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

[Jay Bertolet]

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.

I just don't see the ultimate logic in this argument. So, we're now saying that because an instrument isn't exactly the same bore size as the period instruments (even though it is very similar in all other ways like being cylindrical, valved, bell forward, etc.) that it isn't a legitimate choice for these works? At least more legitimate than something conical? To me, that ignores over 100 years of progress in making brass instruments.

Do we know why the instruments that were produced back then were the specific dimensions they were? There could be any number of reasons to explain any one of the dimension choices. What we know for sure is that there was a goal by the composer for a specific sound. Does that make modern versions of that same concept invalid because they are produced with different levels of knowledge and technical skill?

The designs of brass instruments have been determined by trial and error since the very beginning of their existence. I see no reason for that to change now. However, just because more knowledge of the process leads us to produce instruments with slightly different dimensions than the original ones doesn't mean that they are no longer the same instrument. Making a modern day cimbasso with a larger bore does not make it an F tuba anymore than it makes it a clarinet. The design concepts of the two instruments are totally different. The essence of the design intent is what matters. Using an instrument that honors that intent is how some of us make the choices of equipment we make.

[pjv]

Well lets try this a different way;

if your one of those guys that are into the "right tool for the right job", then your stable might include tubas;

-in various tunings
-various sizes (the ol' 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, etc)
-various styles (German, English, American, etc)
-bell up, bell front, bell back
-etc, etc, etc

Lets just call our modern day Cimbasso a 1/2 bell front tuba and be done with it. If you think its the right tool for the right job; go for it!

-Cheers,
Pat

[J.c. Sherman]

The Fantasia recording simply rocks and has different - not worse - aesthetics. I've heard incredible recordings from a century ago; not worse musicianship than now, just different aesthetics. Equally effective.

We stand on the shoulders of giants; who ultimately put us down and make us stand on our own.

J.c.S. (listening to Gabrieli from 1967... definitely better than most )

[UDELBR]

pitch accuracy (which is *the* OVERWHELMING characteristic of "tonal color" in western music)

What exactly does "pitch accuracy" have to do with timbre (aka: "tonal color")? I'm of the opinion that they're entirely separate functions. One can have good/bad intonation with or without good/bad tone. They're simply not related.

Most trombonists today play trombones with are - overall - about 7% - 8% larger than 1939 and (surely at least) 20% larger than 1869.

Yet you rail against the fact that "Jim Self-o-phones" are cimbassi of 150 years ago (check out some of the historical pix in this thread), but with larger bores. It seems to fit the pattern of increasing bores of brass instruments. What exactly is the problem then?

[Jay Bertolet]

bloke "No mainstream brass instruments (from the early 19th century to date), really, are very 'cylindrical' (as the ones labeled cylindrical sport - at least - a 1 to 100 ratio in size from beginning to end), as they all flair out ...and what's the Italian word (ref: cited quotations), btw, for 'cylindrical'?"

There's the honest disagreement. You believe (if I'm reading your words correctly) that today's brass instruments do not sound cylindrical in nature with the continued expansion of bore sizes over the last 100 years. That is where we disagree. I've listened to live performances of period instruments. The gut string violins you mentioned are a perfect example. The tone is softer and warmer (especially if they also use a period bow which is very different from today's) but it is still unmistakably a violin. Anyone listening to it would hear that. They might wonder why it sounds a little different than what they're used to but it still sounds like a violin.

My assertion is that the modern day cimbasso sounds very much like what the composer had intended. There are certainly differences in the construction and differences in the sound but still, a cylindrical brass instrument is what you hear. Further, that sound is way closer to what the composer wrote were his intentions than any tuba I know of. Just like in Verdi's day, there were an assortment of instrument options for performing his works. The modern day cimbasso (in my opinion) comes closest to that ideal from all the options we have.

I guess that ultimately, I'm not trying to sound exactly like the player that Verdi heard. I'm trying to sound better, while still honoring the composer's intentions.

[J.c. Sherman]

bloke "No mainstream brass instruments (from the early 19th century to date), really, are very 'cylindrical' (as the ones labeled cylindrical sport - at least - a 1 to 100 ratio in size from beginning to end), as they all flair out ...and what's the Italian word (ref: cited quotations), btw, for 'cylindrical'?"

There's the honest disagreement. You believe (if I'm reading your words correctly) that today's brass instruments do not sound cylindrical in nature with the continued expansion of bore sizes over the last 100 years. That is where we disagree. I've listened to live performances of period instruments. The gut string violins you mentioned are a perfect example. The tone is softer and warmer (especially if they also use a period bow which is very different from today's) but it is still unmistakably a violin. Anyone listening to it would hear that. They might wonder why it sounds a little different than what they're used to but it still sounds like a violin.

My assertion is that the modern day cimbasso sounds very much like what the composer had intended. There are certainly differences in the construction and differences in the sound but still, a cylindrical brass instrument is what you hear. Further, that sound is way closer to what the composer wrote were his intentions than any tuba I know of. Just like in Verdi's day, there were an assortment of instrument options for performing his works. The modern day cimbasso (in my opinion) comes closest to that ideal from all the options we have.

I guess that ultimately, I'm not trying to sound exactly like the player that Verdi heard. I'm trying to sound better, while still honoring the composer's intentions.

+1

[J.c. Sherman]

Point taken, Bloke, on all points.

Just a few things; you can copy the Pelliti instrument directly; or make something that plays well; probably can't have both.

Cylindrical is a term which is perhaps more a timbral description now more than a term denoting exact ratios or proscribed tapers; a modern trumpet probably is more of a soprano valve trombone, for example, and perhaps more of a cornet! I think the descriptors come mostly from Baines work rather than any strict bore profile.

I'm hoping we're all at the point where:
-We now all accept there ain't a tuba part in Verdi or anything similar...
-We have no evidence that Verdi liked "cylindrical" instruments, but tons of evidence he liked a blended section; and evidence that a tuba or related instrument - to him - didn't blend; so we should consider adapting.
-We know we'll have parts marked for myriad instruments, but also we're educated that we have Verdi's explicit blessing to replace those instruments with "this big thingy" (what we now refer to as a cimbasso).
-The term ain't going away; conductors requests aren't going away either.
-The instrument has gained widespread acceptance and use; significant enough demand exists to manufacture many models by many manufactories.

Our choices are: a) ignore that which we know, possibly to our peril, possibly not; b) know it, embrace it, get an ax which will satisfy yourself and your conductor that you'll play the part satisfactorily. If I'm advising an aspiring and promising tubist, I'd advise them to have big and little (bass and contrabass) tubas first... but I'd advise them to plan on purchasing a contraption for covering these works on an instrument we can tell a conductor with a straight face is a "cimbasso". There will be as much variety in cimbassi as there is in tubas, as they're even younger than our non-standardized tubage; but can you say you're ready to cover that part - not in "your way" - but in a musical, educated and accepted manner? Soon, if you bring a tuba, the answer will be emphatically "no". In most cases, that's already the answer.

This isn't a case really of playing it in a historically correct manner; you play it like the guy with the stick wants it. But we are educated in how to play Berlioz and Stravinsky stylistically, and we should be as well with Verdi and Puccini. Part of that is an F tuba for Berlioz, part of it is being ready for no phone call to come when the contractor reads "basso trombone" - or being proactive to get the gig on the "cimbasso" you bought

But I'm not comin' to Nabucco if you're playin' a tuba. I don't want to hear an arrangement of Nabucco To each their own.

[J.c. Sherman]

bloke "now...to find me a Conn 16E..."

Just need a bell? Got one

[Chuck Jackson]

A few years back while I was working in radio, the station received a handful of recordings from the Queenshall Orchestra. This particular group had as its mission to play as many of the late 19th and up to the middle of the 20th century British composers works on the instruments they were originally written for, small trumpets, trombones, small F tuba, those curious woodwinds of that period, etc. As the great John Clare and I listened to a recording of "In the South" by Elgar (killer tuba part BTW) we both looked at each other and opined "How Quaint". Any attempts to play a given work on instruments of the time it was written is a NOVELTY, only appreciated by those few Luddites who actually find it interesting. Verdi is dead, instruments are better now, let's look ahead shall we and revel in the glory of the sound of today. Period performance is a pipe dream.


Chuck

[Donn]

If I understand correctly, the affection for the cimbasso as correct instrument for Verdi comes from tuba players who wouldn't be able to manage the contrabass trombone that would otherwise be its modern replacement. All seem to agree that a modern cimbasso isn't built to period dimensions.

[Chuck Jackson]

All seem to agree that a modern cimbasso isn't built to period dimensions.

And I postulate that the cimbasso as we know it HAS NO ROOTS in the past other than the name. I have to agree with Donn here that the stupid thing is simply a tuba with a cock-eyed bell that is meant to fool conductors who know better than to care for such inaneness. Can we just agree that the instrument is a MODERN SUBSTITUTION for an ill conceived instrument in the first place?

Chuck

[Jay Bertolet]

I have to agree with Donn here that the stupid thing is simply a tuba with a cock-eyed bell that is meant to fool conductors who know better than to care for such inaneness.

Wrong.

Can we just agree that the instrument is a MODERN SUBSTITUTION for an ill conceived instrument in the first place?

No.

[imperialbari]

As Jay hints: Hemlock should be enjoyed in very limited quantities.

[Donn]

I have to agree with Donn here that the stupid thing is simply a tuba with a cock-eyed bell that is meant to fool conductors who know better than to care for such inaneness

That wouldn't be me - might be thinking of pjv, who proposed a page or two ago that it be called a small bell front tuba. I couldn't tell if he was joking. I understand the cimbasso to be a contrabass valve trombone, related to to the tuba as the "trombonium" to euphonium. I assume the fart noises made by the two are subtly different.

[Bob Kolada]

Again, most tuba players don't seem to be capable of understanding the concept of a cylindrical fourth voice. It doesn't always have to be a TUBA!!

[J.c. Sherman]

Again, most tuba players don't seem to be capable of understanding the concept of a cylindrical fourth voice. It doesn't always have to be a TUBA!!

How's your Eb coming?

It's coming along nicely

[pjv]

I was half joking about the cimbasso being a 1/2 bell-front tuba.

I was trying to defuse the entire discussion as to whether or not modern day cylindrical instruments can truly be called cylindrical. I think that the important thing is to choose the best instrument possible/available for a gig. If ones happy playing a big 6/4 tuba on Verdi, I'd say go for it. Convince the listener.

Last week I heard excerpts from Don Carlos played on one of those jazz-o-phones. It pretty much dominated the entire group and almost never really blended with the other trombones there in the pit.

Bad acoustics? Maybe. Bad choose of instrument? I'll bet money on it. It wasn't so much the volume that was irritating but the sure massive presence.

My 2 cents,

Pat

[Norm Pearson]

When I am asked to play the cimbasso it sounds 25% better than a tuba.

I believe the proper spelling for the instrument is Cimba$$o

Norm

[J.c. Sherman]

I was half joking about the cimbasso being a 1/2 bell-front tuba.

I was trying to defuse the entire discussion as to whether or not modern day cylindrical instruments can truly be called cylindrical. I think that the important thing is to choose the best instrument possible/available for a gig. If ones happy playing a big 6/4 tuba on Verdi, I'd say go for it. Convince the listener.

Last week I heard excerpts from Don Carlos played on one of those jazz-o-phones. It pretty much dominated the entire group and almost never really blended with the other trombones there in the pit.

Bad acoustics? Maybe. Bad choose of instrument? I'll bet money on it. It wasn't so much the volume that was irritating but the sure massive presence.

My 2 cents,

Pat

Jazz-o-phone? As in the sax-shaped double bell trumpet with harmon-mute attachement? I'll bet!

Can I also use a bari sax on the Verdi as long as I convince the audience? Sarrusophone? Accordion?

J.c.S.

[bisontuba]

I believe the proper spelling for the instrument is Cimba$$o

Norm

+1