Trombone’s limited audience appeal for solo career

fiddlefestival · 2025-03-27 1:10 p.m.

As a newcomer to trombone, I have only been familiar with a handful of trombonists until recently. I learned about many more on this forum and started to work my way through your lists of essential/renowned/favorite trombonists on Spotify. It surprised me how few listeners many have, despite often very long lists of recordings under their name. Are trombonists just recording for their mom and members of trombonechat?

I did find 2 superstars of the trombone, in the range of 1.5 million monthly listeners. One has been dead for many decades, the other is still young (20s). Answers below, but maybe you have fun to guess first. I saw no close runner up, but who would you guess would be in the hundreds of thousands of monthly listeners (I found 2, again one active and one dead, only guessed one correctly). What I thought as the “famous” trombonists are obscure on that metric compared to other instrumentalists. What do you expect for your classical stars (Lindberg, Alessi) compared to the classical stars on other instruments (like Lang Lang or Yo Yo Ma)? Numbers below, but you may want to think through your expectations first before looking at the numbers.

Now, this was not a designed systematic study (I do that for my job, not for my hobbies). Here I use only a single metric, Spotify monthly listeners (not including other streaming services, apple, amazon, nor purchases). And current listeners, no measure of life-time or total. You can easily improve on that, use a bigger list of musicians and additional metrics. Could even make a research paper for a college student, comparing across instruments and genres.

First some calibration numbers: The extreme tail of pop stars, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, are in the 50-80 million monthly listeners. The evergreens, Rolling Stones, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Beatles, are in the lower tens of millions. Among instrumentalists, the jazz superstars, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Stan Getz (yes, he is even slightly above those) are 2-4 million, similar to the superstars of classical music, alive (Lang Lang, YoYo Ma, Daniel Barenboim) or dead (Karajan).

There are no trombonists in that range that I found. And there are only two that broke that 1 million monthly listeners threshold (by quite a bit , 50%).

Drum roll (you can make it a fanfare) for the two superstars of trombone:

Rita Payes and Glenn Miller.

Both are bona-fide trombonists, no doubt, but Rita Payes also writes her own music and sings, Glenn Miller had a big band that produced hits.

The next, really wide tier, of between 100k and 1 million seems was sparse, I expect you can find others, but I searched for a while and only saw 2, again one younger active player and one historic

Trombone Shorty and Tommy Dorsey.

That is the tier where you normally expect to find all the “household” names, even on fringier instruments. I immediately found several instrumentalists in other more obscure instruments, mandolin (Chris Thile, Sierra Hull, David Grisman), banjo (Bela Fleck), upright bass (Edgar Meyer, Ron Carter) in that range, but not trombonist despite trying much longer.

Instead, trombonists are well below <100k, even JJ Johnson, Slide Hampton, Curtis Fuller. Classical trombonists, well, they may record under their name, but don't find listeners. I checked to make sure that this is not due to an absence of recordings under their name (i.e. if somebody exclusively records as part of an orchestra). No, all of them have recordings under their name, and generally a longer list than Rita Payes.

Summary:

More than 1 million monthly listeners

Active Musicians Historic Recordings 

Rita Payes 1.5m Glenn Miller 1.5m

More than 100 000 monthly listeners

Trombone Shorty 300k Tommy Dorsey 700k

More than 50k monthly listeners

Slide Hampton 85k

Rico Rodriguez 80k

JJ Johnson 70k

Curtis Fuller 45k

(didn't find a currently active performer)

l<50k

Christian Lindberg 36k

Joseph Alessi 14k

Steve Turre 10k

Under 10k

Marshall Gilkes 7k

Ian Bousfield 3k Urbie Green 4k

Albert Mangelsdorff 3k

<1k

Enzo Turriziani

Bart Van Lier

Branimir Slokar

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-03-27 2:06 p.m.

First, understand that today's popular music is Rock (of various stripes). Of the rock bands, how many feature a trombonist? You can probably count them on one hand. Chicago, Tower of Power, [I can't think of any others]. You didn't mention James Pankow or Dave Bargeron in your analysis.

Popular music from 1920 to 1960 featured the Big Band. This ensemble had 3-5 trombones in the band, with at least one that played solos. Glenn Miller was a trombonist but wasn't as renowned as a soloist compared to Tommy Dorsey, who was the quintessential trombone soloist of the Swing Era. There are other trombone soloists of that era who were very well known in their day, but are now nearly forgotten (except by us trombone players). Later era the Big Band (Stage Band, Swing Band, etc.) became a niche player like the orchestra. Again, great trombone players in them but not terribly popular.

In orchestra, most of the instrumental soloists are piano, violin, and cello. Other instruments play solos, but very infrequently. Hence, orchestral trombone soloists are very niche. We trombonists appreciate them, but they don't appeal to the general public.

Why is this so? We had a whole thread exploring this about a year ago and never came to a conclusion. Suffice it to say the popular musicians of today play something electronic; mostly with 6 strings. Close behind would be someone playing an electric keyboard.

harrisonreed · 2025-03-27 2:17 p.m.

Lindberg has reached a very wide audience in his career, but almost entirely through live performances. I think there were about 3500 in the audience at the Kennedy center when I saw him, and that was one of three performances that weekend, and one of probably 200 concerts for him that year.

I'm not surprised at all that Taylor Swift gets billions of views while trombonists get barely any. The vocal and lyric component of vocal speaks to human beings much more than purely melodic music.

AtomicClock · 2025-03-27 2:24 p.m.

[quote="fiddlefestival"]Are trombonists just recording for their mom and members of trombonechat?[/quote]

... and tenure committees.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-27 2:56 p.m.

Are trombonists just recording for their mom and members of trombonechat?

I dunno, but that’s what I do. No trombonist should expect to compete generally. It’s just not in the culture. Even trombonists don’t listen to a lot of trombone music. Of course, I’m just a hobbyist, but I’m lucky if one of my YouTube videos gets a thousand views total.

Goodgig · by **Goodgig** » 2025-03-27 5:55 p.m.

Baby Shark has had over a billion views.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-27 6:42 p.m.

[quote="Goodgig"]Baby Shark has had over a billion views.[/quote]

And there we have it, a demonstration of modern culture in a nutshell. (And actually I think it's over 15 billion views.) :D

fiddlefestival · 2025-03-27 7:38 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]<QUOTE author="fiddlefestival" post_id="271348" time="1743095457" user_id="19075">
Are trombonists just recording for their mom and members of trombonechat?[/quote]

... and tenure committees.
</QUOTE>

Ah yes, the academic signaling. I was wondering about some of the material among the classical trombonists (pretty much none of them made it onto my saved list). Still, assuming I had identified the biggest name classical trombonist and they don't pick their material purely for academic reasons, the upside potential for trombone appears small, even if just compared to cello, also a (mostly) single line instruments with almost identical range. Two orders of magnitude in audience using the spotify metric. Many still seem to get manufacturers make signature models.

I was similarly surprised to see a similar gap between jazz trombonists that seem to be considered seminal in this forum (e.g. JJ Johnson, Curtis Fuller) and other wind instruments. Tenor saxophone, also single line instrument, approximately same range as a trombone. It isn't just Stan Getz or John Coltrane. Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Sonny Rollins, Dexter Gordon have current listeners that jazz trombonists don't seem reach (by a factor of 10 times or 20).

Bach5G · by **Bach5G** » 2025-03-27 7:46 p.m.

I’d probably pay to hear Steve Davis. No one else comes to mind.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-27 8:33 p.m.

This is all because trombone does not have the facility of those other instruments.

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2025-03-27 8:53 p.m.

[quote="Bach5G"]I’d probably pay to hear Steve Davis. No one else comes to mind.[/quote]
I'm listening to Steve Davis right now live at Blues Alley in DC. First set was completely sold out.

I don't do Spotify and I think that applies to a lot of musicians. Could be wrong.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-03-27 8:58 p.m.

Trombone has just as much facility as other instruments, and facility isn't the only thing that matters. Yo-Yo Ma is probably just as famous to general audiences for playing the Swan everywhere he goes as he is for the Bach Cello Suites, and neither of those are anywhere near the hardest or most impressively technical things written for cello.

There's a whole classical music industry built up around Piano, Violin, Singing, and Cello being at the top of a hierarchy. It's self-referential, and has more to do with societal conditioning than the potential of the instruments themselves.

GGJazz · by **GGJazz** » 2025-03-27 9:58 p.m.

Hi all .

In my opinion , we can not make a comparison between who listen to Taylor Swift and who listen to J.J.Johnson...

Spotify support business . Business = money .

X ( Taylor Swift) = super good business = super good money .

Y ( J.J. Johnson) = very bad business = very bad money .

Of course , the trombone is not a so popular instrument ., nowadays .

I do not guess that a trombone player are obsessed about to reach a super- large audience ; in case he care about this , for sure he choose the worst way to become popular...

Maybe also Alban Berg' Violin Concerto do not collect so many wiews on Spotify ; so what ?

Regards

Giancarlo

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2025-03-28 12:39 a.m.

Whenever I play a gig at a casino, somebody asks "do you gamble?"

Well I decided to play trombone for a living... if that's not gambling, I don't know what is.

Bach5G · by **Bach5G** » 2025-03-28 1:08 a.m.

I’ve kind of stopped worrying about what other people listen to.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-28 11:21 a.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]Trombone has just as much facility as other instruments.[/quote]

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that. :D

There's a reason trombone parts don't look the same as violin and flute parts.

I thought I had pretty good facility. But, playing a jazz piece the other day I gave up trying to keep up with this sax player: <LINK_TEXT text="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6c1ooaau ... 54gt7&dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6c1ooaau9tp684xi96ruq/sax-facility-jazz.mp3?rlkey=w4awb42oy14dcumxfi0q04x4b&st=ssy54gt7&dl=0</LINK_TEXT>

When the trumpeter has to move his fingers 3/4 of an inch to go back and forth between two notes, while trombonists have to move their whole arm back and forth 2.5 feet each way to play the same thing, I think it results in a facility advantage to the instrument requiring less mileage.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-03-28 11:38 a.m.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]Whenever I play a gig at a casino, somebody asks "do you gamble?"

Well I decided to play trombone for a living... if that's not gambling, I don't know what is.[/quote]

Funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. I almost snorted my coffee!

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-03-28 11:48 a.m.

My Alma Mater (Wayne State University in Detroit) has a small but very robust music program that is locally well-known for training a lot of good jazz musicians. It seems lately that they are heavily investing in their music technology program, which to me seems like a pretty good idea. There are a lot of schools (in the U.S., at least) who really have a problem justifying the tuition and other charges their trombone students have to deal with, without seeing a reasonably viable career path.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-03-28 12:54 p.m.

People are not interested in the trombone at all. People are interested in MUSIC.

That's why Rita Payes and Glenn Miller are so successful, and they are not great trombone players (IMHO).

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-28 12:56 p.m.

[quote="Trombo"]People are not interested in the trombone at all. People are interested in MUSIC.

That's why Rita Payes and Glenn Miller are so successful, and they are not great trombone players (IMHO).[/quote]

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-03-28 1:49 p.m.

<YOUTUBE id="aPnqx56V8-0">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/aPnqx56V8-0?si=QhWeRiwJwvth4pSL</YOUTUBE>

Good luck beating that on solo trombone for mass appeal.

Also, trombonists cannot pull off a mullet. But guess who can, and still make more popular music than us? But seriously, you can't do the "hook" easily, if at all, in instrumental music. The "hook" is why people listen...

<YOUTUBE id="MX6MvV8cbh8">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/MX6MvV8cbh8?si=qqaqj0psUvarLfPQ</YOUTUBE>

People relate so much more to "I can hear you sing it to me in in my sleep!" So much more than they do to Vox Gabrieli:

<YOUTUBE id="zhS3YP04Fjk">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/zhS3YP04Fjk?si=OB1fMCYpjwexnQvo</YOUTUBE>

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-03-28 3:09 p.m.

[quote="Trombo"]That's why Rita Payes and Glenn Miller are so successful, and they are not great trombone players (IMHO).[/quote]

I don't know much about Rita but from what I understand, Glenn Miller had something of a genius for marketing. That detail probably gets lost if someone just goes and listens and compares Miller's music to what else existed in his time: yes, it was good music and a good band but nothing exceptional. He was doing pretty much the same musical things other successful bands at the time were doing. And in terms of marketing, he kind of got lucky when he got killed during WWII, after which his popularity skyrocketed.

I don't think that's really a career path that any of us want to try.

EriKon · by **EriKon** » 2025-03-28 3:29 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]<QUOTE author="WilliamLang" post_id="271402" time="1743123506" user_id="8089">
Trombone has just as much facility as other instruments.[/quote]

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that. :D

There's a reason trombone parts don't look the same as violin and flute parts.

I thought I had pretty good facility. But, playing a jazz piece the other day I gave up trying to keep up with this sax player: <LINK_TEXT text="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6c1ooaau ... 54gt7&dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6c1ooaau9tp684xi96ruq/sax-facility-jazz.mp3?rlkey=w4awb42oy14dcumxfi0q04x4b&st=ssy54gt7&dl=0</LINK_TEXT>

When the trumpeter has to move his fingers 3/4 of an inch to go back and forth between two notes, while trombonists have to move their whole arm back and forth 2.5 feet each way to play the same thing, I think it results in a facility advantage to the instrument requiring less mileage.
</QUOTE>

I doubt that the reason why people don't listen as much to trombones is because of the fact that other instruments might be able to play more notes in one bar. People listen actively to music because it has to mean something to them. And people seem to forget that most of the music that is been listened to nowadays (via streaming or radio) is passive listening.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-28 3:52 p.m.

[quote="EriKon"]I doubt that the reason why people don't listen as much to trombones is because of the fact that other instruments might be able to play more notes in one bar.[/quote]

I think it is the reason, or at least part of the reason, in a roundabout way. Among the differences between trombone and more popular instruments is that those other instruments can play more notes, more intervals, more expression, more color, they're easier to play, and easier to play cleaner than trombone. All that put together makes those other instruments more versatile, easier to fit into multiple genres of music, and more able to carry a melody (particularly a complex melody) than the trombone. It also all combines to make trombone sound "not as good" as the other instruments, given a generic genre and identical level of ability.

There's a reason trombone parts aren't written like the parts for saxes, clarinets, flutes, oboes, violins, cellos, pianos, guitars, synthesizers and a host of other instruments. It's because trombonists can't play those parts easily or in a way that sounds good. And they can't play those parts because the trombone has inherently less facility than those other/easier instruments. It's the same reasons tympani has such a limited audience appeal for solo career. Or French horn. Or marimba.

I say "part of the reason" because there are other elements, principally sound quality. We humans inherently prefer notes in an alto/soprano range. Female alto and soprano singers are more suited to popular music than baritones and bases simply because we biologically prefer the higher ranges.

We humans also inherently gravitate toward tones that are more focused and have more core. Narrower, more focused tones are also biologically preferred and therefore more popular in popular music than broader tones (and trombonists are going increasingly toward broader tone qualities, the wrong direction for popular music).

Another element might be the cultural indoctrination of ears to existing musical preferences, making it very difficult to "undo the damage" with regard to trombones. People already expect a certain sound from their solo instruments, and so they show an inherent bias toward those sounds. Those sounds come from the instruments that are easier to play melodic content, and are thus more commonly heard and consumed. This is a frequency bias. McDonalds fries are terrible imitations of real french fries, but people have come to prefer McDonalds fries over better fries because they grew up eating McDonalds and got used to that taste as their unconscious definition of, or association with, french fries. So fries that taste more like McDonalds are more broadly popular than fries that taste less like McDonalds. They're used to it. McDonalds fries result in the activation of well established and deeply grooved pathways in the brain, whereas signals from the taste of other fries don't have an expressway to the pleasure centers in the brain.

I'm sure there are others, and this is all just my off-the-cuff opinion.

But if not these, then what do you think the reason is for the limited audience appeal for solo trombone careers?

People listen actively to music because it has to mean something to them. And people seem to forget that most of the music that is been listened to nowadays (via streaming or radio) is passive listening.

What about those two things (meaning and passive listening) is inconsistent with the trombone?

EriKon · by **EriKon** » 2025-03-28 6:08 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]<QUOTE author="EriKon" post_id="271466" time="1743190146" user_id="15077">
I doubt that the reason why people don't listen as much to trombones is because of the fact that other instruments might be able to play more notes in one bar.[/quote]

I think it is the reason, or at least part of the reason, in a roundabout way. Among the differences between trombone and more popular instruments is that those other instruments can play more notes, more intervals, more expression, more color, they're easier to play, and easier to play cleaner than trombone. All that put together makes those other instruments more versatile, easier to fit into multiple genres of music, and more able to carry a melody (particularly a complex melody) than the trombone. It also all combines to make trombone sound "not as good" as the other instruments, given a generic genre and identical level of ability.

There's a reason trombone parts aren't written like the parts for saxes, clarinets, flutes, oboes, violins, cellos, pianos, guitars, synthesizers and a host of other instruments. It's because trombonists can't play those parts easily or in a way that sounds good. And they can't play those parts because the trombone has inherently less facility than those other/easier instruments. It's the same reasons tympani has such a limited audience appeal for solo career. Or French horn. Or marimba.

I say "part of the reason" because there are other elements, principally sound quality. We humans inherently prefer notes in an alto/soprano range. Female alto and soprano singers are more suited to popular music than baritones and bases simply because we biologically prefer the higher ranges.

We humans also inherently gravitate toward tones that are more focused and have more core. Narrower, more focused tones are also biologically preferred and therefore more popular in popular music than broader tones (and trombonists are going increasingly toward broader tone qualities, the wrong direction for popular music).

Another element might be the cultural indoctrination of ears to existing musical preferences, making it very difficult to "undo the damage" with regard to trombones. People already expect a certain sound from their solo instruments, and so they show an inherent bias toward those sounds. Those sounds come from the instruments that are easier to play melodic content, and are thus more commonly heard and consumed. This is a frequency bias. McDonalds fries are terrible imitations of real french fries, but people have come to prefer McDonalds fries over better fries because they grew up eating McDonalds and got used to that taste as their unconscious definition of, or association with, french fries. So fries that taste more like McDonalds are more broadly popular than fries that taste less like McDonalds. They're used to it. McDonalds fries result in the activation of well established and deeply grooved pathways in the brain, whereas signals from the taste of other fries don't have an expressway to the pleasure centers in the brain.

I'm sure there are others, and this is all just my off-the-cuff opinion.

But if not these, then what do you think the reason is for the limited audience appeal for solo trombone careers?

People listen actively to music because it has to mean something to them. And people seem to forget that most of the music that is been listened to nowadays (via streaming or radio) is passive listening.

What about those two things (meaning and passive listening) is inconsistent with the trombone?
</QUOTE>

So, why are two of the most popular trombonists, according to the OG post, trombonists who are not known for being very virtuousic? If that would be a significant argument, players like Marshall Gilkes or historically eg. Urbie Green would be the most popular trombone players. I don't use any streaming devices, so I don't know if those actually are or not, but I doubt they are the most popular trombone players by streams on Spotify etc.

Jazz, and especially busy/virtuosic/versatile jazz, isn't popular nowadays at all. Check out the leading genres nowadays:

<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.statista.com/chart/15763/mo ... worldwide/">https://www.statista.com/chart/15763/most-popular-music-genres-worldwide/</LINK_TEXT>

7 out of those 10 are more or less dance/party music. Jazz is not. Classical music is the oldest music we have (I'm sure it's not, but to simplify it), so it has other rules. Trombone never was a composer's favorite for solo works and therefore most of the traditional literature is just bad (imo). Especially compared to the great compositions of other solo literature.

My two cents: Limited audience appeal for trombone has mostly two reasons.

1. Trombone mainly isn't used as a solo instrument in popular music. Even in jazz it wasn't used a lot in the beginning. If it is used, the literature/compositions/songs often are a lot worse than those for other instruments.

2. Many individual players tend to play without having in mind what story they want to tell the audience and what the audience would like to hear to have a good experience. If you can tell a story with your instrument, it doesn't matter which kind of instrument you play. That includes not only playing but also compositions (if you write the music on your own).

One more word about passive listening: Rita Payes is much more suitable for passive listening than the average trombone music which tends to be a bit more rough in jazz. But that's similar in saxophones (Dexter Gordon is better than Coltrane in that manner). The difference is that Coltrane is a jazz giant that every instrumentalist in jazz should check out at some point - > more listeners. There are not really any trombone players that are real jazz giants that everyone needs to check them out (although I personally think there are some that would be worth to check out for other instruments as well). So trombone needs to be smooth or danceable/"partyable" to be able to be listened to passively.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-28 6:47 p.m.

I'm really enjoying your thoughts, Erik. But let me touch on a few things:

[quote="EriKon"]So, why are two of the most popular trombonists, according to the OG post, trombonists who are not known for being very virtuousic?[/quote]

I think that's the wrong question. I'm sure there are a gazillion trombonists who are not very virtuosic. The right question would be something along the lines of why are there only two trombonists with those kind of numbers, when the numbers are so much higher for non-virtuosos of other instruments? That may lead you to the same conclusion, but again, I think there are a great number of trombonists like that (Wayne Henderson comes to mind), and still there's no love and no numbers. I'll also note that I can't think of a single trombonist who is a popular smooth jazz recording artist, and that seems to be right in the pocket of the smooth, passive listening, non-virtuoso archetype.

Yet somehow, Trombone Shorty is (relatively) popular.

My two cents: Limited audience appeal for trombone has mostly two reasons.

1. Trombone mainly isn't used as a solo instrument in popular music. Even in jazz it wasn't used a lot in the beginning. If it is used, the literature/compositions/songs often are a lot worse than those for other instruments.

Ya, but doesn't that kind of beg the question? Why aren't trombones used as a solo instrument in popular music? I posit that it's probably for the reasons I set forth.

2. Many individual players tend to play without having in mind what story they want to tell the audience and what the audience would like to hear to have a good experience. If you can tell a story with your instrument, it doesn't matter which kind of instrument you play. That includes not only playing but also compositions (if you write the music on your own).

Is that unique to trombonists? I mean, can't we say the same thing about players of every instrument? If it's just trombonists, why do you think that is? And if I suddenly start playing having in mind what story I want to tell the audience and what the audience would like to hear (more on that in a sec), would I become a popular solo artist?

As for what audiences want to hear, one of my points was that audiences don't want to hear trombones. So...??? :D

One more word about passive listening: Rita Payes is much more suitable for passive listening than the average trombone music which tends to be a bit more rough in jazz. But that's similar in saxophones (Dexter Gordon is better than Coltrane in that manner). The difference is that Coltrane is a jazz giant that every instrumentalist in jazz should check out at some point - > more listeners.

I dunno, man. Dexter is a jazz giant, for sure. And this also begs the question about why there are saxophone jazz giants, but:

There are not really any trombone players that are real jazz giants.

I think that goes back to the horn being so much more cumbersome, with it's relative lack of facility, and also the tone profile (audiences don't gravitate toward trombone tones like they do tenor sax tones).

So trombone needs to be smooth or danceable/"partyable" to be able to be listened to passively.

Rita Payes is a good example of that, right? I swear, if that's all we need to do in order to be popular, I'm gonna do nothing but that starting today.

But I don't think it's that simple where Rita is concerned. There's more to it. When she became popular she was a very young and attractive girl with a trombone and she was a lovely singer. All this makes her something of a "novelty act," at least in terms of getting attention. After that, she has to hit it out of the park, and she did. Her market is international. Her mother markets her. Through her mother she had all sorts of contacts and "ins" in the industry that the rest of us lack. And she had the novelty thing going for her. I gotta say, if it was you or me doing exactly the same playing, I don't think either of us becomes a star. (Sorry! I know you had your hopes up! :D )

And if it were as simple as playing bossa novas in a smooth style, there would be thousands of popular trombonists. I think you're absolutely correct about passive listening and popular music audiences, but I don't think tailoring repertoire and style to passive listening is the holy grail here. I'm willing to give it a try, though! :D

I think you have a piece of the truth. I think I have a piece of the truth. And if we can figure out a formula to make us all popular solo trombonists, we can all make millions. :)

fiddlefestival · by **fiddlefestival** » 2025-03-28 7:03 p.m.

I think I would agree with EriKon's 2 arguments in his post above.

In contrast, I am more skeptical about the claim that the argument that the low profile of trombonists is caused by a lower ratio of notes played per second. Or that it is the wrong register (which is the same as cello or guitar) or that soprano voices are more attractive. Rather, trombone has some inherent attractive qualities, such as phrasing and using microtonality that are hard or impossible to do on other instruments (fretted string instruments for example). That didn't hold back guitar - but this missing characteristic was enough of a limitation that a whole set of variants of guitar was developed, slide, lap steel, dobro, pedal steel.

Rita Payes' success is not due to notes/second, but different and novel textures, whether the duos with her mother or her last recording. Much of it is unexpected, nylon string guitars, big band, choir, string quartet, yet blends in a coherent way. Trombone is still the main featured instrument, giving the instrument an exposure it apparently has been lacking.

EriKon, for comparison the two trombonists you mention (and for good measure, the famous German one).

Under 10k

Marshall Gilkes 7k

Ian Bousfield 3k Urbie Green 4k

Albert Mangelsdorff 3k

tbdana · 2025-03-28 7:21 p.m.

So, fiddlefestival, why do you think trombones have such a limited audience appeal for solo careers? And why don't trombonists do what will get them rich and famous?

[quote="fiddlefestival"]I am more skeptical about the claim that the argument that the low profile of trombonists is caused by a lower ratio of notes played per second.[/quote]

Absolutely no one has made that argument, especially not me.[/u] I said relative lack of facility. That doesn't mean notes per second, although it does include the ability to play more notes per second. Please, no one get hung up on that. That's a straw man and a mischaracterization.

Rita Payes' success is not due to notes/second, but different and novel textures, whether the duos with her mother or her last recording. Much of it is unexpected, nylon string guitars, big band, choir, string quartet, yet blends in a coherent way. Trombone is still the main featured instrument, giving the instrument an exposure it apparently has been lacking.

Again, no one has said anything about notes per second (except you and Erik). Rita has certainly hit on something. But I think there are lots of people who do or can have exactly that sound. That's partly her smooth style (which I love) and partly an orchestration/recording technique thing (which I also love). I could do that. But I doubt it would make me a popular soloist. With Rita I think it's as much about who she is as what/how she plays.

Next week I'm recording Astor Piazzola's "Oblivion" with just me and an acoustic guitar. I sure hope it rockets me to stardom! ;)

Okay, I think I've polluted this thread enough. I'll only chime in now if someone continues to misrepresent what I've said, or to respond to someone else's brilliant, life-changing insight.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-03-28 7:29 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]

There's a reason trombone parts aren't written like the parts for saxes, clarinets, flutes, oboes, violins, cellos, pianos, guitars, synthesizers and a host of other instruments. It's because trombonists can't play those parts easily or in a way that sounds good. And they can't play those parts because the trombone has inherently less facility than those other/easier instruments.[/quote]

Christian: håll min öl!

<YOUTUBE id="-GSNmLGUnx0" t="132">~~[media]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://youtu.be/-GSNmLGUnx0?si=0W5mBK- ... j6&t=2m12s">https://youtu.be/-GSNmLGUnx0?si=0W5mBK-6susgj6j6&t=2m12s</LINK_TEXT></YOUTUBE>

Sounds easy enough to me. <EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-28 7:31 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

Sounds easy enough to me. <EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>[/quote]

Great! Post a recording of you playing it. :D

Aw, crap. I already broke my promise...

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2025-03-28 8:02 p.m.

A lot of it is marketing and timing.

Glenn Miler isn't on the list because he was a trombone player. It was his band's popularity.

Rita had several huge advantages including a very early start and the Sant Andreu Jazz Band's novelty and popularity as a fantastic kids band. Besides being a really great musician herself, among a bunch of other really great young musicians.

Popularity contests don't mean a whole lot. Reminds me of that idiotic TV show Family Feud and "the most popular answers" to stupid questions.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-03-28 8:46 p.m.

Willie Colon might deserve a place in this discussion. Latin music has always utilized trombones quite well.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-03-28 8:54 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]Willie Colon might deserve a place in this discussion. Latin music has always utilized trombones quite well.[/quote]

Latin music is again a niche genre. There are all manner of excellent trombone players, but if they don't satisfy a public fancy, they exist in their admittedly small world. I remember reading that JJ Johnson had a day job as a drawing inspector at Sperry Instruments, a major Long Island defense contractor, when gigs were sparse. And JJ was at the very top of his field.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-03-28 9:27 p.m.

Willie Colon: 9,050,248 monthly listeners

fiddlefestival · by **fiddlefestival** » 2025-03-28 9:40 p.m.

William, you nailed it here. Willie Colon does not only have an audience that is big for a trombone player (like Glenn Miller or Rita Payes), but it is huge for any musician. 9 million monthly listeners. Completely different ballpark than what we had been discussing so far.

I didn't know that Willie Colon was a trombone player, so didn't look him up. I knew about Rico Rodriguez (very similar numbers to JJ Johnson and Slide Hampton), so he was in my original post. But I'm not knowledgeable about trombone and the others I knew about and looked up like Raulzinho, Zé da Velha, were in the Bousfield/Alessi range. And since they are not trombonists commonly mentioned in this forum, I didn't list them. The exception would be João Donato (pushing a million), but those are his jazz piano recordings, no trombone on those (he played trombone with Tito Puente and Eddie Palmieri).

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-03-28 10:01 p.m.

[quote="EriKon"]7 out of those 10 are more or less dance/party music. Jazz is not.[/quote]

:???: :???: :???:

Tons of jazz is great dance music.

Trombo · 2025-03-29 2:17 a.m.

Jazz before bebop was dance music. And Glenn Miller's music was more dance than jazz in today's sense.

Glenn Miller's genius was that he understood that the music that musicians liked was not liked by the general public at all. I read somewhere that he regularly held a vote among the musicians of his orchestra, which piece from their repertoire they liked the most. After which he excluded the piece that the musicians liked from the orchestra's repertoire.

Parker and Gillespie acted in the opposite way, inventing bebop.

The result is well known - modern jazz, based on bebop, is music for musicians, of little interest to the general public.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-03-29 2:29 a.m.

[quote="tbdana"]

We humans inherently prefer notes in an alto/soprano range. Female alto and soprano singers are more suited to popular music than baritones and bases simply because we biologically prefer the higher ranges.

We humans also inherently gravitate toward tones that are more focused and have more core. Narrower, more focused tones are also biologically preferred and therefore more popular in popular music than broader tones (and trombonists are going increasingly toward broader tone qualities, the wrong direction for popular music).
[/quote]

This makes sense. I wondered why the famous concertos of Albrechtsberger and Wagenseil were written for alto trombone and not for tenor, which also existed then?

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-03-29 7:24 a.m.

[quote="Trombo"]<QUOTE author="tbdana" post_id="271469" time="1743191548" user_id="16498">

We humans inherently prefer notes in an alto/soprano range. Female alto and soprano singers are more suited to popular music than baritones and bases simply because we biologically prefer the higher ranges.

We humans also inherently gravitate toward tones that are more focused and have more core. Narrower, more focused tones are also biologically preferred and therefore more popular in popular music than broader tones (and trombonists are going increasingly toward broader tone qualities, the wrong direction for popular music).
[/quote]

This makes sense. I wondered why the famous concertos of Albrechtsberger and Wagenseil were written for alto trombone and not for tenor, which also existed then?
</QUOTE>

I'm not sure I buy this fully. The mot popular singers of the Big Band era were females who sang in the lyric soprano to mezzo range and men who sang in the baritone range (between tenor and bass). Classical solos most commonly used a full range voice (piano), soprano (violin) and low tenor to baritone (cello).

I'm sure that Maximilien could expound better, but solos that featured the trombone, few as they are, included both the alto voice and the tenor voice.

One thing that may be a factor supporting your argument might be that historically men controlled the finances and a high voice felt to men like a sexual partner. Of course this doesn't explain why the dominant solo voice in the modern Big Band is the tenor saxophone.

I wish there was a clear answer to the original question. If we knew what would make the trombone more popular with the public more of us could make a living playing it.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-03-29 9:08 a.m.

The answer is very simple. Trombonists should all switch to alto trombone in solo performance and under no circumstances play bebop. :lol:

That was a joke.

Seriously, trombonists should more often remember Glenn Miller's principle: "The music that musicians like, as a rule, does not please the general public."

officermayo · by **officermayo** » 2025-03-29 9:41 a.m.

The reason Shorty is so popular compared to Rita is actually pretty simple. The public has no discernment when it comes to what is truly good music.

That's why Dollar General has three separate shelves of Little Debbie cakes but doesn't carry gourmet food.

Of course I've been wrong before as I remarried my ex wife.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-03-29 10:13 a.m.

[quote="Trombo"]

This makes sense. I wondered why the famous concertos of Albrechtsberger and Wagenseil were written for alto trombone and not for tenor, which also existed then?[/quote]

I don't think there is a definitive consensus that those solos actually were written for alto. A lot of the passages in them, particularly the trills, make a lot more sense on a Bb instrument.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-29 10:17 a.m.

[quote="officermayo"]

Of course I've been wrong before as I remarried my ex wife.[/quote]

Is that true? If so, I think that's awesome! I love stories like that.

The sentence is also funny as hell. :lol: :lol: :lol:

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-03-29 10:20 a.m.

[quote="officermayo"]Of course I've been wrong before as I remarried my ex wife.[/quote]

Hey, don't be so hard on yourself. You might've been right all along!

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-03-29 10:21 a.m.

[quote="Trombo"]Jazz before bebop was dance music. And Glenn Miller's music was more dance than jazz in today's sense.[/quote]

There are a lot of people who try to pigeonhole jazz as being strictly and only bebop and its derivatives, and this just isn't the case.

Weather Report

Antonio Carlos Jobim

Machito

Snarky Puppy

Steely Dan

Blood Sweat & Tears

Sergio Mendez

Frank Sinatra

Kenny G

We can "categorize" all of the above into some other modern genres, but these are all also jazz. AND these are all dance. Some music can be more than one genre.

Sorry, I guess this has become a pet peeve of mine as I've gotten older and grumpier.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-03-29 11:18 a.m.

Trombone Shorty is a good musician. So is Rita Payes - one doesn't take from the other.

GGJazz · by **GGJazz** » 2025-03-29 12:13 p.m.

Hi Folks.

In my opinion , Glenn Miller music is not Jazz Music . To me , this is the "Pop/ dance " style of the '40.

Of course , is Jazz-derivated .

Nothing wrong , I love this Band !

The Count Basie Orchestra was playing for dance too in that period , but they was playing JAZZ , no questions about it .

Anyway , nearly at the same time that Miller' Band was playing " In The Mood" , " Moonlight Serenade" , etc , same others musicians was performing some Music that we can call JAZZ , without any doubt .

And there was not only Big Bands , but also groups as quartet and quintet , performing in small clubs as the next generation of Jazzman did ( the bop musicians) .

Here , the first recording of Duke Ellington' " Black , Brown , and Beige", 1943

<YOUTUBE id="ZtsV_ONbCek">https://youtu.be/ZtsV_ONbCek?si=zG7Jwr3ClJEM-IFt</YOUTUBE>

Here , Lester Young 4et : " Indiana" , 1942

<YOUTUBE id="FBabMfTjbVE">https://youtu.be/FBabMfTjbVE?si=o_HVNAJIrCOwlVWB</YOUTUBE>

About what Trombo wrote above , "The music that musicians like , as a rule , do not please the general public" , that can be true ; but this is the way business man act in the market...

If so , we never had masterpieces as Stravinsky' " Rite of Spring" , or Thelonious Monk' "Evidence" , etc.

In my opinion , there is COMMERCIAL music , CLASSICAL music , JAZZ music , ROCK music , POP music etc .

They are all quite different, but there is room for everything !

Pop music sell xxxxxxxxxxxxx K$ , Jazz music sell xxx K $ .....

Everybody in the world know who is Beyonce' ; really few know who is Bob Brookmeyer ...

That' s perfectly fine , to me !

Regards

Giancarlo

officermayo · 2025-03-29 1:57 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]Trombone Shorty is a good musician. So is Rita Payes - one doesn't take from the other.[/quote]

Perhaps, but my beef is that the students I hear locally have chosen to blast away like Shorty as opposed to playing with finess and style like Rita.

Then again, VHS was chosen over Beta by the unwashed masses. I shouldn't be surprised.

NathanSobieralski · by **NathanSobieralski** » 2025-03-29 2:11 p.m.

FWIW- When I took my trumpet studio to ITG (International Trumpet Guild) they kept saying "Dr. Sobieralski!! look there's so and so, and look over there its you know who!!" of course, I did not know anything about any of these people...because they are social media famous. Instagram and the like. The traditional route of recorded soloist is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, I think.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-03-29 5:08 p.m.

I've generally felt that the trombone's greatest strength is as an ensemble instrument, in a trombone section. Some of the most memorable moments in music are trombone-section-related. That strength dwarfs Its charms as a solo instrument.

It can be wonderful to hear the trombone step out for a brief solo in a larger jazz or orchestral work, but in my life i've been to one solo trombone recital that didn't leave me feeling i had merely fulfilled a duty.

Part of it is the lit which is largely of interest to trombone-players only. Meanwhile a strong college pianist or cellist or violinist can put together a real show.

But it is also the instrument. It is nearly impossible for a solo trombone to remain compelling for even a modest concertante work. Trombone + piano is an unfelicitous combination.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-03-29 6:26 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]I've generally felt that the trombone's greatest strength is as an ensemble instrument, in a trombone section. Some of the most memorable moments in music are trombone-section-related. That strength dwarfs Its charms as a solo instrument.[\quote]

Yes!!!! This a thousand times over.

<QUOTE>
But it is also the instrument. It is nearly impossible for a solo trombone to remain compelling for even a modest concertante work. Trombone + piano is an unfelicitous combination.[/quote]

Yeah, this too. Unfortunately.</QUOTE>

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-03-29 6:59 p.m.

If we don't believe in ourselves then why would anyone else?

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-03-29 9:24 p.m.

I don't agree with the premise of calculating appeal based on raw numbers of listens on streaming platforms.

That being said, taking the question more broadly I would say many, many different reasons. Most of them we have no control on, and as others pointed out, they're broader cultural reasons, and questions of which genres and styles the trombone is used in, and how culturally relevant those are to the majority of people. I think it's no coincidence that when the trombone was used in genres that were relevant, if not to the general population, at least to the class that had the power and wealth and supported and consumed art the most, there were famous virtuosos of the trombone that were among the best paid musicians. Who literally had emperors composing music for them.

(Rant incoming:)

Now, one thing I might add, though, where we do have control (and I realise this is maybe a dangerous and controversial thing to say here), at least regarding the classical world, is that artistry and musicality are just not really expected or even encouraged of trombone players. Don't get me wrong, I know there are some really, really good musicians there. But there are also very successful players who, whether they are good musicians or not, display very little musicality in their actual playing. It's simply not required of us in an orchestral context (when it's not downright seen as detrimental), with the result, I find, that we collectively hold ourselves to a very low standard with regards to artistry compared to many other instruments.

If we're being honest, save for a few exception, a lot of even the cream of the cream of classical players (who I respect tremendously as players, as they are technically flawless, and better players than I could ever dream to be) are not super interesting musicians to listen to. Interesting for us fellow trombone players who can fully appreciate how amazingly well they play the instrument, sure, but light years away, in terms of broader musical interest, from the great violinists, cellists, singers, pianists, etc. And I think that's at least in part because there are fundamentally anti-musical elements in the very core of our technique and sound concept, which then limit what even occurs to us. It's the Law of the Instrument: if the only tool you have is a hammer, it's easy to start seeing everything as a nails. We focus a lot on fullness and broadness and power, and perfect evenness and playing the longest possible phrasing with the most equally sustained airflow, and absolute consistency of tone and articulations, to the point where a lot of musicality is beaten out of us, without us even realising it, until we're left with a fairly mundane and surface-level musicality. Even our equipment choice pushes us in that direction. My main trombone teacher actually didn't subscribe to a lot of the mainstream trombone dogmas and was himself very musical and encouraged us to be unique (although he did of course also train us to be able to win jobs), but even despite that, it still took me years afterwards to break free of some of these constraints, such is the sheer cultural pressure and normativity of the classical trombone world (and brass in general). I see it now all of the time when teaching or coaching people. I see their minds blown by the suggestions of even simple musical ideas that can make a world of difference, but that systematically had never occurred to them and are totally foreign. Those ideas are well within their technical means, but they typically really struggle at first to even try to implement them, as they find themselves fighting deeply internalized instincts and reflexes, and facing resistance from core elements of their technique that they might not even have realized were core elements. When neural pathways are really well-programmed it's really hard to diverge from them.

To be fair I'm not sure other instruments' scenes deserve much credit, and also I don't think it's really a fault on our part. I think the mainstream classical world in general simply has a very established and quite strict canon of how things are done and what the expectations are, and those are different for each instrument. So it's probably just a question of what each instrument's canon-dictated tunnel vision sees, and that just happens to be more musical in the case of many other instruments, and less musical in ours.

All that to say, though, I don't think it has to be that way. It's a choice we make (whether it's a conscious one or not) to follow that canon. We can just as easily choose to put being an artist at the top of our priority list.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-03-29 9:38 p.m.

Well said Maximilien!

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2025-03-29 10:14 p.m.

[quote="officermayo"]<QUOTE author="WilliamLang" post_id="271536" time="1743261515" user_id="8089">
Trombone Shorty is a good musician. So is Rita Payes - one doesn't take from the other.[/quote]

Perhaps, but my beef is that the students I hear locally have chosen to blast away like Shorty as opposed to playing with finess and style like Rita.

Then again, VHS was chosen over Beta by the unwashed masses. I shouldn't be surprised.
</QUOTE>

That's just a stylistic choice for Troy (and the pretty standard way to play in Nola), but he's genuinely one of the best musicians anyone is likely to ever meet. We went to high school together and the stuff he could do casually is still hard to wrap my brain around sometimes. Troy would casually fill in on any part of the the rhythm section in big band- just complete stylistic fluency that was almost untethered to instrument. In brass ensemble he'd do stuff when sat next to each other like pretent to play when we sightread then play it perfectly the next time through, correcting the million mistakes I made, because memorizing it by ear and fixing mistakes was genuinely easier for him that reading (which he did well too). He'd do that was stuff like Gabrielli. Just totally incredible.

It's not my favorite style despite growing up in it, but he's an incredible musician who plays that way cause it's how he wants to play. Probably a significant contributor to his success and appeal.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2025-03-29 10:16 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]Well said Maximilien![/quote]

Seconded! <EMOJI seq="1faf6" tseq="1faf6">🫶</EMOJI>

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-03-30 3:00 a.m.

It was an interesting discussion. They cursed the imperfection of the trombone, the damned Spotify, the "unwashed masses", "businessman" Glenn Miller, etc.

But the main thing went unnoticed. All the heroes of this topic were not only trombonists. First of all, they were COMPOSERS and SINGERS. They created THEIR MUSIC and sang it. All of them - Willie Colon, Rita Payes and Trombone Shorty. Only Glenn Miller did not sing himself, but used professional singers.

The trombone was only an auxiliary tool for all of them. They could have used any other musical instrument with exactly the same results.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-03-30 8:49 a.m.

To my knowledge there still has been only one full time trombone soloist in history. That is, someone who did not have a band, did not have an orchestra job, did not have a teaching job in addition to performing. The funny thing is that most trombone players do not even like how that one person played, don't like their sound, etc. But when I've asked clarinetists, violinists, singers, and basically anyone else who does not play brass they all say "that is the best trombone player I've ever heard" or "they phrase the music like a violinist or singer".

So I think there is a disconnect between what trombone players and brass musicians are taught or think is "good", vs what is entertaining and speaks to people. It is telling that one of the few people in this discussion who said that we should promote ourselves, and who I must add is an amazing player and musician, chooses to promote the trombone as a solo instrument with a niche of music that is probably the least accessible genre of music for the average person. That's not a dig, I just know what Joe Snuffy listens to.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-03-30 2:50 p.m.

What would solo stardom (AKA millions of streams) look like for a trombonist today?

The big pop stars (Taylor Swift et al.)today are all vocalists, performing material where the lyrics are the prime attraction, far above that of the music. The instrumentalists who accompany them are not a significant factor in their image.

Savio · by **Savio** » 2025-03-30 5:41 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]What would solo stardom (AKA millions of streams) look like for a trombonist today?

The big pop stars (Taylor Swift et al.)today are all vocalists, performing material where the lyrics are the prime attraction, far above that of the music. The instrumentalists who accompany them are not a significant factor in their image.[/quote]

This is an interesting topic. Taylor Swift. Sabrina Carpenter. The music business is more and more desperate. Sabrina play on sex. But it's not new, popular music has always done that. So maybe we older guys should get the shorts on and play more sexy? :horror: OK, it would be the definitive death of the trombone....

Serious, we can't competing with Taylor Swift. She has a big office behind her. Probably bigger than the White House since everyone there is soon fired.

The best we can do is to play as much as possible. Support schoolbands, go to local school concerts, go to symphony orchestras nearby. Go to jazz club's.

And play the trombone. It's still the coolest instrument. No one can slide through life like us 😉

Leif

StephenK · by **StephenK** » 2025-03-31 1:21 a.m.

Another aspect to this is how comfortable to player is playing solo compared with playing in a band or orchestra section. Here in the UK I heard Peter Moore saying he is way more comfortable as a soloist out at the front rather than he was leading the section in the LSO. I wouldn't be surprised if Christian Lindberg felt similarly.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-03-31 2:50 a.m.

We must not forget that the trombone is a very comic musical instrument. This was noticed by Charlie Chaplin.

In the Soviet Union there was a solo trombonist Georgy Shakhnin (1921-2002), who performed in the circus as a musical clown. He was very popular and was often shown on television to an audience of millions:

<YOUTUBE id="ocx5t_2w5hw">https://youtu.be/ocx5t_2w5hw?si=B5A5M6iNF3EvFjor</YOUTUBE>

Here is a more extended version:

<YOUTUBE id="ZpTQ8ebnJig">https://youtu.be/ZpTQ8ebnJig?si=LJ7J7WrpJwVRkKvT</YOUTUBE>

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-03-31 3:07 p.m.

[quote="Trombo"]We must not forget that the trombone is a very comic musical instrument...[/quote]

Yup, if the trombone didn't exist the clowns and the cartoons would have had to invent it.

It's like trying to make a solo career out of a rubber chicken and a whoopee cushion.

.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-03-31 4:07 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]<QUOTE author="Trombo" post_id="271712" time="1743403848" user_id="10903">
We must not forget that the trombone is a very comic musical instrument...[/quote]

Yup, if the trombone didn't exist the clowns and the cartoons would have had to invent it.

It's like trying to make a solo career out of a rubber chicken and a whoopee cushion.

.
</QUOTE>

To make such a career, you first need to learn to play the trombone.

Christian Lindberg himself did not consider making people laugh something shameful:

<YOUTUBE id="9GnJ-xL7n3k">https://youtu.be/9GnJ-xL7n3k?si=grNldMZC5NJTm_9F</YOUTUBE>

Joebone · by **Joebone** » 2025-03-31 5:02 p.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]<QUOTE author="WilliamLang" post_id="271597" time="1743298691" user_id="8089">
Well said Maximilien![/quote]

Seconded! <EMOJI seq="1faf6" tseq="1faf6">🫶</EMOJI>
</QUOTE>

Thirded! Classic orchestral norms and individuality seem inherently at odds with each other. I certainly feel this as compared with the jazz/latin/Brazilian approaches to which I've been attracted. That said, I have to get out more and explore what trombonists with classical training or in academic settings are up to in the way of extended techniques and broader avenues for expression. Like this...which blows me away...

<YOUTUBE id="fWozzY7_OM4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWozzY7_OM4</YOUTUBE>

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2025-03-31 5:36 p.m.

[quote="Joebone"]<QUOTE author="mbarbier" post_id="271599" time="1743300977" user_id="3300">

Seconded! <EMOJI seq="1faf6" tseq="1faf6">🫶</EMOJI>[/quote]

Thirded! Classic orchestral norms and individuality seem inherently at odds with each other. I certainly feel this as compared with the jazz/latin/Brazilian approaches to which I've been attracted. That said, I have to get out more and explore what trombonists with classical training or in academic settings are up to in the way of extended techniques and broader avenues for expression. Like this...which blows me away...

<YOUTUBE id="fWozzY7_OM4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWozzY7_OM4</YOUTUBE>
</QUOTE>

agreed. though it's got a lot less general popular appeal, in the avant garde/drone/noise worlds the trombone is on much much more even footing with other instruments and voices. I've found with my duo that festivals/venues/audiences tend to be much more interested in that type of music being produced by trombones than more tradtionally popular forms. and the trombone is much better suited towards extended techniques/modifications/electronic means than most other traditional instruments. obviously a much smaller general appeal, but i'm glad we have a place we're still wanted :lol:

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-03-31 6:32 p.m.

I feel like this is somehow related:

<YOUTUBE id="vxlste3JucU">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/vxlste3JucU?si=y6zqPVUNM_1h2CCt</YOUTUBE>

It's interesting that there was a version of the Greek lyre that was played like a guitar (the kithara), and that the chords to this song are remarkable similar to modern pop tunes. I'm sure the guy in the video took a look of artistic liberty, especially when he goes into the English translation, but it is fun to think that pop tunes have basically been with us for all our recorded history. The trombone was out of date before it was even invented... <EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>

VJOFan · by **VJOFan** » 2025-04-05 9:49 a.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]Trombone has just as much facility as other instruments, and facility isn't the only thing that matters. Yo-Yo Ma is probably just as famous to general audiences for playing the Swan everywhere he goes as he is for the Bach Cello Suites, and neither of those are anywhere near the hardest or most impressively technical things written for cello.

There's a whole classical music industry built up around Piano, Violin, Singing, and Cello being at the top of a hierarchy. It's self-referential, and has more to do with societal conditioning than the potential of the instruments themselves.[/quote]

This thought was just blown by in the thread. If you go see Yo-yo Ma you know he’ll play at least something pretty.

If you go to the NYP premier of the Corea Concerto, you can expect that it will take effort on your part to enjoy the piece.

The domination of the classical solo scene by strings and piano is probably as much about sticking close to a proven repertoire as anything else. Trombonists will sometimes throw shade on a piece like the David. It may not be a monumental piece of repertoire, but it has tunes. I would rather hear Joe Alessi play the crap out of a “simple” piece like that or the Grodhal or Larsson than hear him and the orchestra at their limits playing something “great” or “important”.

I remember my wife driving 8 hours with a girlfriend to catch Anne-Sophie Muter play the Brahms Concerto. Any top music school grad can probably play that piece, but a great musician playing well within their capabilities can bring out the music in a way others can’t.

The best of us seem to be focussed on showing their virtuosity and continuously put out or commission works that are hard in anyway one wants to take that word. I wish they’d have the confidence in their musicality to play things undergrads could play, but elevate them to the point audiences would be moved.

That’s the other point that comes up often in the thread. The few trombonists who gain any sort of traction tend to be those who play things that already have some beauty or appeal in a beautiful or appealing way.

bwilliams · by **bwilliams** » 2025-04-05 11:53 a.m.

[quote="VJOFan"]<QUOTE author="WilliamLang" post_id="271402" time="1743123506" user_id="8089">
Trombone has just as much facility as other instruments, and facility isn't the only thing that matters. Yo-Yo Ma is probably just as famous to general audiences for playing the Swan everywhere he goes as he is for the Bach Cello Suites, and neither of those are anywhere near the hardest or most impressively technical things written for cello.

There's a whole classical music industry built up around Piano, Violin, Singing, and Cello being at the top of a hierarchy. It's self-referential, and has more to do with societal conditioning than the potential of the instruments themselves.[/quote]

This thought was just blown by in the thread. If you go see Yo-yo Ma you know he’ll play at least something pretty.

If you go to the NYP premier of the Corea Concerto, you can expect that it will take effort on your part to enjoy the piece.

The domination of the classical solo scene by strings and piano is probably as much about sticking close to a proven repertoire as anything else. Trombonists will sometimes throw shade on a piece like the David. It may not be a monumental piece of repertoire, but it has tunes. I would rather hear Joe Alessi play the crap out of a “simple” piece like that or the Grodhal or Larsson than hear him and the orchestra at their limits playing something “great” or “important”.

I remember my wife driving 8 hours with a girlfriend to catch Anne-Sophie Muter play the Brahms Concerto. Any top music school grad can probably play that piece, but a great musician playing well within their capabilities can bring out the music in a way others can’t.

The best of us seem to be focussed on showing their virtuosity and continuously put out or commission works that are hard in anyway one wants to take that word. I wish they’d have the confidence in their musicality to play things undergrads could play, but elevate them to the point audiences would be moved.

That’s the other point that comes up often in the thread. The few trombonists who gain any sort of traction tend to be those who play things that already have some beauty or appeal in a beautiful or appealing way.
</QUOTE>

Like this: <YOUTUBE id="SBDB717W9hk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBDB717W9hk</YOUTUBE>

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-05 12:50 p.m.

[quote="VJOFan"]

Trombonists will sometimes throw shade on a piece like the David. It may not be a monumental piece of repertoire, but it has tunes. I would rather hear Joe Alessi play the crap out of a “simple” piece like that or the Grodhal or Larsson than hear him and the orchestra at their limits playing something “great” or “important”.
[/quote]

The David is objectively bad -- the third movement is hardly different from the first movement. It has tunes, sure, two of them to be precise. The other two pieces you mention are far superior.

I saw Joe play the Chick Corea piece with the Tokyo philharmonic, and was very underwhelmed. I'm not sure the piece is actually all that great. I also saw him play the Pulitzer prize winning Rouse concerto with a much less prestigious orchestra in Ft. Collins CO and was completely blown away by the music. It should be a much more difficult piece to listen to but it wasn't. It is one of the "great pieces", and I think the orchestra put in way more work to get it under their fingers than perhaps Tokyo did with the Corea piece, and really owned it.

Good music is good music. My wife doesn't like modern classical music and she was blown away by that performance. The challenge is getting people into the hall in the first place, to hear that kind of music. Also while avoiding the plethora of modern crap posing as great music.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-04-05 7:42 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]The David is objectively bad -- the third movement is hardly different from the first movement. It has tunes, sure, two of them to be precise. The other two pieces you mention are far superior.[/quote]

"Objectively" bad? That sounds to me like a very subjective, not objective statement.

It's totally fine that you don't like the piece. I thoroughly dislike some repertoire that everybody loves, even some masterpieces, that just don't speak to me. We all like different stuff, for different reasons. That's ok. But I just want to comment on the specific reason you invoke for saying it's "objectively bad", because, I'm sorry I have to say, it's utter nonsense. You say it's bad because the third movement repeats a lot of the first. The problem with that is, there is no third movement (or first or second, for that matter). It's a concertino in only one movement. It helps in appreciating the piece when we accept it for what it is, and don't try to make it into something it isn't, i.e. a big full-scale concerto in three movements, which sadly we trombonists have a tendency to do (I think because we're desperate for a serious piece by a serious composer of the mainstream canon). What it is, really, is a fairly small-scale, one-movement piece in sonata form. Intro, exposition (first subject, modulating bridge, second subject), development, recap (first subject, non-modulating bridge, second subject), coda. Absolute textbook sonata form, although I would say it has an above-average development (the classic, conventional development that just plays around with ideas already exposed gets unexpectedly interrupted by a big operatic recitativo – perfectly understanding and capturing the trombone's personality as an instrument – and a funeral march? Come on, give the guy some credit!). Does the material from the beginning repeat? Of course it does, it's a sonata form! That's one of the primary features of that form. Now, the sonata form is the most common form in classical and romantic music, and the first movement of virtually every sonata or symphony for about 150 years used it, including every symphonist from Haydn to Mahler. Would you comment that all of these movements are objectively bad, because they have an exposition and recap sharing the same material? That's a reaaaaallllly big chunk of the repertoire we're going to throw out if that's our criterion for designating something as "objectively bad"...

Personally, I think it's a great piece. It's very idiomatic for the instrument, and it's written in an archetypical German romantic language, the language that is probably considered "home" by the most classical music listeners. I've studied some of David's other works, and that has only led me to appreciate his concertino for trombone even more as I started noticing his personal idioms and style where I previously heard good but generically-romantically music. But I won't say it's objectively good, I don't think there's such a thing.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-06 9:51 a.m.

I mean, sure, it's called a concertino, but that's probably just because F David couldn't think up anything for the third section/movement. It has three distinct sections separated by cadenzas, not one long form movement. It's actually 4-5 minutes longer than than the Rimsky Korsakov piece that is called "concerto". The David is a 16 minute long work, which is about average for a concerto, tbh, especially for earlier works.

The thread is about how to appeal to a broader audience, and I think the F. David, while useful academically or for very young performers in teen concerto competitions (oh wait, we can't use it for that because it's not a real concerto!), is something that takes away from the trombone as a serious solo instrument. We have so many great pieces written by great composers but we keep having to hear the F David piece. <EMOJI seq="1f629" tseq="1f629">😩</EMOJI> We don't have to be desperate for serious Romantic pieces if we just look up from our syllabus, because we have them already. Grondahl, Rimsky Korsakov, Bourgeois, Larsson, Nesterov... There are more. But the David is given way too much credit compared to those.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-06 12:14 p.m.

As I think about it, the trombone's fate is only slightly worse than the other wind instruments'.

Many appealing Classical-Romantic Era flute and clarinet concertos exist but they are rarely heard on symphony orchestra programs unless a superstar like James Galway has been engaged.

By contrast, the public eagerness for piano and violin concertos is great enough that they will appear on about 2/3 or more of symphony orchestra programs with no superstars needed. The eagerness is such that even one-hit wonders like Bruch and Grieg are standard repertoire.

Horn concertos are not vanishingly rare but that's because MOZART wrote some. Too bad there wasn't a rich trombone player in Vienna to commission Mozart.

Of course, a number of Baroque wind instrument concertos have become popular favorites but those are chamber orchestra pieces, not often found on symphony orchestra programs today.

...

I think a primary problem with the David concertino is that it is a trombone solo.

The great piano and violin and cello concertos have memorable passages for the orchestra alone or that are an essential part of the soloist + orchestra texture, moments that you live to hear.

Think of a Rachmaninoff concerto.

The David concertino is more like an aria in an opera... an orchestral intro, some discreet boops and swoops while the fat lady sings, a vamp when she doesn't, and a big finish. Not much of it memorable on its own. (Note that vocal soloists have also fallen off orchestral programs as that style of piece has declined in favor.)

It is not BAD, it is not unworthy of performing, but it doesn't rise to greatness... nor have i heard any other trombone concerto that does.

...

LeTromboniste · 2025-04-06 1:22 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I mean, sure, it's called a concertino, but that's probably just because F David couldn't think up anything for the third section/movement. It has three distinct sections separated by cadenzas, not one long form movement. It's actually 4-5 minutes longer than than the Rimsky Korsakov piece that is called "concerto". The David is a 16 minute long work, which is about average for a concerto, tbh, especially for earlier works.[/quote]

No, in the original material, not only the rehearsal marks go through from beginning to end, but the Marche funèbre even starts in the middle of a system in most of the parts. That's not how separate movements are typically printed. The funeral march goes straight into the recap, no cadenza there, and at the end of what people call the first movement, I would disagree that that's a cadenza. For one, David doesn't write "cadenza", he writes "quasi recitativo", which is consistent with the facts that it is fully-measured (that would be very unusual for a cadenza), and that the orchestra accompanies it throughout, with exactly the style of interventions you would expect from a recit. The trombone part is even printed in cues in the orchestra parts. Regardless, though, even if it were a cadenza, that means nothing with regards to structure. You can have a cadenza in the middle of a piece, or at the end, or even right at the start it doesn't have to indicate the end of a movement. In terms of the runtime, 15-16 minutes is about half the duration of a typical concerto of this time. Ferdinand David's own concertos, or Mendelssohn's, are all around 25-30 minutes for example, usually with the first movement alone taking up almost half the time, around 12-13 minutes, with a shorter 2nd and 3rd movement. The 15-16 minutes of the David Concertino is absolutely consistent with a concert piece, and not with a full-scale concerto, including his own concerti (he wrote at least five, that we know of). Yes the funeral march has the feel of a distinct section (except the piece goes straight into and out of it), but that's hardly incompatible with the piece being in one movement: individual movements have distinct sections within them, sometimes with a tempo change, all the time. And again, if you look at the overall structure, it is an absolute textbook example of a sonata form. It has every single element of it, and nothing at all that contradicts it.

(edit: fixed typos)

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-06 1:34 p.m.

We might have been able to get Mozart concertos if Geshaldt (I forget how to spell it) had been born a generation later. He was the one that Mozart's father wrote trombone solos for.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-04-06 2:02 p.m.

We trombonists generally steal from other instruments' repertoire. How many times I've seen trombonists play the Mozart Bassoon concerto K.191, and an occasional horn concerto (Mozart #3 works really well). We play the Saint-Saens Morceau de Concert also.

Why couldn't we play "The Swan" as well? I'd bet Joe Alessi or Toby Oft would sound fantastic on it.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-04-06 2:33 p.m.

it works well

<YOUTUBE id="dV92ycEs9kw">https://youtu.be/dV92ycEs9kw</YOUTUBE>

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-06 2:37 p.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]The 15-16 minutes of the David Concertino is absolutely consistent with a concert piece, and not with a full-scale concerto, including his own concerti (he wrote at least five, that we know of). Yes the funeral march had the feel of a distinct section (except the piece goes straight into and out of it), but that's hardly incompatible with the piece being in one movement: jdividual movements have distinct sections within them, sometimes with a tempo change, all the time. And again, if you look at the overall structure, it is an absolute textbook example of a sonata form. It has every single element of it, and nothing at all that contradicts it.[/quote]

You win you win. I will listen to it ten times and say an Our Father for my penance.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-06 2:38 p.m.

There you go, Robert!

<YOUTUBE id="VLfPkog1iE4">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/VLfPkog1iE4?si=iEK6A4nYiN2lWN0a</YOUTUBE>

CalgaryTbone · by **CalgaryTbone** » 2025-04-06 3:43 p.m.

Milhaud's Concertino also repeats the first movement material in the third movement (or section, if you prefer). A common compositional approach.

Amount and quality of repertoire is the biggest issue, on the classical side for someone becoming a full-time soloist. We're not alone, however. On most other woodwind and brass instruments, there are few if any full-time soloists as well. There have been a few trumpet, horn and flute players through the years, but they have to mostly repeat the same two or three concertos, and occasionally do a premiere of a new work which may or may not resonate with the audience. Even violinists who premier new material often have name recognition with the audience because of their Beethoven/Brahms/Mozart appearances, so an audience is ready to give the new work a chance based on the artist's reputation.

The sheer amount of great repertoire for violin and piano (and to a lesser degree cello) as well as the momentum of years of their works being programmed is hard to overcome. I've been lucky enough to play several of our best solo works over the years here, and I think that there is a bit more openness for an audience in a smaller city than a New York or Chicago to "try out" something different - less expectations. There just isn't a lot of space on most orchestras' seasons to program something that might not be a major draw for the audience. Also, if they do program for a wind, brass or percussion soloist, they are more likely to do so for one of their own players for the orchestra, so that also cuts into opportunities for a full-time soloist.

We aren't alone -in my career I haven't heard many concertos for viola or double bass, and oboe, clarinet, bassoon concertos are infrequent. Even the horn has 4 Mozart and 2 Strauss concertos, but not a lot else that's really memorable to non-horn players. Make friends with composers and encourage them to write more works - something may break through and resonate with an audience. Otherwise, enjoy making music in the back row and try to make those passages in Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Brahms be memorable for the audience and satisfying for you and for your colleagues.

Jim Scott

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-04-06 4:10 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="LeTromboniste" post_id="272364" time="1743960164" user_id="3038">
The 15-16 minutes of the David Concertino is absolutely consistent with a concert piece, and not with a full-scale concerto, including his own concerti (he wrote at least five, that we know of). Yes the funeral march had the feel of a distinct section (except the piece goes straight into and out of it), but that's hardly incompatible with the piece being in one movement: jdividual movements have distinct sections within them, sometimes with a tempo change, all the time. And again, if you look at the overall structure, it is an absolute textbook example of a sonata form. It has every single element of it, and nothing at all that contradicts it.[/quote]

You win you win. I will listen to it ten times and say an Our Father for my penance.
</QUOTE>

Sorry for my nit-picky mental rigidity :lol:

You're definitely not alone in thinking it's a bad piece. It's certainly not a great one. I just think it gets more flak than it deserves. And I suspect if we had more than just that single piece as a performance-worthy romantic concerto, it would probably be liked more than it is now with the pressure of being our only "big" romantic piece with orchestra that ever gets played.

[quote="harrisonreed"]We might have been able to get Mozart concertos if Geshaldt (I forget how to spell it) had been born a generation later. He was the one that Mozart's father wrote trombone solos for.[/quote]

Or if he had moved to Vienna like Leutgeb (the horn player). Although of course there were very capable trombonists in Vienna who Mozart could have befriended and written a concerto for.

Mozart did write trombone solos for Gschlatt, just not fully solo movements in instrumental music like his dad or Michael Haydn had. At least we can console ourselves with the monumental amount of music with trombone solos from 18th century Vienna and Bohemia. Hundreds and hundreds of them (see the new catalog by Howard Weiner, Charlotte Leonard and Linda Pearse – there are over 5000 pieces with trombones from this tradition, many, many of them including trombone solos)! Just need to get them performed... And of course that's not like having a big name concerto!

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-06 4:51 p.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]

You're definitely not alone in thinking it's a bad piece.[/quote]

I know, that's because it is terrible! <EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>

VJOFan · by **VJOFan** » 2025-04-06 5:28 p.m.

Maybe we just need to go back to the ‘70’s.

I wore out the grooves of this album in the recording library of my university during my undergrad in the 80’s. He just plays with such abandon, yet finesse.

Whatever the reason for it, I often find my ears get really tired listening to most contemporary recordings/players. Everything is just so centered today??

For me, Miles Anderson is very appealing, and likely would be to most people open to listening to music of this ilk.

<YOUTUBE id="iR7tGwBHo14">https://youtu.be/iR7tGwBHo14?si=KZDDYiRYbCNbrXt8</YOUTUBE>

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-04-07 7:40 a.m.

Yes, there are many great trombonists in the world, but they are known only to trombonists themselves.

Personally, I like F. David's Concertino. It shows the severe and heroic character of the tenor trombone well. These qualities of the trombone allowed it to survive in symphony and opera orchestras. Otherwise, it would have suffered the fate of the ophicleide, serpent and other extinct medieval musical instruments. That is why this piece is played at all orchestra competitions around the world.

In jazz, the severity and heroism of the trombone was replaced by two opposite directions - lyrical (Tommy Dorsey) and virtuoso (all other modern jazz trombonists).

And it seems that Tommy Dorsey is still much more popular with the general public than all the virtuoso solo trombonists put together. His sweet sounds are so pleasing to the ear. In my opinion, he is the heir to the Baroque tradition of playing the alto trombone, which is why he mainly used the high register. But we have digressed greatly from the topic. What prevents the trombone from becoming popular with the general public? The imperfection of the trombone or the imperfection of music for the trombone?

Why haven't we had our own Miles Davis, who would not chase speed but would put forward new musical ideas? And would Miles Davis have become so popular if he had played the trombone?

More questions, not answers.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-07 8:08 a.m.

I personally think Nils Landgren or Fred Wesley were going in the direction of what the most people would find appealing.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-04-07 8:59 a.m.

Yeah, I like both. I love funk. I wonder how many fans they have on goddamn Spotify?

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-07 11:34 a.m.

I once read that Antonín Dvořák didn't think it was possible to construct a good cello concerto until he heard Victor Herbert's cello concerto and thought, "Oh... so THAT's how you do it."

We have two problems as trombones: we never had our Victor Herbert and... the Dvořáks are all gone.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-04-07 11:42 a.m.

A trombone solo career is a bad prospect, but not as bad as a solo euphonium career or a solo tuba career.

After all these posts, I'm not sure people have landed on why a trombone solo career is so elusive.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-04-07 11:48 a.m.

[quote="tbdana"]A trombone solo career is a bad prospect, but not as bad as a solo euphonium career or a solo tuba career.

After all these posts, I'm not sure people have landed on why a trombone solo career is so elusive.[/quote]

I think Maximillien said it above (although more prosaically): We allow ourselves to be constrained by what has gone before when we should instead build upon it. We should stand upon the shoulders of giants, not be cowed by them.

Trombo · by **Trombo** » 2025-04-07 12:24 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]A trombone solo career is a bad prospect, but not as bad as a solo euphonium career or a solo tuba career.

After all these posts, I'm not sure people have landed on why a trombone solo career is so elusive.[/quote]

Yes, a solo trombonist has no chance of getting tens of millions of views, no matter how well he plays. But if he COMPOSES good music, SINGS it well and also plays the trombone, then there is a chance. And besides, good looks are desirable.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-07 5:46 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]A trombone solo career is a bad prospect, but not as bad as a solo euphonium career or a solo tuba career.

After all these posts, I'm not sure people have landed on why a trombone solo career is so elusive.[/quote]

I'm not sure you're right here. I think the answer was hit on -- the guitar, guitar-like instruments, and singing predate it by thousands of years, and it never was as good as those instruments. That's a huge reason why it doesn't have "mass appeal".

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-07 7:01 p.m.

the market for instrumental music, as a pop performance type, is at an historic low overall.

According to the internet, the last instrumental to hit #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 was "Harlem Shake" in 2013, the first since... 1985.

Also from the Internet: "As of April 7, 2025, there are no instrumental songs currently on the Billboard Hot 100 chart"

No, I've never heard of this:

<YOUTUBE id="qV0LHCHf-pE">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/qV0LHCHf-pE</YOUTUBE>

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-04-07 7:17 p.m.

Well, let's not confuse things. We don't need to have any trombone #1 pop hits for trombonists to have successful solo careers. We don't even need to be on the pop music radar. Classical, jazz, and Latin music can support rich solo careers.

Players like John Allred, Bob McChesney, Marshall Gilkes, Steve Davis, John Fedchock, Steve Turre, Elliot Mason, Trombone Shorty, Rita Payes, Wycliffe Gordon, Ian Bousfeld, and Christian Lindberg, among others, have at least part of the formula down. I think we should be looking at folks like that for at least part of the answer.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-07 8:35 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]Well, let's not confuse things. We don't need to have any trombone #1 pop hits for trombonists to have successful solo careers. We don't even need to be on the pop music radar. Classical, jazz, and Latin music can support rich solo careers.[/quote]

The success of trombone performers compared to pop stars is part of the premise of the discussion at the outset.

Go read the OP.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-07 9:25 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]Well, let's not confuse things. We don't need to have any trombone #1 pop hits for trombonists to have successful solo careers. We don't even need to be on the pop music radar. Classical, jazz, and Latin music can support rich solo careers.

Players like John Allred, Bob McChesney, Marshall Gilkes, Steve Davis, John Fedchock, Steve Turre, Elliot Mason, Trombone Shorty, Rita Payes, Wycliffe Gordon, Ian Bousfeld, and Christian Lindberg, among others, have at least part of the formula down. I think we should be looking at folks like that for at least part of the answer.[/quote]

You seen Lindberg perform live? I've seen him a few times. The best was in 2004 in DC, when he played Kalevi Aho's Symphony 9 (a 30 minute trombone concerto with TWO orchestras, the symphony and an internal baroque chamber orchestra). He ran out onto the stage to an audience of maybe 2000 people, and immediately everyone is cheering like he is some kind of rock star. He's bowing, shaking hands, and then nods at the conductor, and when his horn goes up the applause goes silent instantaneously. Proceed with 30 minute long work from memory, switching between tenor and alto sackbut!!? (Just go listen to it, it's incredible) Then when he was done, he does nine curtain calls. I'm getting sentimental over you is played. Finally he plays flight of the bumblebee and stops midway through, and says "I am sorry but I can't play any more! There are more pieces tonight!" And the audience kept clapping after he left until he finally came back and begged them to stop.

He has the secret to performing down. But he is still only appealing to the classical music lovers, and the ones that aren't trombone players go home, say "wow that was unbelievable!", and forget about what they just saw, because they can't sing the tune and literally no one else is playing the piece to reinforce it as something they want to hear again(on the radio, at other symphonies, on different albums, etc).

With pop music, and maybe even jazz (but not in my experience), the artists are intrinsically tied to their music that they wrote, that you can sing the tune of, and that can be reinforced on radio, streaming, and whatever else in 3 minutes 30 seconds, over and over again.

Maybe that's the issue. Even Lindberg, who has the excitement and artistry down, isn't tied to his repertoire in the minds of the audience like a pop star is. Sure, he had 100+ works commissioned for him. Sure his "piece" is Sandström's motorbike concerto. But again, you can't sing that tune (like you can sing Beethoven 7), and only one person in the planet could do that piece real justice so it is never reinforced, and even if it was a smash hit the audience would be like "ah yes, Lindberg, he's the guy that goes vroom vroom, when do we get to hear Lang Lang play Rach 2?". :idk:

slidesix · by **slidesix** » 2025-04-08 2:01 a.m.

To me my first trombone soloist to whom I was exposed was recordings of Christian Lindberg.

Why is the trombone limited?

I am not a musicologist nor an academic in music nor a trombone professional. So take all of this with a huge grain of salt. I have not read all the posts yet, I would yield to someone like LeTromboniste on this one.

I think for solo repertriore it is violin and piano and sung lyrics ... then everyone else. We could also ask: where is viola? or where it french horn? or where is the bass clarinet? Or where is the timpani? The reality is almost the same. All of these instruments are worthy. It is just that is seems violin and piano get the most play, the most audience appreciation, the most composer attention, etc. Many composers, like Mozart, etc. were violin or piano players before they started. I think some of that continues today. Why? I don't know. Many these instruments have color and range (not as most octaves--though piano with 88 key is very formidable!), and variation that makes them popular with audiences and composers a like. Violin, piano, and voice seem to have it whatever it is!

Is that all of it? I don't know.

The others aren't wrong with rock or rhythm and blues (R&B).

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-08 10:31 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]You seen Lindberg perform live? I've seen him a few times. The best was in 2004 in DC... TWO orchestras... ran out onto the stage... everyone is cheering... 30 minute long work from memory... flight of the bumblebee..

... the ones that aren't trombone players go home, say "wow that was unbelievable!"[/quote]

Yes, i think you have found the problem

On the Venn diagram of audience perceptions of entertainments, he may be closer to a Cirque du Soleil act in Las Vegas than a James Galway at Carnegie Hall.

Lindberg is indeed amazing and incredible but i doubt many audience members go home saying, "I wish I played the trombone", whereas i imagine many people go home from a James Galway concert wishing they played the flute.

Too bad he's not talk show material. That was good for Galway and Itzhak Perlman.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-14 2:42 p.m.

If the David concerto is a viable trombone concerto, what is not viable about the Blazhevich No.2?

It has at least as much virtuosity, it has better tunes and more of them, musically interesting treatments throughout and a BIG Hollywood finish.

Aside from the conspicuous lack of a true orchestra setting... why is it in the third tier?

If the argument is "high schoolers play that"... they play the David concerto too.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-15 12:02 a.m.

Blazhevich No 2 finale

I presume there are cannons and church bells here

<YOUTUBE id="_rXsQ2kEpw4">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/_rXsQ2kEpw4?si=gKLJjzytjYBKaBUi</YOUTUBE>

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-15 7:06 a.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]If the David concerto is a viable trombone concerto, what is not viable about the Blazhevich No.2?[/quote]

Oooo careful now -- is not a concerto. :mrgreen:

The Blazhevich ending is sans trombone? In many ways that is superior to the David.

Retrobone · by **Retrobone** » 2025-04-15 8:33 a.m.

The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-04-15 9:15 a.m.

The quality of having a musical sound; having a certain level of sensitivity to the rhythm, beat, and meaning of music.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-15 11:09 a.m.

[quote="Retrobone"]The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.[/quote]

Music is organized sound that is compelling (meaning you want to keep listening), so... "musicality" is the perceived qualities of those sound and organization elements that make them compelling.

It could be the difference in tone between a beginner band trombone player and an accomplished performer.

it could be the difference in style between Charles Wuorinen and Anton Bruckner.

It could be the difference in volume between a death metal band and a string quartet.

It is a judgement call by the listener.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-04-15 11:48 a.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]<QUOTE author="Retrobone" post_id="273234" time="1744720425" user_id="3769">
The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.[/quote]

Music is organized sound that is compelling (meaning you want to keep listening), so... "musicality" is the perceived qualities of those sound and organization elements that make them compelling.

It could be the difference in tone between a beginner band trombone player and an accomplished performer.

it could be the difference in style between Charles Wuorinen and Anton Bruckner.

It could be the difference in volume between a death metal band and a string quartet.

It is a judgement call by the listener.
</QUOTE>

[Emphasis added.]

I understand the argument here, but it leaves out much from our judgment of music, let alone our experience of it.

Say that “compelling” is on one end of a spectrum of musical styles that measure how much or little one likes a piece of music. The spectrum (a Likert scale) would then have gradations along the way such as compelling, interesting, ambivalent, disinteresting, dislike, and despise. You could even break things up and have a separate scale to account for different parameters of music: pitch, rhythm, timbre, volume, style, etc. (assuming they know what those parameters mean). While something like this would clarify what someone likes or dislikes about a piece of music, it ultimately gives us no more information than they didn’t like a piece of music.

What kinds of things make a Mozart aria or symphonic movement more appealing to the general audience than, say, a Sousa march or a Herbert Clarke or Arthur Pryor solo? Both kinds of music share harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic similarities.

Surely, we can say more about what makes a piece of music compelling, or even interesting.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-15 12:27 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]Surely, we can say more about what makes a piece of music compelling, or even interesting.[/quote]

Surely we can, but it won't be dispositive.

The more we refine our definitions, the more we exclude something that may have a valid claim in some circumstance. I recognize that.

BTW, "compelling" is my reactionary amendment to the music theory class definition of music as no more than "organized sound".

"Compelling" is my assertion that music isn't merely output by composers and performers, it is a transaction with the audience.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-04-15 8:04 p.m.

With regards to "musicality":

Not a big fan of that term, although I use it for lack of any better word. Maybe actually "artistry" would be better. In the question of distinguishing craft from artistry one might define craft as the technical ability (for example, in our case, intonation, control and reliability of articulation, precision of the slide, flexibility, ability to play fast notes, ease in different registers, sense of time, etc.) and artistry as the conceptualization or imagination of complex, original artistic (in our case, musical) ideas. In other words the craft is how well you're able to execute the ideas. On the other hand, it is unavoidable that the craft will also limit the artistry, because one tends to generate ideas within the scope of what they can and do regularly execute. But the less we can let the artistry be limited by the craft, and the more we can adapt and expand the craft to follow our artistic ideas, the better. Artistry is of course much harder to judge than craft because it's subjective and about ideas where the other is more objective and about technical abilities. Improving one's craft is ultimately about improving physical abilities, while improving one's artistry is about broadening the mindset and imagination.

In other words, one can be an extremely proficient and technical impeccable player but only ever use that high-level craft to execute mundane and not particularly complex, imaginative or touching artistic ideas, just as one might have great ideas but lack the craft to execute them. The baseline is that one's craft needs to be at least good enough to execute their artistic ideas. But say someone's musical ideas are 9/10, and require a 6/10 craft, and their craft is exactly that 6/10. They are likely to be more appealing as a musician than someone whose craft is 9/10 but who only ever expresses musical ideas that are 6/10, no matter what level of craft these ideas require.

With regards to people not being interested in classical music, well I don't know about that. I just played a 9PM concert on a Tuesday night in a church, of singers, gambas and trombones performing fairly obscure 400 year-old music. No big name performers. It was a 300-seat church. There were 300 people sitting, and about half as many again standing in the crammed aisles and the back of the church. It was absolutely packed. So yeah, we might not fill football stadiums, but I'm not ready to rule it out as something irrelevant that nobody wants to hear.

Retrobone · by **Retrobone** » 2025-04-16 5:14 a.m.

Thanks Max for your thoughts. Musicality is a word that falls short for me, and I stopped using it in lessons. Artistry... yes a good term, but again it isn't easy to quantify "artistry" either. Or even musicianship. I thought a lot about it over the years. Especially after I had a long association with musicians from the early music scene. Having been an orchestral musician for so long, I know that I don't often get the chance to display artistry as a soloist. Boleros and Tuba Mirums come around, but not every week! Mostly our artistry is confined to good rhythm, balance, and tuning. And then I'm looking for the meaning of the composer. And as we well know... many conductors don't get far past reminding one of exactly what's in front of us, or sticking up the left hand before you even play. Despite the hindrances, there can be great artistry in the orchestral nuts and bolts! Playing some of the great original sackbut repertoire really did present me with an artistic challenge, though. Then comes the musicianship... playing in different clefs and tuning systems. Or balancing with singers and violinists. Phrasing like string artists or vocal artists.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-16 11:24 p.m.

See if you can guess what all these composers have in common, relevant to our discussion.

Bach

Handel

Mozart

Haydn

Beethoven

Mendelssohn

Goldmark

Brahms

Dvorak

Britten

Elgar

Franck

Saint-Saens

Tchaikovsky

Sibelius

Strauss

Nielson

Glazunov

Kabalevsky

Khachaturian

Shostakovich

Prokofiev

Bartok

Barber

The answer can be seen by highlighting the text in this box:

~~[color=#F8F6F0]~~They have all written at least one violin concerto and have written zero trombone concertos. Even the weakest of them is probably stronger than any trombone concerto.

Although they all knew of the trombone and used it in at least one work, that was the limit of their interest

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-17 10:53 a.m.

and then there's this guy.

Rimsky-Korsakov

~~[color=#F8F6f0]~~Rimsky-Korsakov is the only standard-repertoire composer to write a trombone concerto but never write a violin concerto

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-04-17 11:39 a.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]and then there's this guy.

Rimsky-Korsakov[/quote]
He also originally wrote his concerto for trombone and military band, not orchestra.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-04-17 12:15 p.m.

I’m not sure what these lists say about the trombone other than Bach et al didn’t write a concerto for the instrument. Yes, they could have, but they didn’t. The same could be said of Rimsky-Korsakov and his lack of writing a violin concerto: he could have written one, but he didn’t.

Perhaps the mood never struck them… or they didn’t feel moved or compelled to write a piece for the instrument… or it wasn’t a viable solo instrument for what they wanted to say… or they didn’t know a trombone player capable of playing what they wanted to write for the instrument… or they never received a commission… or…

I think it’s important to acknowledge the relatively small number of solo compositions for trombone in the Baroque to post-Romantic periods compared to the violin. That’s an accident of history, as much as anything. I think it’s also fair to say that the few compositions that do exist aren’t as well known and, by some accounts, aren’t as compelling to an audience as a similar violin piece—although that’s likely due to greater familiarity with the violin literature and the comparative lack of familiarity with trombone literature.

I also think it’s important not to set up one instrument as a straw man next to another. (Now that’s a picture I’d like to see!)

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-17 1:28 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]I’m not sure what these lists say about the trombone other than Bach et al didn’t write a concerto for the instrument.[/quote]
To me, the list makes painfully clear how much the era of great composers passed us by.

For 200+ years great composers practically grew on trees but they never ventured to write a trombone concerto. For 200+ years they found new ways to write violin concertos and yet they never found a first way to do that for trombone.

Perhaps the mood never struck them… or they didn’t feel moved or compelled to write a piece for the instrument… or it wasn’t a viable solo instrument for what they wanted to say… or they didn’t know a trombone player capable of playing what they wanted to write for the instrument… or they never received a commission… or…

Really. This is astonishingly bad luck. Just turn one of those conditions around for just one of those composers and we'd have a trombone concerto. It's like rolling the dice and somehow always coming up with zero.

My list omits the numerous virtuoso player-composers like Corelli, Paganini and Wienawski who saw a need for new violin repertoire and created some maybe-not-great-but-pretty-good works. Nothing like that seems to have happened among trombone players.

Now the era of great composers is over and we're left with a repertoire of also-rans, pranks, and weird performance art.

I think it’s important to acknowledge the relatively small number of solo compositions for trombone in the Baroque to post-Romantic periods compared to the violin.

I appreciate the efforts of the Paris Conservatoire to commission all those annual Concours pieces. I'm guessing that hearing their work played 20 times in one day dissuaded the composers from any further trombone involvement.

[quote="JohnL"]<QUOTE author="robcat2075" post_id="273457" time="1744901628" user_id="3697">
Rimsky-Korsakov[/quote]
He also originally wrote his concerto for trombone and military band, not orchestra.
</QUOTE>

It's like he was trying to miss the boat twice!

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-04-17 1:43 p.m.

Well, we DO have a Mozart and a Haydn...if you don't look too closely.

Maybe we should seek out composers with famous surnames, and commission pieces from them!

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-04-17 2:10 p.m.

The amount of "new music" hate and the normalization of it is off-putting. There are plenty of classical style composers out there. There's even a John Williams Tuba Concerto that is pretty great! But if I just posted all the time about hating Jazz, and how Jazz is bad now, and the era of Jazz is over, and Jazz is just a joke, etc... I don't think it'd be received well, and rightfully so.

There is so much music out there in any style you choose! You don't have to like everything, but there's still people writing in the styles that you wish. The constant hate on what is considered "new music" is tiring, especially for those of us that love it and play it for audiences that also enjoy it.

Just please consider leaving out the constant snide comments. Everyone gets it by now.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-04-17 2:14 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]To me, the list makes painfully clear how much the era of great composers passed us by.[/quote]
They wrote what sold. Violin, piano, and (occasionally) cello. A major work for any other instrument is rare and, I suspect, frequently written either as a commission or for a personal friend who played that instrument.

[quote="robcat2075"]<QUOTE author="JohnL" post_id="273464" time="1744904376" user_id="119">
He also originally wrote his concerto for trombone and military band, not orchestra.[/quote]
It's like he was trying to miss the boat twice!
</QUOTE>
Please tell me that wasn't intended as a pun. When he wrote the concerto, Rimsky-Korsakov was the Inspector of Naval Bands, a civilian post within the Russian Navy (he had previously been a naval officer). He wrote it for a friend, a Marine officer named Leonov.

Macbone1 · by **Macbone1** » 2025-04-17 2:29 p.m.

If not already mentioned, you may want to research listening stats on YouTube, not just Spotify.

The electric guitar has obviously taken over popular music since the fifties. Just think how long ago that is. In the big band era, trumpets, trombones, clarinets and saxophones sold faster than the factories could make them.

The main appeal of the guitar is how the player's face is unencumbered by a mouthpiece, so there's more freedom of expression and a stronger stage presence. It also frees the player to sing of course.

Guitar can be harmonic, percussive and melodic and is more quickly learned and simpler to teach than wind instruments.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-17 6:14 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]The amount of "new music" hate and the normalization of it is off-putting. There are plenty of classical style composers out there. There's even a John Williams Tuba Concerto that is pretty great! But if I just posted all the time about hating Jazz, and how Jazz is bad now, and the era of Jazz is over, and Jazz is just a joke, etc... I don't think it'd be received well, and rightfully so.

There is so much music out there in any style you choose! You don't have to like everything, but there's still people writing in the styles that you wish. The constant hate on what is considered "new music" is tiring, especially for those of us that love it and play it for audiences that also enjoy it.

Just please consider leaving out the constant snide comments. Everyone gets it by now.[/quote]

These pieces do not generally seem to last long beyond the premiere, though. Especially "new" works that are not written in a "romantic" style. It isn't good to just bash all new music, but it's worthwhile to look into why composers (who don't write movie music like Howard Shore or John Williams) haven't been able to get mass appeal even in the classical world.

There might be something to the fact that Mozart wrote operas and the fact that his music was somewhat popular and increased in popularity after his death. That was the movie music of his day.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-04-17 7:47 p.m.

The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-04-17 8:00 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.[/quote]

This is true... And perhaps there were more composers in the past (though I doubt this, considering how many more people are on the planet now), but it seems like a higher rate of pieces from before the year 1900 have been accumulated into the public consciousness and "survived" than those written after 1900.

Why is that? It must be more complex than just the music itself, standing alone. I'm sure there is a strong social and even "political" (thinking it orchestra dynamics) reason behind it.

But perhaps serious composers who are not writing for movies (a commercial endeavor, where success really matters) could try harder to think about the audience. This might also be why the trombone takes on so many experimental works from new composers.

This is a great documentary that goes through almost the whole process of getting new music for the trombone. The composer was, I think, supposed to be the hero and the star of it, but ... It is worth a watch. So fascinating to see how this music, and a big part of our modern repertoire, comes into being. The trombonist gives 1000% to attempting to make the price a success:

<YOUTUBE id="5sdKgkit3Do">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/5sdKgkit3Do?si=LqtG2Yqu_G-KVPM5</YOUTUBE>

HappyAmateur · by **HappyAmateur** » 2025-04-18 10:23 a.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]It's the Law of the Instrument: if the only tool you have is a hammer, it's easy to start seeing everything as a nails. We focus a lot on fullness and broadness and power, and perfect evenness and playing the longest possible phrasing with the most equally sustained airflow, and absolute consistency of tone and articulations, to the point where a lot of musicality is beaten out of us, without us even realising it, until we're left with a fairly mundane and surface-level musicality. Even our equipment choice pushes us in that direction.[/quote]Late to the party here, but I'll give a small anecdote that this comment made me think about.

For a couple years now, I've been in a community classical choir which is about the most musically advanced thing I've ever done in my life (hence my user name). For our showcases, our director has to cobble together an orchestra full of semi-pro musicians. Last year, the trombones ruined it for us. They were way too loud and proud. This year, the piece called for 3 trombones, but our director chose none. Without the trombones, the concert went great (for our level).

Yes, this likely wouldn't have been a problem for us if we could afford high-quality trombonists. But it speaks to what you are describing. The world isn't full of high-quality musicians. It's full of mediocrity and amateurs. And I'd argue that trombone is less forgiving than many other instruments when it's played by someone who isn't skilled. And so we don't have a market for high-quality trombone soloists because we don't have a market for low-quality solo gigs. People are happy to hear a random mediocre guitarist at open-mic night at the bar. No one wants to hear a trombone. It scales from there.

All that said, I'd argue that all instruments that can only play a single melodic line will struggle with carving solo/"front-person" careers. Can you name some awesome clarinet or euphonium soloists? I think even highly successful instrumental soloists like Yo Yo Ma or the 90's ubiquitous sax soloist Kenny G are overwhelming exceptions and not the rule. For any instrument - the chances of being a marquee act on your own are vastly smaller than they are for vocalists.

And as a (mediocre amateur) vocalist, I think the only reason vocalists took that place in society was because of the invention of the microphone. Prior to the microphone it took a whole lot of training and skill to be a solo singer and project louder than an ensemble (or more so - a full orchestra). You can also cheat like crazy with a microphone... my range extends greatly when I'm mic'ed up in church instead of in my classical chorus. There are a lot of male front-men singing brilliant falsetto or deep, raspy alto female leads that would sound a whole lot worse if they weren't mic-ed.

(And on a related note, I think electrification of music in general contributed to the decline of band/orchestra - it used to be the only way you get really loud music; now you can just turn your amp up to 11).

CheeseTray · by **CheeseTray** » 2025-04-18 11:18 a.m.

This may be a little off the main topic but I believe its applicable.

The reduction in appeal of classical music (and serious jazz) has as much or more to do with the broad changes in culture at large, and consumption of music as it does with trends in composition. While it is certainly true that many composers’ move toward ever-increasing complexity alienated large parts of their collective audiences, changing times and tastes have limited them too. The factors are many - here are a few:

1. The rise of recordings and instantaneous access to music via mass media; people can now sit at home (or anywhere) and repeatedly listen to what they enjoy and are already most comfortable with. Additionally, mass media/internet access has enabled the proliferation of pop culture into everyday life to an unprecedented degree. Much of pop music is woefully “LCD.” Its success is dependent upon quick accessibility and an effective hook; a song needs to “stick” immediately or it doesn’t survive commercially. Its assimilation requires no patience or familiarization time to appreciate, unlike the patience necessary for classical music or jazz.

2. All of this overly simple, instantly accessible music saturating the environment has had a profoundly chilling effect on the average persons’ “patient” listening skills (and listening attention span). Listeners lose interest way too fast (think of how quickly you may start advancing through an 8-10 minute YouTube video) to give more complex music a chance.

3. In the mid 20th century, as audiences aged, many listeners progressed toward more sophisticated musical experiences. For example, people who grew up with the 40s-50s crooners later bought tickets to the symphony as they aged. This tendency changed with those who grew up with rock… now they would prefer to see the Stones perform in their 80s or attend Roots of Rock-n-Roll shows, or even tribute band shows. (Hence orchestras’ often cringey attempts to create “relevant, accessible” pop experiences.)

4. In simple, empirical terms there are also so many more listening options available. Many average listeners, having so much easily accessible music all around them, have no desire to expend the time or effort (or possess the intellectual curiosity) to expand their listening horizons with any semblance of intentionality.

5. Erosion (or elimination) of government support for “fine art” music, plus its elimination of tax advantages for corporations to support the arts, has forced art music into an unending struggle for visibility, resources, and stability (at least in the US). This is not an environment that fosters growth or attracts aspiring talent.

6. Serious music requires serious money to support it. Tickets aren’t cheap, because highly trained musicians need to be fairly compensated and performance venues are expensive to run/rent. Many casual listeners find the attendance cost too much; particularly if they can access recordings allowing them to prioritize which live concert experiences earn their limited disposable income dollars; these performances are not the kind of spectacular experiences that pop shows deliver.

This post is way too long (sorry). The bottom line is that, though many of the points made, and much of the discussion in this thread is on point, ultimately our increasing changing cultural milieu (plus the rapid pace of change) is a huge factor in the state of affairs as well. If the mainstream of sophisticated art music is struggling against the tide, it isn’t reasonable to expect a narrower sub-category of it to have much of a chance.

…my long-winded .02

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-04-18 11:18 a.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.[/quote]

This says a lot about the ephemeral nature of music.

It also reflects human’s doggedness in their attempts to hold onto something and present it as a pinnacle, an exemplar. It’s as if, for every trombone concerto ever written, there’s someone out there saying, “Well, that was nice, but it’s no Tchaikovsky or Brahms Violin Concerto!” Rubbish.

Humans have always been—and until we become different creatures, always will be—fascinated by the perception of greatness, however you define it. We allow that perception of greatness to influence our choices for good and ill. At one time, the cornetto (German zink) was one of the most highly-praised instruments due to its facility and similarity to the human voice. It didn’t last, though: the violin replaced it. Unless you make an effort to find and listen to some early music, or unless you are a professional and carve out a life devoted to bringing that music back to life (thank you, Maximillien, Tim Dowling, and others here on TC), you wouldn’t know about the cornetto except as “some weird thing that people used to play music on that no one listens to anymore.”

We now have the ability to listen to music—and see art—from a long time ago. Music from 500 years ago can be easily found through playlists. Prehistoric cave art is easily found on the internet. When we see cave drawings, how many of us say, either to ourselves or to others, “Well, that’s nice, but it’s no Rembrandt!” To do so is to claim that anachronistic thinking makes sense, that judging the past by our present sensibilities is logical and proper. Again: rubbish.

Moussa’s Concerto for Trombone <LINK_TEXT text="viewtopic.php?p=273065&hilit=Moussa#p273065">https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?p=273065&hilit=Moussa#p273065</LINK_TEXT> might not make it on playlists (albums? mix tapes? CDs?) of “Favorite Pieces of the Early 20th Century,” and that’s okay. It will probably make it on a list of Difficult Trombone Concertos, or Difficult Pieces for Trombone in Minimalist Style. Enjoy it while it’s here.

VJOFan · by **VJOFan** » 2025-04-18 12:27 p.m.

<YOUTUBE id="aTqritjft4s" t="195">https://youtu.be/aTqritjft4s?si=QhrL44i0kWiWLohU&t=195</YOUTUBE>

“Perception of Greatness”

I thought about this when a substitute teacher saw me this week and asked if I was keeping up with my music. She was moved by a little ditty I played at the school Christmas assembly.

She wasn’t the only one I guess. I clipped just enough of this so it’s obvious the crowd reaction is not to what they are hearing. Scrub to the end to hear the cheers that maybe are about more than my playing.

We were playing for the students and staff of my school this past Christmas. We are all part of the same crew so they hear quality that’s not there and respond as if it was great.

There are probably lots of players getting positive feedback all over the place. It just takes getting an audience connected to the musicians and music. So there is no trombone equivalent to Lang Lang. There are plenty of trombone recitals and players making at least extra coin playing solos in various guises.

We can’t control the international music market. We can cultivate our own music gardens.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-04-19 12:31 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]There is so much music out there in any style you choose! You don't have to like everything...[/quote]

I'm afraid I don't get to choose what the symphony orchestra plays. Perhaps you do?

My only choice is to go or not go.

In thirty years of concert-going the various new music and "world premieres" I've heard have been uniformly awful. Memorable only for their tediousness and lamentable for their lack of musical interest.

And I can venture that my personal assessment of them seems to have been borne out because NONE of them have ever resurfaced for return engagements.

It's not just me.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2025-04-19 1:13 p.m.

It'd be like going to a restaurant where you know you don't like the food, getting it every time, complaining about it ceaselessly, and then blaming them as well. Maybe not going is the answer if you're determined to have a bad time. There's plenty of classics only concerts of the music you deem "good" that you could attend as well.

TomRiker · by **TomRiker** » 2025-04-24 12:16 p.m.

[quote="officermayo"]<QUOTE author="WilliamLang" post_id="271536" time="1743261515" user_id="8089">
Trombone Shorty is a good musician. So is Rita Payes - one doesn't take from the other.[/quote]

Perhaps, but my beef is that the students I hear locally have chosen to blast away like Shorty as opposed to playing with finess and style like Rita.

Then again, VHS was chosen over Beta by the unwashed masses. I shouldn't be surprised.
</QUOTE>

I get the frustration with music students preferring loud and brassy over nuanced. But... I look back at the disco Maynard albums I listened to in high school and cringe. The Miles Davis albums not so much. Are the Maynard albums bad? I don't think we can just say they're bad. There is good playing on them. Probably a good idea here and there, and most importantly they made me feel something as a kid and that made me want to play! They were fun albums! I think we get into trouble when we categorize music as good music and bad music. It is for sure a value judgement and that isn't how most people look at music. I mean I realize people have likes or dislikes but I don't think most people listen to something they don't like and think "wow what simple solo. Nothing interesting harmonically at all."

There are also things that can make a performer more popular that are valid that aren't just about how they play. Those things are often tied to how much fun audiences have listening to the music. I haven't seen Rita live, but I've been watching her NPR tiny desk concert, and I have seen Trombone Shorty live. In fact I saw him at a blues festival in the middle of the day on Friday slot. Early sets on giant festival stages are tough. The crowd isn't as big or as engaged as they will be at 9pm. Many people are just there for the headliner, and there is not much intimacy with audience compared to a club gig. Trombone Shorty and HIS BAND lit up that stage. People started dancing and having fun! (there's that "fun" word again). Music that offers nothing more than a good time can be valid music too. In fact I think both Trombone Shorty and Glen Miller fit that pattern. Decent players, great band leaders, great marketers/self promoters, great at working an audience. Rita has some of that, but at the end of the day if I was in my 20's and wanted to party and dance I'd go with Trombone Shorty. Having said that, If I was still in my thirties and trying to set the mood for a romantic dinner there is no contest. Rita wins.

At the end of the day I think there are two answers to the op's question. One is that trombone players often don't think about what general audiences want out of a listening or concert experience. I think we tend to try to be great musicians rather than entertaining ones. I mean this as a generality. Clearly there are exceptions. The other reason is that in our effort to be great musicians we tend to be conservative. By that I mean we tend to try to preserve musical genres and forms that used to be popular. We try to play the concertos the "right" way. To build "proper" jazz solos. Human beings get used to stuff real quickly. We evolved to. We want new and different. Even when we want familiar we want it to be a little different. Otherwise music wouldn't evolve. That new but different is what made bebop popular originally. The getting used to things and moving on is why most people who hate jazz today are usually thinking of bebop. What we rarely want as a broad population is excellence in art. Especially if it's challenging our aesthetics. Even if you look at trombone classical music the "best" pieces aren't always the most popular. I don't think the David is the best concerto written for trombone. It is one of the most listenable ones. If I had to perform a concerto for an audience and the only thing I knew about them was that they weren't an audience of classical music listeners or trombonists I'd pick the David.

Think of it like this. Of all the Star Trek movies with the original series cast I think Star Trek II the Wrath Of Khan is objectively the best movie, but if I just want to be entertained I'm going to put on Star Trek IV, which is probably the silliest of those movies but maybe also the most fun. I think trombonists undervalue fun in their music. Again generalities. Plenty of exceptions. Many of them are the ones with the most listens

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-04-24 12:32 p.m.

I think there's a lot of important truth in Tom Riker's post. We should all read it a couple of times to soak it all in.

Except that shit about Star Trek. The Voyage Home grossed the least of any of the Star Trek pictures. When it comes to Trek, Tom clearly doesn't know his phaser from his photon torpedo.

tromboneVan · by **tromboneVan** » 2025-04-24 1:07 p.m.

Riker gets it

<YOUTUBE id="D_zihfZDIKY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_zihfZDIKY</YOUTUBE>

TomRiker · by **TomRiker** » 2025-04-24 2:28 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]

Except that shit about Star Trek. The Voyage Home grossed the least of any of the Star Trek pictures. When it comes to Trek, Tom clearly doesn't know his phaser from his photon torpedo.[/quote]

Maybe opening weekend? Looks like it's the second highest grossing after The Motion Picture which is... not good.

The global box office earnings for the original Star Trek

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $339.84 million.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $203.05 million.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): $152.78 million.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $223.32 million.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $52.23 million.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $109.68 million.

Star Trek Generations (1994): $126.89 million.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $147.98 million.

Star Trek Insurrection (1998): $77.90 million.

Star Trek Nemesis (2002): $9.53 million.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-04-24 5:05 p.m.

LOL! I had no idea, man, I was just yanking your chain! :D

LetItSlide · by **LetItSlide** » 2025-04-24 8:19 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]I've generally felt that the trombone's greatest strength is as an ensemble instrument, in a trombone section.[/quote]
Or in a horn section. Not that I don’t love a good trombone section. Just saying that a trumpet-sax-trombone section can be very appealing.

TomRiker · by **TomRiker** » 2025-04-25 9:32 a.m.

[quote="tbdana"]LOL! I had no idea, man, I was just yanking your chain! :D[/quote]

I didn't either, but you got me curious!

JTeagarden · by **JTeagarden** » 2025-06-10 4:09 p.m.

[quote="Retrobone"]The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.[/quote]

I would say it's what's you perceive in a performance over and above a notationally correct rendering of the music.

And why it can be learned, but probably not taught!

JTeagarden · by **JTeagarden** » 2025-06-10 4:17 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]<QUOTE author="WilliamLang" post_id="273509" time="1744933665" user_id="8089">
The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.[/quote]

This says a lot about the ephemeral nature of music.

It also reflects human’s doggedness in their attempts to hold onto something and present it as a pinnacle, an exemplar. It’s as if, for every trombone concerto ever written, there’s someone out there saying, “Well, that was nice, but it’s no Tchaikovsky or Brahms Violin Concerto!” Rubbish.

</QUOTE>

Completely true. We tend to idealize earlier periods as having uniformly higher standards, as evidenced by the nearly uniform quality of earlier music still performed, but we forget that there were probably 50 utterly forgettable pieces written, premiered, and never performed again for every classic.

Pop music suffers this to an even worse degree, I would argue, given its tendency to pander:Take a look at "Top 10" pop tunes in any week in any given year, and you'll see for every "Perdido" there are 5 "How Much is That Doggy in the Windows."

Cmillar · by **Cmillar** » 2025-06-13 9:13 a.m.

We often forget the fact that composers like Mozart, Beethoven, and many others WERE the 'pop' composers of their day. Mozart played the 'jazz' of his day, and apparently Beethoven was a fantastic improviser too. As Bach was before them.

When introducing people to classical music, I've usually said that Mozart could be equated to 'The Beatles', in that he could write a tune for any occasion. He obviously valued public opinion and could give them want he thought they'd like to hear, but he was also able to compose some serious 'Art music' that probed the depths of our human souls without giving any thought as to being 'popular' or composing only in the accepted styles of the day. He was always pushing the limits and creating new sound worlds.

Beethoven, on the other hand, could be compared to 'Led Zeppelin'. Sure, he could write a beautiful melody like 'Fur Elise' or some other great tunes, but he all about rhythm.... he was the genuine 'rocker' of his time. For example, a lot of his music really isn't about 'melody' at all. It's about rhythm, power, moving the air, trying to shake people up! He was really shaking things up and experimenting with the new instrument of the time, the fortepiano. His composing output changed and evolved.

And, like Mozart, Beethoven could compose sublime music that still appeals to humans all over the world.

Also, they were composing and working for the communities in which they lived. I sincerely doubt that either of them really cared about being 'world famous' or whatever. They were basically just two great artists doing what they had to do.... and trying to pay the rent.

They were fully aware of the trends in Europe during their lives, and they were reflecting upon their current life experiences in much of their music. But I really doubt that either of them were trying to be 'classical music stars'. They were just working composers writing a variety of music for different purposes. The true 'rock stars' were going to arrive years later during the 'Romantic area' of the 1800's.

So...what's that got to do with us?

We should probably all just 'do' what we 'do' and let life play itself out.

And, I'm still going to listen to Maynard once in awhile for enjoyment (and reflection!) as well as listening to 'Don Giovanni' or 'Beethoven's 5th', or checking out what other trombone players are up to, as shown to us by Jacob Garchik at ~~[url]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://jacobgarchik.substack.com/p/rec ... omboneland">https://jacobgarchik.substack.com/p/recent-developments-in-tromboneland</LINK_TEXT>

For pure 'trombone-istic' listening pleasures? That all depends on what side of the bed I wake up on. There's so much out there to hear and so little time.

A true trombone rock/funk/pop star of today? I still go with Michael Nelson of 'Hornhead' fame and now playing all the time with Cory Wong's band.

Grotewobbo · by **Grotewobbo** » 2025-07-19 5:43 p.m.

Well as a trombonist you have to compete with saxophone players and trumpet players. A trombone is just a lot less cool than sax and trumpet. And if trumpet and sax also have problems with the mainstream audience then a trombone is more doomed.

JTeagarden · by **JTeagarden** » 2025-07-22 12:36 p.m.

I would argue that the sonic address where the trombone lives in classical settings and the corresponding expectations around the fullness of its sound create a kind of "full-horn, all the time" expectation that works against any great facility on the horn in a classical setting for all but a very few players: hard to simltaneously produce a wall of sound and fly around the horn.

Commercially oriented players are asked to do a broader range of things on the horn, but their sound kind of makes them unwelcome in a "legit" solo setting.

VJOFan · by **VJOFan** » 2025-09-04 6:51 p.m.

I saw two things in the last 24 hours that brought this thread back to mind. The first was a podcast from ITF 2025 with Christian Lindberg. The second was the announcement of the London Symphony Orchestra’s appointment of a new principal trombone. In the Lindbergh interview he spends some time addressing a question about the lack of trombonists as prominent soloists. His take is that the biggest block to soloists developing notable careers is that they all join orchestras and then they are finished as soloists, or at least they can no longer pursue that avenue of career with the necessary passion and ferocity that it takes. He should know what it takes to establish a solo career. When I looked at the summary of Mr. Johnson’s career to date it shows that he has been Avery active soloist and a very successful one. But now he is the principal trombonist of a major orchestra. Will he still be working as hard on his solo work?

It’s another take on this concept. Maybe it doesn’t happen because not many are trying or at least continuing to try for the long term.

<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.lso.co.uk/welcome-to-simon- ... -trombone/">https://www.lso.co.uk/welcome-to-simon-johnson-our-new-principal-trombone/</LINK_TEXT>

<YOUTUBE id="dAV_aZWRpW0">https://youtu.be/dAV_aZWRpW0?si=PrVsm7X6wKkqCs4Y</YOUTUBE>

StephenK · by **StephenK** » 2025-09-05 7:48 a.m.

One performer who has moved from being an orchestra member (left the LSO) to a soloist is Peter Moore. (He was featured in a BBC promenade concert last Saturday. )

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-09-05 1:24 p.m.

[quote="StephenK"]One performer who has moved from being an orchestra member (left the LSO) to a soloist is Peter Moore. (He was featured in a BBC promenade concert last Saturday. )[/quote]

In 2014, trombone prodigy Peter Moore was appointed the London Symphony Orchestra's co-principal trombonist, at 18 the youngest ever member of that orchestra. In November 2018, I heard his solo recital in Vienna at the Musikverein's Brahms-Saal. The concert was extraordinary. I remember wondering then if he had ambitions to be a full-time soloist. I guess he's answered that question!

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-09-05 1:40 p.m.

Let's also not forget Peter Steiner, who was was appointed Trombonist of the Vienna State Opera and Vienna Philharmonic for the 2016-2017 season at the age of 23, and is now trying to make it as a full-time trombone soloist.

Best wishes to our ambitious brave colleagues! :good:

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Trombone’s limited audience appeal for solo career