In praise of the humble Bach 2G
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
Background fact 1) I've owned a VB 2G before; it was a smaller example that I used on euph, and which felt very cramped on bass trombone - bigger than a 3G, but not much bigger.
Background fact 2) I learned bass trombone on a VB 1-1/2G which had slightly odd dimensions - narrower than standard on the face, but with a bigger cup/throat that both complemented and hindered it in different ways.
Background fact 3) In my early 20s, nearly 20 years ago now, I laid my hands on a nice VB 1-1/4G that I quickly came to feel much more at home on than my learner 1-1/2G. It matched very well to the Holton TR181 that I was then playing. Later on, intrigued to explore, and moving on to different bass trombones, I gave many mouthpieces around this size extended trials, but didn't find one that could displace it in my affections. Some 60 or 70 were tried over some years, covering the range from 1-1/2 to huge - 1-1/2 size pieces universally felt cramped, and so I didn't bother with 2 size pieces. Those others that worked best for me tended to be 1-1/4-alikes with a bit more room - the favourite two being a Marcinkiewicz Bill Reichenbach EBT1 and a UMI 1-1/4H.
Background fact 4) A few years ago, Chris Stearn sold me a bone which has so far stopped me from further fiddling on the instrument front. It's a modified-to-independent 1962 Holton 169, and it makes the noise I'm after - full but colourful, with easy access to edge, and loses no trombone quality of tone at a whisper. It has nearly all the good bits of that TR181 that I liked years ago, but all the bad bits are good bits on it also. Every trombone is a trade-off of attributes, but this one less than most. I'm very happy with it.
But the trusty old VB 1-1/4G isn't quite right for it, alas. It can push it over into tonal brutality, and there's a bigger facial adjustment needed when going onto the trigger than I've managed to make work as reliably as I'm comfortable with accepting. I've been using the UMI 1-1/4H with it in recent months, and finding that a happily acceptable change - it needs a bit more grip at the face, but it combines the registers more easily and doesn't brutalise the sound in an undesirable way. Big noises are most reliable.
However - optimising for big noises is all very well when sat in a brass band, but musically daft when playing e.g. the Rhenish symphony with a chamber orchestra, the gig in November at which, curious, I badgered one of the other trombonists to let me use their VB 2G, thinking that it was about time that I tried another one to try to see what the fuss was about - I mean, a lot of really good players use them, right?
Well, blow me down... It just works, does it not? Despite being smaller than the 1-1/2G, I don't feel cramped on it in the lower register in the way that I do on a 1-1/2. I think what's going on is that the 2 lets my chops just sit on it without any muscling around, and its natural tonal brilliance means that I don't get tempted to try facially gripping on to brighten up the sound. The 1-1/2 then is the smallest of a category of the next two larger sizes, before big mouthpieces then demand a third way again of blowing.
The width isn't the whole story - I also have a Klier 3AL, which has pretty similar dimensions, but this lacks brilliance, so I start feeling cramped on it. Ditto the Wick 2AL. It's the overall VB design of the 2G that does it - a perfectly balanced mouthpiece. I've often admired the sounds of 2G players, while thinking "It's a shame that that piece is too small for me". Very happy to find out I was wrong. Whisper it, but it even works rather nicely for brass band low register shouting... Though it's less forgiving work to do so than on something bigger and more open.
Was the 2G the work of old man Bach himself? He knew his stuff...
Background fact 2) I learned bass trombone on a VB 1-1/2G which had slightly odd dimensions - narrower than standard on the face, but with a bigger cup/throat that both complemented and hindered it in different ways.
Background fact 3) In my early 20s, nearly 20 years ago now, I laid my hands on a nice VB 1-1/4G that I quickly came to feel much more at home on than my learner 1-1/2G. It matched very well to the Holton TR181 that I was then playing. Later on, intrigued to explore, and moving on to different bass trombones, I gave many mouthpieces around this size extended trials, but didn't find one that could displace it in my affections. Some 60 or 70 were tried over some years, covering the range from 1-1/2 to huge - 1-1/2 size pieces universally felt cramped, and so I didn't bother with 2 size pieces. Those others that worked best for me tended to be 1-1/4-alikes with a bit more room - the favourite two being a Marcinkiewicz Bill Reichenbach EBT1 and a UMI 1-1/4H.
Background fact 4) A few years ago, Chris Stearn sold me a bone which has so far stopped me from further fiddling on the instrument front. It's a modified-to-independent 1962 Holton 169, and it makes the noise I'm after - full but colourful, with easy access to edge, and loses no trombone quality of tone at a whisper. It has nearly all the good bits of that TR181 that I liked years ago, but all the bad bits are good bits on it also. Every trombone is a trade-off of attributes, but this one less than most. I'm very happy with it.
But the trusty old VB 1-1/4G isn't quite right for it, alas. It can push it over into tonal brutality, and there's a bigger facial adjustment needed when going onto the trigger than I've managed to make work as reliably as I'm comfortable with accepting. I've been using the UMI 1-1/4H with it in recent months, and finding that a happily acceptable change - it needs a bit more grip at the face, but it combines the registers more easily and doesn't brutalise the sound in an undesirable way. Big noises are most reliable.
However - optimising for big noises is all very well when sat in a brass band, but musically daft when playing e.g. the Rhenish symphony with a chamber orchestra, the gig in November at which, curious, I badgered one of the other trombonists to let me use their VB 2G, thinking that it was about time that I tried another one to try to see what the fuss was about - I mean, a lot of really good players use them, right?
Well, blow me down... It just works, does it not? Despite being smaller than the 1-1/2G, I don't feel cramped on it in the lower register in the way that I do on a 1-1/2. I think what's going on is that the 2 lets my chops just sit on it without any muscling around, and its natural tonal brilliance means that I don't get tempted to try facially gripping on to brighten up the sound. The 1-1/2 then is the smallest of a category of the next two larger sizes, before big mouthpieces then demand a third way again of blowing.
The width isn't the whole story - I also have a Klier 3AL, which has pretty similar dimensions, but this lacks brilliance, so I start feeling cramped on it. Ditto the Wick 2AL. It's the overall VB design of the 2G that does it - a perfectly balanced mouthpiece. I've often admired the sounds of 2G players, while thinking "It's a shame that that piece is too small for me". Very happy to find out I was wrong. Whisper it, but it even works rather nicely for brass band low register shouting... Though it's less forgiving work to do so than on something bigger and more open.
Was the 2G the work of old man Bach himself? He knew his stuff...
- chromebone
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Apr 08, 2018
I believe Ray Premru played a 2G for his whole career on his Holton 169. If it was good enough for him...
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
I've settled on a 2G for my euphonium as well. It still gets the upper range, and (almost) takes the stuffiness out of the compensated (trigger) range. I'll also use the 2G on my Olds S-20 small bass if I'm playing 3rd type parts rather than straight up bass bone. I use 1 1/4 for bass bone and a range of DE XT104s for tenor.
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
It seems to me that it's commonly reported that players find two sizes comfortable on bass trombone. For me and you it's 2 & 1-1/4. For others I've seen it be very large & 1-1/2.
- tbonesullivan
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Jul 02, 2019
I know that there are some people who feel that a mpc bigger than a 1 1/2G is too big for a "real bass trombone" sound. Too wide, too diffuse, not "trombone-like" enough. While I don't necessarily agree, there are some people who use REALLY BIG mouthpieces, with huge throats, huge deep cups, and paper thin rims.
For me, most of the time, I found that the 1 1/2G was quite nice. For a good "orchestral" sound it was almost ideal when working with a smaller orchestra. I do have a Yamaha 58 somewhere, but I never really connected with it like I did with the 1 1/2G.
For me, most of the time, I found that the 1 1/2G was quite nice. For a good "orchestral" sound it was almost ideal when working with a smaller orchestra. I do have a Yamaha 58 somewhere, but I never really connected with it like I did with the 1 1/2G.
- RoscoTrombone
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Oct 17, 2018
For me when I transitioned onto bass when I was at Keller Hall I advised by the professor to start on a 4G for a few weeks,then a 3G then I hit the 2G and it stuck. I didn't have any issues with popping out the low stuff so had no inclination to try anything else and it served me very well.
When I left the army I started messing about with other sizes, some very large but most were in the 1.5/1.25 size. I could never settle on the bigger ones but oddly I never tried a standard Bach 1.5 (still haven't played to this day). I would always go back to the 2 & every time it just felt right. That didn't stop me from spending pennies on other pieces though!
I went to see Chris a couple of years ago and if memory serves me correct I was on a Rath 1.5. After being handed a few pieces to try he said "a bit of a curve ball but try this" & lo & behold it was a 2G!
So cue me going off to buy yet another 2G! During the things I was working on with him I had changed again and sold the 2G. I ended up being on a Resonance for over a year when I spied a 2G on ebay & couldn't resist. I didn't use it though until I felt that the AR wasn't doing what I wanted it to so stuck the 2 back in for an orchestra concert and it was like being back home.
When I got wind of the new Symington piece I duly tried one but just couldn't settle on it so when I found out his 2 was ready I got my hands on it and the difference was huge. A 2G on steroids if you will!
I still have the other 2G though and will never sell it just in case!!
When I left the army I started messing about with other sizes, some very large but most were in the 1.5/1.25 size. I could never settle on the bigger ones but oddly I never tried a standard Bach 1.5 (still haven't played to this day). I would always go back to the 2 & every time it just felt right. That didn't stop me from spending pennies on other pieces though!
I went to see Chris a couple of years ago and if memory serves me correct I was on a Rath 1.5. After being handed a few pieces to try he said "a bit of a curve ball but try this" & lo & behold it was a 2G!
So cue me going off to buy yet another 2G! During the things I was working on with him I had changed again and sold the 2G. I ended up being on a Resonance for over a year when I spied a 2G on ebay & couldn't resist. I didn't use it though until I felt that the AR wasn't doing what I wanted it to so stuck the 2 back in for an orchestra concert and it was like being back home.
When I got wind of the new Symington piece I duly tried one but just couldn't settle on it so when I found out his 2 was ready I got my hands on it and the difference was huge. A 2G on steroids if you will!
I still have the other 2G though and will never sell it just in case!!
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
A lot of players choose the bass trombone mouthpiece that gives You the biggest pedal register... If More players would dial in the real "cash register", middle F down to pedal Bb more players would end up somewhere around 1 1/2G /2G...better balance between volume and intensity... Even more so in a Holton or Conn..
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Tbarh"]A lot of players choose the bass trombone mouthpiece that gives You the biggest pedal register... If More players would dial in the real "cash register", middle F down to pedal Bb more players would end up somewhere around 1 1/2G /2G...better balance between volume and intensity... Even more so in a Holton or Conn..[/quote]
I think this is a misconception. I'm sure there are students and amateurs that do it for that reason, but it's not the reason the professional would choose a mouthpiece. The reason those big pieces exist is because they work in all ranges if you put the work in.
The small stuff lets you work easily in some places, but not others. It's a trade off.
That said, one of the best bass trombone sounds I can remember is my friend on a Mt. Vernon 2G and an Elkhart 62H.
I think this is a misconception. I'm sure there are students and amateurs that do it for that reason, but it's not the reason the professional would choose a mouthpiece. The reason those big pieces exist is because they work in all ranges if you put the work in.
The small stuff lets you work easily in some places, but not others. It's a trade off.
That said, one of the best bass trombone sounds I can remember is my friend on a Mt. Vernon 2G and an Elkhart 62H.
- tbonesullivan
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Jul 02, 2019
[quote="Tbarh"]A lot of players choose the bass trombone mouthpiece that gives You the biggest pedal register... If More players would dial in the real "cash register", middle F down to pedal Bb more players would end up somewhere around 1 1/2G /2G...better balance between volume and intensity... Even more so in a Holton or Conn..[/quote] The problem is that more and more current composers seem to use the bass trombone more for "effect" than tone, so they just want some insane blasting F# pedal tones, or lower. So you need those big toilet bowls to accomplish that on cue all the time. That is one of the issues I faced that made me look into mouthpieces larger than a Laskey 85MD.
I found that unless I went for something HUGE, just making the mouthpiece bigger did NOT make a huge difference in range. It's about airflow.
I found that unless I went for something HUGE, just making the mouthpiece bigger did NOT make a huge difference in range. It's about airflow.
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
Psst... Regarding daft effect writing - big honking pedals are nice on the 2G... Don't work for me at all on the 1-1/2G. It's a mouthpiece miracle, hallelujah! I don't need to make my tone quality chubbily hard work on a big piece to access the fart machine. Which is nice.
- jtbandmusic
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Dec 12, 2018
As a senior in college I replaced my 88H with a Olds P24G, and picked up a Bach 2G. Hated it. One of the very mouthpieces I have used there were actually painful to play. Horrible upper and mid range, for all trombone playing. I quickly replaced that with a Schilke 58... MUCH better. I only played the Olds a couple of years and played tenor, but years later I stumbled on a chance to pick up a 60H for $70. Looks like junk, but plays great. At the same time I got a a Conn George Roberts which seems to suit both me and the horn.
John Thompson
John Thompson
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
It's funny how individual a thing mouthpiece choice is to player/instrument combo... I had a Schilke 58 once - hated it, found it crippled my playing all over the instrument, and didn't dig the sound it made either. Gave it a fair try then sold it on a year or two later. But then I've never liked any of the Schilke bass trombone mouthpieces that have passed through my hands. Do you like the Bach 1-1/2G better than the 2G? Most of my surprise in this is in the realisation that the 2 does me better for 'big' playing stuff than the 1-1/2.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="Tbarh" post_id="103358" time="1580243396" user_id="3637">
A lot of players choose the bass trombone mouthpiece that gives You the biggest pedal register... If More players would dial in the real "cash register", middle F down to pedal Bb more players would end up somewhere around 1 1/2G /2G...better balance between volume and intensity... Even more so in a Holton or Conn..[/quote]
I think this is a misconception. I'm sure there are students and amateurs that do it for that reason, but it's not the reason the professional would choose a mouthpiece. The reason those big pieces exist is because they work in all ranges if you put the work in.
The small stuff lets you work easily in some places, but not others. It's a trade off.
That said, one of the best bass trombone sounds I can remember is my friend on a Mt. Vernon 2G and an Elkhart 62H.
</QUOTE>
If its a tradeoff there, i havent found it!
A lot of players choose the bass trombone mouthpiece that gives You the biggest pedal register... If More players would dial in the real "cash register", middle F down to pedal Bb more players would end up somewhere around 1 1/2G /2G...better balance between volume and intensity... Even more so in a Holton or Conn..[/quote]
I think this is a misconception. I'm sure there are students and amateurs that do it for that reason, but it's not the reason the professional would choose a mouthpiece. The reason those big pieces exist is because they work in all ranges if you put the work in.
The small stuff lets you work easily in some places, but not others. It's a trade off.
That said, one of the best bass trombone sounds I can remember is my friend on a Mt. Vernon 2G and an Elkhart 62H.
</QUOTE>
If its a tradeoff there, i havent found it!
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
I have until recently been playing a Symington 1.5.. I now play a Symington 2..The 2 has a darker sound than the 1.5(also darker than any 1 1/2G i have played).. Goes to show that getting the right balance and match between instrument and mouthpiece means more than number and specs.. Who wants to sound like a contra on a bass anyway..?
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="chromebone"]I believe Ray Premru played a 2G for his whole career on his Holton 169. If it was good enough for him...[/quote]
I understood that Ray Premru switched to a Denis Wick 2AL mouthpiece.
From the Denis Wick Website:
[color=#0000FF]2AL 27.00mm V-type
Designed by Ray Premru, the legendary bass trombonist of the Philharmonia Orchestra and the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble
Like VB 2G but wider rim and better low register
But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.
To each his own!
I understood that Ray Premru switched to a Denis Wick 2AL mouthpiece.
From the Denis Wick Website:
Designed by Ray Premru, the legendary bass trombonist of the Philharmonia Orchestra and the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble
Like VB 2G but wider rim and better low register
But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.
To each his own!
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Tbarh"]Who wants to sound like a contra on a bass anyway..?[/quote]
Again... if you're basing this on students and amateurs, maybe, but no one wants to sound like contra on bass trombone.
Again... if you're basing this on students and amateurs, maybe, but no one wants to sound like contra on bass trombone.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="Posaunus"]<QUOTE author="chromebone" post_id="103330" time="1580228455" user_id="3008">
I believe Ray Premru played a 2G for his whole career on his Holton 169. If it was good enough for him...[/quote]
I understood that Ray Premru switched to a Denis Wick 2AL mouthpiece.
From the Denis Wick Website:
[color=#0000FF]2AL 27.00mm V-type
Designed by Ray Premru, the legendary bass trombonist of the Philharmonia Orchestra and the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble
Like VB 2G but wider rim and better low register
But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.
To each his own!
</QUOTE>
Actually the Denis Wick 2AL are loosely based on Rays 2G... As far as i know he never switched from his modified 2G.
I believe Ray Premru played a 2G for his whole career on his Holton 169. If it was good enough for him...[/quote]
I understood that Ray Premru switched to a Denis Wick 2AL mouthpiece.
From the Denis Wick Website:
Designed by Ray Premru, the legendary bass trombonist of the Philharmonia Orchestra and the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble
Like VB 2G but wider rim and better low register
But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.
To each his own!
</QUOTE>
Actually the Denis Wick 2AL are loosely based on Rays 2G... As far as i know he never switched from his modified 2G.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="Tbarh" post_id="103388" time="1580284203" user_id="3637">
Who wants to sound like a contra on a bass anyway..?[/quote]
Again... if you're basing this on students and amateurs, maybe, but no one wants to sound like contra on bass trombone.
</QUOTE>
Like i said.. :good:
Who wants to sound like a contra on a bass anyway..?[/quote]
Again... if you're basing this on students and amateurs, maybe, but no one wants to sound like contra on bass trombone.
</QUOTE>
Like i said.. :good:
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
It's just a simple matter of having the right cup width, rim width/shape, cup depth, cup shape (SO IMPORTANT), throat entrance and diameter, backbore shape....
Easy....
Oh wait...
Easy....
Oh wait...
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Posaunus"]But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.[/quote]
Indeed he didn't. It seemed to lack for me the colour of tone that I think is key to this unexpected local maximum in the mouthpiece parameter space. But perhaps I should try one on my current trombone, as the comparison is currently somewhat apples/oranges. On 88H I prefer Wick 4AL to VB 4G, liking similar differences where I disliked them for bass in the 2 size. But then on less lively sounding large tenors I find the 4AL a bit too much like hard work.
Apparently I seem mysterious - you're not the first respondent to seem to want my identity made more obvious. I'm not in the habit of being an anonymous internet person (I just hadn't got around to filling in my profile info here yet) - so I've added both profile info and a signature. I'd wondered if leaving a signature off could avoid the whole "Oo, are you *that* Dave Taylor?" "No, no, I'm not" conversation that I tend to have regularly in trombone spaces online, but, you know, it's my name...
Indeed he didn't. It seemed to lack for me the colour of tone that I think is key to this unexpected local maximum in the mouthpiece parameter space. But perhaps I should try one on my current trombone, as the comparison is currently somewhat apples/oranges. On 88H I prefer Wick 4AL to VB 4G, liking similar differences where I disliked them for bass in the 2 size. But then on less lively sounding large tenors I find the 4AL a bit too much like hard work.
Apparently I seem mysterious - you're not the first respondent to seem to want my identity made more obvious. I'm not in the habit of being an anonymous internet person (I just hadn't got around to filling in my profile info here yet) - so I've added both profile info and a signature. I'd wondered if leaving a signature off could avoid the whole "Oo, are you *that* Dave Taylor?" "No, no, I'm not" conversation that I tend to have regularly in trombone spaces online, but, you know, it's my name...
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]It's just a simple matter of having the right cup width, rim width/shape, cup depth, cup shape (SO IMPORTANT), throat entrance and diameter, backbore shape....
Easy....
Oh wait...[/quote]
<like>
Easy....
Oh wait...[/quote]
<like>
- edgrissom
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
Tooth structure, lip size, oral cavity size all have so much to do with what works for us. No one is the same and we all have to find what works for us and stick with it. That can take time to find.
Also, things can change over time and we have to adjust occasionally.
(sarcasm font) "You wear a size 11 shoe? That NEVER works for me. I wear a size 12 and that is what YOU should wear."
Also, things can change over time and we have to adjust occasionally.
(sarcasm font) "You wear a size 11 shoe? That NEVER works for me. I wear a size 12 and that is what YOU should wear."
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]That said, one of the best bass trombone sounds I can remember is my friend on a Mt. Vernon 2G and an Elkhart 62H.[/quote]
That's my combo. I use a Minick modified Elkhart Conn 62H and a Mount Vernon Bach 2G. They just work. If that combination worked for Bob Hughes (a most worthy successor to Ray Premru in the Philharmonia Orchestra) and still works for James Buckle (the current incumbent), it most certainly works well enough for me.
That's my combo. I use a Minick modified Elkhart Conn 62H and a Mount Vernon Bach 2G. They just work. If that combination worked for Bob Hughes (a most worthy successor to Ray Premru in the Philharmonia Orchestra) and still works for James Buckle (the current incumbent), it most certainly works well enough for me.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
Nice pic, Ed. :good:
As we keep repeating in a lot of threads here and on the old TTF: "It's not the size of the arrow, it's the size of the Indian". And here we're talking about Native Americans.
As we keep repeating in a lot of threads here and on the old TTF: "It's not the size of the arrow, it's the size of the Indian". And here we're talking about Native Americans.
- ArbanRubank
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Feb 23, 2019
This thread has changed my mind-set on the Bach 2G. I had thought it was a trash mouthpiece that could not be used for credible melodic lows on even a single-trigger bass trombone. But I decided to have at a little experiment this morning with it, a 1.5G and a 1.25G.
I play against Band-in-a-Box with RealTracks almost exclusively now. So I cued up the song "Tenderly" and played it down a few octaves on each mouthpiece. I was able - on all three of them - to work down to a very nice pedal F in the melody line. I could not tell any appreciable difference in sound between the three, but it was much easier to make transitions between lows and highs on the smaller Bach 2G. That and I found it is much less work to play as high as I can on it.
I have been in search of a mouthpiece for my single-trigger bass that would allow me to have it function as an all-purpose horn; playing very low melodically and as high as I possibly can as well - while attaining the best sound I can make. I have tentatively concluded that for what I want to do, the 2G performs very well in all respects and it is not worth the extra effort on the other two larger mouthpieces - especially when it comes time to play high.
Thanks, guys!
I play against Band-in-a-Box with RealTracks almost exclusively now. So I cued up the song "Tenderly" and played it down a few octaves on each mouthpiece. I was able - on all three of them - to work down to a very nice pedal F in the melody line. I could not tell any appreciable difference in sound between the three, but it was much easier to make transitions between lows and highs on the smaller Bach 2G. That and I found it is much less work to play as high as I can on it.
I have been in search of a mouthpiece for my single-trigger bass that would allow me to have it function as an all-purpose horn; playing very low melodically and as high as I possibly can as well - while attaining the best sound I can make. I have tentatively concluded that for what I want to do, the 2G performs very well in all respects and it is not worth the extra effort on the other two larger mouthpieces - especially when it comes time to play high.
Thanks, guys!
- Eyedoc
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mar 29, 2018
Are these positive responses with the 2G with modern stock VB 2G as available to purchase now or with magical Mt Vernon productions that are a rarity to find?
- ArbanRubank
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Feb 23, 2019
[quote="Eyedoc"]Are these positive responses with the 2G with modern stock VB 2G as available to purchase now or with magical Mt Vernon productions that are a rarity to find?[/quote]
Mine is a brand-new one, from Hickeys (if I may).
Mine is a brand-new one, from Hickeys (if I may).
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Eyedoc"]Are these positive responses with the 2G with modern stock VB 2G as available to purchase now or with magical Mt Vernon productions that are a rarity to find?[/quote]
I've had almost identical results with a Corporation 2G. Compared with the Mount Vernon 2G, there is a bit less presence and the sound is appreciably less lively, but to the untrained ear or someone who has never experienced the Mount Vernon 2G, the differences would be irrelevant. It's the size that works best for the older bass trombones, that's for sure. I've always maintained that to get the best out of the old Conns and Holtons, you need something no larger than a 1.5G.
An experiment I tried when performing on the contrabass trombone in Verdi's Macbeth in November 2018: I loaned the bass trombonist (we were a 4-man trombone section, viz. 2 tenors, bass, contrabass) my MV 2G and instantly the section came to life with the bass trombone gaining its own voice instead of merging with that of the contrabass trombone. Larger mouthpieces work reasonably well if the lowest voice is the bass trombone or tuba, but once it becomes an inner voice above another trombone, it can easily get lost because the timbre loses its distinctive voice unless the performer is really capable of holding his own.
I've had almost identical results with a Corporation 2G. Compared with the Mount Vernon 2G, there is a bit less presence and the sound is appreciably less lively, but to the untrained ear or someone who has never experienced the Mount Vernon 2G, the differences would be irrelevant. It's the size that works best for the older bass trombones, that's for sure. I've always maintained that to get the best out of the old Conns and Holtons, you need something no larger than a 1.5G.
An experiment I tried when performing on the contrabass trombone in Verdi's Macbeth in November 2018: I loaned the bass trombonist (we were a 4-man trombone section, viz. 2 tenors, bass, contrabass) my MV 2G and instantly the section came to life with the bass trombone gaining its own voice instead of merging with that of the contrabass trombone. Larger mouthpieces work reasonably well if the lowest voice is the bass trombone or tuba, but once it becomes an inner voice above another trombone, it can easily get lost because the timbre loses its distinctive voice unless the performer is really capable of holding his own.
- RConrad
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Oct 17, 2018
[quote="MoominDave"]<QUOTE author="Posaunus" post_id="103389" time="1580284264" user_id="158">
But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.[/quote]
Indeed he didn't. It seemed to lack for me the colour of tone that I think is key to this unexpected local maximum in the mouthpiece parameter space. But perhaps I should try one on my current trombone, as the comparison is currently somewhat apples/oranges. On 88H I prefer Wick 4AL to VB 4G, liking similar differences where I disliked them for bass in the 2 size. But then on less lively sounding large tenors I find the 4AL a bit too much like hard work.
Apparently I seem mysterious - you're not the first respondent to seem to want my identity made more obvious. I'm not in the habit of being an anonymous internet person (I just hadn't got around to filling in my profile info here yet) - so I've added both profile info and a signature. I'd wondered if leaving a signature off could avoid the whole "Oo, are you *that* Dave Taylor?" "No, no, I'm not" conversation that I tend to have regularly in trombone spaces online, but, you know, it's my name...
</QUOTE>
I may be wrong but I believe the DW 2AL is more similar to a Bach 1 1/2G. I've been meaning to give a 2AL and 3AL a try though as I get along really well with DW mouthpieces. Might try to get my hands on a inexpensive 2G though.
But apparently "MoominDave" didn't get along as well with the Wick 2AL as he did the "humble" Bach 2G.[/quote]
Indeed he didn't. It seemed to lack for me the colour of tone that I think is key to this unexpected local maximum in the mouthpiece parameter space. But perhaps I should try one on my current trombone, as the comparison is currently somewhat apples/oranges. On 88H I prefer Wick 4AL to VB 4G, liking similar differences where I disliked them for bass in the 2 size. But then on less lively sounding large tenors I find the 4AL a bit too much like hard work.
Apparently I seem mysterious - you're not the first respondent to seem to want my identity made more obvious. I'm not in the habit of being an anonymous internet person (I just hadn't got around to filling in my profile info here yet) - so I've added both profile info and a signature. I'd wondered if leaving a signature off could avoid the whole "Oo, are you *that* Dave Taylor?" "No, no, I'm not" conversation that I tend to have regularly in trombone spaces online, but, you know, it's my name...
</QUOTE>
I may be wrong but I believe the DW 2AL is more similar to a Bach 1 1/2G. I've been meaning to give a 2AL and 3AL a try though as I get along really well with DW mouthpieces. Might try to get my hands on a inexpensive 2G though.
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Eyedoc"]Are these positive responses with the 2G with modern stock VB 2G as available to purchase now or with magical Mt Vernon productions that are a rarity to find?[/quote]
Mine's second-hand, but newer than MV
Mine's second-hand, but newer than MV
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="RConrad"]I may be wrong but I believe the DW 2AL is more similar to a Bach 1 1/2G. I've been meaning to give a 2AL and 3AL a try though as I get along really well with DW mouthpieces. Might try to get my hands on a inexpensive 2G though.[/quote]
I keep a spreadsheet of measurements of most mouthpieces that pass through my hands. According to that, the single 2AL I've measured is bang in the middle of the pair of 2Gs I've measured.
I keep a spreadsheet of measurements of most mouthpieces that pass through my hands. According to that, the single 2AL I've measured is bang in the middle of the pair of 2Gs I've measured.
- mrdeacon
- Posts: 1225
- Joined: May 08, 2018
For what it's worth... I've found both the Mount Vernons and Symington to be night and day better than modern counterparts, including Corp. 2Gs.
The Mount Vernons all seem to have slightly larger rims and more open backbones. Rims are a bit wider too.
If you're looking for a awesome 2g without having to sift through a bunch of Mount Vernons make sure to check out the Symington 2. It's knocked everything else out of my horn! Though I might be a little biased towards bill's stuff! I'm a big fan!
The Mount Vernons all seem to have slightly larger rims and more open backbones. Rims are a bit wider too.
If you're looking for a awesome 2g without having to sift through a bunch of Mount Vernons make sure to check out the Symington 2. It's knocked everything else out of my horn! Though I might be a little biased towards bill's stuff! I'm a big fan!
- RConrad
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Oct 17, 2018
[quote="MoominDave"]I keep a spreadsheet of measurements of most mouthpieces that pass through my hands. According to that, the single 2AL I've measured is bang in the middle of the pair of 2Gs I've measured.[/quote]
Interesting. I'll have to get my hands on one then and see how I like it.
Interesting. I'll have to get my hands on one then and see how I like it.
- Carolus
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mar 26, 2018
For one reason or the other I never have come to terms with the Bach 2G. On my horn a 1.5 size always felt better. Even tried a Laskey 85MD for a while but then moved back to 1.5 size piece before reaching nirvana with the Symington 1.5 Zr. However, I have not tried the Symington 2 Zr...
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="RConrad"]<QUOTE author="MoominDave" post_id="103421" time="1580325985" user_id="163">
I keep a spreadsheet of measurements of most mouthpieces that pass through my hands. According to that, the single 2AL I've measured is bang in the middle of the pair of 2Gs I've measured.[/quote]
Interesting. I'll have to get my hands on one then and see how I like it.
</QUOTE>
The Klier 2AL on the other hand is bigger - 3AL is the 2G size piece in their range.
I keep a spreadsheet of measurements of most mouthpieces that pass through my hands. According to that, the single 2AL I've measured is bang in the middle of the pair of 2Gs I've measured.[/quote]
Interesting. I'll have to get my hands on one then and see how I like it.
</QUOTE>
The Klier 2AL on the other hand is bigger - 3AL is the 2G size piece in their range.
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="Carolus"]For one reason or the other I never have come to terms with the Bach 2G. On my horn a 1.5 size always felt better. Even tried a Laskey 85MD for a while but then moved back to 1.5 size piece before reaching nirvana with the Symington 1.5 Zr. However, I have not tried the Symington 2 Zr...[/quote]
I have the first stirrings of a theory... It feels like not many people like both 1.5 and 2. Is that correct?
I have the first stirrings of a theory... It feels like not many people like both 1.5 and 2. Is that correct?
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="MoominDave"]I have the first stirrings of a theory... It feels like not many people like both 1.5 and 2. Is that correct?[/quote]
I've used both successfully. I used to use the 1.5G a good number of years ago, though. I had both Bach and Rath 1.5G variants and used them in the R9DST.
After purchasing a MV 2G from fellow forumite, Savio, I haven't looked back. As Chris Stearn warned me, though, it responds best to frequent use. Your chops become used to it and to getting the best out of it and honestly, I have found that to be true. It's little wonder the 2G is the tool of choice for the professional orchestral bass trombonist in the UK. I know Christian Jones gets all of his students on them, as does Bob Hughes, I think. It becomes a very efficient implement to save your chops and let the instrument do the hard work, but only with regular use and lots of practice.
Any time I deviate from the 2G for whatever reason, e.g. time on the contra or the tenor, or even digging out the 1-1/4 size Ferguson L, I come right back to the 2G and it feels like coming home.
I've used both successfully. I used to use the 1.5G a good number of years ago, though. I had both Bach and Rath 1.5G variants and used them in the R9DST.
After purchasing a MV 2G from fellow forumite, Savio, I haven't looked back. As Chris Stearn warned me, though, it responds best to frequent use. Your chops become used to it and to getting the best out of it and honestly, I have found that to be true. It's little wonder the 2G is the tool of choice for the professional orchestral bass trombonist in the UK. I know Christian Jones gets all of his students on them, as does Bob Hughes, I think. It becomes a very efficient implement to save your chops and let the instrument do the hard work, but only with regular use and lots of practice.
Any time I deviate from the 2G for whatever reason, e.g. time on the contra or the tenor, or even digging out the 1-1/4 size Ferguson L, I come right back to the 2G and it feels like coming home.
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
The 2g to me is not my favorite mouthpiece, but if I had to pick a single mouthpiece and only play on that for everything, it would have to be my 2g. It's not perfect for tenor, aside from 3rd parts, and it's not perfect for bass, except maybe stuff that goes down to D or so.
The problem is that I don't need to pick a single mouthpiece, so I only play 2g on euphonium because it doesn't mess with my tenor or bass chops at all.
The problem is that I don't need to pick a single mouthpiece, so I only play 2g on euphonium because it doesn't mess with my tenor or bass chops at all.
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]<QUOTE author="MoominDave" post_id="103464" time="1580392427" user_id="163">
I have the first stirrings of a theory... It feels like not many people like both 1.5 and 2. Is that correct?[/quote]
I've used both successfully. I used to use the 1.5G a good number of years ago, though.
</QUOTE>
How did you feel about the 2 back then? How do you feel about the 1.5 now?
I have the first stirrings of a theory... It feels like not many people like both 1.5 and 2. Is that correct?[/quote]
I've used both successfully. I used to use the 1.5G a good number of years ago, though.
</QUOTE>
How did you feel about the 2 back then? How do you feel about the 1.5 now?
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="MoominDave"]How did you feel about the 2 back then? How do you feel about the 1.5 now?[/quote]
Difficult to say because I have never owned both at the same time. I sold off all the 1.5 size mouthpieces before 2014 and only acquired the 2G in 2016. Back then, I did try the Rath B2/B2W, I think, which is based on the MV 2G, but didn't care for it, as I tended towards the larger B1.5, though that really feels on the large side of 1.5 compared with a Bach. I always used to think the 2G was too small to make work well in the bass trombone, but how wrong I was! It's not the mouthpiece that works well, it's the chops that work well. The 2G just acts as a vehicle to make the embouchure more efficient. And everything except for really low register stuff feels a whole let less like hard work.
Difficult to say because I have never owned both at the same time. I sold off all the 1.5 size mouthpieces before 2014 and only acquired the 2G in 2016. Back then, I did try the Rath B2/B2W, I think, which is based on the MV 2G, but didn't care for it, as I tended towards the larger B1.5, though that really feels on the large side of 1.5 compared with a Bach. I always used to think the 2G was too small to make work well in the bass trombone, but how wrong I was! It's not the mouthpiece that works well, it's the chops that work well. The 2G just acts as a vehicle to make the embouchure more efficient. And everything except for really low register stuff feels a whole let less like hard work.
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]It's little wonder the 2G is the tool of choice for the professional orchestral bass trombonist in the UK. I know Christian Jones gets all of his students on them, as does Bob Hughes, I think. It becomes a very efficient implement to save your chops and let the instrument do the hard work, but only with regular use and lots of practice.[/quote]
On Tuesday, I attended a concert of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra on tour here in California. Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5, conducted by Pinchas Zukerman. I don't know what mouthpiece the bass trombonist (Josh Cirtina) was using, but the entire low brass section - especially the bass trombone - made a substantial (and satisfying) noise (assisted by the excellent acoustics of Segerstrom Concert Hall). Sounded as good as anything we typically hear in the U.S.A. :good:
On Tuesday, I attended a concert of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra on tour here in California. Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5, conducted by Pinchas Zukerman. I don't know what mouthpiece the bass trombonist (Josh Cirtina) was using, but the entire low brass section - especially the bass trombone - made a substantial (and satisfying) noise (assisted by the excellent acoustics of Segerstrom Concert Hall). Sounded as good as anything we typically hear in the U.S.A. :good:
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Posaunus"]On Tuesday, I attended a concert of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra on tour here in California. Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5, conducted by Pinchas Zukerman. I don't know what mouthpiece the bass trombonist (Josh Cirtina) was using, but the entire low brass section - especially the bass trombone - made a substantial (and satisfying) noise (assisted by the excellent acoustics of Segerstrom Concert Hall). Sounded as good as anything we typically hear in the U.S.A. :good:[/quote]
I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H. That's now four London orchestras, in which the bass trombonist uses the Elkhart Conn 62H: Philharmonia (James Buckle), BBC Symphony (Rob O'Neill), Royal Philharmonic (Josh Cirtina), Royal Opera House (Keith McNicoll).
I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H. That's now four London orchestras, in which the bass trombonist uses the Elkhart Conn 62H: Philharmonia (James Buckle), BBC Symphony (Rob O'Neill), Royal Philharmonic (Josh Cirtina), Royal Opera House (Keith McNicoll).
- MoominDave
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
I feel like I remember seeing him say somewhere recently that he plays 2G and 1-1/2G. Don't quote me on that though - I couldn't find it when I went to look.
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
Speaking of Chris Jones, I came across this tonight. In one of the comments it is said he is playing a 2G in a modern Conn 62.
<YOUTUBE id="opa8yNCIQ-g">https://youtu.be/opa8yNCIQ-g</YOUTUBE>
<YOUTUBE id="opa8yNCIQ-g">https://youtu.be/opa8yNCIQ-g</YOUTUBE>
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
[quote="Bach5G"]Speaking of Chris Jones, I came across this tonight. In one of the comments it is said he is playing a 2G in a modern Conn 62.
<YOUTUBE id="opa8yNCIQ-g">https://youtu.be/opa8yNCIQ-g</YOUTUBE>[/quote]
Christian has two identical Conn 62HI instruments...a hangover from the Philharmonia days with one instrument on the truck and one at home.
Interesting that this thread has surfaced again. One of my lockdown projects has been to see if I could finally get into the 2G. It was the first bass mouthpiece I had (with a Conn 73H) and as a kid I was keen to graduate to a bigger mouthpiece, so after a couple of years, it went.
Over the next 50 years I tried the 2G on many occasions, but there was never enough down time to get into it. No excuse now !
All the bass players that I most admired played the 2G and it is most popular amongst pro players in the UK now. Worse than that, almost all my students in recent years have gone on to one...never at my suggestion!!
Well, over 6 months in and I am loving it. It is great on the pedals...even valve pedals and transitions through registers like nothing else. Funnily, the upper register is quite hard work, but sounds like a trombone, not a hooting owl.
The sound is big in the orchestra in all registers and totally different from the 1 1/2G, hopefully in a good way.
Forget big and small, it is simply a way to get a particular sound...what I might call the British sound, and most of those in the US would not get the concept at all.
On going project .
Chris
<YOUTUBE id="opa8yNCIQ-g">https://youtu.be/opa8yNCIQ-g</YOUTUBE>[/quote]
Christian has two identical Conn 62HI instruments...a hangover from the Philharmonia days with one instrument on the truck and one at home.
Interesting that this thread has surfaced again. One of my lockdown projects has been to see if I could finally get into the 2G. It was the first bass mouthpiece I had (with a Conn 73H) and as a kid I was keen to graduate to a bigger mouthpiece, so after a couple of years, it went.
Over the next 50 years I tried the 2G on many occasions, but there was never enough down time to get into it. No excuse now !
All the bass players that I most admired played the 2G and it is most popular amongst pro players in the UK now. Worse than that, almost all my students in recent years have gone on to one...never at my suggestion!!
Well, over 6 months in and I am loving it. It is great on the pedals...even valve pedals and transitions through registers like nothing else. Funnily, the upper register is quite hard work, but sounds like a trombone, not a hooting owl.
The sound is big in the orchestra in all registers and totally different from the 1 1/2G, hopefully in a good way.
Forget big and small, it is simply a way to get a particular sound...what I might call the British sound, and most of those in the US would not get the concept at all.
On going project .
Chris
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]The sound is big in the orchestra in all registers and totally different from the 1 1/2G, hopefully in a good way.[/quote]
The 2G doesn't require as much physical effort as larger mouthpieces and it's a lot more comfortable for long periods than larger mouthpieces. I find that the 2G can cut through very easily, though, so it needs much defter control. It's a different style of playing, compared with larger mouthpieces, where the effort goes into controlling and shaping the sound more than the physical effort of blowing and being heard. Once you get into the groove, it is a fantastic mouthpiece that never lets the bass trombone fade into the general mêlée and always retains its presence. This mouthpiece is an essential component in the sound of people like Ray Premru amd Bob Hughes and part of what made their sound so distinctive and instantly audible.
The 2G doesn't require as much physical effort as larger mouthpieces and it's a lot more comfortable for long periods than larger mouthpieces. I find that the 2G can cut through very easily, though, so it needs much defter control. It's a different style of playing, compared with larger mouthpieces, where the effort goes into controlling and shaping the sound more than the physical effort of blowing and being heard. Once you get into the groove, it is a fantastic mouthpiece that never lets the bass trombone fade into the general mêlée and always retains its presence. This mouthpiece is an essential component in the sound of people like Ray Premru amd Bob Hughes and part of what made their sound so distinctive and instantly audible.
- modelerdc
- Posts: 352
- Joined: May 03, 2018
Actually I think that sound can work in the US, especially in section work, just don't tell people what you are playing because if they think you are playing on what they think is a small mouthpiece, it will affect how they hear! There are a couple of factors here that drive players to play really big equipment. 1st of course is the successful example of some leading players who can handle really large equipment. Few stop to ask if these players are outliers. 2nd so many young players are exposed to trombone choirs where what's expected is a contra bass like sound and this from young players who very often are still developing their fundamentals. So really big mouthpiece = quick fat low range. 3rd in the US the contra bass trombone is rare enough that players are expected to be able to play these parts on their regular bass trombone. You might sound great on a 2G but may be at a disadvantage when the other guys are using Laskey 93Ds to play the parts down to pedal E in Wagner. An example of this is one very well known player bragging that the contra bass trombone had never been used in the orchestra he played in. A fine player, but typical of the the American school, Schilke 60, no lead pipe, dual thayers. This thinking might change as cimbassos and contras become more commonly used when appropriate, but it will take time.
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
“The sound is big in the orchestra in all registers and totally different from the 1 1/2G ...”
I’m curious about this statement. I was going through my mpcs today and tried my Yam 58, which I think is 2G-sized. Nothing to immediately recommend it was my impression.
I’m curious about this statement. I was going through my mpcs today and tried my Yam 58, which I think is 2G-sized. Nothing to immediately recommend it was my impression.
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
[quote="Bach5G"]“The sound is big in the orchestra in all registers and totally different from the 1 1/2G ...”
I’m curious about this statement. I was going through my mpcs today and tried my Yam 58, which I think is 2G-sized. Nothing to immediately recommend it was my impression.[/quote]
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...but not exclusively the older ones. You really have to change your playing approach to make these mouthpieces work....Ive needed the lockdown to give one a fair trial. That is from a 1 1/2G....if you play bigger, I would hesitate to recommend trying one.
It's time to bust a couple of myths....
It's not harder to play low and loud on a 2G compared to large mouthpieces like a Laskey 95D....
You don't sound small on a 2G if you learn how to play it...
Chris
I’m curious about this statement. I was going through my mpcs today and tried my Yam 58, which I think is 2G-sized. Nothing to immediately recommend it was my impression.[/quote]
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...but not exclusively the older ones. You really have to change your playing approach to make these mouthpieces work....Ive needed the lockdown to give one a fair trial. That is from a 1 1/2G....if you play bigger, I would hesitate to recommend trying one.
It's time to bust a couple of myths....
It's not harder to play low and loud on a 2G compared to large mouthpieces like a Laskey 95D....
You don't sound small on a 2G if you learn how to play it...
Chris
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...
Chris[/quote]
Exactly. The Yamaha 58 is not anything like a 2G. Not much magic in the 58.
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...
Chris[/quote]
Exactly. The Yamaha 58 is not anything like a 2G. Not much magic in the 58.
- Elow
- Posts: 1924
- Joined: Mar 02, 2020
I’ve heard good things about the symington 2G, and they sell super fast. Do they have this “magic”
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="Elow"]I’ve heard good things about the symington 2G, and they sell super fast. Do they have this “magic”[/quote]
You bet... And a rim that are easier to live with.... Its Btw a copy of a 2G MV..
You bet... And a rim that are easier to live with.... Its Btw a copy of a 2G MV..
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
Yes, the Symington is a very good copy of one of mrdeacon's 2G MV Bachs. It's a little different to play but very good. My ex-student in the Halle has both and likes both.
Chris
Chris
- spencercarran
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Oct 17, 2020
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]If that combination worked for Bob Hughes (a most worthy successor to Ray Premru in the Philharmonia Orchestra) and still works for James Buckle (the current incumbent), it most certainly works well enough for me.[/quote]
Not to say that you're wrong for yourself, but I'm wary of this sort of reasoning (if it works for [someone talented] it'll work for me). There are pros who sound amazing on a dual bore Edwards and Schilke 60, for example, but that setup is a poor choice for me and for most players I've heard on such equipment. I expect the same applies at the other extreme to 62H and 2G combo - it may work great for you and for other good players, but it won't necessarily be right for everyone.
Not to say that you're wrong for yourself, but I'm wary of this sort of reasoning (if it works for [someone talented] it'll work for me). There are pros who sound amazing on a dual bore Edwards and Schilke 60, for example, but that setup is a poor choice for me and for most players I've heard on such equipment. I expect the same applies at the other extreme to 62H and 2G combo - it may work great for you and for other good players, but it won't necessarily be right for everyone.
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
I think Ed means if it worked for them then it is at least worth trying. Three or four years ago I recorded the Malcolm Arnold Symphony for brass on an Elkhart 62H and an Elliott 116 M M8...seemed to work...I wonder how the 2G would have worked....
Chris
Chris
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H.[/quote]
6 years ago at the Eastman ITF, Josh was playing a 1-1/2G in an Edwards. FWIW.
6 years ago at the Eastman ITF, Josh was playing a 1-1/2G in an Edwards. FWIW.
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="GabrielRice"]<QUOTE author="EdwardSolomon" post_id="103502" time="1580464712" user_id="81">
I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H.[/quote]
6 years ago at the Eastman ITF, Josh was playing a 1-1/2G in an Edwards. FWIW.
</QUOTE>
He's using a Denis Wick 2NAL now.
I can't say what mouthpiece Josh Cirtina plays on, but I do know he now uses an Elkhart Conn 62H.[/quote]
6 years ago at the Eastman ITF, Josh was playing a 1-1/2G in an Edwards. FWIW.
</QUOTE>
He's using a Denis Wick 2NAL now.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
Maybe the 2G was meant to make the 45B sound bigger and the 1 1/2G was adapted to fit the already dark sounding 50B...?
In a correspondance i had with Scott Laskey many years ago he said that sound had dimensions where the rim size represented width while cup size represented depth of sound... Being a doubler(tripper as i also play small bore) i found that rim diameter should correspond to the size of the horn... Just a thought..
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
Maybe the 2G was meant to make the 45B sound bigger and the 1 1/2G was adapted to fit the already dark sounding 50B...?
In a correspondance i had with Scott Laskey many years ago he said that sound had dimensions where the rim size represented width while cup size represented depth of sound... Being a doubler(tripper as i also play small bore) i found that rim diameter should correspond to the size of the horn... Just a thought..
- RustBeltBass
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Jul 17, 2018
I’m always amazed how this topic (small bass pieces and their relevance or lack thereof) remains a constant discussion in this forum. I’m very happy about it as I do not see such discussion on social media groups.
Very often the names Premru and Hughes are mentioned, sometimes I feel almost in order to “prove” famous players preferred the 2G. While this may be true I do think the fact that successful players in the UK today (!) use the 2G is way more of a ringing endorsement, given the ever increasing number of choices players face today. Listening to any of those active players should be proof enough that amazing playing can be done on a 2G.
The fact that it is not a popular choice here in the USA has been accredited to numerous reasons in past threads. I do not claim to know the ultimate truth but I am very sure that the different acoustical challenges American and British orchestral players are faced with, heavily attributed to the different paths of equipment choices and sound concepts that were taken. I do think it is important to realize that at a time when major concert halls and opera houses had existed in Europe, in America there had not been anything comparable. Many concert halls here were in first place movie theaters, many halls were altered several times for better sounds. Chicago comes to mind.
I also think it is important to not look at the choice of Conn 62h plus 2G alone but at the preferences of the low brass sections in general. Chris is the authority in this but when looking through recent rosters and videos of UK orchestras, it becomes clear the Conn 88H is still a very popular choice for tenor players, maybe the most popular even today ? In the United States the 88H has pretty much vanished from the professional symphony orchestra scene. There are a few exceptions (I believe the San Diego Symphony still prefers Conns, and if I am not mistaken Conn is played still in the Rochester Philharmonic, or was at least).
A serious American trombonist who is looking to have a career as an orchestral musician will most likely not seriously consider a Conn a contender. I am sure that in the UK it is different. It is also worth noting that in the UK the Eb-Tuba is the go to instrument, it is not in the USA. So maybe rather than looking at the 2G as an isolated example of taking a different path than we do here, it is interesting to look at the low brass section as a whole.
Something that comes to mind when reading through this highly interesting discussion is something a very successful, very experienced tenor trombonist who happened to have been on trial for a major London orchestra many years ago, said to me when I asked him about differences a few years ago. When I asked him what the differences are in terms of playing and especially when it comes to dynamic levels he mentioned to me (and I hope I remember this correctly, but really think I do) that he mentions that the low brass section playing was loud, but a “different” loud than what he was used to. Wish he had elaborated a bit more on this or that I had asked more, but that was probably the moment they served us our beer. :-P
Something else worth noting is that the 2G is not just pretty much overlooked in the USA but also in continental Europe. Overall I’d say equipment is Europe is smaller than in the States but not as much so as in the UK. Chris called it before the British style that others don’t get. I do not think a certain mouthpiece choice or instrument choice alone defines a style but that these choices allow for a certain style to be produced more easily.
I never tried a Mt. Vernon unfortunately. And while I initially very much doubted these mouthpieces could ever work for me I always was intrigued, you have to try in order to know after all. And given that most of my contracted orchestral work had been canceled, meaning I felt that I had really time to give this a try so since the pandemic started I received a Symington 2 (April), Black-Premru (July) and finally thanks to Chris a Symington 1.5 (September).
These are extremely well made mouthpieces. That does not come as a surprise to anyone who ever played a Black before, but William Symington really really made a fantastic product there, as well. Beautiful work. Going backwards, I will say his 1.5 is definitely the easiest one to play for me, the most easy to get under control and with a beautiful sound. Despite being significantly smaller than my usual working equipment, it does not feel small of a blow, the sound is pretty open and the low range works great, I love that especially the upper range is very singing, easy to play and sounds just like a trombone should.
The Symington 2 is a different story. The sound to my ears is truly special and really unique. If you are interested in the 2G size you need to check this out, low range is pretty killer after a while, I was very surprised. I love this mouthpiece very much but despite my best efforts it is just a tiny bit too small for me to feel comfortable on. Could I overcome this by devoting some more months on it ? Maybe, but I think that something a bit bigger will just do the trick for me without having to put as hard work in.
Lastly, the Black/Premru is for me probably the most comfortable one. Because of the very wide rim it feels to me like a big mouthpiece on the face, very very comfortable even though the diameter is just 26.80. It makes a wonderful warm and dark sound, but different to the Symington 2 but a bit easier to play especially in the low range. It has this typical Greg Black sound in it, and if you have read until here, there is a very good chance you know what I mean by that.
The big question after all this trial and error remains unanswered due to the disruption of our industry by this pandemic: How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment ? Should I continue this route I will find out hopefully sooner rather than later. But so far the only section playing I did was with 8 foot distance and plexiglass in between players in a huge church, playing three not very brass heavy pieces, not exactly a real field test.
Very often the names Premru and Hughes are mentioned, sometimes I feel almost in order to “prove” famous players preferred the 2G. While this may be true I do think the fact that successful players in the UK today (!) use the 2G is way more of a ringing endorsement, given the ever increasing number of choices players face today. Listening to any of those active players should be proof enough that amazing playing can be done on a 2G.
The fact that it is not a popular choice here in the USA has been accredited to numerous reasons in past threads. I do not claim to know the ultimate truth but I am very sure that the different acoustical challenges American and British orchestral players are faced with, heavily attributed to the different paths of equipment choices and sound concepts that were taken. I do think it is important to realize that at a time when major concert halls and opera houses had existed in Europe, in America there had not been anything comparable. Many concert halls here were in first place movie theaters, many halls were altered several times for better sounds. Chicago comes to mind.
I also think it is important to not look at the choice of Conn 62h plus 2G alone but at the preferences of the low brass sections in general. Chris is the authority in this but when looking through recent rosters and videos of UK orchestras, it becomes clear the Conn 88H is still a very popular choice for tenor players, maybe the most popular even today ? In the United States the 88H has pretty much vanished from the professional symphony orchestra scene. There are a few exceptions (I believe the San Diego Symphony still prefers Conns, and if I am not mistaken Conn is played still in the Rochester Philharmonic, or was at least).
A serious American trombonist who is looking to have a career as an orchestral musician will most likely not seriously consider a Conn a contender. I am sure that in the UK it is different. It is also worth noting that in the UK the Eb-Tuba is the go to instrument, it is not in the USA. So maybe rather than looking at the 2G as an isolated example of taking a different path than we do here, it is interesting to look at the low brass section as a whole.
Something that comes to mind when reading through this highly interesting discussion is something a very successful, very experienced tenor trombonist who happened to have been on trial for a major London orchestra many years ago, said to me when I asked him about differences a few years ago. When I asked him what the differences are in terms of playing and especially when it comes to dynamic levels he mentioned to me (and I hope I remember this correctly, but really think I do) that he mentions that the low brass section playing was loud, but a “different” loud than what he was used to. Wish he had elaborated a bit more on this or that I had asked more, but that was probably the moment they served us our beer. :-P
Something else worth noting is that the 2G is not just pretty much overlooked in the USA but also in continental Europe. Overall I’d say equipment is Europe is smaller than in the States but not as much so as in the UK. Chris called it before the British style that others don’t get. I do not think a certain mouthpiece choice or instrument choice alone defines a style but that these choices allow for a certain style to be produced more easily.
I never tried a Mt. Vernon unfortunately. And while I initially very much doubted these mouthpieces could ever work for me I always was intrigued, you have to try in order to know after all. And given that most of my contracted orchestral work had been canceled, meaning I felt that I had really time to give this a try so since the pandemic started I received a Symington 2 (April), Black-Premru (July) and finally thanks to Chris a Symington 1.5 (September).
These are extremely well made mouthpieces. That does not come as a surprise to anyone who ever played a Black before, but William Symington really really made a fantastic product there, as well. Beautiful work. Going backwards, I will say his 1.5 is definitely the easiest one to play for me, the most easy to get under control and with a beautiful sound. Despite being significantly smaller than my usual working equipment, it does not feel small of a blow, the sound is pretty open and the low range works great, I love that especially the upper range is very singing, easy to play and sounds just like a trombone should.
The Symington 2 is a different story. The sound to my ears is truly special and really unique. If you are interested in the 2G size you need to check this out, low range is pretty killer after a while, I was very surprised. I love this mouthpiece very much but despite my best efforts it is just a tiny bit too small for me to feel comfortable on. Could I overcome this by devoting some more months on it ? Maybe, but I think that something a bit bigger will just do the trick for me without having to put as hard work in.
Lastly, the Black/Premru is for me probably the most comfortable one. Because of the very wide rim it feels to me like a big mouthpiece on the face, very very comfortable even though the diameter is just 26.80. It makes a wonderful warm and dark sound, but different to the Symington 2 but a bit easier to play especially in the low range. It has this typical Greg Black sound in it, and if you have read until here, there is a very good chance you know what I mean by that.
The big question after all this trial and error remains unanswered due to the disruption of our industry by this pandemic: How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment ? Should I continue this route I will find out hopefully sooner rather than later. But so far the only section playing I did was with 8 foot distance and plexiglass in between players in a huge church, playing three not very brass heavy pieces, not exactly a real field test.
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="RustBeltBass"]How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment?[/quote]
I am in the (un)fortunate position of being able to answer that question and it is perhaps predictably negative. In the orchestra I perform with, the first trombone plays an Elkhart 88H with a 5G Megatone, the second trombone plays an Edwards T350 with a Schilke mouthpiece (not sure which), while I am on the Elkhart 62H, nominally with a Mount Vernon 2G. This combination just does not work. The broad, relatively dull sound of the Edwards tenor in the middle of the section means the 62H/2G combination is simply too bright to fit in. Swap out the Edwards for another Elkhart 88H, as happens from time to time when our usual substitute second trombone steps in, and it's all OK again.
This has forced me to make a change in mouthpiece approach, which I did discuss with Chris a while back. He agreed that the 62H/2G setup was not optimal with the Edwards in the middle and a mouthpiece change was in order to make the best of the situation. I have toyed with a Ferguson L, which has got me through a Bruckner 5 relatively unscathed, though it's more on the side of 1.25 and that feels big to someone used to a 2G.
I recently picked up a second hand Reeves/Brass Ark "Mr Bass", which sits in-between. It's around a 1.5 size and even though it certainly feels larger than the 2G, it is something I can work with. More to the point, I had the opportunity right before the first lockdown in March to test it in the orchestra (for only one rehearsal) and it definitely turned heads in the section. So I took Noah Gladstone's advice and am happy to switch between the two, depending on the section and the repertoire. The Mount Vernon 2G is still home base, so to speak. so I keep coming back to that mouthpiece to recentre and refocus my efforts.
Will it work in the long run? Too soon to tell. Hopefully we will get back together in the spring, else we will doubtless be waiting until next season ('21/'22) to find out.
I am in the (un)fortunate position of being able to answer that question and it is perhaps predictably negative. In the orchestra I perform with, the first trombone plays an Elkhart 88H with a 5G Megatone, the second trombone plays an Edwards T350 with a Schilke mouthpiece (not sure which), while I am on the Elkhart 62H, nominally with a Mount Vernon 2G. This combination just does not work. The broad, relatively dull sound of the Edwards tenor in the middle of the section means the 62H/2G combination is simply too bright to fit in. Swap out the Edwards for another Elkhart 88H, as happens from time to time when our usual substitute second trombone steps in, and it's all OK again.
This has forced me to make a change in mouthpiece approach, which I did discuss with Chris a while back. He agreed that the 62H/2G setup was not optimal with the Edwards in the middle and a mouthpiece change was in order to make the best of the situation. I have toyed with a Ferguson L, which has got me through a Bruckner 5 relatively unscathed, though it's more on the side of 1.25 and that feels big to someone used to a 2G.
I recently picked up a second hand Reeves/Brass Ark "Mr Bass", which sits in-between. It's around a 1.5 size and even though it certainly feels larger than the 2G, it is something I can work with. More to the point, I had the opportunity right before the first lockdown in March to test it in the orchestra (for only one rehearsal) and it definitely turned heads in the section. So I took Noah Gladstone's advice and am happy to switch between the two, depending on the section and the repertoire. The Mount Vernon 2G is still home base, so to speak. so I keep coming back to that mouthpiece to recentre and refocus my efforts.
Will it work in the long run? Too soon to tell. Hopefully we will get back together in the spring, else we will doubtless be waiting until next season ('21/'22) to find out.
- Savio
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Apr 26, 2018
Well, Edward, can I have that MV 2g back again..... :hi:
Anyway, I got a little curious about all this 2g talk. But I have two nice MV 1 1/2g and the smallest of them is best in my 60h. Strange enough the 70h is not so depending on mouthpiece as my 60h. Used a larger Symington in the 70h and it works wonderful. Not that good in the 60h. But I believe all this Conn trombones are different even if they have the same name.
Anyway, glad that the 2g I sold to Edward is in good hands. I have sold most of my mouthpieces so I just keep on playing the old 1 1/2g. I have never been that good especially in low register (or high), nor on big or small mouthpieces. So I just keep that old one. Amazing to listen that student of Chris, Kyle on a 2g in the low register. (Maybe not a student anymore since he is a professional) But most of this skills must be because he is simply a really good player? Same with Bob Huges and Premru?
Have to say this tread made me curious but hunting is over for me......thanks God...
Leif
Anyway, I got a little curious about all this 2g talk. But I have two nice MV 1 1/2g and the smallest of them is best in my 60h. Strange enough the 70h is not so depending on mouthpiece as my 60h. Used a larger Symington in the 70h and it works wonderful. Not that good in the 60h. But I believe all this Conn trombones are different even if they have the same name.
Anyway, glad that the 2g I sold to Edward is in good hands. I have sold most of my mouthpieces so I just keep on playing the old 1 1/2g. I have never been that good especially in low register (or high), nor on big or small mouthpieces. So I just keep that old one. Amazing to listen that student of Chris, Kyle on a 2g in the low register. (Maybe not a student anymore since he is a professional) But most of this skills must be because he is simply a really good player? Same with Bob Huges and Premru?
Have to say this tread made me curious but hunting is over for me......thanks God...
Leif
- modelerdc
- Posts: 352
- Joined: May 03, 2018
How would it sound in low brass sections with tenor players who play very large equipment?
[/quote]
Edward Solomon wrote:
"I am in the (un)fortunate position of being able to answer that question and it is perhaps predictably negative.This combination just does not work. The broad, relatively dull sound of the Edwards tenor in the middle of the section means the 62H/2G combination is simply too bright to fit in. Swap out the Edwards for another Elkhart 88H, as happens from time to time when our usual substitute second trombone steps in, and it's all OK again."
Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.
[/quote]
Edward Solomon wrote:
"I am in the (un)fortunate position of being able to answer that question and it is perhaps predictably negative.This combination just does not work. The broad, relatively dull sound of the Edwards tenor in the middle of the section means the 62H/2G combination is simply too bright to fit in. Swap out the Edwards for another Elkhart 88H, as happens from time to time when our usual substitute second trombone steps in, and it's all OK again."
Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="modelerdc"]Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.[/quote]
Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.
Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.
- SwissTbone
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]<QUOTE author="modelerdc" post_id="134091" time="1608090463" user_id="3210">
Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.[/quote]
Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.
</QUOTE>
Going off topic a bit here: how does that work in your Orchestra? Do you have the "authority" to talk about an equipment switch with your colleagues? Or is that a no go?
Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.[/quote]
Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.
</QUOTE>
Going off topic a bit here: how does that work in your Orchestra? Do you have the "authority" to talk about an equipment switch with your colleagues? Or is that a no go?
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]<QUOTE author="modelerdc" post_id="134091" time="1608090463" user_id="3210">
Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.[/quote]
Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.
</QUOTE>
This argument loses strength as the payscale and stakes increase.
I don't think the "this is how we've always done it and how we are always gonna do it" argument ever works, but I get it. Trombones aren't free.
Have you considered Using and Edwards bass trombone in this section or perhaps a Bach? perhaps a horn with a similar sound palate to the Edwards tenor would allow you continue to play your mouthpiece of Choice. Although I'll admit it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than horns, I'd rather change horns than mouthpieces when that will work and is possible.[/quote]
Not a chance. I switched away from Edwards nearly 20 years ago and I’m not about to reverse that journey now. There is simply no way I will switch away from my Elkhart 62H at this stage in my life. I’m 52 years old and I’m not interested in fiddling around with equipment much anymore. I don’t have the time or money to do so either. I’ll stick with what I have and I’ll make it work. I’ve been in the orchestra since the mid-1990s, so while the second chair has changed occupants quite a bit in that time, I’m the constant that the newcomers should really be adapting to. The orchestra has had an all-Conn section for many years now and strictly speaking, it should be down to the Edwards tenor to be questioning his choice, not the rest of us.
</QUOTE>
This argument loses strength as the payscale and stakes increase.
I don't think the "this is how we've always done it and how we are always gonna do it" argument ever works, but I get it. Trombones aren't free.
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Let's put it this way. When the section comprises 1st trombone on Elkhart Conn 88H/Bach 5G, 2nd trombone on Elkhart Conn 88H/Schilke, bass trombone on Elkhart Conn 62H/Bach 2G, everything works fine, no adjustments necessary. When the 2nd trombone is on Edwards T350/Schilke, you're suggesting that I change my entire setup just to suit the 2nd trombone. All that does is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It solves nothing. In fact, it would arguably make things far worse, as everyone in the orchestra that I have spoken to agreed that I sound much better on the 62H/2G setup and that this enhances the sound of the entire brass section, particularly given that I played an Edwards there for around a decade.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
I'm not arguing that you switch to accommodate the 2nd bone. If the first and third are matching up, the 2nd needs to get with the program.
I think this is why you see almost all american trombone sections playing 100% Edwards or 100% Shires. Look at the mouthpieces they are on too. I keep seeing sections on 100% modern (ie not the heavy old school) Edwards with everyone on a Griego mp. Everything they are playing on was designed by literally one person and his crew. Or the 100% Shires sections. They can even go for the Elkhart sound but with a modern predictable response if they want. If the section isn't gelling, then those are what the top sections are reaching for. If you grow up playing a horn made in the 21st century, then you don't want to have to learn how to play a horn made in the 50s just to work, when it seems like almost no one else is.
So in your case, you should suggest he gets something from Shires that will blend in with you guys. That's a super expensive solution, but it makes sense. If both the first and second are on modern horns though, then ...
I think this is why you see almost all american trombone sections playing 100% Edwards or 100% Shires. Look at the mouthpieces they are on too. I keep seeing sections on 100% modern (ie not the heavy old school) Edwards with everyone on a Griego mp. Everything they are playing on was designed by literally one person and his crew. Or the 100% Shires sections. They can even go for the Elkhart sound but with a modern predictable response if they want. If the section isn't gelling, then those are what the top sections are reaching for. If you grow up playing a horn made in the 21st century, then you don't want to have to learn how to play a horn made in the 50s just to work, when it seems like almost no one else is.
So in your case, you should suggest he gets something from Shires that will blend in with you guys. That's a super expensive solution, but it makes sense. If both the first and second are on modern horns though, then ...
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
In an amateur situation like Ed's it's not really possible to tell people what to play.
For what it's worth, Ive never heard a Shires that sounds remotely like an Elkhart Conn, whatever the hype claims.
And back to the 2G subject.....
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.
Chris
For what it's worth, Ive never heard a Shires that sounds remotely like an Elkhart Conn, whatever the hype claims.
And back to the 2G subject.....
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.
Chris
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="FOSSIL"]We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
You know I've never tried a 2G of any maker. Anyone offering one up? (kidding)
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
You know I've never tried a 2G of any maker. Anyone offering one up? (kidding)
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="FOSSIL" post_id="133833" time="1607962737" user_id="7109">
We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
You know I've never tried a 2G of any maker. Anyone offering one up? (kidding)
</QUOTE>
Speak to Don...
Chris
We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
You know I've never tried a 2G of any maker. Anyone offering one up? (kidding)
</QUOTE>
Speak to Don...
Chris
- ArbanRubank
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Feb 23, 2019
I would consider a 2G my "dessert island" mouthpiece. IOW's, if I had to pick one for everything and make it work, a 2G would be it.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]In an amateur situation like Ed's it's not really possible to tell people what to play.
For what it's worth, Ive never heard a Shires that sounds remotely like an Elkhart Conn, whatever the hype claims.
And back to the 2G subject.....
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.
Chris[/quote]
Chris, i supposed You already considered the Symington 2? You already know the rim.. <EMOJI seq="1f61c" tseq="1f61c">😜</EMOJI> In my case it took almost all the inconcistency out of my playing (coming from a Mount Vernon 2G).. Every 2G rim i have seen are a little different to the 1 1/2G (and ti eachother) .. The Symington 2 rim are perfect for the size... If there are any downsides soundwise from altering the rim, i have not found it...
Trond
For what it's worth, Ive never heard a Shires that sounds remotely like an Elkhart Conn, whatever the hype claims.
And back to the 2G subject.....
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.
Chris[/quote]
Chris, i supposed You already considered the Symington 2? You already know the rim.. <EMOJI seq="1f61c" tseq="1f61c">😜</EMOJI> In my case it took almost all the inconcistency out of my playing (coming from a Mount Vernon 2G).. Every 2G rim i have seen are a little different to the 1 1/2G (and ti eachother) .. The Symington 2 rim are perfect for the size... If there are any downsides soundwise from altering the rim, i have not found it...
Trond
- bimmerman
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Apr 04, 2018
Amateur tenor player here, but I was asked to switch to bass for a concert series in grad school and was loaned the school's Conn bass (w/ Minick independent valves, not sure of H number or era anymore) which had a VB 2G in the case.
For me, as a not-a-bass-player, it was a super easy transition. After a couple days getting used to the bass the mouthpiece faded away and I had no issues playing in the registers I needed to play for the concert....or on my tenor, for that matter. That 2G just worked for me---or, worked well enough for my needs as a tenor doubler (DE 102-104 rims). I was quite sad to give back the horn and mouthpiece at the end.
If I ever end up buying a bass I'll be getting a 2G to start with. I really liked the sound I got from it and the response I got from it.
For me, as a not-a-bass-player, it was a super easy transition. After a couple days getting used to the bass the mouthpiece faded away and I had no issues playing in the registers I needed to play for the concert....or on my tenor, for that matter. That 2G just worked for me---or, worked well enough for my needs as a tenor doubler (DE 102-104 rims). I was quite sad to give back the horn and mouthpiece at the end.
If I ever end up buying a bass I'll be getting a 2G to start with. I really liked the sound I got from it and the response I got from it.
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
Hi Trond,
I got to test the Symington 2 before launch and thought it was very good indeed...but it didn't work with my dental formation. The 1.5 I was very much involved in, it being a copy of one of my MV 11/2Gs and I have used the prototype and a Zirconium model a lot.
I'm using a one off mouthpiece at the moment that sounds close to the 2G in tone but is far easier to play.
Chris
I got to test the Symington 2 before launch and thought it was very good indeed...but it didn't work with my dental formation. The 1.5 I was very much involved in, it being a copy of one of my MV 11/2Gs and I have used the prototype and a Zirconium model a lot.
I'm using a one off mouthpiece at the moment that sounds close to the 2G in tone but is far easier to play.
Chris
- RConrad
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Oct 17, 2018
I keep wanting to try a 2g sized piece but finding one used, let alone one that's gold plated, idly hasn't really worked out. Since sitting down with Doug I've been working on my embouchure and have been working with each of my horns but the DW 1AL and Bach 1 1/2G I have for my bass just haven't felt "right". Probably just need to keep working and think less about the mouthpieces for now though.
- modelerdc
- Posts: 352
- Joined: May 03, 2018
Minnick made the 1 1/2G oversized, maybe we need a 2G oversized! I loved a MV 2G I had for many years, but just needed something a bit bigger!
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]Hi Trond,
I got to test the Symington 2 before launch and thought it was very good indeed...but it didn't work with my dental formation. The 1.5 I was very much involved in, it being a copy of one of my MV 11/2Gs and I have used the prototype and a Zirconium model a lot.
I'm using a one off mouthpiece at the moment that sounds close to the 2G in tone but is far easier to play.
Chris[/quote]
Hi Chris,
I can relate to the dental problem... My best friend plays horn in the Oslo philharmonic.. Because his front teeth formation he got a lip injury, that force him to use small rim diameter... Still a world class hornplayer.!
Btw, did You see my theory about the reasoning for the difference between a 1 1/2G and the 2G i wrote above?.. My Holton E185 is currently out on loan to a professional player... He gave me a 50B with double Thayer to use.. This is the first time i would choose the 1.5 over the 2..i get a feeling that a Thayer equipped Bach needs bigger diameter... Holton and Conn : 2 all the way.. <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>
I got to test the Symington 2 before launch and thought it was very good indeed...but it didn't work with my dental formation. The 1.5 I was very much involved in, it being a copy of one of my MV 11/2Gs and I have used the prototype and a Zirconium model a lot.
I'm using a one off mouthpiece at the moment that sounds close to the 2G in tone but is far easier to play.
Chris[/quote]
Hi Chris,
I can relate to the dental problem... My best friend plays horn in the Oslo philharmonic.. Because his front teeth formation he got a lip injury, that force him to use small rim diameter... Still a world class hornplayer.!
Btw, did You see my theory about the reasoning for the difference between a 1 1/2G and the 2G i wrote above?.. My Holton E185 is currently out on loan to a professional player... He gave me a 50B with double Thayer to use.. This is the first time i would choose the 1.5 over the 2..i get a feeling that a Thayer equipped Bach needs bigger diameter... Holton and Conn : 2 all the way.. <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
As I said, I’m curious. I ordered a 2G from Conn-Selmer through my LMS.
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.[/quote]
We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.
We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
[quote="EdwardSolomon"]<QUOTE author="FOSSIL" post_id="134119" time="1608129178" user_id="7109">
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.[/quote]
We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.
</QUOTE>
Yes, in general terms, that's a good argument except numerous pros in the US make big mouthpieces work....I've done it myself. I find personally that the 2G is hard work, but I love the sound and the way that registers blend....it's a personal frustration.
Chris
After 7 months in the practice room and a mere two weeks in the orchestra, my 2G is back in the box. I love the sound, but I seem to find it hard to get the consistant results that my income depends on...it's all my fault, but it has to be right every time.[/quote]
We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.
</QUOTE>
Yes, in general terms, that's a good argument except numerous pros in the US make big mouthpieces work....I've done it myself. I find personally that the 2G is hard work, but I love the sound and the way that registers blend....it's a personal frustration.
Chris
- RustBeltBass
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Jul 17, 2018
That sums up my relationship with every 2G perfectly. I feel I always COULD make it work if I work just a tiny bit harder, but I never feel as comfortable as I’d like to on it. All the while it has this gorgeous sound....
[quote="FOSSIL"]<QUOTE author="EdwardSolomon" post_id="134220" time="1608203683" user_id="81">
We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.[/quote]
Yes, in general terms, that's a good argument except numerous pros in the US make big mouthpieces work....I've done it myself. I find personally that the 2G is hard work, but I love the sound and the way that registers blend....it's a personal frustration.
Chris
</QUOTE>
[quote="FOSSIL"]<QUOTE author="EdwardSolomon" post_id="134220" time="1608203683" user_id="81">
We spoke about this previously, didn't we, Chris? You said that to get the full benefit of the 2G, it really has to be on your face for significant amounts of time, hence why a lot of pros work with one here in the UK with their busy schedules. If you're doing 3 x 3-hour slots in a day, of which at least two are guaranteed to have the mouthpiece on your lips, it makes a whole lot of sense to make that job as easy and comfortable as you can.[/quote]
Yes, in general terms, that's a good argument except numerous pros in the US make big mouthpieces work....I've done it myself. I find personally that the 2G is hard work, but I love the sound and the way that registers blend....it's a personal frustration.
Chris
</QUOTE>
- Trombo
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Dec 11, 2020
Modern Bach 2G is fundamentally different from Bach MV 2G. These are completely different mouthpieces. I have Bach MV 2G, Bach corp (no dot) and modern 2G. All three are completely different as if they are made by different manufacturers. MV 2G has wide round rims, Corp has flat wide rims and a large blank, modern 2G has narrow round rims and a narrow throat. But all three sound very good. My favorite is MV 2G.
- Tbarh
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Aug 16, 2018
[quote="Trombo"]Modern Bach 2G is fundamentally different from Bach Mt. 2G. These are completely different mouthpieces. I have Bach Mt. 2G, Bach corp (no dot) and modern 2G. All three are completely different as if they are made by different manufacturers. Mt. 2G has wide round rims, Corp has flat wide rims and a large blank, modern 2G has narrow round rims and a narrow throat. But all three sound very good. My favorite is Mt. 2G.[/quote]
By Mt.2G You mean Mount Vernon? <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>
By Mt.2G You mean Mount Vernon? <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
“Fundamentally different” or just within the normal range of variables, given Bach’s reputation for inconsistency, esp in the MV days?
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Apr 23, 2018
[quote="Bach5G"]“Fundamentally different” or just within the normal range of variables, given Bach’s reputation for inconsistency, esp in the MV days?[/quote]
Fundamentally different is probably spot on. I have a Corp 3G that is by all accounts a different mouthpiece than a modern one.
Fundamentally different is probably spot on. I have a Corp 3G that is by all accounts a different mouthpiece than a modern one.
- mrdeacon
- Posts: 1225
- Joined: May 08, 2018
[quote="Bach5G"]“Fundamentally different” or just within the normal range of variables, given Bach’s reputation for inconsistency, esp in the MV days?[/quote]
Night and day. Could be sold as two completely different models different.
Night and day. Could be sold as two completely different models different.
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
I love threads like this...they make us all think, and the answers are different depending on what our involvement in the trombone world is. Professionals have to fit in, conform, produce the best results all the time and that means our priorities and choices can be different to those who play for the joy of it. I have loved playing the 2G at home, but that didn't transfer to work for me....again....but that's just me....it's a truly great piece and my issues with it do not detract from that..
Chris
Chris
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
In the (unlikely) event that I decide to retool with vintage Conn or Conn-like instruments, or some other make/model that might work better with a 1 1/2G or a 2G, how would I go about acquiring a Symington? I have a Corp. 1 1/2G and a 2G, but I am always curious about what’s out there...
Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll switch to the dark side! :twisted:
Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll switch to the dark side! :twisted:
- mrdeacon
- Posts: 1225
- Joined: May 08, 2018
[quote="Kbiggs"]In the (unlikely) event that I decide to retool with vintage Conn or Conn-like instruments, or some other make/model that might work better with a 1 1/2G or a 2G, how would I go about acquiring a Symington? I have a Corp. 1 1/2G and a 2G, but I am always curious about what’s out there...
Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll switch to the dark side! :twisted:[/quote]
Easiest way is to either hit up Bill on Facebook, Symington Mouthpieces has a page, or hit up Bill here on the forums. He's an amazing guy to work with.
Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll switch to the dark side! :twisted:[/quote]
Easiest way is to either hit up Bill on Facebook, Symington Mouthpieces has a page, or hit up Bill here on the forums. He's an amazing guy to work with.
- heldenbone
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Aug 21, 2018
[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="FOSSIL" post_id="133806" time="1607934850" user_id="7109">
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...
Chris[/quote]
Exactly. The Yamaha 58 is not anything like a 2G. Not much magic in the 58.
</QUOTE>
Which kinda sums it all up. I've tried playing on a Schilke 59, felt like I was swimming in it. Also gave the 1-1/2G (Faxx copy) a fair trial, and it was just too much work to focus the sound. It wanted to go "whoo - whoo - whoo" with no real core or color. On a whim, an E-Bay purchase of a Corp. 2G came through, and it was like having a coming home party. Range up and down became more accessible, tonal color filled out and sounded like it should; an extension of the trombone sound downward. Oddly enough, the fabrication of the mouthpiece itself was sloppy. The shank was machined non-concentric, and the rim seems rather narrower than examples owned by others. It has magic for me. :idk:
I've played and owned 2G size mouthpieces that were garbage.... it's not about size, it's about the Bach 2G as a design...especially the older ones...
Chris[/quote]
Exactly. The Yamaha 58 is not anything like a 2G. Not much magic in the 58.
</QUOTE>
Which kinda sums it all up. I've tried playing on a Schilke 59, felt like I was swimming in it. Also gave the 1-1/2G (Faxx copy) a fair trial, and it was just too much work to focus the sound. It wanted to go "whoo - whoo - whoo" with no real core or color. On a whim, an E-Bay purchase of a Corp. 2G came through, and it was like having a coming home party. Range up and down became more accessible, tonal color filled out and sounded like it should; an extension of the trombone sound downward. Oddly enough, the fabrication of the mouthpiece itself was sloppy. The shank was machined non-concentric, and the rim seems rather narrower than examples owned by others. It has magic for me. :idk:
- hyperbolica
- Posts: 3990
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
My 2G hurts my chops. It has a big radius on the outside of the rim, and a sharp radius on the inside. It's a mouthpiece that plays well up to a point, where it starts to kill my endurance.
- DonH
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Apr 30, 2020
Just to add a little to the pot, I have a Corp 2G(unaltered) that is slightly larger all around than a Yamaha 59L. Sounds great in my house. Outside my house, it wants to go home and get back into the drawer..
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
[quote="DonH"]Just to add a little to the pot, I have a Corp 2G(unaltered) that is slightly larger all around than a Yamaha 59L. Sounds great in my house. Outside my house, it wants to go home and get back into the drawer..[/quote]
Ha ha ha !!! That can happen...as I found Don <EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI>
Chris
Ha ha ha !!! That can happen...as I found Don <EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f601" tseq="1f601">😁</EMOJI>
Chris
- islander
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Jun 07, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]We are hitting a bit of a brick wall here.
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
Chris,
As someone who was once comfortable on 1 1/2s and then fell into a 2G groove, I find it impossible to play 1 1/2s these days. And I speak of the two mouthpieces that I make!
The extent to which I struggle with producing a focused sound on 1 1/2s is very surprising to me. I daresay that if I persisted I could do better, but fail to see why I should persist at this point. My playing is riddled with defects as it is, and playing a 1 1/2 seems to multiply them. My Stork 1.25 that I used to like is now quite beyond the pale.
I would of course have to admit that as a woodwind player that has gone rogue I am probably making matters difficult for myself. I'm almost as likely to be playing a baritone sax or a clarinet as I am bass trombones and perhaps the 2G more easily accommodates these opposing embouchure requirements.
As far as I can tell, the 2 size allows me better to match the three King 2Bs or similar that I sit beside (and the bari sax frequently in front of me), or otherwise the Conn large bores that I inevitably sit beside in the symphony settings I'm in - as far as I can recall, at this point.
I don't even find that pedal notes are greatly facilitated by going up to 1 1/2, weirdly the opposite in most cases. The slightly increased back-pressure from the 2G trumps the additional roominess of the 1 1/2.
Bill
What I will say is that it is amazing how different the Bach 1 1/2G and 2G are considering they are so close in size....anybody want to riff on that ?
Chris[/quote]
Chris,
As someone who was once comfortable on 1 1/2s and then fell into a 2G groove, I find it impossible to play 1 1/2s these days. And I speak of the two mouthpieces that I make!
The extent to which I struggle with producing a focused sound on 1 1/2s is very surprising to me. I daresay that if I persisted I could do better, but fail to see why I should persist at this point. My playing is riddled with defects as it is, and playing a 1 1/2 seems to multiply them. My Stork 1.25 that I used to like is now quite beyond the pale.
I would of course have to admit that as a woodwind player that has gone rogue I am probably making matters difficult for myself. I'm almost as likely to be playing a baritone sax or a clarinet as I am bass trombones and perhaps the 2G more easily accommodates these opposing embouchure requirements.
As far as I can tell, the 2 size allows me better to match the three King 2Bs or similar that I sit beside (and the bari sax frequently in front of me), or otherwise the Conn large bores that I inevitably sit beside in the symphony settings I'm in - as far as I can recall, at this point.
I don't even find that pedal notes are greatly facilitated by going up to 1 1/2, weirdly the opposite in most cases. The slightly increased back-pressure from the 2G trumps the additional roominess of the 1 1/2.
Bill
- RustBeltBass
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Jul 17, 2018
[quote="islander"]
Chris,
I don't even find that pedal notes are greatly facilitated by going up to 1 1/2, weirdly the opposite in most cases. The slightly increased back-pressure from the 2G trumps the additional roominess of the 1 1/2.
Bill[/quote]
Hi Bill, as you know I love your work. I had initial problems really hitting the extreme low range on your #2 but got used to that after a while. The 1.5 is overall for me a better choice as in level of comfort and feel, though the 2 is really something special.
Having gotten somewhat used to your 2 before I got a 1.5 I was surprised that after some time now, the low range on the 2 is dare I say almost stronger? Chris’s former students with the Halle orchestra made some videos demonstrating a ridiculous open low range, very impressive.
Chris,
I don't even find that pedal notes are greatly facilitated by going up to 1 1/2, weirdly the opposite in most cases. The slightly increased back-pressure from the 2G trumps the additional roominess of the 1 1/2.
Bill[/quote]
Hi Bill, as you know I love your work. I had initial problems really hitting the extreme low range on your #2 but got used to that after a while. The 1.5 is overall for me a better choice as in level of comfort and feel, though the 2 is really something special.
Having gotten somewhat used to your 2 before I got a 1.5 I was surprised that after some time now, the low range on the 2 is dare I say almost stronger? Chris’s former students with the Halle orchestra made some videos demonstrating a ridiculous open low range, very impressive.
- DonH
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Apr 30, 2020
I've spent time with both of Bill's mouthpieces in Zirconium. Both are terrific examples of the 1.5 and 2 sizes. I could play either one, but the 2G felt like it would take much more work to make it work. The 1.5 (for me) is a plug in and play. But there is a certain quality on the low end of a 2G size that seems compact and fat at the same time. Some may know what I mean and some may scratch their head.
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
[quote="DonH"]I've spent time with both of Bill's mouthpieces in Zirconium. Both are terrific examples of the 1.5 and 2 sizes. I could play either one, but the 2G felt like it would take much more work to make it work. The 1.5 (for me) is a plug in and play. But there is a certain quality on the low end of a 2G size that seems compact and fat at the same time. Some may know what I mean and some may scratch their head.[/quote]
I know exactly what you mean Don.
Chris
I know exactly what you mean Don.
Chris
- RustBeltBass
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Jul 17, 2018
[quote="DonH"]I've spent time with both of Bill's mouthpieces in Zirconium. Both are terrific examples of the 1.5 and 2 sizes. I could play either one, but the 2G felt like it would take much more work to make it work. The 1.5 (for me) is a plug in and play. But there is a certain quality on the low end of a 2G size that seems compact and fat at the same time. Some may know what I mean and some may scratch their head.[/quote]
Don, I am supposed to receive a Zc 1.5 tomorrow. How would you describe the differences between brass and Zirconium?
Don, I am supposed to receive a Zc 1.5 tomorrow. How would you describe the differences between brass and Zirconium?
- DonH
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Apr 30, 2020
The Zr is a little grippier on the face as it isn't polished. Warms up faster than brass. Zr also seems to have more presence at lower volumes. If you've played a Bach Mt. Vernon 1&1/2, you will notice some familiar similarities. There was this thread a while back- <LINK_TEXT text="https://www.trombonechat.com/search.php ... %5B0%5D=14">https://www.trombonechat.com/search.php?keywords=symington+1.5&fid%5B0%5D=14</LINK_TEXT>
- FOSSIL
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Jul 09, 2019
If you polish the Zr rim it gets very slippery....some people may like that. Don is on the money....dark, rich and projecting. Perhaps not as complex as brass, but very cosy and no worries about plating.
Chris
Chris
- mrdeacon
- Posts: 1225
- Joined: May 08, 2018
[quote="FOSSIL"]If you polish the Zr rim it gets very slippery....some people may like that. Don is on the money....dark, rich and projecting. Perhaps not as complex as brass, but very cosy and no worries about plating.
Chris[/quote]
I was one of the ones who hated the polished ZR. It felt comfy on the face but the rim felt completely different from the non polished or silver plate.
The non polished rims are nice and flat which I dig.
Chris[/quote]
I was one of the ones who hated the polished ZR. It felt comfy on the face but the rim felt completely different from the non polished or silver plate.
The non polished rims are nice and flat which I dig.
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
So after a bit of a wait (and a “mis-delivery” by Canada Post), my 2G showed up this aft. I used the last couple of weeks to brush up on a 1 and 1/2G while I waited for it to arrive. My DE 114 set up sat on the shelf.
First impression: this is much more practicable than I would have expected. In the past, I completely bought into “the bigger the better” theory. This is a bit of an eye-opener/ear-opener.
Better high range, low range no worse (I have difficulties from low D down to the bottom Bb). Playable from the get-go.
I may be converted to a 1 and 1/2G. I’m not yet sure whether a 2G might be a bridge too far.
First impression: this is much more practicable than I would have expected. In the past, I completely bought into “the bigger the better” theory. This is a bit of an eye-opener/ear-opener.
Better high range, low range no worse (I have difficulties from low D down to the bottom Bb). Playable from the get-go.
I may be converted to a 1 and 1/2G. I’m not yet sure whether a 2G might be a bridge too far.
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Bach5G"]... my 2G showed up this aft. I used the last couple of weeks to brush up on a 1 and 1/2G while I waited for it to arrive. My DE 114 set up sat on the shelf.
I may be converted to a 1 and 1/2G. I’m not yet sure whether a 2G might be a bridge too far.[/quote]
As I understand Doug Elliott's system, a Bach 2G (if made to spec: 26.75mm cup I.D.) would be a DE size 105; a Bach 1½G (27.00mm I.D.) would be a DE 106. Both MUCH smaller than your Schilke 60 (toilet bowl)-size DE114 (29.0mm I.D.). That a substantial, non-subtle difference!
Chris Stearn / FOSSIL (a full-time bass trombonist) knows what he's talking about! :clever:
I may be converted to a 1 and 1/2G. I’m not yet sure whether a 2G might be a bridge too far.[/quote]
As I understand Doug Elliott's system, a Bach 2G (if made to spec: 26.75mm cup I.D.) would be a DE size 105; a Bach 1½G (27.00mm I.D.) would be a DE 106. Both MUCH smaller than your Schilke 60 (toilet bowl)-size DE114 (29.0mm I.D.). That a substantial, non-subtle difference!
Chris Stearn / FOSSIL (a full-time bass trombonist) knows what he's talking about! :clever:
- Doug_Elliott
- Posts: 4155
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
Bach 2G's and 1-1/2G's virtually always measure bigger than those spec numbers.
2G = my SB 106 and I cup
1-1/2G = my SB 108 or MB 108 and J cup
2G = my SB 106 and I cup
1-1/2G = my SB 108 or MB 108 and J cup
- Posaunus
- Posts: 5018
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="Doug Elliott"]Bach 2G's and 1-1/2G's virtually always measure bigger than those spec numbers.
2G = my SB 106 and I cup
1-1/2G = my SB 108 or MB 108 and J cup[/quote]
Also true in my (very limited) experience (one Bach mouthpiece of each size).
I measure my 2G at 1.06" I.D, and my 1½G at 1.07" I.D. (Of course I measure differently than Doug does.)
Still MUCH smaller than a 114 rim/corresponding cup
2G = my SB 106 and I cup
1-1/2G = my SB 108 or MB 108 and J cup[/quote]
Also true in my (very limited) experience (one Bach mouthpiece of each size).
I measure my 2G at 1.06" I.D, and my 1½G at 1.07" I.D. (Of course I measure differently than Doug does.)
Still MUCH smaller than a 114 rim/corresponding cup