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

[UDELBR]

what's the point in sounding 90% like a bass bone when the bass bone is already there?

You miss the distinction between bass and contrabass (or more accurately: 3rd tenor w/trigger and bass).

[J.c. Sherman]

what's the point in sounding 90% like a bass bone when the bass bone is already there?

You miss the distinction between bass and contrabass (or more accurately: 3rd tenor w/trigger and bass).

Exactly!

And, as I was taught, a bass trombone is still a trombone, and should always sound like one. I continue that mindset to the contra/cimbasso.

J.c.S.

[Bob Kolada]

Likewise, what's the point of a large tenor if it sounds like a bass/C tuba if it sounds like either an Eb or Bb /...?



Bob"passing Ravinia right now"Kolada

[Lingon]

...Honestly, what is the point in using a cimbasso if it sounds 90% like a bass trombone? Think about it. There needs to be more of a difference...

Ehh, there needs to be more difference? Why should there be more difference between the instruments in a trombone section when it is about blend and not difference? The cimbasso or cb trbn is used as the fourth part of the trombone section and because it is supposed to sound like a trombone then it should not differ from trombone sound. Plain and simple at least as I have understood it from this short journey into cimbasso land. If someone would like a different sound then use another type of instrument, but in the case of the discussed subject, as I thought almost everyone now agree with except a few, the section consists of trombones?! The cimbasso when built as a valved trombone sounds like a valved trombone when approached as a member of the trombone family I believe. At least the one we use in our orchestra...

I ask again, what about to use a big tuba for the fourth part in Glen Miller's music instead of a trombone? "There needs to be more of a difference"?

[pjv]

Sorry Bloke but thats a half truth.

Professional bass trombone players usually agree that this instrument is earning its money in a really difficult register. The only reason we even have the Bb bass trombone is because anything is better than trying to manipulate an F slide. If the F-slide was so efficient we probably never would have made the move to the Bb bass trombone.

The F contrabass trombone (standard name for the F bass trombone) is not an easy instrument to play agile on. The intonation with such a long slide is a bXXch to master and even the masters aren't always in tune. For me it's no surprise that even in a section of slide trombones one chooses for a cimbasso. It has the overtones of a bass instrument, it can easily play in the lower register, its agile (do in part to having valves), if well made is easy to play in tune (also do in part to having valves), and its still a trombone. With any luck the sound difference between this 5 valved contraption and the 2 valves+slide brother will be negligible.

My 2 cents,

Patrick

[Bob Kolada]

F contra is actually easier to play in tune (once you get used to long positions and, usually, overly long cork barrels..) than Bb bass. Less precise movements.

[pjv]

I wasn't clear. A valved instrument is tuned with the lips/air. Efficient but tedious with "tuning challenged" low brass.

A slide instrument is blown in the center of the sound (generally) and tuned with the slide. This can be a real pain to get right during quick technical passages n a F-slide, even with years of practice.

My 2 cents,
-Pat

[Lingon]

...A slide instrument is blown in the center of the sound (generally) and tuned with the slide. This can be a real pain to get right during quick technical passages n a F-slide, even with years of practice...

Not any more pain than with other slide instruments.

[pjv]

I'm not so sure. I've heard a lot of top professional contra players play these things out of tune. I think if the contra was so efficient bass bone players would all be playing them on a regular basis, especially for low register work.

Or am I wrong about this? Do people really prefer the sound of a super large tenor trombone playing bass parts over the sound of a contra playing bass parts?

-Pat

[Lingon]

...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.

Here is a page with a couple of bass trombones in F.

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...

[UDELBR]

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.

[pjv]

The weight is also an issue.

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.

[J.c. Sherman]

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.

[Lingon]

...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.

[Biggs]

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.

[Biggs]

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.

[UDELBR]

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).

[Lingon]

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).

[Lingon]

A bit off topic as this is not Verdi, but in the following clip a 'modern' cimbasso is playing the lowest part in a four piece trombone section a la Verdi performing a 'modern' Beethoven.

[Norm Pearson]

A few random thoughts about the cimbasso:

As for the cimbasso being an LA invention, I think not. Around 1983 bass trombonist Dr. Terry Cravens told me about his time with the Vienna Philharmonic in the early 1960's (he and Bob Tucci spent a few years together in Vienna). He told me the tuba players also played the cimbasso. The instruments were made by Alexander and were very much like the modern version we are all now familiar with only they were not in an "L" shape and had to be suspended with a hook on the music stand.

Jim Selfs "TUBONE" is actually a 1950's vintage Mirafone BBb contra. He had Larry Minick build a valve section for it around 1978 so he could play it in the Don Ellis Orchestra. He started using it in the opera in the mid 1980's when the LA Opera was formed. He may have used it on occasion on a studio call, but bass trombone was the established tuba double back then so if he did play cimbasso it was on a rare occasion. Maybe he will chime in when he gets back from ITEC

Roger Bobo had Larry Minick build him a cimbasso around 1982 so he could use it in performances of Verdi's Falstaff with Carlo Maria Giulini conducting.

Tommy Johnson did not acquire a cimbasso until 1992. I know, it was supposed to be my horn. His cimbasso was a Rudy Meinl that was made around 1985 and owned by a Dentist. The Dentist apparently decided to give up his hobby of playing the tuba and asked Robb Stewart to sell his Rudy Meinl F tuba and cimbasso. I was on tour with the LA Phil and didn't check my messages very often. When I finally did I had two calls from Robb Stewart. The first was "Norm, I know you've been wanting a cimbasso and you won't believe it, there is one in my office right now. Call me ASAP and let me know if you want to buy it." The next message the following day: "Norm, you didn't get back so I assumed you weren't interested, Tommy Johnson just bought it." If I had check my messages one day earlier and had gotten back to Robb the cimbasso would never had been as big of a deal in the studios as it is now. I do own that cimbasso now, BTW, and it is one of my most treasured possessions. Dillon King owned the Rudy F for a while.

There are cimbasso doubters around LA too (mostly disgruntled bass trombone players and deafened viola players). I tread lightly when talking cimbasso around these parts. Much less controversy in religion or politics. If someone really wants to get to the bottom of the great cimbasso controversy why not contact someone in an Italian Opera company and pick their brains.

For some more "Cimbasso Love" check out this page:

http://www.jrdhome.plus.com/cimbasso.htm" target="_blank

Norm Pearson