost. The professional bass trombone players who primarily play non-orchestral styles here in the US probably mostly play smaller mouthpieces than the symphony players, but I don't know that for sure.

Another point I made about 5 years ago is that I played the first several years of my career on a 59-sized piece, and ultimately found myself consistently up against music where I struggled with the extreme low register demands. So I moved bigger and learned a lot about my playing in the process. I'm a better player now than I was then, and I'm starting to entertain the possibility that I could scale back down to the medium-size mouthpiece. But I simply don't see myself going as small as a 1 1/2G. I have a really hard time playing it, and even if I could, I don't see it fitting with my colleagues. I live in Boston, not London.