As new! Earl Williams (Donelson, Tennessee) Model 4 Serial Number: 880

Brief Summary:

A quick search on this forum will prove both the manufacturing pedigree and performance of this ‘authentic’ Williams. Trombonist, Jay Armstrong and his wife Mary, purchased the name and manufacturing rights, means, and equipment from Earl’s estate and made Williams trombones (to exact ‘Burbank’ specifications, using Earl's methods, materials and his machines) that have proven in play to be just ‘as’ good, and in many cases even better than many instruments built by Earl himself (correctly fed this 4 blows bigger, better and freer than my Burbank 6)

Jay’s respect for the design of Earl’s instruments (with the warranted exception of Earl's water-key) caused him to strive to realize a thing not only made physically ‘authentic’ (realized in thorough, complete, meticulous material accordance with the qualities, characteristics, and specification of the ‘original’) by attention to quality, but a thing that ultimately rose in spirit-of-play so as to stand on equal terms with a thing deserving of being called ‘genuine’, or…as-it-were, crafted by Earl’s own hand.

Those less well versed in the folklore can start to educate themselves on Williams trombones by reviewing the attached articles. Beyond that, check out anything on this forum tagged to either John Noxon, or John Duda; both of who have now sadly passed. Their experience, expertise, and clear-headed first-hand objectivity served as an invaluable resource for Williams enthusiasts, who should lament the loss of the last surviving connection to the Williams legacy. They kept fans and the franchise honest. RIP.

<LINK_TEXT text="http://www.davidbrubeck.com/2013/02/int ... trombones/">http://www.davidbrubeck.com/2013/02/interview-with-trombonists-jay-armstrong-co-founder-of-custom-made-earl-williams-donelson-tn-trombones/</LINK_TEXT>

https://www.robbstewart.com/willia

[quote="Jnoxon"]I know this thread is a bit older than a normal reply. But just for infos sake! Williams used the same pipe in the 4 and the 6 horns. .490 and .500 same pipe he just cut the length for the 4 that way it would fit either horn. The mouthpiece end is a Morse taper very standard thing, so if the other end is at .500 by cutting about a 1/4 to 3/8ths that end is now .490.[/quote]

Note: If you have any specific questions regarding this particular instrument, its care or feeding, or Williams trombones in general, such as how they play relative to other instruments you may be more familiar with, or how this instrument plays relative to ‘other’ Williams ‘I’ have owned or played, this sight has elsewhere everything you need for objective address, or post back for public consumption, or contact me directly for private insight.

Provenance:

This particular instrument was originally selected by Doug Elliot at the Williams workshop in the early 90’s, to serve, as I understand it, as a back-up to an identical ‘service-horn’ that was acquired for him at the same time for use while serving with the ‘Airmen of Note’. [Note: Doug parted with it when, in time, the section (leader Rick Lillard) eventually transitioned to a larger horn, and Doug followed to balance the section.]

When I received it, the instrument was still in pristine condition with little or no wear marks (having been a little-used/back-up), but unfortunately the lacquer had ‘crazed’ (uniformly fine crackling) prematurely. So, to restore the dignity its performance merits, I had it stripped, buffed, and expertly re-lacquered by a perfectionist specialist with a super thin ‘single-shot’ coat of old-school vintage ‘cognac’ lacquer ($1200). Pricey but worth it.

Refurbishing:

The instrument was sent to renowned refinisher, Tom Green, in Elkhart, Indiana, where it sat on a shelf for 14 months awaiting his availability. Sadly, Tom is ‘as’ infamous for his glacially slow turn-around as he is renowned for his meticulous restoration of valuable brass instruments. [Note: Tom is no longer accepting new work as his backlog will now take him years into his retirement to complete.]

The lacquer was mixed to match and celebrate the ‘spirit’ of the color on the original handbill (see below) that I posted to my teenage wall years in advance of my ordering my first Burbank Model 6 (1971) because, despite knowing better, I remember still being disappointed that the instrument I received wasn't the color of the one that the poster’s inaccurate color rendering had conditioned me to expect. This one however does not disappoint!

The Case:

I employed a custom case builder to rework an authentic 1930’s, French-style, molded-wood case, a survivor (see below) that I had found after months of searching on-line. Cleverly, attractively, securely, and expensively the instrument was 'posed' in the case to safely, and without obstructing view of any part of it, immediately showcase the famous geometry and curves of Williams’ trademark braces. Earl was right, his horn is just prettier!

The interior was stripped and shellacked and completely redesigned, but its unblemished exterior, having no cuts or tears, was left to the dignity of its ‘archival patina’ (to better fool thieves who might gravitate towards newer looking stowage). The binding stitching had to be redone for rigidity, so he sourced vintage waxed chord and intentionally ‘dropped’ several stitches in spots (it's actually tied off) to match the look troubled by time.

Note: This small, light, ‘custom’ case will only accept ‘this’ specific horn, because it has been designed to firmly secure and suspend the ‘particular’ componentry of a Williams Model 4 along its uniquely shaped and sighted supports to eliminate any transfer of shock to the soft brass faces. Despite its size, it offers 2 storage compartments sufficient enough for everything you need, and nothing that you don’t.

Price: $4800 US with case, plus shipping! [Note: No sale without case.]

Gorgeous! Thanks for the lore drop.

It is pretty, but its coquettish good looks now tease with greater disingenuous appeal than I can bare, now that focal dystonia has effectively arrested my ability to perform reliably at a high level. Coming together used to give rise to an embarrassment of musical riches, but now it reliably yields only a richness of musical embarrassment.

So sorry to hear about your condition. Whoever buys this instrument will be extremely lucky

Thanks! 'm just lucky that I no longer perform for a living. I can't imagine how disheartening this must be for someone who depends on play for their livelihood, especially if they are in the early stages of building a career. No one 'recovers' from this condition, though performers on keyed instruments, pianists, and guitarist sometimes 'persist' if all they are dealing with is physical discomfort rather than total embouchure failure.

Sorry to hear about your dystonia, I am a fellow suffer and am coming back. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, many players have come back, Deon Tucker, David Vining, don't give up brother.

Thanks for your kind words of support. I 'm gladdened that you are finding the kind of recovery you require to facilitate the maintenance of your enthusiasm. I've been arguing with this condition for over two years now and have found no 'serviceable' work around to foster a continuance of what is supposed to be a pleasure but has now become musical flagellation. Piano and classical guitar engage me unaffected, but I'm told they too might follow the fall.

I play, often times well, if however politely, with technical proficiency and facility and without physical discomfort, but my raison d'etre for returning to the instrument was to find 'a new way': to prove a lighter, effortless, elfin 'classical' technique on a small-bore instrument that transcended the angular and ponderous nature of both the existent performance paradigm and the large-bore slide through extreme alternate positions. And it worked, until...

What is more, it was to be done without losing the slides provenance and pedigree or sacrificing its 'open' tone. But this condition has affected my embouchure such that notes that feel centered and sound resonant are found to be 'stretched' wildly out of tune. Octaves below middle Bb are 'at least' a semi-tone out of true! And rather than strengthening my own pitch acuity, this meandering is weakening my otherwise strong pitch resolve.

I 'had' perfect pitch (though not of the variety that performs parlor tricks), but that too has started to...wander! All told, this confluence of extra-musical burdens has added more compensatory elements than either my already taxed resolve or my embrace of a better musical way (and the extensive library of open-positions obligated by it) can make space for...IF...I still hope to make music and enjoy myself in the doing. I was not.

Someone has asked for more pictures so I will post those later today.

Pictures of Slide Elements: (Bell and Case to Come)

Pictures of Bell Elements:

Pictures of Case Elements:

There are neoprene bumpers under the fabric wherever the instrument is 'likely' to meet the case on heavy impact, but no element of the slide or bell 'face' (including the bell rim) touches the case under normal transport conditions.

In use:

1.) There is a post that fits into the slide receiver to hold the bell firmly in place, it then just rolls over to be press into the compression fit around the bell braces.

2.) There is a cap to cover the slide throat (because it is ugly, but is also unwise to buff it lest it lose some portion of its grip and seat within the bell's slide receiver) before the leather retaining strap fastens it down.

Clearly not only an innovator in horns, but also cases.

Agreed. Those custom case fittings are very cool.

Sorry, no, I can't ship it out for audition and return. If you are within driving distance of Vancouver, come on by. Failing that, I will take the time to describe (not so difficult an undertaking as you Williams players might imagine) what it's like to play 'this', or indeed any other Williams relative to other modern factory and artisanal built instruments. If anyone requests it, I can also post an abbreviated discussion of the feeding' (mouthpiece interface) of this instrument. Sorry about the length of this post. Soon enough you will be rid of me.

What it’s like to play ‘this’ Williams, or any good horn ‘of a type’, and…what are those types.

Two Tools: A Sharp Scalpel or a Big Club

There are only two types of ‘good’ instruments into which everybody’s “different” but similar ‘good’ instruments fit. These ‘basic’, and yet largely unaccounted sonic archetypes are realized by two very different design goals that do not themselves describe practical or ideological schools of thought, because ‘brass’ instruments, having in general ‘sufficient’ volume, need not think about them.

Despite being diametrically opposed to one another in evidence of their sonic attributes, the two ‘manifestations’ of good instruments have until now enjoyed equal popularity by trading occultly against each other’s design goals. But the ‘flowering’ of the modern ego promotes ‘the self’ and the low hanging fruit it is attracted to, and now I feel the better design of the two is at risk of passing into obscurity.

It is the case today that the majority of people prefer the one type to the exclusion of the other, because of its obvious and ‘immediate’ returns. It is also still the case that members of the group that favors that one, singular, obvious and accountable quality can be easily ‘educated’ to the attributes of the other by simple explanation and demonstration. As such, the traffic is always from a preference for the more obvious to the less well accounted.

Acoustics, physics, and psychoacoustics: What’s it like to play ‘this’ Williams.

My teacher, an LA studio player, let me try his Williams 6. Dave Robbins (RIP) lived in a big old house on Balfour Ave, in Shaughnessy, and when I played his horn, its strangely ‘disconnected’ sound travelled laser-like down its halls to ‘first’ seek-out and fill every remote corner of available space, before only then returning to finally advise ‘my’ participation in it. It was an interesting acoustic phenomenon.

By contrast, my 3B ‘bloomed’ around me in intimate expression that defines the alternative and more common design intent. But, although I thought the 3B sounded (felt?) louder in the room, try as I might, I could not, by angle of direction or deflection, accomplish the same trick of engaging the building’s ‘potential’ with my own potential using the 3B. The Williams’ performed the trick every time!

Like a ventriloquist throwing their voice, or seeing yourself twice removed in a mirror, I was made to stand outside of myself by the sound, as if I were an audience to my own performance, which was now as much advised and obligated ‘by’ the environment it excited as it was by me. It is the same acoustic and spatial reorientation one experiences when cupping their hands megaphone like to their mouth.

Try it! You can achieve a similar effect by pressing your ears against you head which causes you to lose spatial localization. Most of us are used to sitting in a bubble of ‘sonic immediacy’, the effect of which blinds you to that portion of ‘your’ sound that is immediately tangent to you, and that you would be greatly profited as a musician to hear (psycho-acoustically the brain ignores time-misaligned sounds).

As it would turn out, this effect was not unique to Williams horns except that it was a feature distinctive ‘of’, or common ‘to’ all of them. The performance advantages of this kind of sonic envelope are not so immediately evident or obvious, and because it is not what people are used to, many people don’t like (especially these days) the feeling of being ‘once removed’ from their sound, however great the reward.

And the rewards are great! Some of you will remember Amar Bose and his direct-reflecting speakers that operated in service with the fact that 90% of the sound we hear does not come to us in a straight line from the source, but has bounced off something else prior to it reaching our ears. His conclusions were wrong because the speaker and the listener were not in the same place. But for us they are!

Soon enough I would move into classical music, and I found the construct held with larger classical brands by design as one reliably ‘inclined’ one way and the other the opposite. In general, I noticed the effect to be most pronounced in the different way that Bach 42’s sounded (felt) relative to Conn 8/88H. Can you guess which fell into which camp and which I preferred? Sadly, I was required to play the other!

In general, I found that the Conn’s provided more immediate feed-back, and the commensurate illusion of greater return, but that the Bach’s projected better, in a more Williams like way. I was resolved that Bach’s would sound better to the audience, and Conns to the performer. Unfortunately, I was required to play a Conn, and eventually found an early 50’s vintage Conn that fell somewhere in the middle.

I even repeated the experience of the Williams/King comparison in a large ‘bonded’ warehouse where I was trying out multiple Bachs and Conns. Almost every time the Conns worked in service of the performer, enveloping them in a cocoon of resoanance, and the Bachs worked in service of ‘finding’ the room. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a performer need to concern themselves with the hall?

What is more, I heard evidence of it in the hall too! When once I listened to the talented section (playing Conn) in the house, knowing its potential, it failed to have the impact I expected given my experience of sitting with them. When I casually mentioned that the sound in the hall didn’t ‘seem’ to project the authority it had on the stage, they felt slighted even though it was the instruments I was questioning.

It was only later that I realized that the greater offence was to question the Remington approved instrument. Today, Conn’s seem to have won the stage. It turns out that the construct holds with all instruments, be they pianos, clarinets, classical guitars or violins. Builders who used to design instruments to ‘project’ quality sound, now make instruments that propose bad sound more loudly.

Conclusions:

The one group of players interprets their emersion in a ‘localized’ sound-field as being representative (perceived) of what a ‘good’ or efficient sound generator does, while the second interprets the effect of the sound seeming to ‘come back at them from beyond or elsewhere’ as being the best indicator that the sound is propagating ‘into’ the hall to reach the ears of those who pay for tickets.

The first camp values the ‘perception’ that they are enjoying greater ‘personal’ return’ for their investment, while the second prefers the ‘evidence’ that the ‘audience’ is enjoying the greatest ‘generalized’ or shared experience for ‘their’ investment. One chooses an enriched personal experience at the expense of sound in the house (though it is loud enough) while the other chooses a shared reality.

Neither cause is better or worse, but only because trombones are ‘sufficient’ to their purpose. A louder player can manage on an instrument that projects less well, and that seems to be what has won the instrument wars. All of the sound is ‘behind’ rather than in front of the bell on modern instruments, and no one ventures into the hall to realize this or the fact that there is an alternative to playing louder.

To a clarinetist (insert any instrumentalist here) a trombone (insert any ‘other’ instrument here) sounds like a trombone, but a clarinet…ahhh…that’s a different matter…to a clarinetist. Steinways and Bösendorfers, Guarnerius’ and Stradivarius, each is designed to ‘flatter’ the needs of whoever the performer deigns to put first. A concertizing performer has different obligations than a recording artist.

Some instruments ‘project’ better, independent of volume, to greater ‘audience’ reward, and some ‘sound’ better to greater ‘performer’ satisfaction then ‘leading’ to greater audience satisfaction. I am not resolved of it, but I suspect that the two communities are mutually exclusive of one another, and that preoccupation with ‘perceived’ rather than absolute volume is the determining factor.

Having the luxury of sufficient volume either way, I prefer a ‘reasoned’ reality to a more flattering ‘perceived’ fiction (a tragedy being the slaying of a flattering fiction by a less flattering fact), the projection of the Stradivarius or the Steinway, to either the volume of the Guarnerius or the intoxicating envelope of the Bösendorfer, the ventriloquist trick of the vintage Bachs to the immediacy of the Conns.

As for Williams, I personally prefer their honesty and ability to project AT ALL VOLUMES, to the ‘trick’ and illusion of ‘sounding’ proximately rich, when in the hall they sound only dull or euphonic (as though conical in physical origin rather that cylindrical), and so then are they working against design and station which is why they have to play louder to be heard, or more accurately, to draw attention to themselves.

What you choose is your choice: what was only ‘once’ available, or what is now readily available. Choose wisely.

A Donelson?

Yes. As was the case with Donelsons, they played, if 'that' is what matters, as well, and in many cases more 'reliably' well than Earl's horns. Check out the comments by those who knew best on this forum.

'My' first BURBANK 6 was a not a good horn by any means, but my second was more typical of the breed. But for those who care only for a thing's provenance and its commercial cache, the 'thing', rather than its service, is all they care about.

The genius (and beauty) of Earl's horn was its design, its dimensions and its build (the Bob's seemed to fail the latter more regularly) not the location stamped on the bell, and no one took more care than Jay Armstrong. For example, the copies and approximations of Earl's curved hand brace, such as have been 'reimagined' by other manufacturers going back to Martin, do not' feel as comfortable in the hand because, because while they 'are' curved, they are not curved in the 'same' way, and that matters.

The same is true of the specifics of bell setback and flare, the slide-bow and tuning slide curve, the fact that it uses all-brass construction and a host of other things that also make 'the' difference, most of which are similarly not adopted or followed by later-come pretenders who nevertheless propose themselves to be the heir to the throne, if not so too the fortune, simply for having an all too obvious rustic aesthetic, artisanal roots and expedient methods. Isn't anyone else tired of instruments that look like they were made in a high-school shop class.

It takes time and skill to finish an instrument properly, and it is today the case that you must pay for what now is...extra! And if it is the case that an instrument does not necessarily play well or sound good simply because it 'looks' good, it is similarly the case that an instrument does not play well because it looks 'home-made', honest, humble, modest, or unfinished (even though they charge as if the time was spent to finish it properly). This instrument both plays and looks beautiful. If both of those are one too many for you to bare, lacquer strips off with hot water.

Had a nice chat with Jiggs Whigham a few days ago (met him again after some years) and we talked about equipment. He said that Williams trombones are terrible horns and he can't understand how anyone could possibly play this xD

However, I liked the ones that I played so far (which were 2 in total iirc), but I can't afford such a wonderful horn as a back-up horn and it should be played. Not standing in a corner.

Love Jiggs!

Is it the case in Germany, in the jazz or commercial end of things, that people are moving to bigger and bigger equipment and mouthpieces in search of ever great 'breadth of tone' and volume, as if to negate the heroic 'tenor' trombone sound as it transitions to something more...ponderous? It happened there orchestrally decades ago.

As orchestral players proved their service in the studios, more and more commercial guys seem to have taken up larger equipment to keep 'current', and the 'live music', jazz end of things, has all but ended in smaller markets, so the 'pure', 'under-represented' jazz player who championed the small-bore horns is largely gone from the scene.

That being the case, the small-bore instrument is today becoming something that persists, apparently even in the mind of trombonists, as a beginner's or amateur's horn, rather than the heroic lead 'voice' of the section. Its a shame that trombonists haven't championed their own legacy more deliberately.

Its natural that students, not yet given in service to 'the music', are drawn, like cats to laser pointers, to aspire to win fancy valve sections (there is nothing so basic in aspect as a trombone) that obligate them to larger horns and distract them from realizing the musical advantages of the slide, and the methods necessary to its mastery.

If trombonists played violins, they would all have grown frets by now for failing to realize what was lost relative to what is won. What''s next, the return of valve trombones? Both Bob Brookmeyer and Rob McConnel claimed that it was their association with the slide first and foremost that advised their playing on valves.

This horn was chosen at the factory by a talented player to be used in demanding play. The job hasn't changed, nor I suggest has the actual landscape, but trombonists have: they are less connected and committed to being 'heroes' and more resigned to being musical 'villains', even if only in section play.

Composers have never had confidence in trombones or trombonists (which is why they have fewer features even than tuba in the orchestral repertoire) because they had no confidence in themselves. It all starts with 'obligated play' in youth bands, except in England where colliery bands fostered virtuosity in all sections.

This instrument is quite capable of keeping up in any commercial section while rewarding the efforts of the player and supporting the section and flattering the ensemble it plays with. The question then is...do those players and forums still exist for this horn to find a place on the stage in modern venues in capable hands?

Geez, Skeldon, you sound like one of the old Waldhorn players decrying those new-fangled "valves". A Bb/F trombone is comparable to an F/Bb French Horn. The extra valve/tubing enhances range and flexibility (while increasing complexity of fingering). Horns always had bigger parts in orchestra than either trumpets (they had no valves until the mid 19th century), trombones (probably had intonation issues? or bad slides?) or low brass (serpent, ophicleide, bombardon, tuba). I think the fact that they are a long instrument played high on the partial scale gave them a high degree of flexibility that was lacking in everything else.

I can agree that straight horns have become less popular, mostly because of a trend of teaching to go toward having one instrument to do everything. In contrast, you will see a profusion of horns next to a studio player on a gig. Ranging from alto to contra. Small bore, large bore, huge bore. Because each has its own sound and the demands of soundtrack require tuning of this sound to the needs of the film.

Unfortunately, a Williams, Benson, or Minnick trombone is too expensive to give to a beginner and the average Joe Six Pack wants something with a valve because if you can only afford one, it has to be able to do all. I'm sure there are some folks out here who can appreciate your Williams, but they are a bit of a minority.

Good luck with your sale.

Geez?

No, just a twice failed trombonist who thought to 'propose' a brighter future for trombonists when dystonia struck.

So the way forward is to turn a trombone into a horn? That's just might point and my fear. What is lost.

Have you ever tried to convince a composer to write or commit something to a solo trombone in a larger score?

For lack of evidence, most of them do not believe that the instrument is capable of making a musical contribution.

In dispute, I played a well-known composer a recording of James Markey playing Schumann and his jaw dropped.

<YOUTUBE id="GimI1xoV_ys">https://youtu.be/GimI1xoV_ys</YOUTUBE>

"I don't hear a slide", he said! 'I didn't know that you could do that on a trombone!'

Do what I asked, he said, 'Make music!" That was 'my' wake-up!

It's a poor carpenter...

Thanks for the well-wishes.

[quote="EriKon"]Had a nice chat with Jiggs Whigham a few days ago (met him again after some years) and we talked about equipment. He said that Williams trombones are terrible horns and he can't understand how anyone could possibly play this xD

...[/quote]

Makes perfect sense, in a total systems way.

Did I forgot to put Jiggs on my list of much revered small-bore players? He was playing his usual King 2B straight-bore (single rather than dual) 'Jigg's model with the light-weight slide when last I heard him.

Hear is another case of a much-vaunted player using the fabled .490 bore to the greatest trombonistic affect. Maybe its time we started a list of great players we wish to emulate who 'did' and 'do' play small bore exclusively.

Its a long list! I wonder how many we can get before this sale closes (F.Y.I.: I''m going outside of the community too next week). I'll start by adding my favorite lyrical-ballad player, Alan Kaplan. What a way with a phrase!

Why do amateurs and enthusiast love the small-bore players and their sound, and then reject the equipment necessary to it as if it wasn't? Because big equipment softens the nasal phonation of players with...'character' tone.

Small horns need a diet of the purest input, otherwise they haven't the means to a voice for all the extra-musical artifacts taking up space in the sound. Singing is the whole point of a small-bore horn. If you don't want to sing...

Newly minted trombonists don't seem to want to sing anymore, so the trombone, afflicted, aided, and abetted by those who play them, are fast becoming the rhythm guitarists of the wind community, no offence rhythm guitarists!

Kids these days, amirite

I would be comfortable sitting first or second chair with this large-voiced small-bore horn on a jazz, commercial or legit gig, at all but the very highest level. So...

Can someone please tell me, is it today the case that every amateur and non-working trombonist enthusisast/player, being so far sighted and finaciall provisioned, now concurrently masters small-bore, large-bore, alto, and bass trombone, as if that were an easy thing quickly accomplished? It was previousy the case that some people seemed to be able to effortlessly go back and forth, but that was never the rule; possibly for not having tried?

With regards to 'working' musicians, is 'every' jazz, legit, or commercial player so reliablly being 'called' to play both style of gigs, such that the reward warrants the investment of time and money? That's cool! If so, where are all these gigs coming from? Things 'have' changed! I've been out of it for more than 35 years, and back then, most people who owned and played 'one' instrument capably weren't get 'called' at all, let alone called by multiple booking agents from what were once considered disparate genres.

Or is it the case that today, because of 'critical music theory' (LOL), the prejudicial line between the nuanced gen(d)re-specific 'approach' that, for better or worse, existentially defined the mastery and bias of each style in most binary markets, has now been 'cancelled,' in favor of musical diveristy, inclusivity, and equity? Has style been identified as a patriarchal hegemony, and reinvented on a 'specturm', defeating the authroity of binary attitude to the musical elements. If so, what of 'my' lived musical experience? I'm a trombonist, but I identify as a musician.

But seriously, have 'old' lines been blurred or erased by new performance practices, or are they just ignored for their lack of servicability? Is the bar that sets the standard even still in the same place? Doesn't this newly defined generic facility just make it even more likely that the musicians who work most, will work even more, especially in smaller markets? If first-call jazzers are competing or working beside first-call legit guys, and vice versa, when do second-call players work?

It must be the case that there are more hours in the day to practise, than there once were, or that there is very much more talent available to the craft than when I played. Of course, the truth could just be that non-working amateur enthusiasts, with no work to occupy them, broaden their retirement hobby by attempting to do it all. Its a great excuse to give the wife for buying more cool instruments for unpaid recreational service in community orchestras and rehearsal bands.

I think some of this comes back to contractors wanting to stay with people they know and trust. If their regular bass trombonist isn't available, they're more likely to ask someone they normally hire as a tenor trombonist to play bass trombone than they are to risk hiring a bass trombonist from outside their usual talent pool.

Good point. I'd never thought of that. But isn't it still the case that there are more talented, if not so too experienced, but likely competent players in any market than there is work for them?

The case of you can't get a gig because you have no eperience, and can't get experience because you have no giig should be largely over-ridden in the arts, where talent is actually verifiable, quantifiable, and consensuallly understood.

The first call player should have some say as to who can cover him, but of course he is profited by being assumed to be irreplacable, such that a merely satisfactory replacement is a wiser call.

[quote="tskeldon"]The first call player should have some say as to who can cover him, but of course he is profited by being assumed to be irreplacable, such that a merely satisfactory replacement is a wiser call.[/quote]
Being an amateur, I generally try to get subs who play at a significantly higher level than myself - sufficiently higher that when the conductor tries to recruit him/her, the result is a polite refusal. That generally means paying my subs, but it’s cheap piece of mind.

You are a gentlemen Sir! It is the case that in small markets those who work' are rightfully very protective of jobs they consider constituent to their livelihood. When I was about to ascend commercially, I was redirected (into classical) by my teacher who basically apologized that he wasn't going to induct me into the brotherhood of 'regular' fellows with recommendations for work anytime soon. How well I played made no difference, or made things worse.

He said, 'Oh, you're more than capable of playing the gigs, but you're too young (I was 17) and have no financial need or responsibility yet to justify me sending work your way. Its better that a 'few' people who 'need' the work are able to make a stable living, than it is for serveral 'more' to require that scant resources be stretched to far , causing all to struggle just to fail to make ends meet. I understood and I agreed. It wasn't my time, nor would it be.

i would find out later just how much money the 'regular fellows' had been making, and I can tell you that it was a lot more than a simple living, comfortable or otherwise. Such was the situation in a mid-size market with samll-town ambitions in more profitabel corporately funded and institutional musical times. Good luck with both your virtue and your music. May the one persist and the other flourish.

Hey! I'm just starting to realize that 'my' experience of the limitations of the 'trombone performance paradigm' are, or were, more localized than I had ever suspected or originally thought.

I just watched a video (it just 'happened' to be James Markey again) where a significant trombone talent talked about the use of, in this case, mouthpieces in a way that I imagined them to serve 'a sound', purpose or goal.

In case it is removed for appearing to be a product placement, you can find it by typing, James Markey: the Markey Series from Griego Mouthpieces.

<YOUTUBE id="Gf8CyFtPiaU">https://youtu.be/Gf8CyFtPiaU</YOUTUBE>

This is such healthy talk and perspective. Who would have thought it: instruments and mouthpieces in service of players (and the music), rather than the other way around: as I 'felt' *externally' obliged.

This may be what BGuttman was alluding to in his post. In my time I was not allowed to entertain the idea of a different instrument or mouthpiece, whatever the objective or subjective gains in play or sound might evidence.

I assumed that the reasoning, beyond membership in a particular fraternity, was that there is...honor and nobility in 'struggling' to try to be all things to all people using equipment that offers the greatest potential for...volume?

As a result, I struggled, and achieved after a fashion inconsistent with my inclination, preference, need, and possibly too potential. Oh to be able to do it over again today the way I wanted..minus the dystonia of course.

Though the outcome may have been the same, at least I would have failed for being true to myself, rather than for not being so. The difference matters...big time. So, I wish all of you failure, of the truer kind!

[quote="tskeldon"]

Or is it the case that today, because of 'critical music theory' (LOL), the prejudicial line between the nuanced gen(d)re-specific 'approach' that, for better or worse, existentially defined the mastery and bias of each style in most binary markets, has now been 'cancelled,' in favor of musical diveristy, inclusivity, and equity? Has style been identified as a patriarchal hegemony, and reinvented on a 'specturm', defeating the authroity of binary attitude to the musical elements. If so, what of 'my' lived musical experience? I'm a trombonist, but I identify as a musician.
[/quote]

This one right here Mods :idea: That's too far and you know it dude, don't be like that.

Thanks for commenting, but you presume too much Sir. I know nothing of the sort of which 'you' are undoubtedly speaking. What I ‘do’ know (as a result of having written and taught philosophy for 30 years) is everything factual there is to know about Critical Theory, whose language cleverly leverages this post for your enjoyment.

In your defense, most people don’t know that the language of Critical Theory was originally and benignly devised for artistic and literary criticism, buts its architecture is meant to service any structural analysis, making it an ideal tool for the consideration of the evolution of musical praxis. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

Enjoy!

Oh...I forgot to mention, having just come across it again, that this sale includes a full Warburton Mouthpiece-Set!

Of, or related to this instrument and sale, as a no cost incentive, I had always intended to include the Warburton mouthpiece ‘set’ that I bought to investigate and develop the fullest potential of this ‘particular instrument. The set was comprised of 2 each (6 in total, $135/each) of their #13 ‘Tops’ (Similar to a Bach 7 in diameter but not shape), Warburton’s term for their one-piece Rim/Cup/Throat assembly, 2-shallow, 2-medium, and 2-deep.

The Warburton has a V shaped cup (rather than a C) and a much larger diameter throat, with softer shoulders than any Bach. Additionally, there is a full set of 6 conventional backbores (with a cylindrical waist following from the throat), 1-6, small to large, and ‘another’ full set of 6 the same ‘size’ backbores but with full tapers (no cylindrical waist after the throat). Each of the 12 backbores cost $85.

I compiled a spreadsheet to advise the performance of each combination when used with this instrument and the results were fascinating. Virtually every combination had something to offer in exchange for what was lost. And because the results are peculiar to each instrument, I have decided to include them with this horn in service of the play of whomever inherits aspires to it.

It appears to be still posted from my previous listing, which I changed my mind about, but wasn’t able to figure out how to remove. There is a picture too: <LINK_TEXT text="viewtopic.php?f=23&t=16548">https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=16548</LINK_TEXT>

In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the "Plain Writing Act" to encourage the use in government communications of writing that is clear, concise, and well-organized - so the reader can understand the first time they read or hear it.

Perhaps we need such a requirement for Trombone Chat? :idk:

KISS!

The congressional pot calling the congressional kettle black. LOL!

Here it is:

[quote="Posaunus"]In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the "Plain Writing Act" to encourage the use in government communications of writing that is clear, concise, and well-organized - so the reader can understand the first time they read or hear it.

Perhaps we need such a requirement for Trombone Chat? :idk:

KISS!

[color=#0040BF][/quote]
[quote="tskeldon"]The congressional pot calling the congressional kettle black. LOL![/quote][/color]

Brevity is the soul ...

[quote="Posaunus"]<QUOTE author="Posaunus" post_id="191736" time="1666712087" user_id="158">
In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the "Plain Writing Act" to encourage the use in government communications of writing that is clear, concise, and well-organized - so the reader can understand the first time they read or hear it.

Perhaps we need such a requirement for Trombone Chat? :idk:

KISS!

[color=#0040BF][/quote]
[quote="tskeldon"]The congressional pot calling the congressional kettle black. LOL![/quote][/color]

Brevity is the soul ...
</QUOTE>

Seriously, this thread and the other thread about the playing injury are some of the most needlessly verbose and pedantic writings I have ever had the pleasure of skimming. :lol:

Thanks for the feedback. I'm sorry you don't like my writing, or rather...I 'm glad it entertains you. Either way, lets keep this thread about the listing going forward. Thanks!

Are you looking to sell the trombone or just post wordwooze?

Ok cool.

[quote="BGuttman"]Are you looking to sell the trombone or just post wordwooze?[/quote]

:lol:

I think interest has diminished in this beautiful instrument due to all the gobbledegook :horror: :idk:

Likely not. Healthy people don't actually 'live' in virtual spaces, however much time they spend there. I'll post a new picture to reestablish and refresh the pallette of those who are actually intersted in 'the horn'. Thanks for your comment.

[quote="tskeldon"]Likely not. Healthy people don't actually 'live' in virtual spaces, however much time they spend there.[/quote]

:lol: Now that IS funny :roll:

Great horn though :biggrin:

I aim to please. Thanks for participating and bringing attention to the thread.

[quote="tskeldon"]I aim to please. Thanks for participating and bringing attention to the thread.[/quote]

You are welcome, remember that a picture speaks a thousand words :biggrin:

Slide stockings.

Sorry for neglecting this.

Thank-you to those of you who have posted and entertained this thread to its greater attention. It seems that despite worshiping the ability of small bore 'professionals', most non-working students and amateurs (who as of yet have insufficient career to generate dividend sufficient enough to warrant this kind of investment) are early on in their development electing to be jack-of-all-trade generalists, for what it wins them immediately in opportunity to propose themselves to a wider number of ever-dwindling amateur bands, orchestras, and community theatre groups.

It was once the case that this course of action consigned mere mortals to an adopted 'adequacy', a case of casting yourself in the mold of a perennial amateur that wins employable purchase nowhere, when, with certain notable exceptions, you eventually come to realize there is 'apparently' and audible difference between someone who 'has' many instruments, and someone who knows how to 'reliably' ring the potential from each for having invested the time necessary (it used to be a lifetime) to habituate yourself to just one state of play. Times change, but do things?

Anyway, I'm going to cast what may or may not be a wider (it could be that everybody that matters is here) net, by posting this sale on Reverb, Ebay, and all the other usual suspects to expedite its possible vending, prior to possibly turning it into a very nice floor-standing light, or wall-mounted art installation (see below). Additionally, I'm going to post a 'walk-around' video of the instrument on YouTube (no sound as I have no play left that I wish to publicize) to prove its rooted existential presence in the firmament rather than its persistence in the ethernet.

Please consider this sale 'open' until I have posted an end of it. I may post the occasional picture to reinvigorate it in the forum's algorithm, but there is really nothing more to be said beyond it's being the best of its type and the prettiest! One individual commented that they didn't play well enough to meet what people's expectations might be of someone playing such an instrument, believing that by contrast, their sound is remarkably good considering how crappy their instrument is.

I say, 'dare to live beautifully and with beauty', even if you don't participate in it yourself, as I have always done. How would you, how could you propose yourself the partner to a beautiful woman/man, if you don't feel yourself worthy (or suffer too much guilt in the face of beauty) to partner an inanimate object? Aesthetics teaches us that beauty is not superficial but is instead the manifestation of underlying health. Its aspect is refreshing and restorative to all who view it, not just to those who own it. Its intrinsic value or worth is therefore public!

But if you want to touch...you must pay to play.

So beautifully written. The storied history of that horn should have created significant palpable value$ even if it never gets taken out of it's case. It should be additionally categorized as collectible art/music history. And you should receive a carbon credit on your taxes for all the periods you saved in your prose.

I know several trombonists who own, and play, wonderful and well-preserved Williams 6 trombones. None of them, however, play their Williamses exclusively. I guess this is a personality defect on their part. (None, by the way, are "early on in their development electing to be jack-of-all-trade generalists ... " ) :idk:

As for me, I'm still mildly regretting not taking the opportunity a few years ago to purchase a perfectly restored Williams 6 (that I was familiar with decades ago in its "youth") from a good friend for $1,500. But I'm over it! I've got a couple of very fine, easy-to-play small-bore trombones that give me great pleasure.

Price Update!!!!

Wow! $1500 is a price that wasn't justified by friendship even 20 years ago. Mild regret indeed! That being the case, I take your point in these...'surreal' economic times. Shortly after posting the add, I noticed myself that I had accidentally listed the price in US rather than CDN funds, but I let it stand to give me time to reconsider the sale.

Having had the time to come to the full realization that I'm not going to recover (the condition of focal dystonia, to which I now seem disposed, advertising itself now in my hands at the piano), combined with the apparent state of austerity in the trombone profession, I am resolved to letting this instrument go for the new price of ...$4000 US.

Note: It was the case that a jack-of-all-trades trombonist was usually an amateur or under-employed commercial player who thought that simply buying and playing (though not so too necessarily practising) or proposing themself on a larger bore instrument (with a compensating mouthpiece) equaled sounding like a legit player. It didn't.

Similarly, legit players who proposed themself as alto players without putting in the time necessary to learn to regulate and refine themselves to the abilities of that instrument always overblew the smaller-bored instrument. If you are just a hobbyist or an amateur, no one notices or cares except that you have many instruments.

In my town, in my time, professionals who proposed themself to one state of play had to deliver, and therefore put in the time on whatever instrument they dared vaunt their proficiency on. That's a problem, because for 'working' musicians there is insufficient time to master 1 instrument, let alone 2 or more; stylistic considerations betray play.

[quote="tskeldon"]Price Update!!!!

Wow! $1500 is a price that wasn't justified by friendship even 20 years ago. Mild regret indeed! That being the case, I take your point in these...'surreal' economic times.[/quote]

Actually, it was only about 4 years ago. My high school buddy had obtained a wonderful early 1950s Williams 6 from his teacher (the principal trombonist of the San Francisco Symphony, who needed money), who had stripped the lacquer. I played alongside it, enviously, all through high school. Buddy played it through college. Then put it in a closet for 40+ years. Had it relacquered and refurbished to factory condition. Sold it to a friend of mine (2018 or 2019), who loved it for a while, for $1,500. Friend then sold it to another local trombonist for the best price he could get (~$1,800). Other trombonist has left the area, so I've lost track of the Williams. I still wish that I had pursued it (for sentimental purposes - my high school buddy recently passed away), but I'm not crying about it. I would be surprised to see a Williams 6 sell around here (its home territory) for much more than $2,000 (U.S.). But perhaps I'm out of touch. In any case, there are plenty of other wonderful small-bore trombones available - including two in my possession. You may want to reconsider your price. :idk:

Thanks for commenting. If those instruments were in fact relacquered to the 'original' factory condition, they would have been depreciated in play by a process that eliminated what little profit there would have been left in the sale at the price point you proposed. If you don't care how thick it is, its easy to make it pretty.

This instrument's recent care and feeding, which support its proven pedigree and aspect, is something quite different from the run of the mill daily-drivers sought and used by the hobbyist (who are not also diminishing-return performance driven or Williams specific enthusiasts) that frequent here.

But you may ultimately be proven correct. Congratulation on achieving satisfaction with your horns. That's not an easy thing to settle yourself on. I have kept only one horn, a Martin 'Urbie Green" model (one of three I was required to purchase to find a 'great' one) to remind me of my time as a trombonist and of the man who caused it.

[quote="tskeldon"]Thanks for commenting. If those instruments were in fact relacquered to the 'original' factory condition, they would have been depreciated in play by a process that eliminated what little profit there would have been left in the sale at the price point you proposed. If you don't care how thick it is, its easy to make it pretty.

This instrument's recent care and feeding, which support its proven pedigree and aspect, is something quite different from the run of the mill daily-drivers sought and used by the hobbyist (who are not also diminishing-return performance driven or Williams specific enthusiasts) that frequent here.

But you may ultimately be proven correct. Congratulation on achieving satisfaction with your horns. That's not an easy thing to settle yourself on. I have kept only one horn, a Martin 'Urbie Green" model (one of three I was required to purchase to find a 'great' one) to remind me of my time as a trombonist and of the man who caused it.[/quote]

Sorry, Tim. I didn't realize that my friend's beautiful Williams 6 had been so trashed by the refurbishing and relacquering, affecting its now-tarnished pedigree. Apparently not appropriate "care and feeding." But to my ears, it sounded great.

My impression of Williams’ value is:

Earl > Bob > Donelson > Calicchio

as well as model 6 > 4.

In about 2002 I acquired a Donelson that I later traded for a Minick which I eventually sold to Jason Jackson. I also acquired a Bob that I sold to Slipmo and then bought back from Slipmo when it came up for sale a few years later. I had it restored by BAC which took quite a bit longer than expected and when he returned it, Mike slipped a gift into the crate, namely a Donelson model 4 bell flare. Eventually I sold both the Bob and the flare. So I have a bit of Williams’ experience.

$4800 sounds high to me but FMV is what a willing buyer will pay and a willing seller will accept. Good luck with the sale.

Hi Bach5G!

Thanks for the well wishes. In this market I agree, which is why <U>I've adjusted the price to $4000</U>, which includes the specialized case and Warburton mouthpiece kit!

That's less than most new boutique small-bore tenors cost, and most of those should cost far less for having much less 'finishing' time invested in them. Many of those 'so-called' custom builders (though many of them do no custom work at all) won't even polish and lacquer upon request any more because its time consuming and hard to get right.

Many buffers that claim to 'lacquer' really only spray what is a relatively thick coat of self-leveling 'poly'. It looks fine, but the argument is that it constrains vibration. Personally I doubt it, which is why Posaunus' friend's horn still sounded great. I worried that old-school Williams purists would be suspect of the new fangled coatings.

Very few specialists do true lacquer anymore despite it being a much thinner product, because it must be cured and is finicky and harder to get right. I went with lacquer after gaging the sensibilities and sensitivities of modern Williams buyers who today gravitate toward the romance mid-century modern brass alchemy rather than physics.

This horn was sprayed and washed off three times before Tom (the best in the business) was finally happy with the result. $$$ Many rebuilders won't work on trombones because the large surfaces betray their finishing talents. Trumpets are quick and easy. Additionally, many buffers accidentally burnish the metal while polishing.

This is the method by which many fine instruments are scarred or stressed during casual refurbishment by otherwise talented repair techs who don't specialize in buffing and lacquering. I'm jealous that Posaunus' friend found one of these talented individuals locally to deliver this specialized service for an economical price.

Noah Gladstone has a Burbank 6 in very nice condition for sale for 4800.

Wish I had the disposable income for that, a real beauty.

Good Luck with sale I think your horn looks amazing,if that matters.....

seems anything Earl is valuable

Noah is a nice guy that offers a great service. For those you who don't know, he has a reselling service (and so much more) in LA called Brass Ark http://brassark.com Its just been my luck that he has only every had what I wanted 'after' I found it elsewhere! And while we're at it, I also recommend Doug Bert at Brass Exchange, in St. Louis www.thebrass-exchange.com Similarly so, he's is a nice guy and I've had good luck with him too.

There again though, the problem is timing. Only I offer the unique service of never selling anything, so you can always be sure that I have the item in stock. LOL! Truth be told, I've come close to sending this instrument to a number of resellers, but I worry that some someone might, quite accidentally and innocently, even while exhibiting all due care, mark or scar the horn while auditioning it. Its not a question of if, but how bad. Stuff happens.

A busy LA session player is very interested, but he wants me to send it to him to put it through its paces in the field as it were, so thus far I've declined. If the instrument 'weren't so conspicuously perfect, that which might cause a smudge on the lacquer, a chip on the mouthpiece receiver, or a ring scratch on the hand hold would otherwise become a part of its 'vintage' patina without drawing attention to itself and discounting the aesthetic.

You should not to discount Model 4's when you are come across them in favor of the Model 6. It was, and is often the case that like the 2B and 3B, a better smaller 4 (which came first), beats the 'experiment' that was the larger 6 in 'real-world' service, in terms of freedom of blow, volume and projection. It has more to do with the relationship of the lead-pipe to the bore and the calculation of the bell flare than their simple size.

The larger bore and bell in both brands 'do' create the deceptively immersive and flattering player experience that is caused by ones proximity to a larger 'passive' bell, but at a cost: something is lost in terms of reach and projection because the tonal core of the sound is dulled, so the 3B and Model 6 don't sit as 'easily' on top of a section, despite having been taxed to that job by talented players whose ears 'at the stand' told them otherwise.

Why don't players get their colleagues to listen to them 'in the house' where the paying audience sits and give them feedback? The only time one get a sense of their colleagues sound 'in the house' is during a formative audition, and that's not really reflective because they are not playing 'with' a section or the orchestra. Everything changes when you are playing in a section, and the job of a lead player comes with tonal responsibilities.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in spinning this thread. I've decided to cancel my plans to sell it, in order that I may more resignedly settle my retirement from all ambition to play by turning it into a lamp! On that note, I am, to the best of my understanding, concluded with the trombone, and will not be following this or any other post. Best of luck to everyone going forward. Good bye!

Wow!

Ok

Adios.

Thank goodness.

I'm looking for a Williams model 4 in great condition ...... Anyone got one?

[quote="Fidbone"]I'm looking for a Williams model 4 in great condition ...... Anyone got one?[/quote]

<ATTACHMENT filename="dswilly4_1.jpg" index="0">[attachment=0]dswilly4_1.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

Note to Noah: Your original image did not show. I added the image as an attachment.

Looks amazing Noah, however my comment was tongue in cheek in relation to this thread and the guys ability to estrange potential buyers!

I would have snapped yours or his hand of for such a majestic instrument had I not already bought a Shires MG model, 8 months ago. Best wishes :hi:

[quote="Fidbone"]Looks amazing Noah, however my comment was tongue in cheek in relation to this thread and the guys ability to estrange potential buyers!

I would have snapped yours or his hand of for such a majestic instrument had I not already bought a Shires MG model, 8 months ago. Best wishes :hi:[/quote]

:hi: :good: :pant: Cheers!

Can’t believe so many of us have to give up our ambitions to sound legit all because no one wants to buy an overpriced horn from seller who openly insults potential buyers <EMOJI seq="1f622" tseq="1f622">😢</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f622" tseq="1f622">😢</EMOJI>

Lmao OP what a <EMOJI seq="1f921" tseq="1f921">🤡</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f921" tseq="1f921">🤡</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f921" tseq="1f921">🤡</EMOJI> idea. Goodbye and good riddance.

Perhaps now that it's a lamp, I could purchase this treasure at a reasonable price? :idk: