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

[Donn]

http://www.brassark.com/sale/" target="_blank

A Conn 1905 contrabass trombone in G.

Rather, bass trombone in G.

[J.c. Sherman]

Any idea from which year this one could be?

Hard to tell from this photo... looks 50s-ish.

J.c.S.

[Lingon]

...Any idea from which year this one could be?...

...Hard to tell from this photo... looks 50s-ish...

It seems to be slightly different from the Betty model that, acoording to Douglas Yeo, was made from 1947-59.

Klaus, does it look like your late one at all or is that also different?

[imperialbari]

Aside from the C extension for the valve slide: looks like mine.

Klaus

[Donn]

For what it's worth, if you track the image back to its host web page, there it's described as a "G/D bass."

[imperialbari]

For what it's worth, if you track the image back to its host web page, there it's described as a "G/D bass."

Which wasn’t disputed as being part of the truth. But for those in the know the shown sample also has the option of a longer valve loop turning it into a G&C bass.

The G&C tuning correponds with the pre-2-valved-bassbones tradition of some German trombonists tuning their single valve Bb bass trombones to Bb&Eb. These trombones with Quint rather than a Quart valve have the benefit of covering the full chromatic range also right above the open pedal. The price to pay is that the valve cannot be used for any technical shortcuts for the 6th and 7th positions.

Klaus

[Donn]

Ah, I get it - I actually do something similar with my Bb bass trombone, which has an slide that lowers the valve to E (apart from the slide that tunes the valve.) Which is where I leave it. I suppose I might prefer that Eb quint valve, sacrificing the 7th shortcut for a better shot at low B.

[imperialbari]

The old style close wrap of the valve loop of the shown G&D Besson International bass trombone only allows for a quite short slide pull (less than a semitone). I pull as much as possible on my equivalent B&H Imperial to get enough length of combined tubing for a stable low A. That sells the 6th position shortcut, and there still isn’t a real low G#/Ab.

Therefor this element in the above photo most certainly caught my attention:

Skærmbillede 2012-06-20 kl. 06.26.22.png

I had heard about that D => C insert for the valve slide, but the closest I ever came to get one was about bidding, in vain, on a valveless tenor trombone, that allegedly could be turned into G by means of this mono-functional valve insert.

Klaus

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I'll make the same comment I always make on this topic. I'll start considering a more "period" sound with respect to the composer's wishes as soon as the rest of the orchestra does the same.

It makes precious little sense to me why tuba players put so much thought and worry into the composer's wishes when the rest of the orchestra is perfectly happy producing sounds with modern instruments that, in many cases, are completely different that the intentions of that same composer.

[tubacorbin]

I'll make the same comment I always make on this topic. I'll start considering a more "period" sound with respect to the composer's wishes as soon as the rest of the orchestra does the same.

It makes precious little sense to me why tuba players put so much thought and worry into the composer's wishes when the rest of the orchestra is perfectly happy producing sounds with modern instruments that, in many cases, are completely different that the intentions of that same composer.

+1

[Lingon]

...Having witnessed the difference in the sound of the Leipzig Orchestra (live in 1978) and having heard it (on recordings) recently, the transition from "it's own unique sound" to "homogenized sounds-like-most-any-orchestra-throughout-the-world sound" is startling...

And that is a very very sad thing that have happend in many places. Maybe thanks to the recordings and later the invention of the good and bad internet. Earlier it was fantastic to hear a great orchestra from another place live. Today, well, have you heard one of the best orchestras you have heard them all, almost. The talk that we must sound more like the xxxyyy orchestras sound etc.

A couple of years one of our Swedsih orchestras were on tour in the US and some commented that, no it is not interesting to hear that orchestra they sounds just like another great American orchestra, which is of course a generalisation but anyhow...

Why not a more diversified sound? Why should everything sound the same?

This whole debate about sounds, tuba vs cimbasso and also ophicleide, american vs german trumpets, dito trombones, the way to play etc etc is at least our chance as brass players to make something that might be a tiny bit special and different. But as you point out, one bad thing is trumpeters that uses German trumpets randomly wihtout being able to play them well. Otoh, there are also players that practice and master the instruments and use these instruments in a more unrandomly manner.

Just think of it, a Mozart mass with a wall of brass sound the same type that someone prefer for something more contemporary. (I have heard that sort of sound with three large and larger bore trombones in the Requiem, not nice, but it sounded fine in some newer music...) I believe that to use the same instruments and the same approach to playing would in the long run make the orchestras obsolete. Just make a good sampling library and you are set for the whole repertoire of all times.

Back to the original subject, cimbasso and Verdi. If Verdi intended a low brass section with four cylindrical voices, then why should we use just three and one conical when we can use four? I can not see such a discussion when for example someone says why use four oboes, we only have three but we can use a clarinet for the fourth part. And then everyone were happy?!

...Just imagine the likely difference, then, between 1978 and 1878...

Even sadder...

Again, I might just end up building myself an upside-down L-shaped Jim-Self-o-phone, but not in special consideration of any Italian opera overtures... ' reminds me just a bit of these trumpeters who drag rotary trumpets in to play (seemingly randomly-selected) pieces, and (as they are "just that much" out of their element) play out-of-tune with a funny sound.

Great idea, but why not build it to use in-tune?! You may invent a new instrument that could generate a lot of doubling jobs.

[imperialbari]

All that mourning about the great diversity of days past to some degree is nostalgic nonsense.

When I remember 50 years back I could instantly recognize Swedish orchestra by their odd horn style. All notes started below pitch, then a fast crescendo-glissando above the pitch and a slower decrescendo-dowards-glissando.

Danish provincial orchestras had late and cracking trumpets, too few and too out of tune strings.

The royal opera had bright trumpets and trombones playing very well, but out-powering the very good, but again too few, strings.

Berliner PO played Beethoven’s 5th with 8 horns on two parts. That is: sometimes the horns played some of the bassoon entries, because those entries were considered really being horn entries only written in the bassoon parts because Beethoven era natural horns had limited scales.

Playing standards are much better today. But some conductors take their improved control over the musical events too far. I used to like the BPO, but with their current musical director I find their playing as bland as it is technically competent.

Klaus

[Jay Bertolet]

This facet of the discussion is precisely why I do my historical research. It gives my selections some objective validity to stand on. Otherwise, I might as well say that all my choices are made because it is what I prefer. Kind of like serving only one flavor of ice cream because that is the flavor I like. We are in a consumer driven business, playing music for audiences that choose to be there. We better be able to address that consumer's (or contractor's) wants or we will be out of a job. If that means extending my efforts a little and being competent on more than one style of instrument, I feel that is a fair trade for a paycheck. The opera company I perform with insists on a cimbasso for the part that I play. Over the last few years, they've only programmed one opera that used tuba (Lakme). I would not be a regular part of their orchestra if I didn't have the capacity to offer the cimbasso. So maybe the income aspect of all this plays a role as well. As I've said before, I can hear the difference in the final product. Others can too, which is why I get called back every season. The modern cimbasso works for these operas and produces a product people will pay for. Plus, the choice has historical merit as we've discussed in this thread. Works for me!

[J.c. Sherman]

I'll make the same comment I always make on this topic. I'll start considering a more "period" sound with respect to the composer's wishes as soon as the rest of the orchestra does the same.

It makes precious little sense to me why tuba players put so much thought and worry into the composer's wishes when the rest of the orchestra is perfectly happy producing sounds with modern instruments that, in many cases, are completely different that the intentions of that same composer.

+1

I guess electric strings and synthesizers are what's best then. They're not in the score either, but hey... look in a Broadway pit. What an economy! The way of the future; the BETTER way!

Sarcasm aside, the rest of the orchestra and the conductor ARE taking those elements into account if they're more educated than high school musicians. Quit struggling; there is no tuba part in there as much as you think you want one.

[Donn]

I had heard about that D => C insert for the valve slide

Perhaps there should be a `wish list', where you could register your desire for a certain length of the tubing you'd need for this. I don't know anything about working with brass, so starting with straight stock I don't know if such an insert would be easier, vs. a new longer slide.

To throw my 2¢ in on the cimbasso question, I think it's really quite lucky for tuba players that a valve trombone is still acceptable for these scores in the bass/contrabass part, when in general the slide trombone is what's expected today - for good reasons that certainly apply to lower instruments at least as much. In other words, the modern replacement for the `cimbasso' looks to me like contrabass trombone, so tuba players ought to be pumping for period instrumentation here if they don't want to be pumping a contrabass trombone slide.

[imperialbari]

Problem is that the B&H factory used tubing of dimensions related to the Imperial measure system, which is no longer used in Europe but for designation of American instruments. I have retuned the second valve of my first generation Sovereign bassbone, so I know the procedures.

But this thread has had me rethinking my potential sources for the old style tubing, and I may have one, I had forgotten about until now.

When our royal opera did Simon Boccanecra some 40 years ago, they bought King 3B trombones with slides and valve sections plus the fourth valves in the bell sections for the 3 upper parts and used their Lidl cimbasso for the bottom part.

Klaus

[J.c. Sherman]

When our royal opera did Simon Boccanecra some 40 years ago, they bought King 3B trombones with slides and valve sections plus the fourth valves in the bell sections for the 3 upper parts and used their Lidl cimbasso for the bottom part.

Klaus

I wonder how many of the Jim-Self-o-phonists' trombone brethren also scale down the size of their instruments for these selected works (ref: 8.5" - 8" / .547" - .508") by a (comparatively meager) 7.5% ?

I'm not sure I follow you. Sure the parts aren't for Self-one; or tuba. They are - by Verdi's own words - re-scored for contrabass trombone. As for scaling down my bore... mines' bigger than a period instrument.

And I'll keep doing what I'm asked to by the guy with the stick.

I have played - BTW - in sections where the principle trombonist asked everyone to size down. It's always had delightful results.

[Bob Kolada]

there is no tuba part in there as much as you think you want one.

...any more than there is a tuba-bore Jim-Self-o-phone part.

Any more than your big 6 valve F is a suitable replacement for a 3+2, 10" (?) bell F.

[J.c. Sherman]

there is no tuba part in there as much as you think you want one.

...any more than there is a tuba-bore Jim-Self-o-phone part.

Any more than your big 6 valve F is a suitable replacement for a 3+2, 10" (?) bell F.

Mostly true as well... but we digress

[pjv]

I'm getting more and more confused as to the intentions behind this posting.

Either one chooses to believe that Verdi wanted his lowest bass clef parts to be played on a cylindrical instrument or you don't. Easy choice.

If and when one is asked to perform one of Verdi's works the musician will need an instrument to blow into.

Logic dictates; use the instrument that will most effectively get the job done.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT VERDI WANTED IT TO BE CYLINDRICAL?
Using a modern day instrument is in most situations a good choice. Since the trombone section is probably a slide trombone section, one of the F contrabass trombones being made today should work. Seeing that mastering an F contra-bone is quite a feat even for many experienced bass trombone players, a modern t-shaped cimbasso will probably work great. And if the entire section plays the composition on valve trombones it could be a fantastic choice, assuming it gives the proper balance to the section.

Many modern tenors are around the .547" and the basses around the .562" and larger. I would assume that the boring on many travel tubas, however cylindrical they might be, are too small to match the sound of the modern trombone. A 6/4 tuba is huge compared to what the trombone section is blowing. I think its acceptable now a days to use a modern cimbasso that sports a larger bore size than many old f trombones.

If the section and/or orchestra are playing on period instruments, choosing an appropriate period instrument (like a small bore g bass trombone or an f valved trombone) should work.

And if one doesn't have one of these horns then they'll either have to make it work on what they do have or pass on the gig.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT VERDI WANTED IT TO BE CONICAL?
Then you should be just fine on a modern tuba.

Problem solved. : D