New Shires Vintage Elkhart bass trombone

[Bleek]

Hi all. I was curious to hear peoples thoughts, presumably without anyone having played one, so just the specs on the new Shires Vintage Elkhart bass trombone; https://www.seshires.com/tbbve

It seems to be their take on the Elkhart 62h? But with a cut bell, yellow brass slide crook, seamed lead pipe etc. Some interesting specs including the narrow handslide, for Shires anyway.

Possibly something that sits more comfortably in the commercial, jazz, doubler world?

[Burgerbob]

IMO: it'll sound and play just like another Shires, ever so slightly in the Conn direction.

That's not to say there's not a pretty wide spectrum covered by the Shires system, but in the end... they always sound like a Shires.

I've run into the same thing on both the New York bass and tenor, ostensibly trying to capture the Bach feel and sound. I thought they were nowhere close, though they were pretty nice Shires.

[brassmedic]

Oh, they're copying my seamed leadpipes, I see.

[tbonesullivan]

Somehow Vintage Elkhart doesn't make me think of Bell Tuning and independent valves. It's more like an upgraded version of the current Conn 62HI.

[Dennis]

The choice of the C tuning slide in drawn yellow brass is...curious. I would have thought that a seamed red brass B tuning slide is somehow closer to the old 62H. Inline valves kind of make sense, because everyone plays inline today, but a stacked valve set would give you some room to try to mimic the 62H J-bend more closely.

I'm with Aidan on this: it's going to sound and play like a Shires. That is not a bad thing by any stretch, but I still think the closest thing we've seen (and will see) to a 21st Century 62H was Zig Kanstul's reproduction with CR valves. What was that, the Kanstul 1062 or something like that?

[Elow]

My favorite bell has been my teachers Shires Alessi screw bell. I think the screw ring and unsoldered rim work really well together.

[Posaunus]

Oh, they're copying my seamed leadpipes, I see.

A compliment to you, Brad!

[Tbarh]

Oh, they're copying my seamed leadpipes, I see.

Did You allow them ?

[LeTromboniste]

Oh, they're copying my seamed leadpipes, I see.

I guess everyone copies everyone!

[brassmedic]

Oh, they're copying my seamed leadpipes, I see.

A compliment to you, Brad!

I think so. They must like mine a lot since they decided to also make them.

[brassmedic]

Oh, they're copying my seamed leadpipes, I see.

Did You allow them ?

I didn't invent seamed leadpipes, so it's fine with me.

[GabrielRice]

Three more or less unrelated things:

Shires has done seamed leadpipes before as a special request.

The narrow slide will make a pretty big difference, actually.

Josh Cirtina plays this with dependent rotors, and that will certainly be available as a custom order. But dependent rotors are a hard sell as a standard model in the US these days.

[GabrielRice]

And Brad, the seamed MV50 I received recently is AWESOME. Thank you!

[harrisonreed]

And Brad, the seamed MV50 I received recently is AWESOME. Thank you!

Lucky!

[brassmedic]

And Brad, the seamed MV50 I received recently is AWESOME. Thank you!

Glad you like it!

[TomInME]

I'm with Aidan on this: it's going to sound and play like a Shires.

This makes me sad, because all the Shires I've tried were really easy to play - but none had a sound that excited me.
I want it both ways!

[RJMason]

I'm with Aidan on this: it's going to sound and play like a Shires.

This makes me sad, because all the Shires I've tried were really easy to play - but none had a sound that excited me.
I want it both ways!

Me too…

[Matt K]

I think this kind of boils down to what "similar" means. I've had arrangements from having actual Bach bells and slides on other Shires components to totally unique Shires to their "imitation" and I don't find that they sound the same, aside from the obvious that I always sound like me whether I'm playing a Yamaha, a Bach, a Geztzen, a Shires, etc.

Part of what makes something easy to play vs. what makes it "interesting" is where the tapers are. Something that is "easy" to play is often a compromise in some capacity. For example, the "1" and "3" pipes Shires and Edwards offer are the extreme sides of this... Bachs are evidently somewhere close to a 1.5 at least on the 42 and 50 models. This gives you a bit of extra flexibility to color or make the sound more interesting/lively, whatever descriptor you want to put on it. But sometimes the "1" pipes are described as "tight"; whereas the "3" pipes are described as "open". I don't necessarily feel those are the best descriptors, but it would be easy to say that the "3" pipes are "easy" to play and the "1" is more "interesting", at the expense of maybe a little more "difficult." It's really hard to put words on these types of things.

Or put another way, there are competing things being described here: on the one hand, it's very difficult for you to not sound like yourself... on the other hand, every component does matter. So I wouldn't go out and buy this if you really wanted an Elkhart 62H. Still, I also wouldn't NOT buy this if it played dwell because only the absolute most discerning of people would be able to hear the difference. In my experience I ultimately end up sounding better on horns I dont' have to fight.

[TomInME]

I was tempted to start a whole other thread on this: for you, is it worth working a lot harder if it gets you a more interesting sound, or is ease of playing more critical?
I'm definitely in the first category, but the playing I do generally isn't the kind where a chipped note or two could cost me. And I often wish I could get the same sound without quite so much work.

[Burgerbob]

I'd much rather send a 62H bell to Matt Walker and have an M&W made if you want this vibe.

[hornbuilder]

I have my own bell that plays so much better than the factory offerings from Conn.

[Matt K]

I was tempted to start a whole other thread on this: for you, is it worth working a lot harder if it gets you a more interesting sound, or is ease of playing more critical?
I'm definitely in the first category, but the playing I do generally isn't the kind where a chipped note or two could cost me. And I often wish I could get the same sound without quite so much work.

There has been some discussion about this in the past. I tend to fall squarely in the "I'd rather play something that is easier" because, in my experience, interesting sound comes from you as a player, not from the instrument. As a gearhead, obviously, I think equipment matters to a reasonably large degree, but it's often not black and white. After all, what does it mean to be easier to play if you can't get the sound you want out of it at all?

There are always going to be tradeoffs though. One of the things that makes something "easy" like you mentioned is having what some players describe as "big platforms" for the notes; the horn makes it hard to miss notes. But one of the things that makes something interesting is having smaller "platforms" for the notes. The bigger the platform, the less flexibility you have in timbre.

In my view, this would be similar to saying, " I want a mouthpiece that is easy to play high notes like my shallow piece, but also easy to play low notes, like my deep mouthpiece." It's obviously more complicated than that, and I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I think a lot of times this is said, it's wanting some desirable trait A, but also desirable trait B which are granted from potentially contradictory sources, or at least non-correlated sources. Getting a horn that suits you is going to be some balance, and I tend to fall in line with the "easy" playing instruments over "interesting" instruments because I find that after time, I can color the "easy" instruments better.

It should be noted that my sound has been described as "bright as the sun," everyone will have different experiences based on their physiology and this may even change from time to time depending on what else you are playing (tenor vs bass especially), how much you can play, etc.

I'd much rather send a 62H bell to Matt Walker and have an M&W made if you want this vibe.

I totally agree. Or... just an M&W. Gosh those horns are nice, Matt

[GabrielRice]

I was tempted to start a whole other thread on this: for you, is it worth working a lot harder if it gets you a more interesting sound, or is ease of playing more critical?

As in everything, it's a balance. And beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

I'm definitely in the first category, but the playing I do generally isn't the kind where a chipped note or two could cost me. And I often wish I could get the same sound without quite so much work.

Exactly.

The best car I ever owned was a BMW. It was super fun to drive, and it was old enough that the maintenance was not actually THAT expensive because I could bring it to an independent mechanic. But it was also old enough that the electronics were starting to go, and the gas mileage was not fabulous.

So I sold it and bought a somewhat newer BMW with better gas mileage.

Which was the worst car I ever owned. It was essentially BMW's version of a Honda Civic, and it was both a terrible BMW (underpowered so not as much fun to drive) and a terrible Civic (totally unreliable, stranded me multiple times).

So I sold it and bought a Honda Civic. I've been driving Hondas ever since. I'd probably buy an Acura if I could justify the expense.

[Bubba27]

Those look beautiful Matthew.

What are the specs on the third picture?

[SamBTbrn]

Can I ask Matthew, with the first basstrombone how you chose where to put the screw ring? The bell is a two piece, so why is the joining part for the screwbell not the place where the two bell parts are soldered together?

I know you would have put lots of research and thought into why, so I'm interested to know.

Best
Sam

[hornbuilder]

I don't want to hijack this thread. I only added my post because my brand had been mentioned. So I will make it quick.

Those instruments all have two pieces, red brass bells, unsoldered rim. Either independent or dependant valve. TIB or TIS.

Re the screw ring. Empirical evidence via experimentation. This gives the best result, IMO.

[Dennis]

So I sold it and bought a somewhat newer BMW with better gas mileage.

Which was the worst car I ever owned. It was essentially BMW's version of a Honda Civic, and it was both a terrible BMW (underpowered so not as much fun to drive) and a terrible Civic (totally unreliable, stranded me multiple times).

So I sold it and bought a Honda Civic. I've been driving Hondas ever since. I'd probably buy an Acura if I could justify the expense.

FWIW, around 1995 a friend of mine bought an Acura for his wife. About a year later, he accepted a tenured faculty gig at one of the Emirates universities. They sold the Acura back to the dealer, who gave them a short-term lease on an equivalent Honda Accord. When they returned to the US to retire, he wanted to buy her another Acura. She told him, "Let's save the money and get an Accord instead." So he bought her a Accord with every option available.

[TomInME]

One of the things that makes something "easy" like you mentioned is having what some players describe as "big platforms" for the notes; the horn makes it hard to miss notes. But one of the things that makes something interesting is having smaller "platforms" for the notes. The bigger the platform, the less flexibility you have in timbre.

That's an interesting concept - easier-to-play instruments being more forgiving by funneling the player into the selected note, but that same funneling makes them more difficult to flavor by playing outside the center.

[Elow]

This is exactly the reason I take my Shires set up anytime I travel. I can sound pretty good the second I start playing on my Shires. I have to warm up every day on my Bach before good sounds start to happen. The Bach sounds better at the end of the day, and the Shires sounds the same all day long. When I know I won’t have time to warm up in the morning, my Shires bell is my go to. The two piece bell gives nice feedback, but it tells me how to sound.

[Matt K]

One of the things that makes something "easy" like you mentioned is having what some players describe as "big platforms" for the notes; the horn makes it hard to miss notes. But one of the things that makes something interesting is having smaller "platforms" for the notes. The bigger the platform, the less flexibility you have in timbre.

That's an interesting concept - easier-to-play instruments being more forgiving by funneling the player into the selected note, but that same funneling makes them more difficult to flavor by playing outside the center.

That's the idea. You can get a horn that has smaller platforms and get really good at knowing where they are, or you can go the other way and start with something with fewer small platforms (or possibly even big platforms) and work on being able to coerce the platforms into being interesting. Neither approach is inherently better IMO. Although, I think the strategy might differ depending on what you play. For example, if you were only ever going to do one thing (e.g. you get selected to be a bas trombone in an orchestra somewhere), you could either:

1. Find an instrument that had huge platforms (easy to play), but whose platforms were inherently benefiticial for the narrow subset of playing you were doing.
2. Find an instrument that has smaller platforms (interesting sound) and spend your time learning every idiosyncracy of that particular setup.

But each of us has a different physiology. As I said, I'm a super, duper bright player. I have zero problems bringing the "interest" so for me, picking a horn that sounds interesting at the expense of some of the ease makes little sense. Other players have no problem blending but might have a sound that could be interpreted as boring on an instrument that isn't suited to being interesting by default. There are almost too many variables to enumerate.

[WGWTR180]

The name sounds great. But in reality.........

[EdwardSolomon]

I think it bears mentioning that Josh Cirtina, who developed the new Shires Vintage Elkhart bass trombone, had a simple motive for doing so. As the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra does a fair bit of touring, he did not want to run into a problem where his vintage Elkhart Conn 62H was trashed and he had no viable backup. Needs must, so Josh and the Shires team worked to create something that is replaceable with relative ease. I understand that Simon Minshall also plays one and had the opportunity to examine the same earlier this year and learn of the rationale behind this new development.

[Elow]

Honestly, I bet this is a great model. I’ve never played a 62H so I don’t have any expectations. I think screw bell and unsoldered rim are a great combo. When I’ve asked Alexis about getting a bass bell like the cut bell alessi model, she said the combo wouldn’t work well… but here it is

[Matt K]

Honestly, I bet this is a great model. I’ve never played a 62H so I don’t have any expectations. I think screw bell and unsoldered rim are a great combo. When I’ve asked Alexis about getting a bass bell like the cut bell alessi model, she said the combo wouldn’t work well… but here it is

They've been doing cut bell basses for awhile, I bet she thought you were asking for something different than what you thought you were asking for. It's possible she thought you were talking about type 8 bells, which are pretty uncommon to begin with.

[BigBadandBass]

Honestly, I bet this is a great model. I’ve never played a 62H so I don’t have any expectations. I think screw bell and unsoldered rim are a great combo. When I’ve asked Alexis about getting a bass bell like the cut bell alessi model, she said the combo wouldn’t work well… but here it is

Yeah I think your question was misinterpreted. She’s listened to me play my cut a few times and set up a friend with a bass cut bell. I might even ask about getting an unsoldered flare made for mine so I can swap between soldered and not.