"cimbasso"/"Verdi hated the tuba"/etc.

[Lingon]

It's actually a picture of a valve trombone, each valve corresponds to a different slide position, hence the increasingly longer tubing for each valve

OK, but an ordinary trombone has 7 positions so there is one missing.
Here is a Belgian made cavalry trombone, just 4 valves, but I think there are similarities:

I do not think that this model was used in Italian operas either. However, not sure of it...

[Lingon]

A propos the subject, I just stumbled over this listing of a cimbasso in BBb from Italy on Deutsche eBay. Would be nice to play the fourth trombone part in a valve trombone section with that instrument, if it is a good one...

[eupher61]

It's actually a picture of a valve trombone, each valve corresponds to a different slide position, hence the increasingly longer tubing for each valve

That 6 valve trombone was made by Adolphe Sax's son, also named Adolphe, apparently shortly after 1900. The picture was posted in response to the OP.

[Wyvern]

I wonder if we try to convince ourselves that Verdi would be quite happy with a tuba, just because we do not ourself have a cimbasso to use, cannot play bass trombone and want the gig. In that situation the use of a tuba, even if not intended is quite understandable - but there can be little doubt that to use a cimbasso is more suited to Verdi's music and provides more the sound he wanted.

I bet most of us would change our 'view' if/when we own a cimbasso.

I tried a friend's a couple weeks ago and found it really great!

[PMeuph]

I was recently looking online at the audition package for the Montreal Symphony Orchestra and noticed that they dictate on which horn the excerpts need to be played. Two Verdi excerpts are for F/Eb (La forza and the Vespri) and Nabucco is to be played on CC tuba. Obviously the person who will win the job will eventually have the chance to choose his own horn when they play it, but this indicates that the current members picking the repertoire have some kind of preference for Nabucco on CC.

pages 2-3 of:

http://www.orchestrascanada.org/wp-cont ... SMtuba.pdf" target="_blank

NB. Tuba en Do=CC tuba. Not to be confused with French tuba in C.

[J.c. Sherman]

This whole question can be answered by simply asking "where is the tuba part"? There is none.

(And if you don't have a cimbasso, or an ophicleide, or whatever, why use a tuba on that part? Why not contrabassoon? Horn? Bass Trombone? Serpent?)

As for the 6 valve trombone posted, no valves is 1st position (someone said there weren't enough).

Chicago Lyric uses cimbasso, but asked for excerpts on tuba for the first round. That Montreal also did is probably a matter of studying their tuba playing, not a statement of "how they do it".

Finally... why this supposition that tubists 130 years ago sucked a$$? Or that the instruments were sonically inferior or not tubas" Why would any composer, Brahms, Wagner, etc. write for an instrument that sounded like garbage played by non-musical boobs with no musical training or skill? I'd argue that the challenge and complexity of their parts and the incredible range and expression written for them shows evidence strongly to the contrary! Further, I've played some pretty wonderful tubas of many sizes from that period, and some close to the dimentions of a Yamaha 621... some of which did point at their audiences!

[MartyNeilan]

Finally... why this supposition that tubists 130 years ago played poorly? Or that the instruments were sonically inferior or not tubas" Why would any composer, Brahms, Wagner, etc. write for an instrument that sounded like garbage played by non-musical idiots with no musical training or skill?

Probably as good an explanation as any for why Brahms wrote so little for tuba, and why he may have influenced Dvorak to do the same.

[J.c. Sherman]

But he didn't have to write for it al all...

[J.c. Sherman]

Very true, Bloke. However, there's little reason to imagine that successful brass players at the time couldn't transition to the new instruments. And while we now rely heavitly on the inate intonation of our instruments, we sometimes forget that all the instruments at that time had similar difficulties, lack of tuning mechanisms, narrower bores, etc. Certainly we can all PLAY an Eb Pan American in tune...

All the brasses were in transition at this period... the music both drove and answered the growing abilities of the instruments and their performers. Coming full circle, the modern Cimbassi are not standardized (hell, neither are tubas yet) and don't have life-long practitioners, but many perfomers give excellent results on these somewhat novel devices. How long have F valved cimbassi been in production?

[Jay Bertolet]

I don't remember anyone suggesting that tuba players of old "sucked a$$". I know that I, for one, only suggested that today's players are better. I stand by that statement. Just looking at the improvements in players over the last half century is evidence enough. Teaching techniques have been improved, instrument construction techniques have been improved, there are more students (though that is certainly changing lately) and more places to study, plus there is a ton more communication allowing players to learn from each other in ways not practical even 50 years ago. There will always be the exceptional player that is timeless. There were several guys that did great things at a much earlier stage of development of the instrument. However, on balance, players today are better overall than they were in the past.

I agree with Bloke on this one, these guys were simply men. They took the tools they had to work with and did the best they could. Some were exceptional. Imagine what some of these folks could do with today's instruments (with improved just about everything) and a broader knowledge base to draw conclusions from. If my comments were misunderstood as a denigration of tubists past, I wish to put that speculation to rest. We stand today on the shoulders of giants. But that doesn't make them perfect.

[J.c. Sherman]

It also doesn't make players of old as poor as they are often portrayed, and I don't think that we can say our instruments are wholely better. We can cite exceptions in all directions, but we are not exceptional just because we stand on their shoulders... we forget as much as they learned.

The old is not good just because it's past,
nor is the new supreme because we live with it,
and never yet a man felt greater joy
than he could bear or comprehend.
Your task it is, amid confusion, rush, and noise
to grasp the lasting, calm, and meaningful,
and finding it anew, to hold and treasure it.

-Paul Hindemith

[J.c. Sherman]

Is "kinda" a valid answer?

They're close to what Verdi specified was a good instrument for all his 4th low brass parts, regardless of how they're marked. That many are in F or Eb is somewhat ersatz, but sonically similar, if we're using Bb bass trombones.

J.c.S.

[eupher61]

I remember a TUBAJournal with an article about "what is a cimbasso?" Certainly they weren't well-known at that point. Who recreated this monster? A serious question.

[bisontuba]

Hi-
Possibly, it came about with the recording studio tubists and opera pit tubists who didn't want to see work leave them & go to 4th/bass trombonists (opera tubists who besides work--if under a per service contract--might also get 'doubling' if Cimbasso is in a contract as a double--as a F tuba is with some orchestras)--and -esp. in studios-to make composers aware of the sound and to create new possibilities/new work/ new money (recording studio tubists)!!

Mark

[J.c. Sherman]

I remember a TUBAJournal with an article about "what is a cimbasso?" Certainly they weren't well-known at that point. Who recreated this monster? A serious question.

Originally, Pelitti. Later, Alexander, Mainz.

J.c.S.

[eupher61]

I mean, the neo-cimbasso movement. 25 years ago, no one knew what one was. Where did all these come from? Who started asking for it in performance?

[J.c. Sherman]

I believe Paul Krzywicki was one of the first prominent practitioners in the late 80's early 90's bringing cimbasso to American Opera music. The Alexanders were manufactured as slide instruments first in the 60s (IIRC). The instrument never quite died... it's nomenclature changed, mostly.

Tommy Johnson, Jim Self, and Roger Bobo all explored instruments of this nature (usually at contrabass pitch as Verdi opted) during the same period. Yes, it meant marketing a new double to film composers, but also they were used in opera and other music later. It wasn't a "new" idea.

Meucci's article "The Cimbasso and Related Instruments in 19th-Century Italy" is a must read for any tubist or bass trombonist who may encounter such parts... I'll do some research today to remind myself who prompted Alexander to bring the name "Cimbasso" to a contrabass trombone, valved or otherwise.

[Posaune2]

I believe Paul Krzywicki was one of the first prominent practitioners in the late 80's early 90's bringing cimbasso to American Opera music.

Paul never played cimbasso. When Muti asked for cimbasso for a concert performance of Nabucco, Blair Bollinger played the part on a Meinl Weston F Cimbasso.

Eric Carlson

[J.c. Sherman]

Okay, maybe I'm disbelieving now... I thought I recalled a TUBA article on it or some other Philly based "Aha, a cimbasso" momment.

Anyone have a Bevan Book to read up on the "cimbasso question"? Mine's not in this state right now... Could shed some light on this re-birth question more succinctly.

J.c.S.

[UDELBR]

' Would Verdi have been dissatisfied with my 1920's Conn Eb tuba because the bell doesn't point forward...?? Would he have been dissatisfied with the modern "brass basses" because their bore sizes are way too large...??

From his own writings, Verdi seemed to object to the big, woofy conical timbre that didn't blend with trombones, so I'd hazard a guess to say yes, he would probably have objected to your tuba. Just a guess though.