Cimbasso and Valve Trombones in Italian Opera

[stevennorsworthy]

This topic is likely to ignite flames of diverse opinions! My question (rhetorically put) is this: if one were to insist that cimbasso must be used in Italian opera performances today, then should one also insist that valve trombones also be used? Also, what about bore sizes and the effect of sound. The smaller bore cimbassos get very edgy and snarly sounding when volume is pushed, whereas the larger bore cimbassos with larger bells have a bigger and less edgy sound at higher volumes. At what point does one throw in the towel and just say that if we are going to use large bore slide tenor trombones (.547") on 1st and 2nd, then why not just use a modern day F tuba (maybe the smaller 4/4 type of F tuba) on the bottom? After all, a small F tuba blends very well with a .547" modern tenor in the orchestra literature, and we have all come to accept that sound and blend. We're never going to want an entire low brass section that uses 19th century trombones and cimbasso, right? I have made my case? A compromise would be a larger F bass trombone in lieu of an F tuba. Note that I call it F bass, because it is a misnomer to call an F bass a contrabass. That being said, even if we substitute a modern day F bass trombone to achieve that cylindrically sounding low brass section, we must realize that the modern F bass trombone is much larger bore and larger sounding than the 19th / early-20th century F bass trombones, and it was not an Italian tradition to use an F bass trombone either. So, my case in point is to use a small F tuba and a brighter sound than some of the big F tubas often preferred by orchestral tubists, and just call it a day and make music.
Best Regards, Steven Norsworthy

[Jay Bertolet]

I don't know how much experience you have performing opera on tuba and/or cimbasso. What I can tell you (having decades of experience performing opera on both instruments) is that the differences between the two are significant. I never found any tuba that fits that repertoire better than a modern cimbasso. Part of your logic regarding period accurate instruments is flawed. It's true that performance practice has changed over the decades. We are currently using larger equipment these days. But the performance spaces today are much larger and the audience expectations of sound are much different. Further, most of the orchestral instruments have changed significantly as well. The key component (in my mind) is the difference between cylindrical and conical sounds between the two instruments. All the rest is minutia that isn't significant. I prefer the logic of matching a modern day, larger cimbasso to modern day larger trombones. My personal experiences have proved to me that this is a far more enjoyable approach than trying to use any tuba that I've ever tried.

[stevennorsworthy]

By ‘larger cimbasso’ do you mean a CC or a large bore/bell F? Ever try F bass trombone, or F bass valve trombone? What is so special about Italian operatic music that dictates all-cylindrical low brass that is not musically the same as German or French or English music from the same period? If you really want a ‘superior’ cylindrical low bass instrument, a very well designed F bass trombone has the in-tune factor that the cimbasso doesn’t have. The Latzsch and Thein and Rath and Haag F bass trombones are great, for example. What do they fundamentally lack vs. a cimbasso? The experience of the player and probably the mouthpiece choice. Either the cimbasso or the F bass trombone can sound terrible or sound great, depending on the artist.

[hup_d_dup]

No argument, just questions.

1. Can you play all the low notes on an F bass trombone?

2. Although they have a different look, aren't an F bass valve trombone and an F cimbasso basically the same instrument?

Hup

[stevennorsworthy]

There are two independent parameters I see going on:
1– Whether or not the entire low brass section is using slides or valves or a mixture, the early Italian opera performances would’ve been all on valved low brass instruments. Valve trombones sound different, even if using the same bore size. If the original Italian low brass sections were all on valves, why not put the modern section all on slides? The practical answer, is that the tuba player contracted by the modern day opera may not be a slide man. He may not want to give up that gig to a bass trombone player.

2- The bore sizes of the entire section relative to each other, large bore modern day tenor trombones and a small bore period-accurate cimbasso, as Jay correctly pointed out, is inconsistent. To correctly balance out the modern .547” bore tenor trombones, a tuba-scale cimbasso would be needed.

[ppalan]

...What is so special about Italian operatic music that dictates all-cylindrical low brass that is not musically the same as German or French or English music from the same period?

I have very limited opera experience. As to what's "so special", it was my understanding that the composer (Verdi) specified cimbasso for the music he composed as Wagner and others specified the tuba. So I suppose the answer to "what's so special?" is "That is what the composer wanted" Isn't it?

[cambrook]

One significant advantage of playing cimbasso in opera is that the bell faces forward. This is more of an issue in some orchestra pits than others, but it does help with getting the sound out instead of playing a tuba into a very low ceiling.

I've used a Haag cimbasso in operas for years in our orchestra, and it works well. It would work better if I could convince our bass trombonist to use a smaller instrument, so it was more like 3 tenor trombones plus cimbasso - but sometimes you just have to roll with it.....

[stevennorsworthy]

...What is so special about Italian operatic music that dictates all-cylindrical low brass that is not musically the same as German or French or English music from the same period?

I have very limited opera experience. As to what's "so special", it was my understanding that the composer (Verdi) specified cimbasso for the music he composed as Wagner and others specified the tuba. So I suppose the answer to "what's so special?" is "That is what the composer wanted" Isn't it?

The composer also wanted valve trombones, since that is all he was used to hearing. We are lacking consistency in the argument and also in the other instruments of that period that are now being used with modern versions that sound different.

[Tremozl]

If your F Tuba bell pointed forwards then it might be OK, but still not perfect. However it will usually point up and this creates an immensely different sound for the audience.

If you wanted to be more true to how Verdi would have heard it, then yes valve trombones and a small-bore Cimbasso in BBb or CC would be correct, but playing in the modern day we can use more modern and efficient instruments. Small-bore Contrabass Cimbassi (the ones in those low keys as Verdi would have used, not the valved F horn which was the standard Bass of the time - and as said in a much smaller bore than they are made today) tend to be extremely stuffy, too...

[macbil]

Very interesting. A couple of years ago , I threw that particular brick at the Tubenet window and started a bit of a row. I had then recently heard one of Europe's finest opera house players do Verdi on a Cimbasso instead of a tuba . I didn't much care for it . This whole strand of thinking that a Cimbasso is more true to Verdi's ( or whoever's ) sound world is a load of you know what if the rest of the section are playing modern trombones and trumpets-- and they nearly always are. My analogy was that our mothers would still be washing clothes in a zinc bucket but some genius came along and invented the washing machine. Guess what happened? Our mothers couldn't buy them quickly enough. It was progress. Same with the Cimbasso /tuba issue. The Cimbasso was the zinc bucket!
The real test is --what does it sound like? IMHO-- not a patch on a good player with the right tuba in his hands. Doesn't have to be a great big one , a small F or E flat will do the job . It's about blend, not just with the trombones but with lower woodwind. It's the tuba every time. Remember also that certainly in Europe , Opera houses are not that big. The footprint is usually modest enough but it could well extend 5/6 stories up. You don't need to blow that hard to be heard. You can also have some very touchy personnel on stage. I say all that as a player who played quite a bit of opera in the past but who now spends his hard earned, in some of Europe's best houses.
So, keep the Cimbasso in the past unless your outfit is dedicated to authentic period performance and just get on with it. 99.9999% of the audience don't give a cuss if it's not a Cimbasso. After the show's over and you're
having an adult beverage in a tavern with the rest of the section, no-one will fight to the death over that issue. There's more to worry about than that in performance terms. It's just not that important .
BTW--I see that AJ's legacy is not unassailable by the principal correspondent in this thread. It 's all very interesting.

[weops]

I played many Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini etc parts marked Cimbasso and Ophicleide. These were full Concert performances with the Orchestra onstage (mostly in Carnegie Hall). Sometimes the Conductors were Italian Opera House Conductors. I played every one on Tuba - mostly York Tubas in fact. (a few on my Conn 2J). I used two York Eb’s - the 15 inch bell and the 19 1/2 inch bell . I also used my York 19 1/2 inch bell CC. I never had any complaint or request to use a Cimbasso or Ophicleide. Because of this I never felt the need to buy a Cimbasso - especially if it would be used only once or twice a year.

I guess my point is: play the part on whatever equipment you think is appropriate - then play appropriately. (as Mr. Jacobs used to say, “Don’t forget - it’s the Man not the Machine!). If the Conductor insists on a Cimbasso, get one or don’t play the gig. I’ve played parts - Rienzi and Tristan and Isolde come to mind - that were marked Tuba, but might have been easier on Cimbasso. I own six Tubas two Euphoniums and a Bass Trombone - you have to put a limit on it at some point!

Just my two cents.

[stevennorsworthy]

I succumbed and bought a Rudy F cimbasso and it does have a more trombone-like character of course (intuitively obvious to all). There have been 'behind the screen' tests performed numerous times where the trombone section plays certain Italian opera excepts with the tuba and then with the cimbasso, and nearly 100% of the time the audience subjectively prefers the blending with the cimbasso. It of course requires very good execution on the player's part on both instruments. It's nice to have both options, isn't it?

[Z-Tuba Dude]

I recently played the overture to La Forza Del Destino in two separate orchestra performances, one on contrabass tuba and one on F cimbasso.

My take on it is, that most of the overture sounded (and felt) better on cimbasso, with the one exception being that lovely brass chorale in the middle. I just dug the richness of the tuba sound for that section of the music.

My $0.02