TromboneChat

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Dec 22, 2007, 10:24PM---snip---

1)Start with a small piece that is manageable. 2) Make haste slowly. Give yourself time to develop. 3)Make mouthpiece changes for musical reasons.

Rules to live by.

Precisely.

S.

Quote from: slideorama on Dec 22, 2007, 09:46PMFunny how most of us prefer the way Kleinhammer sounded on the Reiner recordings...obviously, its very possible to sound fantastic on "classic" equipment.
.........
Now, if I could only convince all the tenor players in town to trade in their 3G's and 50B LT slides, some nice sounds might start to happen.

Happy Holidays!

Thats the hard part, trying to get your section to go along with you musically.

I've been going toward a lighter sound (kanstul 1662 w/very thin yellow bell and rath 2W) and the principle player still plays with a lovely compact clean sound, while the middle of the section has gone bigger and heavier. (for a while the asst. principle was playing a 1.5GM while I played a 2G)

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 23, 2007, 08:22AMThats the hard part, trying to get your section to go along with you musically.

I've been going toward a lighter sound (kanstul 1662 w/very thin yellow bell and rath 2W) and the principle player still plays with a lovely compact clean sound, while the middle of the section has gone bigger and heavier. (for a while the asst. principle was playing a 1.5GM while I played a 2G)


In the University setting, it can be difficult to get a perfect match of players due to things like the audition process and available personnel. Personally, I do not see my role as one to dictate the type of sound the section will have. I view my position as one of support of the principle; help him sound as good as possible. I feel the principle and conductor need to agree and be clear and the rest will adjust. In the community group that I play in recently had a change in principles from a lighter player to one that plays with much more vigor. This required me to make adjustments to my playing. Eventually the conductor and the principle found common ground and this required another adjustment.

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 23, 2007, 08:22AMI've been going toward a lighter sound (kanstul 1662 w/very thin yellow bell and rath 2W) and the principle player still plays with a lovely compact clean sound, while the middle of the section has gone bigger and heavier. (for a while the asst. principle was playing a 1.5GM while I played a 2G)
Is your assistant principal sane, to put it nicely?

Quote from: Dan H. on Dec 23, 2007, 12:24PMIs your assistant principal sane, to put it nicely?
He might be, we do not know what he sounds like.

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Dec 23, 2007, 12:28PMHe might be, we do not know what he sounds like.

True, provided that he has a naturally very bright tone (to be able to blend properly with the rest of the section), chops of steel (for the endurance required of such a large mouthpiece, and the ability to even keep the horn in tune - let alone the ease of the high register), and great breath support (that one might not be so farfetched).

Size of equipment does not bring about limitations of dynamic. Plenty of REALLY loud big band sections playing on smaller equipment.
Some professional orchestras play louder than others.
Louder is not necessarily better.
Quieter is not necessarily better either.
Some orchestra music is subtle.
Some is not.
Thankfully, there is not one answer when it comes to equipment, style, sound etc. EVEN in orchestras there is some personal choice... at least in this country (the UK)there is.
Chris Stearn.

Quote from: Dan H. on Dec 23, 2007, 12:24PMIs your assistant principal sane, to put it nicely?

After taking the advice of his private teacher he's back on the mouthpiece he got with his xeno, much, much better. 3rd player is more inline with the section too. works better.

And about what you said chris, thank god there isn't one answer, it'd get awfully boring if every trombone section sounded the same.

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 22, 2007, 08:59PM
Chris, thank you for getting me up to speed on this thread. I have to side with Mr. Kleinhammer on this. I see no trend toward down-sizing in the American orchestra
brass player's equipment choices of today. More efficient and better tuning? Certainly. Smaller? Hardly ever. Funny, the best stringed instruments are hundreds of years old and will evolve very slowly over time , yet we continue to use technology to enlarge our sounds on brass instruments only to be given the left hand palm forward (SHHHHHH!)by most conductors. Still, I would have to imagine that Mr. Kleinhammer is talking about major American symphony orchestras and not all symphonic ensembles. In the major U.S. symphony orchestras, and I have played with a few, the brass are putting out some major sound. That trend may not suit smaller orchestras with with string sections who can not compete with the girth of brass sound that is capable on modern instruments.
This is what I don't understand Matthew... as you say, string players are playing instruments that are often hundreds of years old and largely unchanged. Wagner hasn't re-written his operas... and yet American brasses... especially bass trombone equipment... get bigger and bigger... why ???
You say yourself that the section gets the hand from most conductors... isn't there something here that demands a bit of a re-think ?
Chris Stearn.





<fixed quote yet again for Chris, whose brain gets ahead of his typing fingers... Happy Christmas, Blast!>

This doesn't apply as much to mouthpieces specifically, rather to general equipment choices--I hope you don't mind the continuation of this detour....

It seems to me, the biggest effect the (bore) size of a trombone has is on the quality of the sound, not the volume.  I was just listening to a stunning recording of Bruckner 8, from Munich in the 1960's.  Not that far back, but it's quite different than the modern standard.  The trombones had a thrilling sound--and I could hear the strings!  There are parts I just couldn't hear on other recordings I've listened to.  The low brass didn't dominate the orchestra, in fact, it was almost 'set back' in the balance--which made it more menacing than the bludgeon to the head approach.  There's a bunch of big, fat whole notes in the brass parts, but guess what?  The strings have something that adds to the excitement, when it's audible.

As a counter-example, I recently heard excerpts of Pictures at an Exhibition, by one of the most prominent American orchestras.  Honestly, I thought it was plain ugly.  The brass sound (low brass, in particular) was quite crass.  Some of these musicians are known for using rather large equipment, and it made me wonder how much harder they must be working, to get instruments of that size to sound "blatty."

A more common scenario is to hear low brass on large equipment, playing loud enough to bury the strings and/or woodwinds (and percussion, in some cases), but with a sound that's not particularly interesting.  Dominating the ensemble with a boring sound is far from the best of both worlds.

It makes me glad that there are a few sticks-in-the-mud (no disrespect), especially in Europe, that insist on traditional instruments.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, but some German orchestras, in particular, require sections to use German-style trombones: generally smaller-bore, larger, thinner bells.)  If left to their own devices, there are plenty of people who would have abandoned that approach--and it's happened to some degree already. I hope to see the pendulum swing the other direction.  We're blessed to have the ability to hear orchestras from all over the world these days, but it's a double-edged sword.  If all we get out of this "small-world" situation is a homogenization of sound concepts, then we have the wrong idea about cultural exchange.  Even if there a people of the "old-world" persuasion on this side of the pond, how likely is it that the section, orchestra, and musical director would all agree that switching to a different style of instrument is worthwhile, even as an experiment?

Thanks for tolerating my diatribe, and my limited selection of repertoire to choose examples from--hey, I'm a low brass player, after all!  And thanks to the regular contributors over the years that have helped inform my musical tastes, many of whom could have worded this better.

Oh, I've explored smaller mouthpieces, and was surprised at the facility that a 1 1/2G allowed.  I've since migrated to a happy medium, that's considerably smaller that my previous choices.  That experiment netted me some valuable perspective. There.  Now I'm back on topic!  (In case you're curious: 60-->59-->1 1/2-->Conn GR-->1 1/4-->Laskey 85MD.)

Nate

[I didn't intend this as a response to Mr. Guilford's situation, rather as a comment on general trends.  Sorry for the interruption.]

Right on Nate!

Quote from: blast on Dec 23, 2007, 03:25PMSize of equipment does not bring about limitations of dynamic. Plenty of REALLY loud big band sections playing on smaller equipment.
Some professional orchestras play louder than others.
Louder is not necessarily better.
Quieter is not necessarily better either.
Some orchestra music is subtle.
Some is not.
Thankfully, there is not one answer when it comes to equipment, style, sound etc. EVEN in orchestras there is some personal choice... at least in this country (the UK)there is.
Chris Stearn.

This answers most any question one could have on the subject of why. I might add that music is listened to by humans and we are not always sensible in are approach to things. I am reminded of this when I hear cars drive by with stereo systems pumping out 120 decibels of sound.

I know Chris asked to get this thread back on topic, but it seems to me that there are TWO parts to the nominal subject. The mouthpiece size part has been addressed quite at length. 

I think the current turn of the thread addresses the "right mind" part.  And it looks (and sounds) like we are finally getting to that part.

All our horns are a huge set of compromises.  We rationalize one compromise in favor over another.  The thread is now getting into an interesting set of compromises that determine what "right mind" is.  Of course, we should leave the general "is bigger better" for the threads dedicated to that.  But short of that there should be quite a lot of territory that is more mouthpiece than other factors.

In that vein, I've had the same impression as Nate.  My take has been that we have a management problem coming up.  I certainly can't fault the musicianship of the current crop of conductors, but the musical chairs seems to have robbed a certain home-town feel from orchestras. Local orchestras look for big names, and are willing to hire remote "names" who spend rehearsal time "in town."  Members of smaller orchestras don't get much of a sense of place, nor do they understand their legacy.  Most of us know who the last three or four bass trombonists of, say, the Boston Symphony are.

When an orchestra doesn't have a sense of itself it draws its identity piecemeal from the talented folks who play the parts.  In the absence of their own characteristic sound they default to whatever concept the director brings in.  If the director doesn't bring it in, the players have to make it up on their own.  Given time constraints, I can easily see how today's conductors solve balance problems by simply asking for more, instead of adjusting timbre, attack, volume, and everything else that goes into it.

Right mind indeed.  'Nuff to drive you out of your mind! 

Now to a mouthpiece case-in-point, but in a band.  I recently played and was asked to play louder... but not brighter... cut through, but not use more edge.  I was playing a Benge 190 with a Marcellus mouthpiece up to that point. I turned to my trusty 1 1/2G: problem solved!  But I'm too old for this kind of monkyshines. I was BEAT at the end of that evening!  Boy am I glad to be back to the Marcellus!!!! (and back to using my Rath B1 1/2W on my Duo Gravis!)

One thing that is important to take on board before we get involved with our Christmas celebrations. This is not a 'them and us' battle area (and so far, I think we have done quite well in that respect)... so I hope Matthew does not feel any of us 'ganging up' on him, as he has been kind enough to enter this debate from the larger equipment side. His observations are of the greatest value here if we are to gain more insight into current thinking in professional American orchestras.
I have to remember that less than ten years ago I was playing (and had been since '92) an Edwards with some form of generous mouth connector. Why have I ended up back on gear I was using at college ?
Nate.... you make some very good points indeed. From my experience these days, principal conductors are very unlikely to take an interest in what instruments the trombone section are using. They expect results and they expect the players to know how to get those results. Any pressure will come from the players around you.
Sorry for the moderatorial/editorial laxness in the previous post.
Happy Christmas all,
Chris Stearn.

Quote from: blast on Dec 24, 2007, 02:42PMOne thing that is important to take on board before we get involved with our Christmas celebrations. This is not a 'them and us' battle area (and so far, I think we have done quite well in that respect)... so I hope Matthew does not feel any of us 'ganging up' on him, as he has been kind enough to enter this debate from the larger equipment side. His observations are of the greatest value here if we are to gain more insight into current thinking in professional American orchestras.
I have to remember that less than ten years ago I was playing (and had been since '92) an Edwards with some form of generous mouth connector. Why have I ended up back on gear I was using at college ?
Nate.... you make some very good points indeed. From my experience these days, principal conductors are very unlikely to take an interest in what instruments the trombone section are using. They expect results and they expect the players to know how to get those results. Any pressure will come from the players around you.
Sorry for the moderatorial/editorial laxness in the previous post.
Happy Christmas all,
Chris Stearn.

Hey Chris....

I think you have highlighted the most important ingredient here on the forum.....the ability to realize that just because I may not agree with you doesn't necessarily mean that I think you're wrong.  I can be "pro" 1.5 G without being anti "everything else".  Congrats to you for your moderatorial tone.  I strive to have the same filter myself. 

Peace be with us all,

DG

Hello All,

I do not feel "ganged-up" upon in the slightest. This is a forum and we are all big boys and girls. As a learning device, this kind of outlet is wonderful.

My first bass trombone mouthpiece was a Bach 1.5 G. I used it from when I first played bass trombone (age 12) until my freshman year of college (age 17). It was a great mouthpiece for 5 crucial years of my education. If I could turn back the hands of time and play everything on that Conn 72H and Bach 1.5 G, the combination of things which launched my career, I would. The truth is that neither of those instruments/accessories suit me now. Yes, I have tried to use them since. I have simply outgrown them.

Listen, folks. I am 43 years old. I have tried a lot of equipment over the past 30 years. The Bach 1.5 G is an excellent starter mouthpiece from my experience. I will not devalue its stock in the marketplace. Still, I would encourage you to seek out better manufacturers of the 1.5 size for better consistency and fit.

Finally; No one cares about mouthpieces more than we do. Conductors do not care-they want results, and rightly so. Colleagues, they really do not care either, as long as you are able to blend with them to create a magnificent product. The audience? They do not know a Bach 1.5 G from a bag of frozen peas. Results speak volumes to them, especially after paying a great deal of $$ for symphonic entertainment. Would it insult your sensibilities if I played on a tuba mouthpiece and sounded great? Are we making lines in the sand as to what the standards for mouthpiece size should be?

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 29, 2007, 09:31PMHello All,

Finally; No one cares about mouthpieces more than we do. Conductors do not care-they want results, and rightly so. Colleagues, they really do not care either, as long as you are able to blend with them to create a magnificent product. The audience? They do not know a Bach 1.5 G from a bag of frozen peas. Results speak volumes to them, especially after paying a great deal of $$ for symphonic entertainment. Would it insult your sensibilities if I played on a tuba mouthpiece and sounded great? Are we making lines in the sand as to what the standards for mouthpiece size should be?
How we sound is the most important consideration. How we get that sound, less so. I believe if we went more with what sounds right and less with what feels right, choosing equipment would be much less of a mystery for some of us.

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 29, 2007, 09:31PMHello All,

I do not feel "ganged-up" upon in the slightest. This is a forum and we are all big boys and girls. As a learning device, this kind of outlet is wonderful.

My first bass trombone mouthpiece was a Bach 1.5 G. I used it from when I first played bass trombone (age 12) until my freshman year of college (age 17). It was a great mouthpiece for 5 crucial years of my education. If I could turn back the hands of time and play everything on that Conn 72H and Bach 1.5 G, the combination of things which launched my career, I would. The truth is that neither of those instruments/accessories suit me now. Yes, I have tried to use them since. I have simply outgrown them.

Listen, folks. I am 43 years old. I have tried a lot of equipment over the past 30 years. The Bach 1.5 G is an excellent starter mouthpiece from my experience. I will not devalue its stock in the marketplace. Still, I would encourage you to seek out better manufacturers of the 1.5 size for better consistency and fit.

Finally; No one cares about mouthpieces more than we do. Conductors do not care-they want results, and rightly so. Colleagues, they really do not care either, as long as you are able to blend with them to create a magnificent product. The audience? They do not know a Bach 1.5 G from a bag of frozen peas. Results speak volumes to them, especially after paying a great deal of $$ for symphonic entertainment. Would it insult your sensibilities if I played on a tuba mouthpiece and sounded great? Are we making lines in the sand as to what the standards for mouthpiece size should be?





I quite agree that 'lines in the sand' should not be drawn... but that was how we started out with this thread... Ed Kleinhammer saying that the 1.5G size no longer has a place in the symphony orchestra. That's a pretty clear line to me.
I see too many world- class bass trombonists using smaller mouthpieces and getting great results to be happy to let that go.... Did Bob Hughes sound bad and old-fashioned in the LSO ???
There are great players using all manner of equipment to good effect around this planet... everything from a young French player using a 5G to your Monette.
What is to me a dangerous development is that there must be a progression towards huge equipment.
I have a student from the U.S. at the moment.. a fine young player, who turned up to start the year with a G&W Don Harwood model that he obviously could not cope with. Left his previous mouthpiece at home ! I lent him a Schilke 60 whilst I altered the rim on the G&W so that it suited him better... he liked the 60... but I took that back when I returned the G&W... he had made a choice and needed to live with it until he realised it was a bad choice. He even had to stop playing for a few days when he over-stressed his embouchure.
He is back home now, and I'll be interested to see what he comes back with next term. His only reason for moving to the G&W was that all his friends were playing them. What a waste of time and effort. The last time I had heard him he was sounding great on a somewhat smaller Laskey. I'm not about to tell him what to play... I don't work that way... and if I stuck him on a smaller mouthpiece while his head tells him he needs big to compete for the orchestra jobs, he would just hate it. That's what bugs me... the kids seem brainwashed into bigger is better... even if it doesn't work for them. That seems stupid to me.
All my students over the years have ended up playing what works for them... some small, some large... what matters, as you say, is what comes out of the bell.
Chris Stearn.

Did he sound better on the Schilke 60?  I only ask because the G&W Harwood model is smaller than a 60.  What did you do to the rim of the Harwood?


Richard

Sorry about the over-long post, but I've been thinking about this topic for a while . . .

There is a theme to this thread touched on by several (Chris, Matthew, Nate, Gabe, etc.) that I find fascinating: To what extent do cultural influences affect mouthpiece size and other equipment choices?  By "cultural," I'm thinking primarily of country-of-origin, and as displayed in this thread, mainly US and UK differences.  Cultural, however, can imply all sorts of influences: historical, personality, educational, etc.

Consider, for example, how the British orchestras abandoned the peashooters in the latter half of the 20th century.  Denis Wick and others were able to bring in (smuggle?) some large-bore Conn instruments into the UK after WWII (a Conn 8H, in Mr. Wick's case, I believe), and others quickly followed suit.   Chris and others his age (and a bit older, e.g., Bob Hughes) were basically raised on the "British-Conn sound."  That's not to say that other manufactuer's horns--Besson, Cuesnon, Courtious, etc.-- weren't still in use.  They were.  But, as professionals and therefore influential people, the "British Conn players" helped to shape and form the predominant trombone sound in the UK.  I believe it continues to be the predominant sound.  (I believe I have the history right here, but I'm Chris will correct me if I'm wrong!  ) 

(Note the opinions:  "I believe. . . ."  Note also that for this thread, the analogy starts to break apart when we look at Mr. Wick's mouthpiece--the 4AL is a monster!)

However, "cultural" can also be a national tendency: the French "tradition" of using narrow-bore (a small-bore) horns coupled with mouthpiece that has a small-rim but comparatively deep V-shaped cup.  "Cultural" can even be the teachings particular to a school or conservatory, like the Paris Conservatory, Moscow, Guildhall, Julliard, or Hochschüle für Musick, etc., and the different teachers at those institutions . . . .

In reference to the exchanges between Matthew and Chris: Matthew plays on what we might call the "modern US orchestral bass trombone."  It's very big equipment.  Chris, on the other hand, plays smaller equipment: a "modern British orchestral bass trombone sound," albeit on 50-year-old equipment.  These are very different conceptions of sound, and perhaps even different conceptions of the function of the bass trombone in the orchestra.  They might even be at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Their choices are for their own reasons--they've mentioned some above--and they might even be influenced by the halls they play in.   

However, there are LOTS of appropriate, acceptable, useful bass trombone sounds and equipment in between Matt's and Chris's: the "classic" Fuchs bass sound, the "classic" Bach bass sound, the "classic" German bass sound, the G-trombone sound, the "West Coast" sound of the 50's-70's, etc. 

My point: yes, different equipment can help produce different colors in the sound/product.  But, these "cultural" differences can be highly influential.  As a gross over-generalization, my impression is that professional European bass players tend to play on equipment that is somewhat smaller than that used by professional US bass players.  But, as Chris mentioned earlier, he still sounds like himself no matter what equipment he plays on.  (The same was said of Michael Laird, whether he played Bb, C or piccolo trumpet, cornetto, or natural trumpet.) 

It's the player behind the horn that matters.  And the differences in sound and equipment size are what make all these different sounds so beautiful and wonderful to listen to.  (To second a statement earlier in this thread: it would be boring if we all played the same equipment and sounded the same.)  The "wise" player might then choose to or desire to select his equipment from a variety of horns and mouthpieces (an "arsenal") to suit the orchestra, the piece, the other section players, the hall. . . .

I've shot my mouth off enough for today . . . back to the practice room!

I'm enjoying playing on a Bach 1.5G these days. It has proven itself a pretty good mouthpiece for two scenarios so far:

1) playing bass trombone as the 2nd trombone in a brass quartet (bunch of these gigs over Xmas)

2) playing bass trombone in a rock band-cum-big band doing a tribute to Ray Charles (helps with the volume, and with there only being 3 bones on the gig, makes it a bit easier for me to blend and project at a higher than ideal volume level).

Actually, I can think of a third good use:

3) playing it on my 42B in the Chicago Trombone Authority (trombone choir, when not playing bass parts)

I like the idea that a bass trombone FFF might barely start to overpower the other instruments. It seems like in trying to make the extremes of the instrument easier we negatively impact the fit within the ensemble.

(note, anything i say is in reference to a standard symphony orchestra (16, 14, 12, 10, 8 strings, etc.,.)

I don't think we should be looking to equipment to solve the issue of overpowering or dynamic range.  That is and always will be something that a musician needs to be able to do on their own, in my opinion.

It shouldn't have a negative impact if the person uses their musical intelligence.  Charlie Vernon is a great example of this.  He defnitely has it in his power to lay waste to the CSO but does not use that power unless the situation is right.

As much of an equipment nut as I am, I would love to see more players focusing on their personal abilities and not what a new bell or a yellow brass vs. nickel end crook will do to their sound.  Players need to figure out what they're capable of before moving into the realm of custom horns.


Richard

Yea, but Richard, It seems to me as though equipment was the direct result of the desire to do so.

The darker and louder of a sound that was geared toward, the equipment resulted, so why not reverse that?

I do very much agree that young players in particular worry too little about the soft machine, myself included.

I do however dislike the feeling i get that the trombone is a cold device, distant from the music, whereas my bass (string that is) has almost it's own soul, and I have to ask it to do something, not tell.

It's like a lover; like in Coming to America, where his new bride has been trained since birth to obey his every command, and he seeks an equal rather than a servant.

I completely just hijacked this thread.

But then again, It really does come down to: Who in their right mind picks equipment that is more subservant than partner?

Rant Over

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 30, 2007, 08:06PMYea, but Richard, It seems to me as though equipment was the direct result of the desire to do so.

The darker and louder of a sound that was geared toward, the equipment resulted, so why not reverse that?


The person I study with was a student of Don Harwood back in the 80's. He said Don was one of the players that pioneered the large equipment trend. He said Don would have him add weight to the bell using various mothods. Don also played on a very open leadpipe and a big piece. I would think you would be hard pressed to say that Don lacked musicianship. This idea that big equipment makes a person play too loud is just not accurate; Lack of musicianship is what causes loud playing. I play a large piece and I am not particularly loud player. Figure out what works for you. You may find it is a small piece.... or not.

I have no issue with don harwood; I enjoy his playing with the New york phil, Though, I didn't get a chance to see him perform live before his retirement, i have many cds where he is the third trombone.

QuoteI would think you would be hard pressed to say that Don lacked musicianship.
I didn't, don harwood was a fantastic musician with different Bass trombone preferances than me.



I honestly wrote at least a half dozen different things and subsequently erased them. This comes down to concept of trombone within the orchestra, and I think It's darn near impossible to create the sound of a smaller lighter horn with a smaller mouthpieces FF effect within the ensemble. I like Doug Yeos ideas about how Brass, the low kind specifically, have lost the concept of being "Team Players". The kind of restraint necessary for 99% of orchestra playing makes the whole bigger/darker/warmer thing unnecessary.

Again, I hold Don Harwood in the highest regard.

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 30, 2007, 10:13PM I like Doug Yeos ideas about how Brass, the low kind specifically, have lost the concept of being "Team Players". The kind of restraint necessary for 99% of orchestra playing makes the whole bigger/darker/warmer thing unnecessary.

Yes, I have read his website. It seems to me Mr Yeo is talking about musicianship in his writting of that article. The point that I am making, and I feel it deserves repeating, is follow your ears. At the end of of the trip, you may find that everything you believe about the equipment you need is true. Or you might find that your ears take you down a different road. A person can play too loud, or have unfocused sound on all kinds of equipment. Use specs. to get you in the right zip code. Allow your ears to make the ultimate decision on what works or doesn't

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 30, 2007, 10:13PMI have no issue with don harwood; I enjoy his playing with the New york phil, Though, I didn't get a chance to see him perform live before his retirement, i have many cds where he is the third trombone.


I did not mean to imply that you did. I was trying to point out what Don did to get the sound he needed for his particular situation. If he played in Boston instead of NY, he might of had a completely different setup.

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Dec 30, 2007, 10:28PMA person can play too loud, or have unfocused sound on all kinds of equipment. Use specs. to get you in the right zip code. Allow your ears to make the ultimate decision on what works or doesn't
I agree. Isn't it also possible to sound TOO focused, too centered, too bright, even too quiet? With all of the fuss about things being too big, this seems to have been overlooked.

Things too big? Blame the tenor trombonists and the tubas! With tenor trombonists playing on bass trombone slides and near-bass trombone sized mouthpieces, as well as massive 6/4 tubas with absolute buckets for mouthpieces, some bass trombonists feel squeezed. In my eyes, it seems that the tuba has gotten more distant, with the tenor trombone creeping closer to the bass, making the balance and blend off-kilter.
*disclaimer - no, not all tenor trombonists playing oversized equipment are part of the "guilty party." Folks like Mr. Friedman certainly know what they are doing, and do it for a reason.

On a sidenote, I happen to play equipment that's on the larger side of the spectrum, and while I've made strides in the breath control department compared to a couple years ago, one of my biggest problems is playing loud enough. I can play powerfully when I work for it, but the match between me, my sound concept, and my equipment gives me the tendency to play on the quiet, mellow side. I'm no pro, but the trend in equipment doesn't necessarily equate to anything too loud/bad (I for one, happen to prefer the deeper, mellower side of the bass trombone oftentimes). As Sam (Sabutin) has said over and over, "Get the right tool for the job!"

Bet on it.

Quote from: Richard Lillard on Dec 30, 2007, 01:37PMDid he sound better on the Schilke 60?  I only ask because the G&W Harwood model is smaller than a 60.  What did you do to the rim of the Harwood?


Richard

I think there must be different models... this one was way bigger than a Schilke 60 in every direction !
The rim had a totally flat area on the upper surface. I turned it into a more conventional rim with a single high point, slightly towards the inner edge.
Chris Stearn

Quote from: kbiggs on Dec 30, 2007, 02:08PMSorry about the over-long post, but I've been thinking about this topic for a while . . .

There is a theme to this thread touched on by several (Chris, Matthew, Nate, Gabe, etc.) that I find fascinating: To what extent do cultural influences affect mouthpiece size and other equipment choices?  By "cultural," I'm thinking primarily of country-of-origin, and as displayed in this thread, mainly US and UK differences.  Cultural, however, can imply all sorts of influences: historical, personality, educational, etc.

Consider, for example, how the British orchestras abandoned the peashooters in the latter half of the 20th century.  Denis Wick and others were able to bring in (smuggle?) some large-bore Conn instruments into the UK after WWII (a Conn 8H, in Mr. Wick's case, I believe), and others quickly followed suit.   Chris and others his age (and a bit older, e.g., Bob Hughes) were basically raised on the "British-Conn sound."  That's not to say that other manufactuer's horns--Besson, Cuesnon, Courtious, etc.-- weren't still in use.  They were.  But, as professionals and therefore influential people, the "British Conn players" helped to shape and form the predominant trombone sound in the UK.  I believe it continues to be the predominant sound.  (I believe I have the history right here, but I'm Chris will correct me if I'm wrong!  ) 

(Note the opinions:  "I believe. . . ."  Note also that for this thread, the analogy starts to break apart when we look at Mr. Wick's mouthpiece--the 4AL is a monster!)

However, "cultural" can also be a national tendency: the French "tradition" of using narrow-bore (a small-bore) horns coupled with mouthpiece that has a small-rim but comparatively deep V-shaped cup.  "Cultural" can even be the teachings particular to a school or conservatory, like the Paris Conservatory, Moscow, Guildhall, Julliard, or Hochschüle für Musick, etc., and the different teachers at those institutions . . . .

In reference to the exchanges between Matthew and Chris: Matthew plays on what we might call the "modern US orchestral bass trombone."  It's very big equipment.  Chris, on the other hand, plays smaller equipment: a "modern British orchestral bass trombone sound," albeit on 50-year-old equipment.  These are very different conceptions of sound, and perhaps even different conceptions of the function of the bass trombone in the orchestra.  They might even be at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Their choices are for their own reasons--they've mentioned some above--and they might even be influenced by the halls they play in.   

However, there are LOTS of appropriate, acceptable, useful bass trombone sounds and equipment in between Matt's and Chris's: the "classic" Fuchs bass sound, the "classic" Bach bass sound, the "classic" German bass sound, the G-trombone sound, the "West Coast" sound of the 50's-70's, etc. 

My point: yes, different equipment can help produce different colors in the sound/product.  But, these "cultural" differences can be highly influential.  As a gross over-generalization, my impression is that professional European bass players tend to play on equipment that is somewhat smaller than that used by professional US bass players.  But, as Chris mentioned earlier, he still sounds like himself no matter what equipment he plays on.  (The same was said of Michael Laird, whether he played Bb, C or piccolo trumpet, cornetto, or natural trumpet.) 

It's the player behind the horn that matters.  And the differences in sound and equipment size are what make all these different sounds so beautiful and wonderful to listen to.  (To second a statement earlier in this thread: it would be boring if we all played the same equipment and sounded the same.)  The "wise" player might then choose to or desire to select his equipment from a variety of horns and mouthpieces (an "arsenal") to suit the orchestra, the piece, the other section players, the hall. . . .

I've shot my mouth off enough for today . . . back to the practice room!

Just a couple of points... Bob Hughes is actually younger than me !!! He has just been playing in orchestras forever !! He is a very old, very good friend. It think I can claim some of the blame for Bob's love of the old Conns... it was my 60H that was Bob's first encounter with the breed.
I think you have a good point about British, Conn-centric approach, though I think there is more to it. I feel we are quite close to some of the European schools.. especially the Dutch... and further away from the American school.
As for my equipment... there is a huge spread that I use in the orchestra, from 19thC German instruments, to my modern Rath trombones.
In the end you are right, the player is more important than any equipment.
Chris Stearn.

I agree with Mr. Yeo's comments regarding musicianship completely.  He also talks in that article about sitting in with the Vienna Philharmonic and it being quite the experience due to everyone listening at all times.

I think his main point was that we shouldn't let the larger equipment others use and things like the "Low Brass Player's Creed" dictate what should be a more thought out musical choice.  There's a reason this stereotype is in place... and sadly it stems from too many (often times younger) people having these stereotypical actions towards what others are playing.  I love Blair Bollinger's sound, but I am not about to get a 987CF bell fit to my Getzen and replace the slide with one that has a yellow end crook and no nickel sleeves unless I go to Edwards and that's what works best for me.

Ever since Vernon pulled his leadpipe and put a huge mouthpiece in the slide and sounded good everyone has wanted to try it.  The problem is that it will not work for everyone.  It doesn't make you worse or better, just means that you can't have the same sound on Vernon's equipment that Vernon has on Vernon's equipment.  If everyone thought this way then Louisville Slugger wouldn't have a database of over 5,000 different baseball bat models.

Granted when Ruth was hitting homers all the time his model became popular, but over time people realized that what worked for him didn't work for them.

I also noticed that Mr. Yeo mentions specifically students in a section of the article.  The top players out there play on varying equipment because they found what works for them, not what the trend was.  This is why not everyone is playing on Thayers in orchestras and rotors for commercial gigs.

It should also be noted that often times players choose these more open valves not for a bigger horn but for better response, Harwood is a great example as in the 80's he had a C slide in place of his Gb slide on a Bach with Thayers, all for better response.  Edwards also offers a D slide for the Gb valve on their site.

We all need to spend more time letting our ears tell us what to do in all aspects of our playing.  But at the same time, I don't think the trend towards bigger equipment (with professionals) is due to wanting to play louder, darker or for any other reason.

I seem to recall reading somewhere (I think) Gabe Langfur talking about many of the British orchestras having such a smaller sound because they play in smaller halls or halls with more reverb than the ones here in the US.  This directly relates to what was said about if Mr. Harwood had played in Boston rather than New York.

As I see it, the bottom line is that players can, and SHOULD try what others are doing.  But their ears should be the final judge, not their thoughts of "Vernon does it, so why can't I?"  Babe Ruth could hit with a 46 ounce bat, why can't I?  It just doesn't work unless you have the means with which to accomplish the job accurately.

Who in their right mind plays on a Bach 1 1/2G?  Anyone who sounds good on it, feels comfortable using that mouthpiece with their setup and doesn't try to make a pissing contest out of music.

This got really long, I apologize for that.  And it wasn't directed at any one person, just a silly, late night rant.


Richard

Quote from: Richard Lillard on Dec 31, 2007, 03:00AMEver since Vernon pulled his leadpipe and put a huge mouthpiece in the slide and sounded good everyone has wanted to try it.

Actually, unless I've been misinformed, it was Ed Kleinhammer who first did that. Charlie followed him. And Charlie now plays with a leadpipe again - it's short, but it's there.

Also, I'm not sure a lot of people realize, but Charlie plays equipment that is quite lightweight. Lightweight slide, thin old Bach bell, Laskey mouthpiece with no added mass. He plays bass trombone as a trombone - a big trombone, but a trombone.

QuoteWe all need to spend more time letting our ears tell us what to do in all aspects of our playing.  But at the same time, I don't think the trend towards bigger equipment (with professionals) is due to wanting to play louder, darker or for any other reason.
I don't understand - what reason then? Of course you're right that we should let our ears guide, which is exactly the point of this incredibly long discussion. Chris' central point is that his ears finally guided him back where he started, after years of trying to make the big mouthpieces work. My ears - but just as importantly the response demands of the work I do - led me to a big mouthpiece after years of playing a 59-sized piece. But just because my mouthpiece is big doesn't mean I need to sound woofy or unfocused, or that my high register needs to be weak or forced. My equipment choice requires me to work in certain ways for balance, and Chris' choice means he needs to work in other ways.

QuoteI seem to recall reading somewhere (I think) Gabe Langfur talking about many of the British orchestras having such a smaller sound because they play in smaller halls or halls with more reverb than the ones here in the US.  This directly relates to what was said about if Mr. Harwood had played in Boston rather than New York.
I don't think that's what I said, but the point is valid. The BSO trombones can play a particular way because of the lush acoustics of Symphony Hall, and the NYP needs to play a different way. I wouldn't characterize the British orchestras as sounding small, but I do think they play at generally lower dynamic levels than most American orchestras.

QuoteAs I see it, the bottom line is that players can, and SHOULD try what others are doing.  But their ears should be the final judge, not their thoughts of "Vernon does it, so why can't I?"  Babe Ruth could hit with a 46 ounce bat, why can't I?  It just doesn't work unless you have the means with which to accomplish the job accurately.
Yes, and the ears should be the guide more than anything else. I try to do what Charlie is doing in the sense of making a beautiful sound all the time, practicing the extremes of range and dynamic to strengthen the middle, practicing for an ever smoother and more liquid legato and ever clearer and more precise articulations.  Charlie gets the best results with larger equipment than I do. He's a bigger guy than I am, and the pitch center and consistent sound of his buzz are stronger than mine. 

QuoteWho in their right mind plays on a Bach 1 1/2G?  Anyone who sounds good on it, feels comfortable using that mouthpiece with their setup and doesn't try to make a pissing contest out of music.
Amen.

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Dec 31, 2007, 06:50AMAlso, I'm not sure a lot of people realize, but Charlie plays equipment that is quite lightweight. Lightweight slide, thin old Bach bell, Laskey mouthpiece with no added mass. He plays bass trombone as a trombone - a big trombone, but a trombone.
I think that's a good thing to remember.  For WAY too many years, many of us have tried to play Bass Trombone as (like Doug Yeo says) a "tuba on a stick".  And it isn't, it's a TROMBONE.

QuoteQuoteWho in their right mind plays on a Bach 1 1/2G?  Anyone who sounds good on it, feels comfortable using that mouthpiece with their setup and doesn't try to make a pissing contest out of music.

Amen.

Here here!  it isn't about being the biggest, baddest brass player around, it's about making music.  Good music.  Music that sounds good, blends with the rest of the ensemble.

Something just popped into my head...

The conductor has the last word as far as balance and dynamics, right? Well, I've never had the privilege to play for a world-class conductor (at least not in a meaningful situation), but I know that a lot the conductors I have dealt with don't really notice how loud an individual or section is playing unless the sound is poking them in the eye - and then they notice it even when it's not actually loud at all.

I wonder how much of the migration to larger, heavier gear in general (and larger mouthpi in particular) has it roots in this phenomenon. Maybe not among people at the Charlie Vernon level, but at my level. In some groups, I could bring in a tuba on a stick and get instant compliments on how much better I was blending - even if I played one dynamic level higher at all times.

Quote from: blast on Dec 31, 2007, 02:05AMI think there must be different models... this one was way bigger than a Schilke 60 in every direction !
The rim had a totally flat area on the upper surface. I turned it into a more conventional rim with a single high point, slightly towards the inner edge.
Chris Stearn

He possibly was playing on Hauser's Don Harwood model. It is larger than the G&W model. My instructor has both models. I play on the Hauser.

Just back from a VERY long concert with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra in Glasgow's Royal Concert Hall.
It's big, it's dead, it's bass light... the hall, not the RSNO... just it has been since it's been built. The truth is that there are good and bad halls in Britain, just the same as everywhere else. I don't think that UK orchestras are quieter as a group by any means... and I've heard enough U.S. and European orchestras to know.
 Volume and sound... different things.
Gabe might play big gear... but he is a pupil of Ray Premru... so his whole style of playing was familiar when I heard it.
It's late and I'm knackered, so cheers all... goodnight, happy new year.
Chris Stearn.

I didn't know it was Kleinhammer that first pulled his leadpipe.  I've never heard that before, only heard references to Charlie doing it with his.

As for the reason, I said that wrong.  What I meant was more along the lines of someone like Bob Sanders or Blair Bollinger picking their proverbial cannons for the reason of it suiting their playing style, the ensemble they play with, etc.  Not something like what Mr. Yeo mentions students saying about picking larger equipment in his article ("If you don't make the conductor flinch, you're not doing your job." or "You play a 5G? Get real, man. The 4G lets you really open up.").

In Mr. Yeo's article I get the impression that he is concerned with players losing focus of the big picture.  Players chosing this big equipment because other players use it and because they have a big desire to play loud.  I think this is because they are under the notion that Mr. Bollinger plays without a leadpipe for the sole purpose of burying the Philadelphia Orchestra.  What they fail to realize is that he chose that setup because it worked for him and he could remain a "team player" in spite of its gargantuan size.

By using the term small to describe the sound of British orchestras I meant more along the lines of smaller, or less decibels.  That's not to say they are lacking in tone or any other fundamental aspect of playing.  Simply put, they just aren't the same playing style.  It does often make me wonder what a split concert between something like the London Philharmonic and the Chicago Symphony would be like though.  Two completely different schools of thought and sound but with the same agreement on playing every note as musically as possible.


Richard

Quote from: blast on Dec 31, 2007, 02:20AMBob Hughes is actually younger than me !!! He has just been playing in orchestras forever !!

Wow!  Chris, you must be really old!! 

Seriously, though (and without the pedantic rant), isn't part of our choice of equipment a result of our "cultural settings?"
 
Quote from: blast on Dec 31, 2007, 02:20AMAs for my equipment... there is a huge spread that I use in the orchestra, from 19thC German instruments, to my modern Rath trombones.

This is another point that I think shows the effect of society on our choice of equipment.  (Perhaps this is getting off the thread--?)  My impression (read=opinion gleaned from a very limited number of resources) is that European and British "art" or "classical" musical groups (RSNO, Chamber Orch of Europe, Roger Norrington's bands, etc.) are more willing or likely to use a variety of equipment compared to American groups.  They seem to be more flexible, more willing to experiment with different instruments to obtain different sounds or nuances.  Yes, there are many trombone players here in the States who can and do play multiple instruments, like studio players.  But the need for flexibility seems to bring with it a willingness to try different equipment to suit the need. 

All too often, I end up playing the same equipment no matter the size of the group or the repertoire because (1) I'm lazy (2) I can get by with just one horn, and (3) none of the other instrumentalists (especially trombonists!) are using different equipment.  Read another way: I'd LOVE to play a concert using a vintage Conn bass, or a German-style trombone, or even Elgar on a pea-shooter. . .

I guess this ended up as a rant, too. . .

I actually play a Bach 1 1/2 G. I think this is the problem today, is that these young guys see bigger mouthpieces and its that bass trombone jock in all of us that things have to be biggest and loudest which is not true. This is why there are so many bass trombone players that can't even play a solid high Bb with the same tone of a Bb in the staff. This is also why I have heard soooooooo many bass trombone players masacre the high B in Hary Janos. Also, different mp work for different people. All of our faces are made up different, very different. Different things work better for all of us. Yes, now the Bach 1/2 G is getting small for me but I only ant to move to a Bach 1/4, or a 1 even though I think it will be too much. I think too many people think that the mp is supposed to do the work. Well it isn't. You need to extend your range in both directions but you need to make sure that your capable of playing solidly in both ranges with the mp. After that you can extend it with your mp of choice.  NOTE: with mps and horns, bigger is NOT better!

 Quote from: BassTromb on Jan 13, 2008, 11:44AMYes, now the Bach 1/2 G is getting small for me but I only ant to move to a Bach 1/4, or a 1 even though I think it will be too much.
Personally I think the Warburton 1g (one piece) is a good compromise between the bach 1 1/2g and the bach 1g, because it has a large cup to facilitate a solid low range  but it also has a much wider rim than even a bach 1 1/2 g which gives great support for the high range, but then this is just my opinion, but it might be worth a try and who knows it might work for you like it works for me.

I am getting closer to the 1.5G... I have started using a 1.25G of the same vintage as my 1G.

I know Mr. elliot has said that in all genres he's seen players greatly benefit from a 3-4 sized rim with a cup/backbore matching whatever it is they do/need.

What about bass trombone mouthpieces? Its strange because tenor you see maybe a 1.5MM variation in whats used, basses can use anything from a 3G to a laskey 95 (I've done it; did pep band on a wick 3AL for a while, and spent time on a 95)

Quote from: CRWV on Jan 13, 2008, 05:16PMI know Mr. elliot has said that in all genres he's seen players greatly benefit from a 3-4 sized rim with a cup/backbore matching whatever it is they do/need.

What about bass trombone mouthpieces? Its strange because tenor you see maybe a 1.5MM variation in whats used, basses can use anything from a 3G to a laskey 95 (I've done it; did pep band on a wick 3AL for a while, and spent time on a 95)
The 3G is generally considered to small for bass use these days, but you're probably only thinking of the general variation in large bore mouthpieces. If we are to include tenor shank mouthpieces (which are really the majority of the trombone mouthpieces out there), then there is quite a variation. The tenor shanks go from what? A 3 all the way down to 20something? That's quite a variation!

Quote from: BassTromb on Jan 13, 2008, 11:44AMI actually play a Bach 1 1/2 G. I think this is the problem today, is that these young guys see bigger mouthpieces and its that bass trombone jock in all of us that things have to be biggest and loudest which is not true. This is why there are so many bass trombone players that can't even play a solid high Bb with the same tone of a Bb in the staff. This is also why I have heard soooooooo many bass trombone players masacre the high B in Hary Janos. Also, different mp work for different people. All of our faces are made up different, very different. Different things work better for all of us. Yes, now the Bach 1/2 G is getting small for me but I only ant to move to a Bach 1/4, or a 1 even though I think it will be too much. I think too many people think that the mp is supposed to do the work. Well it isn't. You need to extend your range in both directions but you need to make sure that your capable of playing solidly in both ranges with the mp. After that you can extend it with your mp of choice.  NOTE: with mps and horns, bigger is NOT better!


Another possible reason is that young players do not always understand the importance of having a good high register. I have found it good to do my daily routines in all registers. Will use a 1/2 step up, 1/2 step down pattern to the limits of good sound. I also like starting the patterns on b and going as high as I can, and as low too. I am very fluid in the upper register. My usable range up is a  (I have used it in a recital, taking the last few phrases of Spain up 8va, similar to Bollinger.)

Quote from: GetzenBassPlayer on Jan 13, 2008, 05:41PMI am very fluid in the upper register. My usable range up is a  (I have used it in a recital, taking the last few phrases of Spain up 8va, similar to Bollinger.)

In what setting were you taking some of Spain up an octave on a bass bone?  I find it hard to imagine that being tasteful, unless done in a solo or something.   

Actually, there was one bass bone solo I had on a big band arrangement of "Better Get It in Your Soul", and I got to fly up to a  .  Wasn't necessarily anyone's idea other than my own, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I think you guys are talking about different "Spain"'s. GBB is talking about David Fetter's solo bass trombone piece, not Chick Corea's tune...

Andrew

Quote from: The Bone Ranger on Jan 13, 2008, 06:36PMI think you guys are talking about different "Spain"'s. GBB is talking about David Fetter's solo bass trombone piece, not Chick Corea's tune...

Andrew
Hahaha, whoops!  My mistake.  I wasn't aware of the bass trombone solo.  I just have a soft spot for Chick Corea.

Quote from: Bonefide on Jan 13, 2008, 06:19PMIn what setting were you taking some of Spain up an octave on a bass bone?  I find it hard to imagine that being tasteful, unless done in a solo or something.   

Actually, there was one bass bone solo I had on a big band arrangement of "Better Get It in Your Soul", and I got to fly up to a  .  Wasn't necessarily anyone's idea other than my own, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Please keep those high F's to a minimum! The more composers and arrangers hear notes like that, they'll expect any old bass trombone player to pull high F's out of their rears! 

My reasons for using the 1 1/2G are tonal.... I have pretty well the same range on big and small mouthpieces.... it seems that the 1 1/2G size is the one that gets me to the sound I want most easily... simple as that.
Other people will find different things working for them... but I must say that I find people with a macho attitude to mouthpieces a little pathetic.... they tend to have interesting musical opinions too 
Chris Stearn.