pjv wrote:...Do people really prefer the sound of a super large tenor trombone playing bass parts over the sound of a contra playing bass parts?...
It seems like many persons prefer to use these really large bore tenors both when needed and when a smaller one would be preferred. Many works are written with three tenors or tenors with F-attachment trombones in mind. More seldom is the correct bass instrument needed in F. The F contra is not a bass trombone, it is a contra bass in BBb that is cut to play in F, else the contra in BBb should be a real monster. A bass trombone in F is usually built without attachment and mostly with a long slide and also might be thinner in bore size. Just think of it, an early King bass trombone in Bb with F-valve had a bore size of 0.508 in.
There is, amongst others, one advantage with a cimbasso over a slide cb trbn. It is awkward to play the slide version for longer periods due to the heavy weight...
pjv wrote:I've heard a lot of top professional contra players play these things out of tune.
I'd dare to wager that no-one plays only contrabass trombone professionally. They're all bass trombonists primarily, which is why their contra intonation is sometimes sub-par. Sorta like Wagner tuba: if they played 'em regularly, the intonation wouldn't be quite so ... unpredictable. That's hardly the instruments' fault though.
I'm not talking about history (got that in school years ago), I'm purely talking about sound and function.
That the F used to be called a bass and had a smaller bore (because all trombones did) and didn't have valves (because there weren't any) and that the comeback-F-bone has a larger bore with valves, is called a contra and may or may not be a cut down BBb in the eyes of a tech is semantics. Its like talking about baritones and euphoniums; theres a lot in between which defies categorization.
Today, if your playing a Verdi opera the trombone section will probably be sporting two .547" size tenors and a .562" size bass. The low F trombone in an appropriate size would be a great choice for the fourth part.
There have been statements made here suggesting that in a modern setting a cimbasso is a cop; a way for tubists who can't play the low F bone to get another gig. My opinion is that this is only half the story. I believe the low F bones to be inefficient for many modern needs. They've improved this by cutting down the inner sleeve and adding 2 valves available in various tuning options.
The fact that the valve tuning still isn't standardized is for me further proof that the instrument lacks the modern efficiency most musicians want out of an instrument. Heavy, too long a slide, unmanageable in extreme technical passages, etc. It's too big. The low F bone gets left in the dugout and the Bb bass bone or the cimbasso go out to win the game.
If the situation ever changes, I'm certain that we'll see a drastic increase low F trombone production and usage.
My 1/2 cent -Pat ps and there ARE musicians that play them very regularly and they still have many regular tuning issues.
Couple things (did you doubt I'd chime in again?)...
As someone who's shared principle instrument is bass trombone, the Bb bass is simply what we're taught first and foremost. It does have several advantages, not the least of which are access to 100 years worth of exceptional instruments, ability to easily double to tenor or tenor/bass, and extreme upper register security.
Having spent time on two G basses (well, three - the current one borrowed) and two F bass sackbuts, there aren't any real limits on facility of the "true" basses... EXCEPT that they usually do NOT have a valve to grant us the same dexterity that Tenor players enjoy on the Bb/F instrument. Flying out to 6th and 7th positions is just as awkward on the G and F basses, assuming you have a throw rod. Once you start adding valves, the other issue already mentioned comes up - weight. A trigger F weighs a ton, especially with two valves.
Another point about most modern F "contras" is that the current trend to play instruments without a throw rod is actually MORE difficult; the positions are much longer and facility with the wrist we're taught as youngsters and not-so-youngsters is lost... it's hard to move from 4th to 5th with just the wrist - it's just too far. With a throw, it's easier, but then you have another problem; with a throw rod you must have a 7 position slide or you'll throw your slide into an oboists head (mixed blessing at times). With a 7 position slide, as I've found even with the G bass, you have a hard time fitting into a pit or a confined stage. You get more dirty looks....!
Plus, we're now expected to be - as bass boners - fully chromatic down to CC... and you need two valves for that even with 7 positions; and that's just adding to the weight problem.
Basically, there's nothing wrong with an F bass of light construction, and I'd like to have tried my old .562 Conn G Bass with a D valve; I might not have played anything else again! It was a light and well balanced horn. But that's not the norm; most are slide heavy, not what we're taught, slightly less facile in the top end (Frank and Kodaly would be more than a challenge!) and now mostly thought of as contras. My own is a "chopped BBb" in many respects and shoots somewhat for that timbre. But it's heavy despite all efforts to fight that. I've been toying with a G or F bass with a D valve with the lightest possible construction... but that project is years away from starting.
J.c.S.
Principal Tuba, Opera Cleveland Principal Tuba, Firelands Symphony Orchestra http://www.jcsherman.net
pjv wrote:...That the F used to be called a bass and had a smaller bore (because all trombones did) and didn't have valves (because there weren't any) and that the comeback-F-bone has a larger bore with valves, is called a contra and may or may not be a cut down BBb in the eyes of a tech is semantics...
Let's look at it from another perspective. What we today call a bass trombone, for example a Bach 50 in it's different configurations, is what I would like to call it a cut down F bass. I believe Shires has a kit with which you could lengthen a Bb bass trombone to be in F. Some likes to talk about that as a F contra, but in reality, as I think the folks at Shires say, it would make it a bass in F. Next comes the beefier F contra which in reality is a cut down BBb. Nothing special about that. The .547 tenors you mentioned I think sounds and works like nice bass trombones in Bb. And, some of todays larger bore altos in Eb sounds like small tenors. So there seems to be a consecutiveness in sizes, even if everything maybe is a tiny bit too large. And as pointed out there are many advantages of a bass in Bb/F, and the same for a contra in F/Eb/BBb or whatever.
It would be nice to have all those choices even for valved trombones as then a good cimbasso would be the natural fourth part in such a section.
pjv wrote: There have been statements made here suggesting that in a modern setting a cimbasso is a cop; a way for tubists who can't play the low F bone to get another gig. My opinion is that this is only half the story. I believe the low F bones to be inefficient for many modern needs. They've improved this by cutting down the inner sleeve and adding 2 valves available in various tuning options
There have also been statements made here suggesting that cimbasso in a modern (especially American) setting can be traced to Jim Self - one of the world's most accomplished doubling tubists. If F contra were the efficient (or sonically 'correct' instrument), I'm sure he wouldn't have had too much trouble developing the necessary proficiency to get another gig.
pjv wrote: There have been statements made here suggesting that in a modern setting a cimbasso is a cop; a way for tubists who can't play the low F bone to get another gig. My opinion is that this is only half the story. I believe the low F bones to be inefficient for many modern needs. They've improved this by cutting down the inner sleeve and adding 2 valves available in various tuning options
There have also been statements made here suggesting that cimbasso in a modern (especially American) setting can be traced to Jim Self - one of the world's most accomplished doubling tubists. If F contra were the efficient (or sonically 'correct' instrument), I'm sure he wouldn't have had too much trouble developing the necessary proficiency to get another gig.
Jim Self, a subscriber to this bb, has not denied it.
Further, as I view him as a great enthusiast and not any sort of egotist, I wouldn't expect him to make an issue of it.
pjv wrote: There have been statements made here suggesting that in a modern setting a cimbasso is a cop; a way for tubists who can't play the low F bone to get another gig. My opinion is that this is only half the story. I believe the low F bones to be inefficient for many modern needs. They've improved this by cutting down the inner sleeve and adding 2 valves available in various tuning options
There have also been statements made here suggesting that cimbasso in a modern (especially American) setting can be traced to Jim Self - one of the world's most accomplished doubling tubists. If F contra were the efficient (or sonically 'correct' instrument), I'm sure he wouldn't have had too much trouble developing the necessary proficiency to get another gig.
Jim Self, a subscriber to this bb, has not denied it.
Further, as I view him as a great enthusiast and not any sort of egotist, I wouldn't expect him to make an issue of it.
I'm not attempting to deny it either, just pointing out that the Jim Self origin story jives with PJV's belief that the cimbasso-as-lazy-man's-contrabone is a half explanation at best. If JS wanted to play something on F contra, he could, he would, and he'd do it well enough that a lot of cimbasso operators/defenders would look pretty ineffective. His vision of the cimbasso was a deliberate choice.
And I also agree 100% with your assessment of a man whom I admire for reasons beyond tuba.
Biggs wrote: If JS wanted to play something on F contra, he could, he would, and he'd do it well enough that a lot of cimbasso operators/defenders would look pretty ineffective.
I thought for a minute you were speaking of the Bloke himself (aka: JS).
Biggs wrote:I'm not attempting to deny it either, just pointing out that the Jim Self origin story jives with PJV's belief that the cimbasso-as-lazy-man's-contrabone is a half explanation at best. If JS wanted to play something on F contra, he could, he would, and he'd do it well enough that a lot of cimbasso operators/defenders would look pretty ineffective. His vision of the cimbasso was a deliberate choice.
And I also agree 100% with your assessment of a man whom I admire for reasons beyond tuba.
I believe, if you asked, Jim would/could produce pictures of his TuBone, as well as the date it was built (1990...?? earlier...??) and who made it (Minick...?? Stewart...?? someone else...??) Once that instrument is shown and date-stamped (with the picture demonstrating that it was obviously "the first" of the modern-day creation of these instruments - and with nothing from the 19th Century really quite resembling it - I would like someone else to demonstration that they had or used a "cimbasso" (again: something resembling Jim Self's TuBone) PRIOR TO the creation of Jim Self's TuBone.
I recall him introducing it at some big T.U.B.A. national/international thing decades ago...He walked on stage, introduced it to the audience, and played a funky bass line on it.
bloke wrote:I believe, if you asked, Jim would/could produce pictures of his TuBone, as well as the date it was built (1990...?? earlier...??) and who made it (Minick...?? Stewart...?? someone else...??) Once that instrument is shown and date-stamped (with the picture demonstrating that it was obviously "the first" of the modern-day creation of these instruments - and with nothing from the 19th Century really quite resembling it - I would like someone else to demonstration that they had or used a "cimbasso" (again: something resembling Jim Self's TuBone) PRIOR TO the creation of Jim Self's TuBone.
I recall him introducing it at some big T.U.B.A. national/international thing decades ago...He walked on stage, introduced it to the audience, and played a funky bass line on it.
Maybe I am the last one to have seen this but in a text by Alexander Costantino THE CIMBASSO AND TUBA IN THE OPERATIC WORKS OF GIUSEPPE VERDI there is a picture of a so called "modern cimbasso" dated 1940 made by Rampone & Cazzani, Italy, (p 46).
