I just cut down an antique smallbore into a hackbut for a forum member. Basically, the alteration consisted of cutting the flare down to 4" and putting on a small kranz. I have another similar horn with a .458 bore, nickel inners, and a very simple slide handle design and I'd like to do the same thing with it. I'm wondering which features of the original instruments are most necessary. I understand the mouthpiece is a big thing, but that's something that can be sourced separately. If you own a sackbut, or know enough to enter into the discussion with some expertise, which two features would you see as most desirable?
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
-
ttf_Euphanasia
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Does the pitch go up much on the horn when you cut the bell?
-
ttf_kbiggs
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
There's many more crucial differences than a smaller bell when comparing a sacbut/sackbut and a modern trombone. For starters:
Very thin bell
Different bell taper
Different bell placement
Different ratio of length of slide section to bell section
In general, a consistent bore from the second yard past the crook above the player's left ear (where the modern tuning slide is found)--no expanding taper
No leadpipe
Very different mouthpiece--flat rim, bowl-shaped, sharp throat, large throat
All those are crucial to what makes a sacbut (sacbut = trombone prior to ca. 1750) sound like a sacbut and not a trombone.
Many years ago I cut down an old Buescher to make a hackbut. It sounds too big for a sacbut. I don't regret it, but I wouldn't want to cut down a true antique that might have some value.
Very thin bell
Different bell taper
Different bell placement
Different ratio of length of slide section to bell section
In general, a consistent bore from the second yard past the crook above the player's left ear (where the modern tuning slide is found)--no expanding taper
No leadpipe
Very different mouthpiece--flat rim, bowl-shaped, sharp throat, large throat
All those are crucial to what makes a sacbut (sacbut = trombone prior to ca. 1750) sound like a sacbut and not a trombone.
Many years ago I cut down an old Buescher to make a hackbut. It sounds too big for a sacbut. I don't regret it, but I wouldn't want to cut down a true antique that might have some value.
-
ttf_svenlarsson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:35 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
It depends on what you want. If you want a fakebutt that will fool wieuvers to think it is a sackbut the bell cutting is enouph.
That will not work as sackbut. If you look around you may find a bell that could work. You have a slide with no leadpipe (that is important)
you have a tech that van build the absolutely cylindrical (no gooseneck) from the slide and through the bend and maybe one or three inches, then you use the cut bell for the last maybe 45 cm. That bell has to be very thing at the smallest end.
Good luck. It may work it may not.
I forgot to say, the bell rim should not be at 3rd pos but on 4rth. Just use the last part of the bell thou.
The trombones made aronud 1650 in Sweden does not have very thin walls.
That will not work as sackbut. If you look around you may find a bell that could work. You have a slide with no leadpipe (that is important)
you have a tech that van build the absolutely cylindrical (no gooseneck) from the slide and through the bend and maybe one or three inches, then you use the cut bell for the last maybe 45 cm. That bell has to be very thing at the smallest end.
Good luck. It may work it may not.
I forgot to say, the bell rim should not be at 3rd pos but on 4rth. Just use the last part of the bell thou.
The trombones made aronud 1650 in Sweden does not have very thin walls.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Imo, it's REALLY not worth it. I'd say that the main problem (aside from the mouthpiece, as you mentioned) is how heavily modern instruments are built. Even if you could successfully scrape down a bell, the rest of it would remain a problem. Then even if it was ALL lighter, you'd have a really big tenor (my tenor's top tube is .413") with an awkwardly placed bell and possibly uneven tuning. The more time you spend with the historical copies, the more you realize that the fact that the bell has little flare is really only a very small part of the difference.
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I know this comes off sort of badly, and I understand the curiosity about this sort of thing but I do question the motivation to actually go through with it. Best case, what do you have and how would you use it? If you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
You'd also be doing no favors to the history of the trombone nor to those of us who devote real time and money to trying to do it well either, but that's probably another conversation....
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I know this comes off sort of badly, and I understand the curiosity about this sort of thing but I do question the motivation to actually go through with it. Best case, what do you have and how would you use it? If you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
You'd also be doing no favors to the history of the trombone nor to those of us who devote real time and money to trying to do it well either, but that's probably another conversation....
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: baroquetrombone on Jan 13, 2017, 07:58AMIf you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
Cue Pieter in 3, 2, 1, .................
Cue Pieter in 3, 2, 1, .................
-
ttf_bbocaner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: baroquetrombone on Jan 13, 2017, 07:58AMImo, it's REALLY not worth it. I'd say that the main problem (aside from the mouthpiece, as you mentioned) is how heavily modern instruments are built. Even if you could successfully scrape down a bell, the rest of it would remain a problem. Then even if it was ALL lighter, you'd have a really big tenor (my tenor's top tube is .413") with an awkwardly placed bell and possibly uneven tuning. The more time you spend with the historical copies, the more you realize that the fact that the bell has little flare is really only a very small part of the difference.
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I know this comes off sort of badly, and I understand the curiosity about this sort of thing but I do question the motivation to actually go through with it. Best case, what do you have and how would you use it? If you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
You'd also be doing no favors to the history of the trombone nor to those of us who devote real time and money to trying to do it well either, but that's probably another conversation....
agreed 100%
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I know this comes off sort of badly, and I understand the curiosity about this sort of thing but I do question the motivation to actually go through with it. Best case, what do you have and how would you use it? If you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
You'd also be doing no favors to the history of the trombone nor to those of us who devote real time and money to trying to do it well either, but that's probably another conversation....
agreed 100%
-
ttf_Euphanasia
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 12, 2017, 05:52PMDoes the pitch go up much on the horn when you cut the bell?
Not significantly, if at all. The tone changes quite a bit.
Not significantly, if at all. The tone changes quite a bit.
-
ttf_Euphanasia
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: baroquetrombone on Jan 13, 2017, 07:58AM
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I know this comes off sort of badly, and I understand the curiosity about this sort of thing but I do question the motivation to actually go through with it. Best case, what do you have and how would you use it? If you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
You'd also be doing no favors to the history of the trombone nor to those of us who devote real time and money to trying to do it well either, but that's probably another conversation....
I see your point, and I agree that there's no way to simply cut down the bell of a modern trombone in order to make it into a historical instrument. That said, small-bore, European-made trombones with fairly straight neckpipes and very limited expansion in the tuning slide crook are a dime a dozen. I love the way they play, but most people don't, and they're not loved by players in their current configuration. A J.W. Pepper is not a historically significant instrument.
There is a market for inexpensive replicas. What I'm looking to do is to make something that can fill that niche. I hear complaints about the Wessex replicas--the bells have too many modern features like rose brass and a wired bead, there's a major jump in bore from the slide to the neckpipe, and intonation is poor. I'm looking to build something that can fill the same niche, but which focuses on the right sound and playability instead of just having a 4" bell.
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I know this comes off sort of badly, and I understand the curiosity about this sort of thing but I do question the motivation to actually go through with it. Best case, what do you have and how would you use it? If you want to cut down a 606/Ambassador/Collegiate/etc. (or better, a Chinese nightmare) to hang on the wall of your studio, have at it! If you want to use if for anything though, the chances of it working are minuscule. I promise.
You'd also be doing no favors to the history of the trombone nor to those of us who devote real time and money to trying to do it well either, but that's probably another conversation....
I see your point, and I agree that there's no way to simply cut down the bell of a modern trombone in order to make it into a historical instrument. That said, small-bore, European-made trombones with fairly straight neckpipes and very limited expansion in the tuning slide crook are a dime a dozen. I love the way they play, but most people don't, and they're not loved by players in their current configuration. A J.W. Pepper is not a historically significant instrument.
There is a market for inexpensive replicas. What I'm looking to do is to make something that can fill that niche. I hear complaints about the Wessex replicas--the bells have too many modern features like rose brass and a wired bead, there's a major jump in bore from the slide to the neckpipe, and intonation is poor. I'm looking to build something that can fill the same niche, but which focuses on the right sound and playability instead of just having a 4" bell.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: Euphanasia on Jan 13, 2017, 09:09AMI see your point, and I agree that there's no way to simply cut down the bell of a modern trombone in order to make it into a historical instrument. That said, small-bore, European-made trombones with fairly straight neckpipes and very limited expansion in the tuning slide crook are a dime a dozen. I love the way they play, but most people don't, and they're not loved by players in their current configuration. A J.W. Pepper is not a historically significant instrument.
There is a market for inexpensive replicas. What I'm looking to do is to make something that can fill that niche. I hear complaints about the Wessex replicas--the bells have too many modern features like rose brass and a wired bead, there's a major jump in bore from the slide to the neckpipe, and intonation is poor. I'm looking to build something that can fill the same niche, but which focuses on the right sound and playability instead of just having a 4" bell.
You're saying (I think) that you're not intending to make a historical instrument, but the "sackbut" configuration IS a historical instrument. The replicas that are made like modern trombones (I assume Wessex (but have not played one yet), to some extent Nartiss, old Giardinelli, Bohm & Meinl) don't sound like sackbuts because they're not made like sackbuts. They're made like a modern trombone with a smaller bell. Starting out with a modern trombone has the same problems, though yes, you might end up with better tuning than some of the Chinese trombones. Adding modern playability is actually going farther away from a sackbut as well. Real replicas are not necessarily friendly to a player who is used to something modern, no matter the size of the modern instrument.
Renaissance/baroque (and for that matter classical and most romantic) trombone really is just a different instrument altogether. and no amount of modifying a different instrument will make it something else. Think about classic Kruspes. Would you consider adding a krantz and an inch or so to the bell flare of an Edwards, replace the thumb paddle with a thong and call it a 19th century German orchestral trombone? Would it play like one?
To your other point, I'm not really sure what this niche is. Yeah, people want good cheap instruments, but they don't really exist. And by nature, they can't, unless perhaps someone convinces someone in the east to hand copy one of the real ones. IMO, you can't really do anything useful with the currently available cheap ones (hackbuts of any quality included) except play with other ones. They don't blend with "real" historic instruments (trombones or otherwise) and having modern players switch to them in a concert for say, Gabrieli or something wouldn't provide enough of a sound difference to warrant the trouble, especially if they're using modern mouthpieces, as I think they'd (understandably) tend to do. Playing it on your own because you love early music doesn't work too well (assuming you actually want to get better) because to a not insignificant extent, a good historical copy dictates how things are played. You'd be fighting constantly to make a modern style instrument play in a historic style. While a good sackbut player might be able to do that with some success, the target market for these wouldn't know what to fight and would develop or maintain habits that are anti- historically informed practice.
I know this all sounds harsh. Believe me, I'd LOVE to have an option for cheap sackbuts that really worked, mainly because it's very difficult to introduce interested modern players to the instrument when it would cost them at least $2750 (Leuchter tenor from Noah) to get a decent instrument, and even that can be slightly iffy depending on your intentions. It's just not something that lends itself to money-saving.
Now that I've spewed all of that, I'll backpedal a little and admit that maybe there's a whole market for this sort of thing in the modern world that I don't know. If so, I'd certainly listen to (read) the arguments for it from interested parties (in a different thread). Obviously you've already had enough interest to need to make one, and I have no doubt, based on what I've read from and about you on here, that the quality of the work was great. I hope you don't think that I question that part of all of this. If it is ever to lead to historical performance though, at best it is a very temporary stepping stone. At worst, it'll make the transition MORE difficult and destroy an antique trombone (whether or not it is currently considered important...).
I've always wanted to see if I could heat up a P-Bone and mould it into a P-Sackbut.
There is a market for inexpensive replicas. What I'm looking to do is to make something that can fill that niche. I hear complaints about the Wessex replicas--the bells have too many modern features like rose brass and a wired bead, there's a major jump in bore from the slide to the neckpipe, and intonation is poor. I'm looking to build something that can fill the same niche, but which focuses on the right sound and playability instead of just having a 4" bell.
You're saying (I think) that you're not intending to make a historical instrument, but the "sackbut" configuration IS a historical instrument. The replicas that are made like modern trombones (I assume Wessex (but have not played one yet), to some extent Nartiss, old Giardinelli, Bohm & Meinl) don't sound like sackbuts because they're not made like sackbuts. They're made like a modern trombone with a smaller bell. Starting out with a modern trombone has the same problems, though yes, you might end up with better tuning than some of the Chinese trombones. Adding modern playability is actually going farther away from a sackbut as well. Real replicas are not necessarily friendly to a player who is used to something modern, no matter the size of the modern instrument.
Renaissance/baroque (and for that matter classical and most romantic) trombone really is just a different instrument altogether. and no amount of modifying a different instrument will make it something else. Think about classic Kruspes. Would you consider adding a krantz and an inch or so to the bell flare of an Edwards, replace the thumb paddle with a thong and call it a 19th century German orchestral trombone? Would it play like one?
To your other point, I'm not really sure what this niche is. Yeah, people want good cheap instruments, but they don't really exist. And by nature, they can't, unless perhaps someone convinces someone in the east to hand copy one of the real ones. IMO, you can't really do anything useful with the currently available cheap ones (hackbuts of any quality included) except play with other ones. They don't blend with "real" historic instruments (trombones or otherwise) and having modern players switch to them in a concert for say, Gabrieli or something wouldn't provide enough of a sound difference to warrant the trouble, especially if they're using modern mouthpieces, as I think they'd (understandably) tend to do. Playing it on your own because you love early music doesn't work too well (assuming you actually want to get better) because to a not insignificant extent, a good historical copy dictates how things are played. You'd be fighting constantly to make a modern style instrument play in a historic style. While a good sackbut player might be able to do that with some success, the target market for these wouldn't know what to fight and would develop or maintain habits that are anti- historically informed practice.
I know this all sounds harsh. Believe me, I'd LOVE to have an option for cheap sackbuts that really worked, mainly because it's very difficult to introduce interested modern players to the instrument when it would cost them at least $2750 (Leuchter tenor from Noah) to get a decent instrument, and even that can be slightly iffy depending on your intentions. It's just not something that lends itself to money-saving.
Now that I've spewed all of that, I'll backpedal a little and admit that maybe there's a whole market for this sort of thing in the modern world that I don't know. If so, I'd certainly listen to (read) the arguments for it from interested parties (in a different thread). Obviously you've already had enough interest to need to make one, and I have no doubt, based on what I've read from and about you on here, that the quality of the work was great. I hope you don't think that I question that part of all of this. If it is ever to lead to historical performance though, at best it is a very temporary stepping stone. At worst, it'll make the transition MORE difficult and destroy an antique trombone (whether or not it is currently considered important...).
I've always wanted to see if I could heat up a P-Bone and mould it into a P-Sackbut.
-
ttf_harrison.t.reed
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
For the purists here on the forum even if you could get a $7000 Mein sackbut, if you stuck a CL mouthpiece in it like Lindberg did, you m8ght as well just do a Pbutt.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
I have a Hackbut that started life as a Holton Collegiate (friction fit). It probably won't win any prizes at an Early Music festival, but I found an additional use for it. I played a High School musical where they didn't mike the kids and we constantly had to tone down the pit orchestra. The Fakebut toned down my sound nicely and I could play my part and not interfere too much with the kids on stage.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: BGuttman on Jan 13, 2017, 03:24PMI have a Hackbut that started life as a Holton Collegiate (friction fit). It probably won't win any prizes at an Early Music festival, but I found an additional use for it. I played a High School musical where they didn't mike the kids and we constantly had to tone down the pit orchestra. The Fakebut toned down my sound nicely and I could play my part and not interfere too much with the kids on stage.
Well there ya go. I'd NEVER have thought of that!
Well there ya go. I'd NEVER have thought of that!
-
ttf_Blowero
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: baroquetrombone on Jan 13, 2017, 07:58AM
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I don't think simply being old makes a trombone particularly valuable or historically significant. Certainly, if you had a civil war era or earlier trombone, it would be a crime to destroy it. But the early 20th century Eastern European stencil horns are not worth anything to anyone, and can be had for 40 bucks or so on eBay. That's the only thing I can think of that would be anywhere in the ballpark of the dimensions you would want to make a sackbut. American trombones like Conn had much too large of a bell throat, and you would either end up with a narrow bore sackbut that suddenly mushrooms into a huge bell throat (and probably plays horribly out of tune), or you would have to make something with a taper that matches a more modern instrument, and wouldn't sound anything like a sackbut.
Finding a smaller bore instrument introduces a new problem, and that's that you're cutting up a potentially important historical trombone to make a bad representation of an earlier historical instrument. It kills me to see an antique trombone cut into a sackbut, both because I think the hackbut is useless and because the antique was destroyed.
I don't think simply being old makes a trombone particularly valuable or historically significant. Certainly, if you had a civil war era or earlier trombone, it would be a crime to destroy it. But the early 20th century Eastern European stencil horns are not worth anything to anyone, and can be had for 40 bucks or so on eBay. That's the only thing I can think of that would be anywhere in the ballpark of the dimensions you would want to make a sackbut. American trombones like Conn had much too large of a bell throat, and you would either end up with a narrow bore sackbut that suddenly mushrooms into a huge bell throat (and probably plays horribly out of tune), or you would have to make something with a taper that matches a more modern instrument, and wouldn't sound anything like a sackbut.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: baroquetrombone on Jan 13, 2017, 01:04PM
I've always wanted to see if I could heat up a P-Bone and mould it into a P-Sackbut.
3D print it - see the other thread.
I've always wanted to see if I could heat up a P-Bone and mould it into a P-Sackbut.
3D print it - see the other thread.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: Euphanasia on Jan 13, 2017, 09:09AMThere is a market for inexpensive replicas.
I agree, and have been thinking about this for a while. Where do I go? I can't afford a 'real' replica, but cutting down a small bore horn might be an option. Maybe it's not to be called a 'replica', but more a 'facsimile', 'fake' or 'mock-up'.
I can understand renaissance and baroque aficionados objecting to a cut down modern trombone being touted as a sackbut or renaissance trombone - because it's not, and any such representation that it is would be an affront to what they are devoted to. Truly though, not all of us can justify $5K+ for a handmade instrument to satisfy a side-line activity. There has to be some acceptance of a middle ground WRT fakes as long as there is acceptance on the part of the player that is is not a 'real' period instrument.
I agree, and have been thinking about this for a while. Where do I go? I can't afford a 'real' replica, but cutting down a small bore horn might be an option. Maybe it's not to be called a 'replica', but more a 'facsimile', 'fake' or 'mock-up'.
I can understand renaissance and baroque aficionados objecting to a cut down modern trombone being touted as a sackbut or renaissance trombone - because it's not, and any such representation that it is would be an affront to what they are devoted to. Truly though, not all of us can justify $5K+ for a handmade instrument to satisfy a side-line activity. There has to be some acceptance of a middle ground WRT fakes as long as there is acceptance on the part of the player that is is not a 'real' period instrument.
-
ttf_harrison.t.reed
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Wessex makes inexpensive replicas.
-
ttf_Euphanasia
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jan 14, 2017, 06:10AMWessex makes inexpensive replicas.
Right, but I've read a lot of complaints about them on the forum. You can see from looking at the tenor version that the neckpipe and slide tubes are a mismatch. The OD of the neckpipe is the same as that of the piece that holds the inner tube (not really a "cork barrel" since there's no cork.) I've spoken with someone who measured and found that there's a major discrepancy between the two tubing diameters.
http://www.wessex-tubas.com/product/tenor-sackbut/#
I fully understand the points being made by those familiar with well-built replicas. The goal shouldn't be to build something that looks weird and is harder to play because the partials don't line up and the slotting is imprecise. The goal should be to produce a particular sound that can't be produced by a modern trombone. I'm certain I can't make a hackbut sound like an Egger, but I'd like it to be an improvement over the sound and feel that you would get if you took the cork out of the water key.
Right, but I've read a lot of complaints about them on the forum. You can see from looking at the tenor version that the neckpipe and slide tubes are a mismatch. The OD of the neckpipe is the same as that of the piece that holds the inner tube (not really a "cork barrel" since there's no cork.) I've spoken with someone who measured and found that there's a major discrepancy between the two tubing diameters.
http://www.wessex-tubas.com/product/tenor-sackbut/#
I fully understand the points being made by those familiar with well-built replicas. The goal shouldn't be to build something that looks weird and is harder to play because the partials don't line up and the slotting is imprecise. The goal should be to produce a particular sound that can't be produced by a modern trombone. I'm certain I can't make a hackbut sound like an Egger, but I'd like it to be an improvement over the sound and feel that you would get if you took the cork out of the water key.
-
ttf_sfboner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
None of the Above
- Is copied from an actual extant instrument.
- Is copied from an actual extant instrument.
-
ttf_MrPillow
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
We have a small problem about "historically accurate" instruments.
1. Nobody making them actually heard somebody playing one in situ. We know how they sound with modern players trying to play them but I personally have no idea what Giovanni Gabrieli heard in the St. Marks Cathedral.
2. The surviving instruments may not have been the best of breed; the good ones may have been worn out from use. Also a lot of them probably got melted down to make cannons and ammunition in the ensuing wars.
What would make a good sackbut? I guess one that blends nicely with other period instruments (again all copies that may or may not be best of breed). Did the actual reeds used in a Dulcian sound like a modern one with a bassoon reed? Or were they different?
My problem is that I have nowhere to play such an instrument. And I don't plan on making a Guttman Philharmonia to play in.
The New York Pro Musica (one of the VERY early Renaissance recreators) used hackbuts because you couldn't even FIND an accurate reproduction of a Renaissance instrument.
1. Nobody making them actually heard somebody playing one in situ. We know how they sound with modern players trying to play them but I personally have no idea what Giovanni Gabrieli heard in the St. Marks Cathedral.
2. The surviving instruments may not have been the best of breed; the good ones may have been worn out from use. Also a lot of them probably got melted down to make cannons and ammunition in the ensuing wars.
What would make a good sackbut? I guess one that blends nicely with other period instruments (again all copies that may or may not be best of breed). Did the actual reeds used in a Dulcian sound like a modern one with a bassoon reed? Or were they different?
My problem is that I have nowhere to play such an instrument. And I don't plan on making a Guttman Philharmonia to play in.
The New York Pro Musica (one of the VERY early Renaissance recreators) used hackbuts because you couldn't even FIND an accurate reproduction of a Renaissance instrument.
-
ttf_svenlarsson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:35 pm
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
How close does the hackbut come to sounding like a sackbut?
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 14, 2017, 11:57AMHow close does the hackbut come to sounding like a sackbut?
Really depends on your point of view.
To the "thread counters" (a term related to US Civil War enactors where they check to make sure the uniform was woven with the proper type of fabric; i.e. very picky) not much. To many of us, closer than using a modern instrument. To the public, they don't care -- it should just sound good.
Really depends on your point of view.
To the "thread counters" (a term related to US Civil War enactors where they check to make sure the uniform was woven with the proper type of fabric; i.e. very picky) not much. To many of us, closer than using a modern instrument. To the public, they don't care -- it should just sound good.
-
ttf_sfboner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: MrPillow on Jan 14, 2017, 11:12AMWhy?
Because every "sackbut" I've played that is not made to accurate dimensions does not sound like a sackbut and often is difficult to play on. Böhm & Meinl, Finke, Wessex, at least some models from Glassl - all in my opinion lousy playing instruments. None of their bell tapers are anything like those on extant renaissance or baroque instruments. Which instrument is copied makes a difference as well. For many years, I've played on a very old Meinl & Lauber "large bore" tenor. It's been pretty well established by my colleague Herb Myers in the HBS Journal that the instrument this is based on is most likely a bass that was cut down to tenor size. It's a pretty terrible horn, it's difficult to play on and almost impossible to blend with cornetti and the much smaller tenors that almost all serious players play on. Next to an Anton Drewelwecz copy, it's a large caliber cannon. Sort of like playing a bass trombone for lead in a big band.
I'm not talking about a need for slavish reproduction. I don't think I'm a "purist," I'm quite happy with plated inner slides and a water key. Just accurate renditions of the dimensions from one end to the other. A certain degree of historical manufacturing techniques doesn't hurt either. Hand rolled tubes play differently than drawn tubes, that's why seamed tuning slides and lead pipes are all the rage right now. Hand hammered bells play differently than those that are spun.
I can think of at least one exception. Thomes (sp?) used to make a fantastic alto which, instead of being copied from an extant alto, was scaled down from an extant tenor. I'm sure there's others, there must be plenty of makers whose instruments I've not had opportunity to try.
I don't get it when people say that good sackbuts are difficult to play on. The Drewelwecz model from Meinl is one of the best playing trombones of any type that I've ever played on. It is an extreme joy to blow, like a Shires.
Because every "sackbut" I've played that is not made to accurate dimensions does not sound like a sackbut and often is difficult to play on. Böhm & Meinl, Finke, Wessex, at least some models from Glassl - all in my opinion lousy playing instruments. None of their bell tapers are anything like those on extant renaissance or baroque instruments. Which instrument is copied makes a difference as well. For many years, I've played on a very old Meinl & Lauber "large bore" tenor. It's been pretty well established by my colleague Herb Myers in the HBS Journal that the instrument this is based on is most likely a bass that was cut down to tenor size. It's a pretty terrible horn, it's difficult to play on and almost impossible to blend with cornetti and the much smaller tenors that almost all serious players play on. Next to an Anton Drewelwecz copy, it's a large caliber cannon. Sort of like playing a bass trombone for lead in a big band.
I'm not talking about a need for slavish reproduction. I don't think I'm a "purist," I'm quite happy with plated inner slides and a water key. Just accurate renditions of the dimensions from one end to the other. A certain degree of historical manufacturing techniques doesn't hurt either. Hand rolled tubes play differently than drawn tubes, that's why seamed tuning slides and lead pipes are all the rage right now. Hand hammered bells play differently than those that are spun.
I can think of at least one exception. Thomes (sp?) used to make a fantastic alto which, instead of being copied from an extant alto, was scaled down from an extant tenor. I'm sure there's others, there must be plenty of makers whose instruments I've not had opportunity to try.
I don't get it when people say that good sackbuts are difficult to play on. The Drewelwecz model from Meinl is one of the best playing trombones of any type that I've ever played on. It is an extreme joy to blow, like a Shires.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: BillO on Jan 13, 2017, 08:33PMI agree, and have been thinking about this for a while. Where do I go? I can't afford a 'real' replica, but cutting down a small bore horn might be an option. Maybe it's not to be called a 'replica', but more a 'facsimile', 'fake' or 'mock-up'.
I can understand renaissance and baroque aficionados objecting to a cut down modern trombone being touted as a sackbut or renaissance trombone - because it's not, and any such representation that it is would be an affront to what they are devoted to. Truly though, not all of us can justify $5K+ for a handmade instrument to satisfy a side-line activity. There has to be some acceptance of a middle ground WRT fakes as long as there is acceptance on the part of the player that is is not a 'real' period instrument.
To what end though? How would you use it? That's sort of my problem, as I don't see any good reason to have one aside from the rare (as I see it) occasion posted above, and even then, I think, there are other ways to manage. You can't really use it like a well-done copy (with other early instruments) because it will not blend, and I don't see much point in using it instead of a modern instrument because the modern instrument is better.
Quote from: BGuttman on Jan 14, 2017, 11:22AMWe have a small problem about "historically accurate" instruments.
1. Nobody making them actually heard somebody playing one in situ. We know how they sound with modern players trying to play them but I personally have no idea what Giovanni Gabrieli heard in the St. Marks Cathedral.
2. The surviving instruments may not have been the best of breed; the good ones may have been worn out from use. Also a lot of them probably got melted down to make cannons and ammunition in the ensuing wars.
What would make a good sackbut? I guess one that blends nicely with other period instruments (again all copies that may or may not be best of breed). Did the actual reeds used in a Dulcian sound like a modern one with a bassoon reed? Or were they different?
My problem is that I have nowhere to play such an instrument. And I don't plan on making a Guttman Philharmonia to play in.
The New York Pro Musica (one of the VERY early Renaissance recreators) used hackbuts because you couldn't even FIND an accurate reproduction of a Renaissance instrument.
This is even farther away from the op's question, but since it's here...
1. True, but we know how they were used, how they learned to play, what they played, and where they played, so we can extrapolate pretty well. Aside from "modern players trying to play them," we also have some fairly well researched and extremely practiced specialists playing them in modern times. What the latter does is very different from what the former does.
2. That's also true, but we know that at least some of the surviving ones are from popular builders. Maybe they aren't the best example of that builder's work (we'll never know), but they are instruments from professional makers of the time. The best makers today have measured the museum instruments, researched the building techniques, and metallurgy and are able to copy them very closely. This is not guesswork.
Yes, Pro Musica used modified modern trombones. No, no professional early music group in the U.S. today uses modified modern trombones.
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 14, 2017, 11:57AMHow close does the hackbut come to sounding like a sackbut?
As with anything, it depends on the player. Alessi et al will probably sound better on a garage sale student trombone than the usual buyer of such a thing. Top level early music people will sound closer to a sackbut on a hackbut than someone completely unfamiliar with it. It also depends on the donor instrument.
As a rule though, a hackbut sounds a lot more like a modern trombone than it does a well-played sackbut. A replica mouthpiece will help it considerably, but in my experience, not many people who buy them bother to buy a $250 mouthpiece for them.
One other thing, though I missed quoting it, someone mentioned that the only instruments small enough to be used would be eastern European stencil trombones. Wasn't there just a hackbut made from a 19th century French or British trombone on eBay?
*****
By the way, if anyone in New England, NYC, and various other cities with early music groups would ever like to try a sackbut (or possibly other period trombones) when I'm around, email me. I am perfectly willing to hand it over for at least a quick blow (assuming everyone here will be respectful and careful of someone else's livelihood, of course...). I know they're hard to come by, and that way you can judge for yourself.
I can understand renaissance and baroque aficionados objecting to a cut down modern trombone being touted as a sackbut or renaissance trombone - because it's not, and any such representation that it is would be an affront to what they are devoted to. Truly though, not all of us can justify $5K+ for a handmade instrument to satisfy a side-line activity. There has to be some acceptance of a middle ground WRT fakes as long as there is acceptance on the part of the player that is is not a 'real' period instrument.
To what end though? How would you use it? That's sort of my problem, as I don't see any good reason to have one aside from the rare (as I see it) occasion posted above, and even then, I think, there are other ways to manage. You can't really use it like a well-done copy (with other early instruments) because it will not blend, and I don't see much point in using it instead of a modern instrument because the modern instrument is better.
Quote from: BGuttman on Jan 14, 2017, 11:22AMWe have a small problem about "historically accurate" instruments.
1. Nobody making them actually heard somebody playing one in situ. We know how they sound with modern players trying to play them but I personally have no idea what Giovanni Gabrieli heard in the St. Marks Cathedral.
2. The surviving instruments may not have been the best of breed; the good ones may have been worn out from use. Also a lot of them probably got melted down to make cannons and ammunition in the ensuing wars.
What would make a good sackbut? I guess one that blends nicely with other period instruments (again all copies that may or may not be best of breed). Did the actual reeds used in a Dulcian sound like a modern one with a bassoon reed? Or were they different?
My problem is that I have nowhere to play such an instrument. And I don't plan on making a Guttman Philharmonia to play in.
The New York Pro Musica (one of the VERY early Renaissance recreators) used hackbuts because you couldn't even FIND an accurate reproduction of a Renaissance instrument.
This is even farther away from the op's question, but since it's here...
1. True, but we know how they were used, how they learned to play, what they played, and where they played, so we can extrapolate pretty well. Aside from "modern players trying to play them," we also have some fairly well researched and extremely practiced specialists playing them in modern times. What the latter does is very different from what the former does.
2. That's also true, but we know that at least some of the surviving ones are from popular builders. Maybe they aren't the best example of that builder's work (we'll never know), but they are instruments from professional makers of the time. The best makers today have measured the museum instruments, researched the building techniques, and metallurgy and are able to copy them very closely. This is not guesswork.
Yes, Pro Musica used modified modern trombones. No, no professional early music group in the U.S. today uses modified modern trombones.
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 14, 2017, 11:57AMHow close does the hackbut come to sounding like a sackbut?
As with anything, it depends on the player. Alessi et al will probably sound better on a garage sale student trombone than the usual buyer of such a thing. Top level early music people will sound closer to a sackbut on a hackbut than someone completely unfamiliar with it. It also depends on the donor instrument.
As a rule though, a hackbut sounds a lot more like a modern trombone than it does a well-played sackbut. A replica mouthpiece will help it considerably, but in my experience, not many people who buy them bother to buy a $250 mouthpiece for them.
One other thing, though I missed quoting it, someone mentioned that the only instruments small enough to be used would be eastern European stencil trombones. Wasn't there just a hackbut made from a 19th century French or British trombone on eBay?
*****
By the way, if anyone in New England, NYC, and various other cities with early music groups would ever like to try a sackbut (or possibly other period trombones) when I'm around, email me. I am perfectly willing to hand it over for at least a quick blow (assuming everyone here will be respectful and careful of someone else's livelihood, of course...). I know they're hard to come by, and that way you can judge for yourself.
-
ttf_svenlarsson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:35 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
To cut down a bass to tenor size make it still a bass, and that was done sometimes.
The trombones (sackbuts) in the 17th centuary was not made by the same maker, and the same maker could make trombones that did differ from each other.
The big difference from modern trombones is the amount of cylindrically tubing, no lead pipe, no goose neck, the bell expansion came very late.
That made a big difference. The old trombones was much more cylindrically compared to modern trombones, to cut down the bell does make a difference, but not so much as to make it a real sackbut. It is still much to conically.
Never the less, hackbuts has been played with great succes, the Giardinelly bass (witch really is the same as an hacbut) has been played in the whole world, most listeners comment on how good a bass sackbut can sound.
I had the privilege to play trombones made around 1657 i think it was. Very fine horns. No modern copies come close.
If you like to use your hackbut and it blends with the other instruments in the ensemble, I think it is allright. Go ahead!
No one know what sound they made in those days, maybe their sound ideal was very different from ours, maybe they would sound like sackbuts on modern trombones?
The trombones (sackbuts) in the 17th centuary was not made by the same maker, and the same maker could make trombones that did differ from each other.
The big difference from modern trombones is the amount of cylindrically tubing, no lead pipe, no goose neck, the bell expansion came very late.
That made a big difference. The old trombones was much more cylindrically compared to modern trombones, to cut down the bell does make a difference, but not so much as to make it a real sackbut. It is still much to conically.
Never the less, hackbuts has been played with great succes, the Giardinelly bass (witch really is the same as an hacbut) has been played in the whole world, most listeners comment on how good a bass sackbut can sound.
I had the privilege to play trombones made around 1657 i think it was. Very fine horns. No modern copies come close.
If you like to use your hackbut and it blends with the other instruments in the ensemble, I think it is allright. Go ahead!
No one know what sound they made in those days, maybe their sound ideal was very different from ours, maybe they would sound like sackbuts on modern trombones?
-
ttf_sfboner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
That Giardinelli bass (made by Böhm & Mienl) is another exception. Despite its many compromises, it works quite well with the other instruments. In fact, one gets used sometimes in the group I play with, the Whole Noyse, though not often as usaully the curtal takes the bass part in that group. It's worth noting that most of the well-known players I know of who used to use one have moved on to more historically accurate models.
Anyway, yes people can play whatever they want, and are free to enjoy it. The question asked was what is most important to me, the individual, and those are my preferences.
Anyway, yes people can play whatever they want, and are free to enjoy it. The question asked was what is most important to me, the individual, and those are my preferences.
-
ttf_MrPillow
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
I find it interesting that the kranz is currently leading the poll. Anyone who voted for it care to present their reasoning?
-
ttf_sfboner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Especially since the point of the garland is to support the extremely thin metal in the bell, which a hackbut would not have.
Regarding flat slide stays, I personally know of only one player who has them, and he wishes he had just gotten round stays.
Regarding flat slide stays, I personally know of only one player who has them, and he wishes he had just gotten round stays.
-
ttf_bbocaner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
I play with a fantastic player who was using a Giardinelli bass and recently switched to an Ewald Meinl Oller and the difference is absolutely stunning. The whole group sounds 100% better. There really is no comparison.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: MrPillow on Jan 14, 2017, 04:21PMI find it interesting that the kranz is currently leading the poll. Anyone who voted for it care to present their reasoning?
Because since all the assembled wisdoms insist the actual tone-changing alterations are ineffective or erroneous or otherwise undesirable... you might as well get something that looks cool.
Because since all the assembled wisdoms insist the actual tone-changing alterations are ineffective or erroneous or otherwise undesirable... you might as well get something that looks cool.
-
ttf_Euphanasia
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 14, 2017, 04:58PMBecause since all the assembled wisdoms insist the actual tone-changing alterations are ineffective or erroneous or otherwise undesirable... you might as well get something that looks cool.
That's not the message I'm getting. I get the idea that there are many ways to do this incorrectly, and that the bell flare is not what makes it a sackbut. Still, it seems like there are many ways to hack a but, and some could come closer to the right sound than others.
I'm getting some very interesting ideas here. And it's fun to work on something challenging like this.
Today's plan--
1. Build a seamed bell stem extension to bring the bell throat diameter down to the exit diameter of the neckpipe, which will perhaps also move the bell to 4th position.
2. Dig up or custom bend a rear crook of a single diameter that matches the neckpipe.
3. Shorten or remove tuning slide to keep it in proper pitch. I assume replicas are being built at A=440?
The bell has been cut, and I've dispensed with the dual-radius slide crook and installed a rounded one. I've ordered "gallery wire" for the kranz. Really cool stuff. Sterling silver, with a pattern that can be formed to the contour of the bell.
The donor horn is a Zenith, built with seamed tubing, brass inners with nickel soldered-on stockings, and factory built with no leadpipe. It's primitive as can be, and worth zilch as a playable horn or collector's item.
I'm thinking about doing some work on a mouthpiece, since this all has to go to Anderson anyway for silver plating. Flat rim, sharp contrast between cup and backbore, but was the shape more bowl-ish or funnel-ish?
Out of curiosity, what was the average bore on a tenor sackbut? SFBoner mentioned a large-bore bass that was cut down to tenor and is a "canon." Is that by baroque standards, with a "canon" being .460 bore?
And yes, I know, I'm probably just polishing a turd, but I'd like for it to be as shiny as possible.
That's not the message I'm getting. I get the idea that there are many ways to do this incorrectly, and that the bell flare is not what makes it a sackbut. Still, it seems like there are many ways to hack a but, and some could come closer to the right sound than others.
I'm getting some very interesting ideas here. And it's fun to work on something challenging like this.
Today's plan--
1. Build a seamed bell stem extension to bring the bell throat diameter down to the exit diameter of the neckpipe, which will perhaps also move the bell to 4th position.
2. Dig up or custom bend a rear crook of a single diameter that matches the neckpipe.
3. Shorten or remove tuning slide to keep it in proper pitch. I assume replicas are being built at A=440?
The bell has been cut, and I've dispensed with the dual-radius slide crook and installed a rounded one. I've ordered "gallery wire" for the kranz. Really cool stuff. Sterling silver, with a pattern that can be formed to the contour of the bell.
The donor horn is a Zenith, built with seamed tubing, brass inners with nickel soldered-on stockings, and factory built with no leadpipe. It's primitive as can be, and worth zilch as a playable horn or collector's item.
I'm thinking about doing some work on a mouthpiece, since this all has to go to Anderson anyway for silver plating. Flat rim, sharp contrast between cup and backbore, but was the shape more bowl-ish or funnel-ish?
Out of curiosity, what was the average bore on a tenor sackbut? SFBoner mentioned a large-bore bass that was cut down to tenor and is a "canon." Is that by baroque standards, with a "canon" being .460 bore?
And yes, I know, I'm probably just polishing a turd, but I'd like for it to be as shiny as possible.
-
ttf_kbiggs
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
"Polishing a turd." Haven't heard that in ages!
Replicas don't have a standard pitch reference. Many are made at A = 440 because that's today's standard pitch.
From what I've read and been told, most German instruments (the majority of existing sacbuts) are pitched at about A = 430 which was, for that time, the more-or-less standard pitch in many areas including Nuremburg (Nürnburg), the center of trumpet and sacbut making from about 1580 to 1780, give or take a few decades. Remember, tenor sacbuts were originally in A, altos in D, and basses in E or D, and extensions--tuning bits and crooks at either the slide tenon or the back bow--were the means used to adjust to local pitch variations. It wasn't until the time of Mozart that tenor were considered to be in Bb, altos in Eb, and basses in F.
The Drewelwecz sacbut is quite small bore, I think less than .450". The "canon" from the old Meinl u. Laüber is, I believe, around .500 or thereabouts. One sacbut--I think it's the 1557 Neuschel--is large for the time and has a dual bore slide, about .480/.490, or something like that. No manufacturing standards in the 16th century!
Mouthpieces were very bowl shaped. Decent ones by Egger can be bought from Barry Baugess at the Baroque Trumpet Shop: https://www.baroquetrumpet.com
***
My personal view (dons flack jacket): a hackbutt sounds more like a trombone than it does a sacbut, for all the reasons people have mentioned. For most people in the audience, the novelty of the instrument's appearance will be the thing most remembered. For the average Renaissance band that isn't too concerned about HIP or other "correct" performance practice, it'll do.
Replicas don't have a standard pitch reference. Many are made at A = 440 because that's today's standard pitch.
From what I've read and been told, most German instruments (the majority of existing sacbuts) are pitched at about A = 430 which was, for that time, the more-or-less standard pitch in many areas including Nuremburg (Nürnburg), the center of trumpet and sacbut making from about 1580 to 1780, give or take a few decades. Remember, tenor sacbuts were originally in A, altos in D, and basses in E or D, and extensions--tuning bits and crooks at either the slide tenon or the back bow--were the means used to adjust to local pitch variations. It wasn't until the time of Mozart that tenor were considered to be in Bb, altos in Eb, and basses in F.
The Drewelwecz sacbut is quite small bore, I think less than .450". The "canon" from the old Meinl u. Laüber is, I believe, around .500 or thereabouts. One sacbut--I think it's the 1557 Neuschel--is large for the time and has a dual bore slide, about .480/.490, or something like that. No manufacturing standards in the 16th century!
Mouthpieces were very bowl shaped. Decent ones by Egger can be bought from Barry Baugess at the Baroque Trumpet Shop: https://www.baroquetrumpet.com
***
My personal view (dons flack jacket): a hackbutt sounds more like a trombone than it does a sacbut, for all the reasons people have mentioned. For most people in the audience, the novelty of the instrument's appearance will be the thing most remembered. For the average Renaissance band that isn't too concerned about HIP or other "correct" performance practice, it'll do.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: Euphanasia on Jan 15, 2017, 08:47AMI'm getting some very interesting ideas here. And it's fun to work on something challenging like this.
Today's plan--
1. Build a seamed bell stem extension to bring the bell throat diameter down to the exit diameter of the neckpipe, which will perhaps also move the bell to 4th position.
2. Dig up or custom bend a rear crook of a single diameter that matches the neckpipe.
3. Shorten or remove tuning slide to keep it in proper pitch. I assume replicas are being built at A=440?
The bell has been cut, and I've dispensed with the dual-radius slide crook and installed a rounded one. I've ordered "gallery wire" for the kranz. Really cool stuff. Sterling silver, with a pattern that can be formed to the contour of the bell.
The donor horn is a Zenith, built with seamed tubing, brass inners with nickel soldered-on stockings, and factory built with no leadpipe. It's primitive as can be, and worth zilch as a playable horn or collector's item.
I'm thinking about doing some work on a mouthpiece, since this all has to go to Anderson anyway for silver plating. Flat rim, sharp contrast between cup and backbore, but was the shape more bowl-ish or funnel-ish?
Out of curiosity, what was the average bore on a tenor sackbut? SFBoner mentioned a large-bore bass that was cut down to tenor and is a "canon." Is that by baroque standards, with a "canon" being .460 bore?
And yes, I know, I'm probably just polishing a turd, but I'd like for it to be as shiny as possible.
I've said more than my bit, so now I'll attempt to be helpful in your endeavor.
My tenor is .413/.433 (10.5mm/11mm) dual bore. The large bore from the same maker is .452/.472 (11.5/12). These are specs for Eggers based on Hainleins.
They tend to be pitched around 440 (Meinl specs 443 and Vajna seems similar) if you're thinking of them as Bb instruments. The Nuremberg and most others were played as A instruments at 466, but that doesn't change the physical instrument, only how you're thinking of it (i.e. A in first/closed position, sounding a half step up from modern A). Slightly sharp is good anyway, as first position was described as being two finger-widths out.
It would be useful to keep the tuning slide movable, both because mouthpieces will change things, and because it's useful to have a place to put bits for 415 (Later Bach, Handel, etc.) or use those same bits to play in A at 440. The popularity of 430 as far as trombones are concerned came later. Today's classical period instrument orchestras are at 430 (Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), but you wouldn't (shouldn't) be playing a baroque trombone in those anyway. Classical trombones are different from both baroque and modern, but do usually have more bell flare.
If you're changing things at the bell bow, would it be possible to get rid of the two top bell braces? If you need one to keep it together when the tuning slide is out, maybe just add a very light one like the Meinls have. Either way, if it has a weight, pitch it.
Mouthpieces are more bowl-ish and flat and sharp as you mention. I've seen (copies that are) wide/shallow, narrow/deep, and wide/deep (modern doublers usually). I use narrow/deep on my tenor.
What are you silver plating? I'd keep at least the bell raw if possible (don't ADD mass to it....) , maybe even experiment with scraping (not turning) it down some. Silver garland and braces or whatever look cool. While you're at it, you might as well get rid of the water key. You really don't need it.
Today's plan--
1. Build a seamed bell stem extension to bring the bell throat diameter down to the exit diameter of the neckpipe, which will perhaps also move the bell to 4th position.
2. Dig up or custom bend a rear crook of a single diameter that matches the neckpipe.
3. Shorten or remove tuning slide to keep it in proper pitch. I assume replicas are being built at A=440?
The bell has been cut, and I've dispensed with the dual-radius slide crook and installed a rounded one. I've ordered "gallery wire" for the kranz. Really cool stuff. Sterling silver, with a pattern that can be formed to the contour of the bell.
The donor horn is a Zenith, built with seamed tubing, brass inners with nickel soldered-on stockings, and factory built with no leadpipe. It's primitive as can be, and worth zilch as a playable horn or collector's item.
I'm thinking about doing some work on a mouthpiece, since this all has to go to Anderson anyway for silver plating. Flat rim, sharp contrast between cup and backbore, but was the shape more bowl-ish or funnel-ish?
Out of curiosity, what was the average bore on a tenor sackbut? SFBoner mentioned a large-bore bass that was cut down to tenor and is a "canon." Is that by baroque standards, with a "canon" being .460 bore?
And yes, I know, I'm probably just polishing a turd, but I'd like for it to be as shiny as possible.
I've said more than my bit, so now I'll attempt to be helpful in your endeavor.
My tenor is .413/.433 (10.5mm/11mm) dual bore. The large bore from the same maker is .452/.472 (11.5/12). These are specs for Eggers based on Hainleins.
They tend to be pitched around 440 (Meinl specs 443 and Vajna seems similar) if you're thinking of them as Bb instruments. The Nuremberg and most others were played as A instruments at 466, but that doesn't change the physical instrument, only how you're thinking of it (i.e. A in first/closed position, sounding a half step up from modern A). Slightly sharp is good anyway, as first position was described as being two finger-widths out.
It would be useful to keep the tuning slide movable, both because mouthpieces will change things, and because it's useful to have a place to put bits for 415 (Later Bach, Handel, etc.) or use those same bits to play in A at 440. The popularity of 430 as far as trombones are concerned came later. Today's classical period instrument orchestras are at 430 (Mozart, Beethoven, etc.), but you wouldn't (shouldn't) be playing a baroque trombone in those anyway. Classical trombones are different from both baroque and modern, but do usually have more bell flare.
If you're changing things at the bell bow, would it be possible to get rid of the two top bell braces? If you need one to keep it together when the tuning slide is out, maybe just add a very light one like the Meinls have. Either way, if it has a weight, pitch it.
Mouthpieces are more bowl-ish and flat and sharp as you mention. I've seen (copies that are) wide/shallow, narrow/deep, and wide/deep (modern doublers usually). I use narrow/deep on my tenor.
What are you silver plating? I'd keep at least the bell raw if possible (don't ADD mass to it....) , maybe even experiment with scraping (not turning) it down some. Silver garland and braces or whatever look cool. While you're at it, you might as well get rid of the water key. You really don't need it.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Although we say that experts can tell us how sackbuts were played 400 years ago I'll note that we have knock-down drag-out fights between experts about whether alto trombones were a thing even 150 years ago.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 15, 2017, 05:18PMAlthough we say that experts can tell us how sackbuts were played 400 years ago I'll note that we have knock-down drag-out fights between experts about whether alto trombones were a thing even 150 years ago.
Fwiw, I didn't say that "experts" could tell us that. I said that we know various things (and can make educated decisions) about them, and that's because there are primary sources available, including surviving instruments. Living with the music in and the [closest copies of] instruments for years tends to shape one's view as well. Note, however, that I never said that there was only one option for anything. Afaik, we have no reason to believe that the playing or the instruments was any less diverse (for the number of players) than it is now.
Besides, there are primary sources that say that altos were used 150+ years ago too. People will argue anything.
Fwiw, I didn't say that "experts" could tell us that. I said that we know various things (and can make educated decisions) about them, and that's because there are primary sources available, including surviving instruments. Living with the music in and the [closest copies of] instruments for years tends to shape one's view as well. Note, however, that I never said that there was only one option for anything. Afaik, we have no reason to believe that the playing or the instruments was any less diverse (for the number of players) than it is now.
Besides, there are primary sources that say that altos were used 150+ years ago too. People will argue anything.
-
ttf_Stan
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:36 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
I want to contribute another perspective here. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on this, and I made a very successful hackbut. I then went on to study musicology, and then to teach and coordinate a major early music program with access to at least 4 different makes of sackbuts. I'm here to tell you, it's absolutely doable. The purists won't remotely tolerate it, but you can absolutely capture that specific sound if you do the following:
1. Start with a small bore (sub .500) horn.
2. Cut back the bell, and then use a buffing wheel or some kind of rotor-mounted tool to thin the metal considerably.
3. Remove the leadpipe.
4. Add cylindrical tubing extensions to the tuning slide to accommodate pitch.
5. Use a reproduction mouthpiece with a flat rim and an sharp transition to the throat.
All in, I paid about $300. Did it sound as good as the Egger I bought myself 5 years later? No. Did it sound better than the Finke and Collier instruments I had access to? Definitely. So much of 15th and 16th century playing is more stylistic than mechanical. If you want to experiment with it without contributing $5K, this is the way to do it.
Stan
1. Start with a small bore (sub .500) horn.
2. Cut back the bell, and then use a buffing wheel or some kind of rotor-mounted tool to thin the metal considerably.
3. Remove the leadpipe.
4. Add cylindrical tubing extensions to the tuning slide to accommodate pitch.
5. Use a reproduction mouthpiece with a flat rim and an sharp transition to the throat.
All in, I paid about $300. Did it sound as good as the Egger I bought myself 5 years later? No. Did it sound better than the Finke and Collier instruments I had access to? Definitely. So much of 15th and 16th century playing is more stylistic than mechanical. If you want to experiment with it without contributing $5K, this is the way to do it.
Stan
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Thanks, Stan. I feel better about my hackbut already. Even though the bell was not thinned down. And I have an old mouthpiece (early 20th century) with the flat rim and relatively sharp transition. Now to find somewhere to play it 
-
ttf_kbiggs
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
I can see from the replies by more knowledgeable folks (baroquetrombone) that I was wrong about bore sizes and pitch. 
My bad, and sorry for the confusion.
My bad, and sorry for the confusion. -
ttf_Whitbey
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Sackputs are as different from trombones as an 1890 trombone is different from an Edwards. I love the sound. I have played a few ok horns and heard a few good ones.
If Pbone makes a sackput, I'm in.
If Pbone makes a sackput, I'm in.
-
ttf_Euphanasia
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
I decided this one isn't the right horn for the full-on treatment, so I'm building it up as a "compromise." It will still have conical tubing in the neckpipe and tuning slide crook, but it will look nice.
So maybe it's not authentic, but there's something very cool about a cut bell with a kranz.
Sending the crook and mouthpiece out for plating tomorrow.
-
ttf_svenlarsson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:35 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Lets say that you have a 500 bore slide, you take out the leadpipe, you use a 500 bore tube that can attach to the slide, u bend it where the tuning slide could be, make connection to a very small trombone bell that is cut down in size. Woila you have a hackbut that maybe works!
It is to big to be a tenor, but to be used as a bass. That was done sometimes, but in those days it was more often a cut down E bass to be a A tenorbass. The bending can be done if you fill the pipe with lead. Complicated? Well it is actually more easy and not that more expensive to buy a sackbut replica. The sackbutt mpc;s are not expensive, yes you can make your own, that will probably be more expencive since a lot of misstakes are going to be done.
The first sackbuts that Finke built was with todays standard horrible. The newer ones are much better.
It is to big to be a tenor, but to be used as a bass. That was done sometimes, but in those days it was more often a cut down E bass to be a A tenorbass. The bending can be done if you fill the pipe with lead. Complicated? Well it is actually more easy and not that more expensive to buy a sackbut replica. The sackbutt mpc;s are not expensive, yes you can make your own, that will probably be more expencive since a lot of misstakes are going to be done.
The first sackbuts that Finke built was with todays standard horrible. The newer ones are much better.
-
ttf_sfboner
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Well, I don't think you'd need to use the historic technique of filling with lead! I believe there are much safer materials for that now.
My understanding is that the first Finke sackbuts were intended for use not in baroque music, but in Posuanenchor music, which I have to say I'm not familiar with at all. Is it the same as what we often call Moravian trombone choir? Either way, yes they are truly awful playing instruments!
My understanding is that the first Finke sackbuts were intended for use not in baroque music, but in Posuanenchor music, which I have to say I'm not familiar with at all. Is it the same as what we often call Moravian trombone choir? Either way, yes they are truly awful playing instruments!
-
ttf_MrPillow
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Contrary to what the name might lead you to think, the posaunenchor (read "trumpet choir") is more of an encompassing brass choir than a trombone ensemble. There are usually more valved instruments involved than trombones.
-
ttf_baroquetrombone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:24 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: Euphanasia on Jan 18, 2017, 08:55PM
So maybe it's not authentic, but there's something very cool about a cut bell with a kranz.
Well, I'll give you that it looks cool- much cooler than the usual (Giardinelli/Nartiss/Wessex/Bohm&Meinl/etc.)!
So maybe it's not authentic, but there's something very cool about a cut bell with a kranz.
Well, I'll give you that it looks cool- much cooler than the usual (Giardinelli/Nartiss/Wessex/Bohm&Meinl/etc.)!
-
ttf_heinz gries
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: MrPillow on Jan 19, 2017, 12:26PMContrary to what the name might lead you to think, the posaunenchor (read "trumpet choir") is more of an encompassing brass choir than a trombone ensemble. There are usually more valved instruments involved than trombones.
This was yesterday. Today, the most Posaunenchor use trumpets for sopran and alto, tenor trombones for the tenor voice
and bass trombones, euphonium and tuba for the bass
This was yesterday. Today, the most Posaunenchor use trumpets for sopran and alto, tenor trombones for the tenor voice
and bass trombones, euphonium and tuba for the bass
-
ttf_MrPillow
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Which still means at least half of the instrumentation will typically be something other than a trombone, correct?
-
ttf_heinz gries
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: MrPillow on Jan 19, 2017, 01:24PMWhich still means at least half of the instrumentation will typically be something other than a trombone, correct?
yes, but in the history, the most instruments in tenor and bass was valve instruments too. This has been change
In the 1950/60 Prof. Ehmann wants a "smaller sound" in the Posaunenchor. So he built together with Finke a line of
cheap pseudo baroque trombones. Not the best way.
yes, but in the history, the most instruments in tenor and bass was valve instruments too. This has been change
In the 1950/60 Prof. Ehmann wants a "smaller sound" in the Posaunenchor. So he built together with Finke a line of
cheap pseudo baroque trombones. Not the best way.
-
ttf_Pieter
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Hackbut Theory: Given the cut bell, which features are most important to you?
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 13, 2017, 08:27AMCue Pieter in 3, 2, 1, .................
I've only done a tiny printed alto bell that fits the jinbao alto slide. My main conclusion was that it needs a smaller bore slide and that I don't have historic instruments for comparison
I've only done a tiny printed alto bell that fits the jinbao alto slide. My main conclusion was that it needs a smaller bore slide and that I don't have historic instruments for comparison