Straight versus f-attachment
- bcschipper
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sep 23, 2018
Recently in the mouthpiece section, somebody wrote that every mouthpiece is a compromise. So is every instrument. Why is it then that we mostly (almost exclusively) see large bore tenors with f-attachment on trombone 1 and 2? Most orchestral repertoire does not really need an f-attachment on trombone 1.
Here are some arguments for it:
- It is good to specialize on one instrument that is sufficiently versatile to everything.
- Modern large bore tenors with f-attachment are similar (i.e., free-blowing) to straight tenors.
Against it:
- It is good to tailor the tools to the task.
- Straight tenors play differently than f-attachment tenors.
Perhaps the topic had been discussed in the old tromboneforum. But I could find it in the archive.
Here are some arguments for it:
- It is good to specialize on one instrument that is sufficiently versatile to everything.
- Modern large bore tenors with f-attachment are similar (i.e., free-blowing) to straight tenors.
Against it:
- It is good to tailor the tools to the task.
- Straight tenors play differently than f-attachment tenors.
Perhaps the topic had been discussed in the old tromboneforum. But I could find it in the archive.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
The 8H is a completely different monster to the 88H, for one example.
Also, the added mass of a valve section can put that weight you want into the sound as an orchestral player.
Also, the added mass of a valve section can put that weight you want into the sound as an orchestral player.
- sirisobhakya
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Jun 11, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]Also, the added mass of a valve section can put that weight you want into the sound as an orchestral player.[/quote]
For the sake of curiosity, between the added mass from F-attachment tubing and the added mass from a (similarly weighted) counterweight, would there be much different in the sound? Has anyone tried comparing, for example, Bach 36C or 42C plus custom-made counterweight on the straight horns side-by-side?
For the sake of curiosity, between the added mass from F-attachment tubing and the added mass from a (similarly weighted) counterweight, would there be much different in the sound? Has anyone tried comparing, for example, Bach 36C or 42C plus custom-made counterweight on the straight horns side-by-side?
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
Yes, there is a difference. The mass on an F attachment (or two valve vs. one valve bass) is in the way of the air column, not just hanging onto a brace.
- Falin
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Jul 06, 2018
Actually, I find the f-attachement very useful for both trombone 1 and 2, although mostly trombone 2.
- walldaja
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Jul 11, 2018
I find the Bb / F trombone provides extra flexibility that I like to have. Currently reading from first and second books and find ample opportunity to pull the trigger on a lot of the pieces we play. This is especially true when the stage gets crowded and the chairs / stands in front of you become a slide obstacle course. In one group I played in I was always stuck in a very confined space--no room in front of me beyond fourth position and had to lean forward to avoid hitting stuff behind me. I ended up bringing my euphonium. The director said he wanted the trombone sound and I told him he could get it if he gave me some trombone space--space never was allocated so he kept getting the euphonium.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
There are lots of times where a smaller tenor can be an advantage in orchestra.
One time I brought my 1925 Olds (TIS) when we were playing Sibelius 2nd Symphony. There are some areas where the trombones have to blend with horns and tuba and I discovered that the blend with the horns was really better than when I used my regular 0.547" tenor with F.
Some French lit is written for one trombone and a small one fits the smaller orchestra.
Ravel was looking for a jazz trombone for that solo in Bolero. Then again, the usual instrument being played at the time would be considered small bore today.
One time I brought my 1925 Olds (TIS) when we were playing Sibelius 2nd Symphony. There are some areas where the trombones have to blend with horns and tuba and I discovered that the blend with the horns was really better than when I used my regular 0.547" tenor with F.
Some French lit is written for one trombone and a small one fits the smaller orchestra.
Ravel was looking for a jazz trombone for that solo in Bolero. Then again, the usual instrument being played at the time would be considered small bore today.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
Lots of considerations. How much bracing, weight of tubing, shape of the air, leaks in the rotor etc.
I tend to prefer F attachments over straight horns. I find that rotaries allow for a slightly more ease of articulation at the expense of what Ben Griffin (previously at Shires) called a 'halo' of sound. The thayers are generally on the opposite side of that spectrum. I find the 'straighter' valves like Hagmanns and Tru-Bores to be somewhat in the middle (as well as straight neckpipes). But, of course, there are so many variables that I've played great horns with and without valves, with a variety of configurations etc.
That's one of the advantage of stock horns. They largely have the R&D done for the combination they offer and have a generally well balanced instrument.
I tend to prefer F attachments over straight horns. I find that rotaries allow for a slightly more ease of articulation at the expense of what Ben Griffin (previously at Shires) called a 'halo' of sound. The thayers are generally on the opposite side of that spectrum. I find the 'straighter' valves like Hagmanns and Tru-Bores to be somewhat in the middle (as well as straight neckpipes). But, of course, there are so many variables that I've played great horns with and without valves, with a variety of configurations etc.
That's one of the advantage of stock horns. They largely have the R&D done for the combination they offer and have a generally well balanced instrument.
- whitbey
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Straight horns just sound sweeter. Valves are more versatile.
Pick the tool you need.
I play a straight horn in orchestra and band most of the time. Through a part at me that needs a valve and I put the valve on.
If you play a modular horn this is easy. If you have one horn and it is not modular then it is best to have a valve.
Pick the tool you need.
I play a straight horn in orchestra and band most of the time. Through a part at me that needs a valve and I put the valve on.
If you play a modular horn this is easy. If you have one horn and it is not modular then it is best to have a valve.
- bcschipper
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sep 23, 2018
I meant to compare straight versus f-attachement trombones with the same bore. It is interesting and telling that nowadays we almost automatically associate straight trombones with small bore and f-attachment with large bore.
I own a modular trombone. I played all the time with f-attachement until recently in Mahler 5. I really liked it. Sure, f-attachment adds convenience but I value sound and control much more.
The straight configuration provides for even easier attacks, even wider dynamic range, and an even wider range of sound colors.
I don't understand the effect of the weight (no matter whether in the air column or on the brace). There were trombone makers who aimed for the lightest construction possible with extremely thin materials. I like to feel the resonance. In the straight configuration, my trombone has neither a brace nor a counterweight.
I don't know yet what I should understand under "halo" sound. Sounds intriguing.
I don't know many professionals who exclusively play straight trombones in orchestra. One that comes to mind is Christhard Goessling from the Berlin Philharmonic (who plays the same instrument as I). But even professionals who sometimes swtch to it in orchestra are rare. I still find it puzzling. Why does everyone seem to value a little convenience more than sound and expressiveness? Or to put it differently, why do most players resolve the compromise presented by the instrument in the same way?
I own a modular trombone. I played all the time with f-attachement until recently in Mahler 5. I really liked it. Sure, f-attachment adds convenience but I value sound and control much more.
The straight configuration provides for even easier attacks, even wider dynamic range, and an even wider range of sound colors.
I don't understand the effect of the weight (no matter whether in the air column or on the brace). There were trombone makers who aimed for the lightest construction possible with extremely thin materials. I like to feel the resonance. In the straight configuration, my trombone has neither a brace nor a counterweight.
I don't know yet what I should understand under "halo" sound. Sounds intriguing.
I don't know many professionals who exclusively play straight trombones in orchestra. One that comes to mind is Christhard Goessling from the Berlin Philharmonic (who plays the same instrument as I). But even professionals who sometimes swtch to it in orchestra are rare. I still find it puzzling. Why does everyone seem to value a little convenience more than sound and expressiveness? Or to put it differently, why do most players resolve the compromise presented by the instrument in the same way?
- brtnats
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Apr 26, 2018
When I downsized to 2 horns last year, a major question I wanted to answer was what kind of tenor trombone did I actually NEED, and could I align my NEEDS with my WANTS. This is just my perspective, so keep in mind I’m a dedicated amateur who plays a lot, but my career isn’t on the line if I show up with the wrong horn.
I played a Bach 36C for about 10 years as my main horn. During that time, I almost always played it with the valve section in place, even though I liked the feel of the straight horn better. I kept the valve because I wanted to have the option to use it if I needed it. So yes, I sacrificed a better feeling horn for more options.
When I decided to consolidate down my horns, I took a good hard look at the kind of playing I was doing, the kind I anticipated doing, and the kind I wanted to do. Nothing in that required a tenor with an F attachment. So I auditioned some horns...I think it was 3. Two were Yamaha’s with F attachments and one was a straight .508 tenor. Compared back to back, the straight tenor was just *better*. Easier to hold, easier to play, easier to color, easier to carry around. Every time I went back to the F attachment horns, I immediately missed the “colorability” of the sound; they wanted to play one way and I had to conform to that. Straight horn just wanted to do whatever I wanted to do. So that’s what I went with.
I don’t play in orchestras, and I have a bass trombone for tricky valve things. There’s nothing I’ve come across in tenor trombone that I haven’t been able to play with a straight. Would a valve make it easier? Absolutely. But I’m convinced that straight horns give you more brushes to paint with at the expense of about 5 notes on the canvas.
I played a Bach 36C for about 10 years as my main horn. During that time, I almost always played it with the valve section in place, even though I liked the feel of the straight horn better. I kept the valve because I wanted to have the option to use it if I needed it. So yes, I sacrificed a better feeling horn for more options.
When I decided to consolidate down my horns, I took a good hard look at the kind of playing I was doing, the kind I anticipated doing, and the kind I wanted to do. Nothing in that required a tenor with an F attachment. So I auditioned some horns...I think it was 3. Two were Yamaha’s with F attachments and one was a straight .508 tenor. Compared back to back, the straight tenor was just *better*. Easier to hold, easier to play, easier to color, easier to carry around. Every time I went back to the F attachment horns, I immediately missed the “colorability” of the sound; they wanted to play one way and I had to conform to that. Straight horn just wanted to do whatever I wanted to do. So that’s what I went with.
I don’t play in orchestras, and I have a bass trombone for tricky valve things. There’s nothing I’ve come across in tenor trombone that I haven’t been able to play with a straight. Would a valve make it easier? Absolutely. But I’m convinced that straight horns give you more brushes to paint with at the expense of about 5 notes on the canvas.
- BillO
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Playing a bass over the last two years or so has taught me many tricks with the F valve. It's not just for avoiding 6th and 7th. A few months back I had a piece where I needed to play a middle-C, Bb, Ab sequence repeatedly up and down at breakneck speed. Using the valve turned it into a simple thumb squeeze and a flip of my right wrist rather than flailing from 3rd to 1st. That's only one example out of a whole different layer of alternate positions.
I've seen top guy's like Christian Lindberg and Alain Trudel use the valve in the mid range too, for added virtuosity. I suspect most top pro's will take any advantage they can get and that might help explain the popularity of F-atts in orchestras.
I've seen top guy's like Christian Lindberg and Alain Trudel use the valve in the mid range too, for added virtuosity. I suspect most top pro's will take any advantage they can get and that might help explain the popularity of F-atts in orchestras.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
The F valve is for lip trills in the middle register
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
Here's another way to look at it... 85 percent of orchestral lit for the bass trombonist could be played on a single bass. Do we see those in orchestras? No.
I think it's a similar situation. As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.
I think it's a similar situation. As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.
- bcschipper
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sep 23, 2018
How often do we play lip drills in orchestra? How often do we need to play exactly those notes so fast that we would be better off with a valve? I do not deny that the f-attachment comes handy sometimes but most of the times we do not really need it when playing trombone 1 in orchestra.
[quote="Burgerbob"]Here's another way to look at it... 85 percent of orchestral lit for the bass trombonist could be played on a single bass. Do we see those in orchestras? No.[/quote]
I think the marginal effect of going from no valve to one valve is larger than from going from one valve to two valves. But I am not a bass trombonist to judge.
[quote="Burgerbob"]... As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.[/quote]
That's the most compelling argument so far except that as principal trombone your are expected to be equally proficient on alto trombone anyway. So if we can know two instruments very well, why can't we know three instruments equally well. I am sure there is a limit but why does it have to be only one instrument that we could know well?
[quote="Burgerbob"]Here's another way to look at it... 85 percent of orchestral lit for the bass trombonist could be played on a single bass. Do we see those in orchestras? No.[/quote]
I think the marginal effect of going from no valve to one valve is larger than from going from one valve to two valves. But I am not a bass trombonist to judge.
[quote="Burgerbob"]... As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.[/quote]
That's the most compelling argument so far except that as principal trombone your are expected to be equally proficient on alto trombone anyway. So if we can know two instruments very well, why can't we know three instruments equally well. I am sure there is a limit but why does it have to be only one instrument that we could know well?
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
Why put in any more work than necessary? Keeping up alto and a main instrument is hard enough with 6 or 7 services a week.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="bcschipper"]How often do we play lip drills in orchestra? How often do we need to play exactly those notes so fast that we would be better off with a valve? I do not deny that the f-attachment comes handy sometimes but most of the times we do not really need it when playing trombone 1 in orchestra.
<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="73467" time="1545356253" user_id="3131">
Here's another way to look at it... 85 percent of orchestral lit for the bass trombonist could be played on a single bass. Do we see those in orchestras? No.[/quote]
I think the marginal effect of going from no valve to one valve is larger than from going from one valve to two valves. But I am not a bass trombonist to judge.
[quote="Burgerbob"]... As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.[/quote]
That's the most compelling argument so far except that as principal trombone your are expected to be equally proficient on alto trombone anyway. So if we can know two instruments very well, why can't we know three instruments equally well. I am sure there is a limit but why does it have to be only one instrument that we could know well?
</QUOTE>
This is getting silly. Obviously, play the instrument you feel most comfortable on. End of story.
Straight vs Valve, sound wise is the same. No one in the audience will know the difference. A trombonist listening to you and blindfolded wouldn't know the difference until you actually used the valve. This is a different matter from a .500 bore vs. .547, where there would be a difference to the audience even if they couldn't quite tell you what the difference was. People saying that a straight trombone sounds more pure probably are confusing "feel" with "sound".
If weight is a problem, I guess it makes a difference. But not like some of these huge bass trombones.
Straight vs. Valve in terms of feel -- different. But you get used to one or the other, or both. It's not a huge difference. Not really a game changer.
I get a kick out of the new straight version of the Edwards Alessi model. I believe the page mentions Bolero and the trombone solo in it. I think that beings up the real issue here, which is listening with your eyes.
Just play something that works well, and don't kid yourself that there is some secret magic hidden in a straight .547. There really isn't. It's just you and your playing.
Consider a person who owns two identical cars, except that one has cruise control. They only use the cruise control model on trips that go more than 100 miles. Or someone who only carries a pocket knife on days when they have planned in advance that they will use it. Just carry a pocket knife.
<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="73467" time="1545356253" user_id="3131">
Here's another way to look at it... 85 percent of orchestral lit for the bass trombonist could be played on a single bass. Do we see those in orchestras? No.[/quote]
I think the marginal effect of going from no valve to one valve is larger than from going from one valve to two valves. But I am not a bass trombonist to judge.
[quote="Burgerbob"]... As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.[/quote]
That's the most compelling argument so far except that as principal trombone your are expected to be equally proficient on alto trombone anyway. So if we can know two instruments very well, why can't we know three instruments equally well. I am sure there is a limit but why does it have to be only one instrument that we could know well?
</QUOTE>
This is getting silly. Obviously, play the instrument you feel most comfortable on. End of story.
Straight vs Valve, sound wise is the same. No one in the audience will know the difference. A trombonist listening to you and blindfolded wouldn't know the difference until you actually used the valve. This is a different matter from a .500 bore vs. .547, where there would be a difference to the audience even if they couldn't quite tell you what the difference was. People saying that a straight trombone sounds more pure probably are confusing "feel" with "sound".
If weight is a problem, I guess it makes a difference. But not like some of these huge bass trombones.
Straight vs. Valve in terms of feel -- different. But you get used to one or the other, or both. It's not a huge difference. Not really a game changer.
I get a kick out of the new straight version of the Edwards Alessi model. I believe the page mentions Bolero and the trombone solo in it. I think that beings up the real issue here, which is listening with your eyes.
Just play something that works well, and don't kid yourself that there is some secret magic hidden in a straight .547. There really isn't. It's just you and your playing.
Consider a person who owns two identical cars, except that one has cruise control. They only use the cruise control model on trips that go more than 100 miles. Or someone who only carries a pocket knife on days when they have planned in advance that they will use it. Just carry a pocket knife.
- bcschipper
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sep 23, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]
This is getting silly. Obviously, play the instrument you feel most comfortable on. End of story.
Straight vs Valve, sound wise is the same. No one in the audience will know the difference. A trombonist listening to you and blindfolded wouldn't know the difference until you actually used the valve. ... People saying that a straight trombone sounds more pure probably are confusing "feel" with "sound".
...
Straight vs. Valve in terms of feel -- different. But you get used to one or the other, or both. It's not a huge difference. Not really a game changer.[/quote]
The same holds for different leadpipes, raw vs. lacquered, Thayer vs. Hagmann vs. rotor, gold brass vs. nickel silver slide, gold plated vs. silver plated mouth piece, etc. No one in the audience will notice a difference. Nevertheless we do care because we are perfectionists spending long hours on long tones, slurs, attacks etc. Why is it that we seem to care more about optimizing over those things than straight vs. f-attachment?
[quote="harrisonreed"]Just play something that works well, and don't kid yourself that there is some secret magic hidden in a straight .547. There really isn't. It's just you and your playing.[/quote]
Generally I think that transforming the farting noise of our lips' vibration into a beautiful sound comes very close to some secret magic especially given how little we seem to know explicitly about the process and the exploding number of variables involved in it.
Because of the difficult optimization problem with so many variables involved, trombonist seem to employ a simplifying heuristic that seems to assume "play large bore with f-attachement in orchestra" and then optimize over the remaining variables. I don’t find it silly to question the wisdom of this simplifying assumption
This is getting silly. Obviously, play the instrument you feel most comfortable on. End of story.
Straight vs Valve, sound wise is the same. No one in the audience will know the difference. A trombonist listening to you and blindfolded wouldn't know the difference until you actually used the valve. ... People saying that a straight trombone sounds more pure probably are confusing "feel" with "sound".
...
Straight vs. Valve in terms of feel -- different. But you get used to one or the other, or both. It's not a huge difference. Not really a game changer.[/quote]
The same holds for different leadpipes, raw vs. lacquered, Thayer vs. Hagmann vs. rotor, gold brass vs. nickel silver slide, gold plated vs. silver plated mouth piece, etc. No one in the audience will notice a difference. Nevertheless we do care because we are perfectionists spending long hours on long tones, slurs, attacks etc. Why is it that we seem to care more about optimizing over those things than straight vs. f-attachment?
[quote="harrisonreed"]Just play something that works well, and don't kid yourself that there is some secret magic hidden in a straight .547. There really isn't. It's just you and your playing.[/quote]
Generally I think that transforming the farting noise of our lips' vibration into a beautiful sound comes very close to some secret magic especially given how little we seem to know explicitly about the process and the exploding number of variables involved in it.
Because of the difficult optimization problem with so many variables involved, trombonist seem to employ a simplifying heuristic that seems to assume "play large bore with f-attachement in orchestra" and then optimize over the remaining variables. I don’t find it silly to question the wisdom of this simplifying assumption
- imsevimse
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: Apr 29, 2018
I have experimented with this.
- King 3b versus King 3b with F-valve
- Benge 190C that is convertible
- Schilke ST20 that is convertable
- Benge 170 versus a Benge 170f
(Update: I mixed up the modelnumbers on those last, they are 175 and 175f not 170. Thanks Bruce)
My experience is I rather use the option that has the valve. Every time I've played the straight version of the horn I've ended up missing the valve <EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI>
There is a difference in feel as several have pointed, and you can experience the non valve horn as more open and a horn with valve as more compact. It is similar as the difference to play with or without the balance weight, if you have tried that. It seems the weight of the horn is what matters.
In the audience they will probably not notice this and in my recordings it is not heard. Lots of things I think I hear in the sound live when I switch between different horns are not heard in the recordings. I have no answer to this though. I have good recording equipments. The straight horn sound versus the sound of a horn with f-valve is not big enough to be picked up by a microphone to my experience. Different brand is not picked up either.
The difference in size on the other hand is heard in the recordings, and the playability.
What I think is strange is some differences are very subtle. I can play a horn at home which records good and experience it as very nice but in a section it may be an odd bird. The other players also pick up the small differences. Sometimes they like a horn I bring and sometimes they don't. My Nauman microphone does not reveal this.
My conclusions are:
1. microphones lie very much.
2. speakers lie too.
A parenthesis
It is difficult (for me) to remember a sound in complete details. Do this experiment; If you close your eyes can you really imagine the colour "blue" in detail without thinking of something specific, like the sky for instance? I find it extremely hard. Is it just me? To me it is the same with sounds. It is therefore easier to imagine someone else's sound. I just think of a situation with that person. It is very different to focus on a sound that comes from two different versions of a King 3b horn when I play them.
This is psychic <EMOJI seq="1f617" tseq="1f617">😗</EMOJI>
/Tom
- King 3b versus King 3b with F-valve
- Benge 190C that is convertible
- Schilke ST20 that is convertable
- Benge 170 versus a Benge 170f
(Update: I mixed up the modelnumbers on those last, they are 175 and 175f not 170. Thanks Bruce)
My experience is I rather use the option that has the valve. Every time I've played the straight version of the horn I've ended up missing the valve <EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI>
There is a difference in feel as several have pointed, and you can experience the non valve horn as more open and a horn with valve as more compact. It is similar as the difference to play with or without the balance weight, if you have tried that. It seems the weight of the horn is what matters.
In the audience they will probably not notice this and in my recordings it is not heard. Lots of things I think I hear in the sound live when I switch between different horns are not heard in the recordings. I have no answer to this though. I have good recording equipments. The straight horn sound versus the sound of a horn with f-valve is not big enough to be picked up by a microphone to my experience. Different brand is not picked up either.
The difference in size on the other hand is heard in the recordings, and the playability.
What I think is strange is some differences are very subtle. I can play a horn at home which records good and experience it as very nice but in a section it may be an odd bird. The other players also pick up the small differences. Sometimes they like a horn I bring and sometimes they don't. My Nauman microphone does not reveal this.
My conclusions are:
1. microphones lie very much.
2. speakers lie too.
A parenthesis
It is difficult (for me) to remember a sound in complete details. Do this experiment; If you close your eyes can you really imagine the colour "blue" in detail without thinking of something specific, like the sky for instance? I find it extremely hard. Is it just me? To me it is the same with sounds. It is therefore easier to imagine someone else's sound. I just think of a situation with that person. It is very different to focus on a sound that comes from two different versions of a King 3b horn when I play them.
This is psychic <EMOJI seq="1f617" tseq="1f617">😗</EMOJI>
/Tom
- imsevimse
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: Apr 29, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]You had a Benge 170 with F? :amazed: Or was it a 175?[/quote]
Yes you are right I compared a 175 and a 175f. For the record I have a 170 "Freelance" too. It is a different one. Thanks! <EMOJI seq="1f44d" tseq="1f44d">👍</EMOJI>
Yes you are right I compared a 175 and a 175f. For the record I have a 170 "Freelance" too. It is a different one. Thanks! <EMOJI seq="1f44d" tseq="1f44d">👍</EMOJI>
- Ndwood
- Posts: 66
- Joined: May 11, 2018
Hmmmmmmmm a 1920's Kruspe that plays better without the removable valve, we have a real mystery here.....
- imsevimse
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: Apr 29, 2018
[quote="Ndwood"]Hmmmmmmmm a 1920's Kruspe that plays better without the removable valve, we have a real mystery here.....[/quote]
No mystery there. I have a couple of Holton TR-185 both with optional F-valve. They play better without the valve. My first bass was a Yamaha 612R with Eb or D/Db slide for second valve. That was first time I noticed the mass influenced the resonance of the horn. It made me remove the second slide completely and I put stops in the two tubes to prevent dirt. The horn was even better. I thought I could just find a chunk of a garden hoose to connect the two tubes, that would be the shortest and to add less weight. Never did that instead I bought a second D-valve and had a technician rebuild it to make the shortest possible slide to insert to became a slide in E. This was long before I become a collector and I never saw as an option to buy another bass trombone <EMOJI seq="1f617" tseq="1f617">😗</EMOJI>. The operation left me with the choice of a dependent setup with second valve in E/bE, Eb, D/Db + a choice of C, B on second valve since I had the technician solder what was left of the D slide to an huge extension tube <EMOJI seq="1f606" tseq="1f606">😆</EMOJI>. Crazy because that really makes the horn bad. I have never used that but it was fun for an experiment. At the time I did this (late 80ies) I had no idea that E tuning was how the first double valve trombones were built. It was before the great expansion of the Internet. The horn was better with the shortest slide inserted but still better without any second tuning slide at all.
Another question is if an audience will pick up the difference? No probably not.
/Tom
No mystery there. I have a couple of Holton TR-185 both with optional F-valve. They play better without the valve. My first bass was a Yamaha 612R with Eb or D/Db slide for second valve. That was first time I noticed the mass influenced the resonance of the horn. It made me remove the second slide completely and I put stops in the two tubes to prevent dirt. The horn was even better. I thought I could just find a chunk of a garden hoose to connect the two tubes, that would be the shortest and to add less weight. Never did that instead I bought a second D-valve and had a technician rebuild it to make the shortest possible slide to insert to became a slide in E. This was long before I become a collector and I never saw as an option to buy another bass trombone <EMOJI seq="1f617" tseq="1f617">😗</EMOJI>. The operation left me with the choice of a dependent setup with second valve in E/bE, Eb, D/Db + a choice of C, B on second valve since I had the technician solder what was left of the D slide to an huge extension tube <EMOJI seq="1f606" tseq="1f606">😆</EMOJI>. Crazy because that really makes the horn bad. I have never used that but it was fun for an experiment. At the time I did this (late 80ies) I had no idea that E tuning was how the first double valve trombones were built. It was before the great expansion of the Internet. The horn was better with the shortest slide inserted but still better without any second tuning slide at all.
Another question is if an audience will pick up the difference? No probably not.
/Tom
- henrikbe
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Apr 04, 2018
I'm a bit surprised that price has not yet been mentioned. I suppose an added 500 or 1000 USD is not that big of a deal for many people, but if you have a limited amount of money to spend (which most of us have), then buying a straight horn instead of a horn with an F attachment would probably allow you to get a better horn overall. For example, for the money you would have to spend on a new Conn 88H, which is, of course, a good horn, you could probably get some straight Lätzsch, which could likely be a fantastic horn (IMHO - I have only played one Lätzsch horn once, but it was by a far amount the best trombone I have ever tested. So much more colourful and more fun to play than my Conn 88H).
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
The thing is, having an F attachment is absolutely necessary for a lot of the playing an orchestral trombonist (or an aspiring one) does. When you play 2nd, when you play solos...some 1st trombone parts do actually need (or is facilitated by) the valve. So, every orchestral trombonist's main axe has to be a .547 Bb/F and unless that main horn is convertible, a straight 547 is probably one of the last horns you'll get, after an alto, a bass, a small tenor, and maybe doubling instruments like bass trumpet, euphonium, etc. Unless you win a full time principal job where you decide to commit to playing only a straight horn, and don't do much solo work nor teaching (since students are also usually not on straight horns), that Bb/F horn will always stay the instrument you're most familiar with and spend most time on.
As Harrison said, nobody in the audience, trombonists included, would be able to hear a difference in sound, so it's just a question of feel. Maybe the straight horn has a different and "better" feel, but for no difference in sound, I think most players will prefer the reliability of using the horn that you're already using most of the time, and when they want a different sound and feel, then switch to a different instrument that offers more difference than a straight 547 (like a medium or small tenor).
As Harrison said, nobody in the audience, trombonists included, would be able to hear a difference in sound, so it's just a question of feel. Maybe the straight horn has a different and "better" feel, but for no difference in sound, I think most players will prefer the reliability of using the horn that you're already using most of the time, and when they want a different sound and feel, then switch to a different instrument that offers more difference than a straight 547 (like a medium or small tenor).
- SwissTbone
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="henrikbe"]I'm a bit surprised that price has not yet been mentioned. I suppose an added 500 or 1000 USD is not that big of a deal for many people, but if you have a limited amount of money to spend (which most of us have), then buying a straight horn instead of a horn with an F attachment would probably allow you to get a better horn overall. For example, for the money you would have to spend on a new Conn 88H, which is, of course, a good horn, you could probably get some straight Lätzsch, which could likely be a fantastic horn (IMHO - I have only played one Lätzsch horn once, but it was by a far amount the best trombone I have ever tested. So much more colourful and more fun to play than my Conn 88H).
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.[/quote]
Good point!
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.[/quote]
Good point!
- SwissTbone
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]The thing is, having an F attachment is absolutely necessary for a lot of the playing an orchestral trombonist (or an aspiring one) does. When you play 2nd, when you play solos...some 1st trombone parts do actually need (or is facilitated by) the valve. So, every orchestral trombonist's main axe has to be a .547 Bb/F and unless that main horn is convertible, a straight 547 is probably one of the last horns you'll get, after an alto, a bass, a small tenor, and maybe doubling instruments like bass trumpet, euphonium, etc. Unless you win a full time principal job where you decide to commit to playing only a straight horn, and don't do much solo work nor teaching (since students are also usually not on straight horns), that Bb/F horn will always stay the instrument you're most familiar with and spend most time on.[/quote]
Even better point :-)
Even better point :-)
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="henrikbe"]I'm a bit surprised that price has not yet been mentioned. I suppose an added 500 or 1000 USD is not that big of a deal for many people, but if you have a limited amount of money to spend (which most of us have), then buying a straight horn instead of a horn with an F attachment would probably allow you to get a better horn overall. For example, for the money you would have to spend on a new Conn 88H, which is, of course, a good horn, you could probably get some straight Lätzsch, which could likely be a fantastic horn (IMHO - I have only played one Lätzsch horn once, but it was by a far amount the best trombone I have ever tested. So much more colourful and more fun to play than my Conn 88H).
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.[/quote]
The price logic goes the other way, because you can't have only a straight horn and no attachment if you're an aspiring orchestral trombone player. You need the Bb/F horn anyway, so the straight 547 is not saving you money/getting a better horn for the same price, it's costing you the entire price of another instrument.
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.[/quote]
The price logic goes the other way, because you can't have only a straight horn and no attachment if you're an aspiring orchestral trombone player. You need the Bb/F horn anyway, so the straight 547 is not saving you money/getting a better horn for the same price, it's costing you the entire price of another instrument.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]There are lots of times where a smaller tenor can be an advantage in orchestra.
One time I brought my 1925 Olds (TIS) when we were playing Sibelius 2nd Symphony. There are some areas where the trombones have to blend with horns and tuba and I discovered that the blend with the horns was really better than when I used my regular 0.547" tenor with F.[/quote]
Absolutely! I had the same experience on Rachmaninoff when I decided to play a rehearsal on the 6H I was selling to a guy later that day instead of carrying two horns. Colleagues weren't too happy when I took the horn out of the case and thought it would be terrible for the blend. Turned out to be the best blend we've ever had on that program. Not good for all music of course, but there is an unjustified stigma around the small bore tenor and an assumption that it can't or shouldn't be used in orchestral setting.
[quote="BGuttman"]Ravel was looking for a jazz trombone for that solo in Bolero.[/quote]
Was he? I doubt Ravel new the difference. Plus there really wasn't a difference.
[quote="BGuttman"]Then again, the usual instrument being played at the time would be considered small bore today.[/quote]
It would be considered more than small, even unusably small, by many. French trombones had a .452 bore, sometimes smaller...
One time I brought my 1925 Olds (TIS) when we were playing Sibelius 2nd Symphony. There are some areas where the trombones have to blend with horns and tuba and I discovered that the blend with the horns was really better than when I used my regular 0.547" tenor with F.[/quote]
Absolutely! I had the same experience on Rachmaninoff when I decided to play a rehearsal on the 6H I was selling to a guy later that day instead of carrying two horns. Colleagues weren't too happy when I took the horn out of the case and thought it would be terrible for the blend. Turned out to be the best blend we've ever had on that program. Not good for all music of course, but there is an unjustified stigma around the small bore tenor and an assumption that it can't or shouldn't be used in orchestral setting.
[quote="BGuttman"]Ravel was looking for a jazz trombone for that solo in Bolero.[/quote]
Was he? I doubt Ravel new the difference. Plus there really wasn't a difference.
[quote="BGuttman"]Then again, the usual instrument being played at the time would be considered small bore today.[/quote]
It would be considered more than small, even unusably small, by many. French trombones had a .452 bore, sometimes smaller...
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
Bringing up small bore is different from straight vs. F attachment. Completely different subject.
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
I think a lot of it is how we perceive a lighterweight instrument (as in, an instrument that weighs less) as being different than an instrument that weighs more. I almost exclusively play horns w/ F attachments more now and when I go to play a horn without one, it feels very different to me and I find my approach naturally becomes lilghter but it's basically all in my head. I can put the F attachment back on the same horn and mentally put myself in the same place that I was with the straight horn and it feels exactly the same. That's anecdotal, of course, so grain of salt.
- sirisobhakya
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Jun 11, 2018
:lol: [quote="henrikbe"]I'm a bit surprised that price has not yet been mentioned. I suppose an added 500 or 1000 USD is not that big of a deal for many people, but if you have a limited amount of money to spend (which most of us have), then buying a straight horn instead of a horn with an F attachment would probably allow you to get a better horn overall. For example, for the money you would have to spend on a new Conn 88H, which is, of course, a good horn, you could probably get some straight Lätzsch, which could likely be a fantastic horn (IMHO - I have only played one Lätzsch horn once, but it was by a far amount the best trombone I have ever tested. So much more colourful and more fun to play than my Conn 88H).
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.[/quote]
Even if you are not an aspiring orchestral trombonist, and especially if your budget is tight and you cannot afford 2 horns, at least in the near future, I think it makes more sense to save up a little bit more and buy the F attachment version of the “good” horn. The versatility satisfies the cost plus, while the difference in sound and feel may not. For an amateur, a .547” with F attachment may be the only horn you need for almost your entire life, or at least until you save up enough money to buy the straight .547”. My bandmates in Japan use .547” for everything from Jazz, popular, to entirely classical music, with good enough result. A mouthpiece change is enough to change the color of the sound at this level.
So, whether or not straight vs f attachment on the same model makes a real, objective difference to the sound, I think straigh vs f attachment given the same budget could make a big difference.[/quote]
Even if you are not an aspiring orchestral trombonist, and especially if your budget is tight and you cannot afford 2 horns, at least in the near future, I think it makes more sense to save up a little bit more and buy the F attachment version of the “good” horn. The versatility satisfies the cost plus, while the difference in sound and feel may not. For an amateur, a .547” with F attachment may be the only horn you need for almost your entire life, or at least until you save up enough money to buy the straight .547”. My bandmates in Japan use .547” for everything from Jazz, popular, to entirely classical music, with good enough result. A mouthpiece change is enough to change the color of the sound at this level.
- bcschipper
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sep 23, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]...some 1st trombone parts do actually need (or is facilitated by) the valve. ...[/quote]
Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.
Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.
- StefanHaller
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="bcschipper"]Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.[/quote]
The solo in the first movement of Schostakowitsch 15 is very unpleasant to play without a valve. Possible, maybe, but I wouldn't want to do it.
The solo in the first movement of Schostakowitsch 15 is very unpleasant to play without a valve. Possible, maybe, but I wouldn't want to do it.
- SwissTbone
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Shostakovich Jazz Suite, the solo in the waltz would be really awkward without a valve.
- Pre59
- Posts: 372
- Joined: May 12, 2018
Shostakovich Jazz Suite. Play the F in 6, and to aid this, practice low G7 Arp's (no 1st position). It's really not written in the tenor trombones most flattering range either..
FWIW, Dudley Bright, the outgoing LSO principle tbn used a straight 88H every time I saw him play.
FWIW, Dudley Bright, the outgoing LSO principle tbn used a straight 88H every time I saw him play.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="bcschipper"]<QUOTE author="LeTromboniste" post_id="73922" time="1545999273" user_id="3038">
...some 1st trombone parts do actually need (or is facilitated by) the valve. ...[/quote]
Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.
</QUOTE>
There are a few examples of parts that can't be played without valve unless you take out some notes (granted, they are rare). For example, Mahler 3 has a low Db in all parts.
Then there are many more examples where the valve is really helpful. I would be unhappy without the valve in some French and Italian repertoire that have 1st trombone solos in the low range
...some 1st trombone parts do actually need (or is facilitated by) the valve. ...[/quote]
Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.
</QUOTE>
There are a few examples of parts that can't be played without valve unless you take out some notes (granted, they are rare). For example, Mahler 3 has a low Db in all parts.
Then there are many more examples where the valve is really helpful. I would be unhappy without the valve in some French and Italian repertoire that have 1st trombone solos in the low range
- sirisobhakya
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Jun 11, 2018
You can use Microsoft Paint to edit photo. But why spend more time and effort when you can add some money and do it much easier and with potentially much better result in Adobe Photoshop?
Same here. Some with fast arm and hand and good technique may be able to play everything on a straight trombone, but why do that when you can do it easier and potentially better with F attachment.
Same here. Some with fast arm and hand and good technique may be able to play everything on a straight trombone, but why do that when you can do it easier and potentially better with F attachment.
- imsevimse
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: Apr 29, 2018
If you play first and second parts in big bands exclusive then you do not need a valve, not even for third, even though you could have use of it there. I have never missed a trombone with valve for big band music.
The ambivalence is more for classical music and solos. I would say you definately need the valve if you do classical solo playing. Not for everything but in general it is handy. Personally I have missed the valve when I have a straight trombone more of convince than for necessary. The part can be played without a valve but it is easier with a valve. It is less slide movement and I do never need the 6th and 7th positions.
Most literature who have three or more parts does not require an f-valve on first and second. This is symphony orchestras, wind orchestras, 10 part brass ensambles, brass bands and trombone quartets. You can't be sure of course because there are exceptions but if you have a chance to see the part in advance you could rebuild your convertible horn. If you have both options and know what to expect then there is a lot of opportunities to use the straight horn.
I have long thought of bringing one of my straight horn to a trombone quartet rehearsal. The first and second part almost never require an f-valve, but as we rotate all tenor parts I know I will be playing third also. If you are prepared to do a few fake tones then you could do all of them. I have a straight Bach 42 I will bring next time. No audience cares, no one will appreciate the difference, none but me and it is just for fun and to feel the difference in resonance.
/Tom
The ambivalence is more for classical music and solos. I would say you definately need the valve if you do classical solo playing. Not for everything but in general it is handy. Personally I have missed the valve when I have a straight trombone more of convince than for necessary. The part can be played without a valve but it is easier with a valve. It is less slide movement and I do never need the 6th and 7th positions.
Most literature who have three or more parts does not require an f-valve on first and second. This is symphony orchestras, wind orchestras, 10 part brass ensambles, brass bands and trombone quartets. You can't be sure of course because there are exceptions but if you have a chance to see the part in advance you could rebuild your convertible horn. If you have both options and know what to expect then there is a lot of opportunities to use the straight horn.
I have long thought of bringing one of my straight horn to a trombone quartet rehearsal. The first and second part almost never require an f-valve, but as we rotate all tenor parts I know I will be playing third also. If you are prepared to do a few fake tones then you could do all of them. I have a straight Bach 42 I will bring next time. No audience cares, no one will appreciate the difference, none but me and it is just for fun and to feel the difference in resonance.
/Tom
- Pre59
- Posts: 372
- Joined: May 12, 2018
I sometimes wonder if the players who have problems with the lower positions are using a stiff vertical grip, rather than a more supple and open 45 degree one past the 4th. Also, whether much time has been spent learning to include these "alternate" shifts in normal practice? After all, it's the relative distance between the shifts that makes the difference, not how far down the slide they are.
- elmsandr
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Pre59"]I sometimes wonder if the players who have problems with the lower positions are using a stiff vertical grip, rather than a more supple and open 45 degree one past the 4th. Also, whether much time has been spent learning to include these "alternate" shifts in normal practice? After all, it's the relative distance between the shifts that makes the difference, not how far down the slide they are.[/quote]
Some of it is just how far out they are. I work in manufacturing.. in a production environment, I would get a yellow or red rating from the ergonomics team if I had an operator reaching for 6th and 7th for cyclic tasks, that is for tasks that need to be repeated too frequently. Ergonomics is all about force, frequency, and posture. Posture stinks for 6th and 7th, so anything to keep the frequency down is directionally correct.
Cheers,
Andy
Some of it is just how far out they are. I work in manufacturing.. in a production environment, I would get a yellow or red rating from the ergonomics team if I had an operator reaching for 6th and 7th for cyclic tasks, that is for tasks that need to be repeated too frequently. Ergonomics is all about force, frequency, and posture. Posture stinks for 6th and 7th, so anything to keep the frequency down is directionally correct.
Cheers,
Andy
- bcschipper
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Sep 23, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="bcschipper" post_id="74004" time="1546073899" user_id="3766">
Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.[/quote]
There are a few examples of parts that can't be played without valve unless you take out some notes (granted, they are rare). For example, Mahler 3 has a low Db in all parts.
Then there are many more examples where the valve is really helpful. I would be unhappy without the valve in some French and Italian repertoire that have 1st trombone solos in the low range
</QUOTE>
Interesting. For first trombone in Mahler 3rd I would immediately use a straight trombone. The straight trombone allows me to play the solo better. There is one low D and one Db in the part. But both are unison with 2nd trombone (the Db is unison also with 3rd trombone). And the low D comes after a glissando - easy to do with using a false low D.
I am not saying that straight trombone is a dominating choice. Obviously not. There are trade-offs as one sees in the Mahler 3rd example. But what I am surprised about is that the trade-off is almost always resolved in favor of the f-attachment. Most players seem to value "ergonomic" convenience more than purity of tone etc.
Here is Mahler 3rd played on straight trombone played by Andreas Kraft with the SWR Orchestra:
<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphoni ... index.html">https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphonieorchester/swr-web-concerts-mahler-3-antrittskonzert-teodor-currentzis/-/id=17055418/did=22506070/nid=17055418/xek0i/index.html</LINK_TEXT>
You may want "scroll" to 7:50 for the first solo.
Could you please point me to 1st trombone parts that actually need the valve? Thank you.[/quote]
There are a few examples of parts that can't be played without valve unless you take out some notes (granted, they are rare). For example, Mahler 3 has a low Db in all parts.
Then there are many more examples where the valve is really helpful. I would be unhappy without the valve in some French and Italian repertoire that have 1st trombone solos in the low range
</QUOTE>
Interesting. For first trombone in Mahler 3rd I would immediately use a straight trombone. The straight trombone allows me to play the solo better. There is one low D and one Db in the part. But both are unison with 2nd trombone (the Db is unison also with 3rd trombone). And the low D comes after a glissando - easy to do with using a false low D.
I am not saying that straight trombone is a dominating choice. Obviously not. There are trade-offs as one sees in the Mahler 3rd example. But what I am surprised about is that the trade-off is almost always resolved in favor of the f-attachment. Most players seem to value "ergonomic" convenience more than purity of tone etc.
Here is Mahler 3rd played on straight trombone played by Andreas Kraft with the SWR Orchestra:
<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphoni ... index.html">https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphonieorchester/swr-web-concerts-mahler-3-antrittskonzert-teodor-currentzis/-/id=17055418/did=22506070/nid=17055418/xek0i/index.html</LINK_TEXT>
You may want "scroll" to 7:50 for the first solo.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
I would challenge your comment as to "purity" of tone. I have no issue with the top players playing anything they want, since they sound great.
- sirisobhakya
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Jun 11, 2018
What is the point of purity of tone when the audience can hardly perceive the difference if at all? If one wants a straight horn for its blow/response, I can totally understand. Also, what is “purity” in the first place? A “correct” or “pure” trombone sound is a sound of straight trombone? Why is that so?
I think it is like saying a natural horn, or a single F horn, or a “french”-style horn has a “purer” sound than a double horn, which apparently is not the case for most hornists today.
And what if someone does not have a good false tone? I am only an amateur so I don't really know whether it is a 100% must-have skill or not. But from my experience, unlike tuba, the false tone is not as easy on a trombone as on a tuba or euphonium.
I think it is like saying a natural horn, or a single F horn, or a “french”-style horn has a “purer” sound than a double horn, which apparently is not the case for most hornists today.
And what if someone does not have a good false tone? I am only an amateur so I don't really know whether it is a 100% must-have skill or not. But from my experience, unlike tuba, the false tone is not as easy on a trombone as on a tuba or euphonium.
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Aside from situations where an f-attachment horn is required—the part demands it, you’re a conservatory student, etc.—it’s really a matter of preference. De gustibus non est disputandum.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
You're not going to convince most of the people here. This isn't really productive, but instead is just the OP continuing to argue a point that has been proven time and time again not to matter. Both ways can work.
But outside of period instrument ensembles, there's really no situation in which ONLY a straight horn will do. Even small bore trombones can have an f attachment. The opposite is true however, where an F attachment is a must.
You are clutching at straws and putting round pegs in square holes with the low D and Db false tone line of thought.
But outside of period instrument ensembles, there's really no situation in which ONLY a straight horn will do. Even small bore trombones can have an f attachment. The opposite is true however, where an F attachment is a must.
You are clutching at straws and putting round pegs in square holes with the low D and Db false tone line of thought.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="bcschipper"]<QUOTE author="LeTromboniste" post_id="74010" time="1546081311" user_id="3038">
There are a few examples of parts that can't be played without valve unless you take out some notes (granted, they are rare). For example, Mahler 3 has a low Db in all parts.
Then there are many more examples where the valve is really helpful. I would be unhappy without the valve in some French and Italian repertoire that have 1st trombone solos in the low range[/quote]
Interesting. For first trombone in Mahler 3rd I would immediately use a straight trombone. The straight trombone allows me to play the solo better. There is one low D and one Db in the part. But both are unison with 2nd trombone (the Db is unison also with 3rd trombone). And the low D comes after a glissando - easy to do with using a false low D.
I am not saying that straight trombone is a dominating choice. Obviously not. There are trade-offs as one sees in the Mahler 3rd example. But what I am surprised about is that the trade-off is almost always resolved in favor of the f-attachment. Most players seem to value "ergonomic" convenience more than purity of tone etc.
Here is Mahler 3rd played on straight trombone played by Andreas Kraft with the SWR Orchestra:
<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphoni ... index.html">https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphonieorchester/swr-web-concerts-mahler-3-antrittskonzert-teodor-currentzis/-/id=17055418/did=22506070/nid=17055418/xek0i/index.html</LINK_TEXT>
You may want "scroll" to 7:50 for the first solo.
</QUOTE>
Of course high level professionals will sound good on any horn they choose. And I'm not going to argue that this or this top level player is wrong in their choice of equipment. People can do whatever they want. Next time you play Mahler 3, you're free to do it on a straight horn and nobody cares. I'll point out that Mahler clearly intended 4 "tenorbass" in Bb/F, and if he wrote those low notes, then he wanted us to play then. So if playing the part on the intended instrument matters to you (it doesn't have to), that's one reason to play it with a Bb/F. Then again when I played that part the low Db didn't always speak (coming from a long stretch of playing loud and relatively high, that bit can be tricky) and I might as well have played it on a straight horn, so who am I to speak....
I don't think you understood my point though. I'm not saying because some 1st parts require having a Bb/F (or otherwise faking something) then we should play everything on that instrument. I'm a big fan of changing instruments to use the best tool for the job myself, and I'm not against people using straight horns more (but I'm also for people using smaller horns way more often). I was merely pointing out why Bb/F is the standard for orchestral players including principals and why I don't see it changing anytime soon.
There are a few examples of parts that can't be played without valve unless you take out some notes (granted, they are rare). For example, Mahler 3 has a low Db in all parts.
Then there are many more examples where the valve is really helpful. I would be unhappy without the valve in some French and Italian repertoire that have 1st trombone solos in the low range[/quote]
Interesting. For first trombone in Mahler 3rd I would immediately use a straight trombone. The straight trombone allows me to play the solo better. There is one low D and one Db in the part. But both are unison with 2nd trombone (the Db is unison also with 3rd trombone). And the low D comes after a glissando - easy to do with using a false low D.
I am not saying that straight trombone is a dominating choice. Obviously not. There are trade-offs as one sees in the Mahler 3rd example. But what I am surprised about is that the trade-off is almost always resolved in favor of the f-attachment. Most players seem to value "ergonomic" convenience more than purity of tone etc.
Here is Mahler 3rd played on straight trombone played by Andreas Kraft with the SWR Orchestra:
<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphoni ... index.html">https://www.swr.de/swr-classic/symphonieorchester/swr-web-concerts-mahler-3-antrittskonzert-teodor-currentzis/-/id=17055418/did=22506070/nid=17055418/xek0i/index.html</LINK_TEXT>
You may want "scroll" to 7:50 for the first solo.
</QUOTE>
Of course high level professionals will sound good on any horn they choose. And I'm not going to argue that this or this top level player is wrong in their choice of equipment. People can do whatever they want. Next time you play Mahler 3, you're free to do it on a straight horn and nobody cares. I'll point out that Mahler clearly intended 4 "tenorbass" in Bb/F, and if he wrote those low notes, then he wanted us to play then. So if playing the part on the intended instrument matters to you (it doesn't have to), that's one reason to play it with a Bb/F. Then again when I played that part the low Db didn't always speak (coming from a long stretch of playing loud and relatively high, that bit can be tricky) and I might as well have played it on a straight horn, so who am I to speak....
I don't think you understood my point though. I'm not saying because some 1st parts require having a Bb/F (or otherwise faking something) then we should play everything on that instrument. I'm a big fan of changing instruments to use the best tool for the job myself, and I'm not against people using straight horns more (but I'm also for people using smaller horns way more often). I was merely pointing out why Bb/F is the standard for orchestral players including principals and why I don't see it changing anytime soon.
- Pre59
- Posts: 372
- Joined: May 12, 2018
[quote="elmsandr"]
...if I had an operator reaching for 6th and 7th for cyclic tasks, that is for tasks that need to be repeated too frequently. Ergonomics is all about force, frequency, and posture. Posture stinks for 6th and 7th, so anything to keep the frequency down is directionally correct.
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
This task isn't being repeated frequently, and it's a small part of an orchestral trombonists task. There are other instruments that have physically uncomfortable challenges, and are overcome with practice and experience.
In for a penny.. The Shostakovich Jazz Suite 2nd movement solo would sound better played on a bass tbn anyway?
...if I had an operator reaching for 6th and 7th for cyclic tasks, that is for tasks that need to be repeated too frequently. Ergonomics is all about force, frequency, and posture. Posture stinks for 6th and 7th, so anything to keep the frequency down is directionally correct.
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
This task isn't being repeated frequently, and it's a small part of an orchestral trombonists task. There are other instruments that have physically uncomfortable challenges, and are overcome with practice and experience.
In for a penny.. The Shostakovich Jazz Suite 2nd movement solo would sound better played on a bass tbn anyway?
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Pre59"]<QUOTE author="elmsandr" post_id="74018" time="1546091549" user_id="147">
...if I had an operator reaching for 6th and 7th for cyclic tasks, that is for tasks that need to be repeated too frequently. Ergonomics is all about force, frequency, and posture. Posture stinks for 6th and 7th, so anything to keep the frequency down is directionally correct.
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
This task isn't being repeated frequently, and it's a small part of an orchestral trombonists task.
</QUOTE>
Yes, it is being repeated quite often. Even if the outer positions aren't needed dozens of times in a concert, a player isn't going to let them go unpracticed.
...if I had an operator reaching for 6th and 7th for cyclic tasks, that is for tasks that need to be repeated too frequently. Ergonomics is all about force, frequency, and posture. Posture stinks for 6th and 7th, so anything to keep the frequency down is directionally correct.
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
This task isn't being repeated frequently, and it's a small part of an orchestral trombonists task.
</QUOTE>
Yes, it is being repeated quite often. Even if the outer positions aren't needed dozens of times in a concert, a player isn't going to let them go unpracticed.
- Pre59
- Posts: 372
- Joined: May 12, 2018
I practice them and use them almost every time I play in public, in the form of tritone intervals.
Ain't no big deal..
Ain't no big deal..
- elmsandr
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Pre59"]I practice them and use them almost every time I play in public, in the form of tritone intervals.
Ain't no big deal..[/quote]
No big deal to you. I have tables of data that can tell us what percentage of people in each physical size range will have problems. That’s why there are industrial ergonomics.
Can it be done? Sure. Should it? Maybe not. Just because it was always done that way does not mean it should be done that way. Look at Mr. Yeo’s post about his new horn and the challenges he has seen with repeated stresses.
That said, still trying to build a long double slide in Eb so that I can use my straight Bach 45 in more settings...
Cheers,
Andy
Ain't no big deal..[/quote]
No big deal to you. I have tables of data that can tell us what percentage of people in each physical size range will have problems. That’s why there are industrial ergonomics.
Can it be done? Sure. Should it? Maybe not. Just because it was always done that way does not mean it should be done that way. Look at Mr. Yeo’s post about his new horn and the challenges he has seen with repeated stresses.
That said, still trying to build a long double slide in Eb so that I can use my straight Bach 45 in more settings...
Cheers,
Andy
- timothy42b
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Mar 27, 2018
[quote="elmsandr"]
That said, still trying to build a long double slide in Eb so that I can use my straight Bach 45 in more settings...
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
Would that be EEb? Sounds useful.
That said, still trying to build a long double slide in Eb so that I can use my straight Bach 45 in more settings...
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
Would that be EEb? Sounds useful.
- elmsandr
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="elmsandr" post_id="74127" time="1546205484" user_id="147">
That said, still trying to build a long double slide in Eb so that I can use my straight Bach 45 in more settings...
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
Would that be EEb? Sounds useful.
</QUOTE>
Yup. Also probably good for a double take or two with the straight bell section and the bass sound.
Lengths line up pretty good for some standard parts, too. Just have to take two slides, trim them a little bit and make them into one.
Staying somewhat on topic, this should also keep almost all reaches within ~20” of the center of the shoulder. That’s a pretty good reach distance that is good for over 95% of most populations.
Cheers,
Andy
That said, still trying to build a long double slide in Eb so that I can use my straight Bach 45 in more settings...
Cheers,
Andy[/quote]
Would that be EEb? Sounds useful.
</QUOTE>
Yup. Also probably good for a double take or two with the straight bell section and the bass sound.
Lengths line up pretty good for some standard parts, too. Just have to take two slides, trim them a little bit and make them into one.
Staying somewhat on topic, this should also keep almost all reaches within ~20” of the center of the shoulder. That’s a pretty good reach distance that is good for over 95% of most populations.
Cheers,
Andy
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
Osmun Brass actually made one of these for Doug Yeo some time ago. Used two Bach 50 slides and a custom bell section. Was in Eb. I think it got 9 positions on the double slide. They were showing it off one day I happened to be there and they let me toot on it. Except for the Bartok Gliss I wasn't sure what I'd so with the thing, but it was certainly impressive.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]Osmun Brass actually made one of these for Doug Yeo some time ago. Used two Bach 50 slides and a custom bell section. Was in Eb. I think it got 9 positions on the double slide. They were showing it off one day I happened to be there and they let me toot on it. Except for the Bartok Gliss I wasn't sure what I'd so with the thing, but it was certainly impressive.[/quote]
With a Bb valve?
With a Bb valve?
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="BGuttman" post_id="74195" time="1546267650" user_id="53">
Osmun Brass actually made one of these for Doug Yeo some time ago. Used two Bach 50 slides and a custom bell section. Was in Eb. I think it got 9 positions on the double slide. They were showing it off one day I happened to be there and they let me toot on it. Except for the Bartok Gliss I wasn't sure what I'd so with the thing, but it was certainly impressive.[/quote]
With a Bb valve?
</QUOTE>
No valve.
Osmun Brass actually made one of these for Doug Yeo some time ago. Used two Bach 50 slides and a custom bell section. Was in Eb. I think it got 9 positions on the double slide. They were showing it off one day I happened to be there and they let me toot on it. Except for the Bartok Gliss I wasn't sure what I'd so with the thing, but it was certainly impressive.[/quote]
With a Bb valve?
</QUOTE>
No valve.
- BillO
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Seems a bit weird to talk abut purity of tone and false notes in the same argument. I would be willing to bet every trombonist on earth could play a low Db with more purity of tone using an F-att than by doing it with false notes.
In any case, this thread seems to have gotten a bit silly. Play what suits <I><U>your</U></I> needs best. It seems obvious to me that most top symphony players use F-att instruments because they find it suits their needs better. If that's not your situation, then fine - play it straight. Why argue about it?
Happy and prosperous New Year to all!!! :good: :good: :good:
In any case, this thread seems to have gotten a bit silly. Play what suits <I><U>your</U></I> needs best. It seems obvious to me that most top symphony players use F-att instruments because they find it suits their needs better. If that's not your situation, then fine - play it straight. Why argue about it?
Happy and prosperous New Year to all!!! :good: :good: :good:
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
So opposed to valves that we must reinvent the tombone slide and give it even more bends so that we can be pure!
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait.
- sirisobhakya
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Jun 11, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]So opposed to valves that we must reinvent the tombone slide and give it even more bends so that we can be pure!
Oh, wait.[/quote]
Bend(s) in the valve and in the valve wrap is generally tighter than the bend in slide crook, so the argument is still valid...
I think...
Oh, wait.[/quote]
Bend(s) in the valve and in the valve wrap is generally tighter than the bend in slide crook, so the argument is still valid...
I think...
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
When so many people try out as many valves as possible because each one can have positive effects (or negative) on the resistance and response.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]<QUOTE author="LeTromboniste" post_id="74199" time="1546269914" user_id="3038">
With a Bb valve?[/quote]
No valve.
</QUOTE>
Then you can't play a Bartok gliss on it.
With a Bb valve?[/quote]
No valve.
</QUOTE>
Then you can't play a Bartok gliss on it.
- Mikebmiller
- Posts: 961
- Joined: Mar 27, 2018
[quote="BillO"]Why argue about it?[/quote]
Because this is the Internet and that’s what people do :biggrin: :biggrin:
Because this is the Internet and that’s what people do :biggrin: :biggrin:
- MStarke
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Jan 01, 2019
Although this is an older discussion just some additional thoughts as I have been thinking about this as well...
Please note that I am NOT a professional anymore - which means I basically do what I want and what I like in trombone playing.
My current orchestral tenor is a replica of a historical German trombone - conical bore, large bell (regular tenor mutes are too small), no valve and no tuning slide.
I love the sound and response, tuning in itself is surprisingly good. It's probably as close to a German trombone as you can get. The sound is very very lively and adaptable.
However it does lack some flexibility due to the missing valve and is overall not the easiest trombone to play due to the missing tuning slide and being quite front-heavy.
Also as a sidenote it does not work at all with typical American mouthpieces, but very well with special German mouthpieces (playing a Klier Gössling moouthpiece on it).
I wouldn't worry at all about using it in any orchestral playing that I still do. It's normally not too demanding and also does not have many surprises. So the missing valve and tuning slide can be easily compensated and it's all about the sound.
But thinking about e.g. brass ensemble gigs - where the sound would also be great - I would be a bit nervous about using it. Anything that requires more notes to be played than typical orchestral charts, parts that have quick passages in the lower range and also potentially more sight-reading just isn't where I would feel comfortable with this trombone.
Therefor - as soon as budget allows it again - I will probably get a typical American tenor with f attachment again.
Quite possibly an 88h - or one of the old and good Blessing copies if I can find one.
Of course I could also get a German trombone with attachment, however I have a Kruspe with attachment available from a friend if needed and also the American tenor would just be even more variation to my collection ;-)
Please note that I am NOT a professional anymore - which means I basically do what I want and what I like in trombone playing.
My current orchestral tenor is a replica of a historical German trombone - conical bore, large bell (regular tenor mutes are too small), no valve and no tuning slide.
I love the sound and response, tuning in itself is surprisingly good. It's probably as close to a German trombone as you can get. The sound is very very lively and adaptable.
However it does lack some flexibility due to the missing valve and is overall not the easiest trombone to play due to the missing tuning slide and being quite front-heavy.
Also as a sidenote it does not work at all with typical American mouthpieces, but very well with special German mouthpieces (playing a Klier Gössling moouthpiece on it).
I wouldn't worry at all about using it in any orchestral playing that I still do. It's normally not too demanding and also does not have many surprises. So the missing valve and tuning slide can be easily compensated and it's all about the sound.
But thinking about e.g. brass ensemble gigs - where the sound would also be great - I would be a bit nervous about using it. Anything that requires more notes to be played than typical orchestral charts, parts that have quick passages in the lower range and also potentially more sight-reading just isn't where I would feel comfortable with this trombone.
Therefor - as soon as budget allows it again - I will probably get a typical American tenor with f attachment again.
Quite possibly an 88h - or one of the old and good Blessing copies if I can find one.
Of course I could also get a German trombone with attachment, however I have a Kruspe with attachment available from a friend if needed and also the American tenor would just be even more variation to my collection ;-)
- Tremozl
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Jan 12, 2019
[quote="Burgerbob"]Here's another way to look at it... 85 percent of orchestral lit for the bass trombonist could be played on a single bass. Do we see those in orchestras? No.
I think it's a similar situation. As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.[/quote]
Having a Gb attachment allows a lot of flexibility and agility on bass, even if you don't need to play super low with both triggers down too often.
I think it's a similar situation. As an orchestral player, I want to know the instrument I'm using very well. Constantly swapping back and forth is not really how to do that.[/quote]
Having a Gb attachment allows a lot of flexibility and agility on bass, even if you don't need to play super low with both triggers down too often.
- Tremozl
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Jan 12, 2019
[quote="BGuttman"]Possibly, but if it was made in F it might do OK.[/quote]
F contra with double slide could definitely do Bartok, and the BBb contra can as well (though B is at the veeeery end of the slide. Most players will cite only 6 positions on the BBb contra but i can get the 7th.)
Off topic from the Bartok, after dicking around with my BBb contra paired with a Bass Bone slide (which puts it in Eb) I think an Eb contra with a Bb and C trigger would be a really free blowing horn with a bit better low range than the F. With the BBb style bell section it could even sound like a bigger horn too, rather than how the F's sound.
F contra with double slide could definitely do Bartok, and the BBb contra can as well (though B is at the veeeery end of the slide. Most players will cite only 6 positions on the BBb contra but i can get the 7th.)
Off topic from the Bartok, after dicking around with my BBb contra paired with a Bass Bone slide (which puts it in Eb) I think an Eb contra with a Bb and C trigger would be a really free blowing horn with a bit better low range than the F. With the BBb style bell section it could even sound like a bigger horn too, rather than how the F's sound.