Why have bass trombones gotten to be so big and heavy and ugly ?

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-03 9:59 a.m.

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-07-03 10:14 a.m.

It has been the trend in tenor and bass trombones for many years, now. Bigger is cooler, I guess. Bigger bores, bigger bells, bigger horns, more tubing, more valves, etc. I like the purity of a straight tenor trombone. It's like a fork. A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.

I also like the single-valve bass trombones. Still tremendously useful.

mikerspencer · by **mikerspencer** » 2025-07-03 10:16 a.m.

I thought designs had coalesed around a 9.5" bell, which is smaller than some were.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2025-07-03 10:20 a.m.

[quote="blast"]Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]
What compared to what?

For example, I don’t think a Rath is big and ugly compared to a 62H.

I think many open wraps that extend way beyond the bell envelope are kinda ugly; but many times they do have a lighter, open sweeping look than say a 70s closed wrap Bach with a C extension.

Cheers,

Andy

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-03 10:49 a.m.

Me. I lobbied the big makers to do exactly that when I was a kid. The plan is working quite nicely!

TomInME · by **TomInME** » 2025-07-03 10:52 a.m.

[quote="mikerspencer"]I thought designs had coalesed around a 9.5" bell, which is smaller than some were.[/quote]

The flare measurement is largely (not completely) cosmetic. I believe weight and throat are much more influencial.

I think the design trends for bass bones are part of a cycle where composers/arrangers write more-challenging stuff in the lower register, players look for equipment that makes it easier, composers go further, equipment goes further, etc. An increase in doublers may also be part of this, relying on equipment to assist. And amateur composers (and some "pros") who don't understand the instrument will write half-step trills between pedal b-flat and b.

I'm not a fan of how this has altered the average/median color, but I have tried a modern design and it was a LOT easier in the trigger register. And I have changed my own setup and don't have the color I used to have (although I have tried not to stray very far), but my low B is on a different planet now compared to where it was. And I need it a lot more often than I did 30 years ago.

I wonder if the audition process is also a contributor due to a bias towards accuracy over color, but there's more than enough blame to go around already. Bigger tenors are part of the arms race too.

hyperbolica · 2025-07-03 11:00 a.m.

I wish there were an in-between option. A big tenor with two valves and a bass-ish bell. Something that could play an (in tune) low C at FF without sounding like ripping sheet metal, but still sounds like a trombone. The ugly part I think is due to the open wraps. They don't have to be D tuning, maybe Eb tuning is enough, while keeping the weight down a little.

I'm getting Sweeney to put a 2nd valve on my 1480, which should be a really nice small bass. With the reduced bore, smaller bell flare but bass throat, it should be compact enough to not be heavy, but we'll see about ugly. Sweeney isn't known for making ugly stuff.

TomInME · by **TomInME** » 2025-07-03 11:03 a.m.

Try this with a 1.5G and a dependent rotor setup from the 80's: <YOUTUBE id="Xcwfw-IhS8E">https://youtu.be/Xcwfw-IhS8E?feature=shared</YOUTUBE>

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-07-03 11:12 a.m.

1.5g and dependents isn't abnormal, really. People don't choose it, but there's a fair bit of it out there.

Looks like Matt Niess on lead.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-07-03 11:46 a.m.

[quote="blast"]Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]

Is that really true though? A Conn Fuchs or a New York Bach 50B is as big as most modern basses in every dimension save for not having a second valve. We settled on a .562" slide, 9.5" bell, and roughly Fuchs/50-sized throat and have stayed there for the most part, because it works.

Double axial basses can be pretty huge and heavy, but they are the extreme...there are still many players playing on middle of the road rotor setups.

I think a much bigger difference is mouthpiece size, as not too many people are still using 2Gs and 1.5Gs. As TomInME referred to, I think a big part of that is the kind of bass trombone parts people are expected to play these days. But even so, the 1.25 size is only a bit bigger than a 1.5 and is a common size - I use a 1-1/4GM myself. Once again, there are people at the extremes using Griego .25s and contra pieces and no leadpipes, but that sort of thing isn't as popular as it was in the '80s and '90s. We flirted with going bigger/heavier then, and most people realized that it was too much.

If bass trombones really got significantly larger in recent years, then I wouldn't be able to use my 72H every day and blend with modern basses and large tenors just fine. But I do! Bass trombones still sound and play like bass trombones, even the big ones. In the past few decades, I think sound concept has seen a much bigger shift than equipment.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Me. I lobbied the big makers to do exactly that when I was a kid. The plan is working quite nicely![/quote]

I KNEW IT

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-07-03 12:46 p.m.

[quote="TomInME"]I think the design trends for bass bones are part of a cycle where composers/arrangers write more-challenging stuff in the lower register, players look for equipment that makes it easier, composers go further, equipment goes further, etc. An increase in doublers may also be part of this, relying on equipment to assist. And amateur composers (and some "pros") who don't understand the instrument will write half-step trills between pedal b-flat and b.

I'm not a fan of how this has altered the average/median color, but I have tried a modern design and it was a LOT easier in the trigger register. And I have changed my own setup and don't have the color I used to have (although I have tried not to stray very far), but my low B is on a different planet now compared to where it was. And I need it a lot more often than I did 30 years ago.[/quote] Sometimes I feel like composers have the bass trombone confused with the Cimbasso, and you end up with lines that are completely not idiomatic to the trombone and fail to bring out the strengths of the instrument. And of course there are many who look at the Bass Trombone more as being a texture or 'menacing loud noise".

I also think that honestly the bass trombone is an ergonomic nightmare due to having both a slide and two valves. Parts that involve swapping freely between the bG, F, and D sides of the horn are a recipe for carpal tunnel syndrome, and not really what the idea was when the trombone was designed: an instrument that changes pitch by use of a slide. Now in some cases it's a valve instrument with a slide assist for tuning. It would probably be better to just design a handle and linkage that supports the entire hand and utilizes the first and second fingers, rather than the thumb and finger arrangement.

MahlerMusic · by **MahlerMusic** » 2025-07-03 3:20 p.m.

[quote="blast"]Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]

Funny, I see the opposite. In the 90's/early 2000's I saw 10.5" Bach bells and D or C second trigger only tuning. Now every thing is 9.5" and thin Bells. Still a mix of single and Dual bore. I even see rotors still going strong.

Schultz · by **Schultz** » 2025-07-03 4:00 p.m.

[quote="blast"]Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]

Which specific instrument(s) influenced this thought?

If anything i feel more the trend is heading more towards (or back) to the vintage horns of old.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-07-03 4:11 p.m.

When the tenor players switched to 0.547" (13.9 mm) bore instruments it became necessary for the 3rd layer to upsize as well. Chris, you may remember the Bad Old Days when the tenor players were all sub .500" (12.7 mm) and a nice .525" G/D bass was fine. Nowadays a .525" G/D is much smaller in bore than the tenors.

'

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2025-07-03 4:45 p.m.

Oh Chris...I like how you drop a bomb here and then sit back to see what happens ;-)

What dimension are you thinking of? As a community, at least here in US, we have backed off from the extremely heavy bells of the nineties, and the expectation to play a dual bore slide is not as strong as it once was.

That said, I've found that I don't like the oversized dimensions around the tuning slide that you find on Edwards and (one one side) Greenhoe bass trombones, as compared to the Bach I learned on and the Shires I played for years after. My instrument from Stephens is now back to that dimension after a couple of years on a Greenhoe Bach, and I'm happy for the easier blow.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-07-03 5:55 p.m.

[quote="TomInME"]Try this with a 1.5G and a dependent rotor setup from the 80's: <YOUTUBE id="Xcwfw-IhS8E">https://youtu.be/Xcwfw-IhS8E?feature=shared</YOUTUBE>[/quote]

Recorded 3/19/16

Features Ben Patterson, trombone, Jon Barnes, trumpet

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-03 5:58 p.m.

[quote="GabrielRice"]Oh Chris...I like how you drop a bomb here and then sit back to see what happens ;-)

What dimension are you thinking of? As a community, at least here in US, we have backed off from the extremely heavy bells of the nineties, and the expectation to play a dual bore slide is not as strong as it once was.

That said, I've found that I don't like the oversized dimensions around the tuning slide that you find on Edwards and (one one side) Greenhoe bass trombones, as compared to the Bach I learned on and the Shires I played for years after. My instrument from Stephens is now back to that dimension after a couple of years on a Greenhoe Bach, and I'm happy for the easier blow.[/quote]
<EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI>

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2025-07-03 8:37 p.m.

Wait, just to double check; was that modern bass TROMBONES or bass TROMBONISTS?

Because on the later… I guess guilty as charged?

Andy

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-07-03 8:46 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]Wait, just to double check; was that modern bass TROMBONES or bass TROMBONISTS?

Because on the later… I guess guilty as charged?

Andy[/quote]

Hey! I resemble that remark! :evil:

LetItSlide · by **LetItSlide** » 2025-07-03 9:10 p.m.

For my own personal tastes, I love a symphony trombone section with a BIG sound. Other listeners love it, too. The players put their “loadouts” together to satisfy that as they see fit. Other reasons drive them, of course, some of which I can’t relate to very well as the owner of just one bass trombone.

Within the more-or-less standard American bass trombone size of 9-1/2 or 10 inch bells, and bore sizes of .562 or .563, I think the main monster-looking attribute is the big axial valves.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-03 10:20 p.m.

[quote="blast"]<QUOTE author="GabrielRice" post_id="280264" time="1751575524" user_id="102">
Oh Chris...I like how you drop a bomb here and then sit back to see what happens ;-)

.[/quote]
<EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI>
</QUOTE>

The only thing missing from the original post was, "Now get off my lawn!"

<EMOJI seq="1fae3" tseq="1fae3">🫣</EMOJI>

u_2bobone · by **u_2bobone** » 2025-07-03 10:22 p.m.

Leave it to "Blast" to stir up a whole bunch O' trouble !

I have an entirely different take on why bass trombones got bigger -- and bigger -- and bigger --- [You've got the idea !]. Imagine my consternation when the 1st & 2nd trombonists in the NSO showed up one morning at rehearsal with their Bach 42Bs outfitted with BASS TROMBONE SLIDES !! I was happily holding down the bass trombone chair with my beloved King Duo Gravis which balanced perfectly between the trombone and tuba chairs. All of a sudden, I'm expected to balance three tenors [tenor/basses] with my "weapon of choice", the Duo Gravis. We can all see how this situation simply wouldn't work unless I grew an additional set of lungs. Since that was an impossibility, I decided that if they upped their game by putting bass trombone slides on tenor trombones that I would simply move up a notch by buying a King 8B --- which I did. So --- on one hand I took it as a compliment that they choose to push into my territory because the Duo Gravis had such a great sound, but on the other hand I was upset because of the scenario with which I was presented. I always thought of them as "The Tubby Tenors". Make no mistake, we were all collegial and friendly but there was never a "meeting of the minds" about instrument choice, style or anything else that you could imagine to coalesce a section mentality. We all imagine that orchestral sections spend hours obsessing over details in order to burnish the section to a superior position. Disabuse yourself ! Perhaps the Chicago Symphony did ---- all praises to them !

Anyway ----- I blame it all on the tenor players being jealous of the gorgeous sound of a bass trombone in full bloom !! Let's see if "Blast" agrees --------. :hi:

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-03 10:31 p.m.

But lt50 slides on 42 bells don't sound anything like bass trombones. Even when Jay played the Bach 45 bell with the lt50 slide, he still sounded clean, clear and like a tenor trombone!!

<YOUTUBE id="Ft1YdMZdgM8">https://youtu.be/Ft1YdMZdgM8?si=1L76QmwrELhUtnwT</YOUTUBE>

But there absolutely are some .547 bore tenors, that almost sound like bass trombones, due to the bell weight and other construction features.

u_2bobone · by **u_2bobone** » 2025-07-04 12:09 a.m.

"But lt50 slides on 42 bells don't sound anything like bass trombones."

I beg to differ !

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-04 12:10 a.m.

Did you watch the video?

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-07-04 12:46 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]Did you watch the video?[/quote]

Bach & Courtois tenor trombones w/ 0.562" bore slides?

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-04 1:07 a.m.

No. Michael Mulcahy is playing a Bach 42G with a light 50 slide. Jurgen Van Reijn is playing a .547 Courtois. Neither of them sound like bass trombones. I would actually venture that, if anything, Mulcahy makes a clearer, "lighter" sound than Van Reijn. His sound is magnificent.

u_2bobone · by **u_2bobone** » 2025-07-04 1:11 a.m.

"Did you watch the video" ?

Yes.

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-04 1:28 a.m.

Are you actually suggesting that Michael Mulcahy, one of the finest tenor trombonists in the world today, sounds like a bass Trombone?

LIBrassCo · by **LIBrassCo** » 2025-07-04 4:42 a.m.

[quote="blast"]Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]

Simple, it didn't.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-04 8:33 a.m.

[quote="LIBrassCo"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280226" time="1751551198" user_id="52">
Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]

Simple, it didn't.
</QUOTE>

But some certainly have.

pfrancis · by **pfrancis** » 2025-07-04 8:54 a.m.

Does a Yamaha 613H count on this list of “beasts”? Osmun (HEAVY) trombone bells? If yes, then this is nothing new… in fact, I would lay it at the feet of players in the 80-90s. Not blaming them, just acknowledging that period as a time of bigger/wider/heavier across the board (Warren Deck and his HEAVY 2165 tuba, Lawson French horns, Monette trumpets etc). People make choices, almost always imperfect.

In fact I would suggest the trombone community is just behind the current trends. All of the above examples have been replaced with lighter and more responsive instruments (Meinl Weston 6450, Schmid horns, Bach revisions and Yamaha artist models (among others)).

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-04 10:17 a.m.

[quote="Finetales"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280226" time="1751551198" user_id="52">
Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????[/quote]

Is that really true though?
</QUOTE>
I don't seem to see any actual weights being compared. I do recall that in the 1990s I had a Holton TR181. That horn was HEAVY!! And unwieldy -- to the point of being painful to play. This was 15 years prior to the development of the Edwards Bullet Brace and other ergonomic improvements and enhancements. To be fair, if you could hold the horn, you could blow down a wall with it, but holding it wasn't a pleasant experience.

More contemporary bass trombones I've tried recently (including Chinese models and clones, and American-made) are both lighter and ergonomically superior (though still requiring some work to make them truly "comfortable"). Not much of a statistical sample there, to be sure, but I'm not sure there's a distinct trend towards "huge and heavy" (I won't debate "ugly" vs. "pretty" :) ).

From what I can see, a Bach 50B3 weighs in at between 6 and 6.5 lbs., a Conn 62H at about 6.2 lbs, a Shires Q36GR at around 6.1 lbs., an Edwards B502-D at 4.8-5.0 lbs, a Thein Universal at around an average of 5.25 lbs. I can't find a really solid figure for that Holton TR-181, but estimates based on published data suggest about 11 lbs.

My Getzen (WITH mouthpiece, bullet brace, and counterweight!) weighs 6.2 lbs.

I'm not seeing much of a trend to heavier horns here. Does anyone have more, or more reliable, weight figures?

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-04 10:34 a.m.

Gary, your Holton had "terrible" ergonomics (they still do). Poor ergonomic design will make an instrument feel heavier/less comfortable to hold than an instrument that may be physically heavier, but has better ergonomics.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-04 10:44 a.m.

In no world is a Holton 181 11 pounds. Most basses are around 5-6.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-04 10:49 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]In no world is a Holton 181 11 pounds. Most basses are around 5-6.[/quote]
It does seem a bit over the line :roll: , and the estimates seem to be based on published weight of the case+horn combination. But I do wonder what the weight of one actually is. The 10" bell certainly didn't help the ergonomics. I notice the manufacturers seem universally loathe to publish weight figures for their instruments.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-04 11:42 a.m.

Folks it's been pointed out many times before but only a few get it. It's more about BALANCE than it is about actual weight. A 5lb bass trombone can be far more difficult to hold than say an 8lb bass trombone IF the balance is off. It's all about design too and not just weight.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-04 12:11 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]It's more about BALANCE than it is about actual weight.[/quote]
Well, up to a point. :)

A 5lb bass trombone can be far more difficult to hold than say an 8lb bass trombone IF the balance is off.

In terms of the way I have things set up at the moment, I'd much rather play my bass than my '47 Olds Standard. :roll:

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-04 12:43 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="280325" time="1751643739" user_id="7573">
It's more about BALANCE than it is about actual weight.[/quote]
Well, up to a point. :)

A 5lb bass trombone can be far more difficult to hold than say an 8lb bass trombone IF the balance is off.

In terms of the way I have things set up at the moment, I'd much rather play my bass than my '47 Olds Standard. :roll:
</QUOTE>

Everything is up to a point! That's the point. But keeping things in realistic terms, please, balance is a bigger issue than weight.

RustBeltBass · by **RustBeltBass** » 2025-07-04 12:52 p.m.

I feel this has been discussed many times before when it comes to horns and mouthpieces but not yet in a seperate conversation.

It's a perfectly acceptable opinion to say trombones have become big and ugly. On the flip side you could say, they have evolved as has the literature written for it.

The nice thing is that with so many options ob the market, it is easy to find a smaller set up despite the existence of the big horns.

ghmerrill · 2025-07-04 1:55 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.[/quote]
Those who favor chopsticks might disagree -- at least about forks. Not sure what their stance is likely to be on trombones.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-04 2:07 p.m.

I'm still not at all clear on how monstrous and huge trombones have become in "modern" times (nor what counts as "modern"). For bass trombones, are we to take the "base case" to be something like the Olds or King or Conn horns of the 1960s and 1970s? So a paradigm would be something like the King Duo Gravis?

So how "monstrously" different in weight were those horns than (say) a Shires or Rath today? Or are we to think more of examples like the contemporary Yamahas as "monstrous" and "ugly"? I'm just trying to see where some kind of intelligible line can be drawn.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-07-04 2:32 p.m.

Chris, look what you've started.

Completely intentionally!

:shock:

RustBeltBass · 2025-07-04 2:42 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]I like the purity of a straight tenor trombone. It's like a fork. A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.[/quote]

Happy and relieved this was not the consensus few hundred years ago, otherwise we'd all play sackbuts.

tromboneVan · by **tromboneVan** » 2025-07-04 2:54 p.m.

Then came the titanium spork; something nobody knew they needed until they used one.

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-04 3:19 p.m.

As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!! Rattled a few cages and got some glib comments . Also some interesting insights. Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-04 3:55 p.m.

Few instruments were so underdeveloped 100 years ago compared to bass trombone.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-07-04 3:59 p.m.

[quote="blast"]Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.[/quote]

This is one of the reasons (among many) that I will go no bigger (or uglier) than my 1969-vintage single-valve Conn 71H bass trombone.

[Of course I'm really not a bass trombonist but only a "doubler"; I'm old and my shoulders and arms are not getting any stronger; and I really have no desire to learn to operate a second valve.]

"Ugly" is of course (I guess) in the mind of the beholder. I'm not impressed by many attachment tubing wraps that extend more than a couple of inches beyond the main tuning slide (perhaps more "awkward" than "ugly"). I do find some of the newer wraps (seen on some "boutique" and "custom" trombones) to be handsome. I don't want my trombones to look like stretched multi-valved tubas.

:?

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-04 4:17 p.m.

[quote="blast"]As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!! Rattled a few cages and got some glib comments . Also some interesting insights. Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.[/quote]

So true.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-04 5:08 p.m.

[quote="blast"]As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!![/quote]
I've been thinking you did this in part because you lack access today to our 4th of July activities and fireworks. So tossing a torch is in the same spirit.

(Many years ago I hosted a July 4 "party" at our place for my R&D group at SAS Institute. The younger members took the opportunity to fire bottle rockets at each other. Luckily no one was injured and no calls to the local volunteer fire department were required. My children, of course, loved it. The animals just ran and hid. :roll: )

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-07-04 5:41 p.m.

[quote="RustBeltBass"]<QUOTE author="tbdana" post_id="280227" time="1751552052" user_id="16498">
I like the purity of a straight tenor trombone. It's like a fork. A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.[/quote]

Happy abd relieved this was not the consensus few hundred years ago, otherwise we'd all play sackbuts.
</QUOTE>

Yes, what a shame it would be if we had to all sound like this and our main repertoire included a lot of soloistic stuff... :roll: :biggrin:

<YOUTUBE id="GLKUS9UPPis">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/GLKUS9UPPis?si=1zImou-aTs2Qn6nG</YOUTUBE>

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

[quote="blast"]As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!! Rattled a few cages and got some glib comments . Also some interesting insights. Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.[/quote]
Not sure I agree. Early 20th century bass trombones are ergonomic disasters for the most part. And then when they started adding a second valve, it got even worse. Lots of people ask me to modernize the ergonomics of their vintage bass bones, but nobody has ever asked to make a modern set up more like a vintage one. I think players just dealt with it because the rests and grips hadn't been invented yet. I don't see the existence of these aids as proof that trombones are "heavier" than they used to be.

ghmerrill · 2025-07-04 5:57 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]I think players just dealt with it because the rests and grips hadn't been invented yet.[/quote]
I know I did (or tried to). There wasn't an alternative at that point.

I don't see the existence of these aids as proof that trombones are "heavier" than they used to be.

Yeah. And, again, what most of these aids do is to adjust the balance. They don't alter the weight, but they alter where the weight is. You don't notice the weight or need to respond to it with muscle support -- because the aid has neutralized that.

Addendum: Sometimes (often?) you do need to alter the weight as well in order to achieve the (more or less) neutral balance that the "device" (Bullet Brace, Axe Handle, ...) gets you close to. That's where a suitably sized counterweight comes in. What you (at least, I) want to achieve is reduction of any squeezing/grabbing/levering of the horn with the left hand.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-07-04 6:00 p.m.

I used to own an Olds S24G and it it took literally 10 seconds for my left hand to be in significant pain when playing it. Same is true of the P22 I've tried.

Stock 72H is just about the only vintage bass I've tried that didn't suck ergonomically. 70H is mega front heavy, Duo Gravis isn't terrible but the side by side triggers are not fun, TR180 Glantz bar is very cumbersome, my British G bass was horrendous in every way, etc.

Modern horns are so much better ergonomically.

RustBeltBass · by **RustBeltBass** » 2025-07-04 6:19 p.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="RustBeltBass" post_id="280340" time="1751654528" user_id="3536">

Happy abd relieved this was not the consensus few hundred years ago, otherwise we'd all play sackbuts.[/quote]

Yes, what a shame it would be if we had to all sound like this and our main repertoire included a lot of soloistic stuff... :roll: :biggrin:

<YOUTUBE id="GLKUS9UPPis">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/GLKUS9UPPis?si=1zImou-aTs2Qn6nG</YOUTUBE>
</QUOTE>

It sounds very beautiful, thank you for sharing. :-)

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-05 5:06 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Few instruments were so underdeveloped 100 years ago compared to bass trombone.[/quote]

My Conn Fuchs is one hundred years old. Hardly underdeveloped. Much copied. Still wonderful. Still pretty, Still light.

A member of the audience recently came up to me a said how beautiful my trombone was. Rath R8 with scratch lacquer finish. Pretty, light and a great blow.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-05 8:02 a.m.

[quote="blast"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="280346" time="1751658959" user_id="3131">
Few instruments were so underdeveloped 100 years ago compared to bass trombone.[/quote]

My Conn Fuchs is one hundred years old. Hardly underdeveloped. Much copied. Still wonderful. Still pretty, Still light.

A member of the audience recently came up to me a said how beautiful my trombone was. Rath R8 with scratch lacquer finish. Pretty, light and a great blow.
</QUOTE>

It only had one valve. And how many Fuchs were made? I think that's an exception that proves the rule.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-05 8:33 a.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280342" time="1751656742" user_id="52">
As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!! Rattled a few cages and got some glib comments . Also some interesting insights. Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.[/quote]
Not sure I agree. Early 20th century bass trombones are ergonomic disasters for the most part. And then when they started adding a second valve, it got even worse. Lots of people ask me to modernize the ergonomics of their vintage bass bones, but nobody has ever asked to make a modern set up more like a vintage one. I think players just dealt with it because the rests and grips hadn't been invented yet. I don't see the existence of these aids as proof that trombones are "heavier" than they used to be.
</QUOTE>
Many of the modern bass trombones that I have tried are designed poorly with levers in the improper place for me. So if I lived near you and was playing one of the ones I'm speaking of I'd be visiting your shop and asking for some modifications. Most players just live with it because they either think it's good, they don't have a choice, OR because they just think they need to strap it to their hand.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-07-05 10:05 a.m.

I'll say this, I've never played any bass trombone, of any kind, where using a strap was not a big improvement in ergonomics. From bass sackbut to romantic German trombones to 20th century classic models to a big heavy modern horn with two Hagmann valves, they were all nicer to hold (and none remained uncomfortable) with a strap.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-07-05 10:14 a.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]I'll say this, I've never played any bass trombone, of any kind, where using a strap was not a big improvement in ergonomics. From bass sackbut to romantic German trombones to 20th century classic models to a big heavy modern horn with two Hagmann valves, they were all nicer to hold (and none remained uncomfortable) with a strap.[/quote]

I don't know if it's a change in horns or just a change in me. Back before I took my decades-long break, I never had any issue holding my bass trombones. It never even occurred to me that it could be a problem. But since starting back, if I try to play my current horn (Greenhoe Bach 50) without the Neotech grip I use, it feels tremendously cumbersome, awkward and heavy. I just chalk it up to being decades older, but I suppose changes in horn configuration and weight could be the culprit.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-07-05 10:33 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]<YOUTUBE id="Ft1YdMZdgM8">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/Ft1YdMZdgM8?si=1L76QmwrELhUtnwT</YOUTUBE>[/quote]

[quote="hornbuilder"]Are you actually suggesting that Michael Mulcahy, one of the finest tenor trombonists in the world today, sounds like a bass Trombone?[/quote]

I don't like that last comment. That just slams down any chance at discussion or debate.

But fine, I'll play the game I'll put my head in the lion's mouth. Yesterday, I read through the start of this thread, and I didn't look at the caption and clicked play and listened to the video while doing e-mails, before returning later to read this thread further. I was very surprised to find out who it was and the points you brought up because my first thoughts when listening had been "wow this is some very clear-sounding bass playing", and then when the second trombone came in I thought there was a fairly clear distinction of sound, that the higher part was not just higher but also brighter and more of a tenor's voice, to the first player's baritone-y voice.

So yes, in this particular piece, in this particular video, to my ears, Michael Mulcahy did sound like a bass trombone, kind of. And that's not a critique in this case, but a compliment. In that video, he sounds exactly like what I would like to sound a lot of the time if I still played modern bass. A very clear and clean bass sound that's not tubby or dead and not needlessly massive, and has plenty of brilliance and lightness, while still having a more bass-baritone-y voice to it than my ideal tenor sound. I'd love to ask him if that's just a result of equipment, or if that's the sound he was particularly going for on that recording, because my assumption at first was it must have been the latter.

TomInME · by **TomInME** » 2025-07-05 11:09 a.m.

I think that video is more likely an example of how Mulcahy's sound has range and isn't just one color. And I have doubts that he would dip into that color outside of a solo (duet) context.

Players like Michael Mulcahy and Friedman aren't the problem, it's players who THINK they're Mulcahy or Friedman, using the same equipment but not getting the same sound.

Charlie Vernon reputedly used no leadpipe for a while, just a mouthpiece holder, and >90% of other players would sound like tubas if they did that. Of course, 90% of players think they're in the top 10%.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-07-05 12:11 p.m.

[quote="TomInME"]I think that video is more likely an example of how Mulcahy's sound has range and isn't just one color. And I have doubts that he would dip into that color outside of a solo (duet) context.

Players like Michael Mulcahy and Friedman aren't the problem, it's players who THINK they're Mulcahy or Friedman, using the same equipment but not getting the same sound.

Charlie Vernon reputedly used no leadpipe for a while, just a mouthpiece holder, and >90% of other players would sound like tubas if they did that. Of course, 90% of players think they're in the top 10%.[/quote]

Exactly

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-07-05 12:32 p.m.

Do you mean ugly like this Chris? ;)

<ATTACHMENT filename="IMG_4839.jpeg" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~IMG_4839.jpeg</ATTACHMENT>

It might not win any prizes, but it's beautiful to me.

(For the tool-hounds out there, this is Bach 50 with Instrument Innovations valves. The wrap is a combination of parts from two different horns, pieced together to make and open wrap with the original crooks. John Sandhagen did the original work on it--he got the brief exactly right.)

Yes, I use an older Sheridan Get-a-Grip. I've used something or other to hold my basses since my late 20's. I'm taller, thin, and my hands aren't particularly large. Let's face it--the trombone in general, and bass (and contrabass!) trombones in particular, are among the least ergonomic instruments in common use. Small wonder that we need grips, straps, poles, etc., to hold them.

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-07-05 12:44 p.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]I'll say this, I've never played any bass trombone, of any kind, where using a strap was not a big improvement in ergonomics. From bass sackbut to romantic German trombones to 20th century classic models to a big heavy modern horn with two Hagmann valves, they were all nicer to hold (and none remained uncomfortable) with a strap.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't think it's physically possible to make a bass trombone with 2 valves and split triggers that doesn't put the left hand in a compromising position. It's an un-ergonomic instrument by nature. Even the most comfortable modern basses (Yamaha 830/835 comes to mind) are still better with a strap. More people using straps/grips to prevent hand problems than they used to isn't somehow proof that modern bass trombones are harder to hold than older ones; grips/straps are just a more recent development.

Trigger placement and weight balance are everything, and old horns often get one or both of those very wrong. On both singles and doubles. You can have a light single, but if it's front heavy it'll still torque your hands and cause problems long-term. See also: Conn 70H.

heldenbone · by **heldenbone** » 2025-07-05 2:15 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]Not sure I agree. Early 20th century bass trombones are ergonomic disasters for the most part. And then when they started adding a second valve, it got even worse. Lots of people ask me to modernize the ergonomics of their vintage bass bones, but nobody has ever asked to make a modern set up more like a vintage one. I think players just dealt with it because the rests and grips hadn't been invented yet. I don't see the existence of these aids as proof that trombones are "heavier" than they used to be.[/quote]

Anyone who has played a slide-tuned Olds bass can easily attest to the truth of this statement. Probably the heaviest slide ever made, and terribly bell-heavy too.

Savio · by **Savio** » 2025-07-05 2:36 p.m.

I wonder how much popcorn Chris has been nibbled when watching this tread? ;) But isn't mostly all bass trombones 562 bore size? From the early 70h to all modern bass trombones. I know there are dual bore but still. I had a 10 1/2 bell size in the eighties but it seems to be gone these days. Isn't it mostly mouthpieces that has gone bigger. Maybe other designs like leadpipe and things I admit I don't have a clue about. But bore size is still 562? It has always been that? Some think adding a valve make it bigger but it only add more possibilities. Isn't it so? My 70h was front heavy so I cut of the tuning wheel <span class="emoji" title=":wink:">😉</span>

Leif

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-07-05 4:02 p.m.

[quote="Finetales"]Even the most comfortable modern basses (Yamaha 830/835 comes to mind) are still better with a strap.[/quote]
That's funny, I always thought Yamaha was among the worst ergonomically. When George Stucel and then Larry Minick were first doing the split trigger conversions, they angled the finger lever so it could be operated with the middle finger while still clearing the bottom two fingers that are holding the slide brace. Then Yamaha started having the lever go straight down, parallel to the lower slide tube. Never made any sense to me, but I guess it all depends on the player.

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-07-05 8:30 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]That's funny, I always thought Yamaha was among the worst ergonomically. When George Stucel and then Larry Minick were first doing the split trigger conversions, they angled the finger lever so it could be operated with the middle finger while still clearing the bottom two fingers that are holding the slide brace. Then Yamaha started having the lever go straight down, parallel to the lower slide tube. Never made any sense to me, but I guess it all depends on the player.[/quote]It really all depends on the person and how you grip it. If you have a long enough index finger and use the "Yeo grip" like I do, the Yamaha ergonomics are pretty much perfect. I almost wonder if that is the grip that was intended by the designers for Yamaha basses when they first started making independent basses. It just makes it easier to both support the brace and use the paddle for me. I also like it because it keeps the paddle out of the way enough that I can just hold the horn for the F trigger, if there's no real reason to use the second valve.

Though it all depends on having the right hand shape and size for any trigger configuration.

Now I go back to pondering how Doug Yeo plays so well on such a cave of a mouthpiece.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-05 9:46 p.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]If you have a long enough index finger and use the "Yeo grip" like I do, the Yamaha ergonomics are pretty much perfect.[/quote]
I gave that a really good try (with my Getzen 1052). It worked! And actually felt pretty good (after it stopped feeling a bit odd). But I rejected it because I lost the ability to hook the slide with my little finger while making fast mute changes. :( So I finally got a Bullet Brace (which I'd been using on my previous horn) configured just right -- after what seems like weeks of tweaking it -- and added a counterweight, and that works great now (without having to do any bending/cutting to the Gb valve paddle).

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-07-05 9:51 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]I gave that a really good try (with my Getzen 1052). It worked! And actually felt pretty good (after it stopped feeling a bit odd). But I rejected it because I lost the ability to hook the slide with my little finger while making fast mute changes. :( So I finally got a Bullet Brace (which I'd been using on my previous horn) configured just right -- after what seems like weeks of tweaking it -- and that works great now (without having to do any bending/cutting to the Gb valve paddle).[/quote] Ahh, that is another consideration, especially depending on the rep you're playing. I'm doing almost entirely classical / legit stuff on bass trombone, so things like a mute only show up once a year or so. I also use my pinky that way, and thanks to guitar playing / how my hand is built, I am still able to hold onto the inner slide when using the Yeo grip.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-07-06 2:59 a.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]It really all depends on the person and how you grip it. If you have a long enough index finger and use the "Yeo grip" like I do, the Yamaha ergonomics are pretty much perfect. I almost wonder if that is the grip that was intended by the designers for Yamaha basses when they first started making independent basses. It just makes it easier to both support the brace and use the paddle for me. I also like it because it keeps the paddle out of the way enough that I can just hold the horn for the F trigger, if there's no real reason to use the second valve.

Though it all depends on having the right hand shape and size for any trigger configuration.

Now I go back to pondering how Doug Yeo plays so well on such a cave of a mouthpiece.[/quote]
Yeah, I definitely had the thought that perhaps Doug influenced the design to work with the particular grip he uses. I tried that grip once just for fun - It felt absolutely horrible. I guess it's just strange to me that they would design all of their bass trombones to be held with a grip that only a minority of players actually use. YMMV.

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-06 4:51 a.m.

Okay, so we have pretty much denied that bass trombones have gotten bigger. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, and I wouldn't be so rude as to say that a players trombone is ugly (ken). So, we are left with heavy, and there I stand my ground. I've tried playing some of this heavy stuff and found I couldn't hold it up for longer periods. Don't tell me that someone needed to invent straps and rests...it wasn't even a conversation when I was a kid. People held trombones up. I've been holding a double valve bass up for 53 years, but I choose carefully. Balance is important, as is weight. The only drawback with my Rotax section is that it is heavier than my Hagmann set. It's not much weight, so I'll put up with it. Much of the weight in a modern double is in the scaffolding of solid rods that brace the valve section. Perhaps that gives a certain blow....who knows ?

Fausto · by **Fausto** » 2025-07-06 11:13 a.m.

good morning in my opinion it seems strange as a statement, years ago I tried a bass and found it cumbersome and big and I gave up, lately I tried some in anticipation of replacing mine with a 10.5" bell and heavy with which I am now happy, I found them all with 9.5" bells and light therefore easy to play, especially Edwards, very easy. I can't say that they are ugly but rather more similar to a tenor. in the end I gave up and kept what I had. perhaps it depends on how you like it or what you need. or what you expect from an instrument. this from my little experience

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-07-06 12:03 p.m.

[quote="blast"]Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, and I wouldn't be so rude as to say that a players trombone is ugly (ken).[/quote]

That’s all right, Chris: I admit it. ;) It was uglier before the last time it was chem cleaned, and my gold bell is even uglier. It sounds good, though, which is what matters.

[quote="blast"]So, we are left with heavy, and there I stand my ground. I've tried playing some of this heavy stuff and found I couldn't hold it up for longer periods. Don't tell me that someone needed to invent straps and rests...it wasn't even a conversation when I was a kid. People held trombones up.[/quote]

I used to have heavy equipment, an Edwards B454 with a heavier gauge bell, #3 leadpipe, etc. It was too much—the “tuba-on-a-stick” sound. Sometimes wisdom comes with age. My Bach is still heavy, but it weighs much less than a B454. (I don’t know how heavy a 502i is.)

I consider my Get-a-Grip and my Ergobone as assistive devices, kind of like glasses. I need glasses to see, I need something to hold the horn.

[quote="blast"]I've been holding a double valve bass up for 53 years, but I choose carefully. Balance is important, as is weight.[/quote]

Balance is definitely important, both front-to-back as well as side-to-side. My Bach, as ugly as it is, is fairly balanced both ways.

[quote="blast"]Much of the weight in a modern double is in the scaffolding of solid rods that brace the valve section. Perhaps that gives a certain blow....who knows ?[/quote]

Everything makes a difference.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-06 12:47 p.m.

Maybe those grip aids should have been around from the start.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-07-06 1:41 p.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Maybe those grip aids should have been around from the start.[/quote]

Which is why some older designs had the bell brace fit in the webbing between the left thumb and forefinger. My King 7B was like this. So were some of the Olds and Holton models. This arrangement is a problem for people with short thumbs, though.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-07-06 2:50 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="280507" time="1751820448" user_id="3131">
Maybe those grip aids should have been around from the start.[/quote]

Which is why some older designs had the bell brace fit in the webbing between the left thumb and forefinger. My King 7B was like this. So were some of the Olds and Holton models. This arrangement is a problem for people with short thumbs, though.
</QUOTE>

But those designs were ergonomically worse. That's why nobody makes bass trombones that way anymore. A few people with unusually long fingers like it, but the vast majority find it more awkward than having the bell brace away from the lever. Lots of different systems were tried. There's a reason everyone settled on one type.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-07-06 3:33 p.m.

[quote="blast"]Okay, so we have pretty much denied that bass trombones have gotten bigger. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, and I wouldn't be so rude as to say that a players trombone is ugly (ken). So, we are left with heavy, and there I stand my ground. I've tried playing some of this heavy stuff and found I couldn't hold it up for longer periods. Don't tell me that someone needed to invent straps and rests...it wasn't even a conversation when I was a kid. People held trombones up. I've been holding a double valve bass up for 53 years, but I choose carefully. Balance is important, as is weight. The only drawback with my Rotax section is that it is heavier than my Hagmann set. It's not much weight, so I'll put up with it. Much of the weight in a modern double is in the scaffolding of solid rods that brace the valve section. Perhaps that gives a certain blow....who knows ?[/quote]
What model, specifically, is the "heavy stuff" that you tried and couldn't hold up? And what model are you comparing it to?

Kevbach33 · by **Kevbach33** » 2025-07-06 3:58 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="280507" time="1751820448" user_id="3131">
Maybe those grip aids should have been around from the start.[/quote]

Which is why some older designs had the bell brace fit in the webbing between the left thumb and forefinger. My King 7B was like this. So were some of the Olds and Holton models. This arrangement is a problem for people with short thumbs, though.
</QUOTE>

For single valve, narrow (Conn-width) slide basses and tenors, for me having the brace in the thumb webbing is superior, as might dual valve, narrow slide and brace in thumb. (I admit to having XL fingers on L palms.)

It's when the slide is Bach-width that I much prefer having the "modern" setup with the thumb ahead of the bell brace. Any potential horn is disqualified if I can't adequately use the Yeo grip.

As to the thread itself, yes, a light bass can feel heavy in the hands if it's not balanced well. Thankfully the Getzen Eterna is one of the most balanced horns I've played, and it's fairly light. My Besson was not balanced well and tired me out after a session. I'm sure it was also heavier in general but never weighed my instruments.

Bigger? Yes, Getzen and Edwards are known for their big tuning slides; in contrast, I think the bell taper is not as fast as many other instruments (including the Besson). In this case, it's a balance in design. In general, maybe it's the popularity of dual bore slides and open leadpipes that makes it seem like the bass trombone SOUND has become bigger than years past, even though the ID difference is only .016".

Ugly? Completely in the eyes of the beholder. For me, rather than ugly, all axial valve basses are boring. They all look the same at a distance since there are not many ways to wrap the attachments.

sf105 · by **sf105** » 2025-07-06 4:43 p.m.

The ergonomics have improved significantly, nothing is quite as front-heavy as my old Conn TIS horns (for which I now have various grips). I'm guessing that one of the heaviest horns is a Silver DuoGravis.

But I'm pleased to see that some the arms race from the 80's onwards has calmed down a bit.

Is some of the discomfort from the convolutions needed from the adoption of axial and Hagmann valves?

S

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-07-06 5:34 p.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Maybe those grip aids should have been around from the start.[/quote] I kinda wish they had, or just more attention to ergonomics in general. Those were kind of hindered on the dependent side by many attempts to give the thumb the ability to actuate two valves, and somehow move between 1 and 2 valves. I'm so glad the first bass I got was made with split triggers.

I have tried a few of the various early dependent designs, and UGH.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-06 5:38 p.m.

[quote="Kevbach33"]Thankfully the Getzen Eterna is one of the most balanced horns I've played, and it's fairly light.[/quote]
I really like my Getzen, and as I've got it set up, it's a pleasure to play, however ...

It took me a while to get it to that point. I don't know about others, but it takes me what seems like an interminable amount of time to get a Bullet Brace (or Axe Handle) set up "just right" in the context of other things (a counterweight, how much it should weigh, and its position, adjustment of the triggers), and to the point that I can pick up the horn and know it will be comfortable and easy to play, with no unnecessary strain in playing or holding it.

Also, a couple of (related) complaints about the Getzen: What's with those valve linkages? I looked at them originally and thought "That's cool -- adjustable valve linkages." But HOW they adjust ... I don't get it. I expected a kind of turnbuckle mechanism where I could turn the center barrel to extend or shorten the link. But no. :?

This wouldn't be much of an irritant except that without adjusting the F trigger linkage I wasn't able to get the thumb trigger set up to work comfortably for me in conjunction with the finger trigger. This is important to me because I use the triggers A LOT. And it's come out fine -- but just more effort than it might have been.

I won't mention how sharp the horn seems to be built (or did I just do that?). I can live with that and adjust things accordingly. Just strikes me as a bit odd. But you'd have to pry the horn out of my cold dead hands.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-07 5:21 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]Do you mean ugly like this Chris? ;)

IMG_4839.jpeg

It might not win any prizes, but it's beautiful to me.

(For the tool-hounds out there, this is Bach 50 with Instrument Innovations valves. The wrap is a combination of parts from two different horns, pieced together to make and open wrap with the original crooks. John Sandhagen did the original work on it--he got the brief exactly right.)

Yes, I use an older Sheridan Get-a-Grip. I've used something or other to hold my basses since my late 20's. I'm taller, thin, and my hands aren't particularly large. Let's face it--the trombone in general, and bass (and contrabass!) trombones in particular, are among the least ergonomic instruments in common use. Small wonder that we need grips, straps, poles, etc., to hold them.[/quote]

I won’t call your horn ugly but I have never liked the valves offset on an inline instrument. I think that part is unattractive and it’s unnecessary. But that’s all I’ll say. :)

TheBoneRanger · by **TheBoneRanger** » 2025-07-07 8:00 p.m.

A heavy Edwards with a 987 bell was what drove me to grip aids. That was impossible to hold up for a decent practice session.

But I’ve since moved to lighter instruments and kept the grip aids for a few reasons.

1. It’s ludicrous to hold an instrument using the two weakest fingers of my non-dominant hand

2. They allow me to control the angle of the instrument with much greater precision, increasing my accuracy and comfort on the horn.

These are the reasons I’d encourage bass trombone players to look in to such devices.

Andrew

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-07 9:01 p.m.

[quote="TheBoneRanger"]1. It’s ludicrous to hold an instrument using the two weakest fingers of my non-dominant hand[/quote]
I like to think of the goal as having the instrument "rest" in my hand and provide complete freedom and lack of stress in using the valves.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2025-07-07 9:05 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]…

Also, a couple of (related) complaints about the Getzen: What's with those valve linkages? I looked at them originally and thought "That's cool -- adjustable valve linkages." But HOW they adjust ... I don't get it. I expected a kind of turnbuckle mechanism where I could turn the center barrel to extend or shorten the link. But no. :?

This wouldn't be much of an irritant except that without adjusting the F trigger linkage I wasn't able to get the thumb trigger set up to work comfortably for me in conjunction with the finger trigger. This is important to me because I use the triggers A LOT. And it's come out fine -- but just more effort than it might have been.[/quote]

As you’ve noticed by now, not a turnbuckle, just a double ended stud. One could kinda use it to adjust, but I don’t think it was intended for this use, at least not a variable one to be done regularly. I prefer to adjust the lever position by having it bent properly… but that is also a time consuming PITA. And better done by somebody else while you don’t watch. Usually needs to be what my hand needs, not what I ask for in my experience.

I won't mention how sharp the horn seems to be built (or did I just do that?). I can live with that and adjust things accordingly. Just strikes me as a bit odd. But you'd have to pry the horn out of my cold dead hands.

Yeah, the natural reaction to Bachs being way too long. If only we could get orchestras to stop going above 440.

Cheers,

Andy

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-07-07 9:33 p.m.

Compare an Edwards bass to a Rath or a Kanstul 1662i, the bracing in particular. "Edge" bracing is massively inefficient when weight is considered. The Rath and 1662i have very little visible bracing in the valve wraps. Still, my Kanstul is heavier than my former 71h dual or the Conn 83h I had for a while. A new Edwards or Greenhoe are much heavier than the Kanstul.

Balance is important, yes, but a 6 lb balanced bass is still more work to play than a 3 lb balanced small tenor. And "balanced" only applies when the horn is held in one hand in 1st position. As soon as you move the slide the cog moves and the supports change, so the idea of balance only has a limited application.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-07 11:04 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]but I don’t think it was intended for this use, at least not a variable one to be done regularly.[/quote]
In that case I'm mystified why that approach of fabricating the link was taken since a less expensive and less troublesome approach would have been to use non-adjustable links.

I prefer to adjust the lever position by having it bent properly… but that is also a time consuming PITA. And better done by somebody else while you don’t watch.

That's often done on the Gb lever, of course. But in this case I don't need that. I'm not at all sure it would work well on the thumb lever because it would change the arc through which it moves. But I'm not about to try it. I've got it adjusted just fine now, with Loctite on those threads. (Aside: As part of a project of getting those Chinese links to work better, I experimented with making some myself from parts intended for the radio-ccontrolled car/plane market. I wasn't satisfied with those results and finally got Mike Morse at Tuba Exchange to fix that for me (at shockingly low cost), but ended up with a set of minimal assemblies from Instrument Innovations. I wonder if those will fit my Getzen. If so, I may make some replacement links at some point.)

One of the advantages of using my previous (now "backup" horn -- the Chinese clone) for so long was that I got to experiment a lot with the ergonomics of it. I have a hacksaw and a torch, and I'm not afraid to use them. However, on that horn, the thumb lever was great, and required no adjustment at all. :roll: The finger lever for the Gb valve was entirely another matter. So it got cut and replaced with an adjustable (length and rotation) extension. Much experimental bending and parts-making took place. :lol:

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-08 12:35 a.m.

I blame the trumpets.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-08 2:51 p.m.

[quote="hyperbolica"]Compare an Edwards bass to a Rath or a Kanstul 1662i, the bracing in particular. "Edge" bracing is massively inefficient when weight is considered. The Rath and 1662i have very little visible bracing in the valve wraps. Still, my Kanstul is heavier than my former 71h dual or the Conn 83h I had for a while. A new Edwards or Greenhoe are much heavier than the Kanstul.

Balance is important, yes, but a 6 lb balanced bass is still more work to play than a 3 lb balanced small tenor. And "balanced" only applies when the horn is held in one hand in 1st position. As soon as you move the slide the cog moves and the supports change, so the idea of balance only has a limited application.[/quote]
I completely disagree regarding your balance statement. So many things contribute to balance other than weight including lever placement.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-08 3:20 p.m.

One problem is that different people, with different arms and hands, may feel that the same object balances differently.

hyperbolica · by **hyperbolica** » 2025-07-08 4:15 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]I completely disagree regarding your balance statement. So many things contribute to balance other than weight including lever placement.[/quote]

The grip is important and we know bass bone is an ergo nightmare. But balance only applies to a one handed grip., and it changes when you move the slide and start playing.

sf105 · by **sf105** » 2025-07-08 4:52 p.m.

no mention of fibreglass horns yet?

I remember Nev Roberts (30 years at the Halle) talking about how after a heavy recoding session of Carmina Burana he woke up and couldn't move his left arm until he'd loosened it up in the shower. He had a very early Bach 50 (the only one I really liked the sound of) that weighed about 3 1/2 tons.

slidesix · by **slidesix** » 2025-07-08 6:31 p.m.

Hey, at least the 10 1/2 inch bells from the '80s have fallen out of favor!

On a side note, I remember way back when some of my contemporaries were talking about commissioning some sort of triple-rotor bass trombone. No idea what tuning they were planning for those attachments. It sounded like some sort of indy-indy-dependent setup though. More likely it was all talk and noone really intented to build one, although like tall tales more than one claimed to have heard of someone actually having one. :idk:

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-08 7:50 p.m.

[quote="slidesix"]Hey, at least the 10 1/2 inch bells from the '80s have fallen out of favor![/quote]
I'm pretty sure that was folded into an arms limitation treaty.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-08 7:53 p.m.

[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="280640" time="1752000685" user_id="7573">
I completely disagree regarding your balance statement. So many things contribute to balance other than weight including lever placement.[/quote]

The grip is important and we know bass bone is an ergo nightmare. But balance only applies to a one handed grip., and it changes when you move the slide and start playing.
</QUOTE>
Yeh but that’s not my point. It’s okay. Most don’t get it.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-08 7:56 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]Yeh but that’s not my point. It’s okay. Most don’t get it.[/quote]
I think Archimedes did.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-07-09 2:13 a.m.

I don't know that any modern bass trombones are as heavy as the ones people used to play with C extensions on the second valve.

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-09 11:04 a.m.

Speaking of big, ugly, and heavy ... doesn't the OP play contrabass trombone as well?!

All that tubing and bracing... long, heavy extensions on the waterkey... knocking over the stand of the person in front of you.... 30mm birdbath for a mouthpiece.... imagine carrying the case?! Must need a dolly and a professional mover to get anywhere. :]

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-09 2:00 p.m.

Contras have always been big and heavy. The double slide version was nuts. Hand supports for Contras are necessary for sure!

tbonesullivan · by **tbonesullivan** » 2025-07-09 2:34 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]Contras have always been big and heavy. The double slide version was nuts. Hand supports for Contras are necessary for sure![/quote] They still are nuts, and for some reason the BBb and CC contras from Miraphone always get looked down on, yet I see them in plenty of large trombone groups. It seems like tuba players being asked to play Contra find the BBb and CC contrabass trombones more acceptable than people coming from the trombone side of things.

I used to be tempted by the BBb as a "just to have" thing, but after my failure at BBb tuba and not being able to make any kind of real sound, I think an F contra would work better.

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-09 2:39 p.m.

[quote="tbonesullivan"]I used to be tempted by the BBb as a "just to have" thing, but after my failure at BBb tuba and not being able to make any kind of real sound, I think an F contra would work better.[/quote]
I'm more inclined towards cimbasso, but (based on my fairly lengthy experience with tuba) feel that the Eb version is the most versatile among the usual choices -- though there's probably not a genuinely objective argument to be made about that.

MahlerMusic · by **MahlerMusic** » 2025-07-09 3:36 p.m.

[quote="ghmerrill"]<QUOTE author="Kevbach33" post_id="280525" time="1751831931" user_id="3338">
Thankfully the Getzen Eterna is one of the most balanced horns I've played, and it's fairly light.[/quote]
I really like my Getzen, and as I've got it set up, it's a pleasure to play, however ...
</QUOTE>

My Getzen is a dream to hold vs my Minick. The Minick to the tuning slide is smaller as it is a straight 0.562 bore vs dual, and the Minick has (I think) Bach Valves.

<ATTACHMENT filename="20240322_160737.jpg" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~20240322_160737.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-07-09 4:52 p.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]Speaking of big, ugly, and heavy ... doesn't the OP play contrabass trombone as well?![/quote]

Once contrabass trombones started penetrating the market, grip aids became pretty mandatory. And once they are designed for the contras, it's a small matter to make them available to basses (and tenors!). If they make the horn more comfortable, why not!

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-09 6:06 p.m.

Yes, I play contra. I'll be playing contra this fall. I always use an ergobone. It's a different matter. I was talking about the bass trombone.

It seems most people here deny the bass of some makers is heavy.

So, it's not big, or ugly, or heavy. Well that's cleared that up then.

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-09 7:08 p.m.

[quote="blast"]Yes, I play contra. I'll be playing contra this fall. I always use an ergobone. It's a different matter. I was talking about the bass trombone.

It seems most people here deny the bass of some makers is heavy.

So, it's not big, or ugly, or heavy. Well that's cleared that up then.[/quote]

To be honest, based on your responses throughout the thread I assumed you made this thread out of jest. I personally can't tell when/if you're being serious from this side of the screen. I'm not rereading the entire thread, but I don't recall anyone denying that some makes/models are heavier than others.

brassmedic asked you which makes/models you thought were heavy. You didn't reply.

You've mentioned your Conn Fuchs and Rath R8 bass trombones, so I can only assume these are your only bass trombones. From my limited knowledge, these are both single valve bass trombones. Based on your comments, you seem quite happy about the sound and appearance of your current bass trombones.

Do you own a double valve bass trombone? Why are you trying out newer bass trombones? Do you like how the modern, heavy bass trombones sound and play?

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-09 8:14 p.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280772" time="1752098810" user_id="52">
Yes, I play contra. I'll be playing contra this fall. I always use an ergobone. It's a different matter. I was talking about the bass trombone.

It seems most people here deny the bass of some makers is heavy.

So, it's not big, or ugly, or heavy. Well that's cleared that up then.[/quote]

To be honest, based on your responses throughout the thread I assumed you made this thread out of jest. I personally can't tell when/if you're being serious from this side of the screen. I'm not rereading the entire thread, but I don't recall anyone denying that some makes/models are heavier than others.

brassmedic asked you which makes/models you thought were heavy. You didn't reply.

You've mentioned your Conn Fuchs and Rath R8 bass trombones, so I can only assume these are your only bass trombones. From my limited knowledge, these are both single valve bass trombones. Based on your comments, you seem quite happy about the sound and appearance of your current bass trombones.

Do you own a double valve bass trombone? Why are you trying out newer bass trombones? Do you like how the modern, heavy bass trombones sound and play?
</QUOTE>

There’s very little you know about Blast. I wouldn’t assume anything on your end. <EMOJI seq="1f600" tseq="1f600">😀</EMOJI>

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-09 8:44 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]There’s very little you know about Blast. I wouldn’t assume anything on your end. <EMOJI seq="1f600" tseq="1f600">😀</EMOJI>[/quote]

It's fun to assume though. It offends people! :good:

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-09 9:39 p.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="280798" time="1752106487" user_id="7573">
There’s very little you know about Blast. I wouldn’t assume anything on your end. <EMOJI seq="1f600" tseq="1f600">😀</EMOJI>[/quote]

It's fun to assume though. It offends people! :good:
</QUOTE>

You assume too much.

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-09 10:44 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]You assume too much.[/quote]

I suppose we'll ruminate in vague opinions then. :biggrin:

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-09 10:51 p.m.

Seems like another one of these.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-09 10:53 p.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Seems like another one of these.

[/quote]

Old man? Care to explain?

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-09 11:07 p.m.

It's a meme. And one I think aptly describes the situation in a few ways.

It's been gone over several times that basses are lighter than they were 30-40 years ago in the heavy trend.

It's also been noted that few instruments in the orchestra have developed and changed more in the last 100 years than bass trombone.

And then there's the "back in my day we didn't need seatbelts!" sentiment about grip aids on bass trombone. It's all been said several times.

RustBeltBass · by **RustBeltBass** » 2025-07-09 11:52 p.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]

To be honest, based on your responses throughout the thread I assumed you made this thread out of jest. I personally can't tell when/if you're being serious from this side of the screen. I'm not rereading the entire thread, but I don't recall anyone denying that some makes/models are heavier than others.

brassmedic asked you which makes/models you thought were heavy. You didn't reply.

You've mentioned your Conn Fuchs and Rath R8 bass trombones, so I can only assume these are your only bass trombones. From my limited knowledge, these are both single valve bass trombones. Based on your comments, you seem quite happy about the sound and appearance of your current bass trombones.

Do you own a double valve bass trombone? Why are you trying out newer bass trombones? Do you like how the modern, heavy bass trombones sound and play?[/quote]

I am not sure how familiar or not you are with "blast". He is very respected professional bass trombonist in the UK and probably owns quite a few more horns than the ones he mentioned here.

That being said, I think your questions are valid and I am also curious what made him post exactly the way he did and if he is currently trying different horns that make him feel this way and what models he may be refering to in particular ? I realize he wanted to "stir the pot" a bit by phrasing things the way he did to spark a debate. I do not think stirring the pot was neccessary for that.

More thoughts on his original question: I think horns have gotten bigger and heavier (but certainly not uglier in my personal opinion) through the impact of very influential orchestral players who chose equipment based on their individual needs and wants for their specific playing situation. Through their playing and their teaching they happened to set a trend and standard that many others have tried to emulate for decades. And part of that (the easiest part) is playing similar equipment.

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-10 12:14 a.m.

[quote="RustBeltBass"]I am not sure how familiar or not you are with "blast". He is very respected professional bass trombonist in the UK and probably owns quite a few more horns than the ones he mentioned here.

That being said, I think your questions are valid and I am also curious what made him post exactly the way he did and if he is currently trying different horns that make him feel this way and what models he may be refering to in particular ?[/quote]

If it's the same blast from TTF, I'm familiar with their career and accomplishments, though I don't know them on a personal level. :biggrin: I recall blast, sabutin, and a few others stirring pots from time to time back in the TTF days. I hope we're all allowed to poke fun and speak freely here. :P

I genuinely want to hear Chris's opinions in more detail, if they're willing to indulge. I've seen them comment only needing a single valve bass for the majority of their work. Seeing that they play an R8, do they find an R900 to be too heavy? Raths are gorgeous horns, and a former teacher of mine plays on Rath horns.

I'm a mere amateur picking up where I left off, hoping to play in an orchestra again some day. I personally have no big issues with my heavy horn. It plays great and makes a great sound. After a 15 year break from playing, I could see the appeal in a lighter horn - less weight on the hand & arm, a different blow (less air?), shorter & lighter throw on the valves .. in theory less effort for a similar result.

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-10 4:21 a.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="280798" time="1752106487" user_id="7573">
There’s very little you know about Blast. I wouldn’t assume anything on your end. <EMOJI seq="1f600" tseq="1f600">😀</EMOJI>[/quote]

It's fun to assume though. It offends people! :good:
</QUOTE>
I thought that most people would have guessed from the overblown title, that this was not overly serious. I'm not offended....I wanted to get reaction....this place has been a bit dull of late.

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-10 4:28 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]It's a meme. And one I think aptly describes the situation in a few ways.

It's been gone over several times that basses are lighter than they were 30-40 years ago in the heavy trend.

It's also been noted that few instruments in the orchestra have developed and changed more in the last 100 years than bass trombone.

And then there's the "back in my day we didn't need seatbelts!" sentiment about grip aids on bass trombone. It's all been said several times.[/quote]
Nah, you're just making fun of my age sonny. I can't help being old.... and you will, if you are lucky, get to be old too. As you live in the land of youth and beauty, age might not be welcome.

Now, the bit linking seatbelts and trombone straps is just plain stupid....I expected better from you. Seatbelts are an established safety measure that can save your life....one saved mine. Trombone straps help some people hold a trombone up....that's it.

MStarke · by **MStarke** » 2025-07-10 4:36 a.m.

I have long not used any supports for my bass bones, but just recently changed my mind. Didn't really have any issues with my shoulders, arms or hands, but the straps freed finger movement in my left hand.

And also: A few days ago I played my Elkhart 62h (actually a Minick-style modified 60h) and my Greenhoe dependent TIS basses back to back. Both are great instruments. The Conn feels considerably lighter and also a bit more responsive, while it has a bit less substance and ease/consistency than the Greenhoe. So in this case: Yes, the newer trombone is bigger and heavier. I wouldn't say uglier though ;-)

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-10 4:43 a.m.

While I'm at it....rotors are generally (not all ) heavier than Thayers and Hagmanns...I have the Rotax and Hagmanns to prove it. Modern free-flow rotors with solid rod bracing equals heavy. I don't want to name brands, as that would constitute a personal attack....some of those horns blow very well indeed...not about blow, just about weight.

For the bean counters, I presently have two Rath doubles and Rath single...all parts interchangeable. A Conn double (tis) and four Conn singles. Also singles by Reynolds and Kanstul and enough bits to build a few more. Also three German trombones, two valve trombones and the contra.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-10 7:23 a.m.

[quote="blast"]

Nah, you're just making fun of my age sonny. I can't help being old.... and you will, if you are lucky, get to be old too. As you live in the land of youth and beauty, age might not be welcome.

Now, the bit linking seatbelts and trombone straps is just plain stupid....I expected better from you. Seatbelts are an established safety measure that can save your life....one saved mine. Trombone straps help some people hold a trombone up....that's it.[/quote]

Not your age, just the attitude. Gatekeeping something that helps others, regardless of if it's for something "light" or "heavy" to you, is silly. I use a grip aid on a 60H or 50B just as much on a Greenhoe.

Yes, greenhoe and m&w trombones are heavier than some... But they also play great. Oh well. Lighter than others! My m&w is lighter than the Edwards and shires I have had with axials.

Fridge · by **Fridge** » 2025-07-10 8:15 a.m.

Well, I agree with Chris. I’ve been playing double valve bass trbs for 50+ years. Never have needed or used a strap. Now, as a few people on here know, I’m a football player sized guy. I’ve never had any issues holding my horns up for hours at a time. My hands are ion the large size, so maybe that makes a difference for some people. I wouldn’t know. And I’m in my middle 60’s. If that makes a difference. My first horn was a Sterling Duo in the 11th grade. Really never had too many issues with the trigger configuration. First inline in 1981. Just my two cents. Hi Chris, glad you liked the videos!

Eddie Clark

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-10 9:57 a.m.

The practical benefit to me of this discussion is that I moved my counterweight. :lol: It works a bit better where it is now, but there will be some price to pay when I insert the ginormous cup mute. However, since I calculate that I use the cup mute on somewhere between 5% and 10% of the pieces I play, and often for brief passages, I think I'll just bite that bullet and live with it. :roll:

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-10 11:10 a.m.

[quote="blast"]While I'm at it....rotors are generally (not all ) heavier than Thayers and Hagmanns...I have the Rotax and Hagmanns to prove it. Modern free-flow rotors with solid rod bracing equals heavy. I don't want to name brands, as that would constitute a personal attack....some of those horns blow very well indeed...not about blow, just about weight.[/quote]

Interesting that many newer rotor horns are heavier than thayer/hagmann equivalents - visually I assumed the opposite.. I need to get out and try some of these new horns.

Do you think some of the makers are able and willing to attempt to lighten up their design per a customer's request .. extra $$$ though? What all made them decide to use a heavier design and materials in the first place ... Structure? Sound quality? Sound quantity? Years of tinkering and finding a "perfect" combination that people liked and started paying for regardless of final weight? Hopefully someone chimes in.

I haven't gone through all the makes, but the few I searched did not share weight specs of their equipment. I understand many come with multiple options which could change the end weight. Maybe this will change in the future.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-07-10 11:53 a.m.

[quote="blast"]... I presently have two Rath doubles and Rath single...all parts interchangeable. A Conn double (tis) and four Conn singles. Also singles by Reynolds and Kanstul and enough bits to build a few more. Also three German trombones, two valve trombones and the contra.[/quote]

And a storage shed to house them all? ;)

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-10 12:42 p.m.

[quote="Posaunus"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280846" time="1752136990" user_id="52">
... I presently have two Rath doubles and Rath single...all parts interchangeable. A Conn double (tis) and four Conn singles. Also singles by Reynolds and Kanstul and enough bits to build a few more. Also three German trombones, two valve trombones and the contra.[/quote]

And a storage shed to house them all? ;)
</QUOTE>
Basement :bang:

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-10 1:05 p.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280846" time="1752136990" user_id="52">
While I'm at it....rotors are generally (not all ) heavier than Thayers and Hagmanns...I have the Rotax and Hagmanns to prove it. Modern free-flow rotors with solid rod bracing equals heavy. I don't want to name brands, as that would constitute a personal attack....some of those horns blow very well indeed...not about blow, just about weight.[/quote]

Interesting that many newer rotor horns are heavier than thayer/hagmann equivalents - visually I assumed the opposite.. I need to get out and try some of these new horns.

Do you think some of the makers are able and willing to attempt to lighten up their design per a customer's request .. extra $$$ though? What all made them decide to use a heavier design and materials in the first place ... Structure? Sound quality? Sound quantity? Years of tinkering and finding a "perfect" combination that people liked and started paying for regardless of final weight? Hopefully someone chimes in.

I haven't gone through all the makes, but the few I searched did not share weight specs of their equipment. I understand many come with multiple options which could change the end weight. Maybe this will change in the future.
</QUOTE>
Traditional rotors are milled out of a solid bar of brass or nickel. They are moderately heavy, but quite small. Thayers and Hagmanns built up from sheet and are hollow, as are Kanstuls. Greenhoe and Shires are skeleton's, thus lighter. There is a lot of innovation out there.

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-10 1:14 p.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="280843" time="1752136123" user_id="52">

Nah, you're just making fun of my age sonny. I can't help being old.... and you will, if you are lucky, get to be old too. As you live in the land of youth and beauty, age might not be welcome.

Now, the bit linking seatbelts and trombone straps is just plain stupid....I expected better from you. Seatbelts are an established safety measure that can save your life....one saved mine. Trombone straps help some people hold a trombone up....that's it.[/quote]

Not your age, just the attitude. Gatekeeping something that helps others, regardless of if it's for something "light" or "heavy" to you, is silly. I use a grip aid on a 60H or 50B just as much on a Greenhoe.

Yes, greenhoe and m&w trombones are heavier than some... But they also play great. Oh well. Lighter than others! My m&w is lighter than the Edwards and shires I have had with axials.
</QUOTE>
Funny, I thought I said that some of the heavier setups played very well......

You are a gatekeeper....sounds very noble, sorta 'lord of the rings'..... whilst I am the aged evil troll, directing people away from their salvation, except I have never suggested at any point, that it is wrong to use such things, if they help people. I simply suggest that they are a sign of unacceptable weight. Not sure what the gate is doing, but you look after it.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2025-07-10 1:32 p.m.

What? I'm not directing people towards heavy horns.

I'm using this today- a 40 year old Yamaha with a 60 year old Bach bell on it. Not heavy at all... And I'm still using a strap.

<IMGUR id="a/IbWszJn">~~[media]~~https://imgur.com/a/IbWszJn</IMGUR>

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-07-11 3:07 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]What? I'm not directing people towards heavy horns.

I'm using this today- a 40 year old Yamaha with a 60 year old Bach bell on it. Not heavy at all... And I'm still using a strap.

<IMGUR id="a/IbWszJn">~~[media]~~https://imgur.com/a/IbWszJn</IMGUR>[/quote]
Needs Thayers. :lol:

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-07-11 2:10 p.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]

Do you think some of the makers are able and willing to attempt to lighten up their design per a customer's request .. extra $$$ though? What all made them decide to use a heavier design and materials in the first place ... Structure? Sound quality? Sound quantity? Years of tinkering and finding a "perfect" combination that people liked and started paying for regardless of final weight? Hopefully someone chimes in.
[/quote]

They didn't decide to use heavier design. Read the thread. Blast as much as admitted he's just trolling. I asked him specifically which recent model is heavier than which vintage model, and he refused to answer. I don't think he really believes bass trombones have gotten heavier; he's just trying to goad a reaction out of people. (Very successfully, I might add.)

Finetales · by **Finetales** » 2025-07-11 2:42 p.m.

This thread makes no sense to me. :idk:

Heaviest trombone I've ever held (including contras) was my 1937 straight F bass trombone. My 1939 small bore B&H G bass was also heavy. Heaviest Bb bass trombone I've held is hard to say, but my 1972 Olds S24G was up there. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any modern bass I've tried (and I've tried just about everything) that I felt was noticeably heavy, especially compared to that Olds. I'm sure some of the heavy L bell/C attachment setups that were all the rage back in the day were very heavy, but that was 30+ years ago.

Worst ergonomics I've ever experienced were on that S24G. Close 2nd is the P22G I tried, and close 3rd is that B&H G bass. Next on the list (but a fair distance behind) would be stock Glantz Bar TR180, Duo Gravis, Elkhart 62H, 70H. Modern basses are in another dimension in terms of ergonomics. And I still use a strap, because I care about the health and longevity of my left hand.

Ugly? Well that's subjective of course, but I find modern instruments to be, in general, not as ugly in terms of wraps and bracing. The 50B2O or B3O is probably the ugliest trombone you can buy from the factory today, and that design is ancient at this point. Also, you can't deny how GORGEOUS double Hagmann basses are, especially dependents.

Biggest? That undoubtedly goes to the aforementioned bad old days with no leadpipe and heavy L bells and C attachments. And those days are thankfully very much over.

BPBasso · by **BPBasso** » 2025-07-11 2:59 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]They didn't decide to use heavier design. Read the thread. Blast as much as admitted he's just trolling. I asked him specifically which recent model is heavier than which vintage model, and he refused to answer. I don't think he really believes bass trombones have gotten heavier; he's just trying to goad a reaction out of people. (Very successfully, I might add.)[/quote]

Well... I still stand behind my questions. There might too many factors to narrow it down.

I enjoy the look of the horns with large decorative ferrules, and ones with large bracing. I also enjoy the look of some Rath and Thein horns with their minimalistic bracing.

We've had mouthpiece and slide weight threads. Time to pull out the scales and start weighing complete trombones now. :P

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-07-12 8:45 a.m.

[quote="BPBasso"]<QUOTE author="brassmedic" post_id="280961" time="1752257432" user_id="4102">
They didn't decide to use heavier design. Read the thread. Blast as much as admitted he's just trolling. I asked him specifically which recent model is heavier than which vintage model, and he refused to answer. I don't think he really believes bass trombones have gotten heavier; he's just trying to goad a reaction out of people. (Very successfully, I might add.)[/quote]

Well... I still stand behind my questions. There might too many factors to narrow it down.

I enjoy the look of the horns with large decorative ferrules, and ones with large bracing. I also enjoy the look of some Rath and Thein horns with their minimalistic bracing.

We've had mouthpiece and slide weight threads. Time to pull out the scales and start weighing complete trombones now. :P
</QUOTE>
One should focus more on weight placement and distribution and not just weighing the damn things on a scale. Not sure why this concept is just blown off.

blast · by **blast** » 2025-07-12 10:22 a.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]<QUOTE author="BPBasso" post_id="280877" time="1752160226" user_id="19343">

Do you think some of the makers are able and willing to attempt to lighten up their design per a customer's request .. extra $$$ though? What all made them decide to use a heavier design and materials in the first place ... Structure? Sound quality? Sound quantity? Years of tinkering and finding a "perfect" combination that people liked and started paying for regardless of final weight? Hopefully someone chimes in.
[/quote]

They didn't decide to use heavier design. Read the thread. Blast as much as admitted he's just trolling. I asked him specifically which recent model is heavier than which vintage model, and he refused to answer. I don't think he really believes bass trombones have gotten heavier; he's just trying to goad a reaction out of people. (Very successfully, I might add.)
</QUOTE>

Hey Brad, I didn't refuse to answer, I just didn't get specific because I don't want to attack individual makers. That wouldn't be fair. I will say that heavy bells are hard to deal with, as are dependent valves where the second valve sits a way away from the first and pulls the bell section in an anti- clockwise direction. I've gotten something out of this thread, even if no one else has. I did wonder why I was more comfortable with a double valve than a Bach 16....the constantly changing center of balance as the slide moves in and out is a far bigger deal on the Bach. The double sits on my shoulder and stays put. Thanks whoever pointed that out.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-07-12 12:10 p.m.

There are ways to make bass trombones lighter: use less brass. Fewer braces, lighter brace material, lighter gauge for everything, hollow valve rotors, remove excess tubing from the crooks (Shires Curran model), etc.

There are ways to make them smaller: demand a smaller bell like 9”, and demand a smaller bore size like .551” or .557”.

There are ways to make them less ugly: Don’t look at them!

ghmerrill · by **ghmerrill** » 2025-07-12 12:29 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]There are ways to make bass trombones lighter: use less brass. Fewer braces, lighter brace material, lighter gauge for everything, hollow valve rotors, remove excess tubing from the crooks (Shires Curran model), etc.[/quote]
Yeah, but then what? People will be complaining about their flimsiness and lack of durability. Repairs will be more frequent and repair costs will increase. Insurance rates will go up. You'll have to buy a heavier and more expensive case. You'll become paranoid about leaving your horn on its stand and you'll need expensive counselling to overcome that. So health insurance rates will rise as well. Trade-offs ... always trade-offs. :?

hornbuilder · by **hornbuilder** » 2025-07-12 12:52 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]There are ways to make bass trombones lighter: use less brass. Fewer braces, lighter brace material, lighter gauge for everything, hollow valve rotors, remove excess tubing from the crooks (Shires Curran model), etc.[/quote]

You make it sound like stuff just gets thrown together with no consideration for how the final product plays. Surely the performance of the instrument should be the ultimate reason why "anything" is done during construction?

Speaking for my own designs, "everything" is done for a specific, thought out reason. Material choice, the weight of that individual component, how it interacts with everything else around it, and the function it serves, was decided after extensive play testing of multiple options. Even down to how thick the outer slide tubing should be on the valve section tuning slides. Nothing is done just for $hits and giggles. You change one aspect of one component, and you change the whole equation.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2025-07-13 11:59 a.m.

[quote="hornbuilder"]<QUOTE author="Kbiggs" post_id="281016" time="1752336616" user_id="172">
There are ways to make bass trombones lighter: use less brass. Fewer braces, lighter brace material, lighter gauge for everything, hollow valve rotors, remove excess tubing from the crooks (Shires Curran model), etc.[/quote]

You make it sound like stuff just gets thrown together with no consideration for how the final product plays. Surely the performance of the instrument should be the ultimate reason why "anything" is done during construction?

Speaking for my own designs, "everything" is done for a specific, thought out reason. Material choice, the weight of that individual component, how it interacts with everything else around it, and the function it serves, was decided after extensive play testing of multiple options. Even down to how thick the outer slide tubing should be on the valve section tuning slides. Nothing is done just for $hits and giggles. You change one aspect of one component, and you change the whole equation.
</QUOTE>

I apologize if that’s the impression I gave. I had hoped my comment was a simple observation: basses and other brass instruments <I>can </I>be made lighter, but there’s always a trade-off. Several people have commented here that everything makes a difference. A couple of threads have mentioned how removing the slide bumper on the end crook or the tightness of the water key screw can produce subtle changes.

Like you said, “You change one aspect of one component, and you change the whole equation.” I agree.

I appreciate the time, research, and craft that goes into bespoke and custom horns like M&W, Stephens, LI Brass, as well as the larger component-oriented makers like Edwards, Shires, Rath, and Greenhoe. Even the large conglomerates (Bach+Conn+King, Yamaha) have designs they’ve used for decades because they work. Aside from Rath, this list doesn’t even mention European makers, or the Chinese makers many of whose designs and manufacture are rapidly improving.

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Why have bass trombones gotten to be so big and heavy and ugly ?