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

[Posaune2]

My recollection of the discussions with Muti regarding Nabucco was that the question for him was not cimbasso vs tuba, it was cimbasso vs bass trombone. We played excerpts for him with both instruments, and he decided that he wanted the extra heft of the cimbasso. Tuba was never really an option as far as Muti was concerned. Paul K decided that he didn't want to mess with the instrument, so Blair learned the fingerings and played the part.

[J.c. Sherman]

Bloke, that's an ix-nay on the uba-tay in e at-flay.

The valved horn was common in Italy and adoped quickly; it was a well known instrument by the time he reached majority age.

I had thought that the 2nd edition of the Bevan - besides citing Meucci - would mention the German trombonist who pushed for the Alexander instrument in F. Now I gotta chase down't where that really came from!

J.c.S.

[Donn]

The Italian narrow-bore tuba in Bb

By the way, I've seen pictures of an Italian cimbasso, in the form of a narrow bore tuba. (I suppose the pictures were somewhere in Klaus' vast pictorial documentation.) It was made by Orsi, and I imagine the bore could easily have been the same as my Orsi Eb tuba, in the neighborhood of 0.65 inches - measured at the valves. But while my tuba is of relatively slender proportions, it looks like a tuba, and the cimbasso doesn't - its narrowness of bore is not just at the valves. I think it was Eb, and not particularly antique - '60s, who knows.

[UDELBR]

I keep being pointed to the "trombone" and "sounds like a trombone" by modern-day "cimbasso" (ref: Jim Self's invention) fans, yet

- Three Verdi parts are designated as "trombone" whereas the "cimbasso" part does not contain the word "trombone" anywhere in it...just "cimbasso".
- No trombones (at least not for practical use) ever been built (at least not between 1850 - 2012...that I know of) with .625" - .750" bores in their capillary sections.
- If so similar, why write the part on its own stave?

Some of us have described a cimbasso as a "valve contrabass trombone" which, strictly speaking can be said to be both a "trombone", and also to "sound like a trombone", but clearly not all trombones sound like a valve contrabass trombone. Surely you can appreciate the distinction.

The obvious reason the part is on a different staff is because it serves an entirely different role: the top 3 parts are harmony, and the bottom part serves the bass function. This, while keeping the "family" timbre that Verdi wanted.

[Jay Bertolet]

- If so similar, why write the part on its own stave?

I think that's precisely why we've been having this discussion all along. At the time Nabucco was composed (premiered in 1842), there was no standardized instrument that you could call either the fourth voice in the trombone section or a cimbasso even. Everything I've read suggests that the word meant different things to different people. Even a study of the derivation of the word "cimbasso" yield no known origin. The speculation I favor is that it was copyist shorthand for Contra Basso but even that speculation makes little sense. Gourlay's article clearly shows that the word cimbasso was (early on) a generic term that covered a broad range of instruments, none of which are still commonly in use. Verdi's 1872 quote regarding the instrumentation in Aida seems to support this, and he gives a list of all the viable and non-viable options. It wasn't until the 1880s, when Verdi helped design the instrument he wanted, that the term became associated with a single instrument. I'm willing to bet there were still places where the term confused people, considering all the different incarnations of brass and wood that players used to perform those parts even after 1881.

For me personally, I prefer to focus on the intent of the composer rather than try and produce any one of the instruments no longer commonly in use at one of these performances. To me, Verdi's intent is clear and the instrument I use fits that intent. In a way, I see Verdi very much like I see Berlioz. Both had a vision for what the Tuba/Cimbasso could ultimately be and composed music for that instrument long before the horn they envisioned was actually constructed. In both cases, a series of substitutes and compromises was used while they waited for what they really had in mind. In both cases, that did occur.

Does that mean that today's modern Cimbasso, which is derived from work done in the late 1950s by Kunitz and Alexander (and later modified by the Thein brothers) is the same horn Verdi envisioned? We'll never know for sure but a lot of folks think so. I can't speak to what Verdi would say about what we now play on but I can say that what I use feels right. Having played tuba on these parts for 15 years and now having played them on my cimbasso for the last 10 years, I can tell the difference. I can feel how much better, how much easier the final product is. I suggest you try one out Joe and see what you think.

[Lingon]

I had somewhere in my head a picture of that I had seen a tuba like instrument that was said to be a cimbasso. There was also a guy that, last year or so, showed me a catalog of musical instruments that are made now, with a picture that looked almost the same. It is just that I can not remember who it was and the makers name, Alzheimer is on the way. Now I happened to stumble over a webpage with the subject "A trip to Italy" with a lot of pictures of Orsi instruments. And there I found it again, the upright cimbasso, and I think it is not that particularly conical, more like an upright valved trombone:



Here is also some food for thought about the upright cimbasso, that could be old and was mentioned as that "was the 'opera' model" but they (ORSI) also "make a "trombone-style" model, which is more used in bands and for marching. Same key, also four valves."

[Bob Kolada]

I was told the Haags have a bass bore slide. The Kanstul has a .562/94 slide and .620 and .650 valves. That horn has some odd proportions but it seems reasonable for a valved horn to be a size bigger than the same thing with a slide. I wanted a .590 valveset for my Eb but had to settle for .562. Hope it plays well!

[PMeuph]

.578"

.562"/.608"

.587"

Given those bore sizes, I'm surprised that no maker/repairman/hobbyist(maybe someone has and it's not posted anywhere I could find it) has attempt to make a valve section that one could just graft on to a bass trombone bell section. With a independent valve section, the second trigger could become the third valve of an F tuba (ca. 27 inches), with an extra slide the first trigger could become the 4th valve ( this would need an extra long slide 14 inches longer than the F trigger). Then someone could just find a valve section off an baritone. Used the first valve (with cutting as a flat half step), 2nd valve (with extension as the 2nd valve. 3rd valve from the baritone as the first valve on the F (with a little cutting).

This is all speculative, of course.

[PMeuph]

.578"
.562"/.608"
.587"

Given those bore sizes, I'm surprised that no maker/repairman/hobbyist(maybe someone has and it's not posted anywhere I could find it) has attempt to make a valve section that one could just graft on to a bass trombone bell section. With a independent valve section, the second trigger could become the third valve of an F tuba (ca. 27 inches), with an extra slide the first trigger could become the 4th valve ( this would need an extra long slide 14 inches longer than the F trigger). Then someone could just find a valve section off an baritone. Used the first valve (with cutting as a flat half step), 2nd valve (with extension as the 2nd valve. 3rd valve from the baritone as the first valve on the F (with a little cutting).

This is all speculative, of course.

Ahem...
http://harvshappyhorns.blogspot.com/201 ... mbone.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Yeah.... but it looks like that horn is in Bb...While it wouldn't be impossible to play low, it might be impractical at times (or necessitate tuning levers and such)

[J.c. Sherman]

The tuba-shaped instrument y'all are referring to by Orsi is in BBb and can still be ordered last I checked. The bell throat is similar to a modern marching baritone or a Miraphone contrabass trombone, much smaller than the smallest of Eb tubas.

Kunitz… that’s the dude I was referring to Thanks all for saving me a step…

Bob, your Eb upright has made great strides today. Bwah Hahahahahahah…

As for Nabucco, the tuba was 7 years old and basically unknown at the time, so we can rule out that timbre. But there is an instrument which matches Meucci's description:

cimbasso-31-100.jpg

In Approaching the Serpent, an Historical and Pedigogical Overview, Doug Yeo demonstrates this instrument and - as a skilled serpentist and doubler, gave a terrific demonstration of it... and the timbre is remnicent of the trombone with a touch of warmth and depth in a way similar to the modern "cimbassi", but distinct. If you can, buy/rent/borrow this and listen to this... it's quite enlightening! And it was my favorite of the instruments he demonstrates.

That it's a distinct instrument is good reason to write a different line in the score for it, and as a serpent variant, it plays often without the trombones, but when the trombones are playing, they tend to play in rythmic unison.

There is a (slightly disputed) example of the (serpent) cimbasso at the National Music Museum. Last month, I had a chance to study it up close, disassemble and measure the instrument. It's proportions are wildly different from a serpent or ophicleide, and similar to a marching baritone with smaller holes than a typical serpent. These are obviously the distinct elements which make this instrument different from the "serpentone" (serpent) and closer to the (English) Bass Horn (corno di basso) of Frichot, but made of wood. It's construction is quite elegant and simple.

But we opera folk have a fun challenge in trying to perform this part, as well as the other works of Verdi and Puccini. I've posted before my "tuba Verdi" version which works very well, but I find the easiest and best results (except for Otello) on this instrument:

JcS%20Contra2.jpg

I'll see if I can find some audio of this, but it works very well, and I've used it a LOT. It's essentially a .562 bore "contra" bass trombone in F with an enlarged bell section, but with valves .562 in D and BBb to mimic the BBb sound as it decends, but with a little better blend with the bass trombone in it's upper registers than my BBb (.640 bore) or my earlier CC (.689 bore, used with the Cleveland Orchestra as well).

For the Requiem, I use the Ophicleide (no surprise to Bloke : ) but would be fine using the above instrument. This was my third instrument for this role in the orchestra, but I had a gig which demanded the instrument and the best match with a modern section.

The only reason we throw this word around at all is because of the errant Grove definition and the efforts of Kunitz. Otherwise, "Trombono Contrabasso Verdi" or some other term may have prevailed. But terms get cross listed all the time; bass horn, for instance, can describe a bass member of the horn family or a variant of the serpent.

When you look at Puccini's scoring, things get weird... but he chased Verdi's orchestra design but with a voicing which can often work "okay" with a Tuba, but not always. Respighi used Verdi's preferred instrument as well. Why the instrument faded from use for a short while is an interesting question... one without answering research, but should be in the memory or first person retelling of extant musicians.

[Bob Kolada]

That funny looking horn J.c. just posted may look weird (and it weighs a TON!!), but it's a player and he sounds like that was the horn he was born for. I had the opportunity to play that and his Bb cimbasso and hear the Bb/C contrabone he built by the owner, who seems to adore it. That may be the best slide contra ever, and with the possible valve tricks is a great option for a slide horn that can play most valve stuff.

[imperialbari]

Looks like they knew bimbos back then. At least enough to consider them a market niche for low brasses.

[Lingon]

Looks like they knew bimbos back then. At least enough to consider them a market niche for low brasses.

Like this beautiful one?!

Also look at this trombone basso, then click the 'SUCCESIVA' above the picture to see a couple of other interesting instruments like an oficleide, some trombones and the tuba contra basso.

[bisontuba]

Hi-
You have to put everything in a broader perspective for the 21st Century-- today's brass section is using French Horns (Conn, Hoyer, Schmid, etc.), Trumpets (Bach, Yamaha, etc.) Trombones (Shires, Edwards, Bach, etc.)--- if you are playing in a 19th Century revival orchestra, then ancient ancestors are terrific, but in today's setting, even if marked Cimbasso, something contemporary that compliments the brass section of today's brass component of an orchestra/opera orchestra has to be used....whether an in tune modern 'Cimbasso' made recently, practice tuba, F tuba, modern tuba, or the like....
My 2 cents.......
Mark

[eupher61]

Just so the line is drawn at using authentic 19th century singers on stage...

[Donn]

I think reproductions are acceptable in this case.

[J.c. Sherman]

Hi-
You have to put everything in a broader perspective for the 21st Century-- today's brass section is using French Horns (Conn, Hoyer, Schmid, etc.), Trumpets (Bach, Yamaha, etc.) Trombones (Shires, Edwards, Bach, etc.)--- if you are playing in a 19th Century revival orchestra, then ancient ancestors are terrific, but in today's setting, even if marked Cimbasso, something contemporary that compliments the brass section of today's brass component of an orchestra/opera orchestra has to be used....whether an in tune modern 'Cimbasso' made recently, practice tuba, F tuba, modern tuba, or the like....
My 2 cents.......
Mark

Except the tuba... it's not really derived from anything earlier, unlike the modern horns, trombones, and trumpets. It's timbre is unique and not remnicent of anything in Verdi's nearly 20th century orchestra (it ain't that long ago!). Basically our instruments aren't much different from Verdi's Falstaff orchestra; especially at the German premiere a year later!

[bisontuba]

Hi-
You have to put everything in a broader perspective for the 21st Century-- today's brass section is using French Horns (Conn, Hoyer, Schmid, etc.), Trumpets (Bach, Yamaha, etc.) Trombones (Shires, Edwards, Bach, etc.)--- if you are playing in a 19th Century revival orchestra, then ancient ancestors are terrific, but in today's setting, even if marked Cimbasso, something contemporary that compliments the brass section of today's brass component of an orchestra/opera orchestra has to be used....whether an in tune modern 'Cimbasso' made recently, practice tuba, F tuba, modern tuba, or the like....
My 2 cents.......
Mark

Except the tuba... it's not really derived from anything earlier, unlike the modern horns, trombones, and trumpets. It's timbre is unique and not remnicent of anything in Verdi's nearly 20th century orchestra (it ain't that long ago!). Basically our instruments aren't much different from Verdi's Falstaff orchestra; especially at the German premiere a year later!

Hi-
Yes, but for balance sake, blending, etc. trumpets, French horns and trombones are quite a different animal from 100-125 years ago. Equipment is much larger. Things like Shires Trimbones and Schmid French Horns are nothing like their ancestors-- why shouldn't the tuba part also be 'updated' to modern instruments---using an ophicleide, serpent, or some 'early tuba ancestor cimbasso thing' in a modern orchestra just doesn't make any sense unless it is a reinactment orchestra with cornopeons, valveless horns, and valveless peashooter trombones. Just my opinion.

Regards-
Mark

[Lingon]

...but for balance sake, blending, etc. trumpets, French horns and trombones are quite a different animal from 100-125 years ago. Equipment is much larger...

That is so, but as JC said they are basically the same, even if the dimensions are different and for example the trombone has come nearer some sort of slide euphonium soundwise. However, the modern tuba is, me thinks, drastically different from all of the instruments used as per what is said of Verdi's preferences back then, not just larger. And there seems to be a trend here and there to go smaller again. Not everywhere, but as said before 'the pendulum' etc... So hopefully we will see those older instrument types, improved and developed, with their sound colors return.

[J.c. Sherman]

Actually, most American horns bear close resemblance to German instruments of that period, and our American Bones are heavily influenced by the German instruments then as well, while our trumpets are modeled after either French, Belgian or German (if rotary) instruments of that period. Italy adapted aspects of instruments from Germany, Austria (especially), and France (somewhat). A Conn 88H is much like a Conn 8H from 1920... which is only a little different from a German instrument, particularly with the basically straight goose neck and large bore. Shires makes a horn which has strong influences from Conn, and the Conn itself is still much used. This is to say nothing of Thein which are very much modeled on the colors of a Kruspe of that era, or a whole Vienna tradition which holds tightly to that era’s practices (except letting go of the valved, narrow-more trombones in favor of the German style).

So no, the brass - from a Pan-European view - are not significantly different than those of Verdi's Aida and Falstaff. Even "period" tubas are very similar to still-made Alexanders (and the MW 2155/2000 derived from them) and Cerveny and even Hawkes instruments; Our winds are all modeled on instruments from then as well.

Reminder: Verdi died in the 20th century. This ain't THAT far back, tuba-folk; Sure, Nabucco is a trifle different, but Verdi's only scoring caveat from then to Falstaff is "Use a contrabass trombone instead of a cimbasso".