Quality of Orchestral (Trombone) Sound with time
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
Im curious if anyone else has noticed that orchestra musicians "generally" don't have the same quality sounds today as they did in the 1960s-1980s (give or take). What i'm specifically referring to is the tone quality, the resonance, and the overtones being what seems to me as more of a priority back then. Of course one can argue that sounds are bigger, broader, have more depth, more complex etc, but why has the golden quality of tone seem to have lessened with time? Is this due to equipment quality? Size of equipment? Orchestral musicians being demanded to have a more extreme technique? Recording quality? "Priorities"? I'm also not directly referring to Trombone, or even brass for that matter. I have noticed this in various instruments in the orchestra. Also, there are of course exceptions of those with a more vintage quality of sound, yet with modern playability. Someone who comes in mind would be Esteban Batallan on trumpet. I'm sure playing Bud Herseth's vintage trumpet, and a mount vernon mouthpiece helps, but why is this golden quality of sound more of a rarity now-a-days. Looking forward to this discussion.
- WilliamLang
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Nov 22, 2019
My first thought is recording equipment and the presence of engineers/producers. There's so much manipulation in post alongside a universal want of "correctness" that it homogenizes the sound world.
Which connects to a second point I've been thinking about. Orchestras sound better when they are a little sloppy. There's so much "rightness" at the expense of risk or individualized sound now that it gets a little boring. Having to constantly keep up with others recordings encourages less risk taking and more "correctness" instead of feeling and experimentation.
If I may as well - there weren't 20 Bud Herseths out there back in the day, and there aren't now as well. With the availability of so many recordings, we can focus only on the absolute best, and start to think that represents everything. But for every classical CSO Brass recording out there, there were also like 100 other recordings that the vast majority people won't really listen to ever again. The majority of art is lost to time from every era.
There's a lot more out there, I know - I only have a few opinions, but hopefully it's some interesting food for thought.
Which connects to a second point I've been thinking about. Orchestras sound better when they are a little sloppy. There's so much "rightness" at the expense of risk or individualized sound now that it gets a little boring. Having to constantly keep up with others recordings encourages less risk taking and more "correctness" instead of feeling and experimentation.
If I may as well - there weren't 20 Bud Herseths out there back in the day, and there aren't now as well. With the availability of so many recordings, we can focus only on the absolute best, and start to think that represents everything. But for every classical CSO Brass recording out there, there were also like 100 other recordings that the vast majority people won't really listen to ever again. The majority of art is lost to time from every era.
There's a lot more out there, I know - I only have a few opinions, but hopefully it's some interesting food for thought.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
I especially agree with your 2nd point. I do wish more orchestras, auditions, chamber groups etc thought risks were more crucial than note-perfection, but we know this isn’t always the case. I’ve taken an audition in 2025 (orchestra will not be named) and I got cut in semi finals and got comments back. One committee member wrote: generally very good, but you missed a note in William tell. Personally I don’t see the need to mention something like that unless it was multiple notes in a round or even a single excerpt.
- bus2
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Jul 18, 2021
Random thoughts from somebody who digs hearing musicians go for it over cleanliness . . .
There are plenty of "surgeons" out there who are extremely accurate players. The people winning jobs probably fit into this category more often than not. One of my old teachers talked disparagingly about "note counters." @%^# it if you miss a note. On the other hand, you need to be extremely accurate to win a position and that influences the way the ensemble will sound.
The trend away from "hero" brass playing has changed things. The Tchaik 6 recording of NY with a young Joe Alessi had some blistering trombone playing. Wow! Chicago shaped a generation with all of their recordings and radio broadcasts. Yet they were described as a brass circus at times. I heard a national broadcast of Tchaikovsky where the announcer said "That was Cowboy Charlie Vernon accompanied by the Chicago Symphony String Section." (Seriously. And yes, it was an awesome rendition!)
It's probably a cycle like skeletonized equipment vs heavy equipment. I've seen the cycle come around a couple of times.
Maybe we'll go back towards more individuality over the next couple of decades?
Parting shot--recordings have caused orchestras to sound similar. Like beer made by big breweries--you have to taste close enough to the competition, or you are too far out of the box. More microbreweries (regional orchestral flavors) please!
There are plenty of "surgeons" out there who are extremely accurate players. The people winning jobs probably fit into this category more often than not. One of my old teachers talked disparagingly about "note counters." @%^# it if you miss a note. On the other hand, you need to be extremely accurate to win a position and that influences the way the ensemble will sound.
The trend away from "hero" brass playing has changed things. The Tchaik 6 recording of NY with a young Joe Alessi had some blistering trombone playing. Wow! Chicago shaped a generation with all of their recordings and radio broadcasts. Yet they were described as a brass circus at times. I heard a national broadcast of Tchaikovsky where the announcer said "That was Cowboy Charlie Vernon accompanied by the Chicago Symphony String Section." (Seriously. And yes, it was an awesome rendition!)
It's probably a cycle like skeletonized equipment vs heavy equipment. I've seen the cycle come around a couple of times.
Maybe we'll go back towards more individuality over the next couple of decades?
Parting shot--recordings have caused orchestras to sound similar. Like beer made by big breweries--you have to taste close enough to the competition, or you are too far out of the box. More microbreweries (regional orchestral flavors) please!
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
Yes, sounds have changed. Equipment wise, Conns are no longer the default choice with tenor players and even bass players have moved on. Some of the now popular makes are bland from a distance. They might sound big close to, but the sound is often a bit hollow from the concert hall. I was lucky enough to play with some great players from the previous generation in my early career. Close to, they were very focused, almost hard....but they knew how to use the hall to create the magic.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
If you look at what orchestras around the world are playing, it's mostly the same set of pieces, over and over and over. There is a reason they audition trombonists on the same set of excerpts over and over. The orchestra is not about individualistic music, it's about reenacting an established music tradition. And I'm not knocking this - I love the orchestra. I don't even think it is necessarily the musicians who are eagerly moving towards the uniform "perfect" sound, I think the reasons below might explain it:
It might be that recording techniques have changed, which has influenced the sound, but I'd wager that it's more likely that the same pieces have been recorded over and over, and certain recordings have floated to the top. These are what influence the sounds of the orchestra musicians, even if only subconsciously.
Classical music composition has waned. There may be some new music played each year, but orchestras are mostly trying to get after the same repertoire, year in and year out. So for the audience they are playing for, I imagine it is more and more about sounding like the recording and less and less about sounding interesting or unique. The audience isn't generally going in not knowing what's in store for them -- they know exactly what they are going to hear.
The trend of playing live sound tracks set to movies on a projector is just the ultimate extension of this -- now the orchestra isn't just trying to sound like the movie soundtrack, they also have to play it exactly to cue so it syncs with the video. Such a concert leaves almost zero artistic room for the conductor or the performers. Yet they do it because that is what might bring an audience in.
It might be that recording techniques have changed, which has influenced the sound, but I'd wager that it's more likely that the same pieces have been recorded over and over, and certain recordings have floated to the top. These are what influence the sounds of the orchestra musicians, even if only subconsciously.
Classical music composition has waned. There may be some new music played each year, but orchestras are mostly trying to get after the same repertoire, year in and year out. So for the audience they are playing for, I imagine it is more and more about sounding like the recording and less and less about sounding interesting or unique. The audience isn't generally going in not knowing what's in store for them -- they know exactly what they are going to hear.
The trend of playing live sound tracks set to movies on a projector is just the ultimate extension of this -- now the orchestra isn't just trying to sound like the movie soundtrack, they also have to play it exactly to cue so it syncs with the video. Such a concert leaves almost zero artistic room for the conductor or the performers. Yet they do it because that is what might bring an audience in.
- claf
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Oct 22, 2018
[quote="blast"]Close to, they were very focused, almost hard....but they knew how to use the hall to create the magic.[/quote]
That's very interesting.
Do you think we could say that before they were playing "for the room" and now you are playing "for the microphone" ?
That's very interesting.
Do you think we could say that before they were playing "for the room" and now you are playing "for the microphone" ?
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit.
Brian, how do you know? I mean, I know you've spent a lot of time with Jay Friedman, but isn't it possible Jay was an outlier at any time? The Chicago Symphony had - and still has - a brass tradition that prioritizes a certain type of tone necessary in the acoustics of Orchestra Hall, right? Is it fair or correct to generalize entire generations based on that?
Brian, how do you know? I mean, I know you've spent a lot of time with Jay Friedman, but isn't it possible Jay was an outlier at any time? The Chicago Symphony had - and still has - a brass tradition that prioritizes a certain type of tone necessary in the acoustics of Orchestra Hall, right? Is it fair or correct to generalize entire generations based on that?
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="claf"]<QUOTE author="blast" post_id="291300" time="1766911762" user_id="52">
Close to, they were very focused, almost hard....but they knew how to use the hall to create the magic.[/quote]
That's very interesting.
Do you think we could say that before they were playing "for the room" and now you are playing "for the microphone" ?
</QUOTE>
Not at all. Quite the opposite. The amount of recording done in the 50s, 60s and 70s was amazing. People listened to playbacks in the studio and over time, adjusted their sound to create what they wanted. Back to taste and fashion. Attack was much stronger as a general rule. Things were simply different. Kids don't like strong attacks these days and will resist any requests for it with all their might.
Things have changed and will not go back. It's created a space of 'period' performance, which is a good development and often a revelation sonically.
I still keep an Elkhart 62H just as a reminder of what was. I do enjoy the modern monster...it makes change.
Close to, they were very focused, almost hard....but they knew how to use the hall to create the magic.[/quote]
That's very interesting.
Do you think we could say that before they were playing "for the room" and now you are playing "for the microphone" ?
</QUOTE>
Not at all. Quite the opposite. The amount of recording done in the 50s, 60s and 70s was amazing. People listened to playbacks in the studio and over time, adjusted their sound to create what they wanted. Back to taste and fashion. Attack was much stronger as a general rule. Things were simply different. Kids don't like strong attacks these days and will resist any requests for it with all their might.
Things have changed and will not go back. It's created a space of 'period' performance, which is a good development and often a revelation sonically.
I still keep an Elkhart 62H just as a reminder of what was. I do enjoy the modern monster...it makes change.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
Here's a bit different take:
A playing job is just that- it's a job. I think modern players realize that to a larger extent than before, and have tailored their playing and equipment for the longer term.
Warren Deck, Bob Hughes, Phil Smith, the orchestral (and other!) worlds are littered with players that WENT for it and paid the price in ended playing careers.
Is that inevitable? No, but probably better to play it safe and have a full, safer career rather than make the violas mad for a decade.
A playing job is just that- it's a job. I think modern players realize that to a larger extent than before, and have tailored their playing and equipment for the longer term.
Warren Deck, Bob Hughes, Phil Smith, the orchestral (and other!) worlds are littered with players that WENT for it and paid the price in ended playing careers.
Is that inevitable? No, but probably better to play it safe and have a full, safer career rather than make the violas mad for a decade.
- sf105
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]Here's a bit different take:
A playing job is just that- it's a job. I think modern players realize that to a larger extent than before, and have tailored their playing and equipment for the longer term.
Warren Deck, Bob Hughes, Phil Smith, the orchestral (and other!) worlds are littered with players that WENT for it and paid the price in ended playing careers.
Is that inevitable? No, but probably better to play it safe and have a full, safer career rather than make the violas mad for a decade.[/quote]
listening to Charlie Vernon's interview on the Embouchure Project's podcast, I hadn't realised how many top-level players have had to, at best, take an extended break. With modern demands, are we reaching a limit of what the body can take?
A playing job is just that- it's a job. I think modern players realize that to a larger extent than before, and have tailored their playing and equipment for the longer term.
Warren Deck, Bob Hughes, Phil Smith, the orchestral (and other!) worlds are littered with players that WENT for it and paid the price in ended playing careers.
Is that inevitable? No, but probably better to play it safe and have a full, safer career rather than make the violas mad for a decade.[/quote]
listening to Charlie Vernon's interview on the Embouchure Project's podcast, I hadn't realised how many top-level players have had to, at best, take an extended break. With modern demands, are we reaching a limit of what the body can take?
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="GabrielRice"]I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit.
Brian, how do you know? I mean, I know you've spent a lot of time with Jay Friedman, but isn't it possible Jay was an outlier at any time? The Chicago Symphony had - and still has - a brass tradition that prioritizes a certain type of tone necessary in the acoustics of Orchestra Hall, right? Is it fair or correct to generalize entire generations based on that?[/quote]
Hey Gabe, I’m not specifically talking about Chicago or Jay Friedman. I’ve noticed this with woodwind players & string players from that generation as well. Some notable examples are Donald Peck, Ray Hair (and plenty of others). As for trombone players in other orchestras, Henry Charles Smith comes to mind where he also fits that mold. I’m also aware that not every professional musician at this time had a beautiful pure sound, yet it still seems to be more prevalent then than now. Surely the hall had an impact on the Chicago Symphony Brass, but I don’t think Philadelphia’s hall would demand that HCS would need such a beautifully bright resonant sound to survive there.
Brian, how do you know? I mean, I know you've spent a lot of time with Jay Friedman, but isn't it possible Jay was an outlier at any time? The Chicago Symphony had - and still has - a brass tradition that prioritizes a certain type of tone necessary in the acoustics of Orchestra Hall, right? Is it fair or correct to generalize entire generations based on that?[/quote]
Hey Gabe, I’m not specifically talking about Chicago or Jay Friedman. I’ve noticed this with woodwind players & string players from that generation as well. Some notable examples are Donald Peck, Ray Hair (and plenty of others). As for trombone players in other orchestras, Henry Charles Smith comes to mind where he also fits that mold. I’m also aware that not every professional musician at this time had a beautiful pure sound, yet it still seems to be more prevalent then than now. Surely the hall had an impact on the Chicago Symphony Brass, but I don’t think Philadelphia’s hall would demand that HCS would need such a beautifully bright resonant sound to survive there.
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]Here's a bit different take:
A playing job is just that- it's a job. I think modern players realize that to a larger extent than before, and have tailored their playing and equipment for the longer term.
Warren Deck, Bob Hughes, Phil Smith, the orchestral (and other!) worlds are littered with players that WENT for it and paid the price in ended playing careers.
Is that inevitable? No, but probably better to play it safe and have a full, safer career rather than make the violas mad for a decade.[/quote]
Don't make assumptions about Bob Hughes and Phil Smith in public, on this forum. Bob is a very old friend and Phil I have talked with at length about playing issues, one to one over several days. Their story is far from simple and does not warrant a one liner here. They are very wonderful people and not to be abused with a broad and inaccurate brush on this place.
A playing job is just that- it's a job. I think modern players realize that to a larger extent than before, and have tailored their playing and equipment for the longer term.
Warren Deck, Bob Hughes, Phil Smith, the orchestral (and other!) worlds are littered with players that WENT for it and paid the price in ended playing careers.
Is that inevitable? No, but probably better to play it safe and have a full, safer career rather than make the violas mad for a decade.[/quote]
Don't make assumptions about Bob Hughes and Phil Smith in public, on this forum. Bob is a very old friend and Phil I have talked with at length about playing issues, one to one over several days. Their story is far from simple and does not warrant a one liner here. They are very wonderful people and not to be abused with a broad and inaccurate brush on this place.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
I'm sure there are many factors to playing problems, but playing hard is one of them for some.
I know that the really busy players here take it pretty easy.
I know that the really busy players here take it pretty easy.
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="BrianJohnston"]Hey Gabe, I’m not specifically talking about Chicago or Jay Friedman. I’ve noticed this with woodwind players & string players from that generation as well. Some notable examples are Donald Peck, Ray Hair (and plenty of others). As for trombone players in other orchestras, Henry Charles Smith comes to mind where he also fits that mold. I’m also aware that not every professional musician at this time had a beautiful pure sound, yet it still seems to be more prevalent then than now. Surely the hall had an impact on the Chicago Symphony Brass, but I don’t think Philadelphia’s hall would demand that HCS would need such a beautifully bright resonant sound to survive there.[/quote]
Ray Hair? The retired president of the AFM who is a drummer?
Donald Peck also played in the Chicago Symphony.
Also, "beautiful pure sound" is not what I think of when I think of Bud Herseth or the Chicago style in general. I think exciting sound full of texture, which is not at all the same thing - and not at all what I think you are reacting against with this post. Again, I think the purity of Jay's "golden tone" has never been all that common - in large part because it's difficult to do!
The part of me that wants to play a vintage instrument wants complexity and texture in the sound, not really purity. I will admit that it's not easy to get that texture with a modern instrument - purity, on the other hand, is relatively easy to find with the modern technology. I had more complexity over the last couple of years when I was playing vintage Bach bells and slides with modern valves in the middle, but I also missed enough notes that it bothered me A LOT.
Ray Premru made a sound in person that might surprise you if you have only listened to recordings he's on. Not particularly big, not at all wide, and not even a little bit "pure," but very clear pitch in the center with lots of grain and texture surrounding it. Some fuzz, some of what might even be described as dirt.
And an interesting addendum to Chris' point:
[quote="blast"]Attack was much stronger as a general rule. Things were simply different. Kids don't like strong attacks these days and will resist any requests for it with all their might.[/quote]
Ray had a mild speech impediment that prevented him from making a strong T sound, and you could hear that in his playing. He literally couldn't over-articulate. All of his accents were breath accents, and he compensated for the lack of point at the articulation with a very forward movement of air. He couldn't produce immediacy with the tongue, so he had to do it with the air.
I don't know what to make of that exactly, but I do think it's part of the enduring appeal of his sound and way of playing.
Ray Hair? The retired president of the AFM who is a drummer?
Donald Peck also played in the Chicago Symphony.
Also, "beautiful pure sound" is not what I think of when I think of Bud Herseth or the Chicago style in general. I think exciting sound full of texture, which is not at all the same thing - and not at all what I think you are reacting against with this post. Again, I think the purity of Jay's "golden tone" has never been all that common - in large part because it's difficult to do!
The part of me that wants to play a vintage instrument wants complexity and texture in the sound, not really purity. I will admit that it's not easy to get that texture with a modern instrument - purity, on the other hand, is relatively easy to find with the modern technology. I had more complexity over the last couple of years when I was playing vintage Bach bells and slides with modern valves in the middle, but I also missed enough notes that it bothered me A LOT.
Ray Premru made a sound in person that might surprise you if you have only listened to recordings he's on. Not particularly big, not at all wide, and not even a little bit "pure," but very clear pitch in the center with lots of grain and texture surrounding it. Some fuzz, some of what might even be described as dirt.
And an interesting addendum to Chris' point:
[quote="blast"]Attack was much stronger as a general rule. Things were simply different. Kids don't like strong attacks these days and will resist any requests for it with all their might.[/quote]
Ray had a mild speech impediment that prevented him from making a strong T sound, and you could hear that in his playing. He literally couldn't over-articulate. All of his accents were breath accents, and he compensated for the lack of point at the articulation with a very forward movement of air. He couldn't produce immediacy with the tongue, so he had to do it with the air.
I don't know what to make of that exactly, but I do think it's part of the enduring appeal of his sound and way of playing.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
Ray Still* that was my mistake. Also in CSO. Bud definitely had a beautiful quality in his sound when he played soft which was still vibrant, resonant. You can hear this in the Hindemith conducts Hindemith video on YouTube. Unlike any trumpet sound I hear today with the exception of Esteban. Arnold Jacob’s had this, Dale Clevenger etc. they could play loud and exciting but also more beautifully than anyone else at the time and arguably today. Outside of Chicago? Allen Barnhill had this quality, Maurice Murphy… just off the top of my head.
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
And to be clear, Brian, I don't necessarily disagree with you, just furthering discussion ;-)
Also, there are two threads here that are not really objectively related, though we find them related in real life:
One is tone itself, and in that case I think I probably do disagree at least a bit if only because we tend to idealize the past.
The other is on expectations of "perfection" - whatever that is - and its impact on the way we play and audition. I too would love to hear more emphasis on phrase shape, variation and shading of tone color for musical effect, and other modes of expression...and all I can really do about it is demand it of myself, encourage it in my students, and reward it when I find myself on audition committees and other hiring decisions.
I will be on the committee for a second trumpet audition for one of my orchestras in February. I was on the committee for the same position in the other orchestra a couple of seasons ago. Among other things I will be listening for is direction of line. A good example is the repeated eighth notes in the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra excerpt...if I hear flat, boring playing with no sense of direction or tension, I will be voting no.
Also, there are two threads here that are not really objectively related, though we find them related in real life:
One is tone itself, and in that case I think I probably do disagree at least a bit if only because we tend to idealize the past.
The other is on expectations of "perfection" - whatever that is - and its impact on the way we play and audition. I too would love to hear more emphasis on phrase shape, variation and shading of tone color for musical effect, and other modes of expression...and all I can really do about it is demand it of myself, encourage it in my students, and reward it when I find myself on audition committees and other hiring decisions.
I will be on the committee for a second trumpet audition for one of my orchestras in February. I was on the committee for the same position in the other orchestra a couple of seasons ago. Among other things I will be listening for is direction of line. A good example is the repeated eighth notes in the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra excerpt...if I hear flat, boring playing with no sense of direction or tension, I will be voting no.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
Oh absolutely, I appreciate you playing devils advocate.
I totally get idealizing the past, but I’m definitely not doing that here as there are examples of this “vintage tone” I’m referring to present today, although most of them have some sort of connection to the past.
Some of the most attractive sounds that I hear today are about half that vintage color/quality and half big fat modern orchestral sound. I’ve already mentioned EB in the CSO’s brass section, but he’s a prime example of that.
As for auditions, which I suppose I roped into the title discussion, it’s hard to pinpoint how much weight “sound” carries. Definitely interested in discussing that as it’s subjective and 2 vastly different sounds can both be deemed as good and or bad. Sort of a rabbit hole I guess.
I totally get idealizing the past, but I’m definitely not doing that here as there are examples of this “vintage tone” I’m referring to present today, although most of them have some sort of connection to the past.
Some of the most attractive sounds that I hear today are about half that vintage color/quality and half big fat modern orchestral sound. I’ve already mentioned EB in the CSO’s brass section, but he’s a prime example of that.
As for auditions, which I suppose I roped into the title discussion, it’s hard to pinpoint how much weight “sound” carries. Definitely interested in discussing that as it’s subjective and 2 vastly different sounds can both be deemed as good and or bad. Sort of a rabbit hole I guess.
- Macbone1
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Oct 01, 2019
I had a teacher who told me over 40 years ago that "trumpets are getting brighter. Low brass is getting darker". I tend to agree with him, looking back. Low brass also seems to be getting more powerful. College faculty and grad student recitals on YouTube show a huge sound compared to when I was in college.
But individual character of tone and color has indeed been on the decline. The universality of the "requirement" to play a Shires or Edwards with Greg Black mouthpiece, for example, is helping make everyone sound more alike.
But individual character of tone and color has indeed been on the decline. The universality of the "requirement" to play a Shires or Edwards with Greg Black mouthpiece, for example, is helping make everyone sound more alike.
- slidesix
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Jan 03, 2025
Orchestras have gotten louder or more powerful. I hear much of what Macbone1 mentions. Trumpets are brighter and low brass is darker, with more core, and tons of projection at volume. String sections are larger, so the strings can be louder as brass gets louder. I do think the recordings have much to do with it. Plus with Patrons, and the upperclass supporters, much of their reference is a Naxos CD prior to that night's out. No longer is a prior live performance the reference or the homework. Patrons listen to a CD before that night out. So it makes sense that the 2 would homogenize over time. The patrons seem to expect the live performance to match the CD they just referenced. So a feedback loop gets introduced it seems.
If you want ground zero, it might be Disney's Fantasia album from 1940. Or 1970s recordings of Chicago Symphony Orchestra. People hear those, and they want more of it. So life imitates art. Or more explicitly, life imitates recording art.
Or since you reference 1960-1980: maybe ground zero is modern classical music. It could be that post modern or the revolt against atonal, cerebral modern music was too much and too far. So things and tastes needed to change. I give you movie soundtracks and the Beethoven of the 20th century: John Williams.
Fun topic. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to think about it and the space to write this. I appreciate it. Thanks!
If you want ground zero, it might be Disney's Fantasia album from 1940. Or 1970s recordings of Chicago Symphony Orchestra. People hear those, and they want more of it. So life imitates art. Or more explicitly, life imitates recording art.
Or since you reference 1960-1980: maybe ground zero is modern classical music. It could be that post modern or the revolt against atonal, cerebral modern music was too much and too far. So things and tastes needed to change. I give you movie soundtracks and the Beethoven of the 20th century: John Williams.
Fun topic. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to think about it and the space to write this. I appreciate it. Thanks!
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="slidesix"]
If you want ground zero, it might be Disney's Fantasia album from 1940. Or 1970s recordings of Chicago Symphony Orchestra. People hear those, and they want more of it. So life imitates art. Or more explicitly, life imitates recording art.[/quote]
1970s Chicago Symphony is a double edged sword. Experienced musicians and brass players LOVE this kind of exciting electric loud playing (in the appropriate moments of course) and absolutely unmatched beautiful soft playing… extreme dynamics. I’ve performed under many conductors and around other musicians who have never heard these recordings and are repulsed at trying to play even halfway towards this direction, even when the quality of the sound is good and the intonation is there.
I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.
If you want ground zero, it might be Disney's Fantasia album from 1940. Or 1970s recordings of Chicago Symphony Orchestra. People hear those, and they want more of it. So life imitates art. Or more explicitly, life imitates recording art.[/quote]
1970s Chicago Symphony is a double edged sword. Experienced musicians and brass players LOVE this kind of exciting electric loud playing (in the appropriate moments of course) and absolutely unmatched beautiful soft playing… extreme dynamics. I’ve performed under many conductors and around other musicians who have never heard these recordings and are repulsed at trying to play even halfway towards this direction, even when the quality of the sound is good and the intonation is there.
I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.
- dukesboneman
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Apr 02, 2018
Brian, The time periods your mentioning, `50`s - `70`s etc. Trombone-wise it was (usually) an 88H/8H or a 42B/42.
The general mouthpiece size was around 5G-ish. These horns had a specific sound and set the standard.
Then enter Edwards, Shires, Rath, etc.. Different sounding instruments. Even though they have a " Conn" or a "Bach" style set-up, They are not 88H`s or 42B`s. Then the mouthpiece battle began - "Bigger is Better". THE SOUND CHANGED AGAIN.
Yes, Recording equipment has gotten much much better and that has changed the sound. Just my opinion.
In regards to the comment about Orchestras all playing (pretty much) the same repertoire, Have they just become "Classical/Romantic period Cover Bands?
The general mouthpiece size was around 5G-ish. These horns had a specific sound and set the standard.
Then enter Edwards, Shires, Rath, etc.. Different sounding instruments. Even though they have a " Conn" or a "Bach" style set-up, They are not 88H`s or 42B`s. Then the mouthpiece battle began - "Bigger is Better". THE SOUND CHANGED AGAIN.
Yes, Recording equipment has gotten much much better and that has changed the sound. Just my opinion.
In regards to the comment about Orchestras all playing (pretty much) the same repertoire, Have they just become "Classical/Romantic period Cover Bands?
- dukesboneman
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Apr 02, 2018
Brian, The time periods your mentioning, `50`s - `70`s etc. Trombone-wise it was (usually) an 88H/8H or a 42B/42.
The general mouthpiece size was around 5G-ish. These horns had a specific sound and set the standard.
Then enter Edwards, Shires, Rath, etc.. Different sounding instruments. Even though they have a " Conn" or a "Bach" style set-up, They are not 88H`s or 42B`s. Then the mouthpiece battle began - "Bigger is Better". THE SOUND CHANGED AGAIN.
Yes, Recording equipment has gotten much much better and that has changed the sound. Just my opinion.
In regards to the comment about Orchestras all playing (pretty much) the same repertoire, Have they just become "Classical/Romantic period Cover Bands?
The general mouthpiece size was around 5G-ish. These horns had a specific sound and set the standard.
Then enter Edwards, Shires, Rath, etc.. Different sounding instruments. Even though they have a " Conn" or a "Bach" style set-up, They are not 88H`s or 42B`s. Then the mouthpiece battle began - "Bigger is Better". THE SOUND CHANGED AGAIN.
Yes, Recording equipment has gotten much much better and that has changed the sound. Just my opinion.
In regards to the comment about Orchestras all playing (pretty much) the same repertoire, Have they just become "Classical/Romantic period Cover Bands?
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
Just to play devil's advocate, I don't think the recording equipment has gotten significantly better since the 50's-60's, not the mics anyways. Decca and many classical labels still use the Decca tree, which 'requires' Neumann M50's (released in 1950).
What has changed is the number of mics used in orchestral recordings. It used to be the Decca tree. Then it was Decca tree with outriggers. Now it's a Decca tree, outriggers, and every section is also miked. Sometimes every instrument. The other change is access to hundreds of channels of 'pure/noiseless' digital tracks. So the engineers can do far more editing and make individual instruments as present in the mix as their hearts desire. This could have been done in the past but it would have been insane to have to physically cut all that tape together to do edits.
The techniques are what have really changed, and it's arguable that they are not 'better'.
What has changed is the number of mics used in orchestral recordings. It used to be the Decca tree. Then it was Decca tree with outriggers. Now it's a Decca tree, outriggers, and every section is also miked. Sometimes every instrument. The other change is access to hundreds of channels of 'pure/noiseless' digital tracks. So the engineers can do far more editing and make individual instruments as present in the mix as their hearts desire. This could have been done in the past but it would have been insane to have to physically cut all that tape together to do edits.
The techniques are what have really changed, and it's arguable that they are not 'better'.
- Sesquitone
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Apr 25, 2022
[quote="harrisonreed"]Just to play devil's advocate, I don't think the recording equipment has gotten significantly better since the 50's-60's, not the mics anyways. Decca and many classical labels still use the Decca tree, which 'requires' Neumann M50's (released in 1950).
What has changed is the number of mics used in orchestral recordings. It used to be the Decca tree. Then it was Decca tree with outriggers. Now it's a Decca tree, outriggers, and every section is also miked. Sometimes every instrument. The other change is access to hundreds of channels of 'pure/noiseless' digital tracks. So the engineers can do far more editing and make individual instruments as present in the mix as their hearts desire. This could have been done in the past but it would have been insane to have to physically cut all that tape together to do edits.
The techniques are what have really changed, and it's arguable that they are not 'better'.[/quote]
A few decades ago, I had a chance to take in a concert* at The Concertgebouw, noted for its "legendary acoustics", which I had "experienced" listening to several stereo recordings—where, with a little focus and good stereo equipment, you could pick out individual instruments with great clarity. Frankly, at the concert, I found the acoustics quite a bit less than "legendary"—perhaps because I was stuck behind one of the several internal columns in the hall. However, what I could see were several wires hanging down over the musicians on stage: I counted <I>sixteen</I> microphones, more-or-less evenly dispersed! No wonder the engineers could massage the recordings to give such "clarity" to individual instruments.
The "Mercury Living Presence" recordings using that Decca Tree—three omnidirectional Neumann M50s arranged in a triangle above the conductor's head—were some of the most "natural live" recordings ever made. Even picking up some of Antal Dorati's "mumblings" as he took the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra (1949–1960) through some brilliant big—literally spine-tingling—orchestral works: Stravinsky "springs" to mind.
___________
*There was a visiting orchestra (which will remain nameless), featuring Beethoven's 5th on the second half. The principal trombonist was using a nice bright sounding alto, and nailed the F5 the first time through and on the repeat. Unfortunately, he overshot the E5 on the penultimate fortissimo C-major chord. The resulting F# hung (with "legendary" reverberation) throughout the hall before the final unison Cs closed it off.
What has changed is the number of mics used in orchestral recordings. It used to be the Decca tree. Then it was Decca tree with outriggers. Now it's a Decca tree, outriggers, and every section is also miked. Sometimes every instrument. The other change is access to hundreds of channels of 'pure/noiseless' digital tracks. So the engineers can do far more editing and make individual instruments as present in the mix as their hearts desire. This could have been done in the past but it would have been insane to have to physically cut all that tape together to do edits.
The techniques are what have really changed, and it's arguable that they are not 'better'.[/quote]
A few decades ago, I had a chance to take in a concert* at The Concertgebouw, noted for its "legendary acoustics", which I had "experienced" listening to several stereo recordings—where, with a little focus and good stereo equipment, you could pick out individual instruments with great clarity. Frankly, at the concert, I found the acoustics quite a bit less than "legendary"—perhaps because I was stuck behind one of the several internal columns in the hall. However, what I could see were several wires hanging down over the musicians on stage: I counted <I>sixteen</I> microphones, more-or-less evenly dispersed! No wonder the engineers could massage the recordings to give such "clarity" to individual instruments.
The "Mercury Living Presence" recordings using that Decca Tree—three omnidirectional Neumann M50s arranged in a triangle above the conductor's head—were some of the most "natural live" recordings ever made. Even picking up some of Antal Dorati's "mumblings" as he took the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra (1949–1960) through some brilliant big—literally spine-tingling—orchestral works: Stravinsky "springs" to mind.
___________
*There was a visiting orchestra (which will remain nameless), featuring Beethoven's 5th on the second half. The principal trombonist was using a nice bright sounding alto, and nailed the F5 the first time through and on the repeat. Unfortunately, he overshot the E5 on the penultimate fortissimo C-major chord. The resulting F# hung (with "legendary" reverberation) throughout the hall before the final unison Cs closed it off.
- slidesix
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Jan 03, 2025
[quote="BrianJohnston"]I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.[/quote]
Yeah, great point. I am afraid I cannot account for the how or why of the sound coming full circle to dull in the '90s.
I guess I could be the larger equipment mentioned but why use it? I cannot begin to answer that.
Yeah, great point. I am afraid I cannot account for the how or why of the sound coming full circle to dull in the '90s.
I guess I could be the larger equipment mentioned but why use it? I cannot begin to answer that.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="slidesix"]<QUOTE author="BrianJohnston" post_id="291578" time="1767205660" user_id="9667">
I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.[/quote]
Yeah, great point. I am afraid I cannot account for the how or why of the sound coming full circle to dull in the '90s.
I guess I could be the larger equipment mentioned but why use it? I cannot begin to answer that.
</QUOTE>
The acoustics of their hall were changed around that time and the brass needed an edge-less sound, which accounts for the larger equipment.
I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.[/quote]
Yeah, great point. I am afraid I cannot account for the how or why of the sound coming full circle to dull in the '90s.
I guess I could be the larger equipment mentioned but why use it? I cannot begin to answer that.
</QUOTE>
The acoustics of their hall were changed around that time and the brass needed an edge-less sound, which accounts for the larger equipment.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="slidesix"]<QUOTE author="BrianJohnston" post_id="291578" time="1767205660" user_id="9667">
I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.[/quote]
Yeah, great point. I am afraid I cannot account for the how or why of the sound coming full circle to dull in the '90s.
I guess I could be the larger equipment mentioned but why use it? I cannot begin to answer that.
</QUOTE>
The acoustics of their hall were changed around that time and the brass needed an edge-less sound, which accounts for the larger equipment.
I’d even argue that the low brass of Chicago Symphony hit their utmost peak in the 1990s with the use of lightweight bass trombone slides to make the sound concept lighter, less edgy and more free. Still electric, but more refined. With that said, potentially more dull in the 90s than the 70s though - coming full circle.[/quote]
Yeah, great point. I am afraid I cannot account for the how or why of the sound coming full circle to dull in the '90s.
I guess I could be the larger equipment mentioned but why use it? I cannot begin to answer that.
</QUOTE>
The acoustics of their hall were changed around that time and the brass needed an edge-less sound, which accounts for the larger equipment.
- slidesix
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Jan 03, 2025
Oh wow, I didn't know that. I learn something new every day! Thanks
Now that you mention that, I recalled reading the hall acoustics played a part in Jay Friedman planning principal tenor on .562 bore slides. Is that correct?
Now that you mention that, I recalled reading the hall acoustics played a part in Jay Friedman planning principal tenor on .562 bore slides. Is that correct?
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="slidesix"]I recalled reading the hall acoustics played a part in Jay Friedman planning principal tenor on .562 bore slides. Is that correct?[/quote]
Did Jay (and the rest of the section) change equipment when they played at venues away from Orchestra Hall in Chicago? If the reason for a particular setup was only/mainly the auditorium acoustics, it would seem reasonable to adapt to other environments.
Did Jay (and the rest of the section) change equipment when they played at venues away from Orchestra Hall in Chicago? If the reason for a particular setup was only/mainly the auditorium acoustics, it would seem reasonable to adapt to other environments.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
I doubt it. If you're used to a setup and you use it 99 percent of the time, keep using it. The rest of the orchestra probably isn't changing much.
- SteveM
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Dec 21, 2021
I can attest from my own experience that they most likely did not alter their equipment for different venues. I heard the CSO in the spring of 1975 at Orchestra Hall, playing the Brahms 3rd Symphony. The trombones (and the rest of the orchestra!) sounded fine. I heard them a few months later in DC, at the Kennedy Center, playing the Schumann 4th and the Elgar Enigma Variations. In that hall, the sound of the trombone section was so dark that it barely registered at all. There was no edge to the sound to help it cut through the overall texture.
Why Friedman felt the need to darken the sound of his section, while other section leaders did not, is a mystery to me. I've heard that Crisafulli and Kleinhammer were not very happy with the change that was forced on them.
Why Friedman felt the need to darken the sound of his section, while other section leaders did not, is a mystery to me. I've heard that Crisafulli and Kleinhammer were not very happy with the change that was forced on them.
- blast
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
I heard the CSO in the Royal Albert Hall, London in 1980. Bartok concerto for orchestra and Bruckner 4. A stunning organ like brass section, blended from top to bottom. The most blended brass I've heard. That was the old A team throughout.
You really don't want analytical halls that pick out individual instruments...that's not music.
After hearing that CSO concert, I went out and ordered a 10 1/2" Bell Bach. Kleinhammer's actual instrument was quite different, as he tried to point out to me. I didn't get to sound like Kleinhammer, but I did learn a lot in the process.
You really don't want analytical halls that pick out individual instruments...that's not music.
After hearing that CSO concert, I went out and ordered a 10 1/2" Bell Bach. Kleinhammer's actual instrument was quite different, as he tried to point out to me. I didn't get to sound like Kleinhammer, but I did learn a lot in the process.
- bitbckt
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Aug 19, 2020
As this is in “Tangents”…
Bob Fine recorded Dorati in LCR on Schoeps M201s, not a Decca on M50s.
Bob Fine recorded Dorati in LCR on Schoeps M201s, not a Decca on M50s.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="SteveM"]I can attest from my own experience that they most likely did not alter their equipment for different venues. I heard the CSO in the spring of 1975 at Orchestra Hall, playing the Brahms 3rd Symphony. The trombones (and the rest of the orchestra!) sounded fine. I heard them a few months later in DC, at the Kennedy Center, playing the Schumann 4th and the Elgar Enigma Variations. In that hall, the sound of the trombone section was so dark that it barely registered at all. There was no edge to the sound to help it cut through the overall texture.
Why Friedman felt the need to darken the sound of his section, while other section leaders did not, is a mystery to me. I've heard that Crisafulli and Kleinhammer were not very happy with the change that was forced on them.[/quote]
Ok, many things to answer to here:
In 1975 I belive they were still playing on standard equipment (.547 standard weight tenor slides), unless they were on dual-bore holtons. The bass trombone slide change did not happen until the late 80s. The rumor is, one of the CSO tenor trombones didn't have a slide before a concert and borrowed the bass slide from the Bass trombone in Civic at the time and ended up liking it.
In DC it was also on standard weight .547 slides (unless it was the dual bore holtons?), I can't imagine them sounding "dark". I don't think i've ever heard the CSO low brass sound "dark". In 1975/76 always extremely bright and exciting, maybe the hall made them sound more blended??
Why Friedman felt the need to darken the sound of his section, while other section leaders did not, is a mystery to me. I've heard that Crisafulli and Kleinhammer were not very happy with the change that was forced on them.[/quote]
Ok, many things to answer to here:
In 1975 I belive they were still playing on standard equipment (.547 standard weight tenor slides), unless they were on dual-bore holtons. The bass trombone slide change did not happen until the late 80s. The rumor is, one of the CSO tenor trombones didn't have a slide before a concert and borrowed the bass slide from the Bass trombone in Civic at the time and ended up liking it.
In DC it was also on standard weight .547 slides (unless it was the dual bore holtons?), I can't imagine them sounding "dark". I don't think i've ever heard the CSO low brass sound "dark". In 1975/76 always extremely bright and exciting, maybe the hall made them sound more blended??
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="blast"]I heard the CSO in the Royal Albert Hall, London in 1980. Bartok concerto for orchestra and Bruckner 4. A stunning organ like brass section, blended from top to bottom. The most blended brass I've heard. That was the old A team throughout.
You really don't want analytical halls that pick out individual instruments...that's not music.
After hearing that CSO concert, I went out and ordered a 10 1/2" Bell Bach. Kleinhammer's actual instrument was quite different, as he tried to point out to me. I didn't get to sound like Kleinhammer, but I did learn a lot in the process.[/quote]
Hard to sound like Kleinhammer on a 1980s Bach, when he played a 1950s red brass mount vernon.
You really don't want analytical halls that pick out individual instruments...that's not music.
After hearing that CSO concert, I went out and ordered a 10 1/2" Bell Bach. Kleinhammer's actual instrument was quite different, as he tried to point out to me. I didn't get to sound like Kleinhammer, but I did learn a lot in the process.[/quote]
Hard to sound like Kleinhammer on a 1980s Bach, when he played a 1950s red brass mount vernon.
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="BrianJohnston"]Hard to sound like Kleinhammer on a 1980s Bach, when he played a 1950s red brass mount vernon.[/quote]
Not at that point. By then he had a beast with a big Williams bell, a dual-bore slide with no leadpipe, and inline valves with Bb/F/C (I think) tuning.
Incidentally, I've played that red brass MV. It was pretty amazing.
Not at that point. By then he had a beast with a big Williams bell, a dual-bore slide with no leadpipe, and inline valves with Bb/F/C (I think) tuning.
Incidentally, I've played that red brass MV. It was pretty amazing.
- BassBoneFL
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Aug 14, 2018
[quote="GabrielRice"]<QUOTE author="BrianJohnston" post_id="291757" time="1767424786" user_id="9667">
Hard to sound like Kleinhammer on a 1980s Bach, when he played a 1950s red brass mount vernon.[/quote]
Not at that point. By then he had a beast with a big Williams bell, a dual-bore slide with no leadpipe, and inline valves with Bb/F/C (I think) tuning. </QUOTE>
If I recall, his 2nd valve was tuned to D.
FWIW, the "old" section did little/no equipment swapping.
Gilbertsen played either a straight 42 or 8H most of his career.
Kleinhammer played for a bit on a Schmidt and a 70H before moving to the red brass MV50B and later a yellow brass 50B. He did use the Holton 169 that he helped design when that first came out but moved back to his Bach after a few seasons. The last 10-15yrs of his career he played his custom Williams "frankenbone"
Crisafulli played a Schmidt and a Conn early on and then he worked with Holton on the TR-150 (?) which was his main instrument for the remainder of his career. He did use on occasion one of two horns Schilke made for him. Most of the time though, those instruments lived in his NU studio and home practice room.
Jay seemed to change stuff the most moving between numerous Bach bells and slides (42, 42B, 45B bells and 42, 50LW slides). For several years he did use the Holton TR-156 which he helped design. He also used numerous altos, usually of a German make.
Hard to sound like Kleinhammer on a 1980s Bach, when he played a 1950s red brass mount vernon.[/quote]
Not at that point. By then he had a beast with a big Williams bell, a dual-bore slide with no leadpipe, and inline valves with Bb/F/C (I think) tuning. </QUOTE>
If I recall, his 2nd valve was tuned to D.
FWIW, the "old" section did little/no equipment swapping.
Gilbertsen played either a straight 42 or 8H most of his career.
Kleinhammer played for a bit on a Schmidt and a 70H before moving to the red brass MV50B and later a yellow brass 50B. He did use the Holton 169 that he helped design when that first came out but moved back to his Bach after a few seasons. The last 10-15yrs of his career he played his custom Williams "frankenbone"
Crisafulli played a Schmidt and a Conn early on and then he worked with Holton on the TR-150 (?) which was his main instrument for the remainder of his career. He did use on occasion one of two horns Schilke made for him. Most of the time though, those instruments lived in his NU studio and home practice room.
Jay seemed to change stuff the most moving between numerous Bach bells and slides (42, 42B, 45B bells and 42, 50LW slides). For several years he did use the Holton TR-156 which he helped design. He also used numerous altos, usually of a German make.
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Well here's something interesting
<YOUTUBE id="tC27IRYrKRk">https://youtu.be/tC27IRYrKRk?si=mMVhq6uUC6HTnkTh</YOUTUBE>
<YOUTUBE id="tC27IRYrKRk">https://youtu.be/tC27IRYrKRk?si=mMVhq6uUC6HTnkTh</YOUTUBE>
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="GabrielRice"]Well here's something interesting
[/quote]
How much did Herseth’s equipment change from the beginning to the end of his career?
[quote="BassBoneFL"]
Jay seemed to change stuff the most moving between numerous Bach bells and slides (42, 42B, 45B bells and 42, 50LW slides). For several years he did use the Holton TR-156 which he helped design. He also used numerous altos, usually of a German make.
[/quote]
Did he still sound like Jay Friedman? Was he changing because he didn’t like his sound, or because he didn’t like the way he sounded in Symphony Hall? Was it due to the feedback/response?
[/quote]
How much did Herseth’s equipment change from the beginning to the end of his career?
[quote="BassBoneFL"]
Jay seemed to change stuff the most moving between numerous Bach bells and slides (42, 42B, 45B bells and 42, 50LW slides). For several years he did use the Holton TR-156 which he helped design. He also used numerous altos, usually of a German make.
[/quote]
Did he still sound like Jay Friedman? Was he changing because he didn’t like his sound, or because he didn’t like the way he sounded in Symphony Hall? Was it due to the feedback/response?
- claf
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Oct 22, 2018
[quote="Kbiggs"]<QUOTE author="GabrielRice" post_id="291769" time="1767454650" user_id="102">
Well here's something interesting
[/quote]
How much did Herseth’s equipment change from the beginning to the end of his career?
</QUOTE>
Not much I think.
Mainly his Bach MV C trumpet with a Bach 7C mouthpiece then a 1C (or 1X) after his accident.
Well here's something interesting
[/quote]
How much did Herseth’s equipment change from the beginning to the end of his career?
</QUOTE>
Not much I think.
Mainly his Bach MV C trumpet with a Bach 7C mouthpiece then a 1C (or 1X) after his accident.
- BassBoneFL
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Aug 14, 2018
[quote="Kbiggs"]Did he still sound like Jay Friedman? Was he changing because he didn’t like his sound, or because he didn’t like the way he sounded in Symphony Hall? Was it due to the feedback/response?[/quote]
You'd have to ask him to be sure.
IMO, Jay has always had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to sound like. I think he usually was always looking for whatever got him closest to that ideal with the least possible effort.
You'd have to ask him to be sure.
IMO, Jay has always had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to sound like. I think he usually was always looking for whatever got him closest to that ideal with the least possible effort.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="Kbiggs"]Did he still sound like Jay Friedman? Was he changing because he didn’t like his sound, or because he didn’t like the way he sounded in Symphony Hall? Was it due to the feedback/response?[/quote]
He changed because he tried a bass slide out in the late 80s and liked how it played/sounded. Then the acoustics of the hall were changed in the early 90s and the larger equipment was a must so they could make the appropriate sound without edge. In more recent articles he wrote that he used a large mouthpiece and bass slide because he prefers the free-blowing feel/sound and because of their hall’s acoustics.
I’m unsure when the whole section switched to larger slides collectively, but at some point in the 90s it was:
1st Tbn- .562 LT Nickel bass slide
2nd Tbn- .562 LT Nickel bass slide
Bass Tbn- .562/.578 LT Yellow slide with nickel crook
(Unsure about James Gilbertson [ass’t principal tbn]
He changed because he tried a bass slide out in the late 80s and liked how it played/sounded. Then the acoustics of the hall were changed in the early 90s and the larger equipment was a must so they could make the appropriate sound without edge. In more recent articles he wrote that he used a large mouthpiece and bass slide because he prefers the free-blowing feel/sound and because of their hall’s acoustics.
I’m unsure when the whole section switched to larger slides collectively, but at some point in the 90s it was:
1st Tbn- .562 LT Nickel bass slide
2nd Tbn- .562 LT Nickel bass slide
Bass Tbn- .562/.578 LT Yellow slide with nickel crook
(Unsure about James Gilbertson [ass’t principal tbn]
- Sesquitone
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Apr 25, 2022
On a tenor trombone, for a given bell and attachment, the use of a larger (single- or dual-) bore slide might be expected to “enhance” the lower tenor register: making it more “full” or “darker”. And it certainly helps correct the well-known attachment tone-quality and intonation problems: flat and “stuffy” F2, sharp and uncentered C3, unreliable attack response. But does it necessarily reduce “brightness” or “edge” in the upper register? When I asked Jay Friedman about his use of the Bach 50 slide on the 42 bell with respect to these questions, he merely replied that he very much preferred the “open feel” and “projection” of that combination, without going into detail about what that meant. I suppose one would need to do specific A/B listener tests in a controlled environment and compare spectral analyses over a wide range of frequencies and dynamics—and with different players using the same equipment.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
[quote="Sesquitone"]I suppose one would need to do specific A/B listener tests in a controlled environment and compare spectral analyses over a wide range of frequencies and dynamics—and with different players using the same equipment.[/quote]
The CSO records all of their services for the musicians to listen back to. It’s very likely that this process has already been done.
The CSO records all of their services for the musicians to listen back to. It’s very likely that this process has already been done.
- Sesquitone
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Apr 25, 2022
[quote="BrianJohnston"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="291899" time="1767636302" user_id="15151">
I suppose one would need to do specific A/B listener tests in a controlled environment and compare spectral analyses over a wide range of frequencies and dynamics—and with different players using the same equipment.[/quote]
The CSO records all of their services for the musicians to listen back to. It’s very likely that this process has already been done.
</QUOTE>
If not, it might be a nice subject for a doctoral dissertation—in case someone is looking for one. A bit like the comprehensive flute study I've mentioned before that compared many different materials played by many different performers. [The results of that were that performers were significantly different, materials were not!]
.
I suppose one would need to do specific A/B listener tests in a controlled environment and compare spectral analyses over a wide range of frequencies and dynamics—and with different players using the same equipment.[/quote]
The CSO records all of their services for the musicians to listen back to. It’s very likely that this process has already been done.
</QUOTE>
If not, it might be a nice subject for a doctoral dissertation—in case someone is looking for one. A bit like the comprehensive flute study I've mentioned before that compared many different materials played by many different performers. [The results of that were that performers were significantly different, materials were not!]
.
- BrianJohnston
- Posts: 1165
- Joined: Jul 11, 2020
Definitely an interesting topic! Some trumpet player did something similar with mouthpieces where he had charts of effects of adjusting the different aspects of a trumpet mouthpiece. The overtones were significantly different no matter which part of the mouthpiece was adjusted, and the chart proved that you cannot make 2 nearly identical mouthpieces by adjusting different parts of a mouthpiece to be balanced. Anyway, lots of mouthpiece experts on here who can speak more on this topic than I can.